This is a continuing discussion from http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/pope-working-toward-unity-with-eo.html
>> sw: "Um, that's "ethnicity.""
> Um, no it isn't. The religious heritage of my ancestors may end up being Orthodox, but not their ethnicity.
sw: Eastern Orthodoxy is very ethnic and very regional. That is one of the things I like about Eastern Traditions! Depending on what part of the world your Eastern heritage comes from will determine some of the ethnic traditions of your parish - and even the language of the Divine Liturgy (though many retain both the Greek AND their local ethnic language).
>> sw: "And if you study your history a bit I believe you'll
>> find that the Puritans came out of WESTERN heritage,
>> and thus THEIR heritage is Catholic."
> Come to that, the apostles came out of the East, so Catholic heritage is Eastern. How far back are you going to go?
sw: You know what I mean and you're just going into the ridiculous now.
>> "sw: We're talking "Christian."
> Oh, so heretical Christian counts with a distinctly non-canonical rite, but non-Christian doesn't? Perhaps you can cite some canon law on that.
sw: Again, you're going into the ridiculous - clearly you have lost this debate and have nothing of substance to offer. Anglicans are Western, Puritans came out of the Anglicans. Sticking to the point.
>> sw: " I did not argue for exclusivity, now did I? No, I
>> argued for the predominant culture."
> But why did you so argue? Roman Catholicism has the
> concept of a mixed diocese. I can understand that the
> bishop might be western rite in such a diocese, but
> that is not at issue.
sw: No, that is precisely the issue. I know you're trying to divert from that issue - but you have failed.
> But why do you demand the "predominant" culture
> overrides the other one?
sw: You didn't even consider what I said about a Latin parish opening in Moscow. Would you want to allow for that Latin parish to open its doors and openly proselytize to the Russian Orthodox community - or should they be permitted to exist but respect the local culture and not proselytize?
> If through political turmoil a lot of Greeks move to Rome,
> do you mind if Eastern rite practices suddenly become
> enforced on existing western parishes?
sw: I do not support "enforcing" rites upon those of another Rite, period. Greeks can (and DO) exist quite peacefully in Rome.
> Do you mind if the Pope becomes subject to Eastern
> canon law in such a scenario?
sw: Again with the silliness.
> Do you mind in the case of a theoretical union that the
> Eastern rite bishop in Alaska appoints married clergy to
> existing Roman parishes?
sw: Yes, I'd mind. You're mixing Rites again.
> Do you mind if they are converted to Eastern rite?
sw: If THEY convert - sobeit - but you said "they are converted" - as if it was against THEIR will. I would oppose the latter.
> By what logic do you maintain that the predominant rite
> gets to force practices of that rite on the other rite?
sw: I didn't say that.
>> sw: "I made NO suggestion to obliterate the Eastern Rite"
> Oh right, only partially obliterate it. Latinize it until you
> can't tell it is Eastern, or make it Eastern only on the
> surface with all the major Eastern distinctives washed out.
sw: Let go of the hatred, John - it's not very becoming and certainly not very Christian. I have never supported any forced latinizations. However, not everything Latin is bad! If THEY wish to incorporate some latinizations - LET THEM! Likewise, incorporating more Greek into the Latin Rite is not something I would oppose. We still have a (small) piece of the Greek in our Latin Mass - and I appreciate that heritage too.
>> sw: "You didn't deal with my example of a Latin Rite
>> parish opening in Moscow - how should THAT be treated
>> in the predominately Eastern culture?"
> I don't see the problem. Russian bishops DO have western
> rite parishes. Perhaps not in Moscow, mainly because of
> lack of demand, but I see no reason they would be against
> one in principle. If a ton of Roman Catholics moved to
> Moscow and converted to Orthodoxy, I can well imagine a
> western rite parish coming into being in Moscow under the
> Moscow patriarchate.
sw: You DO have a problem with it, AND you changed my question! I did not ask about a bunch of Latins moving to Moscow and converting to Orthodoxy! What if there were a small community of Latin Rite Catholics who desired to have their OWN parish, celebrating the Latin Rite, in Moscow? Let's say reunification has happened and thus these Latin Rite Catholics would be in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate - would they need to be yielding to his wishes, or should they just be able to plop down and open a Roman Catholic Latin Rite parish without even consulting him? How much "say" should the Moscow Patriarchate have?
> Remeber the 1054 schism? The Pope was forcing Eastern
> rite parishes in Southern Italy to use Western practices.
> The Ecumenical Patriarch retaliated by forcing the
> Western rite parishes in his area to use Eastern rite
> practices. He had Western rite parishes! Latins living in
> his area had their own rite, and they were allowed to
> co-exist until the Pope's politics caused problems.
sw: 1) This is not about the 1054 schism.
sw: 2) I do not support forced Latinizations anymore than
I would support forced Easternizations.
sw: You're picking a fight with me that I did not engage in.
>> sw: " Eastern Rites are NOT "second class citizens!" In
>> THEIR homelands THEY have precedence, but in OTHER
>> homelands - they should EXPECT to give precedence to
>> the cultural church which predominates the territory."
> How are they not second class citizens IN THE NEW
> WORLD, when they can't practice the Eastern rite?
sw: They can, AND DO practice their Eastern rites - throughout the world, including the New World!
> See the thing is, the Eastern rite has its canon law.
> Eastern canon law specifically says that nobody should
> be denied the rank of presbyter on the basis of being
> married. You want Eastern rite parishes that do not
> obey Eastern canon law. That is not an Eastern rite
> parish. That is a Western rite parish wearing Eastern
sw: Back to the married clergy topic again. (sigh) No John, I did not say what you're alleging. Secondly, a member of the Eastern Rite could get dispensation to pursue the rank of presbyter - but he'd need to go through the local ordinary (bishop) to work that out. AND THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE! Again, consider if the roles were reversed. You cannot expect that it would be OK for a Latin to go into a predominately Greek culture and start insisting he have all the rights he's accustomed to in the Latin Rite - I know I would not expect this.
sw: Let me close this comment in saying, I LOVE the Eastern Rite! I was married in the Ukrainian Catholic Church! There are things from BOTH cultures which I REALLY like! I believe we can grow and learn FROM each other and do not need to stand diametrically opposed - and it is NOT the Will of God that we are so opposed. Jesus said He desires that we be ONE, just as He and the Father are One.