Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Eastern v Western?

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
> clothing.

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.


In JMJ,
Scott<<<

30 comments:

  1. Tagging along on my last comment, we have a very nice Orthodox community in the town where I live, but no Eastern Rite Catholic communities. I have attended at this Orthodox church, but I am not welcome to participate in their Eucharist. If I were, I am quite certain I would be there more than my Latin parish.

    Peace be to all. Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the Trinity, one in essence and undivided. The doors! The doors! In wisdom let us attend!

    We're knocking upon your doors - let us in without "forcing" conversion to your rite.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Eastern Orthodoxy is very ethnic and very regional. "

    That's not a theological or canonical concern, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    "You know what I mean and you're just going into the ridiculous now."

    Appealing to the Puritans in a defence of western rite Catholicism is far more absurd in my opinion. Nothing could be further from a Catholic rite than Puritans.

    "Would you want to allow for that Latin parish to open its doors and openly proselytize to the
    Russian Orthodox community"

    This is in a hypothetical future scenario where we have union right? How can you proselytize someone to join the same religion they are already in? Parishes are free, I suppose, to invite people to change parishes. I don't see the big deal. And I already said that, so why say I didn't consider it? Obviously it is not on now, because we don't have union. But you have union with the uniates right?

    "I do not support "enforcing" rites upon those of another Rite, period."

    So are you willing to repudiate enforcing western rite celibacy on eastern rite parishes in the new world or not?

    " Again with the silliness."

    Hey, you are the one who started with the hypotheticals.

    "Yes, I'd mind. You're mixing Rites again."

    ????????

    You are happy for Rome to force celibate clery on Eastern rite in Western diocese, but you don't want Eastern bishops enforcing married clergy on western parishes in an Eastern diocese.

    Can you not see the hypocrisy?

    " Let go of the hatred"

    Accusing everyone else of hatred gets old really fast. it's not very becoming and certainly not very Christian.

    > I have never supported any forced latinizations.

    So are you willing to repudiate forced latinization of eastern rite clergy in celibacy? Yes or no?

    "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"

    Yes they should submit to the Patriarch, but the Patriarch should not force them to become eastern rite in their practices. Just because I agree they should submit, does not mean I have to support every stupid thing the Patriarch could in theory tell them to do. What if there is a Catholic church in Moscow now, and after reunification the Patriarch tells the priest to get married, to use leavened bread, and so forth? Are you happy? Probably not is my guess.

    " They can, AND DO!"

    How so when the Pope tells them not to live in accordance with eastern canon law?

    "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 "

    Like what? Why shouldn't he have all the rights of his own rite within his own parish? You say you don't agree with forced latinization, but then you come out with this stuff. You can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >> sw: "Eastern Orthodoxy is very
    >> ethnic and very regional. "
    >
    > John wrote: That's not a
    > theological or canonical concern,
    > and has nothing to do with the
    > topic at hand.

    sw: 1) It is quite theological! It is the "rite" we're discussing!

    sw: 2) I don't know about canonical, as we're predominately discussing disciplines and traditions of East v. West, I'll give you that one.

    sw: 3) "The topic at hand" IS the discussion of East v. West - so you don't get off dismissing the topic so easily - especially when *I* introduced the topic!

    More later...

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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!

    DB: For the sake of argument, say there's reunion tomorrow. Would an Eastern parish in a predominately Western country need to get this dispensation? If so, do you think Orthodox would accept this?

    SW: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.

    DB: Such situations already exist. What does a Latin Rite person in a parish in Russia not be able to do that he would otherwise do in an area that was predominately Western? Is there anything that Latin Riters in Russia don't do that they'd do if the lived in Arizona?

    SW:Tagging along on my last comment, we have a very nice Orthodox community in the town where I live, but no Eastern Rite Catholic communities. I have attended at this Orthodox church, but I am not welcome to participate in their Eucharist. If I were, I am quite certain I would be there more than my Latin parish.

    SW:We're knocking upon your doors - let us in without "forcing" conversion to your rite.

    DB: For inter-communion, Orthodoxy asks unity of faith. Catholicism has a different view. That's why there's no inter-communion from the Orthodox POV.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >> 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!
    >
    > DB: For the sake of argument, say
    > there's reunion tomorrow. Would
    > an Eastern parish in a
    > predominately Western country
    > need to get this dispensation?

    sw: Yes.

    > If so, do you think Orthodox
    > would accept this?

    sw: They should, as should a Western parish in an Eastern jurisdiction. To NOT accept this disrespects the local bishop/patriachate.

    >> SW: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.
    >
    > DB: Such situations already
    > exist. What does a Latin Rite
    > person in a parish in Russia not
    > be able to do that he would
    > otherwise do in an area that was
    > predominately Western? Is there
    > anything that Latin Riters in
    > Russia don't do that they'd do if
    > the lived in Arizona?

    Yes! As I already answered John, they cannot proselytize or openly recruit - though they may peacefully exist within the other's jurisdiction.

    >> SW: Tagging along on my last
    >> comment, we have a very nice
    >> Orthodox community in the town
    >> where I live, but no Eastern
    >> Rite Catholic communities. I
    >> have attended at this Orthodox
    >> church, but I am not welcome to
    >> participate in their Eucharist.
    >> If I were, I am quite certain I
    >> would be there more than my
    >> Latin parish.
    >>
    >> SW:We're knocking upon your
    >> doors - let us in without
    >> "forcing" conversion to your
    >> rite.
    >
    > DB: For inter-communion,
    > Orthodoxy asks unity of faith.
    > Catholicism has a different view.
    > That's why there's no inter-
    > communion from the Orthodox POV.

    sw: You're proving the point I made with John! Catholicism holds the same "unity of faith" when it comes to the Eucharist - SO OPEN THE EUCHARIST TO US AS WE HAVE TO YOU! You're not arguing for unity of faith - you're arguing for CONVERSION to Eastern theology and way of thinking on ALL counts. That's not seeking reunification, that's a bigoted approach which only sees conversion on ALL matters to the Eastern way of thinking. Now before you get defensive on me, THIS question is about the Eucharist - while you and John introduce topics of celibate clergy and other "latinizations" as justification/rationalization of why we cannot have open Eucharist between us - so I believe my accusation is spot on.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott,

    The Catholic view is that proselytizing of Orthodox is unacceptable even here in America. One prominent Catholic apologist had to remove information from his website that was viewed as proselytizing at the request of his Bishop. Write Bishop Olmstead if it's okay to proselytize Orthodox in the Diocese of Phoenix if you don't believe me. So there is nothing that a Latin Riter in Moscow would do that is different from a Latin Riter in Arizona.

    If Orthodox will have to ask for dispensations to ordain married men if they live in a predominately Western country, that would spell the end of any reunion scenario. Actually, almost every other Catholic I've asked the question answers that they wouldn't have to do so. You are the first one I've met who feels such would be justified.

    As to intercommunion. Bishops decide such things, not me. Orthodox Bishops have held that a common faith in the Eucharist is not enough. Unity of faith in essentials is what is needed. Essentials does not necessarily mean issues like married clergy or infant Communion. Some Bishops might hold that, I don't know. I think, however, their concern is over greater issues. Issues such as whether the Pope has universal jurisdiction or infallibility in his person, whether the Pope has the right to change the Creed for the whole Church, etc.

    I also think that if you really want dialogue to continue, you should lay off such loaded language like "bigoted."

    ReplyDelete
  7. > OC: The Catholic view is that
    > proselytizing of Orthodox is
    > unacceptable even here in
    > America.


    sw: I am not talking about proselytizing of the practicing Orthodox - I'm talking about proselytizing AT ALL. Ever since Communism took over Russia very few of the population have retained Orthodoxy or Catholicism in Russia - many more are atheists now.

    > (snip)
    > OC: So there is nothing that a
    > Latin Riter in Moscow would do
    > that is different from a Latin
    > Riter in Arizona.


    sw: I don't believe you.

    > OC: If Orthodox will have to
    > ask for dispensations to ordain
    > married men if they live in a
    > predominately Western country,
    > that would spell the end of any
    > reunion scenario.


    sw: Not just in a predominately Western country, but if they live in the jurisdiction of a Latin Rite bishop - then this, as should ALL ordinations which might take place in his diocese - should have his blessing. To NOT get his blessing is to be quite disrespectful of his apostolic office. Actually, such ordinations likely would not be happening in a Western diocese, but in an Eastern eparchy.

    >OC: Actually, almost every
    > other Catholic I've asked the
    > question answers that they
    > wouldn't have to do so. You are
    > the first one I've met who feels
    > such would be justified.


    sw: What others may think has little bearing on the rights of a bishop over his diocese/eparchy.

    > OC:As to intercommunion.
    > Bishops decide such things, not
    > me.


    sw: You keep using that copout. Either we're discussing it, or we're not. If you refuse to participate in a discussion, just say so.

    > OC: Orthodox Bishops have held
    > that a common faith in the
    > Eucharist is not enough.


    sw: So the laity is powerless to even say anything and/or express their thoughts on the matter?

    (breaking here)

    ReplyDelete
  8. (continuing...)
    > OC: Unity of faith in
    > essentials is what is needed.
    > Essentials does not necessarily
    > mean issues like married clergy
    > or infant Communion. Some Bishops
    > might hold that, I don't know.


    sw: Then why do you continue to bring up those topics?

    > OC: I think, however, their
    > concern is over greater issues.
    > Issues such as whether the Pope
    > has universal jurisdiction or
    > infallibility in his person,


    sw: So they stand in denial of a plain reading of Scripture and you fall for, I mean follow that?

    > OC: whether the Pope has the
    > right to change the Creed for the
    > whole Church, etc.


    sw: How is the word "whatsoever" at all limiting as to what can be bound or loosed?

    > OC: I also think that if you
    > really want dialogue to continue,
    > you should lay off such loaded
    > language like "bigoted."


    sw: I'll see what I can do about that, but when I see one side reaching their hand out and appealing for unity - and the other side slapping the hand and saying "go away until you do things just like we do" - it sure seems like bigotry to me. I mean, feel free to correct me and show me how what I'm seeing is NOT bigotry. One thing which is encouraging is that the Ecumenical Patriarch seems to be more willing to talk to the Pope about such matters. Tell me, if they come to an accord which doesn't exactly fit what YOU think it should be - will Protestantism or submission to valid authority prevail?

    sw: To be completely frank here, I see those who as Protestants debated Catholics for years and then convert part way are maintaining their spirit of protest yet can now receive valid sacraments.

    sw: Likewise, those who leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy are protesting against valid leadership and authority. Granted, the Latin Church has had some problems, but faithful Catholics don't jump ship in protest - they stay aboard and work from within to effect true reform and perhaps help make the Church even better than it was in the past. You know me, and you know I'm not thrilled with many of the changes of the last 40+ years, but I'm still in communion with Peter's successor.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    "Where there is Peter, THERE is the Church" (St. Ambrose).

    ReplyDelete
  9. "1) It is quite theological! It is the "rite" we're discussing! "

    Eastern rites allow married clergy because the canons say so. Wandering off into discussions of ethnicity really confuses the issue. If I wanted to become a priest, the reason I would be allowed to do so is because of the canons, not because I'm Greek, because I'm not.

    Do you want to claim the Eastern rites can be divorced from the Eastern canons? If so I'd like to see the argument.

    " They should, as should a Western parish in an Eastern jurisdiction. To NOT accept this disrespects the local bishop/patriachate."

    You realise of course that in a hypothetical union, if a western bishop tried to force western rite things on the eastern rite churches, we would have a replay of 1054, where the pope forced the southern italy churches into the western rite, and the EP forced the western churches into the eastern rite in retaliation. Those pictures of western churches in Moscow? They'd be converted to eastern rite. Are you happy about that? If not, you should simply say it would be wrong for a bishop to force the western rite on eastern churches, and leave it at that. Playing the authority card doesn't cut it. Eastern churches know about authority, but we also know about ignoring authorities who are in the wrong.

    "Catholicism holds the same "unity of faith" when it comes to the Eucharist - SO OPEN THE EUCHARIST TO US AS WE HAVE TO YOU!"

    How about an argument from church history that the same faith concerning the eucharist is sufficient grounds for communion.

    "while you and John introduce topics of celibate clergy and other "latinizations" as justification/rationalization of why we cannot have open Eucharist between us "

    Celebate clergy is not an argument against open communion, it is an argument against actual communion. Lack of open communion is because of a lack of actual communion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. John/Chris - I'll not be responding to you until I have your 3rd Rebuttal. Mine has been ready for days now. I'll get back to your points here after that.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  11. SW: I mean, feel free to correct me and show me how what I'm seeing is NOT bigotry.

    DB: Not playing that game. I think you need to chill a bit.

    SW: Then why do you continue to bring up those topics?

    DB: I think they're important. I NEVER said they were the main topics. NEVER. Why am I being faulted for speaking about something that I thought was important? I only continued to dialogue on them because that's part of what we do here. If that's not what you want to do, then perhaps the comments box on this subject should be closed?

    DB: Let me add, that I feel that great injustices have been done to Eastern Catholics over the years on this issue. The problems have gotten better, but are still going on. Apparently, you feel that no injustices were ever done and that bringing up these issues is simply "polemics." That's what has fueled my reaction to your posts on this as I find it, frankly, incredible.

    sw: I am not talking about proselytizing of the practicing Orthodox - I'm talking about proselytizing AT ALL. Ever since Communism took over Russia very few of the population have retained Orthodoxy or Catholicism in Russia - many more are atheists now.

    DB: The Catholic Church has not given up on preaching the Gospel in Russia. So, I don't understand the distinction you appear to be making.

    SW: Not just in a predominately Western country, but if they live in the jurisdiction of a Latin Rite bishop - then this, as should ALL ordinations which might take place in his diocese - should have his blessing. To NOT get his blessing is to be quite disrespectful of his apostolic office. Actually, such ordinations likely would not be happening in a Western diocese, but in an Eastern eparchy.

    DB: In 99 per cent of these situations, they NEVER would take place in the Latin Rite Diocese. Eastern ordinations take place within their own Eparchies. It's just that in this country, for example, Eastern Catholic Bishops are required to seek Rome's permission to ordain married men within their own Eparchy.

    DB: So, I'll ask the question again to make sure I understand you. Maybe we were discussing two different things. If so, I apologize for my reaction here-to-fore:

    DB: In a reunion scenario, would Orthodox Bishops (who would be ordaining married men within their own Eparchy or Diocese) here in America need to get dispensations from the Pope?

    SW: You keep using that copout. Either we're discussing it, or we're not. If you refuse to participate in a discussion, just say so.

    DB: I'm not refusing. I'm obedient to what the Bishops of my Church say about intercommunion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >> SW: I mean, feel free to correct
    >> me and show me how what I'm
    >> seeing is NOT bigotry.
    >
    > DB: Not playing that game. I
    > think you need to chill a bit.

    sw: I'm not playing games. I see demanding Rome sees virtually everything exactly as Orthodoxy sees things as conditional for reunification and/or intercommunion is bigotry. It an "Our way or the highway" attitude, and I can't see it as anything less.

    >> SW: Then why do you continue to
    >> bring up those topics?
    >
    > DB: I think they're important. I
    > NEVER said they were the main
    > topics. NEVER. Why am I being
    > faulted for speaking about
    > something that I thought was
    > important? I only continued to
    > dialogue on them because that's
    > part of what we do here. If
    > that's not what you want to do,
    > then perhaps the comments box on
    > this subject should be closed?

    sw: We're talking about reunification and you continue to bring up these topics as if they are barriers to Eastern and Western communion. If they are not barriers, why bring them up? If they ARE barriers, then they ARE "main topics" - at least from the Eastern perspective, or perhaps YOUR Eastern perspective.

    > DB: Let me add, that I feel that
    > great injustices have been done
    > to Eastern Catholics over the
    > years on this issue. The problems
    > have gotten better, but are still
    > going on. Apparently, you feel
    > that no injustices were ever done
    > and that bringing up these issues
    > is simply "polemics." That's what
    > has fueled my reaction to your
    > posts on this as I find it,
    > frankly, incredible.

    sw: I have NEVER said there were NEVER any injustices, however I do not think ALL of these "latinization" were "forced" upon Eastern Rite Catholics. "In the spirit of Vatican II" I believe some Easterners WANTED to be more latinized and EMBRACED said things which others - INCLUDING ROME saw as abuses to the Eastern traditions. Some of those 40 year old pictures (Chris/John has posted in our debate) have brought down criticism from Rome too, for Eastern parishes which have given up too much of their Eastern heritage. My point is, if things are getting better then it is NOT time to "jump ship" and leave communion with St. Peter's See - which throughout early Christendom is OVERWHELMINGLY pointed to for unity in the Church by Western AND Eastern Fathers. This leaving communion does not bode well with me.

    (breaking here...)

    ReplyDelete
  13. (continuing...)
    >> sw: I am not talking about
    >> proselytizing of the practicing
    >> Orthodox - I'm talking about
    >> proselytizing AT ALL. Ever since
    >> Communism took over Russia very
    >> few of the population have
    >> retained Orthodoxy or
    >> Catholicism in Russia - many
    >> more are atheists now.
    >
    > DB: The Catholic Church has not
    > given up on preaching the Gospel
    > in Russia. So, I don't understand
    > the distinction you appear to be
    > making.

    sw: Well, I am under the impression that Catholics are not "free" to preach the gospel, say out on the street corner. The are "free" to exist within Moscow - and can preach within their own walls. Beyond that, I cannot say with surety, so I will drop this for now, as I cannot prove my case. If you are able to prove that they are free to preach where ever they wish to in Moscow, I'd like to see that. Otherwise, I believe neither of us can prove our case and we should move on to things we can prove.

    >> SW: Not just in a predominately
    >> Western country, but if they
    >> live in the jurisdiction of a
    >> Latin Rite bishop - then this,
    >> as should ALL ordinations which
    >> might take place in his diocese
    >> - should have his blessing. To
    >> NOT get his blessing is to be
    >> quite disrespectful of his
    >> apostolic office. Actually, such
    >> ordinations likely would not be
    >> happening in a Western diocese,
    >> but in an Eastern eparchy.
    >
    > DB: In 99 per cent of these
    > situations, they NEVER would take
    > place in the Latin Rite Diocese.
    > Eastern ordinations take place
    > within their own Eparchies. It's
    > just that in this country, for
    > example, Eastern Catholic Bishops
    > are required to seek Rome's
    > permission to ordain married men
    > within their own Eparchy.

    sw: Because their eparchy exists within a Latin diocese. The bishop with jurisdiction is the Latin bishop. I would expect no less if Catholicism grew in Moscow to a point that they would want to ordain priests there - and unification had taken place. In such a situation I would expect the Latin bishop seeks the blessing of the Eastern bishop with jurisdiction before proceeding with ordinations within his jurisdiction. I am not one-sided in this belief.

    (breaking again...)

    ReplyDelete
  14. (continuing and concluding...)
    > DB: So, I'll ask the question
    > again to make sure I understand
    > you. Maybe we were discussing two
    > different things. If so, I
    > apologize for my reaction here-
    > to-fore:
    >
    > DB: In a reunion scenario, would
    > Orthodox Bishops (who would be
    > ordaining married men within
    > their own Eparchy or Diocese)
    > here in America need to get
    > dispensations from the Pope?

    sw: Ordinations which take place in another bishop's jurisdiction should have the blessing/approval of the local bishop with jurisdiction. As I said above, I would expect no less from a Latin diocese within an Eastern eparchy in Eastern Europe.

    >> SW: You keep using that copout.
    >> Either we're discussing it, or
    >> we're not. If you refuse to
    >> participate in a discussion,
    >> just say so.
    >
    > DB: I'm not refusing. I'm
    > obedient to what the Bishops of
    > my Church say about
    > intercommunion.

    sw: Have the Eastern bishops ordered you to not discuss intercommunion with Latins? Are you not free to discuss and/or make concerns known? If you are free to discuss this then it is not a matter of obedience.

    sw: All I am saying on the matter of intercommunion is that East and West share a common belief/faith in the Eucharist. I (as well as the West) do not see a problem with opening the Eucharist to those from either side - WITH the understanding that not ALL matters between us have been resolved - but THIS one should not be an issue of separation. Where we CAN be one, we SHOULD be one - just as the Father and the Son are One, THAT is the desire of God.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cath Apol,

    You seem to be speaking from within a world in which there is one bishop per territory, so a particular territory is ONLY that of the Latin rite Bishop, or ONLY that of an Eastern Rite Eparch. I realize that Nicea dictated that it should be so, but it has not been so for a long long time.

    There are overlapping territories of bishops in communion with Rome, Latin rite, Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, Maronite and others.

    These territories also usually are under the jurisdiction of Orthodox bishops of several jurisdictions, Antiochian, OCA, ROCAR/Moscow, Greek/Constantinoble, in some places ACROD, and I am sure more that I am not aware of.

    For instance, Scranton, Pennsylvania has churches under all of the above jurisdictions and possibly some others as well.

    In such a situation, NO bishop has jurisdiction over all the churches in a geographical territory. The local Latin rite bishop has no more jurisdiction over a Ukrainian Eparch than the Eparch has over him. They have jurisdiction over the parishes, priests, and people of their rite in that territory, and that is all.

    All the Catholic bishops are in communion with the Pope, but they are under their own hierarchs and are entitled to the customs, practices, and particular practices of their own rite. And as has been said by others, this was part of the conditions of union. You would be far from the truth if you think Orthodoxy does not look at the history of this issue in the uniate Churches when it even remotely considers union with Rome.

    Susan Peterson

    ReplyDelete
  16. In the Ireland/Toth situation, because of long distances and slower communication, the new Eastern European immigrants were temporarily put under the Latin rite bishops who were already established. It was short sighted to think this would work. It could have worked temporarily had Archbishop Ireland not been incredibly narrow minded and parochial in his point of view. HE could not envision a REAL priest who was or even who had been married. When Alexis Toth presented himself to Ireland, Ireland said "Are you married?" and Toth said "I'm a widower." Ireland said "I told them to send me a REAL priest."! How can anyone have been more insulting?

    Whole Eastern European villages came here with their priest; this would have been the priest who married them and baptized their children and who had heard their confessions for years; he was their spiritual father. They were told that either he had to go back to the old country, or he had to send his wife back!

    There is no excuse for this and no reason for it except insensitivity, arrogance, narrowmindedness, and ethnocentrism. The Latin rite faithful merely had to be told that we in the Latin rite have celibate priests, the Eastern rite has married priests, this is a discipline, not a doctrine. Part of the reason why this was not said was the kind of clericalism which contributed to the scandal. The Latin rite expected that priests would be viewed as different from ordinary mortals, set aside, not corrupted by sex. There was probably lingering Jansenism involved in this. Priests were only pure enough to celebrate mass because they didn't have sex. That is why seeing a married priest celebrating the liturgy would scandalize the Latin rite faithful; because they had been taught to feel that way.

    I won't say that there is nothing right about this, or else why do married Orthodox priests abstain the night before they celebrate? But it is taking this intuition or form of delicacy to an extreme to feel that marriage pollutes to a degree inconsistent with celebration of the Eucharist.

    I know this isn't the apologetic reason for celibacy in the Western rite, or the only real reason, but it was the reason why seeing married priests would "scandalize" the Latin rite faithful. And back in the 1970's when there was a lot of talk of married priests in the Latin rite, several older Latin rite Catholics said to me, "I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of a married man saying Mass. It would be nice for confession though. " That feeling of discomfort was part of the Latin rite ethos, and awareness of married priests in the Eastern rite churches of their neighbors would actually have been a healthy corrective.

    I am not saying corrective to the idea of celibacy at all, but corrective to this misunderstanding of the reason for it.

    Susan Peterson

    ReplyDelete
  17. SP:There are overlapping territories of bishops in communion with Rome, Latin rite, Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, Maronite and others.

    SP:In such a situation, NO bishop has jurisdiction over all the churches in a geographical territory. The local Latin rite bishop has no more jurisdiction over a Ukrainian Eparch than the Eparch has over him. They have jurisdiction over the parishes, priests, and people of their rite in that territory, and that is all.

    SP:All the Catholic bishops are in communion with the Pope, but they are under their own hierarchs and are entitled to the customs, practices, and particular practices of their own rite. And as has been said by others, this was part of the conditions of union.

    DB: Thanks, Susan, for explaining how the various Eastern Bishops are not under the Latin Bishop in the Catholic communion of Churches.

    SP: You would be far from the truth if you think Orthodoxy does not look at the history of this issue in the uniate Churches when it even remotely considers union with Rome.

    DB: Precisely.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >> SP:There are overlapping
    >> territories of bishops in
    >> communion with Rome, Latin
    >> rite, Ruthenian, Ukrainian,
    >> Melkite, Maronite and others.
    >>
    >> SP:In such a situation, NO
    >> bishop has jurisdiction over
    >> all the churches in a
    >> geographical territory. The
    >> local Latin rite bishop has no
    >> more jurisdiction over a
    >> Ukrainian Eparch than the
    >> Eparch has over him. They have
    >> jurisdiction over the parishes,
    >> priests, and people of their
    >> rite in that territory, and
    >> that is all.

    sw: Well, this is not absolutely true. I know from my own anecdotal experience, having gotten married in the Ukrainian Catholic Church within the Diocese of Phoenix, and we still needed to have the blessing of the Bishop of Phoenix as the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is under the auspices of the local bishop.

    >> SP:All the Catholic bishops are
    >> in communion with the Pope, but
    >> they are under their own
    >> hierarchs and are entitled to
    >> the customs, practices, and
    >> particular practices of their
    >> own rite. And as has been said
    >> by others, this was part of the
    >> conditions of union.
    >
    > DB: Thanks, Susan, for
    > explaining how the various
    > Eastern Bishops are not under
    > the Latin Bishop in the Catholic
    > communion of Churches.

    sw: "Under" is too strong a word, but within the local bishop's diocese certain things should not be done without his blessing. That blessing may be granted in advance - but bishops with overlapping jurisdiction over the same territory need to be in agreement with each other and not assume hierarchy.

    Means should be taken therefore in every part of the world for the protection and advancement of all the individual Churches and, to this end, there should be established parishes and a special hierarchy where the spiritual good of the faithful demands it. The hierarchs of the different individual Churches with jurisdiction in one and the same territory should, by taking common counsel in regular meetings, strive to promote unity of action and with common endeavor to sustain common tasks, so as better to further the good of religion and to safeguard more effectively the ordered way of life of the clergy. (source)

    >> SP: You would be far from the
    >> truth if you think Orthodoxy
    >> does not look at the history of
    >> this issue in the uniate
    >> Churches when it even remotely
    >> considers union with Rome.
    >
    > DB: Precisely.

    sw: I would not disagree! I would disagree with the use of the word "uniate" - as it is taken as a slur by our Eastern Catholic brethren and that should be respected as well. We should ALL learn from the relationship between Latin and Eastern Catholics, both the successes and the failures.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  19. sw: Well, this is not absolutely true. I know from my own anecdotal experience, having gotten married in the Ukrainian Catholic Church within the Diocese of Phoenix, and we still needed to have the blessing of the Bishop of Phoenix as the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is under the auspices of the local bishop.

    DB: Only if one (as in your situation) of the parties to be married are members of the Latin Church and are getting married in an Eastern Catholic Church. Eastern Catholic faithful are never required to seek the blessing of the Latin Bishop for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, unless it is being held in a Latin Rite parish.

    DB: Everything Susan wrote in her posts is true. Latin Bishops have no jurisdictions over the Eastern Catholic faithful.

    DB: The only thing that Eastern Catholic Churches seem to be beholden to the Latin Rite is this issue of married clergy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No, I would not say that everything Susan wrote was true. You may AGREE with her, but that doesn't make it true. As I said "under" is too strong a word and I provided primary source material which lays out that IF there are overlapping jurisdictions within a single territory that the bishops were to MEET and AGREE to the HIERARCHY of the region to avoid confusion to the faithful. So yes, if the agreed upon hierarchy says the Latin bishop is the "highest" in that region, then it is so! Likewise, if the agreed upon hierarchy is for the Eastern bishop to have the "highest" - then it is so!

    I do accept what you're saying about one of the parties being of the Latin Rite - as my wife's family was still officially Latin Rite, though they had been participating in the Ukrainian Rite for many years by that time.

    DB: The only thing that Eastern Catholic Churches seem to be beholden to the Latin Rite is this issue of married clergy.

    That would be the subject of another post. There is a relationship to what we're discussion here, but it is only tangential. Let us not be so easily distracted.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  21. CathApol,

    I don't know where you are getting this scenario about bishops of different sui juris churches in a region meeting and deciding "as to the hierarcy of the region to avoid confusion to the faithful."
    This doesn't happen! The Latin rite bishops have jurisdiction over the Latin rite faithful, and the Ruthenian rite Eparchs have jurisdiction over the Ruthenian faithful, the Ukrainian rite Eparchs over the Ruthenian faithful, and so on.

    I don't think you understand the whole idea that the "Eastern rites" are Sui Juris churches!

    The Latin rite faithful belong to one church and the Ruthenian rite faithful to another church. The heirarchies of their churches do not intersect in anyway.

    The only exception is that since they are in communion with the bishop of Rome, they do accept his universal jursidiction, and thus the "Congregation for the Eastern Churches" in Rome does handle relations between the other sui juris churches and the latin rite. Celibacy is one touchy subject in which Rome has in the past asked Eastern churches in territories in which Latin rite Catholics predominate to use only celibate clergy. Since Vatican II, Rome reversed its position on this, but some of the sui juris churches, particularly the Ruthenian, had developed a celibate clerical culture and financial structure and they haven't introduced married clergy despite Rome's support for the idea.

    But the only hierarchial touching point between the Latin rite and the Sui Juris churches is Rome. A Latin rite bishop and a Ruthenian or Ukrainian rite bishop do not have a hierarchical relationship to each other.
    They are not even in the same church!

    There are some exceptions for one or two of the smaller rites which in this country do not have their own bishops. They are formally under a bishop in their native territory, but certain of their needs may be handled the the local Latin rite bishop. This is a far from idea situation which hopefully will soon be remedied.

    But basically what you said is completely wrong. The faithful are not at all confused. They know who their bishop is. A Ruthenian Catholic in Binghamton knows that his church, God help it, belongs to the Ruthenian Eparchy of Passaic, and he is under Bishop William.
    The Latin rite Bishop of Syracuse, who is over the Latin rite Catholics of Binghamton, has nothing to do with him. He does not owe him obedience, or anything more than the courtesy one would give to any bishop.

    Susan Peterson

    ReplyDelete
  22. What you quoted only means that these bishops may have friendly meetings. They do things like deciding to have "Rite to LIfe Sunday" and urge their priests to preach against abortion. In other words, they may mutually agree to some action.
    It doesn't mean that they are part of the same hierarchy.
    Susan Peterson

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Susan,
    It was more than that, and I quote:
    "to this end, there should be established parishes and a special hierarchy where the spiritual good of the faithful demands it." The source, which is linked above, is Vatican II.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  24. Susan,
    I understand the concept of sui juris, essentially their "own laws."

    That being said, as OrthoCath will attest to, I'm a hard nut to crack! I can be and have been duly corrected in the past - and when done so I will humble acknowledge - however - this has to be on a bit more of an authoritative level than some person I do not know personally writing to me without substantiating their claims. In short, you're providing me with opinions. Assertions without documented support must be seen that way. I provided support for what I was saying and linking to my source. I've read through the CCEO on the subject of the sui juris churches, and I do not see the opinion you're expressing in there.

    I do not wish to be confrontational with you, I only desire for truth and substance.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    PS- It seems pretty clear you're of Eastern flavor, but are you Eastern Rite Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? I'm guessing ERC, but I'd rather not make assumptions over this.

    ReplyDelete
  25. And what do you take that to mean and where do you think that has happened?

    I think it might refer to the special situation of some of the rites which are very small in this country. There are parishes of those rites who are under the Latin rite bishop for some things.

    Other than that I can't imagine what this refers to. It certainly doesn't refer to the situation you are imagining, in which the Ruthenian faithful in a certain area are in any sense under the Latin rite Bishop of that area. It just ain't so!

    No wonder the Orthodox are wary, if this is the way Latin rite Catholics think!
    Susan Peterson

    P.S.(I am still a Latin rite Catholic myself, although I have worshipped in a Ruthenian parish for three years. I would switch, but am not so sure that I want to be Ruthenian, and you can only switch once. Maybe I will live someday where I can be a Melkite. )

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think it means what it says: "to this end, there should be established parishes and a special hierarchy where the spiritual good of the faithful demands it. The hierarchs of the different individual Churches with jurisdiction in one and the same territory should, by taking common counsel in regular meetings..."

    In short, they all work together for a common goal. I would not presume that a Latin Rite bishop would be the one "higher up" in the "special hierarchy" in a predominately Eastern cultural region. They're not really "above" each other - but have agreed upon an hierarchy for the sake of the faithful.

    Why any of this would scare the Orthodox, I don't know. It sounds like good cooperation to me and for a worthy cause.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    I am a Latin Rite Catholic, married in the Ukrainian Catholic Rite, visitor of several Eastern Rites and Eastern Orthodoxy. I love the Divine Liturgy myself. If there were one in my community which welcomed my full participation, I would frequent it quite often.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What you presume and what is the usual situation are two different things.
    The usual situations is that the hierarchies are quite independent of one another. They do not form a special hierarchy in which any one bishop is above another.
    Why don' t you look into the actual situation?


    Oh, and the Orthodox are afraid of your attitude because you do assume that it is most reasonable for an Eastern rite bishop to be under and Western rite bishop where Western rite Catholics are predominant. How could a Western rite bishop understand the Eastern rites? How would he be able to understand what liturgies they need or whether their priests should be married or how important it is for them to spend money on having their dome gilded?

    Thank the Lord this is not the situation any closer to home than the Congregation in Rome.

    Susan Peterson

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi again Susan,
    You keep using the term "under" and even when I have used the term "higher" I put it in quotes - because one is really not "higher" than the other - nor is one bishop ever "under" another bishop. Yes, they are quite autonomous. As for my presumptions, I wasn't presuming, I quoted Vatican II for you, and again there's no mention of one bishop being "under" another - rather that they are in "agreement" with each other.

    Why do I get the feeling I'm considered the "Wicked Latin of the West?" *I* have been the one trying to reach out and bridge the gaps, and everytime I do - someone from the East slaps me down! Which side is REALLY working toward healing here? I know "officially" both sides are, but I get the distinct feeling that many in the laity DON'T WANT healing! The like the status quo - even if the status quo is contrary to the Will of our Lord.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  29. Who me? I'm a Latin myself, just a long term visitor in a Ruthenian Parish. (I mean, I joined, I support the parish financially, but I haven't switched rites.)

    I am no longer sure quite what we are arguing about. You seemed to think the local Latin bishop would have anything to say about whether Ruthenians whose Eparchy geographically included his diocese, would have married priests or not. I say he has zero to say about it, whether there are 100 or 100,000 of them.

    Rome does have something to say about it, but they made an agreement at the time of the union, which they ought to have kept. Their attitude combined arrogance and Latin cultural ethnocentrism.

    Orthodoxy has a long history of encountering arrogance from Rome. I would say right now we have a humble pontiff, but their memories are long.

    I would also love to be reunited. But I am not seeing this happening soon, sadly.
    Susan Peterson

    ReplyDelete
  30. First off, my apologies for not responding sooner... I've just gotten back into this thread/discussion with my friend Dave too...

    Susan wrote:
    Who me? I'm a Latin myself, just a long term visitor in a Ruthenian Parish. (I mean, I joined, I support the parish financially, but I haven't switched rites.)

    So, for all intents and purposes, you're Eastern - you just have not made the official jump yet.

    I am no longer sure quite what we are arguing about. You seemed to think the local Latin bishop would have anything to say about whether Ruthenians whose Eparchy geographically included his diocese, would have married priests or not. I say he has zero to say about it, whether there are 100 or 100,000 of them.

    Well, it sounds like the "Eastern hierarchy" has been established there, and if so - then you are quite correct. You could also be correct if the Eastern and Latin bishops had come to an agreement in a geographically overlapping jurisdiction. The REAL point here is that someone of Eastern heritage cannot just expect to plunk themselves where ever they please and demand the traditions and disciplines of another jurisdiction be applied and/or enforced in a foreign jurisdiction. That is not respectful of the local ordinary.

    Rome does have something to say about it, but they made an agreement at the time of the union, which they ought to have kept. Their attitude combined arrogance and Latin cultural ethnocentrism.

    Such polemical terminology is not helping us toward reunification. The REAL ISSUE here is to have RESPECT for the bishop and the rite which has jurisdiction - period.

    Orthodoxy has a long history of encountering arrogance from Rome.

    The reverse is just as true.

    I would say right now we have a humble pontiff, but their memories are long.

    Long memories or not, we should all let the past be the past and work toward what GOD DESIRES and HE DESIRES THAT WE BE ONE. (John 17:21)

    I would also love to be reunited. But I am not seeing this happening soon, sadly.

    If you truly wish to see it happen, then join me in trying to drop the polemics which drive a wedge between us. Seek that which unites us!

    AMDG,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.