Is the Extraordinary Rite (Latin Mass) Abrogated?

Pope Francis, on July 16, 2021, issued Moto Proprio traditionis custodes, (Custodian of Tradition) and in it he abrogates "previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Moto Proprio." So, does that mean that the extraordinary rite is abrogated? No, it does not! The current Moto Proprio allows for the extraordinary rite BUT - newly ordained priests who have been ordained after this date should (not must) submit a request to the local ordinary (diocesan bishop) who shall consult the Apostolic See (the Pope) before granting this authorization (Art. 4). Priests who already celebrate according to the 1962 missal again "should" (not must) "request from the diocesan bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty."

What Does This Mean to SSPX?

In reality, not much. One of the things SSPX feared was precisely what Pope Francis has just done and thus "normalization" has not yet happened. Pope Francis is, most certainly, attempting to dissuade and end "the Mass for all time" as it was called by Pope Pius V, under whom the so-called Tridentine Rite was codified. That Mass which was codified under Pope Pius V had existed since the time of the Apostles, but some variants had worked their way in through the centuries and Modernism was having its effect on the Mass - so it was codified in such a way that novel additions or changes would be prohibited. Back to the question, since SSPX has been celebrating the "extraordinary rite" since the society was canonically founded back in November of 1970 when the decree of erection of the Society was approved by Bishop Charriere of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg. Though this was a six year experiment, it was never abrogated and as testified by recent talks between Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, their organization is recognized - but their status remains "irregular." 

What Does This Mean to FSSP?

Well, maybe nothing - maybe everything? FSSP is at the mercy of the local ordinary (diocesan bishop) and thus if said bishop decides they need to cease practicing in their diocese, FSSP is obliged to do so. To the possible advantage of FSSP, they would not enter a diocese without the bishop's explicit permission so where ever they exist, they do so under the blessing of that local bishop - unless he has a change of heart.

Time Will Tell

Only time will tell as to how much effect this latest Moto Proprio will have on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Bread or Unleavened Bread?

I was reading through Facebook today, and a posting from an Orthodox priest, Fr. John Peck (Peck, 2018) came up and drew my attention. The subject being whether the Eucharist should be of unleavened bread or just bread. The article   Many of the facts in that article come from a discussion board (Antonios, 2007), which Fr. Peck also cites. The main point being made by Fr. Peck's article is that in Greek there are specific words for unleavened bread, "azymos," and for bread it is "artos." The points in Scripture which refer to the Eucharist use the word "artos."
That being said, at the Last Supper - the first Eucharist - Jesus was celebrating Passover with the Apostles - and it would have been unleavened bread (azymos) used, regardless of how the writers of the Scripture translated it.

The point of leavened or unleavened bread became a theological sticking point between East and West. Eastern Orthodoxy stood firmly on "artos" - or regular bread, while the Latin Church stood just as firmly on unleavened bread, or "azymos." A derogatory slang used by the Orthodox for the Latins was (is?) "Azymites," for the used unleavened bread (Peck, 2018).  In the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, they too use "artos" - or regular/daily bread.

In the humble opinion of this blogger, to draw line in the sand over this was a bit too much. Whether it is azymos or artos, when Jesus holds up the host and declares "This IS My body" - it IS His body! I speak in present tense on purpose because when the priest consecrates the Eucharist, it is not merely he standing there, but Christ Himself, and is why when he declares, "this IS My body," it is truly the body of Christ, not that of the priest - but I digress. My point is, let us not be divided over this! In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church the valid form for the host is unleavened bread (azymos). By the same token, for the Eastern Rites within that very same Catholic Church, the valid form is regular or daily bread (artos). These rites co-exist just fine, as should both Catholics and Orthodox. We should focus on how much we are alike and not squabble over minor distinctions, like this. There are good reasons and valid arguments on both sides of the leavened/unleavened debate.

References

Peck, J. (2018, March 10). Eucharistic Bread: Leavened or Unleavened? · All Saints of North America Orthodox Church · Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved from https://arizonaorthodox.com/eucharistic-bread-leavened-unleavened/?fbclid=IwAR25IXUEvfdQ_gdFBdAppBV5Psvims30KZXlQDDnbUJS9kmxWsqKu70EkNA

Antonios. (2007). Leavened bread for communion. Discussion Board: Manchos.net. http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/1728-leavened-bread-for-communion/

Mass In The Extra-Ordinary Rite

This article on The Catholic Gentleman's Blog is WELL worth the read!

http://www.catholicgentleman.net/2016/06/lift-hearts-10-tips-newcomers-latin-mass/

Traditional Latin Mass in Pictures

My wife ran across these pictures, so I made a slideshow and added Gregorian chant, I hope you like and share with your friends!

Click one or more of the "share" buttons!

Married and Catholic Priests

Well, yes indeed!  Many may know that Eastern Rite Catholic priests could be married - however, NOT in the United States!  There has been a "ban" in place since 1929 prohibiting Eastern Rite Catholic priests from serving in the United States.  The "ban" states: Greek-Ruthenian Catholic priests “who wish to go to the United States of North America and stay there, must be celibates.” (Article 12, last sentence).

It would appear this "ban" is virtually dead, according to word leaked and reported here and here.  However, there has been no official pronouncement that married, Eastern Rite priests can be priests in the United States.  Now, there have been some exceptions to this "ban," one such is now Fr. Akiki, who was ordained into the priesthood - with Pope Francis' approval - on February 28, 2014 (pictured here giving the Eucharist to his daughter on the day of his ordination).  According to this article, he is the first married Maronite to be ordained to the priesthood in the United States.  It seems strange that there are actually MORE married Catholic priests in the Latin Rite in the United States than there are in all the Eastern Rites, combined!

Another discussion of the subject of married Eastern Rite priests can be found here.

The Irish Central reports:

Does that mean we can soon expect the end of celibacy for Roman Catholic priests? The short answer is “no,” because even Pope Francis has dismissed this. But we tend to forget that we already have married Roman Catholic priests. Less than 100, true, the vast majority of them former Protestants who were married, then converted.Still, given the various crises enveloping Roman Catholicism these days, who knows what small open door will lead to a kind of reform that even Pope Francis could not envision?

So, are we on the doorstep of a married clergy in the Latin Rite of Catholicism?  Only time will tell.  It is the opinion and hope of this writer that the pope could, without scandal, allow for the complete abrogation of this ban on married Eastern Catholic priests and also, while he's at it, establish an order to which Latin Rite priests could belong to and be married and serve in diocese throughout the world - including the United States this time.  Call it an experiment, if you will, and see how it goes!  I would predict that there would be no shortage of candidates for the priesthood in that order! 

Pope Francis and Traditionalism

In the Catholic Debate Forum we've recently been discussing Pope Francis and Traditional Catholics vs. Rad-Trads (Radical Traditionalists) and one of the non-Catholic participants asked a question to which I responded and wish to share here as well...

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Peter S. wrote:

 

ps: Is blasting the pope even up for debate within Catholic circles?!

sw:  In THIS forum, the Catholic Debate Forum, it is permissible for proclaimed Catholics to be challengers - though I will admit, I do watch such challengers a bit more carefully as there can be a fine line between healthy debate and scandal.  Is it appropriate to challenge even a pope?  Certainly!  There have been many examples in our past of popes who not only should have been challenged, but actually were challenged.  I do host two other forums of debate, "ACTS and BattleACTS" which do not allow for Catholics to be the challengers.  

ps: As far as I can tell, Pope Francis seems to follow the "What would Jesus do?" brand of theology, which I support.

sw: Well, I have read through John Vennari's article as I promised I would and am reporting back now.  Vennari is a staunch supporter of SSPX (the Society of St. Pius X) which maintains, in Pope Francis' words, "the Vetus Ordo" (Old Order) and upholds all pre-Vatican II teachings and only supports anything post-Vatican II which are in line with pre-Vatican II.  SSPX, understandably, clings to their namesake, Pope St. Pius X, who was staunchly against Modernism - which was attempting to get into the Church with a vengeance even in his day.  Mr. Vennari, along with Bishop Fellay (Superior General of SSPX) see Pope Francis as "a genuine Modernist."   

 

sw: As for ME (speaking only for myself now) I believe that the original Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass, hereafter "NOM") was severely lacking in several points.  The manner in which Pope Paul VI promulgated the NOM initially was fine - "I hope you'll use it" but in reality it became the unofficial replacement of the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass).  I will also say that the NOM was not "in the spirit of Vatican II," since in Vatican II it is clearly stated "36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." and parts 2,3 and 4 of that same section explain how certain PARTS of the liturgy MAY be translated from the Latin into the vernacular, "as they pertain to the people," NOWHERE in Vatican II does it promote the ENTIRE liturgy should be in the vernacular!  Thus, a completely vernacular liturgy is CONTRARY to "the spirit of Vatican II!"  Under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI we have seen a return of some Latin in some places in the Mass to be encouraged, but the official promulgation of even the latest rendition of the NOM does not dictate Latin must be used anywhere in the liturgy, and thus we still have some/many if not most parishes using wholly vernacular renditions.  I would venture to guess that many, again, if not most Catholics (not, for the most part those here, who tend to be better educated in the Faith) do not realize that the TLM also includes a hold-over from the Greek liturgy, which is all but lost in a vernacular only Mass.  I speak of the Kyrie, which even when recited or sang within the NOM in Greek does not adhere to the form of the Greek liturgy, as the TLM maintains.

 

sw: Continuing to speak for MYSELF here... The loss of the universal missal within the Universal Church was tragic.  Prior to 1971 (or 1969 when Pope Paul VI first introduced the NOM, but it was 1971 when it was first officially promulgated) one could go to Mass literally ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD and so long as they had their English/Latin missal (or French/Latin, etc.) you could follow the Mass just like you did in your mother country/home language!  The exception being that often (not always) the Epistle and Gospel are repeated in the vernacular and the sermon would be in the vernacular - but the Canon of the Mass would ALWAYS be in Latin and thus THE REASON we go to Mass could ALWAYS be followed by EVERYONE regardless of their language.  It is not simply a matter of clinging to the past - but clinging to our HERITAGE that the true Traditionalist (not the "Rad-Trad" - a term I helped to coin - see research here) embraces.  

 

sw:  Where do I stand on the matter of the NOM v. the TLM?  Well, since the TLM was NEVER abrogated, it remains a TRUE and VALID order of the Mass where ever it is celebrated.  The NOM is a VALID and LICIT form of the Mass where ever it is celebrated under the auspices of a TRUE and VALID bishop.  To fulfill one's "Sunday Obligation" one may attend Mass at ANY VALID celebration of the Mass.  That being said, there are some limitations of those not in full communion with their local ordinary (local bishop).  Since the rites of Holy Matrimony and Reconciliation (Confession) are wholly under the auspices of the local ordinary, if the local priest does not have explicit permission from the local ordinary/bishop then these sacraments are not VALID under these circumstances.  An exception being that ANY valid priest may validly hear the confession of anyone in the state of emergency which would be death or dying.  Some, like SSPX, would argue that the Church is in a state of emergency and thus these sacraments are indeed valid through their priests.  As for me, I would say this is a matter of conscience (as Pope Francis would say) and if in good conscience you agree with SSPX then sobeit, but if in your conscience you believe SSPX priests should not be regularly hearing confessions and/or celebrating marriages - then you should not go to them for these things.  So, while I can go to virtually any TLM in good conscience - there are limits to what I can do with such independent chapels and with SSPX.  Keep in mind, it is permissible for faithful Catholics to go to the Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy to satisfy their "Sunday obligation" - but likewise, we cannot go to them for confession or marriage.

 

sw:  Now, as I originally stated, I believe the jury is still out on just how supportive Pope Francis will be of Traditional Catholics.  It is my humble opinion that those who have been responding to the recent "interviews" of Pope Francis and using these interviews as evidence he's "changing Catholic teaching" or is somehow an Anti-Trad - are not only premature, but mistaken.  I've already blogged on the topic of Pope Francis on the CathApol Blog, if you're interested in following that.

 

AMDG,

Scott<<<

--
Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeternae caritatis. Amen.

Domine Non Sum Dignus

Along with other changes being proposed to the English vernacular, the domine non sum dignus is making a comeback too! 

Existing Novus Ordo Latin:
Domine, non sum dignus, 
ut intres sub tectum meum, 
sed tantum dic verbo,
et sanabitur anima mea.

Existing Novus Ordo English:
Lord, I am not worthy to receive you,

But only say the word

And I shall be healed.

Proposed Novus Ordo English:
Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.

Scripture (Matthew 8:8) where the Centurion pleads for his servant:

And the centurion making answer, said: 
Lord, I am not worthy 
that thou shouldst enter under my roof: 
but only say the word, 
and my servant shall be healed. (DRB)

The centurion said in reply, 
"Lord, I am not worthy 
to have you enter under my roof; 
only say the word 
and my servant will be healed. (NAB)

So while echoing the words of the centurion - but pleading for our own soul - the new reading matches the Latin and the only change to Scripture is in place of "my servant" we say "my soul" - so the proposed change is (again) a better match to Scripture and the Latin.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Pro Multis

The question of "pro multis" is coming to the forefront again.  What is this exactly and why now?  Well, these are Latin terms which mean, literally, "for many" and there are changes to the Mass being proposed which should be going into effect soon.  So let us move into some more detail.  

In the consecration of the the wine into Christ's blood during the Eucharist - Scripture records this as follows:

Matthew 26:27-28:  Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. (NAB)

Mark 14:23-24: Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.   He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. (NAB).

The Latin version (which is the official translation of the Mass) still agrees with the Traditional Latin version - which is in agreement with Scripture!  The Latin at the consecration of the wine into Christ's blood says: 

Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes:  hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.  (Current Novus Ordo in Latin)

So, to recap a bit before proceeding, Scripture says "for many" and the official translation of the Mass says "pro multis" which means "for many" - so to say "for many" is an accurate translation of both Scripture AND the official translation of the Mass!

So, why are we talking about this?  Well, in 1970, when Pope Paul VI offered the "Novus Ordo Missae" (New Order of the Mass) as an alternative (he did not promulgate it as a replacement of the Traditional Latin Mass - yet that's what most bishops did) these words, "pro multis," while they remained in the official translation - in most (not all) vernaculars, these words were translated to "for all."  To say "for all" in Latin that would be "omnibus" or "pro omni."  So clearly, the words "pro multis" do NOT mean "for all" they mean "for many."

I've also heard that many priests are objecting to the change to the more literally correct terminology.  One argument I've heard (all along and again just recently) is that the offering of Christ on the Cross was indeed for all - and YES it IS for all!   However, we know that not all will be saved (that would be the heresy of Universal Salvation).   Well, to these fine priests we must remind them - this would be a matter of good catechesis - something THEY are responsible for!  It is their duty to teach the portion of the Flock to which they have been assigned to serve - to understand both the literal words of consecration, which are the Words of Christ, AND the broader catechetical understand that Jesus' Sacrifice is for all men, but since all men are not forgiven - it is proper to say "pro multis" or "for many," just as Scripture says it. 

We must keep in mind that when these words are spoken the subject matter is the forgiveness of sins.  It must also be noted, that when those who translated the vernacular to say "for all" could not stop with just those words!  Had they stopped there, the statement would have become heretical.  Allow me to explain, using only English.  The traditional translation is,

"...for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on for many for the forgiveness of sins." 

If we only changed the words "for many" to "for all" it would then read: 

"...for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on for all for the forgiveness of sins."

The latter statement is heretical because though He did die for all, the forgiveness of sins is not "for all."  If ALL sins were forgiven, then there would be no more sin whatsoever!  Salvation would be accomplished and ALL MEN would be automatically saved.  Again, this would be the heresy of Universal Salvation.  So, in translating "pro multis" to "for all" - the words which followed HAD to be changed as well!  It goes from "for many for the forgiveness sins" to "for all, so that sins MAY be forgiven."  This would seem to be a much harder catechetical lesson for our priests and bishops to teach!  It leaves open that sins MAY NOT be forgiven, even "for many" whereas to say "for many" that sins WILL BE forgiven makes it clear - that those who sincerely repent (the "many") of their sins, their sins are forgiven them. 

The updated translation of the Mass in English has been approved, but has not yet been promulgated, but for the consecration of the precious blood, it now says:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,
WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. 

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/WhiteBookAnnotated.pdf (Page 19)

And this is true to the Traditional interpretation as well as to Scripture.  There are some other changes as well, but not on the subject of this article.  This translation, getting the Order of the Mass more in line with Scripture and Tradition, is a good move.  Ever since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1970 by Pope Paul VI, the altering of the words to "for all" has been a sticking point for many (no pun intended).    Many "Traditionalists" have (wrongly) stated that the changing of those words invalidated the Novus Ordo.  As I mentioned earlier, if they had only changed those words and not the words which followed as well, then they may have had a point regarding validity (for outright heresy would have invalidated the Mass).  Perhaps these changes, which are to take effect soon (I have not heard the exact date as yet) will help heal the rift between some Traditionalists too.

The USCCB site, offers answers of "6 Questions" about this topic too: 

Six Questions on the Translation of Pro Multis

An article somewhat critically written by John Vennari expresses many of the same thoughts and addresses many of the same concerns, and demonstrates the frustration of the Traditionalists, which you can see in the title of the article "Post-Conciliar Vatican Finally Tells the Truth About Pro Multis":   http://www.cfnews.org/promultis.htm

Full text proposed for the English Mass:  

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/WhiteBookAnnotated.pdf

Eastern v Western II

>> sw: "You know what I mean and you're just
>> going into the ridiculous now."
>
> John wrote: 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.

sw: Whoa pardner! The record will show that it was you, not me, who brought up the Puritans!

You can put your absurdity back where YOU found it! I simply ANSWERED your attempt to claim the Puritans as non-Western.  That horse just ain't gonna ride 'round these parts!

>> sw: "Would you want to allow for that Latin
>> parish to open its doors and openly
>> proselytize to the Russian Orthodox community"
>
> John wrote: 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?

sw: Why say it? Because initially you didn't respond to it.

> John wrote: Obviously it is not on now, because we
> don't have union.

sw: Well, there again you are wrong! See the link here. I am quite certain there are some restrictions upon these Roman Catholic churches regarding proselytizing in Russia, but they already co-exist.

Immaculate Conception - Moscow, Russia

Sacred Heart - Samara, Russia

> John wrote: But you have union with the uniates right?

sw: I am making this a different color because I didn't see this question first time around and I did not want to leave it unanswered.  So to answer, first off - they don't like the term "uniates."  They are Eastern Rite Catholics.  They see "uniate" as a pejorative term most often used by some in Orthodoxy as a put-down.  Secondly, yes we have union with the Eastern Rite Catholics.  Did you have a point in asking that question?  (And again I urge you to finish "Rebuttal #3" in our debate before answering more here).

>> sw: "I do not support "enforcing" rites upon those of another Rite, period."
>
> John wrote: So are you willing to repudiate enforcing western rite celibacy
> on eastern rite parishes in the new world or not?

sw: If the Eastern Rite parish is in the jurisdiction of a Latin Rite bishop, then they need to go through him for dispensation.  It simply recognizes his jurisdiction and then he can demonstrate respect for the Eastern culture.  If he chooses not to, I would call that a travesty - but within his rights.

> John wrote: 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?

sw: Get real, John.  NO ONE is "forced to marry" in EITHER rite!  In fact, even in the Eastern rites, if one is unmarried when they become a priest - they are FORBIDDEN from marriage later.  This is true of Orthodoxy too.  

>> sw: "Let go of the hatred"
>
> John responds: Accusing everyone else of hatred gets old
> really fast. it's not very becoming and certainly not very
> Christian.

sw: It is quite Christian to not hide the TRUTH from you!  Should I just turn a blind eye toward your hatred?  No, that would NOT be the Christian thing to do!  You need to self-examine your own words and perhaps deeds here!  I am expressing hope and movement toward reunification - you, on the other hand, are expressing complaints of alleged (and non-existent) oppression - especially when I ask about Western parishes in the East.  No John, it would be unChristian of me to allow your hatred to go unanswered and uncalled - for that would then seem like I endorse your animosity toward the West - which clearly comes forth in your responses here.  I am quite content to let the reader decide who is being "un-Christian" here.

>> sw: I have never supported any forced latinizations.
>
> John responds:  So are you willing to repudiate forced latinization
> of eastern rite clergy in celibacy? Yes or no?

sw:  There is no "forced latinization of eastern (sic) rite (sic) clergy in celibacy."  If the Eastern Rite person/parish is within the jurisdiction of a Latin Rite bishop then, as it should be, the Eastern Rite married person who is not already clergy needs to coordinate this with his patriarchate and the local bishop with jurisdiction.  Keep in mind, even where an Eastern patriarchate has jurisdiction one who is already a priest is not permitted to marry - that being said - even the concept of married clergy is not universal throughout the Eastern Rites!  What you're selling here, my friend, is a pig in a poke.  So I can't answer your loaded question with a "yes or no" response - it's not a valid question for the reasons I have just stated.

>> sw: "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"
>
> John responds: Yes they should submit to the Patriarch,
> but the Patriarch should not force them to become
> eastern rite in their practices.

sw: We agree.

> John continues:  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.

sw: Let the reader note who is going polemic or "un-Christian" here.

> John continues: What if there is a Catholic church in
> Moscow now,

sw: There is (see above).

> John continues: and after reunification the Patriarch tells
> the priest to get married,

sw: John, you're exposing your bigotry and ignorance here.  As I have said repeatedly, even in the Eastern Rites where married clergy is permitted (and again, this is not universal amongst Eastern Rites!) once they are already a presbyter THE CANNOT MARRY!  Now perhaps somewhere, somehow a dispensation MAY be granted (I don't know if this has ever happened, but it would be within the purview of the local ordinary to adjudicate this as he sees fit), but the fact remains the policy is that once a priest you do not marry.  A person who was married prior to becoming a priest can remain married.  

> John continues:  to use leavened bread, and so forth?
> Are you happy? Probably not is my guess.

sw:  As noted above, your premise is quite faulty here - and Eastern Rite Catholics use leavened bread already (though I am aware of some "latinizations" of about 40 years ago - when Eastern parishes were trying to be more ecumenical themselves - it was not "forced" upon them - and those situations, to the best of my knowledge, do not exist anymore).  So again, you assert a lame question - which appears to be based in bigotry/ignorance.  You may think it "unChristian" of me to label this as bigotry - but I can see no other appropriate label.  You're asking loaded questions based in ignorance of actual practice and regulations.

>> sw: "They can, AND DO! (adding back in the part you snipped
>> here) practice their Eastern rites - throughout the
>> world, including the New World!"
>
> John responds: How so when the Pope tells them not to live
> in accordance with eastern canon law?

sw: John, I challenge you to document or retract where the Pope has told Eastern Catholics not to live in accordance with Eastern Canon Law.

>> sw: "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 "
>
> John answers: Like what? Why shouldn't he have all
> the rights of his own rite within his own parish?

sw:  A Latin in a Western jurisdiction would be "free" to go out into the streets and proselytize, but this would not be tolerated in an Eastern jurisdiction - and likewise is supposed to be the case of Easterners in Western jurisdictions (though the tolerance in the West seems a bit higher and overlooks such overt proselytizing).

> John continues: You say you don't agree with forced
> latinization, but then you come out with this stuff. You
> can't have it both ways.

sw:  Come on John, what "stuff" have I been putting out which is not consistent with my overall thesis here?  I have been quite consistent and have not resorted to polemical argumentation (though it may seem that way to you when I'm calling you on your polemics).  I continue to pray for the unification of the two Great Churches, somehow I feel like you don't want unification - it feels like you want everything to be Eastern, even in Western Churches, and if it isn't - then you will not accept the validity of Western theology and will fight and/or reject any such unification which is not precisely on your terms.  You don't want reunification, you want conversion of the West - at least that is the appearance you (and OrthoCath) give here.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

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<<<

Pope Working Toward Unity with EO

"The Pope Is the First Among the Patriarchs"

"With Benedict XVI, for the first time in history, the Orthodox have agreed to discuss the primacy of the bishop of Rome, according to the model of the first millennium, when the Church was undivided."

See full article here.

Please also continue to the comments section here for a discussion on ethnicity and rights of the rites in other jurisdictions.

In JMJ,
Scott