www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Latinization as a way to keep EC's with Rome

I once asked a friend, knowledgeable in these matters to account for the obvious contrast between Rome's public statements about liturgical authenticity for the Eastern Catholics and what goes on in practice.

His answer was "Pope say one thing. Large, overbearing monsignor who talk to me say something else." A great truth.

I have no idea at all why you feel the need to attack Leo XIII. In any case, his influence in these matters remained strong (Orientale Lumen, for example, marks the centenary of Leo XIII's Orientalium Ecclesiarum). This exemplifies the reality that historical movements are often zig-zag rather than neat and clean. Progress is often made in fits and starts. Alexander II of Russia, the great "Tsar-Liberator", freed the serfs. He also viciously persecuted the Old-Ritualists and the Greek-Catholics. People are like that.

Incognitus

I think that this sentiment has been expessed many times on this forum. It is a totally different matter to suggest that Rome itself was the architect of Latinization. And that is what I am intersted in learning about.

What in heaven's name are you talking about.

I have said nothing against Leo XIII at all, let alone made an attack. I am happy to say that Leo he took a strong and laudable stand, that he planted a seed that ultimately bore great fruit. But that there was zig-zagging.

One must admit that it was not a straight path after Leo XIII, that Ea Semper was a large setback. And similarly there were countercurrents also before Leo XIII as well. The idea that before Leo XIII Rome could be simply characterized as pressuring us toward Latinization and, that after Leo XIII it was pressuring against it is, IMO overly simplified: it glosses over the zig-zagging, and reduces the variety of pressures we faced to Rome itself. Worst, it reduces us to mere pawns in our own history.