www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Vatican II, Pope John Paul II and Eastern Catholics

I am debating with a gentleman on another forum, one of those people who thinks Vatican II is the worst thing that ever happened to the Church. He challenged me to point out anything useful that has come out of Vatican II.

Well, what immediately sprang into my head was this very forum. I am pretty sure that one of the more postive changes since Vatican II is the encouragement being shown towards the Eastern Catholic churches and the Eastern Orthodox as well.

But I need some specifics and thought I would just come here and ask -- did Vatican II make a real, substantial, positive difference to you as Eastern Catholics? If so, how?

I just want to be sure I get my facts straight before getting back to the argument -- thanks!!

Hello Dolly!

I think we would have to watch out here - if this fellow is a traditional Latin, the kind I've known, then he won't regard any "borrowings" from the East by Vatican II as such great news to begin with . . .

I know that our "sugar-daddy" Father Deacon Lance has said that Vatican II listened alot to the East, others, like Fr. Serge Keleher (who's now in Holy Ireland) who have written to say that this is nonsense, especially from the liturgical point of view.

It would depend on what this individual would accept as "good."

You might give him ten "good" things coming from Vatican II, and he might turn around and argue that they weren't "good" at all!

I don't know that fellow - and I don't go to any other board than this one.

And I've already been canonically penanced here, thank you very much . . .

Alex

Write me a PM.

Dear Alex,

Well, to be honest, I don't think this particular guy will change his mind either.

However, I know from other topics we've discussed that there are a lot of "lurkers" out there who are afraid to try and answer the guy themselves, but are secretly hoping someone else will!

That's me, I'm always "someone else"!

I guess what I'm after is, how do Eastern Catholics view Vatican II? I would guess it's fairly positive.

Okay, how's this? P M

Dear Theist Gal - your correspondent who dislikes Vatican II won't appreciate this - but here are two achievements worth remembering:
a) the recognition, at long last, that we are actually Churches, not some other sort of epiphenomena, and
b) the mandate to deLatinize.
Incognitus

Dear Dolly,

For Ukie Catholics, Vatican II was "some good news, some bad news."

As the revered Incognitus stated, Vatican II acknowledged that we EC's were churches and not Roman Catholics who crossed themselves and worshipped "funny."

And the decree on Eastern Catholic Churches gave the Ukies hope that Patriarch Josef Slipyj would be recognized officially by Rome as our first Patriarch.

When we looked at other, smaller Eastern Catholic Churches (take your pick ) and saw that they had their own Patriarchates, we asked ourselves: And what are we, chopped spaghetti?

So, for us Ukies, Vatican II brought up our hopes which were later dashed against the rocks like those children of Babylon mentioned in the Book of Psalms . . .

I have to lie down right now as I feel a moment of some sort of inspiration grasp my inner self ...



Alex

Dear TG,

I'm not a EC, but that never stopped me from adding 5-cents to the discussion.

I agree that this guy won't be impresed with any thing good about VII.

None the less I'll take a stab at VII's benefits.

1. The urgency of all Catholics reaching out to reconcile with all Christian Churches. Our divisions are scandalous.

2. Urging the faithful to become more active participants in the Sacred liturgy (Tridentine and Mass of Pope Paul VI).

3. Encourages Catholics to read and study Sacred Scripture.

Happy 2004,

Paul

Hi Theist Gal:
There is a book called WHAT WENT WRONG WITH VATICAN II. Despite the title, it is a mainstream and very much "in the tree"
treatment and you can buy it at many Catholic bookstores, including the Basillica (National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception). I'm sorry that I can't remember the author's name, especially since he is fairly well known. I believe it is the kind of book a traditionalist can read and learn from. You might suggest it to the fellow on the other forum.

the mandate to deLatinize.

I don't understand what you meant by this?
I am new, and surprise, surprise, Roman Catholic.

Also, could someone explain to me what is the difference between a bishop/arch-bishop and patriarch?

I was under the impression that the Eastern rite had almost no input into VII?

There's a reason why my name is

islandSEEKER

Thank-you in advance!

I haven't read the book but have seen it - Annie's recommendation - it's by Ralph McInerny and is published by Sophia Press. I happened to have seen it either at Borders, Barnes and Noble, or at both stores just looking around. It's a not-too-large paperback.
CS

Seeker,

Delatinization refers to the mandate which came from Vatican II (and renewed by HH John Paul II in more recent times) to the Eastern Churches to return to their heritage, remove latinizations from their liturgical practices, and restore the traditions of their Churches.

See:

Orientalium Ecclesiarum HH Paul VI 21 Nov 1964 [vatican.va]

and

Orientale Lumen HH John Paul II [vatican.va]

Latinization can take a couple of forms:

(1) the introduction into an Eastern Rite or Church of prayers, ceremonies, vestments, sacramentals, rubrics, disciplines, liturgical forms, practices, theological patrimony, etc. that are traditional to the Latin Rite or Church and foreign to the Eastern Rite or Church; or,

(2) the adaptation or deletion of any such liturgical forms, practices, etc., as they have historically been employed in an Eastern Rite or Church, so that what remains is more in conformance with Latin practice.

Latinization was brought about in a couple different ways also:

(1) sometimes we (Eastern Churches) did (and sometimes still do) it to ourselves, because we want to "fit in" or "be less different" or "be more attracting";

(2) more frequently, it was imposed on us, subtly or coercively, by Papal mandate, by Latin "missionaries", or by Latin "immersion". This was done for reasons which varied from: outright Latin triumphalism; "it would give scandal to do otherwise" (e.g., disallowance of married clergy in the diaspora); to rescuing us from our "heretical/schismatical" origins.

"Patriach" in the Eastern Catholic Churches refers to the highest ecclesiastical office within the episcopal order, excepting only the Pope. In its earliest usage, it denoted the chief bishop of a territory, who ruled over metropolitans, to whom in turn bishops were suffragn. It was originally applied only to hierarchs who held their Sees in direct succession to an Apostle ("the Ancient Sees").
In the words of Orientalium Ecclesiarum,

Among Eastern Catholics, the title is currently applied to the heads of the 6 Patriarchal Churches sui iuris:

His Beatitude Mar Ignace Pierre VIII (Gregoire) Abdel-Ahad, Patriarch of Antioch and All The East for the Syrian Catholics & Archbishop of Antioch of the Syrians

His Holiness Mar Emmanuel (Kareem) III Delli, Catholicos and Patriarch of Babylon and Ur of the Chaldees for the Catholic Chaldeans & Archbishop of Baghdad of the Chaldeans

His Holiness Stephanos II (Andraos) Cardinal Ghattas, C.M., Patriarch of Alexandria for the Catholic Copts & Eparch of Alexandria of the Copts

His Beatitude Gregory III (Loutfi) Laham, Patriarch of Antioch and All The East, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem, for the Byzantine Greek-Melkites & Archbishop of Antioch of the Melkites

His Beatitude Mar Nasrallah (Boutros) Cardinal Sfeir, Patriarch of Antioch and All The East for the Maronites & Archbishop of Antioch of the Maronites

His Beatitude Nerses-Bedros XIX Tarmouni, Catholicos & Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenias for All the Catholic Armenians & Archbishop of Cilicia of the Armenians

Eastern Patriarchs directly rule the faithful of their Particular Churches, who are not simultaneously subject to any other Patriarch. It is in the exercise of his papal role that the Eastern Patriarchs are subject to the Pope; as Patriarch of the West, he is - to them - primus inter pares, first among equals.

All bishops in the Western Church, regardless of what office they hold, are subject to the Pope in both his papal role and his patriarchal role. A true patriarch cannot be the subject of another patriarch. A true patriarch rules territory which is solely subject to his jurisdiction, and not subject to any other patriarch. The "patriarchates", so-called, in the Western Church, lack these critical points of distinction.

Other than the Pope as Patriarch of the West, the only other Latin Catholic Patriarchate which is of consequence, in respect to his patriarchal capacity, is that of Jerusalem and the significance is in the title more so than in its exercise. With regard to the other 4 Latin Patriarchates, the title is purely honorific or ceremonial. The titles carry with them no jurisdictional authority; those who hold them derive that authority from their archepiscopal roles.

They are: Patriarch & Archbishop of Lisbon; Patriarch & Archbishop of Venice; Patriarch ad honorem of the East Indies & Archbishop of Goa & Daman (there has been speculation that when this See is next vacated, the patriarchal title will not be granted to the successor archbishop and the patriarchate will be suppressed de facto, if not de jure); and, Patriarch ad honorem of the West Indies [sede vacante] (this patriarchate has been vacant since 1946 and it is generally considered to be de facto suppressed).

The former Latin Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria have long been suppressed and I'm not even certain if they still survive as titular titles, which they did for a time.

It is true that the Eastern Catholic Churches were not afforded an adequate role in the pre-Conciliar planning stages, but they took an active part in the Council itself. HH John Paul II, in a 1996 address, said:

Nor was the contribution of the East at the Council limited to issues of concern to the Eastern Churches. In a 2001 letter to the Synod of Bishops, His Beatitude Gregory III, the Melkite Patriarch, spoke of this:

Archbishop Maxim Hermaniuk, of blessed memory, first Canadian Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (Arch-Eparchy of Winnipeg) spoke to the assembled Council Fathers on November 6, 1963, urging the issue of collegiality, so that the Church would speak as one voice.

So, with these examples, you can see that we were a real part of Vatican II.

Welcome to the forum.

Many years,

Neil

Seeker,

In my answer above, I indicated that we had no input at the pre-conconciliar planning stage. I should clarify that. No one except curial officials did - and the negative reaction of noted hierarchs to their extraordinarily conservative drafts caused them to be scrapped by the Pope and resulted in replacement documents being formulated.

Also, I note that your posts regularly refer to "the Eastern Rite". There is not a single Eastern Rite; rather, there are 5. (You will see references to more or less, depending on an individual writer's perspective. Some will, for instance, speak of the East Syrian and West Syrian Rites, while others will deem those "Traditions" within the Antiochean Rite, as I have below. Some will fold the Maronite into the Antiochean Rite or list it as a West Syrian Rite.) The Rites (and the major traditions within each) are:

1. Alexandrean Rite
---Coptic Tradition
---Ge'ez (Abyssinian or Ethiopian) Tradition
2. Antiochene Rite
---East Syrian Tradition
---West Syrian Tradition
3. Armenian Rite
4. Byzantine Rite
---Byzantine-Greek Tradition
---Byzantine-Slav Tradition
5. Maronite Rite

Those Rites are used by 1 (Maronite and Armenian) or more Churches sui iuris, with the Byzantine Rite having the greatest distribution
(14 Churches).

Alexandrian Rite

- Coptic Tradition
***Coptic Catholic Church

- Ge'ez Tradition
***Ethiopian Catholic Church

Antiochean Rite

- East Syrian Tradition
***Chaldean Catholic Church
***Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church

- West Syrian Tradition
***Syriac Catholic Church
***Syro-Malankarese Catholic Church

Armenian Rite
***Armenian Catholic Church
(originally developed within the Byzantine Rite)

Byzantine Rite

- Byzantine-Greek Tradition
***Albanian Catholic Church
***Greek Catholic Church
***Italo-Greek/Albanian Catholic Church
***Melkite Catholic Church

- Byzantine-Slav Tradition
***Belarussian Catholic Church
***Bulgarian Catholic Church
***Croatian Catholic Church
***Georgian Catholic Church
***Hungarian Catholic Church
***Romanian Catholic Church
***Russian Catholic Church
***Ruthenian Catholic Church
***Slovakian Catholic Church
***Ukrainian Catholic Church

Maronite Rite
***Maronite Catholic Church
(originally developed within the West Syrian Tradition of the Antiochean Rite)

Many years,

Neil

TG, yes, most traditionalist Latins will categorically castigate any and all documents of Vatican II. Most haven't even read the documents they claim to hate.

When I taught in a SSPX school I actually would challenge even the clergy to defend their attacks actually based on the language of the documents, pointing out the specific heresies and errors they purported. None could do it, because while they taught the "errors" in the seminary, they had not actually studied the documents.

But the truth is even Archbishop Levefbre himself signed the Vatican II document on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium.

And as part of their Constitution, even the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which only celebrates the 1962 Mass, has agreed, in writing, to accept EVERY part of Vatican II without exception.

If you want to put your finger on something as far as what went "wrong", it is perhaps the Latin Church was not ready to accept a more Eastern and decentralized model of having the diocese as the local Church. For example, too much power was given at the local level to diocesan liturgists to dabble with the liturgy as they pleased, which happened and continues to happen.

That is not the fault of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which actually recommends Gregorian be retained. That is what individual bishops did. There were national and international liturgical norms before that which were pretty well set.

And there have been all kinds of schisms after every council of the Church, local or ecumenical. Check it out.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Neil (Irish Melkite),

MANY THANKS for your thorough response to IslandSeeker's questions! As a cradle Byzantine (Ruthenian) who grew up in the Eastern Church during the highly Latinized 50's and 60's, it was great to see so many of my own questions answered in your clear and well-organized posts. Thank you for taking the time to put together such inclusive and clear responses.

Although my worship today is primarily within the RC context, I have been experiencing, as of late, a very strong "pull" back toward the East... perhaps the Spirit is trying to tell me something.

Mnohaja i blahaja lita!

a pilgrim