www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Open Letter to ByzCath

Neil, a brilliant response and I daresay one of the best posts ever written on Byzcath. There is definitely another trend going on, that of the traditionalist Latins attempting to find their own identity, theological footing, however one may want to put it, in the post-conciliar Church. As Cardinal Newman rightly pointed out, the understanding of doctrine is most certainly not static, as the revelation of the Holy Spirit is most certainly not static.

Rome herself when convening the Council was in the process of moving in an epochal way away from the Latin Church of the post-Medieval era. That has not been well received in most quarters of the traditionalist Latin movement. Having spent nearly a decade with the pre-schism SSPX and having known Archbishop Lefebvre as well as two of the current bishops well before their consecration, I do have a certain amount of observational experience in this regard.

Some of the criticisms noted as "anti-Latin" have sometimes arisen precisely from discussions based on Magisterial teaching and direction during and since the Council (and even before that in the post-Orientalium Dignitas era). I am not so sure that the allegations of being "anti-Latin" are not sometimes partially derived from our positive and sometimes zealous response to Rome's direction since the Council to attain a greater sui iuris identity actually from her own lead (recent citations of Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint come to mind).

I would posit that sometimes it even appears that some of the Latin posters indicate a preference for some to become Orthodox rather than keep stronger Eastern Catholic "vostochnik" or pro-Eastern sentiments, so as "not to get in the way" of their own romantic Tridentine Restoration which is in opposition to much of the post-Conciliar leadership and teaching.

In short, I am not sure that at least some of these complaints are precisely because we are embracing some of the post-Conciliar direction from Rome that they are themselves inherently opposed to. In a positive sense, I think these complaints in a way indicate we are doing something as Eastern Catholics, in that we are far more than just a hybrid "Eastern Mass" but actually speaking and acting beyond that.

to elaborate slightly on my previous comment: Vatican II states that an Eastern Catholic Church has, or should have, her own distinct Liturgy, discipline, spirituality, and theology.

Fr. Serge

The only time I have a problem with the Latin Church is when its members try to force its customs and theology upon the Eastern Churches.

That said, I did not know that one of the main areas of focus of this forum was Latin liturgy and theology. After all, the forum is called the "Byzantine Forum."

Finally, I must admit that I find solace in coming here, because I tend to find people at this forum who have had the same experiences that I have had in dealing with the larger "catholic" world. I would hate to see this forum become another Catholic Answers "Eastern Catholicism" forum.

As a relatively new poster to the forum I must say how nice it is to be able to speak openly about our Eastern Catholic faith. I have no problem what so ever with the Latin Church, I attend the NO mass weekly and I like it, I feel spiritually connected to Our Lord when I'm there worshiping. I may not like some aspects of the NO but I respect the Mass and am happy the Lord allows me to receive communion from both Lungs of His Holy Catholic Church.

I am tired of being told that I am not fully a Catholic- which happens more than I am proud to admit. Just because I don't pray the Rosary doesn't mean I am less a Catholic. I work at a Catholic University and was asked once if I was a Catholic. I said yes I was a Greek Catholic. They asked me if we had a pope or something like that in our Church. I said yes, the same Pope as you- Benedict XVI. I was able to share with them that there are Eastern Catholic Churches in full Communion with Rome but this is not the only time that something like this has happened. I have even seen Facebook groups that are anti-Eastern Catholics and they slander us all the time.

I believe that extremist in both camps should definitely be condemned with a spirit of love because they hurt the Body of Christ. Being a Traditionalist doesn't make one an Extremist. I consider my self a Traditionalist but I am by no means an extremist.

All that being said I haven't noticed anything anti-Latin on the forum and if there is something that could have been taken as such I ask forgiveness.

As Patriarch Josyp said on several occasions, we carry two Crosses as Greek Catholics; the first because of our ecclesiastical separation with our Orthodox brethren, and the second from our being misunderstood by the Latin Catholic majority we live amongst. For me carrying both has not always been easy, but most definitely a great source of blessing. May we all who carry both be rewarded abundantly by the grace of the Life-Giving Trinity.

Looking at the possible benefits of such a thread as this, it may be instructive to get at the source of why there are negative feelings and mishagoss (to use a great Yiddish term) felt by traditionalist-leaning Latins who appear to be the entirety of those complaining about us. I hope and pray we are seen as Greek Catholics because we have distinct theological, spiritual, and liturgical identities, and not because we provide back-alley chapels of convenience for those disgruntled with the Novus Ordo.

I like the response, "Our pope is Pope Benedict XVI, what's the name of your pope?" It may be a little extreme, but it gets the point across.

A whole host of things is being confused (I think that's actually correct grammar, since I'm talking about one "host"). A lot of what I have seen as uncharitable anti-Latin sentiment has not arisen out of threads where Latins seek to "denigrate" Eastern Catholicism, or have even spoken about it at all. In many instances over the last few months, I have noticed what, at least to me, seems to be underhanded and/or disrespectful comments about the Latin Church and its rich tradition that've come totally "out of the blue."

Todd said that he wasn't aware that this Forum was devoted to the Latin Church and its issues, theology, and liturgical tradition. I don't think anyone is, or has ever, advocated that. But when the topic is relevantly brought up in a thread in which discussion of the Latin Church could add to the conversation...well, what is wrong with that?

I don't see a bunch of threads entitled "Devotions to the Sacred Heart, "How to Pray a Novena to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, "The Fatima Apparitions," etc. If ever I have posted something dealing specifically with the Latin Church, I usually post it in the Town Hall, where things not dealing with the East can be discussed, or occasionally in Church News, if I think the topic is newsworthy for more than just the Roman Catholic Church.

Alexis

NELSON:

Christ is in our midst!!

I am a Latin Catholic, currently, who did not pray the rosary for a good number of years from 1968 to 1991. But the reason I didn't was that I was in the congregation in my parish when a visiting Jesuit priest preached AGAINST that practice as being "outdated" and something we should get away from. The year was 1968. I should add that a big group of people surrounded him outside the church after Mass and I thought they wre going to do him harm--he has made it his practice since to refrain from greeting people after Mass when he's in town. His thesis was that we needed to get away form anything that was "rote" and move on to our own spontaneous prayer exclusively. (He may have been the one who told our younger priests that the Liturgy of the Hours (Breviary) would soon be "out," too, but I can't prove it. They started to tell me that, too, after this same visit.)

And lest anyone think I misheard, I was trained as an altar server to have the sermon down after Mass. That's the only way we avoided having to stay for the next one: give a synopsis of what we'd heard, including relevant quotes, to prove we were paying attention.

In Christ,

BOB

Perhaps a clearer definition of what is meant by "anti-Latin" is necessary.

Is it anti-Latin if I – as an Eastern Catholic – believe that there have only been seven ecumenical councils?

Does my rejection of the ecumenicity of the fourteen particular synods of the Roman Church, which were held mainly during the course of the second millennium, make me anti-Latin?

Does my rejection of papal infallibility and papal universal jurisdiction make me anti-Latin?

What exactly is meant by the term "anti-Latin"?

I ask these questions because at many Catholic fora the vague notion that some Eastern Christians are being "anti-Latin" is used to stifle theological discussions and enforce a rigid Latin doctrinal viewpoint to the exclusion of Eastern Christian theology and praxis.

Well Put. Thank you sir !!!

Converted Viking

I'd be careful about rejecting things. Much better to offer a more specific theology that puts them in a better perspective.

Pope Paul VI ranked the councils after the Seven Ecumenical Council as "General Councils in the West". Not ecumenical in the same way as were the Seven. Valid, but many / most not affecting the life of the Church in the East.

You can't reject papal infallibility and papal universal jurisdiction outright. They both existed in the first millennium when the Church was undivided. Much better to accept them as they were then, and call for a re-look at them for a united Church (as did Pope John Paul the Great).

I agree with John. As Catholics we can rethink, but not reject what happened in the Church during the 2nd millennium.

Those councils and their theology are applicable only to Latin Catholics.

We will have to agree to disagree about papal infallibility and papal universal jurisdiction.

I do not accept the idea that papal primacy is a divinely revealed truth; instead, I accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome because the seven ecumenical councils gave that episcopal see a position of priority within the Church.

Infallibility seems to be a very late development in the Latin Church. Its first manifestations come in the 13th century during the Franciscan spiritualist controversies--having received papal approval, some Franciscans wanted to bind future popes to those decisions by having papal decrees defined as infallible declarations of faith. Not surprisingly, it was strenuously rejected by all popes down to Pius IX because none of them wanted to be bound to their predecessors decrees.

The infallliblist movement in the Latin Church cannot be separated from the rise of secular nation states in the mid-19th century, and especially to the Italian unification movement that resulted in the absorption of the Papal States. Shorn of his secular powers, and with the Church being stripped of its feudal rights all across Europe, Pius IX saw infallibility as a way of insulating the Church from pressure from secular governments.

As originally proposed at Vatican I, it would have been much more maximalist than the formula finally adopted in Pastor Aeternus, and subsequent clarifications, such as those issued to the German bishops in 1875 (in response to Bismarck's instructions to the German government to bypass diocesan bishops and go directly to the Pope on all Church issues) have watered down even that which was posited by Vatican I. Today, even the Popes themselves seem to take a minimalist view of their own infallibility. Ironically, both the Latin traditionalists and the Orthodox hold a more ultramontane view than the Holy See itself.

Given the ecclesiology of Vatican II, it is hard to see any probable scenario in which the charism of infallibility could be exercised. As I have said elsewhere, without moral unanimity, no ex Cathedra decree can be issued, and where such unanimity exists, there is no need for such a decree.

The issue of jurisdiction is more intractable, because Pastor aeternus describes the Pope's jurisdiction as "universal, immediate and ordinary"--meaning he can intervene unilaterally, at any time, in the affairs of any Church, for what ever reason he deems fit. This, too, is an innovation, a total break with the patristic understanding of Papal primacy. Vatican I describes the Pope as having plena potestas. The term potestas in Latin means power, in the sense of the legal ability to compel, closely aligned with the concept of imperium. But in the patristic era, we don't see that term used in regard to primacy. Instead, we see primacy based on auctoritas, which means moral standing decoupled from legal power. In the honor-based culture of late antiquity, magistrates had potestas, but their potestas could be overridden by even a private citizen, if that citizen possessed superior auctoritas. We see this in the early Church as well, where bishops possess potestas within their dioceses, but relations between bishops--and especially among the bishops of the Great Churches--are governed instead by their auctoritas. All bishops are equal, but some are more equal than others. One bishop cannot issue orders to another bishop, but because of primacy rooted in auctoritas, some bishops defer to other bishops.

Canon of the Holy Apostles No.34 puts it well: Let all the bishops recognize he who is first among them, and do nothing extraordinary without his permission; but let he who is first do nothing unusual without the advice and consent of all, so that unanimity in the Holy Spirit may be affirmed to the greater glory of the Trinity.

This is the way out of the dilemma.

I like to think of Papal Infallibility from this angel. The Church is infallible. The Pope as the Universal Hierarch, as we call him in the Divine Liturgy, after consulting with the Patriarchs, Cardinals and other Chief Bishops proclaims the teaching from the chair of Saint Peter. I believe that the Pope when he has spoken infallibly did consult with the Cardinals. So really for me the Pope can make an infallible statement representing the whole Catholic Church after consulting with his brother Patriarchs. I don't know if that is a "correct" theological position but it allows for me to understand papal infallibility in light of the Church being infallible and the Pope being the spokes man of the Church.
I think that Eastern and Western Catholics as well as the Orthodox will have to come to an understanding on Roman Primacy, which is clear from the earliest days of the Church- all thought it is understood differently today in the Western Church. If John Paul the Great is open to dialogue about it then I think so should we (and his life was instrumental in my coming into communion with the Catholic Church)