|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 13, 2012 13:30:11 GMT
I remember the late Serge Keleher had a very practical argument for celebrating Christmas according to the old (Julian) calendar in Ireland. Many of his congregation depended on public transport, which doesn't work on the new calendar (Gregorian) Christmas in Ireland.
Though the Irish Times may have got the Coptic Christmas wrong in relating it to the Pharoanic Calendar (ie based on the annual Nile flood, which is every 365 days - not quite a year), the piece was good. And there are Copts - both Egyptian and Ethiopian - in communion with Rome.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 13, 2012 13:41:37 GMT
The Syro-Malabarese, who are known as Thomas Christians (though there are Thomas Christians who are not Catholic too), always seem to get a raw deal. The Jesuit missionaries in India looked down on them. The Syro-Malankarese broke away and later reconciled with the Church independently. There was also a Novus Ordo liturgy imposed on them.
The Anglo-Welsh hierarchy (who of all people should know something about the Indian sub-continent) did treat the Syro-Malabarese with contempt, as did other hierarchies. If fact the story of clash between the first Ukrainian Greek-Catholic immigrants to the US in the 19th century and the then American hierarchy is the first of many such stories - that caused a schism which saw thousands of Greek-Catholics become Russian Orthodox.
Sadly, I think it will take more than given Archbishop Alencherry the red hat to correct this.
When it comes to relations between eastern Catholics and traditional Latin Catholics, I think there is a spectrum on both sides. Mgr Serge Keleher was very favourable towards Latin traditionalism, though he did voice some reasonable misgivings - but he encountered criticism from eastern Catholics for this supportive attitude. Similarly, some Latin trads love eastern Catholicism; some hate it and dream of a future super-trad papacy who will suppress it. This is largely fuelled of a lamentable ignorance, but these people do not serve the cause of Latin traditionalism well at all.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2012 23:26:08 GMT
I agree with you about the super-trads. When clerical celibacy is discussed on RORATE CAELI and the practice of the Eastern Churches is brought up, there will usually be several posters, usually if not always SSPX, who proclaim that the Eastern practice represents an unilateral breach with apostolic tradition which was only sanctioned "because of the hardness of your hearts". This appears to imply that prescriptive use (and the Eastern practice goes back well into the first millennium) should count for nothing whatsoever in assessing validity, and it stops just short of (and sometimes explicitly states) that the Eastern custom should never have been permitted and should now be suppressed. This is the real nineteenth-century ultramontanist view that uniformity is positively desirable for its own sake. It was problematic when Rome put it forward; it is downright ridiculous to have people who are themselves suffering the effects of arbitrarily imposed liturgical changes (and the wholesale rejection and suppression of practises hallowed by long prescriptive use was IMHO the central problem with the implementation of the Pauline Reforms) declaring that their dearest wish is to exercise the same arbitrary power in imposing their will on others.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2012 23:35:19 GMT
The English hierarchy (especially those in the southern dioceses most dependent on Westminster) have a long-standing record of wanting to emphasise their echt Englishness and being embarrassed by the unEnglish popular Catholicism of immigrant groups, which they fear will contaminate them. This goes back well into the nineteenth century. Then it was the Irish who were the embarrassment; now it's the Poles and the Syro-Malabarese. The US has actually developed a parallel structure of Eastern-rite eparchies (i.e. dioceses) precisely because of the disastrous nineteenth-century results of placing Eastern-Rite Catholics under ignorant and unsympathetic Latin-rite bishops (many of them Irish, I'm sorry to say). I don't know if there is any parallel structure in Europe? (I imagine it would have been easier to establish one in the US, which was still mission territory in the nineteenth century, than in Europe which had clearly-established local hierarchies. England and Wales were mission territory at the time, but I suspect immigration by Eastern-rite Catholics was on nothing like the same scale as in North America). The Orthodox have their own episcopal structures covering Western Europe on a big scale, just as the Anglicans do (e.g. the Anglican Bishop of Gibraltar was at one time responsible for much of Southern Europe) and I'd always assumed the Eastern Rite Churches had some similar arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 16, 2012 11:54:11 GMT
I agree with you about the super-trads. When clerical celibacy is discussed on RORATE CAELI and the practice of the Eastern Churches is brought up, there will usually be several posters, usually if not always SSPX, who proclaim that the Eastern practice represents an unilateral breach with apostolic tradition which was only sanctioned "because of the hardness of your hearts". This appears to imply that prescriptive use (and the Eastern practice goes back well into the first millennium) should count for nothing whatsoever in assessing validity, and it stops just short of (and sometimes explicitly states) that the Eastern custom should never have been permitted and should now be suppressed. This is the real nineteenth-century ultramontanist view that uniformity is positively desirable for its own sake. It was problematic when Rome put it forward; it is downright ridiculous to have people who are themselves suffering the effects of arbitrarily imposed liturgical changes declaring that their dearest wish is to exercise the same arbitrary power in imposing their will on others. This is a bit about the supertrads I don't fathom. The experience of c.1965-1980 was of ultramontanism gone wrong. We have suffered. Can we not see that using the same mechanism is not acceptable? But there is a measure of self-exemption here. If Rome does the job, loopy trads can maintain their own opinions with no obligation to live an exemplary Christian life which might evangelise some of the benighted out there.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 16, 2012 12:20:58 GMT
Yes, I am aware of the English hierarchy's habits. A culture of RC Public School (Downside, Ampleforth and probably Stoneyhurst), Oxbridge and English College in Rome would be very Anglo, with the odd convert thrown into the mix here and there.
They have been pretty beastly to their embarrasing immigrants, if I borrow a public schoolism.
And you are absolutely correct about the largely Irish hierarchy in C19th USA.
Now, with Eastern Catholicism in the western church, it depends on which eastern church and where. The Ukrainians are generally well established with a parallel hierarchy in the US and Canada, a bishop in Britain who is also Apostolic Vistor for Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Ireland (he held the Irish role before receiving the British appointment). There would be Maronite and Melkite hierarchies in places of strong Lebanese and Syrian immigration (in the US and France, for example). But smaller groups suffer. The Ukrainians and the Syro-Malabarese both have some representation in Ireland, and Russian and Romanian Greek-Catholics identify with the Ukrainian Church, as would Syro-Malankarese with the Syro-Malabarese. Other than that, the Coptic Catholics, Armenian Catholics, Chaldaeans, Maronites and Melkites are pretty much on thier own here. Outside areas like the US, this pattern is universal.
Latin bishops are delegated responsibility for eastern Catholics in their dioceses when there is no organised church - but what, if anything, they do about it can be a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 16, 2012 19:22:32 GMT
RORATE CAELI reports pressure (partly driven by Neocats and Focolare within the Eastern churches) to subject their rites to the sort of "liturgical reform" the Latin Rite has experienced. This doesn't sound good: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/03/are-traditional-eastern-liturgies.htmlEXTRACT Are the traditional Eastern liturgies an obstacle to the "New Evangelization"? Earlier this week, Zenit published an interview with a young Italian priest trained by the Neocatechumenal Way and now incardinated in the Coptic Catholic Church in Egypt. (A PRIEST IN EGYPT - Father Orazio Patrone Gives an Outsider's View of Christian Life.) Reproduced below are his comments regarding the Coptic liturgy and penitential tradition, comments that echo many of the perjorative statements routinely made by liturgical progressivists against the Traditional Roman liturgy, and significant in the light of the Neocatechumenal Way's growing influence and involvement in the Eastern Catholic Churches. In connection with this, our readers might remember that the Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church in Egypt, Antonios Cardinal Naguib, was the relator for the 2010 Synod of Bishops on the Middle East, which called for a major reform of the Eastern liturgies (see this as well). Emphases mine. ZENIT: How are intense times, such as Lent and Easter, lived? Father Patrone: The season of Lent is lived very intensely, with strict fasting, lived devotionally more than as an occasion of preparation for Easter. Perhaps this is dictated also by the strong influence of the Muslim month of Ramadan. As well, the sacrificial aspect of Good Friday is stressed more than the fundamental importance of the Easter Resurrection. In fact, the funeral of the Lord is celebrated with a very long liturgy as was the custom of the pre-conciliar Latin Churches. Its importance is seen in the fact that participation in worship on Good Friday is almost double that of what it is on Easter Sunday. ZENIT: What do you intend to do for the Year of Faith and the New Evangelization? Father Patrone: The Church in Egypt is very tied to her traditions, especially those in the liturgy, and has difficulty in entering the dynamism of the New Evangelization desired by Vatican II. On the other hand, there are attempts and openings especially by the Catholic side, which is attentive to and relatively involved in what happens in the West. This is demonstrated, among other things, by the opening, though slow, to charisms that emerged after the Council. In parishes there are now groups such as the Focolares and the Neo-Catechumenal Way, and other movements born in Egypt with the intention of a renewal in the sense of a New Evangelization. There is scarcely any clear reference here (and in the rest of the article) to the fact that the Coptic Christian people have given a magnificent witness of suffering and martyrdom at the hands of Muslims for nearly 1,400 years, a feat that could scarcely have been possible without that people's demanding liturgical tradition and its long fasts. (One reference each to "sporadic" persecution and to "social" discrimination, and a couple of references to "fundamentalism", simply don't cut it.) Egypt is also home to Byzantine and Armenian-Rite communities. END As usual with RORATE, the comments are a mix. One of the posters starts reacting against playing down the Cross in favour of the Resurrection in modern liturgy by saying that Good Friday is more important than Easter Sunday, which is a most extraordinary view. Others suggest that if the Eastern Rites start wreckovating their liturgies on the Latin model, this will show that the Orthodox were right all along. One point that occurs to me - how can it be consistent for the authorities of Eastern Churches to suppress long-established latinisms in the name of recovering ancient tradition, even where individual priests and congregations wish to retain them, and at the same time to allow advocacy (and even implementation, perhaps0 of this sort of liturgical theory, which would be extremely damaging to Eastern traditions? ADDENDUM - To be fair to the Neocats, I suspect their increasing influence on the Eastern Churches, of which the RORATE poster complains, is due to a considerable extent to their willingness to live in poverty - just as the French missionary tradition of the C19 was driven by the willingness of priests from French and Belgian peasant backgrounds to accept hardship in mission conditions because they were sued to hardship when they were growing up. IT must take considerable dedication to go and live among Middle Eastern Christians, and however dodgy the Neocats may be in some respects, they are certainly dedicated to their vision of how to live the Church.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 17, 2012 17:34:35 GMT
Your prayers are requested for the repose of the soul of Pope Shenouda III, Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, who has just died, for his flock, and for all Egyptian Christians at this difficult time. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17416429
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 18, 2012 22:22:57 GMT
A little question occurs to me. Are Latin Rite Catholics allowed to receive the Sacraments at Eastern Rite liturgies in communion with Rome, or do they formally have to change rites in order to do so? (I exclude of course the case of necessity.) This nearly arose for me when I was visiting London some years ago - I had missed Sunday morning Mass through unforeseen circumstances and one possible option among evening Masses would have been an Ethiopian-rite Mass (in communion with Rome - it was listed on the Westminster archdiocesan website). I eventually opted for an OF Mass as I was not sure how long the Ethiopian liturgy might last (or what confusion might arise from its being conducted entirely in Ge'ez, of which I am entirely ignorant) but it never occurred to me at the time that if I had gone there would have been any difficulty about receiving Communion. Can anyone let me know what the regulations are, in case I ever again find myself in a similar situation?
|
|
|
Post by norwegianblue on Mar 18, 2012 23:19:21 GMT
A little question occurs to me. Are Latin Rite Catholics allowed to receive the Sacraments at Eastern Rite liturgies in communion with Rome, or do they formally have to change rites in order to do so? (I exclude of course the case of necessity.) The information I have received is that one may receive Holy Communion in any Catholic rite. Canon Law states: 'Can. 923 The Christian faithful can participate in the eucharistic sacrifice and receive holy communion in any Catholic rite, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 844.' Of course, I may have misunderstood something along the line and been given the wrong information. I certainly hope not, though. I have received Holy Communion and fulfilled my Sunday obligation twice in a Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy. One may not receive all the sacraments in a different rite, though, and I cannot off the top of my head remember which one may receive.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 19, 2012 11:48:24 GMT
Thanks for this - it's very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 20, 2012 10:27:14 GMT
Any Catholic may attend any Catholic liturgy in any Catholic rite, assuming licitidy and validity and receive communion there under the usual circumstances. The same is true of confession and anointing of the sick, subject to the usual conditions. I will deal with the other four in turn.
Baptism doesn’t arise and the rite of your baptism and confirmation determines your rite. In the eastern rites I am familiar with, baptism and confirmation take place in the same ceremony (with first communion). I don’t know if there is a provision for confirming converts who are already baptised (in the orthodox churches, they usually re-baptise them).
In regard to holy orders, for diocesan clergy one is incardinated in a diocese, which is either eastern or western, so no discussion arises. Any Catholic priest may concelebrate any Catholic liturgy (though no Latin rite priest is obliged to), but to celebrate a liturgy other than one’s own rite, one would have to have bi-ritual faculties. This is not a difficult matter, but obviously one would have to demonstrate the capacity to celebrate in another liturgy. In some orders, such as the Jesuits and Redemptorists, a considerable number of members are of the eastern rites, but it is very clear which rite a candidate is destined for long before ordination. I remember knowing an Augustinian student of the Polish province who had permission from his provincial to be trained specifically from the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic rite. This would have set a precedent within the Augustinian order, but the anecdote shows that a provincial as an ordinary has discretion in this matter.
In regard to marriages between Catholics of different rites, there are complications (which are surmountable). At one stage, the couple were presumed to have the husband’s rite. At present, the couple may decide for themselves what rite they want to be – it is just a matter of the party who agrees to change rites writing to their bishop and notifying him of their intention, while notifying the relevant ordinary of the rite they are switching to of this. Normally the two bishops will correspond in the matter. Then the wedding may take place in whatever rite without ambiguity. I should say that if an Irish person adopts the Ukrainian rite to marry a Ukrainian and then the couple move to Donegal where they are not in a position to attend the Greek-catholic liturgy on a regular basis, they may attend the local Latin rite Mass in whatever language or form it is available in without compromise to their status as eastern rite Catholics. If they have children too, one would presume they would arrange to have them baptised and confirmed as Greek-catholics, but there would be no impediment against them baptised as Latin rite Catholics.
There is another unusual case, which has arisen from time to time. This is where a Latin rite woman becomes engaged to an eastern Catholic candidate for holy orders. In this case, it is highly advisable that she adopt the rite of her fiancé and immerse herself in its traditions as she could unwittingly undermine her husband’s position as a priest or deacon if she were not careful.
Finally, Catholics may fulfil their Sunday obligations by attending Orthodox or Old Catholic Masses (assuming the Old Catholic priest is male) or in Anglican or Lutheran churches if it is known that the minister is validly ordained. I doubt any Orthodox priest would knowingly give a Catholic communion in anything other than emergency circumstances (and even then I am not sure). Old Catholics would not be so cautious. I should say that if one was habitually passing one or more Catholic churches to attend such services, it would undermine any argument re fulfilling one’s by so attending. I attended a Russian Orthodox liturgy one Sunday in Russia as I had no opportunity to locate a Catholic church. I have a friend who lived in Vienna and on one occasion had to a work-related conference over a week-end in rural Austria which ended on a Sunday afternoon and the public transport would not allow him back to Vienna for Sunday evening Mass. In the circumstances, the only Mass he could attend was in the Old Catholic Church. It might also be possible to argue that we were not obliged to attend in these circumstances – but both of us were happier to attend in the different circumstances than to go to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 20, 2012 20:53:30 GMT
Thanks for this, Alasdir. I just wanted to be sure on this point in case it ever arises. If I attended an eastern liturgy I would also be a bit worried about unintentionally causing offence by contravening their usual practices (e.g. kneeling for Communion is specifically Latin-rite) but I suppose this can be met by carefully observing what everyone else is doing.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 20, 2012 21:14:49 GMT
That's normally no problem - priests expect that and often talk strangers through what they are expected to do.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 15, 2012 22:33:27 GMT
Here is a link to a recent article from the London SPECTATOR about the current plight of Christians in the Arab lands. The article has a certain amount of pro-Israeli special pleading, but that doesn't mean its account of the plight of Christians elsewhere is untrue: www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7764388/out-of-the-east.thtml
|
|