Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Traditional Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: drummerboy on December 01, 2020, 01:36:23 PM

Title: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: drummerboy on December 01, 2020, 01:36:23 PM
Playing the devil's advocate here, but couldn't one object that if the Church is supposed to be for all men in all times and places, why is the central act of our religion, the Mass, dependent on material almost exclusively from the Mediterranean world, namely wine?  That this problem occurred is clear since, for example, missionaries in New Spain started planting vineyards, and I am aware that viticulture has spread to much of the world with European expansion, so my argument is rather moot by this point in time.  However, many parts of the world, in the past, didn't even know what wine is let alone have access to it.  In the 13th century Rome had to scold Greenland settlers for using beer in the sacrament, for example.  What if Catholics were in a situation where they simply could not get wine?  Then what?
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: queen.saints on December 01, 2020, 02:18:27 PM
Jesus is the one who used wine in Jerusalem.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 01, 2020, 02:43:08 PM
I'm not sure if the discussion is just about wine, but my general answer to the title of the thread is that today the Church is not Euro-centric enough.

People need to understand that when N.O. "missionaries" (SJW's) go to Third World countries to "evangelize" provide social services instead of religion, they don't succeed in converting the target population.  When trad apostolates, however, arrive in similar locations, dressed in European style chasubles and saying a Latin Mass, they have an amazing success rate.

Universally, people hunger for the transcendent, which is one need.  But the second aspect of a Eurocentric Church is that there is an organic quality to Catholicism that is ultimately linked to its flowering beyond the Mediterranean and its ascendancy in Europe.

Multiculturalism is a failed model of Catholicism in the First and the Third World.  When I say failed I'm not speaking of sheer numbers of baptized Catholics.  There are obviously huge populations of baptized Catholics in poor countries. But what they believe and whether they practice orthodox Catholicism is something else.  I will note that there is a palpable hunger for Tradition in some parts of Latin America, the Philippines, etc. Many American trads are Filipino, for example.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Philip G. on December 01, 2020, 11:43:06 PM
Drummerboy - You will not get anywhere questioning wine per say as the problem.  But, you might get somewhere questioning why it is that only one of 79 species of grapevine is valid for the sacrament; with that one valid type of grape, vitis vinifera, being native to the Mediterranean, and central Europe.   

To address your concerns, I however would prefer to question the practice of daily mass instead.  For, if mass was only on sundays, which I think it is among the eastern orthodox, combined with the tradition in the west of only the priest communing the blood/wine, much much less wine would be consumed.  And, such a state of affairs I believe would ease your concern about wine being unavailable or scarce. 
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Daniel on December 02, 2020, 10:06:10 AM
I don't think it's too much of a problem since the plan was always to send missionaries out to convert the pagans. Missionaries are from areas that have wine. So the missionaries can just bring the wine with them (or, depending on climate and other conditions, they may also bring grape seeds with them and start new vineyards there).

Come to think of it though, wine has been problematic in places where the temperature is very cold. Like, I've heard that when St. Marys Kansas was first founded by the Jesuits, there were times in the winter when it was so cold that the wine would freeze solid during Mass. (Guess their chapel didn't have a furnace in those days.) And I can only imagine the problem would be far worse further north.


with that one valid type of grape, vitis vinifera, being native to the Mediterranean, and central Europe.

Interesting. Didn't know that.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Kent on December 02, 2020, 11:29:22 AM
What if Catholics were in a situation where they simply could not get wine?  Then what?

Then they get it?  Missionaries bring it, or they grow it in the new area, etc.  Daniel is right about wine freezing in very cold areas, like Siberia, and from that a custom was developed to add boiling water to the chalice (there is a ethno-technical-liturgical term for this practice, but I cannot recall it from the top of my head).  This practice was allowed (later revoked, if I recall, because it became abusive). 

What about the Resurrection?  What about when the gospel was preached in lands that did not have resurrection mythos?  Forget about that part because it's just too much of a culture shock?  I realize you're only playing devil's advocate.

Wine is not insignificant. It was instituted as essential matter to the sacrament by Christ Himself, who came to redeem all men.  Not just those who lived in areas with the appropriate agricultural development.  For a Catholic-- perhaps not so much a secular-- this is should not be too difficult to grasp. Only if we think about our religion as a purely sociological convention do we find wine to be negotiable.  Ditto any of the other essentials.

What you'll find is that the Church insists on conformity in all things essential.  Hence, she does not (and cannot) tolerate beer used in place of wine, or saliva used in place of water for baptism. She does not (and cannot) tolerate Arianism, unitarianism, etc. Just about everything else, though, she can and has tolerated. So, you have liturgies offered in just about every language. You have missionaries who learn the language of the people, rather than forcing the people to learn a different language. You have different cultural expressions, often ancient (or at least old), pregnant in different liturgies and traditions throughout the world. 

And that only makes sense, because the Church is a unity of faith (among other things).  At day's end there are certain things essential to that faith, and without conformity on those things, a person or community simply does not belong to the Catholic Church.  The Church wants all people to belong to her, and that is her mission at any rate. It is therefore her duty-- and one she fulfills well-- to insist on essentials, and to, in practice, provide them where they are lacking.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: drummerboy on December 02, 2020, 04:32:59 PM
Thanks for the replies so far, they make perfect sense.  Again, I was playing devil's advocate to an unusual argument that seemed a thought provoking avenue to explore, albeit a seldom one.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: TradGranny on December 25, 2020, 03:38:55 PM
Thanks for the replies so far, they make perfect sense.  Again, I was playing devil's advocate to an unusual argument that seemed a thought provoking avenue to explore, albeit a seldom one.

Seldom done? The supposed lack of "multi-culturalism" has been stuffed down our collective throats for decades. Multi-culturalism and its connected lies was what led to the satanic mobs tearing down and defacing crosses of Jesus, statues of Our Lady, St. Louis and St. Serra.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 25, 2020, 08:07:31 PM
Multiculturalism worships man and seeks to limit God.  God both encompasses all cultures and transcends them all.  Insisting that the Church mechanistically "become more multicultural" is a secular, modern concept that reveals a failure to understand what the Church teaches about God.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on December 25, 2020, 10:45:23 PM
The Church was likely multicultural from the start, e.g., portions of the Bible alluding to various cultures across thousands of years, the Bible itself taken partly from Judaism, etc. Various Catholic practices found in various countries also started during periods of colonialism, which was two to four centuries ago.

And now there's the growth of Catholicism in poorer regions, especially in Africa, as richer countries face population aging and related issues:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49564397

Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 26, 2020, 02:32:05 PM
The Church was likely multicultural from the start, e.g., portions of the Bible alluding to various cultures across thousands of years, the Bible itself taken partly from Judaism, etc. Various Catholic practices found in various countries also started during periods of colonialism, which was two to four centuries ago.

And now there's the growth of Catholicism in poorer regions, especially in Africa, as richer countries face population aging and related issues:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49564397

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: james03 on December 26, 2020, 02:43:52 PM
The Church is "Roman Centric", because Europe is the old Roman empire.  God chose Rome to start Christianity.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: FamilyRosary on December 26, 2020, 09:03:39 PM

And now there's the growth of Catholicism in poorer regions, especially in Africa, as richer countries face population aging and related issues:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49564397

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.

Boldface was added by me.

This always puzzled me, I couldn't figure out why the obviously materialistic and financially-strapped Church leaders of the 60's and 70's were willing to trade First World members who contribute billions to the Church's coffers for Third Worlders who make $120 a year. Then I saw a graph detailing the sources of the Church's income: only 11% of its operating budget comes from weekly donations by parishioners. The great majority of Church funds comes from hospitals, schools, and universities. No wonder those things are so expensive! But it also means that the Church doesn't really need us pewsitters. It doesn't really care what we want or think. It has bigger fish to fry. As long as Catholic, Inc. is a viable market brand, it can bankroll its conferences and synods and ecumenical outreaches and all other similar foolishness very well without us. We're just an appendage to the whole operation, maybe a photo-op for the news media at best.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on December 26, 2020, 10:38:34 PM

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on December 26, 2020, 10:45:01 PM

Boldface was added by me.

This always puzzled me, I couldn't figure out why the obviously materialistic and financially-strapped Church leaders of the 60's and 70's were willing to trade First World members who contribute billions to the Church's coffers for Third Worlders who make $120 a year. Then I saw a graph detailing the sources of the Church's income: only 11% of its operating budget comes from weekly donations by parishioners. The great majority of Church funds comes from hospitals, schools, and universities. No wonder those things are so expensive! But it also means that the Church doesn't really need us pewsitters. It doesn't really care what we want or think. It has bigger fish to fry. As long as Catholic, Inc. is a viable market brand, it can bankroll its conferences and synods and ecumenical outreaches and all other similar foolishness very well without us. We're just an appendage to the whole operation, maybe a photo-op for the news media at best.

I think it's part of evangelization, which means spreading God's Word to as many souls as possible.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 27, 2020, 03:50:40 AM

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread.

So am I.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on December 28, 2020, 07:45:10 PM

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread.

So am I.

I'm not talking about multiculturalism as being equivalent to evangelization but how aspects of other cultures become part of the Church as it was formed during its early period, as it grew as part of colonialism, and as more in Africa and elsewhere join it.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 28, 2020, 08:41:31 PM

Multiculturalism as a conscious movement is not equivalent to evangelization in Third World countries, even though by result, the latter does make the Church more multicultural in sum, and I agree with you that from the beginning, clearly the Church was multicultural, given all the references to that in Acts, the Epistles, historical narrative, etc.

When today's Church leaders speak of multiculturalism  they are most often referring to how the secular world conceives of it:  Making First World Catholic environments "look more" like Third World environments.  It's about numerical representation of members, as well as "inculturation" from the Third to the First World.

I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread.

So am I.

I'm not talking about multiculturalism as being equivalent to evangelization but how aspects of other cultures become part of the Church as it was formed during its early period, as it grew as part of colonialism, and as more in Africa and elsewhere join it.

Again, I understand that, and I was not denying that historical reality but acknowledging it.

My point, instead, was how the 21st century mainstream Catholic Church defines "multiculturalism" in a contemporary context, including for the Church.  It does not define it as the enculturation of the early Church.  Apparently several other posters on this thread understand my meaning.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on December 29, 2020, 11:22:13 PM

Again, I understand that, and I was not denying that historical reality but acknowledging it.

My point, instead, was how the 21st century mainstream Catholic Church defines "multiculturalism" in a contemporary context, including for the Church.  It does not define it as the enculturation of the early Church.  Apparently several other posters on this thread understand my meaning.

That's why I wrote that I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 30, 2020, 12:02:43 PM

Again, I understand that, and I was not denying that historical reality but acknowledging it.

My point, instead, was how the 21st century mainstream Catholic Church defines "multiculturalism" in a contemporary context, including for the Church.  It does not define it as the enculturation of the early Church.  Apparently several other posters on this thread understand my meaning.

That's why I wrote that I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.

Great. There’s room for all kinds of points on threads: yours, mine, others.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on December 30, 2020, 10:09:47 PM
Great. There’s room for all kinds of points on threads: yours, mine, others.

On threads. For each thread, there's usually one topic.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on December 31, 2020, 01:07:57 AM
Great. There’s room for all kinds of points on threads: yours, mine, others.

On threads. For each thread, there's usually one topic.

No, actually.  Posters are not that rigid here.  A thread can encompass many topics within it, and often does.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on January 01, 2021, 03:43:49 AM
No, actually.  Posters are not that rigid here.  A thread can encompass many topics within it, and often does.

Which is what you were doing. I was talking about the OP's argument.

To recap, the OP asks "if the Church is supposed to be for all men in all times and places," then why is the Church "Euro-centric" in insisting on the use of wine for Masses celebrated in places where it's not available?

The obvious answer is because it's available; otherwise, Catholics in these places would have to adjust, which is what they've been doing on many occasions for centuries. Which brings us to the point of Euro-centricity: is it the case that the Church is so? When we look at its early centuries and the period of colonization, we see that it is and not. That's my point.

So, your claim that you were also talking about the OP's argument is wrong. You were referring to multiculturalism as part of evangelization, and thought that I was referring to that as well. You were also wrong on that.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: james03 on January 02, 2021, 11:51:59 AM
The Church is "Euro-centric" because it came from the Roman Empire. 
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: TradGranny on January 02, 2021, 07:06:05 PM
I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.


The title of this thread is Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?


The word "Euro-centric" is a novelty created by the satanic left in the 1970 as a part of their covert attack on the Church.


In other words, when the Church followed the command of Jesus to go out into the world and spread the Gospel, that was simply unacceptable to the enemy and its followers. The enemy used the French Revolution to try to destroy the Church, used numerous Communist revolutions to try to destroy the Church, and is currently using control of language, doublethink, cancel culture and lies like the Church being too Euro-Centric in yet another attempt to destroy the Church.


We saw "Pope" Bergolio bring pagan idols into Catholic Churches in a demonically-inspired attempt to be less Euro-Centric.


Therefore your statement that this thread is not about "multiculturalism in a contemporary context" is nonsensical.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on January 02, 2021, 09:39:09 PM
I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.

The title of this thread is Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?

Your statement that this thread is not about "multiculturalism in a contemporary context" is nonsensical.


[Adding some bolding to TG's own]

Indeed, TG.  Thank you for noticing the obvious.  I bold in the OP the present tense used.  In addition, it is to be noted that during the late 20th century, members of the Franciscan Order, with the argument of present-tense multiculturalism, wanted to substitute rice and tea -- for bread and wine -- when confecting the sacrament among those of Asian descent.  Again, their argument was that the Church was not currently multicultural enough.  The opening post in this thread refers to similar local attempts in earlier eras to determine liturgical use from cultural practices.  All of that is forbidden by Catholic sacramental theology. The issue is simultaneously ancient and "new."  Many modernists and secularists in the church have sought to change her unchangeable doctrine by altering liturgical practice on the basis of multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism is a very old controversy in Catholicism, dating back to her beginning and continuing in the 21st century.

Playing the devil's advocate here, but couldn't one object that if the Church is supposed to be for all men in all times and places, why is the central act of our religion, the Mass, dependent on material almost exclusively from the Mediterranean world, namely wine?  That this problem occurred is clear since, for example, missionaries in New Spain started planting vineyards, and I am aware that viticulture has spread to much of the world with European expansion, so my argument is rather moot by this point in time.  However, many parts of the world, in the past, didn't even know what wine is let alone have access to it.  In the 13th century Rome had to scold Greenland settlers for using beer in the sacrament, for example.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on January 03, 2021, 02:34:07 AM
The Church is "Euro-centric" because it came from the Roman Empire.

I think it started with several Jews, and joined by gentiles.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on January 03, 2021, 02:39:32 AM
I'm referring to the OP's argument and the topic of this thread, which isn't about multiculturalism in a contemporary context.


The title of this thread is Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?


The word "Euro-centric" is a novelty created by the satanic left in the 1970 as a part of their covert attack on the Church.


In other words, when the Church followed the command of Jesus to go out into the world and spread the Gospel, that was simply unacceptable to the enemy and its followers. The enemy used the French Revolution to try to destroy the Church, used numerous Communist revolutions to try to destroy the Church, and is currently using control of language, doublethink, cancel culture and lies like the Church being too Euro-Centric in yet another attempt to destroy the Church.


We saw "Pope" Bergolio bring pagan idols into Catholic Churches in a demonically-inspired attempt to be less Euro-Centric.


Therefore your statement that this thread is not about "multiculturalism in a contemporary context" is nonsensical.

It refers to centering on Europe, but the Church started with Jews in what is now Israel, and even involved what Christians see as the Old Testament. In short, it wasn't even Euro-centric at the start.

And your last point is also wrong because the OP refers to missionaries in New Spain and 13th-century Rome. In short, nowhere close to "multiculturalism in a contemporary context."


Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: TradGranny on January 04, 2021, 06:45:18 PM
.

I think it started with several Jews, and joined by gentiles.

The Church was started by Catholic converts, not Jews.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on January 05, 2021, 01:43:59 AM
The Church was started by Catholic converts, not Jews.

They were Jews because they came from various Jewish tribes and read from the Hebrew Bible, but they were also Christian because they believed in Jesus' teachings.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: james03 on January 09, 2021, 12:00:25 PM
Quote
I think it started with several Jews, and joined by gentiles.

What's your point?  The Church started in the Roman Empire.  That is why it is "Euro-centric". 

But I'll turn it around.  Europe, until recently, was Catholic-centric, and later, at least Christian-centric.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on January 10, 2021, 12:46:49 AM

What's your point?  The Church started in the Roman Empire.  That is why it is "Euro-centric". 

But I'll turn it around.  Europe, until recently, was Catholic-centric, and later, at least Christian-centric.

The region in which Israel is located is not part of Europe.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Miriam_M on January 10, 2021, 02:55:28 AM

What's your point?  The Church started in the Roman Empire.  That is why it is "Euro-centric". 

But I'll turn it around.  Europe, until recently, was Catholic-centric, and later, at least Christian-centric.

The region in which Israel is located is not part of Europe.

But the full blossoming of Christendom --and its legacy, reach, and sustaining presence --was a European phenomenon. Europe is also where Catholicism enjoyed recognition by the secular world and cultural dominance.  It is where Catholicism developed its majority influence on society, maintaining its ascendancy for the longest period of time in its total existence to date.
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: Xavier on January 10, 2021, 06:26:46 AM
The Church is Universal and must always embrace all nations and all peoples everywhere. Here's a report on Nuns worldwide in different Continents within the Catholic Church. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/12/nuns-worldwide/

"As some religious institutes collapse— according to the Annuario Pontificio, the number of Sisters of Mercy of the Americas fell by nearly 9 percent between 2006 and 2008—the surge in vocations elsewhere has led other orders, largely unknown in the United States, to assume greater importance in the life of the Church.

By far the largest women’s religious institute, with 14,665 members, is the Salesian Sisters (Daughters of Mary Help of Christians), founded in 1872 by St. John Bosco and St. Maria Mazzarello. Particularly devoted to the Holy Eucharist, the Blessed Mother, and the pope, the Salesian Sisters educate and otherwise work with youth in 92 countries. Three quarters of Salesian Sisters serve in Europe, North America, and South America, with a strong presence in Italy, Brazil, Argentina, and Spain. The institute’s membership declined by 445 between 2006 and 2008. (Not counted by the Vatican’s statistical yearbook is the Daughters of Charity, which has 19,436 sisters. They take their vows yearly and thus are not classified as a religious institute.)

Numbering 9,857, the Order of Discalced Carmelites is the second largest women’s religious institute. With convents in 70 nations, the Carmelite nuns follow in the footsteps of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross by pursuing the contemplative life while offering prayers and penances for the Church’s missionary efforts. With the strongest presence in nations where religious vocations are on the wane—there are 81 houses in Spain, 73 in Italy, 65 in the United States, and 56 in Brazil—the ranks of the Discalced Carmelites declined by 245 between 2006 and 2008.

Founded in Cuba in 1855 by St. Anthony Mary Claret and the Venerable María Antonia París, the Claretian Missionary Sisters educate youth, engage in missionary and parish work, and serve in a wide variety of other apostolates. The 7,463 sisters work in two dozen nations—most in Central and South America—and gained a remarkable 541 members between 2006 and 2008.

Almost unknown in the United States, the Indian-based Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, founded by Blessed Mary of the Passion in 1877, number 7,050. Combining Eucharistic contemplation with missionary activity, they serve on six continents and are most active in Asia and Europe. Unlike other leading women’s religious institutes, the institute displays on its website numerous pictures of members without habits. The institute’s membership declined by 189 between 2006 and 2008.

The Franciscan Clarist Congregation, founded in 1888, is based in Kerala, the southwestern Indian state that has been the nation’s center of Catholicism since its evangelization by St. Thomas the Apostle. Canonized by Pope Benedict in 2008, St. Alphonsa of the Immaculate Conception (1910-46)—a Franciscan Clarist, and the nation’s first canonized saint—combined the spirituality of St. Francis with that of the Easternrite Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. The congregation, which serves the elderly, orphans, lepers, AIDS patients, and others in need, has 6,984 members—a gain of 62 between 2006 and 2008.

The Congregation of the Mother of Carmel is another Indian religious institute largely unknown in the West. Founded in 1866 by Blessed Kuriakose Elias Chavara, the congregation is the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church’s first women’s institute. These active Carmelite sisters work in 500 schools and run 18 hospitals; their membership increased by 29 between 2006 and 2008 to 6,428."
Title: Re: Is the Church too "Euro-Centric"?
Post by: ralfy on January 12, 2021, 01:09:57 AM

But the full blossoming of Christendom --and its legacy, reach, and sustaining presence --was a European phenomenon. Europe is also where Catholicism enjoyed recognition by the secular world and cultural dominance.  It is where Catholicism developed its majority influence on society, maintaining its ascendancy for the longest period of time in its total existence to date.

There is another "but" you missed: Christianity did not start with Europe but with a group of Jews following the Son of God who was born a Jewish man. Some of them may have spoken Greek as part of a lingua franca, but they spoke mainly Aramaic and knew Hebrew as a liturgical language. Their writings were in Greek but are part of a Bible that included Hebrew texts which allude to many other Middle Eastern cultures. And as they grew, one of the bases of European culture--the Roman Empire--tried to extinguish them, which in turn only made them stronger. Later, several European groups used it as a basis for colonizing various peoples, which included civilizing but in various cases also enslaving and abusing contrary to Catholic teaching. Finally, part of that civilizing involved combining Catholicism and various local practices.