My view on Anglos as "Eastern" Christians

[Instaurare omnia]

This is part of where I was going with the conflation of private revelation and binding doctrine.  If one is deficient without the rosary, then that means the Gospel is insufficient. I find it somewhat incredulous to suggest that the most powerful weapon against Satan is something Christ would not have told us about.

When you say heaven, the saints and the Church have repeatedly stated as much, you're referring to private revelation and individual opinions only.  That's all there is to get this idea from.  Historically, the rosary came from a simplification of praying the psalter in the hours.  If the rosary is a substitution for these, then these prayers of necessity must be a more powerful weapon.  And that's not to say that the rosary isn't a powerful weapon.  But how can it exceed that which it came from?  How can the spiritual practice of the Desert Fathers be less than what it produced?

The private revelation that gave us the Rosary happened over 800 years ago to Saint Dominic, the founder of the Order of Preachers. And the Rosary is indeed based mainly on the Gospel. Below is pasted from what I wrote this morning on another thread on this same topic. As to the Psalter, the Rosary is less a "substitution" than it is a devotion that affords it blessings to those who do not own a psalter book or who may lack sufficient literacy to be able to use a psalter as it was intended to be prayed. (This includes children too.) And then there's the obvious: in times of personal crisis, war, natural disaster, etc., the Rosary in can be prayed by anyone, anywhere much more readily than a psalter. The warrior saints who fought the Cathars, the Turks, etc. are examples of this.

What is the Rosary, at its foundation?

   
• The Our Father -- given to us by Christ Himself.

   
• The Hail Mary -- Luke 1:28-43 + one simple sentence requesting Our Lady's intercession.

   
• The Glory Be -- said repeatedly throughout the Mass and the Divine Office.

   
• Joyous Mysteries -- Luke 1:28, 41-42, 2:7, 2:22, 2:46-47.

   
• Sorrowful Mysteries -- Matthew 26:41, 27:24, 26, 27:28-29, John 19:17, 25.

   
• Glorious Mysteries -- Mark 16:5-6, 19, Acts 2:3, Songs 2:10-11, Revelations 12:1.

   
• Salve Regina -- a set of Antiphons found in the Compline prayers.

   
• Enough proof that the Rosary is mostly a recalling of the GOSPEL.

[Julio]

Lord Jesus upon ascending to Heaven told us to celebrate in the Holy Mass the sacrifice that He installed in the Holy Eucharist because His presence is real. He never abandoned us. He left the seat of St. Peter to be succeeded through the ways of the Apostolic Fathers and schisms happened. The division and diabolic has been real. He does not want to abandon us so He sent His mother to guide the faithful hence the Holy Rosary. Yes, you are right, Goldfinch. I am with you on your argument about the importance of the Holy Rosary against the devil. We won in Lepanto against the devil, we won against the devil in the Battle of La Naval de Manilla and so many other miracles of God happened where the faithful Catholics asked for the intercession of the Mother of God so that Jesus shall listen to us through the devotion and prayer of the Holy Rosary. God bless all.

[Goldfinch]

When it comes to the Holy Rosary, you are certainly deficient without it.

Heaven, the saints and the Church have repeatedly stated as much. There are no "Easterners" or "Latins" when it comes to the most powerful weapon against Satan that the laity possess.

This is part of where I was going with the conflation of private revelation and binding doctrine.  If one is deficient without the rosary, then that means the Gospel is insufficient.  I find it somewhat incredulous to suggest that the most powerful weapon against Satan is something Christ would not have told us about.

When you say heaven, the saints and the Church have repeatedly stated as much, you're referring to private revelation and individual opinions only.  That's all there is to get this idea from.  Historically, the rosary came from a simplification of praying the psalter in the hours.  If the rosary is a substitution for these, then these prayers of necessity must be a more powerful weapon.  And that's not to say that the rosary isn't a powerful weapon.  But how can it exceed that which it came from?  How can the spiritual practice of the Desert Fathers be less than what it produced?

This is a frequent problem with Eastern Catholics or, more precisely, with the "Orthodox under Rome" that have proliferated ever since the Council.

First of all, there's no unadulterated Eastern spiritual life. The spiritual life of the Church is not static, divided along long gone Roman imperial lines (East vs. West) or impervious to development and enrichment. The same can be said of any rite: no rite is pure, it developped over centuries from several different sources. While it is unlikely that the Church will become mono-ritual in the future, the mutual enrichment of rites is normal, desirable and inevitable. The Eastern Orthodox are forced to be stuck in the 11th century, the Church of Christ is not.

It is only a fraction of those who worship in some Eastern rites of the Church who identify firstly as Eastern and secondly as Catholics. This is a problem. Catholics are Catholics, regardless of rite. If you ask a faithful from French, American, Indian or Japanese extraction about their religious identity and faith, they'll never think of it as Latin. They'll identify as Catholic. So should any faithful from the Ukraine, Romania, Armenia or Syria. Being "Eastern" should not be synonymous to belonging to a special caste that can ignore or belittle the spiritual enrichment of the last one thousand years as "Latinizations" under the pretense of an unadulterated spiritual life. This is nonsense, false and belies a deeply ingrained schismatic mentality.

Powerful and universally accepted devotions like the Holy Rosary are for the whole Church. Our Lady has said it time and again. Faithful Eastern Catholics pray it, precisely because they understand the mind of the Church and the true spirit of Catholicism. The obnoxious "Orthodox under Rome" don't. They're not true Catholics.

[Melkite]

First of all, there's no unadulterated Eastern spiritual life. The spiritual life of the Church is not static, divided along long gone Roman imperial lines (East vs. West) or impervious to development and enrichment. The same can be said of any rite: no rite is pure, it developped over centuries from several different sources. While it is unlikely that the Church will become mono-ritual in the future, the mutual enrichment of rites is normal, desirable and inevitable. The Eastern Orthodox are forced to be stuck in the 11th century, the Church of Christ is not.

I see your point here.  I don't think you're wrong in principle.  Out of curiosity, though, in what ways do you see the Roman rite as having been enriched by the East since the 11th century?  The examples I hear frequently are changes since Vatican II that trads decry as damage, if not destruction, to their rite.  I'm sure you do not consider those to be true enrichments.

It is only a fraction of those who worship in some Eastern rites of the Church who identify firstly as Eastern and secondly as Catholics. This is a problem. Catholics are Catholics, regardless of rite. If you ask a faithful from French, American, Indian or Japanese extraction about their religious identity and faith, they'll never think of it as Latin. They'll identify as Catholic. So should any faithful from the Ukraine, Romania, Armenia or Syria. Being "Eastern" should not be synonymous to belonging to a special caste that can ignore or belittle the spiritual enrichment of the last one thousand years as "Latinizations" under the pretense of an unadulterated spiritual life. This is nonsense, false and belies a deeply ingrained schismatic mentality.

I agree that we're Catholic first, Eastern second.  If you ask a faithful from some predominantly Latin extraction, though, they don't think of themselves as Latin, because Latin is all there is to them.  Their entire understanding of Catholicism is from a Latin context, so adding that as a descriptor would be redundant.  They're not identifying as Catholic because they've consciously weighed the difference between Catholic and Latin and chosen Latin to be their secondary identity.  For the most part, Latin and Catholic are synonymous to them.  When we only make up a fraction of a percent of the Catholic Church, we have to hold onto our uniqueness in order to prevent it from being simply forgotten and lost by the overwhelming weight of the Latin church compared to ours.  Even more so when in the past it was done by compulsion.  I understand why some Easterners take it too far, even if I agree and accept that taking it that far is not the right course to take. 

When you say latinizations here, are you speaking generally or specifically about the rosary?  If generally, I don't accept that latinizations are automatically enriching.  If the Eastern churches that came into union with Rome were brought in under the pretenses that they could keep their rites, then that implies the Church accepted one could be Catholic without latinizations.  Either that's true, and Eastern Catholics can reject latinization without the accusation of harboring a schismatic mentality.  Or it's not, and the Church was lying when it said Eastern converts could keep their rites. 

Powerful and universally accepted devotions like the Holy Rosary are for the whole Church. Our Lady has said it time and again. Faithful Eastern Catholics pray it, precisely because they understand the mind of the Church and the true spirit of Catholicism. The obnoxious "Orthodox under Rome" don't. They're not true Catholics.

I don't have any problem with Eastern Catholics choosing to pray the rosary.  If it's a meaningful form of prayer to them, more power to them.  But, again, doctrinally, Our Lady has said nothing about it.  You must rely entirely on private revelation to hold the position you do, and you cannot bind the faithful with that.  I reject the idea that the rosary is the "true spirit of Catholicism."  It's obvious that you hold it, since you're comfortable anathematizing anyone who disagrees.  I'm surprised, though, that more people on this forum aren't offended when you reduce the entire mind of the Church and the spirit of Catholicism to a singular devotion (even if it's one that is important to them and, objectively, holds a high place in the life of the Church), and to declare anyone who doesn't comply as not true Catholics.  That's pretty audacious.

[Goldfinch]

I see your point here.  I don't think you're wrong in principle.  Out of curiosity, though, in what ways do you see the Roman rite as having been enriched by the East since the 11th century?  The examples I hear frequently are changes since Vatican II that trads decry as damage, if not destruction, to their rite.  I'm sure you do not consider those to be true enrichments.

There hasn't been mutual enrichment since the 11th century because most of the former Roman East became isolated and schismatic. There's always the possibility of mutual enrichment, rites aren't static or completely compartmentalized. I'd personally favor iconostases or elaborate roodscreens coming back, instead of the plain and naked altars we have in the churches today. I also prefer icons over statues, for instance. Regardless of personal preferences, though, the changes decried since Vatican II are changes that undermine the faith and belie a spirit of apostasy, not a true spirit of Catholic reform and development.

If you ask a faithful from some predominantly Latin extraction, though...

But I didn't. I extended the example to Catholics from Germanic, Indian and Asian extractions, all having different native cultures. They were evangelized by Rome, surely, but they don't think of their masses and their devotions as Latin. They're universal, just as the Church is.

When we only make up a fraction of a percent of the Catholic Church, we have to hold onto our uniqueness in order to prevent it from being simply forgotten and lost by the overwhelming weight of the Latin church compared to ours.

Instead of focusing on a supposed "uniqueness" that is not really there (your own rites were formed out of many influences), focus on drinking and learning from the enormous well of spiritual benefits that God has granted His Church over the past millennia, while the Eastern rites and sees were spiritually dying under the curse of schism, heresy and Islamic domination.

When you say latinizations here, are you speaking generally or specifically about the rosary?  If generally, I don't accept that latinizations are automatically enriching.  If the Eastern churches that came into union with Rome were brought in under the pretenses that they could keep their rites, then that implies the Church accepted one could be Catholic without latinizations.  Either that's true, and Eastern Catholics can reject latinization without the accusation of harboring a schismatic mentality.  Or it's not, and the Church was lying when it said Eastern converts could keep their rites.

No rite will get you to Heaven by itself. In order to be saved one must be baptized and profess the true faith. When some Eastern churches came back to the Church in the 16th century, they did so because it was a matter of faith. One cannot be saved in schism or heresy. The Church, being a loving and merciful mother, did not impose any alteration on their rites but that doesn't mean She can't do so. She can, as Pius XII clearly taught. Nor does it mean that you are to ignore the spiritual enrichment of the past one thousand years that has shaped the lives and the faith of the people of God, be it the rosary, the sacred heart devotion, the stations of the cross inside churches, etc.

I don't have any problem with Eastern Catholics choosing to pray the rosary.  If it's a meaningful form of prayer to them, more power to them.  But, again, doctrinally, Our Lady has said nothing about it.  You must rely entirely on private revelation to hold the position you do, and you cannot bind the faithful with that.  I reject the idea that the rosary is the "true spirit of Catholicism."  It's obvious that you hold it, since you're comfortable anathematizing anyone who disagrees.  I'm surprised, though, that more people on this forum aren't offended when you reduce the entire mind of the Church and the spirit of Catholicism to a singular devotion (even if it's one that is important to them and, objectively, holds a high place in the life of the Church), and to declare anyone who doesn't comply as not true Catholics.  That's pretty audacious.

If you choose to ignore the voice of the Mother of God and of dozens of popes who have declared the rosary to be the most potent weapon the laity has been given to ward off the devil, you won't listen to me. Like some eastern rite Catholics, you're stuck in the 11th century and you have an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the Latin rite. The only solution to that is prayer, mortification and growing up.

[Julio]

Goldfinch, the universality of Catholicism is truly in the minds of a devotee Catholic. I cannot see it as Latin though those early Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Friars who took part in the expedition in the archipelago which was named as Las Islas de Filipinas by Spain and now the Philippines, used to celebrate the Holy Mass in Latin and was only changed after Vatican II. Traditionally, it was like that for more than 400 years as we reckon the Catholicism of our country since 1521. We, Filipino Catholics however do not see it as Latin rite but just a universal Catholicism. Hence, in the consciousness of a devotee, the prayer of the Holy Rosary is for all because it has the universal applicability as way to ward off the devil. It is an objective truth that to pray the Holy Rosary and advocate the intercession of the Mother of God is a correct sacramental adoration towards Jesus.

[Xavier]

Just saw this from Sachin Jose on Twitter: ""The Latin Language is the precious bond of the Catholic Church." Pope Pius X"



https://twitter.com/Sachinettiyil/status/1578762783990362114

[Xavier]

Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia from Pope St. John XXIII https://www.papalencyclicals.net/john23/j23veterum.htm

"Veterum Sapientia
On the Promotion of the Study of Latin
Pope John XXIII - 1962
On the Promotion of the Study of Latin

Apostolic Constitution

The wisdom of the ancient world, enshrined in Greek and Roman literature, and the truly memorable teaching of ancient peoples, served, surely, to herald the dawn of the Gospel which Gods Son, "the judge and teacher of grace and truth, the light and guide of the human race,"1 proclaimed on earth.

Such was the view of the Church Fathers and Doctors. In these outstanding literary monuments of antiquity, they recognized man's spiritual preparation for the supernatural riches which Jesus Christ communicated to mankind "to give history its fulfillment."2

Thus the inauguration of Christianity did not mean the obliteration of man's past achievements. Nothing was lost that was in any way true, just, noble and beautiful.

Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

A primary place

But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God's special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire — and that for so many centuries — it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin for mal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the "knowledge and use of this language," so intimately bound up with the Church's life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

Universal

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"9 of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable

Furthermore, the Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure ... of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

Educational value of Latin

There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value either of the language of the Romans or of great literature generally. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech.

A natural result

It will be quite clear from these considerations why the Roman Pontiffs have so often extolled the excellence and importance of Latin, and why they have prescribed its study and use by the secular and regular clergy, forecasting the dangers that would result from its neglect.

A resolve to uphold Latin

And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons — the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods 13 — are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.

We believe that We made Our own views on this subject sufficiently clear when We said to a number of eminent Latin scholars:

"It is a matter of regret that so many people, unaccountably dazzled by the marvelous progress of science, are taking it upon themselves to oust or restrict the study of Latin and other kindred subjects.... Yet, in spite of the urgent need for science, Our own view is that the very contrary policy should be followed. The greatest impression is made on the mind by those things which correspond more closely to man's nature and dignity. And therefore the greatest zeal should be shown in the acquisition of whatever educates and ennobles the mind. Otherwise poor mortal creatures may well become like the machines they build — cold, hard, and devoid of love."14

Provisions for the Promotion of Latin Studies

With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:

Responsibility for enforcement

Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See's decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.
In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See's will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
Study of Latin as a prerequisite

As is laid down in Canon Law (can. 1364) or commanded by Our Predecessors, before Church students begin their ecclesiastical studies proper they shall be given a sufficiently lengthy course of instruction in Latin by highly competent masters, following a method designed to teach them the language with the utmost accuracy. "And that too for this reason: lest later on, when they begin their major studies . . . they are unable by reason of their ignorance of the language to gain a full understanding of the doctrines or take part in those scholastic disputations which constitute so excellent an intellectual training for young men in the defense of the faith." 15
We wish the same rule to apply to those whom God calls to the priesthood at a more advanced age, and whose classical studies have either been neglected or conducted too superficially. No one is to be admitted to the study of philosophy or theology except he be thoroughly grounded in this language and capable of using it.

Traditional curriculum to be restored

Wherever the study of Latin has suffered partial eclipse through the assimilation of the academic program to that which obtains in State public schools, with the result that the instruction given is no longer so thorough and well-grounded as formerly, there the traditional method of teaching this language shall be completely restored. Such is Our will, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind about the necessity of keeping a strict watch over the course of studies followed by Church students; and that not only as regards the number and kinds of subjects they study, but also as regards the length of time devoted to the teaching of these subjects.
Should circumstances of time and place demand the addition of other subjects to the curriculum besides the usual ones, then either the course of studies must be lengthened, or these additional subjects must be condensed or their study relegated to another time.

Sacred sciences to be taught in Latin

In accordance with numerous previous instructions, the major sacred sciences shall be taught in Latin, which, as we know from many centuries of use, "must be considered most suitable for explaining with the utmost facility and clarity the most difficult and profound ideas and concepts."16 For apart from the fact that it has long since been enriched with a vocabulary of appropriate and unequivocal terms, best calculated to safeguard the integrity of the Catholic faith, it also serves in no slight measure to prune away useless verbiage.
Hence professors of these sciences in universities or seminaries are required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. If ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for some to obey these instructions, they shall gradually be replaced by professors who are suited to this task. Any difficulties that may be advanced by students or professors must be overcome by the patient insistence of the bishops or religious superiors, and the good will of the professors.

A Latin Academy

Since Latin is the Church's living language, it must be adequate to daily increasing linguistic requirements. It must be furnished with new words that are apt and suitable for expressing modern things, words that will be uniform and universal in their application. and constructed in conformity with the genius of the ancient Latin tongue. Such was the method followed by the sacred Fathers and the best writers among the scholastics.
To this end, therefore, We commission the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities to set up a Latin Academy staffed by an international body of Latin and Greek professors. The principal aim of this Academy — like the national academies founded to promote their respective languages — will be to superintend the proper development of Latin, augmenting the Latin lexicon where necessary with words which conform to the particular character and color of the language.

It will also conduct schools for the study of Latin of every era, particularly the Christian one. The aim of these schools will be to impart a fuller understanding of Latin and the ability to use it and to write it with proper elegance. They will exist for those who are destined to teach Latin in seminaries and ecclesiastical colleges, or to write decrees and judgments or conduct correspondence in the ministries of the Holy See, diocesan curias, and the offices of religious orders.

The teaching of Greek

Latin is closely allied to Greek both in formal structure and in the importance of its extant writings. Hence — as Our Predecessors have frequently ordained — future ministers of the altar must be instructed in Greek in the lower and middle schools. Thus when they come to study the higher sciences — and especially if they are aiming for a degree in Sacred Scripture or theology — they will be enabled to follow the Greek sources of scholastic philosophy and understand them correctly; and not only these, but also the original texts of Sacred Scripture, the Liturgy, and the sacred Fathers.17
A syllabus for the teaching of Latin

We further commission the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities to prepare a syllabus for the teaching of Latin which all shall faithfully observe. The syllabus will be designed to give those who follow it an adequate understanding of the language and its use. Episcopal boards may indeed rearrange this syllabus if circumstances warrant, but they must never curtail it or alter its nature. Ordinaries may not take it upon themselves to put their own proposals into effect until these have been examined and approved by the Sacred Congregation.
Finally, in virtue of Our apostolic authority, We will and command that all the decisions, decrees, proclamations and recommendations of this Our Constitution remain firmly established and ratified, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, however worthy of special note.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the feast of Saint Peter's Throne on the 22nd day of February in the year 1962, the fourth of Our pontificate.

END NOTES:
1. Tertullian, Apol. 21: Migne, FL 1, 294.
2. Ephesians 1, 10.
3. Epist. S. Cong. Stud. Vehementer sane, ad Ep. universos, July 1, 1908: Ench. Cler., N. 820. Cf. also Epist. Ap. Pius XI, Unigenitus Dei Filius, Mar. 19, 1924: AAS 16 (1924), 141.
4. Pius XI, Epist. Ap. Officiorum omnium, Aug. 1, 1922: AAS 14 (1922), 452-453.
5. Pius XI, Motu proprio Litterarum latinarum, Oct. 20, 1924: AAS 16 (1924), 417.
6. Pius XI, Epist. Ap. Officiorum omnium, Aug. 1, 1922: AAS 14 (1922), 452.
7. Ibid.
8. Saint Iren., Adv. Haer. 3, 3, 2: Migne PG 7, 848.
9. Cf. CIC, can. 218, pars. 2.
10. Cf. Pius XI, Epist. Ap. Officiorum omnium, Aug. 1, 1922: AAS 14 (1922), 453.
11. Pius XII, Al. Magis quam, Nov. 23, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), 737.
12. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Depuis le jour, Sept. 8, 1899: Acta Leonis XIII, 19 (1899), 166.
13. Cf. Collectio Lacensis, espec. vol. III, 1018s. ( Cone. Prov. Westmonasteriense, a (1859); Vol. IV, 29 (Conc. Prov. Parisiense, a 1849); Vol. IV, 149, 153 (Cone. Prov. Rhemense, a 1849); Vol. IV, 359, 861 (Conc. Prov. Avenionense, a 1849); Vol. IV, 394, 396 (Cone. Prov. Burdigalense, a 1850); Vol. V, 61 (Cone. Strigoniense, a 1858); Vol. V. 664 (Conc. Prov. Colocense, a 1863); Vol. VI, 619 (Synod. Vicariatus Suchnensis, a 1803).
14. International Convention for the Promotion of Ciceronian Studies, Sept. 7, 1959, in Discorsi Messaggi Colloqui del Santo Padre Giovanni XXIII, I, pp. 234-235. [English translation in TPS, V, 421.] Cf. also Address to Roman Pilgrims of the Diocese of Piacenza, April 15, 1959, in L'Osservatore Romano April 16, 1959; Epist. Pater misericordiarum, Aug. 22, 1961, in A.4S 53 (1961), 677; Address given on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of the College of the Philippine Islands at Rome, Oct. 7, 1961, in L'Osservatore Romano, Oct. 9-10, 1961; Epist. lucunda laudatio, Dec. 8, 1961: AAS 53 (1961), 812 [English summary in TPS, VII, 367-8.]
15. Pius XII, Epist. Ap. Officiorum omnium, Aug. 1, 1922: AAS 14 (1922), 453.
16. Epist. S. C. Stud., Vehementer sane, July 1, 1908: Ench. Cler., N. 821.
17. Leo XIII. Lit. Encyci. Providentissimus Deus, Nov. 18, 1893: Acta Leonis XIII 13 (1893), 342; Epist. Plane quidem intelligis, May 20, 1885, Acta, 5, 63-64; Pius XII, Alloc. Magis quam, Sept. 23, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), 737.

[Melkite]

There hasn't been mutual enrichment since the 11th century because most of the former Roman East became isolated and schismatic. There's always the possibility of mutual enrichment, rites aren't static or completely compartmentalized. I'd personally favor iconostases or elaborate roodscreens coming back, instead of the plain and naked altars we have in the churches today. I also prefer icons over statues, for instance. Regardless of personal preferences, though, the changes decried since Vatican II are changes that undermine the faith and belie a spirit of apostasy, not a true spirit of Catholic reform and development.

If the Latin church has been enriching the Eastern Catholic churches since their reunion, why hasn't the Latin church been enriched by the East since then?

But I didn't. I extended the example to Catholics from Germanic, Indian and Asian extractions, all having different native cultures. They were evangelized by Rome, surely, but they don't think of their masses and their devotions as Latin. They're universal, just as the Church is.

They may not think of their masses or devotions that way, but they are.  They worship in the Roman rite.  They belong to the Latin church.  They are Latin, whether they realize it or not.  They don't celebrate the Roman rite any differently than is done in Spain or Italy.  Their native cultures haven't caused, or been allowed to cause, any differentiation in the rite they use.

Instead of focusing on a supposed "uniqueness" that is not really there (your own rites were formed out of many influences), focus on drinking and learning from the enormous well of spiritual benefits that God has granted His Church over the past millennia, while the Eastern rites and sees were spiritually dying under the curse of schism, heresy and Islamic domination.

Or I could stick to the enormous well of spiritual benefits that Christ granted to the churches in the East, and not be any less Catholic for doing so.  There's more than enough in that first millennium of unity to fill a lifetime.  There really is more than one way to be a faithful Catholic.  You could limit yourself entirely to Latin spirituality and devotions, completely excluding everything Eastern from your personal spiritual life, and you wouldn't be one iota less Catholic for doing so.  All I'm saying is I can do the same from the other side.

Nor does it mean that you are to ignore the spiritual enrichment of the past one thousand years that has shaped the lives and the faith of the people of God, be it the rosary, the sacred heart devotion, the stations of the cross inside churches, etc.

What if they just aren't of spiritual benefit to me?  When I first became Catholic, I tried to pray the rosary daily.  I tried to make it become like a second nature to me.  It just never took.  And that's not because there is anything deficient with it.  It is just a style of praying that doesn't really match my personality type or attention limitations.  It's difficult for me to concentrate on the prayers while also meditating on the mysteries.  I could do either one or the other, and after about two minutes, my mind would drift to hundreds of different things.  Also, Eastern Catholic churches already have something that occupy the places the rosary, stations and sacred heart devotions do in the Latin church, at least if they're to be practiced as part of the parish life.  If we were to incorporate them, we'd have to dispense with something else that is organically Eastern (for example, you can't have both stations and Akathist on Friday nights of Lent).  They're all well and good, but they shaped the lives of Westerners, doing so by earning their places over the course of many centuries.  It isn't right to say that, because we don't put those things aside that have provided us spiritual enrichment in the East, we're ignoring the spiritual enrichment of those from the West by not creating a place for their spontaneous importation.

If you choose to ignore the voice of the Mother of God and of dozens of popes who have declared the rosary to be the most potent weapon the laity has been given to ward off the devil, you won't listen to me. Like some eastern rite Catholics, you're stuck in the 11th century and you have an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the Latin rite. The only solution to that is prayer, mortification and growing up.

The Mother of God has never told me that the rosary is the most potent weapon to ward off the devil.  The people who have told me that are people who claim to be seers, which I'm not bound to accept, and popes stating their opinion, so not infallible and also something I'm not bound to accept (I know we're bound to accept more than just ex cathedra statements, but personal opinions are not among them).  The only thing the Mother of God has told me is that her son loves me and that I can trust him.  As for inferiority complexes, one who is confident in the inherent value of their own traditions doesn't compel others to adopt them, and then shame and gaslight them when they don't.  I'm not aware of any Eastern Catholics who have recommended the byzantinization of the Latin church.  Respectfully, I'm not the one being childish.

[Wenceslav]

For those Greek Catholics opposed to so-called Latinisms, here are excerpts  from a pastoral letter on "Byzantinisms" from Ukrainian Catholic Bishop and Martyr, Hryhory Khomyshyn. Read the entire article at the following URL. I scanned it from the book by Peter Galadza - Appendix D of "The Theology and Liturgical Work of Andrei Sheptytsky". This great and holy bishop died in the notorious prison - Lukniavisky Prison in Kiev in 1947 for the Catholic Faith.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocDwmaKklO1jfzO4D3yFcYyAAKvxS2Jg/view?usp=drivesdk

[from pp. 483-484] Only with the rise of the reformed Basilian Order during the pontificate of  Pope Leo XIII of blessed memory did the religious and spiritual life awaken. With their parish missions, clergy retreats, pastoral activity, and religious publications, the Basilian Fathers shattered the ice of our cold ritualism, and paved the way for the flowering of the interior life derived from grace. First and foremost, the Eucharistic cult, with all of its practices - for example, adoration, and the celebration of the solemnity of the Divine Body - developed among us. Also, the Sacerdotal Society of the Adoration of the Most Holy Eucharist now exists. Then there are the practices of the cult of the most sacred Heart of Jesus, the Feast of Christ's Heart, the Apostleship of Prayer in union with the Heart of Christ And First Fridays and First Sundays draw many of our faithful to divine services and the reception of the Mysteries. As for the veneration of the most pure Virgin Mary, the situation is readily apparent. Even though Mary was always highly venerated and intensely loved by our people, a practical Marian cult entered our churches only through the efforts of the Basilian Order. This cult is very influential and beneficial for the spread of the kingdom of God in the soul's interior. As regards the practical devotion developed by the Basilians, suffice it to mention the Marian Congregations, the solemn celebrations of the Immaculate Conception, the May services. The recitation of the chaplet and rosary is now generally practiced among priests and faithful, although I can still remember a time when our priests were scandalized to see a chaplet in the hands of one of our faithful. Also, the scapular has come to be accepted, and no one today is offended by it.
[...]
At the same time, the [Ukrainian] Rite did not suffer; all of these practices introduced into our Church are clothed in Eastern Rite forms. In fact, because of these practices our Rite has acquired vitality, warmth; and it sparks interest among our faithful. Today no one in our Church believes that these practices are Latin, or Polish; rather, they are viewed as ours - Catholic. In addition, even celibacy has been accepted in the dioccse ofStanyslaviv as of 1920, and in Peremyshl since 1925. And even though this caused an uproar and lead to loud protestations, all the same the world didn't end, nor did the nation perish.

[from p. 490] The Catholic practices introduced into our Church are not impositions. We ourselves accepted them, as a necessary development of our spiritual organism. We didn't become Latins as a result of this, nor did we lose the characteristics of the Eastern Rite, for we clothed these Catholic practices in Eastern Rite form. Our faithful have come to love these Catholic practices, they desire them; flocking to church they actively participate in them. They maintain their Rite in such a way that these practices aren't viewed by our people as Latin -or Polish (as the case may be in our circumstances); they are viewed as Catholic, and as our own native practices at that. By adopting them we have not lost anything pertaining to nationality. To the contrary, we've become even stronger. To put it simply, we now feel entirely at home in Catholicism. None of these Catholic devotions violates the Eastern Rite. Just the opposite is true; they vivify it, infuse it with warmth and attractiveness. Also, they are the strongest support for the Catholic faith. Wherever they are practiced, the faithful are conscious of their faith, and neither Protestant nor schismatic agitation is able to affect them. On the other hand, wherever there is a focus[...]

Comments For Ukrainian and Slovak Greek Catholics, the Holy Rosary is ours as Bp. Khomyshyn infers. The naysayers may be technically correct that our Lady's desire at Fatima that we pray the Rosary is not a part of Revelation but it would be extremely foolhardy to ignore such a great supernatural aid for our eternal salvation provided to us by God through the intercession of His most holy Mother.

[martin88nyc]

I don't understand the concept of married priests.  The sacrificial nature of priesthood is perfectly exemplified in Christ's life and death on the cross. How does a married priest fulfill his mission fully and effectively when he has to focus not only on his spiritual sons and daughters but also on his wife?
Is there a financial aspect to it? 

[Michael Wilson]

Wenceslav,
great article and link, thank you so much for posting.

[Melkite]

I don't understand the concept of married priests.  The sacrificial nature of priesthood is perfectly exemplified in Christ's life and death on the cross. How does a married priest fulfill his mission fully and effectively when he has to focus not only on his spiritual sons and daughters but also on his wife?
Is there a financial aspect to it?

I think one of the important things to remember with the objections you have is that you're looking at it through the lens of human capability.  Is it impossible by man's strength alone to be both a good priest and also a good husband and father?  Certainly.  But is God incapable of giving sufficent grace for the man to do both well?  Absolutely not!

Most married priests have secular jobs during the week.  I kind of think my parish's example is a good compromise if one is needed.  The current and previous pastors were both celibate - ordained before the termination of the ban on married clergy in the US.  Since the termination, our bishop has been ordaining a lot of married men, maybe 3 or 4 for every 1 celibate seminarian.  In larger parishes, like mine, we're also able to have assistant priests.  So the pastor is celibate, and the assistants are younger and married.  I think that could be a good model for the sake of practicality.  The married priests can handle many of the duties, but there is a celibate priest on those rare occasions where there is an emergency and the married priests can't leave work or their family. 

We also don't have multiple liturgies during the weekend.  There is one liturgy, and the entire parish comes to that one.  A parish would sooner split into two than continue growing to the point that multiple liturgies are needed.  So part of the practical need you have for availability only celibate priests can provide is caused by the average Latin parish having a much larger population than the average Eastern parish.  If you had smaller parishes, the times that you would really need a celibate priest would be very rare.

[Greg]

I was just thinking.

I have never met a single Orthodox or Eastern rite anglo Christian at a pro-life event, protest, prayer vigil, etc.

Have you?

[Melkite]

I was just thinking.

I have never met a single Orthodox or Eastern rite anglo Christian at a pro-life event, protest, prayer vigil, etc.

Have you?

There are Orthodox and Eastern Catholic groups that go to the March for Life in DC every year.  For obvious reasons, they're small in comparison to the RC groups.  Not sure if they go to events in other countries, though.