Good morning Dr Minerd, Fr Pine and Fr Chapman. Thank you for this mornings discussion. I will have to watch it a few times. Keep up the good work now off to mass. Co Down Ireland. May month of Mary
I've always been in the Roman rite. And only recently have I known that there are other rites that have become in full communion with Rome. I wonder what it really means for someone in "other rites" (pardon the 'other') to be in communion with Rome? Are there rough areas that need to be smoothen out as a result of the communion? I hope you can have more episodes on the different rites in the Church together with issues pertaining to their communion to Rome.
Christ is risen! Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Let me do a little bit of personal sharing to try to give you a sense for the sorts of things that come up along this. Know, however, that I'm just sharing. Nothing at all negative is meant by any of this. I just want to share the Eastern perspective on a few points. (There are others, of course.) So, one thing to bear in mind is that we are not merely other "rites" but also are independent _churches._ (Our independence varies, though, depending on our size, history, etc. The Melkites are a patriarchal Church with immense rights and independence. We Ruthenians are still rather independent, though more directly dependent upon Rome.) This is a very important thing to bear in mind in order to understand the spiritual-psychology of Eastern Catholics. In some cases, like the Byzantines, one rite actually is use by many Churches (Melkite, Ruthenian, Ukranian, Romanian, Russian, Macedonian, etc.). The Armenians are, however, the only Church with their particular ritual traditions. (Some of the Syriac Churches have overlap with regard to rite.) For the Byzantines, this overlap is like this: When I go to a Melkite Church, everything is familiar to my normal Sunday experience, though there are small variations, given their different history and relationship with Constantinople (as opposed to the Slavic influence in the Ruthenian Church). But, in any case, to give a good example of how this plays out, I do not say that I'm a "Roman Catholic". Some older Byzantines speak this way, though they are few in number. (Some will say "Greek Catholic", as that was often used once upon a time.) When older folks say this, they will say, "I am a Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite." Totally understandable mistake, though it is technically wrong (quite wrong). But, I have had editors remove my reference to the "Ruthenian Church" even "Ruthenian Catholic Church" because they feared that Roman Catholics would be scandalized accidentally. (This is understandable, so I don't get worked up, though it can be a little bit frustrating.) We are particular Churches in union with the Pope of Rome and therefore in full communion in the One Church of Christ. The great hope in the East is that some day, upon union with the Orthodox, we can call ourselves "Orthodox in Union with Rome"-but then "Orthodox" will mean something new. There are rough areas, yes. As a kind of general issue, there is the feeling of being a secondary thought to our other Catholic brethren. It reminds me of something a very loving friend said, accidentally, while talking about liturgical problems in the West. Without thinking of his words, he said: yeah, but you guys are so small that in the end you don't matter here; the Roman Rite is the main group here in the US. Now, that's true, but it has a kind of echo of the kind of "majority rule" dismissiveness that drives Easterners crazy. (He apologized of course, as he is a very holy man!) But, structurally, the Bishops don't really care about us on the whole. (We kind of like be left alone sometime, however....) Generally Roman priests are good about giving our kids communion, but not always. (In the East, you are chrismated / confirmed at birth, so you start receiving communion from the time that you are an infant.) Of late, we have had a problem with traditionalist priests who won't fraction a host for our girls, so they have refused to commune our youngest daughter. Rarely do I get really mad about this, because we aren't Roman Catholics. But, my poor 2.5 year old knows that she is being denied communion at the rail, and she asks my wife why she can't receive (as she says " 'eive 'esus"-she has trouble with opening consonants ;-)). This kind of scrupulosity about particles seems quite inappropriate to me. I was out of town, so my wife, who is a Latin Catholic (but very comfortable in the East), was with the kids at a TLM. My older daughter noticed the fractioning of the host after consecration, and she said to my wife: "Oh, the priest can do that for himself, but not for Josephine." Now she said it as a matter of fact, but I do not understand why he couldn't right then fraction a host, on on the paten, where the particles would remain. My wife emailed him days and days ahead of time in order to let him know she would be there. As you can see, I'm steaming about this still. But it's kind of emblematic of something you are always "on edge" about: are we going to have fight to receive what is technically my child's canonical rite. (In the interest of trying to retain a positive attitude, I do not argue on behalf of the superiority of our practice, but we do often feel that we are treated as though our practice is a kind of abnormality. However, these kinds of experiences can radicalize us against Latin clerics and the Latin first-communion practices.) Things like this can happen in so many ways. Another example. I think the Rosary is an immensely wonderful way to meditate on the mysteries of Christ's life-and His mysteries are indeed the very mysteries that give us life! But, when one hears poetic waxing about the super-eminent nature of the Rosary devotionally, it can be vexing, as it's not a tradition that developed in the East, nor is it generally practiced. (Though, we have no issue with praying the Rosary! It's just not part of our regular spiritual practice.) And we always fear a kind of "Well, our devotions are just superior." Governance issues can often come up. We are VERY fearful of either local Roman bishops or Roman stamping things out with a heavy hand. There were experiences of Latinization in our liturgy, the expulsion of our married clergy (e.g., in the US at the 20th century), and an ignorance toward the jurisdictional independence of our bishops. Things have gotten much better this way, but it's a kind of constant specter of threat. For this reason, we have a great desire for increased episcopal subsidiarity in both the West and the East. The proper (and carefully articulated) understanding of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope is very important to us. Theologically we feel this way too. As you can tell, I'm a Thomist, so I'm very open to trying to find a way for Western and Eastern theology to speak to each other. The East has a very different history, much more monastic, having never gone through the same modern pressures as had the West. But, here too, things have gotten much better. My particular concerns here are quite technical, but I think that most faithful westerners are aware that we are trying to be orthodox in our theology. This makes the problem less bad than it was in the past. (However, once upon a time, our catechetical and theological texts were like cheap versions of Western texts. This is a problem insofar as our liturgy and spirituality give different emphases in theology, which should not be directly reduced to post-scholastic ways of reflecting on theological topics. Still... I'm trying to do my own work as a kind of proposition that one can live as a Ruthenian and yet be in profound dialogue with the best of the West.) Maybe a particular example of a huge "rough spot" is the topic of clerical celibacy. The West is understandably worried about certain progressives who are pushing to change your practices (and even your theology of the priesthood, I would argue). However, by way of reaction, some folks in the West (including even someone like Cardinal Sarah and, more indirectly perhaps, Pope emeritus Benedict, writing as a private theologian) are making claims about the "ontological" connection of celibacy with the priesthood. I know that many married priests in the East see this as a fearful shot that not only threatens our own practices but that also basically implies that they are all second-class priests. This is a very regular topic among our men, and I particularly think it is a bit of a travesty when Western clerics and theologians talk like this. I hope that gives you some idea about rough patches in the East. May God bless you and your family as we move toward Pentecost together! Peace, Matthew
Christ is risen! Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Well... I'll leave history make the judgment about any supposed greatness. I will say that to this day, even as a happily married man, my heart still feels a bit like an "ex-monk"! Many blessings to you and yours!
Good morning Dr Minerd, Fr Pine and Fr Chapman. Thank you for this mornings discussion. I will have to watch it a few times. Keep up the good work now off to mass. Co Down Ireland. May month of Mary
Christ is risen!
Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Thanks for the kind note!
This is the greatest crossover in history.
Christ is risen!
Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Ha! I feel like a strange figure: and Eastern Thomist!
Thank you, Fathers! As always, you are a blessing to us! We pray for you 🙏🤗
Thank you!
Christ is risen!
Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Thanks for the kind note!
Great conversation. Enlightening. Thank you for having him on.
Christ is risen!
Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Thanks for the kind note!
"Grant that through this mystery of water and wine, we may partake in His divinity who has deigned to partake in our humanity." OFFERTORY of the Mass.
Absolutely! (I didn't think of that line, as I don't very often go to the Roman Rite anymore. But, yes!)
Commenting for algorithm
Great podcast!
Thanks, James!
Christ is risen!
Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Thanks for the kind note!
I've always been in the Roman rite. And only recently have I known that there are other rites that have become in full communion with Rome. I wonder what it really means for someone in "other rites" (pardon the 'other') to be in communion with Rome? Are there rough areas that need to be smoothen out as a result of the communion? I hope you can have more episodes on the different rites in the Church together with issues pertaining to their communion to Rome.
Christ is risen!
Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks!
Let me do a little bit of personal sharing to try to give you a sense for the sorts of things that come up along this. Know, however, that I'm just sharing. Nothing at all negative is meant by any of this. I just want to share the Eastern perspective on a few points. (There are others, of course.)
So, one thing to bear in mind is that we are not merely other "rites" but also are independent _churches._ (Our independence varies, though, depending on our size, history, etc. The Melkites are a patriarchal Church with immense rights and independence. We Ruthenians are still rather independent, though more directly dependent upon Rome.) This is a very important thing to bear in mind in order to understand the spiritual-psychology of Eastern Catholics. In some cases, like the Byzantines, one rite actually is use by many Churches (Melkite, Ruthenian, Ukranian, Romanian, Russian, Macedonian, etc.). The Armenians are, however, the only Church with their particular ritual traditions. (Some of the Syriac Churches have overlap with regard to rite.) For the Byzantines, this overlap is like this: When I go to a Melkite Church, everything is familiar to my normal Sunday experience, though there are small variations, given their different history and relationship with Constantinople (as opposed to the Slavic influence in the Ruthenian Church). But, in any case, to give a good example of how this plays out, I do not say that I'm a "Roman Catholic". Some older Byzantines speak this way, though they are few in number. (Some will say "Greek Catholic", as that was often used once upon a time.) When older folks say this, they will say, "I am a Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite." Totally understandable mistake, though it is technically wrong (quite wrong). But, I have had editors remove my reference to the "Ruthenian Church" even "Ruthenian Catholic Church" because they feared that Roman Catholics would be scandalized accidentally. (This is understandable, so I don't get worked up, though it can be a little bit frustrating.) We are particular Churches in union with the Pope of Rome and therefore in full communion in the One Church of Christ. The great hope in the East is that some day, upon union with the Orthodox, we can call ourselves "Orthodox in Union with Rome"-but then "Orthodox" will mean something new.
There are rough areas, yes. As a kind of general issue, there is the feeling of being a secondary thought to our other Catholic brethren. It reminds me of something a very loving friend said, accidentally, while talking about liturgical problems in the West. Without thinking of his words, he said: yeah, but you guys are so small that in the end you don't matter here; the Roman Rite is the main group here in the US. Now, that's true, but it has a kind of echo of the kind of "majority rule" dismissiveness that drives Easterners crazy. (He apologized of course, as he is a very holy man!)
But, structurally, the Bishops don't really care about us on the whole. (We kind of like be left alone sometime, however....) Generally Roman priests are good about giving our kids communion, but not always. (In the East, you are chrismated / confirmed at birth, so you start receiving communion from the time that you are an infant.) Of late, we have had a problem with traditionalist priests who won't fraction a host for our girls, so they have refused to commune our youngest daughter. Rarely do I get really mad about this, because we aren't Roman Catholics. But, my poor 2.5 year old knows that she is being denied communion at the rail, and she asks my wife why she can't receive (as she says " 'eive 'esus"-she has trouble with opening consonants ;-)). This kind of scrupulosity about particles seems quite inappropriate to me. I was out of town, so my wife, who is a Latin Catholic (but very comfortable in the East), was with the kids at a TLM. My older daughter noticed the fractioning of the host after consecration, and she said to my wife: "Oh, the priest can do that for himself, but not for Josephine." Now she said it as a matter of fact, but I do not understand why he couldn't right then fraction a host, on on the paten, where the particles would remain. My wife emailed him days and days ahead of time in order to let him know she would be there. As you can see, I'm steaming about this still. But it's kind of emblematic of something you are always "on edge" about: are we going to have fight to receive what is technically my child's canonical rite. (In the interest of trying to retain a positive attitude, I do not argue on behalf of the superiority of our practice, but we do often feel that we are treated as though our practice is a kind of abnormality. However, these kinds of experiences can radicalize us against Latin clerics and the Latin first-communion practices.)
Things like this can happen in so many ways. Another example. I think the Rosary is an immensely wonderful way to meditate on the mysteries of Christ's life-and His mysteries are indeed the very mysteries that give us life! But, when one hears poetic waxing about the super-eminent nature of the Rosary devotionally, it can be vexing, as it's not a tradition that developed in the East, nor is it generally practiced. (Though, we have no issue with praying the Rosary! It's just not part of our regular spiritual practice.) And we always fear a kind of "Well, our devotions are just superior."
Governance issues can often come up. We are VERY fearful of either local Roman bishops or Roman stamping things out with a heavy hand. There were experiences of Latinization in our liturgy, the expulsion of our married clergy (e.g., in the US at the 20th century), and an ignorance toward the jurisdictional independence of our bishops. Things have gotten much better this way, but it's a kind of constant specter of threat. For this reason, we have a great desire for increased episcopal subsidiarity in both the West and the East. The proper (and carefully articulated) understanding of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope is very important to us.
Theologically we feel this way too. As you can tell, I'm a Thomist, so I'm very open to trying to find a way for Western and Eastern theology to speak to each other. The East has a very different history, much more monastic, having never gone through the same modern pressures as had the West. But, here too, things have gotten much better. My particular concerns here are quite technical, but I think that most faithful westerners are aware that we are trying to be orthodox in our theology. This makes the problem less bad than it was in the past. (However, once upon a time, our catechetical and theological texts were like cheap versions of Western texts. This is a problem insofar as our liturgy and spirituality give different emphases in theology, which should not be directly reduced to post-scholastic ways of reflecting on theological topics. Still... I'm trying to do my own work as a kind of proposition that one can live as a Ruthenian and yet be in profound dialogue with the best of the West.)
Maybe a particular example of a huge "rough spot" is the topic of clerical celibacy. The West is understandably worried about certain progressives who are pushing to change your practices (and even your theology of the priesthood, I would argue). However, by way of reaction, some folks in the West (including even someone like Cardinal Sarah and, more indirectly perhaps, Pope emeritus Benedict, writing as a private theologian) are making claims about the "ontological" connection of celibacy with the priesthood. I know that many married priests in the East see this as a fearful shot that not only threatens our own practices but that also basically implies that they are all second-class priests. This is a very regular topic among our men, and I particularly think it is a bit of a travesty when Western clerics and theologians talk like this.
I hope that gives you some idea about rough patches in the East. May God bless you and your family as we move toward Pentecost together!
Peace,
Matthew
🙏🙏🙏
Christ is risen!
Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Thanks for the kind note!
The Benedictines lost a great man.
Christ is risen!
Apologies for the delay in responding - very busy few weeks! Well... I'll leave history make the judgment about any supposed greatness. I will say that to this day, even as a happily married man, my heart still feels a bit like an "ex-monk"! Many blessings to you and yours!