Anyone have or read this text? If so, is it biased or faulty in it's assessment as other books by Latins of that era or is it more balanced?

http://books.google.com/books?id=9g6BTkcwXWMC&printsec=frontcover

Thanks!

Seems like this book is only on the Oriental Catholic rites and not the Byzantine? At least thats the impression from the table of contents.

I have never read it but it does seem interesting.

The table of contents refers only to Volume 1 of a two-volume book. I have the book, and it's quite good (albeit dated). Read the author's preface to get his take on the Eastern Churches. He's does not see any superiority to the Latin Rite, and goes to points out that all Rites should be on equal footing, and that the Eastern Rites should not be latinized. (Yes, he talks about "Eastern Rites" and not "Eastern Churches," but that was the terminology of the time.)

AJ

There's nothing wrong with talking about rites as long as rite is not confused with the term church. I was impressed by the sentiments, the scope, the precision and the clarity of the preface (dated 1946): in mainstream thought, the author seems at least 20 years ahead of the time he is writing.

As I've noted previously, I believe that statements such as ajks are based on a misapprehension. It is apparent from authors such as King and Fortescue (see Fortescue's article in the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia on the Eastern Churches - not rites) that rite and Church were understood to be synonyms by authors writing substantially prior to VII - were they not understood to be such the documents of VII could not have been written as they did not arise in a vacuum.

It is simply not correct to say that the term eastern rite meant talking about latins with different vestments. It was never intended to be or understood to be such by the best authors of the pre-Vactican II Church such as Fortescue and King.

The "misapprehension" I believe is in not understanding that in Catholic ecclesiology, while there are Catholic Churches, there is also, and very importantly, The Catholic Church. As the latter was emphasized in the past (even exclusively), the former is now the focus, but one that is often too narrow in its own way. I don't expect pre-VCII writers of the past, in general, to present an ecclesiology that would not be officially articulated until the 1960's. We, however, should know better. Consequently, as I said, "There's nothing wrong with talking about rites as long as rite is not confused with the term church."

But most pre VII authors do talk about particular churches, but call them rites. This is quite apparent when reading Fortescue or King.

Ned and Deacon Tony,

I think you're both saying the same thing.

Many years,

Neil

Prior to Vatican II, the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church made the Church of Rome and the Catholic Church co-terminous. There were no other Churches outside of Rome, because, since Trent, that's how the Church of Rome saw itself, how it behaved, and how it impressed itself on others. The Eastern Catholic Churches as such did not exist, because they were merely rites, or ritual adjuncts, of the Roman Catholic Church.

Numerous writers have explored this aspect of uniatism, and all come to the same conclusion. Otsheylnik stands alone in his assertion that the so-called Eastern rites were de facto Churches. Not only do numerous pre-conciliar bulls, encyclicals and decrees contradict him, but the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum, would not have been necessary had what he says been true. Instead, the Decree must explicitly establish the ecclesial status of the Eastern Catholics communities in communion with Rome, and establish that their liturgical, spiritual, theological, doctrinal and disciplinary patrimony is theirs by inherent right, not through dispensation, as was the case when they were merely "rites of the Roman Catholic Church".

Why Otsheylnik persists in making this false point puzzles me.

Stuart,

Actually, I'd have to disagree. Although what you say is absolutely true of the view that Rome and those of Roman mindset held, at least some of those in the Eastern world saw themselves as Churches, not merely as Rites. Many years ago, I was told by Father Archimandrite Orestes (Karame), of blessed memory, who served at VII as the principal theologian to HB Maximos IV, of blessed memory, and was a valued member of the Cairo Circle, that the Decree - in that regard - did no more than serve to give public recognition by Rome to a status that the Eastern Patriarchs (at least those of Antioch) had held from time immemorial.

Many years,

Neil

Your statement regarding the Melkite patriarchate is correct, but absent formal recognition, there was little that even His Beatitude Maximos IV could do to act upon the Melkite self-conception. He and other Melkite bishops of the Cairo School wrote at length about the dignity of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the office of the patriarch, but putting words into action was difficult if not impossible, which is why he, and the other Melkite bishops, spoke out so forcefully at Vatican II, and became both the architects of Orientalium Ecclesiarum and Unitatis redintegratio.

Not only those in the Eastern World - Fortescue for one. But my point is that we don't understand the word rite as did earlier authors and thus misinterpret them. They understood the term to be a synonym for Church in some circumstances; "The Catholic Churches of the Eastern rite" is a phrase used in VII, but so are the "rites of the religious orders", which do not refer to churches. Unfortunately this ambiguity and nuance was hard for some to understand, so has been abandoned and the term rite is now almost a dirty word.

OE itself uses the term "Churches of the Eastern rites" (as does Fortescue), so it does not anew declare that the Eastern Churches are Churches (commonly claimed), it assumes this to be a fact already established. VII did not declare new doctrine, only refine old. I wonder if any of those who so vociferously proclaim that rite was never understood to mean Church have even read Orientalum Ecclesiarum (OE) or the 1909 encyclopedia article carefully. Any careful reading of both these documents or Fortescue's books shows that authors of the pre -VII Church (and not just easterners) use the terms as synonyms in some contexts, but not in others (hence the confusion and eventual lapse into disuse).

Nothing proves this more clearly than OE itself (capitals my emphasis):

"2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate CHURCHES OR RITES. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual CHURCH OR RITE should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place." OE, 2.

A Church does not need a dispensation in order to follow its Traditional patrimony. A rite of the Roman Catholic Church does. Ignore history all you want, your attempt at a semantic game does not convince. I'm just curious as to why its such a bug for you.

I'm confused. Who is getting dispensations from whom? When have the eastern catholic churches been dispensed from following the Roman Rite? Who suggested they should?

And accuracy is why it is a bug for me. I often hear statements that it was some brand spanking new idea when VII said ECs were Churches not rites(it did say they were churches, but so did plenty of pre-VII sources, which also called them rites, which the documents of VII did as well, so not much new there) and that VII said that ECs didn't have to hold any beliefs of the Roman Church like primacy, which, well, I'm still looking for that in the documents. So yes, accuracy. You were rather silent when I posted the quote from OE about "without predjudice to the primacy of the ROman Pontiff (OE 7)" and you were also silent on the quote from OE here. How is my quoting OE a semantic game - I'm just quoting a document that suggests I am correct in saying rite and church were used as synonyms - a document you refer to as authoritative. I don't really understand why you don't see it supports my point - it's quite transparent in this. If you don't believe my quotations are accurate, I posted them from the full text here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...esiarum_en.html

Neil,

As an independent assessment, thank you for pointing this out. Basically he and I indeed are in agreement.

Deacon Tony


That being said...

I would have to take exception to this conclusion. That is, for instance:
Who's saying this now? Who were the initiators of the assessment that "Prior to Vatican II, the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church made the Church of Rome and the Catholic Church co-terminous." In one way this is correct but in the broad sense it is so poorly stated that it leaves room for numerous misinterpretations.


He's not alone since as pointed out above by Neil I've been essentially saying the same thing.

This needs to be discussed in more detail and documented. I believe it is an incorrect assessment of the pre- and post- VCII ecclesiologies and the development of the one to the other.

I would nuance things a bit differently than he does, but a fair and unbiased appraisal shows that his point has great merit.

Perhaps it would help if you could illustrate the item in OE that says this, Stuart. I do not doubt that what you say that it says accurately reflects the commonly held view of what the document says, but I have read OE on numerous occasions and simply cannot see that it says anything new, but only reiterates that existing views on the Eastern rites/ churches are correct and clarifies where abuses have arisen. This fits entirely with the spirit of VII, which clarified, rather than invented doctrine anew (despite what some sixties theologians would like to believe).

In order to have you fairly appraise my interpretation, I have posted a number of quotations from the document that I believe support my reading of it. It would greatly assist if you could do the same regarding this document where you feel I interpret incorrectly.

It should also be noted that your argument that it would only have been necessary to issue OE at VII if previous practice was wrong undermines the entire reason for the council, which was primarily convened to REAFFIRM the nature of the Church in the modern world. By your argument, if there was nothing wrong with the Church there would have been no reason to have a council, since you only have councils and issue decrees about things that are going wrong.

Advances in communication technology have made us all quite a bit more aware of the broader world and the people living in far away places. I can't help thinking this whole discussion confuses this reality and realities about human nature with the doctrine of the Church.

That is, if your experience of a things homogeneous and one-sided, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the whole thing to be more of the same.

I am a Canadian, but I have never thought that citizens of the United States (who make bold to call themselves "American") thought they were the only inhabitants of the whole of North and South America. I just accept that there are a lot of them and that they pay little attention to the few of us.

Anyway I'm no expert, but I have read quite a lot of pre-conciliar writing, and what scant attention is paid to the East seems consistent with a correct understanding, even if it does seem quaintly in awe of these exotic peoples and their oriental ways.