www.byzcath.org
vatican.va - The Holy Father has accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the archeparchy of Prešov for Catholics of Byzantine rite, Slovakia, presented by Archbishop Ján Babjak, S.J.

The Holy Father has appointed Bishop Peter Rusnák of the eparchy of Bratislava for Catholics of Byzantine rite as apostolic administrator sede vacante of the archeparchy of Prešov.

Link
Yet more latinization and abuse of authority. The Pope needs to stop picking our bishops. The Holy Father shouldn't have to "accept" the resignation of any Eastern clergy. His business is the Roman clergy.
I don't see the Latinization here, only the centralist control of the Eastern Churches by Rome (those churches who dont have a patriarchate at least).

One thing I must say though is that the UGCC patriarchal movement, of which I was a long-time member, used to emphasize the role of the Particular Church as being fundamental to the ecclesial character and integrity of the Eastern churches (blah, blah, blah). In fact, EVERY Latin Diocese is actually considered as being a Particular Church. So now I don't understand all the hoopla surrounding that. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the particular EC Churches themselves who insist on the persistence of the old unias with Rome at a time when Rome considers them to be an anachronism and an historical embarrassment to its ecumenical policies, as do the Orthodox, and just plain wishes they would go away . .

Here in the UGCC Eparchy of Eastern Canada, we still don't have a permanent Eparch. Rumours are rife that different "factions" have their own particular candidates in competition . . . but again, so what? Rome will decide in the endabout who the eparch is and will go over the head of our Major Archbishop, whom we all love to title "Patriarch" Pardon me, while I Sobornost . . . .
as a ruthenian, i dont think this is latinization
Regarding the eparchial bishop of Toronto and Eastern Canada:

https://www.skeparchy.org/wordpress...wVYoAFq6ZehMGxhWDFReGxbYkzLgY8aF-6APTudM
I think that these papal appointments and acceptances are an accomodation to the problems and challenges that uniatism has presented to Rome over the years, and will only be resolved with a full restoration of unity with the Orthodox.In the meantime, nothing is preventing eastern rite Churches from discarding Latinizations that have helped estrange them from their Orthodox bretheren exept their own intransigence, indifference or a pastoral infatuation with things western. Rome has urged the eastern Catholic Churches for years to return to their authentic eastern roots, and there are still pastors sprinkling water on babies at Baptisms, and not receiving them to the Eucharist until they are ready for First Holy Communion! As my friend, Serge, used to say: "What a ya gonna do?"
Prayers for him
I only know of two methods for baptism- immersion or affusion (pouring)- as acceptable for baptism in Catholic or Orthodox Churches. When has “sprinkling water” (aspersion) ever been accepted in any of the Churches as proper for baptism?
Originally Posted by Deacon John Montalvo
I only know of two methods for baptism- immersion or affusion (pouring)- as acceptable for baptism in Catholic or Orthodox Churches. When has “sprinkling water” (aspersion) ever been accepted in any of the Churches as proper for baptism?

Quote
Three forms of ablution have prevailed among Christians, and the Church holds them all to be valid because they fulfill the requisite signification of the baptismal laving. These forms are immersion, infusion, and aspersion.
Baptism [newadvent.org]

It seems now it's considered valid but illicit.
Quote
Let’s clear this up. In the Catholic Church, there are three forms of baptism that are considered valid: immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, the last of which is commonly referred to as baptism by aspersion. Among the three valid forms, aspersion is not permitted in the Church today, but it is considered valid. In legal terms, we would say baptism by aspersion is valid but not licit (permitted). Immersion and pouring are both valid and licit.
Dunk, Pour, or Sprinkle? How to Baptize New Testament Style [catholic.com]
"Sprinkling" was a misuse of words. I meant pouring. In any case, I do not believe such pouring is within the Byzantine Orthodox tradition.Immersion seems to be the norm.
© The Byzantine Forum