Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Free Maronites]

Frankly my biggest concern would be how to organize missionary work. Historically, all new converts to the Catholic Church have been converted into the Latin Rite. That would have to change - radically.

As long as the Latin Rite is treated as the "default rite", Rome's claim to treat all ancient traditions equally is a joke.

The Catholic Church has been open to compromise before. They attempted to 'Latinize' Maronite rites, but ultimately decided to allow the Maronites to retain their own rites, in their own language. And we remain faithful to the Holy See and in communion with Rome.

[Constantinopolis]

Frankly my biggest concern would be how to organize missionary work. Historically, all new converts to the Catholic Church have been converted into the Latin Rite. That would have to change - radically.

As long as the Latin Rite is treated as the "default rite", Rome's claim to treat all ancient traditions equally is a joke.

The Catholic Church has been open to compromise before. They attempted to 'Latinize' Maronite rites, but ultimately decided to allow the Maronites to retain their own rites, in their own language. And we remain faithful to the Holy See and in communion with Rome.

Allowing you to retain your rites? That is not a compromise. That's basic decency. The fact that they even tried to "Latinize" Maronite rites is an outrage.

A compromise would be something like this: From now on, 1 out of every 100 Catholic missionaries will be trained in the Maronite Rite, and 1 out of every 100 new Catholic churches built in missionary lands (Africa, Asia, etc.) will use the Maronite Rite.

The problem with Rome's treatment of its Eastern Rites is precisely the fact that they are being treated as ethnic peculiarities, to be retained by specific ethnic groups, but not to be expanded by converting any new people to them.

This is utterly unacceptable. Why should Africans, or Asians, be converted to the Latin Rite instead of the Maronite Rite for example? Why is the Latin Rite being treated as the main Rite, while all the others are treated as exceptions?

[Cote Acreole]

The Catholic Church has been open to compromise before. They attempted to 'Latinize' Maronite rites, but ultimately decided to allow the Maronites to retain their own rites, in their own language. And we remain faithful to the Holy See and in communion with Rome.

Allowing you to retain your rites? That is not a compromise. That's basic decency. The fact that they even tried to "Latinize" Maronite rites is an outrage.

A compromise would be something like this: From now on, 1 out of every 100 Catholic missionaries will be trained in the Maronite Rite, and 1 out of every 100 new Catholic churches built in missionary lands (Africa, Asia, etc.) will use the Maronite Rite.

The problem with Rome's treatment of its Eastern Rites is precisely the fact that they are being treated as ethnic peculiarities, to be retained by specific ethnic groups, but not to be expanded by converting any new people to them.

This is utterly unacceptable. Why should Africans, or Asians, be converted to the Latin Rite instead of the Maronite Rite for example? Why is the Latin Rite being treated as the main Rite, while all the others are treated as exceptions?

Because they lack the resources or structure in order do so; many of them, for instance are part of a diaspora or rely on biritual priests. Take also the variable that the Church relies on liquidated assets.

I truly believe that it was necessary to attempt to latinize their traditions, becausein the wake of their backlash was a revitalization that emerged, one that sought to see its role outside of the ethnic divisions in existence and also make clear their relationship with Rome; there was growth from what was seemingly stagnant. The Eastern Traditions emerged revitalised in their identity and Traditions, healthier and more evangelical.

An identity crisis existed and so something needed to be done in order to set the boundaries that plagued this crisis; in application the role is better understood.

[Luminesa]

Allowing you to retain your rites? That is not a compromise. That's basic decency. The fact that they even tried to "Latinize" Maronite rites is an outrage.

A compromise would be something like this: From now on, 1 out of every 100 Catholic missionaries will be trained in the Maronite Rite, and 1 out of every 100 new Catholic churches built in missionary lands (Africa, Asia, etc.) will use the Maronite Rite.

The problem with Rome's treatment of its Eastern Rites is precisely the fact that they are being treated as ethnic peculiarities, to be retained by specific ethnic groups, but not to be expanded by converting any new people to them.

This is utterly unacceptable. Why should Africans, or Asians, be converted to the Latin Rite instead of the Maronite Rite for example? Why is the Latin Rite being treated as the main Rite, while all the others are treated as exceptions?

Because they lack the resources or structure in order do so; many of them, for instance are part of a diaspora or rely on biritual priests. Take also the variable that the Church relies on liquidated assets.

I truly believe that it was necessary to attempt to latinize their traditions, becausein the wake of their backlash was a revitalization that emerged, one that sought to see its role outside of the ethnic divisions in existence and also make clear their relationship with Rome; there was growth from what was seemingly stagnant. The Eastern Traditions emerged revitalised in their identity and Traditions, healthier and more evangelical.

An identity crisis existed and so something needed to be done in order to set the boundaries that plagued this crisis; in application the role is better understood.

So essentially, coming to see one's own creative beauty by essentially stepping outside of oneself for a while...but on an ethnical scale around the world.

[Free Maronites]

Because they lack the resources or structure in order do so; many of them, for instance are part of a diaspora or rely on biritual priests. Take also the variable that the Church relies on liquidated assets.

I truly believe that it was necessary to attempt to latinize their traditions, becausein the wake of their backlash was a revitalization that emerged, one that sought to see its role outside of the ethnic divisions in existence and also in it's relationship with Rome; there was growth from what was seemingly stagnant. The Eastern Traditions emerged revitalised in their identity and Traditions, healthier and more evangelical.

An identity crisis existed and so something needed to be done in order to set the boundaries that plagued this crisis; in application the role is better understood.

We have a clearly structured clergy, with the Patriarch of Antioch and the Whole Levant as our head. While the diaspora did result in some Maronites becoming assimilated into Western Catholicism, it also gave the Syriac Maronite Church an international presence, with 1.5 million Maronites in Brazil and around 20 Maronite churches in the US alone. We're hardly some motley collection of priests and followers travelling around the world and seeking shelter in Catholic churches.

The revitalization came about due to the communion with Rome and recognition of Patriarchal authority by the Pope. The creation of the Crusader States, which supported Maronite communities, also helped grow the Syriac Maronite Church. We have a lot to thank the Pope and Catholic Europeans. But the attempted destruction of our rites and Syriac language is not one of them.

The Syriac Maronite Church has always been orthodox Christians. We didn't have an identity crisis, as some may suggest.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's a fair question as to whether or not the Papacy must be installed in Rome, but until our churches reconcile the point is moot.

However, Francis and many Latin theologians have acknowledged and confessed a willingness to negotiate on just how the Papacy would affect the eastern churches should we unify.

Frankly my biggest concern would be how to organize missionary work. Historically, all new converts to the Catholic Church have been converted into the Latin Rite. That would have to change - radically.

As long as the Latin Rite is treated as the "default rite", Rome's claim to treat all ancient traditions equally is a joke.

That's not entirely acurate. New converts are baptized into the Latin Rite, because Latin Rite churches are more Visisble and plentiful than the Eastern Rite churches. In the States Eastern and Latin Rite churches operate independently, but under the same communion. Simply put, if I were to get Catechism at an Easten rite church, I would be baptized into the Eastern Rite,


In the event of a reunion, Eastern Rite Catholics would most likely be turned over to their respective Orthodox parishes, and this system would continue. The real trouble I think would be normalizing the eastern Churches into the Vatican bodies like the College of Cardinals, eccumenical councils etc.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Catholic Church has been open to compromise before. They attempted to 'Latinize' Maronite rites, but ultimately decided to allow the Maronites to retain their own rites, in their own language. And we remain faithful to the Holy See and in communion with Rome.

Allowing you to retain your rites? That is not a compromise. That's basic decency. The fact that they even tried to "Latinize" Maronite rites is an outrage.

A compromise would be something like this: From now on, 1 out of every 100 Catholic missionaries will be trained in the Maronite Rite, and 1 out of every 100 new Catholic churches built in missionary lands (Africa, Asia, etc.) will use the Maronite Rite.

The problem with Rome's treatment of its Eastern Rites is precisely the fact that they are being treated as ethnic peculiarities, to be retained by specific ethnic groups, but not to be expanded by converting any new people to them.

This is utterly unacceptable. Why should Africans, or Asians, be converted to the Latin Rite instead of the Maronite Rite for example? Why is the Latin Rite being treated as the main Rite, while all the others are treated as exceptions?

Because they are exceptions. There are an estimated 13 million Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome today, out of 1.285 billion total catholics. That's a just barely 1%, but it's also 1% of 1.285 billion. The Church is Latin. The Pope is Latin, the Cardinals are Latin, the Arch bishops are Latin. And over 1 Billion faithful are Latin Rite. The Church is Latin. And while we are extending the olive branch and allowing different rites to enter communion with Rome, these onesies and twosies are not enough to shift the cultural break down of the Church. It would take the 300 million Orthodox reentering communion and demanding their rites be prevelant, in order to shift the needle. That's not courtesy or really any sort of ethics question, it's just the reality of the situation.

[Free Maronites]

People converted into Western Catholicism use Latin rites.
Churches built by Western Catholics use Latin rites.

People converted into the Syriac Maronite Church use Maronite rites.
Churches built by the Syriac Maronite Church use Maronite rites.

I feel like that's quite fair.

[Cote Acreole]

So essentially, coming to see one's own creative beauty by essentially stepping outside of oneself for a while...but on an ethnical scale around the world.

That works too, but I was more emphasizeing about seeing a deeper beauty when one's way of life is at stake and sharing it with the world.

[Cote Acreole]

Because they lack the resources or structure in order do so; many of them, for instance are part of a diaspora or rely on biritual priests. Take also the variable that the Church relies on liquidated assets.

I truly believe that it was necessary to attempt to latinize their traditions, becausein the wake of their backlash was a revitalization that emerged, one that sought to see its role outside of the ethnic divisions in existence and also in it's relationship with Rome; there was growth from what was seemingly stagnant. The Eastern Traditions emerged revitalised in their identity and Traditions, healthier and more evangelical.

An identity crisis existed and so something needed to be done in order to set the boundaries that plagued this crisis; in application the role is better understood.

We have a clearly structured clergy, with the Patriarch of Antioch and the Whole Levant as our head. While the diaspora did result in some Maronites becoming assimilated into Western Catholicism, it also gave the Syriac Maronite Church an international presence, with 1.5 million Maronites in Brazil and around 20 Maronite churches in the US alone. We're hardly some motley collection of priests and followers travelling around the world and seeking shelter in Catholic churches.

The revitalization came about due to the communion with Rome and recognition of Patriarchal authority by the Pope. The creation of the Crusader States, which supported Maronite communities, also helped grow the Syriac Maronite Church. We have a lot to thank the Pope and Catholic Europeans. But the attempted destruction of our rites and Syriac language is not one of them.

The Syriac Maronite Church has always been orthodox Christians. We didn't have an identity crisis, as some may suggest.

Forgive me for painting Eastern Catholicism with a broad brush. The Syriac Maronite Church, being the oldest ,in communion with Rome, and largest Eastern Catholic sui iuri Church is an exception.

I'm not trying to say that what was done was inherently good, many people left the Church for instance, but the information that came out of it is beneficial for the future such as Ecumenism. We Latins also have better access to the traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches be it devotionals, or knowledge.

[Free Maronites]

Forgive me for painting Eastern Catholicism with a broad brush. The Syriac Maronite Church, being the oldest ,in communion with Rome, and largest Eastern Catholic sui iuri Church is an exception.

I'm not trying to say that what was done was inherently good, many people left the Church for instance, but the information that came out of it is beneficial for the future such as Ecumenism. We Latins also have better access to the traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches be it devotionals, or knowledge.

Ah, I assumed you were referring solely to the Maronites, considering we did have an impressively large diaspora. There are more Maronites in Brazil then there are Maronites in Lebanon. I apologize if I seemed rude or aggressive.

[Cote Acreole]

Forgive me for painting Eastern Catholicism with a broad brush. The Syriac Maronite Church, being the oldest ,in communion with Rome, and largest Eastern Catholic sui iuri Church is an exception.

I'm not trying to say that what was done was inherently good, many people left the Church for instance, but the information that came out of it is beneficial for the future such as Ecumenism. We Latins also have better access to the traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches be it devotionals, or knowledge.

Ah, I assumed you were referring solely to the Maronites, considering we did have an impressively large diaspora. There are more Maronites in Brazil then there are Maronites in Lebanon. I apologize if I seemed rude or aggressive.

No need, it's my mistake, I should have clarified when quoting Const.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Kentucky town seeks to block Traditional Catholic Church building permit.

[Constantinopolis]

Because they are exceptions. There are an estimated 13 million Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome today, out of 1.285 billion total catholics. That's a just barely 1%, but it's also 1% of 1.285 billion. The Church is Latin. The Pope is Latin, the Cardinals are Latin, the Arch bishops are Latin. And over 1 Billion faithful are Latin Rite. The Church is Latin.

And why is that? How did you get to such an outrageous imbalance?

Oh yeah... when the Catholic Church began to spread beyond Europe starting in the 16th century, all new converts were brought into the Latin Rite, rather than being brought into one of the other Rites, or being given a new Rite of their own.

The Catholic Church is Latin because it deliberately set out to Latinize the world while it was Christianizing the world.

This is why I said that the Catholic Church treats non-Latin Rites as second-class Rites. Not because they aren't given disproportionate importance today. Rather, because the Catholic Church was made 99% Latin deliberately, by spreading the Latin Rite alone to the non-European lands from the 16th century to the 20th century.

[Constantinopolis]

Forgive me for painting Eastern Catholicism with a broad brush. The Syriac Maronite Church, being the oldest ,in communion with Rome, and largest Eastern Catholic sui iuri Church is an exception.

Point of order: The largest Eastern Catholic sui iuris Church is either the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, or the Syro-Malabar Church of India, depending on which estimates you use. The Maronites are third.

These three Churches together make up almost all of the Eastern Catholics in the world (with over 10 million adherents between them). The remaining Eastern Catholic Churches are marginal (there are technically 20 others, but with a combined membership of only 2-3 million).

[The Blaatschapen]

Because they are exceptions. There are an estimated 13 million Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome today, out of 1.285 billion total catholics. That's a just barely 1%, but it's also 1% of 1.285 billion. The Church is Latin. The Pope is Latin, the Cardinals are Latin, the Arch bishops are Latin. And over 1 Billion faithful are Latin Rite. The Church is Latin.

And why is that? How did you get to such an outrageous imbalance?

Oh yeah... when the Catholic Church began to spread beyond Europe starting in the 16th century, all new converts were brought into the Latin Rite, rather than being brought into one of the other Rites, or being given a new Rite of their own.

The Catholic Church is Latin because it deliberately set out to Latinize the world while it was Christianizing the world.

This is why I said that the Catholic Church treats non-Latin Rites as second-class Rites. Not because they aren't given disproportionate importance today. Rather, because the Catholic Church was made 99% Latin deliberately, by spreading the Latin Rite alone to the non-European lands from the 16th century to the 20th century.

Well, they spread it to Latin America. Was the church supposed to use a different rite there? That would make things confusing.

[Constantinopolis]

Well, they spread it to Latin America. Was the church supposed to use a different rite there? That would make things confusing.

They also spread it to North America, large parts of Africa, and some parts of East Asia (such as the Philippines and Indochina).

If they were serious about treating all Rites equally, there's no way that Africans or East Asians would have been converted into the Latin Rite. The Latin Rite would have still been the majority, due to Latin America, but it wouldn't have been 99%.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Well, they spread it to Latin America. Was the church supposed to use a different rite there? That would make things confusing.

They also spread it to North America, large parts of Africa, and some parts of East Asia (such as the Philippines and Indochina).

If they were serious about treating all Rites equally, there's no way that Africans or East Asians would have been converted into the Latin Rite. The Latin Rite would have still been the majority, due to Latin America, but it wouldn't have been 99%.

I don't really see a problem with uniformity in rites today; however, there were attempts in the past to outright replace Eastern rites with the Latin rite (e.g. Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.).

That said, I don't really think there's with using the same rite in non-Christian lands as in your homeland, because, when converting people in non-Christian lands, any rite would be foreign (that's why I don't really support not using the Byzantine rite in America, because most Americans would feel just as alienated by the Latin rite as by the Byzantine rite).

[The Blaatschapen]

Well, they spread it to Latin America. Was the church supposed to use a different rite there? That would make things confusing.

They also spread it to North America, large parts of Africa, and some parts of East Asia (such as the Philippines and Indochina).

If they were serious about treating all Rites equally, there's no way that Africans or East Asians would have been converted into the Latin Rite. The Latin Rite would have still been the majority, due to Latin America, but it wouldn't have been 99%.

Indeed.

Also, it would not be bad to do so.

After all, two rites don't make a wrong.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Because they are exceptions. There are an estimated 13 million Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome today, out of 1.285 billion total catholics. That's a just barely 1%, but it's also 1% of 1.285 billion. The Church is Latin. The Pope is Latin, the Cardinals are Latin, the Arch bishops are Latin. And over 1 Billion faithful are Latin Rite. The Church is Latin.

And why is that? How did you get to such an outrageous imbalance?

Oh yeah... when the Catholic Church began to spread beyond Europe starting in the 16th century, all new converts were brought into the Latin Rite, rather than being brought into one of the other Rites, or being given a new Rite of their own.

The Catholic Church is Latin because it deliberately set out to Latinize the world while it was Christianizing the world.

This is why I said that the Catholic Church treats non-Latin Rites as second-class Rites. Not because they aren't given disproportionate importance today. Rather, because the Catholic Church was made 99% Latin deliberately, by spreading the Latin Rite alone to the non-European lands from the 16th century to the 20th century.

Not gonna lie, that's just your bias talking. The Western Hemisphere didn't have any Christian rites. Christianity didn't rescue the America's until the age of exploration. which countries set up colonies in the West? Spain, France, Portugal, and Great Britain. Guess which tradions these countries had in common? The Latin Rite. The Spanish and the Jesuits spread Catholicism to the new world more than anyone else.

The Latin Church doesn't have a duty to promote other liturgical rites. If the Maronites and the Melkite want to expand their membership they have to get out there and recruit like everyone else.

[Constantinopolis]

They also spread it to North America, large parts of Africa, and some parts of East Asia (such as the Philippines and Indochina).

If they were serious about treating all Rites equally, there's no way that Africans or East Asians would have been converted into the Latin Rite. The Latin Rite would have still been the majority, due to Latin America, but it wouldn't have been 99%.

I don't really see a problem with uniformity in rites today; however, there were attempts in the past to outright replace Eastern rites with the Latin rite (e.g. Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.).

That said, I don't really think there's with using the same rite in non-Christian lands as in your homeland, because, when converting people in non-Christian lands, any rite would be foreign (that's why I don't really support not using the Byzantine rite in America, because most Americans would feel just as alienated by the Latin rite as by the Byzantine rite).

Oh yeah, I personally support uniformity of rites in the modern world.

But the Catholic Church claims to be committed to diversity of rites, and my argument here is that this claim is laughable. No, the Catholic Church isn't actually committed to diversity. They've tried to forcibly Latinize people in the past, and even when they're not doing that they are still giving very privileged treatment to the Latin Rite.

Which is what I would do if I were them, too, so I'm not saying they're wrong to do this, I'm saying it would be a major problem if we ever re-established communion with them.

[Constantinopolis]

The Latin Church doesn't have a duty to promote other liturgical rites. If the Maronites and the Melkite want to expand their membership they have to get out there and recruit like everyone else.

So we're not friends, we're competitors.

My point exactly.

[Dylar]

The Latin Church doesn't have a duty to promote other liturgical rites. If the Maronites and the Melkite want to expand their membership they have to get out there and recruit like everyone else.

So we're not friends, we're competitors.

My point exactly.

We're friends who are partaking in a friendly competition of recruiting. After all,I don't have an obligation to recruit new Initiates into the Knights of the Holy Temple on behalf of another chapter whose parish I don't go to. Nay! I recruit solely for the Saint John Vianney Chapter.

[Pasong Tirad]

So we're not friends, we're competitors.

My point exactly.

We're friends who are partaking in a friendly competition of recruiting. After all,I don't have an obligation to recruit new Initiates into the Knights of the Holy Temple on behalf of another chapter whose parish I don't go to. Nay! I recruit solely for the Saint John Vianney Chapter.

Making lots of babies is the best way to recruit people into the church, though. So, get to work, soldier!

[The Blaatschapen]

We're friends who are partaking in a friendly competition of recruiting. After all,I don't have an obligation to recruit new Initiates into the Knights of the Holy Temple on behalf of another chapter whose parish I don't go to. Nay! I recruit solely for the Saint John Vianney Chapter.

Making lots of babies is the best way to recruit people into the church, though. So, get to work, soldier!

It's how the Catholics became the largest Christian denomination in the Netherlands.