Syllabus Of Errors Vs Nostra Aetate/dignitatus Humanae

[Apotheoun]

John Ireland. <_< He had much to answer for after he passed.

I am surprised that Archbishop Ireland has not been declared a patron saint by the Eastern Orthodox Churches in the United States, because his actions against an Eastern Catholic priest named Fr. Alexis Toth (now known as St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre) brought about the conversion of almost half of the Eastern Catholics living in America to Orthodoxy at the end of the 19th century.

[Nihil Obstat]

From Wiki:

 

 

In 1891, Ireland refused to accept the credentials of Greek-Catholic priest Alexis Toth, citing the decree that married priests of the Eastern Catholic Churches were not permitted to function in the Catholic Church in the United States,^[16] despite Toth being a widower. Ireland then forbade Toth to minister to his own parishioners,^[17] despite the fact that Toth had jurisdiction from his own Bishop, and did not depend on Ireland. Ireland was also involved in efforts to expel all Eastern Catholic clergy from the United States of America.^[18] Forced into an impasse, Toth went on to lead thousands ofGreek-Catholics to leave the Catholic Church to join the Russian Orthodox Church.^[19] Because of this, Archbishop Ireland is sometimes referred to, ironically, as "The Father of the Orthodox Church in America." Marvin R. O'Connell, author of a biography on Ireland, summarizes the situation by stating that "if Ireland's advocacy of the blacks displayed him at his best, his belligerence toward the Greek Catholics showed him at his bull-headed worst."^[20]

 

[edit]

[Apotheoun]

Below is some information on the experience of Eastern Catholics in America that can be found in a book entitled: "Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States," by Joseph Lee and Marion R. Casey.

 

 

Perhaps the single biggest failure of the American Catholic Church in responding to the successive waves of Catholic immigrants involved the Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn members. As Byzantine-rite Catholics (or Greek-rite Catholics, as they were commonly called), for centuries in Eastern Europe they had enjoyed their own hierarchy, liturgy, canon law, and the longstanding custom of a married clergy. In the United States, however, the latter practice aroused fierce hostility from the American bishops, who refused to permit it. "The possible loss of a few souls of the Greek rite," the U.S. archbishops declared in 1893, "bears no proportion to the blessings resulting from uniformity of discipline." As a result of this episcopal obtuseness, which deprived Byzantine-rite Catholics of the services of their own clergy, some 225,000 eventually left the Catholic Church and joined the hitherto numerically insignificant Russian Orthodox Church. The situation began to improve only after 1907 with the appointment of Stephen Ortynsky as the first Byzantine-rite bishop in the United States. (pages 577-578) 

[Evangetholic]

(Pope Pius IX [my favorite Pope] had your patriarch thrown to the ground and put his foot on his head--the late Victorian period sounds like an unpleasant one in the Catholic Church; this is also the period of time when they introduced segregation into Catholic churches (but not schools??) in my ancestral homeland--Louisiana.)

[Nihil Obstat]

(Pope Pius IX [my favorite Pope] had your patriarch thrown to the ground and put his foot on his head--the late Victorian period sounds like an unpleasant one in the Catholic Church; this is also the period of time when they introduced segregation into Catholic churches (but not schools??) in my ancestral homeland--Louisiana.)

It is a comfort (cold comfort, but comfort nonetheless) that there are also many examples of Catholic priests and leaders leading the shift in culture that stopped tolerating segregation. Archbishop Joseph Rummel, in 1955, interdicted an entire parish after the white parishioners refused to allow the new black priest enter. He worked really hard to desegregate his diocese. Took a lot of backlash for his efforts.

[Evangetholic]

The archdiocese in the state I live in--the most segregated state in the south by some lights--integrated Catholic schools in the 1940's, American Catholics have no cause for racial shame. My black family (I'm mixed race whether or not that is immediately apparent) were comfortable Middle Class practitioners of Catholicism from the start of the 1700's until about five minutes ago. 

 

Sometimes, that which unsettles us can reveal to us what we believe to be true (I'm unsettled by Catholicism). If I, believing the Bible, also believe that Catholic priests can forgive sins, and I believe what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist, might I (who have been baptized and confirmed as a Catholic) go to communion take back up the practice of a religion I did not willfully apostasize from (I was 13 and we just stopped going to mass it was only much later that my mother was bold enough to take us to the Episcopal church) even though I have major areas of disagreement with said institution.

[Nihil Obstat]

Sometimes, that which unsettles us can reveal to us what we believe to be true (I'm unsettled by Catholicism). If I, believing the Bible, also believe that Catholic priests can forgive sins, and I believe what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist, might I (who have been baptized and confirmed as a Catholic) go to communion take back up the practice of a religion I did not willfully apostasize from (I was 13 and we just stopped going to mass it was only much later that my mother was bold enough to take us to the Episcopal church) even though I have major areas of disagreement with said institution.

That would be something well worth discussing with a priest whom you trust. :) Are there any near you to whom you would feel comfortable sitting down with to ask some of those questions?

[Evangetholic]

No, but my grandmother's priest will do I suppose.

[Nihil Obstat]

No, but my grandmother's priest will do I suppose.

I always tell people that they should find a priest who offers the Traditional Mass, if at all possible. :hehe:

[Evangetholic]

Oh God, I hadn't even thought of the liturgy--I know you probably mean for doctrinal reasons, but "doing church" the way your average North American Catholic does is distressing to me; my Episcopal parishes are both "higher church" than the Catholic church here, but still I feel like I'm supposed to belong to the Church most Christians belong to and accept its teachings and practices with faith and with docility and obedience when faith fails. I'd love the Traditional Latin Mass, but the closest is an hour away and I do not drive because of an anxiety disorder.

[Apotheoun]

(Pope Pius IX [my favorite Pope] had your patriarch thrown to the ground and put his foot on his head . . .

Pius IX was upset with Patriarch Gregory II Youssef because the patriarch opposed the decrees on papal primacy and infallibility.  When it became clear that Pius IX was going to force through the decrees the entire contingent of Melkite Catholic bishops left the council before the vote was taken.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

Pius IX was upset with Patriarch Gregory II Youssef because the patriarch opposed the decrees on papal primacy and infallibility.  When it became clear that Pius IX was going to force through the decrees the entire contingent of Melkite Catholic bishops left the council before the vote was taken.

 

I fear, but most likely people feared in the 1870's as well, that communion between Rome and a sui iuris church that has been denying Papal infallibility since 1871 cannot long endure. The fact that I even care about this is mystifying to me; but in a weird way the fact that I do makes me strongly consider that submitting to Roman Authority might what Jesus Christ would have of me--something in me started mourning when I read here what you seemed to be saying about Papal authority and infallibility; then Google led me to another website where you said it more explicitly, what's interesting to me is not the fact your church believes and teaches as it does; but that I found it distressing--why in God's name would I be distressed about you not believing a doctrine I supposedly don't believe in? a) I like order, clarity, and simplicity. b) Mayhap I actually believe such a silly thing as Papal infallibility. Not sure, but maybe.

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh God, I hadn't even thought of the liturgy--I know you probably mean for doctrinal reasons, but "doing church" the way your average North American Catholic does is distressing to me; my Episcopal parishes are both "higher church" than the Catholic church here, but still I feel like I'm supposed to belong to the Church most Christians belong to and accept its teachings and practices with faith and with docility and obedience when faith fails. I'd love the Traditional Latin Mass, but the closest is an hour away and I do not drive because of an anxiety disorder.

I have pretty strong feelings about the traditional Mass, but at the end of the day if the Pauline Mass were the only one available to me, I would endure. It would be very hard for me, a "bitter trial", but I would accept it.

Anyway, the tides are beginning to turn. There are more Traditional Latin Masses available right now than at any point since 1971. It is not the sort of thing that can be denied for long. :)

[Apotheoun]

I fear, but most likely people feared in the 1870's as well, that communion between Rome and a sui iuris church that has been denying Papal infallibility since 1871 cannot long endure. The fact that I even care about this is mystifying to me; but in a weird way the fact that I do makes me strongly consider that submitting to Roman Authority might what Jesus Christ would have of me--something in me started mourning when I read here what you seemed to be saying about Papal authority and infallibility; then Google led me to another website where you said it more explicitly, what's interesting to me is not the fact your church believes and teaches as it does; but that I found it distressing--why in God's name would I be distressed about you not believing a doctrine I supposedly don't believe in? a) I like order, clarity, and simplicity. b) Mayhap I actually believe such a silly thing as Papal infallibility. Not sure, but maybe.

Perhaps you are being called to submit to papal authority by entering into the Roman Church, or maybe by being a member of an Anglican Ordinariate parish (if there is one near where you live), but Melkite Catholics have never been a part of the Western patriarchate, and we have never accepted the idea that one bishop can have power over another bishop. Episcopacy - from an Eastern Christian viewpoint - is one holy mystery, and so all bishops are sacramentally equal. Moreover, it is not as if the different theological approaches of East and West are a modern development, because it is clear to anyone who reads the Church Fathers that these differences go back at least to the 3rd and 4th centuries (and in some cases even earlier than that), and yet in spite of their different approaches to the faith East and West were able to be in communion with each other at least until the 11th century (i.e., during the latter part of the first millennium). The Melkite Catholic approach involves asserting that what was possible in the past is still possible today. After all, the faith was once for all delivered to the saints.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

Perhaps you are being called to submit to papal authority by entering into the Roman Church, or maybe by being a member of an Anglican Ordinariate parish (if there is one near where you live), but Melkite Catholics have never been a part of the Western patriarchate, and we have never accepted the idea that one bishop can have power over another bishop. Episcopacy - from an Eastern Christian viewpoint - is one holy mystery, and so all bishops are sacramentally equal. Moreover, it is not as if the different theological approaches of East and West are a modern development, because it is clear to anyone who reads the Church Fathers that these differences go back at least to the 3rd and 4th centuries (and in some cases even earlier than that), and yet in spite of their different approaches to the faith East and West were able to be in communion with each other at least until the 11th century (i.e., during the latter part of the first millennium). The Melkite Catholic approach involves asserting that what was possible in the past is still possible today. After all, the faith was once for all delivered to the saints.

 

I fear you've misunderstood me, I have no particular comment to make about Melkite belief--in fact, I might even share their belief about the Papacy once the dust of my current discomfort settles. My post was entirely about how I subjectively felt, not about what you, me, or any other Christian should believe.