Why Do So Many Hate Things Roman?

I scan these threads here in Eastern, and see some fairly disturbing comments. Anti - latinizations, anti-Gregorian chant, etc.

Over on the TC forum I don’t see anti-Eastern comments, but again, see anti-Latin comments.

Why ?

I believe the ANTI Roman things you are complaining about are when these Roman things have been forced on us and have replace authentic Eastern traditions. I don’t see here on the Eastern Catholic thread anyone advocating standing during the Canon of the Latin Rite Mass, or replacing the praying of the rosary with the Jesus prayer. I do see on the Traditional forum that Latinization of the Eastern churches as a good thing.

recent examples ?

Who is forcing latinizations on Eastern Churches today ?

If I’m not mistaken YOU have been pushing the need for us in the East to use the filioque and other Latin traditions. :frowning:

A great deal of the animosity towards all things Latin in the Eastern Churches, comes from recent converts, a significant number of whom will at some point leave Catholicism for one of the Orthodox Churches. Cradle EC’s tend to have considerably less anger toward the Latin Church.

1 Like

One can be ( such as myself and many others I know) Anti Latinization without anger, and with no desire to leave Catholicism. I became a Byzantine Catholic over 40 years ago from the RC church and have NO problem with Roman traditions within the Roman church.

I didn’t come here to argue, just try and understand all the fuss.

Where are these posts of mine you claim exist ? I highly doubt I’ve ever typed the word filioque on CA. At any rate, your reaction to the topic tells me my hunch is correct.

Ok, thanks for your reply.

So, is this latinization of Eastern Churches going on today going on today ? If not, why would there be any anger at all ?

Dear Seamus,

I believe your point is overly simplistic. For one thing, a priest friend of mine does have “converts” - but they are ALL traditional RC’s, (about one half of his entire parish) and some of them are as vituperant and vociferous as our TrentCath! :wink:

They insist on the Filioque and other traditions which they have brought with them. Frankly, I, for one, don’t see anything wrong with that since it will take them some time to get used to the Eastern Church :slight_smile: .

And converts from Orthodoxy are not always “anti-Latin” - Bl. Basil Velichkovsky, the Redemptorist New Hieromartyr wrote in his diary that his Orthodox converts insisted on kneeling on Sundays etc. even when he asked them not to do those things so as to not give scandal to the Orthodox.

Whether one is Ukrainian Catholic or Ukrainian Orthodox from western Ukraine makes no difference - they tend to both have an equal aversion to the Roman Catholic Church in its Polish incarnation as a result of a nasty history in this respect. To this day, the Gregorian calendar will be called the “Polish calendar,” Christmas on the 25th is the “Polish holidays” etc.

Now, this doesn’t mean that both UC’s and UO’s won’t have cherished practices that originated in the RC church and are as a result of RC influence. To them, that has nothing to do with the above. :wink:

In Poland, however, UGCCers tend to be quite different (and quite Latinized). When immigrants from Poland “take over” a UGCC parish here (as happened to my old parish), one notices the difference - a number of old Latin devotions that the post-World War II immigrants brought with them, but as a result of Vatican II and the “Eastern movement” were dropped over time come back with a vengeance, to wit, First Fridays and Saturdays, Sacred Hearts devotions etc.

“Eastern” UGCC priests and laity will tend to be very critical of devotions that have a Latin Church origin. It doesn’t mean that they “hate things Roman” only that they are zealous about promoting things Byzantine.

The title of this thread, I will add, is tendentious and offensive. Roman Catholics I know, including priest-professors whom one would think would have a more rounded out ecclesial world-view (which world-view they apply to Buddhism and other world religions) have habitually belittled Eastern traditions, again because they really are in the darkness of invincible ignorance about them and, for them, the standard of all that is good is based on the Roman tradition.

It is because the Roman tradition, in varying ways in various EC Churches made itself oppressively felt that one can find a certain aversion to the RC Church itself.

There is a book of photographs I have in my possession by a UGCC photographer who made pictures of the mangled remains of Ukrainian Catholic Churches by . . . Roman Catholics. A particular object of RC hatred is the three-bar Cross and the cupola. One picture depicts a mangled cupola and cross in the middle of a cow field. The photographer also made pictures of EC Churches taken over by Roman Catholics when the UGCC was banned by the soviets (talk about kicking someone when they are down!).

He went into one of these Churches where the iconostasis was removed for the Novus Ordo Mass. But he noticed a three-bar Cross on the cupola and asked the RC parish priest about it. “Oh, really? I never noticed. This Church has been in RC hands for a couple of hundred years at least . . .”

Perhaps the author of this thread might like to review the history of Roman Catholic oppression, cultural and political of the Eastern Catholic Churches before exclaiming “Why do they dislike us so?”

Alex

You don’t see anti-Eastern comments there because, speaking from my own experience, so many traditional Roman Catholics would LOVE it if they could have their traditional Mass and praxis just as the Eastern Catholic Churches do . . .

As I said, a friend of mine is in charge of a parish where about half of the parishioners are traditional RC’s . . . who also learned to sing the Divine Liturgy in Ukrainian, would you believe . . .

As for the Filioque, no one is against it as a “Latin” practice. We’re against it because it simply does not belong in a Creed intended to express the faith of the Universal Church as set out by the two Councils that declared it and as a number of Holy Popes of Rome, such as Pope St Leo IV, protected the original Creed.

So to be against the Filioque is not to be against a “Latin” practice.

Alex

I never mentioned the Filioque.

So, iyo, one should never ask questions about Eastern Churches ?

As I’ve mentioned already, I sensed animosity, and now, here I see it. So this history of oppression. It continues today ? Honest question, I simply don’t know.

And if Roman Catholics are not welcome here, just say so.

Actually, Roman Catholics are welcome here.

I apologise and retract all my comments, in addition to myself.

Alex

I believe this to be false, it has recently been affirmed by scholars of both parties that the filioque controversy at heart is a problem of translation between Greek and Latin, and that trying to force the filioque into the greek credo would be heresy in itself as there is no proper way to word it in the Greek language.

lol, I had to google it to see what I was being accused of :shrug:

Boy that’s the truth…sadly over here on the Latin side we have to deal with Latin Rite Catholics wanting to completely remove the Latin from the Rite…:slapfight:…among other things. Worst part is when you try to preserve the identity of your Rite you’re called a heretic. :blackeye: Although what am I saying you Eastern Catholics already know what that feels like.

No problem, I guess I could have worded the title differently. I honestly don’t know what all the fuss is about. Only time I ever used the word latinization is a few weeks ago when joking with ConstantineTG.

Basically, I’m asking…is this latinization still going on, thus a problem, or is it all about past problems ?

So much truth :frighten:

This is my understanding as well.

But the council pronouncements and history are interesting. As well as the Scripture:

John 15:

26 ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν **ἐγὼ πέμψω **ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ:

26 Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me;

26 But when the Paraclete comes, whom **I will send **you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Indeed. And all bets are off when the Latin is translated into English. You can blame the Anglicans for that. :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.