Latin...why?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622950' date='Aug 9 2008, 04:56 PM']The use of Latin is a Liturgical and spiritual symbol in the Latin Church. It is used because it has become part of the Latin tradition, and because it is an expression of certain aspects of the faith. There are a number of symbols in the Mass which are not part of the Deposit of Faith, but which are still meaningful and important. When the Priest washes his hands, for example, I believe this began because he had to actually wash his hands. But over time, it has become a spiritual symbol. Likewise, the use of Latin began because it was the vernacular, but over time it has become a spiritual symbol. There are symbols in other Liturgies which are unique to those Liturgies, just as Latin is unique to the Latin rite. Each particular Church should preserve its own traditions. Latin is an important tradition in the Latin Church, and it should be preserved. In the Eastern Liturgies, Latin does not have the same symbolic value, and that is fine. As an analogy, I believe that in the East, kneeling is not done on certain days, because it is seen as penitential. But in the West, kneeling is an act of adoration, and is not necessarily penitential. The East assigns a certain value to kneeling which the West does not, and this difference is not contradictory, but complementary. In the same way, the West assigns a certain value to Latin which the East does not, and that is fine. Both East and West should preserve their own traditions.[/quote]
If the particular language of the liturgy is one of its integral symbols, it follows that the Latin Church apostatized from the faith once for all given to the saints when it changed its liturgy from Greek to Latin in the 4th century. Thus, if I were to accept your exaggerated view of the importance of a particular language (in this case Latin) for worship, I would feel compelled to convert to Greek Orthodoxy, for only the Greek Orthodox Church continues to use the original language of inspired scripture.

Clearly, we shall not agree on this issue, because I refuse to give Latin (or Greek, or Syriac, or Slavonic, etc.) a level of importance that it cannot sustain. Finally, as far as kneeling is concerned, it was forbidden on Sundays in the early Church, and continues to be prohibited in the Eastern Churches on Sundays and throughout the Paschal season.

[Apotheoun]

The use of Latin by the Roman Church is a human custon, which it is free to continue or discontinue. The Latin language has absolutely no doctrinal importance.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1622976' date='Aug 9 2008, 07:25 PM']If the particular language of the liturgy is one of its integral symbols, it follows that the Latin Church apostatized from the faith once for all given to the saints when it changed its liturgy from Greek to Latin in the 4th century.[/quote]
What is tradition? It is what is handed down to us. There is "big-T" Tradition, that is, Divine Revelation, which is the deposit of faith. But then there is "little-T" tradition, which is not the faith itself, but rather how we express the faith. These "little-T" traditions take many forms in each particular Church. The use of Latin is one such "little-T" tradition in the Latin Church. The use of Latin is not integral to the Catholic faith, or to the Universal Church. But it is important to the 2,000 year development of the Roman tradition. The word "integral" does not have to be used. Let's say Latin is important or vital to the Latin Church. The point is that it is an important Liturgical and spiritual tradition which should be preserved. It is not an outdated custom which has no meaning.

When the Liturgy was changed from Greek to Latin, the use of Greek was not a Liturgical symbol. Greek was used because it was the vernacular, not for symbolic and spiritual reasons. Thus, the Church was not changing an established Liturgical symbol which had been handed on. The use of a fixed Liturgical language had not yet developed.

After 1500 years, however, the use of Latin IS an established Liturgical symbol in the Latin Church. Latin has not been handed on to us as a vernacular language (which it ceased to be a long time ago), but as a symbolic, Liturgical and spiritual tradition, the use of which expresses certain aspects of the faith.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1622977' date='Aug 9 2008, 06:27 PM']The use of Latin by the Roman Church is a human custon, which it is free to continue or discontinue. The Latin language has absolutely no doctrinal importance.[/quote]

Is not the Church one, with different Sacred Rites? If the Latin Rite of the Church were to discontinue latin, how could it then be named the Latin Rite? Latin use in the Latin Rite is a Monumental Tradition.

Edited August 10, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1622977' date='Aug 9 2008, 05:27 PM']The use of Latin by the Roman Church is a human custon, which it is free to continue or discontinue. The Latin language has absolutely no doctrinal importance.[/quote]

Ya know, it is more than human custom Appy....it is a matter of Liturgical Law. This is supported through the wording of Sacrosanctum Concilium. While you may think that it is cheeky to simply dismiss things that are not "Eastern," it is more than just a custom. It is actually a prescription in the Latin Church.

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium']36. 1. Particular [u]law[/u] remaining in force, the [b]use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.[/b]

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. [u]This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants[/u], according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.[/quote]

Nowhere does it speak to this being simply a human custom, as you are so quick to point out, incorrectly I might add.....

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium']54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place [u]may be [/u]allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

[b]Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.[/b][/quote]

Now, I am not saying that this is a matter of dogma or doctrine, but it is a matter of Liturgical Law, as defined in Art. 36. It is also a directive of Vatican Council II and the Fathers of said Council (which included Uniate Fathers) that the faithful be able to say or sing (which in my mind is both) the Latin parts.

This is more than just a human custom, this is a directive from the Council Fathers. And this is supported in subsequent documents and most recently conversation and teachings not only from the Holy Father, but also Cardinal Arinze.

[IrishSalesian]

I like the debates going on here! Great Stuff! My whole reason for starting this thread was because of some seminarians that i know who are so obsessed over latin, and latin, and latin. My thinking tells me that they may not be such good pastors someday. They may be good theologians, or philosophers. They irk me a bit with latin this, and latin that. I have nothing against latin except for them who are just shoving it down peoples throats.

[Cam42]

[quote name='IrishSalesian' post='1623145' date='Aug 9 2008, 08:59 PM']I like the debates going on here! Great Stuff! My whole reason for starting this thread was because of some seminarians that i know who are so obsessed over latin, and latin, and latin. My thinking tells me that they may not be such good pastors someday. They may be good theologians, or philosophers. They irk me a bit with latin this, and latin that. I have nothing against latin except for them who are just shoving it down peoples throats.[/quote]

If you go back and read one of my earlier threads, they are absolutely justified in their wish for Latin. I would have you look at this:

[quote name='How Can You Have a Latin Mass? -- Mons. Richard J. Schuler']In 1966, an instruction on the liturgical formation of seminarians was issued. It states very clearly that the "language of the liturgy, both at Mass and in the divine office, in seminaries will be Latin which is the language of the Latin Church, a knowledge of which is required of all clerics." [8] It adds that occasionally Mass may be celebrated in the vernacular in seminaries, but that must not be to the detriment of Latin nor become the general rule.[/quote]
[indent][i]Instructio de Sacrorum Alumnorum Liturgica Institutione from the Sacred congregation of Seminaries and Universities, Article 15.[/i] [/indent]

[quote name='ISTRUZIONE SULLA FORMAZIONE LITURGICA NEI SEMINARI; 1979']19. E’ particolarmente utile per gli alunni la dimestichezza [u][b]con la lingua latina e con il canto gregoriano. Infatti, non solo deve essere conservata per i fedeli questa possibilità[/b][/u] - prevista dal Concilio Vaticano II[29] di pregare e cantare in latino in comune nelle grandi adunanze, [b]ma conviene che i futuri sacerdoti[/b] si radichino più profondamente nella tradizione della Chiesa orante, e conoscano il senso genuino dei testi e perciò sappiano spiegare le versioni in lingue moderne, [b]confrontandole con il testo originale.[/b][/quote]

Essentially this translates to:
[quote name='ISTRUZIONE SULLA FORMAZIONE LITURGICA NEI SEMINARI; 1979']And particularly useful for the pupils familiar with the Latin language and Gregorian chant. Indeed, not only must be preserved for the faithful this possibility - provided by the Second Vatican Council to pray and sing in Latin in common in large gatherings, but agrees that future priests are more deeply rooted in the tradition of the Church praying, and know the meaning genuine texts and therefore able to explain versions in modern languages, compared with the original text.[/quote]

This is still a valid point even if dated 1979.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1623043' date='Aug 9 2008, 07:25 PM']Ya know, it is more than human custom Appy....it is a matter of Liturgical Law. This is supported through the wording of Sacrosanctum Concilium. While you may think that it is cheeky to simply dismiss things that are not "Eastern," it is more than just a custom. It is actually a prescription in the Latin Church.
Nowhere does it speak to this being simply a human custom, as you are so quick to point out, incorrectly I might add.....[/quote]
As far as liturgical law on the use of Latin is concerned, it is a reflection of the human custom of a particular Church, and is not divinely revealed. Lets be frank, it is not a divinely revealed truth that Latin should be used in the liturgy, and the Eastern Churches have never used Latin and never will use it. I refuse to invest the use of Latin (or Greek, or Slavonic, etc.) with quasi-divine status.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1623043' date='Aug 9 2008, 07:25 PM']Now, I am not saying that this is a matter of dogma or doctrine, but it is a matter of Liturgical Law, as defined in Art. 36. It is also a directive of Vatican Council II and the Fathers of said Council (which included Uniate Fathers) that the faithful be able to say or sing (which in my mind is both) the Latin parts.[/quote]
As far as Vatican II is concerned, I agree with Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby (and the Holy Synod of the Melkite Catholic Church), who said that it is not an ecumenical council, but is instead a particular synod of the Latin Church, which reflects the theology and customs of that Church alone.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1623043' date='Aug 9 2008, 07:25 PM']This is more than just a human custom, this is a directive from the Council Fathers. And this is supported in subsequent documents and most recently conversation and teachings not only from the Holy Father, but also Cardinal Arinze.[/quote]
We shall have to agree to disagree on this topic, because Latin was not even the original language of worship of the Roman Church. Now let me be clear, I have no problem with the Western Church using Latin, but I will resist to my dying breath any attempt to exaggerate the importance of that language in theology or liturgy.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1623039' date='Aug 9 2008, 07:15 PM']Is not the Church one, with different Sacred Rites? If the Latin Rite of the Church were to discontinue latin, how could it then be named the Latin Rite? Latin use in the Latin Rite is a Monumental Tradition.[/quote]
The Catholic Church is made up of 23 self-governing Churches.

Thus, I do not belong to a "rite"; instead, I belong to a self-governing Church called the Ruthenian (Byzantine) Catholic Church.

The use of Latin is no more important than the use of Slavonic or Greek.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1622983' date='Aug 9 2008, 05:46 PM']When the Liturgy was changed from Greek to Latin, the use of Greek was not a Liturgical symbol. Greek was used because it was the vernacular, not for symbolic and spiritual reasons. Thus, the Church was not changing an established Liturgical symbol which had been handed on. The use of a fixed Liturgical language had not yet developed.[/quote]
Interesting comment, but utterly unproven.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1623192' date='Aug 9 2008, 09:27 PM']Essentially this translates to:
[quote]And particularly useful for the pupils familiar with the Latin language and Gregorian chant. Indeed, not only must be preserved for the faithful this possibility - provided by the Second Vatican Council to pray and sing in Latin in common in large gatherings, but agrees that future priests are more deeply rooted in the tradition of the Church praying, and know the meaning genuine texts and therefore able to explain versions in modern languages, compared with the original text.[/quote]
[/quote]
Latin and Gregorian chant have never been used in the Eastern Catholic Churches (and never will be), and neither of those things are divinely revealed; instead, they are human customs that developed over time. Now, it is one thing to say that they are beautiful customs and that they should be preserved, and quite another thing to try and invest them with a quasi-dogmatic status, doing the former is perfectly legitimate, while doing the latter is not.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1623039' date='Aug 9 2008, 07:15 PM']If the Latin Rite of the Church were to discontinue latin, how could it then be named the Latin Rite?[/quote]
The Ruthenian Church in the U.S. no longer uses Slavonic (or Rusyn) during the liturgy, and yet it remains the Ruthenian Church because it continues to celebrate the Byzantine Rite, while adapting the Carpatho-Rusyn chant tones to the English language.

Nevertheless, at Pascha we still tend to say "Christos Voskrese" along with "Christ is Risen," but that is about it.

[Apotheoun]

On a more positive note: Eastern Catholics are generally happy about the attempts being made by Western Catholics to restore the particular customs lost over the last forty years within the Roman Church. Nevertheless, we do not want to see a resurgence of the oppressive and forced Latinization of our own Churches, which took place in the past, but which has happily been relegated to the trash heap of history.

[i]A pictorial example of what I mean:[/i]

St. George's Melkite Catholic Church, Milwaukee (Latinized, circa 1930s):

[img]http://www.geocities.com/theomimesis/latin-in.jpg[/img]



St. George's Melkite Catholic Church, Milwaukee (De-Latinized, circa 2000s):

[img]http://www.geocities.com/theomimesis/latin-out1.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.geocities.com/theomimesis/latin-out2.jpg[/img]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1623301' date='Aug 10 2008, 05:34 AM']As far as liturgical law on the use of Latin is concerned, it is a reflection of the human custom of a particular Church, and is not divinely revealed. Lets be frank, it is not a divinely revealed truth that Latin should be used in the liturgy, and the Eastern Churches have never used Latin and never will use it. I refuse to invest the use of Latin (or Greek, or Slavonic, etc.) with quasi-divine status.[/quote]

Didn't I clarify in an ealier post that I [b]DIDN'T[/b] think that it was a matter of doctrine or dogma? I think that I did. That being said, it doesn't mean that we are not to be obedient to the wishes of the Council Fathers. It is a return to the precepts of what Vatican Council II was intending, rather than a misinterpretation.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1623301' date='Aug 10 2008, 05:34 AM']As far as Vatican II is concerned, I agree with Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby (and the Holy Synod of the Melkite Catholic Church), who said that it is not an ecumenical council, but is instead a particular synod of the Latin Church, which reflects the theology and customs of that Church alone.[/quote]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1623301' date='Aug 10 2008, 05:34 AM']We shall have to agree to disagree on this topic, because Latin was not even the original language of worship of the Roman Church. Now let me be clear, I have no problem with the Western Church using Latin, but I will resist to my dying breath any attempt to exaggerate the importance of that language in theology or liturgy.[/quote]

You're kidding right? Vatican II holds as much weight as any other Ecumenical Council has in the history of the Catholic Church. To assert otherwise is a theological error. You and the bishop that you agree with in this matter are incorrect. History and Church teaching have both proven you incorrect.

While we do disagree, I am not willing to accede simple pleasantries over this. You are not above being catechized (neither am I for that matter), but when the catechizing falls on deaf ears, then it becomes a matter of obsitinance. While no one disagrees that the original language of the Church was Greek, it was only so for about 400 years. For the remaining 1600 it has been and continues to be Latin. This was due to a shift in the use of languages, to be sure, but to simply dismiss 1600 years of tradition is ridiculous, especially when Liturgical Law speaks to the contrary.


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1623301' date='Aug 10 2008, 05:49 AM']Latin and Gregorian chant have never been used in the Eastern Catholic Churches (and never will be), and neither of those things are divinely revealed; instead, they are human customs that developed over time. Now, it is one thing to say that they are beautiful customs and that they should be preserved, and quite another thing to try and invest them with a quasi-dogmatic status, doing the former is perfectly legitimate, while doing the latter is not.[/quote]

No one has said that they were. No one said they had to be. However, while you are expecting us to respect (and yes, you expect us to respect) your Uniate heritage, you have been constantly degrading the heritage of the Latin Rite. Interesting way of projecting your insecurites, I think. Please respect our views, because at no point have we been saying that your Rite of the Catholic Church is incorrect or somehow lacking because of it's developed traditions.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1623301' date='Aug 10 2008, 05:41 AM']The Catholic Church is made up of 23 self-governing Churches.

Thus, I do not belong to a "rite"; instead, I belong to a self-governing Church called the Ruthenian (Byzantine) Catholic Church.

The use of Latin is no more important than the use of Slavonic or Greek.[/quote]

Let's try that again....The [b]ROMAN[/b] Catholic Church is made up of 23 self-governing Churches [b]WHICH SWEAR LOYALTY TO THE POPE.[/b]

[quote name='ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM']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, [b]form separate Churches or Rites.[/b][/quote]

[quote name='ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM']3. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, [b]although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, [u]entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff[/u],the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter [u]in primacy over the universal Church.[/u] They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) [u]under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff[/u].[/b][/quote]

[quote name='ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM']10. ...The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, [b]without prejudice to [u]the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff [/u]to intervene in individual cases.[/b][/quote]

Again, no one is questioning your Rite within the Catholic Church. No one. What I am questioning though is the fact that you somehow think that because you are Uniate, you have the right to denegrate the traditions of the Latin Rite simply because you are Uniate. You don't.

Nobody here is trying to put some "quasi-divine" spin on Latin. What we are doing is speaking about what is our patrimony. We do have a right to our heritage and we do have a right to expect that what was promised to us at Vatican Council II is properly implemented. With that being said, the Latin Rite has failed thus far in that particular area. What we are seeing is that the Holy Father and his most trusted advisors are trying to rectify that position.

If you have a valid reason as to why Latin shouldn't be used, I would be grateful to hear it, but what I am not grateful for is listening to you pontificate about how, because you are Uniate, you refuse to see the validity of the Council Father's wishes through the use of red herrings and straw-men fallacies.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1623330' date='Aug 10 2008, 06:50 AM']On a more positive note: Eastern Catholics are generally happy about the attempts being made by Western Catholics to restore the particular customs lost over the last forty years within the Roman Church. Nevertheless, we do not want to see a resurgence of the oppressive and forced Latinization of our own Churches, which took place in the past, but which has happily been relegated to the trash heap of history.

[i]A pictorial example of what I mean:[/i]

St. George's Melkite Catholic Church, Milwaukee (Latinized, circa 1930s):

[img]http://www.geocities.com/theomimesis/latin-in.jpg[/img]
St. George's Melkite Catholic Church, Milwaukee (De-Latinized, circa 2000s):

[img]http://www.geocities.com/theomimesis/latin-out1.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.geocities.com/theomimesis/latin-out2.jpg[/img][/quote]

How Catholic of you.....sheesh....that is sad.....because St. George's did what Vatican Council II asked for (which you just berated in an above post) you have spun it to oppression and forcing....very Catholic.....

[quote name='ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM']5. History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church. [b]The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church.[/b] For this reason it solemnly declares that [u]the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity[/u], more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.[/quote]

And you consider that a positive note??????

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1623343' date='Aug 10 2008, 07:20 AM']How Catholic of you.....sheesh....that is sad.....because St. George's did what Vatican Council II asked for (which you just berated in an above post) you have spun it to oppression and forcing....very Catholic.....
And you consider that a positive note??????[/quote]
Yes, it is a positive note, i.e., the restoration of Western practices is positive, so long is does not mean a return to Latinization for Eastern Catholics. But we must not paper over past history, and the attempts of some individuals to invest the Latin language with quasi-dogmatic status, or to promote particular customs of the Latin Church as if they possess a universal character, which is simply false, is a major concern for Eastern Catholics. It is a fact that the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) would not even exist if it had not been for the oppression of Eastern Catholics (in particular Ruthenians and Ukrainians) by the Latin bishops of the United States during the late 19th century, and again during the 1920s and 1930s. Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1623340' date='Aug 10 2008, 07:13 AM']Let's try that again....The [b]ROMAN[/b] Catholic Church is made up of 23 self-governing Churches [b]WHICH SWEAR LOYALTY TO THE POPE.[/b][/quote]
Nope, I am not a Roman Catholic; instead, I am a Ruthenian or Byzantine Catholic. The Roman Church is only one of the 23 self-governing Churches wittin the Catholic Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1623340' date='Aug 10 2008, 07:13 AM']Didn't I clarify in an ealier post that I [b]DIDN'T[/b] think that it was a matter of doctrine or dogma? I think that I did.[/quote]
Sadly, your comments are equivocal, because while you say the use of Latin is not about dogma, you -- at the same time -- seem to want to establish the use of Latin as something more than a human custom. On the former point we agree, while on the latter point we disagree.


[quote name='Cam42' post='1623340' date='Aug 10 2008, 07:13 AM']That being said, it doesn't mean that we are not to be obedient to the wishes of the Council Fathers. It is a return to the precepts of what Vatican Council II was intending, rather than a misinterpretation.

You're kidding right? Vatican II holds as much weight as any other Ecumenical Council has in the history of the Catholic Church. To assert otherwise is a theological error. You and the bishop that you agree with in this matter are incorrect. History and Church teaching have both proven you incorrect.[/quote]
I do not believe that any of the councils held by the Latin Church after the Second Council of Nicaea are ecumenical; instead, they are simply particular synods of the Latin Church, which reflect Latin formulations of doctrine and discipline.

[Apotheoun]

Ultimately, I agree with the profession of faith made by the Melkite Catholic Church's Holy Synod in 1995:

[b]1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation. [/b]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1623357' date='Aug 10 2008, 07:50 AM']Ultimately, I agree with the profession of faith made by the Melkite Catholic Church's Holy Synod in 1995:

[b]1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation. [/b][/quote]

I am glad those are your beliefs, but they are simply that. According to the Catholic Church, there is more to it than just what you PERSONALLY believe.

[quote name=' Appy']Nope, I am not a Roman Catholic; instead, I am a Ruthenian or Byzantine Catholic. The Roman Church is only one of the 23 self-governing Churches wittin the Catholic Church.[/quote]

You are Roman Catholic, insofar as you swear loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. You are splitting hairs. I don't refer to myself as simply being a Latin Rite Catholic, although that is what I am, technically. I accept your Rites and I even attend them from time to time as a very good friend of mine is bi-ritual (in the Ruthenian Rite), but he still refers to himself as a Roman Catholic priest.

What I think (and this is my opinion), is that you are simply being high handed at this point to justify your position. Why don't you give some solid reasoning as to why the Latin Rite shouldn't use Latin in the Mass or concede that your point of view is based on sole bias toward the fact.

[quote name='Appy']Yes, it is a positive note, i.e., the restoration of Western practices is positive, so long is does not mean a return to Latinization for Eastern Catholics. But we must not paper over past history, and the attempts of some individuals to invest the Latin language with quasi-dogmatic status, or to promote particular customs of the Latin Church as if they possess a universal character, which is simply false, is a major concern for Eastern Catholics. It is a fact that the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) would not even exist if it had not been for the oppression of Eastern Catholics (in particular Ruthenians and Ukrainians) by the Latin bishops of the United States during the late 19th century, and again during the 1920s and 1930s. Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.[/quote]

Again, no one is "pasting over" history. This isn't an attack upon upon the Uniate Rites. Again, no one (other than you) is trying to make the use of Latin a "quasi-dogmatic" issue. All we are talking about is promoting the patrimony that is due to Latin Rite Catholics (which you wouldn't deny us.....oh wait....you are), much like what you have been going on about with your Uniate pontifications for a day now.

Let me be clear. The use of Latin in the Liturgy is not simply a matter of "human custom." It is first, the official language of the Catholic Church. Secondly, the wholesale abandonment (with certain, obvious exclusions), was an abuse of Vatican Council II (regardless of what you personally believe, it was an Ecumenical Council, as decreed by the Catholic Church) and a clear violation of Liturgical Law. Thirdly, the call for the return to the use of Latin by Latin Rite Catholics is no more (or less) important than your precious St. George's ripping out the Communion rail in favor of an Iconostasis and using the traditional vestments (which by the way, was called for at Vatican Council II). Finally, unless you have some clear cut argument that speaks to the justification of the wholesale abandonment of Latin, I would suggest that you retire from this thread. You are starting to engage upon a Catholic v. Catholic debate and that is bad form.

If you would like to debate the issues the Uniates have with the Pope, I would suggest starting a thread on that. I would be more than happy to discuss it with you, insofar as you stay civil and don't bash the Catholic Church in the process.