Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Claud

This discussion is an old one ... at least as old as the Venerable Bede. Rome never saw a rite it didn’t want to suppress, correct, or at least manage. Our via, or the high via!


4 posted on 08/02/2014 2:18:12 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (The GOP is dying. What do we do now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Kenny Bunk

At least as old as the Quartodeciman controversy. But don’t pin this on Rome. It would be more correct to say that there was always this tension everywhere.

Were the emperors in Constantinople any better? The Melkites had a Syriac Rite originally—but they gradually lost it as it became more and more Byzantinized. And were the Reformers any better? Before Henry VIII there were local English uses in York, Hereford, and Bangor—these sees were all forced to adopt the Book of Common Prayer.

And let’s not forget that within Rome’s patriarchal jurisdiction, the Roman rite existed side by side (and still does) with the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites. Nor that the Council of Trent was content to let any traditional rite continue as long as it was over 200 years old.


5 posted on 08/02/2014 5:38:38 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson