OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 09:15:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Popes, the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and Vestments  (Read 5043 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« on: March 18, 2011, 08:14:15 AM »

Pope John Paul II once celebrated the Divine Liturgy in Ukrainian on the Papal Altar in St. Peter's.  I don't know if he ever celebrated the DL privately or for a select congregation, but I suspect that he only celebrated one public DL during his reign.  

Pope John Paul wore Western-style vestments for the DL, including a chasuble, mitre, and pallium.  What would happen if Pope Benedict or any future Pope celebrated the DL in public and wore proper Byzantine-style vestments?  Someone on a traditional Catholic forum told me that many in Orthodoxy, including the current Ecumenical Patriarch, would be very upset if a Pope celebrated the DL vested in a Byzantine prelate's vestments.

Still, the Pope has ecclesiastical/political jurisdiction over some Eastern Christians. Does the friction between the EP, other Orthodox prelates, and the Pope stem from the Union of Brest? Or, is there a consensus among the Orthodox that a Pope should never appear in Byzantine vestments lest he pass himself off as a legitimate patriarch in the Orthodox hierarchy?  What's preventing the Pope from vesting in an Eastern style?
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 08:16:10 AM by jordanz » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2011, 08:24:31 AM »

What's preventing the Pope from vesting in an Eastern style?

Nothing. That would be a non-issue. Roman vestments are just as Orthodox as Byzantine vestments so changing to Eastern vestments wouldn't change a thing.
Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,895


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2011, 08:38:04 AM »

Quote
What's preventing the Pope from vesting in an Eastern style?

Vesting is not merely a matter of "getting dressed". An Orthodox clergyman reads or recites specific prayers before putting on every single piece of vestment. These prayers are an integral part of the Divine Liturgy - indeed, of any service in the liturgical cycle. A bishop of any rank does not vest on his own, but is vested by subdeacons. I seriously doubt that the Roman Catholic vesting procedure is identical to that of the Orthodox Church. If it is not, then this gives no right to any non-Orthodox clergyman, be he priest or bishop, to vest as would an Orthodox clergyman. Such a vesting would be a mockery of Orthodox clerical office.

Quote
Still, the Pope has ecclesiastical/political jurisdiction over some Eastern Christians. Does the friction between the EP, other Orthodox prelates, and the Pope stem from the Union of Brest?

Yes. The Orthodox Church has never recognised or accepted the notion of "Orthodox in communion with Rome". "Bells and smells" and vestments are mere outward appearance - the Byzantine Catholics still hold to the teachings of Rome, commemorate the Pope of Rome in their litanies, follow the Roman Paschalion, and celebrate the feasts of post-schism saints who are not recognised or commemorated by the Orthodox. Their services might look Orthodox, but they are not part of the Orthodox Church.

To this day, Orthodox believers are not permitted to receive Holy Communion at any church which is not Orthodox - this includes Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 08:48:03 AM by LBK » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2011, 09:32:52 AM »

The Pope also celebrated and/or presided over several Liturgies in Ukraine during his trip there about ten years ago.

I think that any Pope attempting to maintain a civil relationship with the Orthodox would not vest as an Orthodox Bishop even if the rules of the Roman Church were to permit him to do so. This would certainly be viewed across the Orthodox spectrum, regardless of one's definition of ecumenism, as an affront.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2011, 10:34:47 AM »

I think that any Pope attempting to maintain a civil relationship with the Orthodox would not vest as an Orthodox Bishop even if the rules of the Roman Church were to permit him to do so.

Since Roman vestments are as Orthodox vestments as Byzantine vestments he is always vested as an Orthodox bishop. Not doing so would mean him wearing civilian clothes. Not goint to happen.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 10:35:25 AM by Alpo » Logged

Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2011, 10:38:02 AM »

Quote
What's preventing the Pope from vesting in an Eastern style?

Vesting is not merely a matter of "getting dressed". An Orthodox clergyman reads or recites specific prayers before putting on every single piece of vestment. These prayers are an integral part of the Divine Liturgy - indeed, of any service in the liturgical cycle. A bishop of any rank does not vest on his own, but is vested by subdeacons. I seriously doubt that the Roman Catholic vesting procedure is identical to that of the Orthodox Church. If it is not, then this gives no right to any non-Orthodox clergyman, be he priest or bishop, to vest as would an Orthodox clergyman. Such a vesting would be a mockery of Orthodox clerical office.

Quote
Still, the Pope has ecclesiastical/political jurisdiction over some Eastern Christians. Does the friction between the EP, other Orthodox prelates, and the Pope stem from the Union of Brest?

Yes. The Orthodox Church has never recognised or accepted the notion of "Orthodox in communion with Rome". "Bells and smells" and vestments are mere outward appearance - the Byzantine Catholics still hold to the teachings of Rome, commemorate the Pope of Rome in their litanies, follow the Roman Paschalion, and celebrate the feasts of post-schism saints who are not recognised or commemorated by the Orthodox. Their services might look Orthodox, but they are not part of the Orthodox Church.

To this day, Orthodox believers are not permitted to receive Holy Communion at any church which is not Orthodox - this includes Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic.

I don't know now, but in the pre-Vatican II days, Roman Catholic priests had specific prayers to say as they vested.  I was even told that donning a cassock, a priest had a specific prayer for each button.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2011, 11:42:33 AM »

Vesting is not merely a matter of "getting dressed". An Orthodox clergyman reads or recites specific prayers before putting on every single piece of vestment. These prayers are an integral part of the Divine Liturgy - indeed, of any service in the liturgical cycle. A bishop of any rank does not vest on his own, but is vested by subdeacons. I seriously doubt that the Roman Catholic vesting procedure is identical to that of the Orthodox Church. If it is not, then this gives no right to any non-Orthodox clergyman, be he priest or bishop, to vest as would an Orthodox clergyman. Such a vesting would be a mockery of Orthodox clerical office.

Romans have vesting prayers also.  The traditionally-minded clergy still recite them in Latin before every Mass. 

Liturgical Vestments and the Vesting Prayers (Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff)
 
I don't know now, but in the pre-Vatican II days, Roman Catholic priests had specific prayers to say as they vested.  I was even told that donning a cassock, a priest had a specific prayer for each button.

No, not that complex, thankfully.  The vesting prayers have not changed much (or at all) since the Council.  The maniple is optional for the Ordinary Form and mandatory for the Extraordinary Form.  Many priests that celebrate the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo have dropped the wearing of the amice, unfortunately.  Some priests haven't worked liturgical minimalism out of their systems yet.       

I think that any Pope attempting to maintain a civil relationship with the Orthodox would not vest as an Orthodox Bishop even if the rules of the Roman Church were to permit him to do so. This would certainly be viewed across the Orthodox spectrum, regardless of one's definition of ecumenism, as an affront.

On the flipside, Rome has not commented on the Western Orthodox movement.  Rome probably never will since it likely considers all canonical Orthodox liturgies valid but illicit (I am very well aware of the Orthodox position).  Similarly, the Vatican does not directly interfere with the SSPX Masses, although some ordinaries have tried to push the SSPX out of their dioceses.  At least officially, though, I doubt that Rome will care if the Roman Mass is said by a high profile canonical Orthodox priest or bishop.  After all, there are not a few bi-ritual Byzantine Catholic and Syro-Malabar priests.  Even Abp. Fulton Sheen said the Divine Liturgy in English in the 1960's, interestingly (hope he didn't bring his blackboard with him).   

However, I am very mindful that Rome has the luxury to be indulgent about such matters given its greater political influence.  The matter of vestments is political and indirectly theological.  Orthodoxy has more to lose if it were to indulge a Pope that said the Divine Liturgy dressed as a Byzantine eparch.  I don't think the Vatican would become extremely angry if an Orthodox bishop vested in a tunicle, dalmatic, and chasuble and said (Tridentine) Pontifical Mass.  Might raise a few eyebrows, but I don't think Pope Benedict or his successor would become irate.  In fact, Pope Benedict or his successor might view it as a vehicle for ecumenical dialogue.  I think his fellow Orthodox bishops would be much more upset than Rome!  This saddens me quite a bit.  I also realize that traditionally Orthodox peoples have often been harmed politically and socially by hostile and even non-Christian regimes. Traditionally Roman peoples tended to have much easier political situations.

I respect that the Orthodox view these situations with much more gravity than Roman and Eastern Catholics do.  I agree that a Pope should probably refrain from saying a Divine Liturgy in public, and merely preside in choir over an Eastern Catholic liturgy.  I certainly hope that the Pope says the Extraordinary Form in public!  That'll get an uproar from an entirely different chorus -- the left flank of the Roman Church  Grin  Still, it'd be great if he would.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 11:49:02 AM by jordanz » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2011, 12:08:08 PM »

Vesting is not merely a matter of "getting dressed". An Orthodox clergyman reads or recites specific prayers before putting on every single piece of vestment. These prayers are an integral part of the Divine Liturgy - indeed, of any service in the liturgical cycle. A bishop of any rank does not vest on his own, but is vested by subdeacons. I seriously doubt that the Roman Catholic vesting procedure is identical to that of the Orthodox Church. If it is not, then this gives no right to any non-Orthodox clergyman, be he priest or bishop, to vest as would an Orthodox clergyman. Such a vesting would be a mockery of Orthodox clerical office.

Romans have vesting prayers also.  The traditionally-minded clergy still recite them in Latin before every Mass. 

Liturgical Vestments and the Vesting Prayers (Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff)
 
I don't know now, but in the pre-Vatican II days, Roman Catholic priests had specific prayers to say as they vested.  I was even told that donning a cassock, a priest had a specific prayer for each button.

No, not that complex, thankfully.  The vesting prayers have not changed much (or at all) since the Council.  The maniple is optional for the Ordinary Form and mandatory for the Extraordinary Form.  Many priests that celebrate the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo have dropped the wearing of the amice, unfortunately.  Some priests haven't worked liturgical minimalism out of their systems yet.       

I think that any Pope attempting to maintain a civil relationship with the Orthodox would not vest as an Orthodox Bishop even if the rules of the Roman Church were to permit him to do so. This would certainly be viewed across the Orthodox spectrum, regardless of one's definition of ecumenism, as an affront.

On the flipside, Rome has not commented on the Western Orthodox movement.  Rome probably never will since it likely considers all canonical Orthodox liturgies valid but illicit (I am very well aware of the Orthodox position).  Similarly, the Vatican does not directly interfere with the SSPX Masses, although some ordinaries have tried to push the SSPX out of their dioceses.  At least officially, though, I doubt that Rome will care if the Roman Mass is said by a high profile canonical Orthodox priest or bishop.  After all, there are not a few bi-ritual Byzantine Catholic and Syro-Malabar priests.  Even Abp. Fulton Sheen said the Divine Liturgy in English in the 1960's, interestingly (hope he didn't bring his blackboard with him).   

However, I am very mindful that Rome has the luxury to be indulgent about such matters given its greater political influence.  The matter of vestments is political and indirectly theological.  Orthodoxy has more to lose if it were to indulge a Pope that said the Divine Liturgy dressed as a Byzantine eparch.  I don't think the Vatican would become extremely angry if an Orthodox bishop vested in a tunicle, dalmatic, and chasuble and said (Tridentine) Pontifical Mass.  Might raise a few eyebrows, but I don't think Pope Benedict or his successor would become irate.  In fact, Pope Benedict or his successor might view it as a vehicle for ecumenical dialogue.  I think his fellow Orthodox bishops would be much more upset than Rome!  This saddens me quite a bit.  I also realize that traditionally Orthodox peoples have often been harmed politically and socially by hostile and even non-Christian regimes. Traditionally Roman peoples tended to have much easier political situations.

I respect that the Orthodox view these situations with much more gravity than Roman and Eastern Catholics do.  I agree that a Pope should probably refrain from saying a Divine Liturgy in public, and merely preside in choir over an Eastern Catholic liturgy.  I certainly hope that the Pope says the Extraordinary Form in public!  That'll get an uproar from an entirely different chorus -- the left flank of the Roman Church  Grin  Still, it'd be great if he would.

A great post! Thank you for your insight which I think is quite accurate. We tend not to look at these concerns in real world terms but rather than abstractions and you injected a tone of reality to the discussion!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2011, 12:19:30 PM »


On the flipside, Rome has not commented on the Western Orthodox movement.  Rome probably never will since it likely considers all canonical Orthodox liturgies valid but illicit

I have said this before in other places but I think it bears repeating.  I have NEVER heard anyone...save laymen and doctrinal speculators [apologists] ever refer to Orthodox liturgies or mysteries as valid but illicit.  It is an absurdity if one considers it beyond one's own nose.

I think there is a reason for there never being any formal mention of such a thing. 

Whether or not something is licit can only be determined within one's own jurisdiction, and is only used to point out essentially that Donatism is a heresy, and to elaborate the principle of ex opera operato, meaning that the efficacy of a sacrament [grace] depends on the disposition of the receiver and not the holiness of the priest, or his legitimate right to do as the Church intends at that moment.  So it makes no sense to impose that distinction on anyone outside of your own set of canons.  The same can be said about that kind of thing being imposed by Roman rite folk on eastern Catholic liturgies and mysteries.  To each according to his canons.   

It makes no sense to say that Orthodox mysteries are illicit, since quite obviously they are indeed so, according to Orthodox canons...As far as we can possibly know.

All that the Catholic Church dare say, and does in reality say, is that they are graced [valid and efficacious].
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2011, 12:50:43 PM »

I have said this before in other places but I think it bears repeating.  I have NEVER heard anyone...save laymen and doctrinal speculators [apologists] ever refer to Orthodox liturgies or mysteries as valid but illicit.  It is an absurdity if one considers it beyond one's own nose.

I think there is a reason for there never being any formal mention of such a thing. 

Whether or not something is licit can only be determined within one's own jurisdiction, and is only used to point out essentially that Donatism is a heresy, and to elaborate the principle of ex opera operato, meaning that the efficacy of a sacrament [grace] depends on the disposition of the receiver and not the holiness of the priest, or his legitimate right to do as the Church intends at that moment.  So it makes no sense to impose that distinction on anyone outside of your own set of canons.  The same can be said about that kind of thing being imposed by Roman rite folk on eastern Catholic liturgies and mysteries.  To each according to his canons.   

It makes no sense to say that Orthodox mysteries are illicit, since quite obviously they are indeed so, according to Orthodox canons...As far as we can possibly know.

All that the Catholic Church dare say, and does in reality say, is that they are graced [valid and efficacious].

I suspect that part of the reason why Roman Catholic laymen view the Eastern Catholic situation through this lens is because of the SSPX situation.  I'm no friend of the SSPX because of their bigotry and general meanness, but nevertheless I have to say that their bishops and priests are valid Roman rite clerics.  Their marriages and confessions are in doubt not because of their clerical status but because of their lack of jurisdiction.  In Roman thought, a bishop has to "authorize" a priest to celebrate the sacraments publicly in his diocese.  This is called a "celebret", as you probably know.  Sure, the SSPX say they have "emergency jurisdiction" because of the new liturgy, but Rome certainly doesn't agree. 

"Valid but illicit" is a very Roman-centric way of viewing things, and I probably shouldn't have phrased it that way.  I respect that Eastern Catholics would prefer to not use Roman canonical language.  They shouldn't have to anyway -- Eastern Catholics have their own canon law.  I agree that Rome shouldn't use its canon law to define its other sui juris churches, but many times its clergy and canonists do anyway.  It would probably be better to say that the clergy of the Eastern rites in union with Rome are apostolic clergy in political union with the Pontiff but not ecclesiastical and ritual union.  That is, the Pope has temporal authority over the Eastern Catholics, but not ecclesiastical authority.  Eastern churches in Rome have their own canons and major archbishops/patriarchs.  The highest ecclesiastical authority for a sui juris church resides with their highest prelate.  In practice, the Pope is only the ecclesiastical authority for the Roman rite.

Correct me if this is a wrong characterization. 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 12:53:31 PM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2011, 01:02:16 PM »

I have said this before in other places but I think it bears repeating.  I have NEVER heard anyone...save laymen and doctrinal speculators [apologists] ever refer to Orthodox liturgies or mysteries as valid but illicit.  It is an absurdity if one considers it beyond one's own nose.

I think there is a reason for there never being any formal mention of such a thing. 

Whether or not something is licit can only be determined within one's own jurisdiction, and is only used to point out essentially that Donatism is a heresy, and to elaborate the principle of ex opera operato, meaning that the efficacy of a sacrament [grace] depends on the disposition of the receiver and not the holiness of the priest, or his legitimate right to do as the Church intends at that moment.  So it makes no sense to impose that distinction on anyone outside of your own set of canons.  The same can be said about that kind of thing being imposed by Roman rite folk on eastern Catholic liturgies and mysteries.  To each according to his canons.   

It makes no sense to say that Orthodox mysteries are illicit, since quite obviously they are indeed so, according to Orthodox canons...As far as we can possibly know.

All that the Catholic Church dare say, and does in reality say, is that they are graced [valid and efficacious].

I suspect that part of the reason why Roman Catholic laymen view the Eastern Catholic situation through this lens is because of the SSPX situation.  I'm no friend of the SSPX because of their bigotry and general meanness, but nevertheless I have to say that their bishops and priests are valid Roman rite clerics.  Their marriages and confessions are in doubt not because of their clerical status but because of their lack of jurisdiction.  In Roman thought, a bishop has to "authorize" a priest to celebrate the sacraments publicly in his diocese.  This is called a "celebret", as you probably know.  Sure, the SSPX say they have "emergency jurisdiction" because of the new liturgy, but Rome certainly doesn't agree. 

"Valid but illicit" is a very Roman-centric way of viewing things, and I probably shouldn't have phrased it that way.  I respect that Eastern Catholics would prefer to not use Roman canonical language.  They shouldn't have to anyway -- Eastern Catholics have their own canon law.  I agree that Rome shouldn't use its canon law to define its other sui juris churches, but many times its clergy and canonists do anyway.  It would probably be better to say that the clergy of the Eastern rites in union with Rome are apostolic clergy in political union with the Pontiff but not ecclesiastical and ritual union.  That is, the Pope has temporal authority over the Eastern Catholics, but not ecclesiastical authority.  Eastern churches in Rome have their own canons and major archbishops/patriarchs.  The highest ecclesiastical authority for a sui juris church resides with their highest prelate.  In practice, the Pope is only the ecclesiastical authority for the Roman rite.

Correct me if this is a wrong characterization. 

Oh my.  Thank you!!   This moves things along very nicely, I'd say.  Others who know more might tweak it but it seems a much better way of saying things in a universal [Catholic] context.

M.
Logged

Altar Server
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 904


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2011, 01:19:55 PM »

All Bishops in the Catholic church can celebrate in any rite of their choice but they are to be vested in the vestments of their native rites so if a byzantine catholic bishop were to celebrate the Latin Mass he should still wear his byzantine vestments.
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2011, 01:28:14 PM »

All Bishops in the Catholic church can celebrate in any rite of their choice but they are to be vested in the vestments of their native rites so if a byzantine catholic bishop were to celebrate the Latin Mass he should still wear his byzantine vestments.

I think you're right about that.  However, in practice bi-ritual priests will wear Roman vestments when saying Mass and native Eastern vestments when celebrating an eastern liturgy.  I wouldn't care if a Byzantine Eastern Catholic priest showed up for Low Mass one day in a phelonion (actually it'd be sort of cool), but there are some Romans that would get uppity about these things.  Heck, there are stupid Roman Catholics (that's uncharitable, sorry) who've walked into Eastern Catholic churches and had the temerity to say that the iconostasis doesn't belong in the church!  These people exist.  Would you walk into someone's house and immediately proceed to knock the decor? 

I guess that Pope John Paul II was right to wear Roman vestments when saying the Divine Liturgy in Ukrainian at St. Pete's.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 01:31:05 PM by jordanz » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2011, 01:33:47 PM »

All Bishops in the Catholic church can celebrate in any rite of their choice but they are to be vested in the vestments of their native rites so if a byzantine catholic bishop were to celebrate the Latin Mass he should still wear his byzantine vestments.

Are you sure about that?  I know all priests (bishops included) can concelebrate in any rite of any Catholic Church sui juris wearing the appropriate vestments of one's particular church, but I was not aware that the episcopate automatically received bi-ritual faculties.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2011, 01:37:31 PM »

All Bishops in the Catholic church can celebrate in any rite of their choice but they are to be vested in the vestments of their native rites so if a byzantine catholic bishop were to celebrate the Latin Mass he should still wear his byzantine vestments.

Are you sure about that?  I know all priests (bishops included) can concelebrate in any rite of any Catholic Church sui juris wearing the appropriate vestments of one's particular church, but I was not aware that the episcopate automatically received bi-ritual faculties.

Okay, my error on this one.  Schultz is right.  Any priest, either Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic, may receive bi-ritual facilities from Rome.  They must vest as a Roman when saying Mass and vest according to the custom of the particular Eastern church when saying an Eastern liturgy.  I strongly suspect that bishops, even cardinals, must likewise seek and recieve bi-ritual facilities before celebrating a rite other than the one they were ordained to celebrate.

Il Papa calls the shots, so he can (theoretically) do what he wants. However, I agree with everyone here that Pope Benedict should stick to the te igitur.

Kinda bummed that I won't pop in for daily Mass and see a priest in a phelonion.  :-(  However, I'm glad to see that traditional Roman Catholic priests are finally breaking out of the "Trid Mass = Baroque replica vestments" and moving towards a variety of chasuble cuts and styles.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 01:40:10 PM by jordanz » Logged
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 904


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2011, 02:25:20 PM »

I read it somewhere I'll try to find the source but I am fairly certain that when  a bishop were to con-celebrate he would wear the vestments of his native church. 
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2011, 04:03:16 PM »

Or, is there a consensus among the Orthodox that a Pope should never appear in Byzantine vestments lest he pass himself off as a legitimate patriarch in the Orthodox hierarchy?

I don't see why that should be the case any more than the Easterners already in communion with him.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2011, 04:20:09 PM »

I read it somewhere I'll try to find the source but I am fairly certain that when  a bishop were to con-celebrate he would wear the vestments of his native church. 

Yes, this is true.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2011, 06:24:27 AM »

The vesting prayers are still in place in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The fact if the priest says them or not is another.

This cross is at the centre of the stole. Before putting on his stole, if he remembers, he kisses that cross. The vesting prayers for the chausuble are more frequent.

Political issues aside, the celebration of the Extraordinary form will not achieve much. It is a non-issue.
The priests, especially in the West, want to away with folk-Catholicism, which is the accumulated piety of many generations. Forcing priests in France to pray their breviary and rosary will accomplish more for the Church. The sloth of priests in the West is immense. Asking irresponsible priests in Toulons or Maastricht to become responsible is a task which demands a generation to change. And two generations have passed since the Council.
 Take into account that our Canon Law demands that our priests have an extraordinary devotion to the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2011, 07:38:42 PM »

Political issues aside, the celebration of the Extraordinary form will not achieve much. It is a non-issue.

This depends on where you are in the world.  The revival of the Extraordinary Form has been relatively successful in some parts of the USA.  In my diocese alone there is one church that has for the most part converted to the EF, and eight more that offer at least one Mass every Sunday.  A fair number of parishes in my diocese have done away with lay people administering Communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand (the last one by example, as any priest who tries to force people to receive on the tongue will inevitably get punished, sadly.)  Many priests say the EF daily or even binate in private.  My parish, the parish that went heavily EF, is the only parish in the diocese that "turned a profit" (i.e. exceeded operating costs) in the last year!  Needless to say, our status quo bishop is unhappy that the most successful parish is the one that reverted to traditional practices.


The priests, especially in the West, want to away with folk-Catholicism, which is the accumulated piety of many generations. Forcing priests in France to pray their breviary and rosary will accomplish more for the Church. The sloth of priests in the West is immense. Asking irresponsible priests in Toulons or Maastricht to become responsible is a task which demands a generation to change. And two generations have passed since the Council.  Take into account that our Canon Law demands that our priests have an extraordinary devotion to the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.

The worst development is the number of priests who rarely hear confessions, or even deny that regular confession is necessary to worthily receive the sacraments.

All of what you say is quite true.  Every priest I know who celebrates the Extraordinary Form on a regular basis has a rich prayer life, recites the Office faithfully, is devoted to hearing confessions, and encourages popular devotions like novenas and benediction.  The priests that celebrate guitar Masses and the like generally don't care about confession, don't encourage the rosary, rarely touch a monstrance, and preach heresies such as one does not need to repent to receive Communion.  

Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.  

Pray for me a sinner, and all the Roman lay faithful.  Especially pray for France, the eldest daughter of the western Church, who has really lost her way.        
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 07:39:11 PM by jordanz » Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2011, 07:40:01 PM »

Political issues aside, the celebration of the Extraordinary form will not achieve much. It is a non-issue.

This depends on where you are in the world.  The revival of the Extraordinary Form has been relatively successful in some parts of the USA.  In my diocese alone there is one church that has for the most part converted to the EF, and eight more that offer at least one EF Mass every Sunday.  A fair number of parishes in my diocese have done away with lay people administering Communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand (the last one by example, as any priest who tries to force people to receive on the tongue will inevitably get punished, sadly.)  Many priests say the EF daily or even binate in private.  My parish, the parish that went heavily EF, is the only parish in the diocese that "turned a profit" (i.e. exceeded operating costs) in the last year!  Needless to say, our status quo bishop is unhappy that the most successful parish is the one that reverted to traditional practices.


The priests, especially in the West, want to away with folk-Catholicism, which is the accumulated piety of many generations. Forcing priests in France to pray their breviary and rosary will accomplish more for the Church. The sloth of priests in the West is immense. Asking irresponsible priests in Toulons or Maastricht to become responsible is a task which demands a generation to change. And two generations have passed since the Council.  Take into account that our Canon Law demands that our priests have an extraordinary devotion to the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.

The worst development is the number of priests who rarely hear confessions, or even deny that regular confession is necessary to worthily receive the sacraments.

All of what you say is quite true.  Every priest I know who celebrates the Extraordinary Form on a regular basis has a rich prayer life, recites the Office faithfully, is devoted to hearing confessions, and encourages popular devotions like novenas and benediction.  The priests that celebrate guitar Masses and the like generally don't care about confession, don't encourage the rosary, rarely touch a monstrance, and preach heresies such as one does not need to repent to receive Communion.  

Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.  

Pray for me a sinner, and all the Roman lay faithful.  Especially pray for France, the eldest daughter of the western Church, who has really lost her way.        
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2011, 07:40:29 PM »

Political issues aside, the celebration of the Extraordinary form will not achieve much. It is a non-issue.

This depends on where you are in the world.  The revival of the Extraordinary Form has been relatively successful in some parts of the USA.  In my diocese alone there is one church that has for the most part converted to the EF, and eight more that offer at least one EF Mass every Sunday.  A fair number of parishes in my diocese have done away with lay people administering Communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand (the last one by example, as any priest who tries to force people to receive on the tongue will inevitably get punished, sadly.)  Many priests say the EF daily or even binate in private.  My parish, the parish that went heavily EF, is the only parish in the diocese that "turned a profit" (i.e. exceeded operating costs) in the last year!  Needless to say, our status quo bishop is unhappy that the most successful parish is the one that reverted to traditional practices.


The priests, especially in the West, want to away with folk-Catholicism, which is the accumulated piety of many generations. Forcing priests in France to pray their breviary and rosary will accomplish more for the Church. The sloth of priests in the West is immense. Asking irresponsible priests in Toulons or Maastricht to become responsible is a task which demands a generation to change. And two generations have passed since the Council.  Take into account that our Canon Law demands that our priests have an extraordinary devotion to the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.

The worst development is the number of priests who rarely hear confessions, or even deny that regular confession is necessary to worthily receive the sacraments.

All of what you say is quite true.  Every priest I know who celebrates the Extraordinary Form on a regular basis has a rich prayer life, recites the Office faithfully, is devoted to hearing confessions, and encourages popular devotions like novenas and benediction.  The priests that celebrate guitar Masses and the like generally don't care about confession, don't encourage the rosary, rarely touch a monstrance, and preach heresies such as one does not need to repent to receive Communion.  

Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.  

Pray for me a sinner, and all the Roman lay faithful.  Especially pray for France, the eldest daughter of the western Church, who has really lost her way.        
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2011, 07:54:10 PM »

The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.  

... really?  Huh  police
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2011, 08:06:29 PM »

The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety. 

... really?  Huh  police
I know, definitely seems like a plus to me.  Tongue
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2011, 08:28:23 PM »


Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.       

Man you had better be ready to document this!!

I want to see the references to formal Catholic teaching or you backing your train right off this track.

I don't want any how-to books for bored Catholic housewives or ads for Catholic Yoga classes to tuck the tummy and blast away post-parturition blues...

I want the real deal.  I want to see them Vatican documents front and center...I want the lives of saints that point to this reality tunnel that you are wandering around in...



Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2011, 08:32:38 PM »


Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.       

Man you had better be ready to document this!!

I want to see the references to formal Catholic teaching or you backing your train right off this track.

I don't want any how-to books for bored Catholic housewives or ads for Catholic Yoga classes to tuck the tummy and blast away post-parturition blues...

I want the real deal.  I want to see them Vatican documents front and center...I want the lives of saints that point to this reality tunnel that you are wandering around in...




http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2011, 08:42:38 PM »

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm

I answer that, Certain persons totally denied the existence of providence, as Democritus and the Epicureans, maintaining that the world was made by chance. Others taught that incorruptible things only were subject to providence and corruptible things not in their individual selves, but only according to their species; for in this respect they are incorruptible. They are represented as saying (Job 22:14): "The clouds are His covert; and He doth not consider our things; and He walketh about the poles of heaven." Rabbi Moses, however, excluded men from the generality of things corruptible, on account of the excellence of the intellect which they possess, but in reference to all else that suffers corruption he adhered to the opinion of the others.

We must say, however, that all things are subject to divine providence, not only in general, but even in their own individual selves. This is made evident thus. For since every agent acts for an end, the ordering of effects towards that end extends as far as the causality of the first agent extends. Whence it happens that in the effects of an agent something takes place which has no reference towards the end, because the effect comes from a cause other than, and outside the intention of the agent. But the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles; not only of things incorruptible, but also of things corruptible. Hence all things that exist in whatsoever manner are necessarily directed by God towards some end; as the Apostle says: "Those things that are of God are well ordered [Vulg.'Those powers that are, are ordained of God': 'Quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt.' St. Thomas often quotes this passage, and invariably reads: 'Quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt.']" (Romans 13:1). Since, therefore, as the providence of God is nothing less than the type of the order of things towards an end, as we have said; it necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence. It has also been shown (14, 6, 11) that God knows all things, both universal and particular. And since His knowledge may be compared to the things themselves, as the knowledge of art to the objects of art, all things must of necessity come under His ordering; as all things wrought by art are subject to the ordering of that art.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2011, 08:49:41 PM »

I hate to sound like a broken record, but once again a discussion on this thread, with a straight forward question being posed by the OP, has gone off the rails into the Twilight Zone like a broken record. This thread is the OC.net version of the Bill Murray movie, Groundhog Day.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2011, 08:53:24 PM »

Pope Blessed John XXIII was the last pope to wear Byzantine vestments and celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy.  He wore the sakkos with fanon, pallium and tiara.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQny8sVjzug

Pope Blessed John Paul II celebrated the Byzantine Liturgy in Roman vestments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQDaRZKzU0

Pope Benedict XVI has only attened in choir Eastern Catholic liturgies, I believe.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Archbishop Richard Cardinal Cushing were the last Latin bishops to celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy in Byzantine vestments as principal celebrants, I believe.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2011, 08:56:47 PM »

I hate to sound like a broken record, but once again a discussion on this thread, with a straight forward question being posed by the OP, has gone off the rails into the Twilight Zone like a broken record. This thread is the OC.net version of the Bill Murray movie, Groundhog Day.

Agreed (I was the OP).  I'll move it over to the Orthodox-Catholic discussion board.  Title will be "Post-Enlightenment Developments, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy".
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2011, 09:03:51 PM »

Pope Blessed John XXIII was the last pope to wear Byzantine vestments and celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy.  He wore the sakkos with fanon, pallium and tiara.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQny8sVjzug

Pope Blessed John Paul II celebrated the Byzantine Liturgy in Roman vestments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQDaRZKzU0

Pope Benedict XVI has only attened in choir Eastern Catholic liturgies, I believe.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Archbishop Richard Cardinal Cushing were the last Latin bishops to celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy in Byzantine vestments as principal celebrants, I believe.

Spending nearly 20 years in Orthodox lands [Bulgaria, Greece] might have influenced Good Pope John's choice of vestments.

And I believe Blessed John Paul was not so numb to the world so that he might not realize that he, of all popes, should not wear Orthodox vestments...

M.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2011, 09:15:26 PM »

Pope Blessed John XXIII was the last pope to wear Byzantine vestments and celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy.  He wore the sakkos with fanon, pallium and tiara.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQny8sVjzug

Pope Blessed John Paul II celebrated the Byzantine Liturgy in Roman vestments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQDaRZKzU0

Pope Benedict XVI has only attened in choir Eastern Catholic liturgies, I believe.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Archbishop Richard Cardinal Cushing were the last Latin bishops to celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy in Byzantine vestments as principal celebrants, I believe.

Spending nearly 20 years in Orthodox lands [Bulgaria, Greece] might have influenced Good Pope John's choice of vestments.

And I believe Blessed John Paul was not so numb to the world so that he might not realize that he, of all popes, should not wear Orthodox vestments...

M.

Ironic in that he was the one with links through family to the east and the Greek Catholic Church!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2011, 09:18:27 PM »

Pope Blessed John XXIII was the last pope to wear Byzantine vestments and celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy.  He wore the sakkos with fanon, pallium and tiara.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQny8sVjzug

Pope Blessed John Paul II celebrated the Byzantine Liturgy in Roman vestments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQDaRZKzU0

Pope Benedict XVI has only attened in choir Eastern Catholic liturgies, I believe.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Archbishop Richard Cardinal Cushing were the last Latin bishops to celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy in Byzantine vestments as principal celebrants, I believe.

Spending nearly 20 years in Orthodox lands [Bulgaria, Greece] might have influenced Good Pope John's choice of vestments.

And I believe Blessed John Paul was not so numb to the world so that he might not realize that he, of all popes, should not wear Orthodox vestments...

M.

Ironic in that he was the one with links through family to the east and the Greek Catholic Church!

It always struck me that way as well.  But I don't wish to draw fire down on his memory, so I'll leave it at that.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2011, 10:31:23 PM »

Pope Blessed John Paul II celebrated the Byzantine Liturgy in Roman vestments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQDaRZKzU0

Did Pope. Bl. John Paul II speak or read Ukrainian?  Polish isn't that far a stretch from Ukrainian, so as long as he could read the Cyrillic alphabet, I'm sure that he got along just fine.
Logged
prophetessanna
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 36


« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2011, 11:46:31 PM »

Political issues aside, the celebration of the Extraordinary form will not achieve much. It is a non-issue.



The priests, especially in the West, want to away with folk-Catholicism, which is the accumulated piety of many generations. Forcing priests in France to pray their breviary and rosary will accomplish more for the Church. The sloth of priests in the West is immense. Asking irresponsible priests in Toulons or Maastricht to become responsible is a task which demands a generation to change. And two generations have passed since the Council.  Take into account that our Canon Law demands that our priests have an extraordinary devotion to the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.


Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.        


Unfortunately, the Orthodox in countries all over the world, find in their midst faithful who embrace a much more secular way of life than their ancestors tried to teach them.  And many if not most of their hierarchs are timid about witnessing against the encroaching secularism. 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2011, 11:10:08 AM »

Political issues aside, the celebration of the Extraordinary form will not achieve much. It is a non-issue.



The priests, especially in the West, want to away with folk-Catholicism, which is the accumulated piety of many generations. Forcing priests in France to pray their breviary and rosary will accomplish more for the Church. The sloth of priests in the West is immense. Asking irresponsible priests in Toulons or Maastricht to become responsible is a task which demands a generation to change. And two generations have passed since the Council.  Take into account that our Canon Law demands that our priests have an extraordinary devotion to the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.


Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.        


Unfortunately, the Orthodox in countries all over the world, find in their midst faithful who embrace a much more secular way of life than their ancestors tried to teach them.  And many if not most of their hierarchs are timid about witnessing against the encroaching secularism. 

Yes.  Very similar things have happened in the Catholic Church in the United States, in Europe and in South and Central America.  That is why there must be some kind of change in our episcopate...It is happening.  And of course prayer and the care taking of the Counselor will do much to bring us to some better place, individually and in a corporate sense.
Logged

synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #36 on: March 26, 2011, 03:03:02 PM »

Political issues aside, the celebration of the Extraordinary form will not achieve much. It is a non-issue.

This depends on where you are in the world.  The revival of the Extraordinary Form has been relatively successful in some parts of the USA.  In my diocese alone there is one church that has for the most part converted to the EF, and eight more that offer at least one Mass every Sunday.  A fair number of parishes in my diocese have done away with lay people administering Communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand (the last one by example, as any priest who tries to force people to receive on the tongue will inevitably get punished, sadly.)  Many priests say the EF daily or even binate in private.  My parish, the parish that went heavily EF, is the only parish in the diocese that "turned a profit" (i.e. exceeded operating costs) in the last year!  Needless to say, our status quo bishop is unhappy that the most successful parish is the one that reverted to traditional practices.


The priests, especially in the West, want to away with folk-Catholicism, which is the accumulated piety of many generations. Forcing priests in France to pray their breviary and rosary will accomplish more for the Church. The sloth of priests in the West is immense. Asking irresponsible priests in Toulons or Maastricht to become responsible is a task which demands a generation to change. And two generations have passed since the Council.  Take into account that our Canon Law demands that our priests have an extraordinary devotion to the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.

The worst development is the number of priests who rarely hear confessions, or even deny that regular confession is necessary to worthily receive the sacraments.

All of what you say is quite true.  Every priest I know who celebrates the Extraordinary Form on a regular basis has a rich prayer life, recites the Office faithfully, is devoted to hearing confessions, and encourages popular devotions like novenas and benediction.  The priests that celebrate guitar Masses and the like generally don't care about confession, don't encourage the rosary, rarely touch a monstrance, and preach heresies such as one does not need to repent to receive Communion.  

Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.  

Pray for me a sinner, and all the Roman lay faithful.  Especially pray for France, the eldest daughter of the western Church, who has really lost her way.        
Catholicism is a religion which demands not only private worship of God but public worship.
The basis of Catholicism is the public worship of the Church.

The problem with EF or Charismatic masses, is that every where they occur, they are not the public worship of a delineated territory(parish), the sole form of worship of a group in a neighbourhood, city or village but a display artefact in the Museum of Catholicism.

Fr. Neuhaus mentioned that Catholicism has to accept that it is not the sole true religion but another offer on the free market of religions. This negation of the natural nature of Catholicism is sickening. Personal conversion and free market liturgy are the signs of the sickness of the times.

True, many personal conversions sound astounding, but the question is, why only individual persons convert? Catholicism traditionally converted the grandfathers and fathers and their families followed them in humble submission.

Another world-wide problem is the feminisation of Christianity. Men should outnumber women in church, because the majority of women should be at home caring for their children. Men are called to accomplish the will of God,  women to be submissive to their husbands. For a women or child it is better that they listen to their atheist husband/father, than go to the priests and complain on their husbands, pleading for sympathy for their fantastical lies. An atheist woman is bound to be submissive to her husband, and is forced to go with him to church. Atheists and Christians are manly divisions. Agnosticism is a lie, either Christianity or atheism.

The fact is that the priests exist in their cocoon. They live in their world limited to politicians, ugly yet devout grandmothers, and modernist theology. In a Catholic country, like Poland, it not uncommon, for people to say in discussion their feelings on the modern liturgy. The people are liturgically conservative yet the priests live in their ecumenical fantasies and such, not acknowledging the reality we live in. Even in ecumenism, the majority of Catholics are opposed to it. I don't think that the situation differs much, in Ireland, Protestants will be sectarians, in Poland, Greek Catholics and Orthodox are sectarians, in Spain, the sectarians are Jews and Muslims. No normal Catholic, even if he is not practising, will not condemn if you become a sectarian.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2011, 03:07:29 PM »

Men should outnumber women in church, because the majority of women should be at home caring for their children. Men are called to accomplish the will of God,  women to be submissive to their husbands. For a women or child it is better that they listen to their atheist husband/father, than go to the priests and complain on their husbands, pleading for sympathy for their fantastical lies. An atheist woman is bound to be submissive to her husband, and is forced to go with him to church.

Be a dictator in your houme!



Where on Earth is written that women are not allowed to go to Church?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 03:09:00 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2011, 03:13:42 PM »

Political issues aside, the celebration of the Extraordinary form will not achieve much. It is a non-issue.

This depends on where you are in the world.  The revival of the Extraordinary Form has been relatively successful in some parts of the USA.  In my diocese alone there is one church that has for the most part converted to the EF, and eight more that offer at least one Mass every Sunday.  A fair number of parishes in my diocese have done away with lay people administering Communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand (the last one by example, as any priest who tries to force people to receive on the tongue will inevitably get punished, sadly.)  Many priests say the EF daily or even binate in private.  My parish, the parish that went heavily EF, is the only parish in the diocese that "turned a profit" (i.e. exceeded operating costs) in the last year!  Needless to say, our status quo bishop is unhappy that the most successful parish is the one that reverted to traditional practices.


The priests, especially in the West, want to away with folk-Catholicism, which is the accumulated piety of many generations. Forcing priests in France to pray their breviary and rosary will accomplish more for the Church. The sloth of priests in the West is immense. Asking irresponsible priests in Toulons or Maastricht to become responsible is a task which demands a generation to change. And two generations have passed since the Council.  Take into account that our Canon Law demands that our priests have an extraordinary devotion to the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.

The worst development is the number of priests who rarely hear confessions, or even deny that regular confession is necessary to worthily receive the sacraments.

All of what you say is quite true.  Every priest I know who celebrates the Extraordinary Form on a regular basis has a rich prayer life, recites the Office faithfully, is devoted to hearing confessions, and encourages popular devotions like novenas and benediction.  The priests that celebrate guitar Masses and the like generally don't care about confession, don't encourage the rosary, rarely touch a monstrance, and preach heresies such as one does not need to repent to receive Communion.  

Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.  

Pray for me a sinner, and all the Roman lay faithful.  Especially pray for France, the eldest daughter of the western Church, who has really lost her way.        
Catholicism is a religion which demands not only private worship of God but public worship.
The basis of Catholicism is the public worship of the Church.

The problem with EF or Charismatic masses, is that every where they occur, they are not the public worship of a delineated territory(parish), the sole form of worship of a group in a neighbourhood, city or village but a display artefact in the Museum of Catholicism.

Fr. Neuhaus mentioned that Catholicism has to accept that it is not the sole true religion but another offer on the free market of religions. This negation of the natural nature of Catholicism is sickening. Personal conversion and free market liturgy are the signs of the sickness of the times.

True, many personal conversions sound astounding, but the question is, why only individual persons convert? Catholicism traditionally converted the grandfathers and fathers and their families followed them in humble submission.

Another world-wide problem is the feminisation of Christianity. Men should outnumber women in church, because the majority of women should be at home caring for their children. Men are called to accomplish the will of God,  women to be submissive to their husbands. For a women or child it is better that they listen to their atheist husband/father, than go to the priests and complain on their husbands, pleading for sympathy for their fantastical lies. An atheist woman is bound to be submissive to her husband, and is forced to go with him to church. Atheists and Christians are manly divisions. Agnosticism is a lie, either Christianity or atheism.

The fact is that the priests exist in their cocoon. They live in their world limited to politicians, ugly yet devout grandmothers, and modernist theology. In a Catholic country, like Poland, it not uncommon, for people to say in discussion their feelings on the modern liturgy. The people are liturgically conservative yet the priests live in their ecumenical fantasies and such, not acknowledging the reality we live in. Even in ecumenism, the majority of Catholics are opposed to it. I don't think that the situation differs much, in Ireland, Protestants will be sectarians, in Poland, Greek Catholics and Orthodox are sectarians, in Spain, the sectarians are Jews and Muslims. No normal Catholic, even if he is not practising, will not condemn if you become a sectarian.

Dear Sir,

It has come to my attention that Orthodoxy is the true faith.  Have you considered joining them?  I am sure that it would be to the benefit of all concerned... Smiley

M.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2011, 03:24:41 PM »

The problem with EF or Charismatic masses, is that every where they occur, they are not the public worship of a delineated territory(parish), the sole form of worship of a group in a neighbourhood, city or village but a display artefact in the Museum of Catholicism.

The EF is certainly a legitimate liturgy of the Roman Church, and has been since Holy Cross Day 2007 (Summorum Pontificum).  In some parts of the world such as the USA, the Tridentine rites are quite alive and are the sole form of public worship an a good number of parishes.  From what I understand, the Polish prelates are not all that keen on letting the EF florish.  There are parts of the world where it has, and is holding up well.  I'll pray the the European bishops change their mind on the EF.  In some places, such as France, the few observant people left are voting with their feet for traditional Catholicism.  If anything it's the bishops, and not the people, who contend that the EF is not public worship.

Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,895


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #40 on: March 27, 2011, 02:41:16 AM »

Quote
Men should outnumber women in church, because the majority of women should be at home caring for their children.

Absolute and utter rubbish. Where, in Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine does it say that mothers must stay home with their children on Sunday mornings out of "submission to their husbands"? How on earth will children develop a love of church and the things of God by being denied the Liturgy, and, most importantly, Holy Communion?  Angry Angry
Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2011, 11:06:23 AM »

I'm sorry, let me say something nicer which you all can accept, but I cannot:
"Homosexuals are born homosexuals, you cannot convert them"
"Abortion is mercy for the woman"
"The Church needs to be separate from the State and Bureaucracy"
"The invisible hand of the market will save the world"
"The world is heading towards an apocalypse"

When I posted, I was under the influence of two-day discussions.
 
I want to ask you have you ever listened to a guy talking for two hours about how Catholicism/Christianity is wrong, rejecting everyone of his 30 sins of the church, except one, where I made a mistake.
It all started, when he stated that the Church and State should be separate. I then retorted, that bishops should be in the parlament and that the Polish State should be a Catholic confessional state. My half-serious remark became the reason of a long discussion.
Then he insulted me, asked me if the priest molested me, doesn't the image of Christ in your room molest you, the priests take too much for the sacraments, my relations with priests, the present political situation in our country, political ideologies, he then told me that his father is an avid reader, and has 44 tomes/volumes of the works of Lenin.
That was the first day.
The second day was better because he asked me to explain the Beatitudes and the Golden Rule. I had a gospel of St.Luke in my pocket, which was a relic of my uncle from his time in the Communist-era Army(He even received a reprimand for carrying it) After that discussion, I ate a bowl of soup with a hard rogalik, crying how beautiful it is that God made this soup. The pieces of the rogalik I placed into the soup, in the same manner as my grandfather, made me joyful.
This fast has caused me to radicalise my Faith and become more apologetic. It has shown me my true state.

Forgive me, but the problem with apologetic activity, is that a stupid person(I,me) tries to explain what he doesn't understand and has to resort to his limited knowledge.  Karol Wojtyła used psychology and philosophy to explain religion, I used the institutions of Roman Law to explain the faith. In my discussions I used the legal concepts of commonwealth, family, contract law, to explain the faith.
I don't understand theologians and psychologists, and they do not understand me.
God accomplishes his aims through imperfect instruments and every is a handmaid of the Lord.

Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2011, 11:07:14 AM »

Who was discussing abortion here???
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2011, 12:27:30 PM »

I'm sorry, let me say something nicer which you all can accept, but I cannot:
"Homosexuals are born homosexuals, you cannot convert them"
"Abortion is mercy for the woman"
"The Church needs to be separate from the State and Bureaucracy"
"The invisible hand of the market will save the world"
"The world is heading towards an apocalypse"

When I posted, I was under the influence of two-day discussions.
 
I want to ask you have you ever listened to a guy talking for two hours about how Catholicism/Christianity is wrong, rejecting everyone of his 30 sins of the church, except one, where I made a mistake.
It all started, when he stated that the Church and State should be separate. I then retorted, that bishops should be in the parlament and that the Polish State should be a Catholic confessional state. My half-serious remark became the reason of a long discussion.
Then he insulted me, asked me if the priest molested me, doesn't the image of Christ in your room molest you, the priests take too much for the sacraments, my relations with priests, the present political situation in our country, political ideologies, he then told me that his father is an avid reader, and has 44 tomes/volumes of the works of Lenin.
That was the first day.
The second day was better because he asked me to explain the Beatitudes and the Golden Rule. I had a gospel of St.Luke in my pocket, which was a relic of my uncle from his time in the Communist-era Army(He even received a reprimand for carrying it) After that discussion, I ate a bowl of soup with a hard rogalik, crying how beautiful it is that God made this soup. The pieces of the rogalik I placed into the soup, in the same manner as my grandfather, made me joyful.
This fast has caused me to radicalise my Faith and become more apologetic. It has shown me my true state.

Forgive me, but the problem with apologetic activity, is that a stupid person(I,me) tries to explain what he doesn't understand and has to resort to his limited knowledge.  Karol Wojtyła used psychology and philosophy to explain religion, I used the institutions of Roman Law to explain the faith. In my discussions I used the legal concepts of commonwealth, family, contract law, to explain the faith.
I don't understand theologians and psychologists, and they do not understand me.
God accomplishes his aims through imperfect instruments and every is a handmaid of the Lord.

 Smiley Smiley Smiley

Your true state right now is frustration!!  Take deep breaths and try to relax.

When I get like you are now, and shoot from the hip and not my brain or heart, I try to remember one fact:

"This is not our home!!"  

Home is the Kingdom of God and each one of us is the realized but unrecognized Eschaton: We are Bearers of the Kingdom: here: now.  

So find a prayer, or a psalm that is soothing to your heart and when you feel yourself ready to burst the seams go to it and get lost in it and forget the rest.

Fondly, in Christ

Mary
« Last Edit: March 27, 2011, 12:37:57 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #44 on: March 27, 2011, 04:05:15 PM »

I've gone to three masses, one Way of the Cross, sung the rosary and Veni Sancte Spiritus in church Saturday (alone before morning Mass), silently said the Rosary before Sunday Mass, since those discussions. This week has been tremendous for me. I feel great.

The four woes have been in my thoughts lately
Luke 6,24 “But woe to you who are rich,
   for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
   for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
   for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
   for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

Logged
Tags: John Paul II St. Peter's Divine Liturgy Ecumenical Patriarch Pope roman catholic 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.189 seconds with 72 queries.