OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 03:29:30 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 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Question for Byzantine Catholics?  (Read 9797 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #135 on: March 11, 2012, 02:59:45 PM »

It's also questionable whether what Rome wants should be paramount.

It seems to me it ought to matter a lot to those running and attending the Greek Catholic churches, since after all they're under Rome! It falls under discipline, the rules for running those churches.

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #136 on: March 11, 2012, 03:16:23 PM »

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Heh. Of course the answer is Rome wants them to because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good. The more they flourish in the Greek Catholic churches, the more credible union with Rome looks.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 03:38:22 PM by The young fogey » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,049


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #137 on: March 11, 2012, 03:24:16 PM »

Most Greek Catholics = 'authentic' Greek Catholicism, like it or not.

But what equals "most Greek Catholics" ?  I would counter that the 80-90% attending Roman Catholic parishes are not Greek Catholic other than canonically.  They certainly don't represent those actually attending Greek Catholic parishes.  So to me most Greek Catholics are those actually attending Greek Catholic parishes.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #138 on: March 11, 2012, 03:37:50 PM »

Most Greek Catholics = 'authentic' Greek Catholicism, like it or not.

But what equals "most Greek Catholics" ?  I would counter that the 80-90% attending Roman Catholic parishes are not Greek Catholic other than canonically.  They certainly don't represent those actually attending Greek Catholic parishes.  So to me most Greek Catholics are those actually attending Greek Catholic parishes.

That's who I was thinking of.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,072



« Reply #139 on: March 11, 2012, 07:02:36 PM »

It's also questionable whether what Rome wants should be paramount.

It seems to me it ought to matter a lot to those running and attending the Greek Catholic churches, since after all they're under Rome! It falls under discipline, the rules for running those churches.

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Historically we know what real de-latinization is.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #140 on: March 11, 2012, 07:18:16 PM »

It's also questionable whether what Rome wants should be paramount.

It seems to me it ought to matter a lot to those running and attending the Greek Catholic churches, since after all they're under Rome! It falls under discipline, the rules for running those churches.

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Historically we know what real de-latinization is.

We do? I mean, we do!
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #141 on: March 11, 2012, 07:21:37 PM »

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Heh. Of course the answer is Rome wants them to because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good. The more they flourish in the Greek Catholic churches, the more credible union with Rome looks.

Yes, the old Bridge Church plan.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #142 on: March 11, 2012, 08:15:27 PM »

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Heh. Of course the answer is Rome wants them to because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good. The more they flourish in the Greek Catholic churches, the more credible union with Rome looks.

Yes, the old Bridge Church plan.

Sure, with a few tweaks. With a one-true-church claim can Rome say anything else? I think an Orthodoxy under Rome is supposed to be what the Greek Catholic churches were supposed to be but weren't and aren't.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #143 on: March 11, 2012, 08:44:12 PM »

It's also questionable whether what Rome wants should be paramount.

It seems to me it ought to matter a lot to those running and attending the Greek Catholic churches, since after all they're under Rome! It falls under discipline, the rules for running those churches.

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Historically we know what real de-latinization is.

Oh, I think I just got that. You mean swimming the Bosphorus?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #144 on: March 11, 2012, 08:57:04 PM »

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Heh. Of course the answer is Rome wants them to because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good. The more they flourish in the Greek Catholic churches, the more credible union with Rome looks.

Yes, the old Bridge Church plan.

Sure, with a few tweaks. With a one-true-church claim can Rome say anything else? I think an Orthodoxy under Rome is supposed to be what the Greek Catholic churches were supposed to be but weren't and aren't.

On a side note, I have often heard it said that Pope John Paul II used the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome", yet I've never seen a quotation of the full passage in which he used it. Does anyone know what he said exactly?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 08:57:56 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #145 on: March 12, 2012, 10:27:22 PM »

Quote
First, how you understand your ecclesial position withe regard to both Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics?

We are members of the Catholic Church. Eastern orthodox are schismatics.

Quote
Second, how is your experience of the Catholic faith different than that of Roman Catholics?

Customs and rite are different, but the faith is the same. Maybe more mystical.

Quote
Third, as a Byzantine Catholic, do you believe in Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope, and the Infallibility of the Pope?

We believe in original sin, in the immaculate conception, in purgatory, in transubstantiation(i only have a hard time to write it correctly), we believe in universal juridiction of the Pope and his infallibility.

Quote
If you don't believe in these things, do you think that Roman Catholics are in heresy or error?

We have to believe it, everything the magisterium teaches we believe it.

Quote
Fourth, do you see yourself as closer in faith and religious praxis to the Orthodox, than you do the Roman Catholics?
Quote

In some formal religious praxis we are closer to eastern orthodox(communion under both kind, epiklesis, married priests etc). But it is only, as said st photius :

“Everybody must preserve what was defined by common ecumenical decisions, but a particular opinion of a church father or a definition issued by a local council can be followed by some and ignored by others. Thus, some people customarily shave their beards; others reject this practice by local conciliar decrees. Thus, as far as we are concerned, we consider it reprehensible to fast on Saturdays, except once a year (on Holy Saturday), while others fast on other Saturdays as well. Thus, tradition avoids disputes by making practice prevail over the rule. In Rome, there are no priests legitimately married, while our tradition permits men, once married, to be elevated to the priesthood.
When the faith remains inviolate, common and catholic decisions are also safe; a sensible man respects the practices and laws of others; he considers it neither wrong to observe them nor illegal to violate them.”
St. Photius the Great to Pope Nicholas I of Rome in the year 861 A.D. “EP. 2, PG 102, cols. 604-605D.”
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/bekkos-on-photiuss-motives/

For the Faith we have the same as the roman catholics. Eastern orthodox deny dogmas of the only true Church.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #146 on: March 12, 2012, 11:10:49 PM »

LOL. Welcome to the forum Montenero1439.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #147 on: March 13, 2012, 12:29:43 AM »

This should get innerestin'.

If you're not swimming the Bosphorus, you're swimming in Phosphorus.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 12:32:27 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #148 on: March 13, 2012, 12:32:24 AM »

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Heh. Of course the answer is Rome wants them to because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good. The more they flourish in the Greek Catholic churches, the more credible union with Rome looks.

I disagree.  Wink  

The reason we should delatinize is because Latinizations are arbitrary additions that run counter to our way of prayer and worship, much like how egregious random departures from tradition on the Orthodox side (I've seen them) are counter to the way or prayer and worship, or how various "abuses" in the Latin liturgy are spiritually harmful for the Latins.  

The "Byzantine" typikon has its own spirituality, logic and reasoning.  Oftentimes, perhaps even the majority of times, "Latinization" happened for no good reason beyond "it's the local Latins want us to do so" or (even worse) "it's what we think the Latins want us to do and we'll do it so we fit in".  Putting these arbitrary things into our typikon (magnified by the fact that we often don't have the material or often even the spiritual resources to properly pray even a decent slice of the typikon) makes no sense, and destroys the rationale for why we pray what we pray.  

(I'm not opposed to change, but there are proper ways changes need to be made, i.e. slowly, with understanding of why we pray what we pray and do what we do, and with consideration and coordination with our eparchal and patriarchal hierarchy and with local sister churches who share our way of prayer.  Deviations from the books should be done for  carefully chosen spiritual benefit, rather than because we think they're cool, because we think it will make us fit in, or because it fits a pastoral plan we dreamed up any less than a decade ago).

To the OP: I will make an answer, it'll take a while though.  
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #149 on: March 13, 2012, 08:31:18 AM »

MarkosC, I like the cut of your jib.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #150 on: March 13, 2012, 08:32:52 AM »

This should get innerestin'.

If you're not swimming the Bosphorus, you're swimming in Phosphorus.

Hmmm, maybe I'll use that in my signature.

  Are you swimming the Bosphorus,
  Or are you swimming in Phosphorus?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #151 on: March 13, 2012, 08:37:14 AM »

"We have no more right to think less of them than they have to despise us. This has always been most clearly the attitude of the Holy See, best summed up in the immortal words of Benedict XIV: 'Eastern Christians should be Catholics; they have no need to become Latins.' For our Lord gave his followers most explicit commands that they should belong to the one Catholic Church he founded; He never commanded them all to say their prayers in Latin or to use the Roman rite." Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Uniate Eastern Churches Pg. 44

"The Church of Jesus Christ is neither Latin nor Greek nor Slav but Catholic; accordingly she makes no difference between her children, and Greek, Latins, Slavs, and members of all other nations are equal in the eyes of the Apostolic See." - Pope Benedict XV
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #152 on: March 13, 2012, 08:50:45 AM »

Well put, Montenero. That's what the Catholic Church teaches.

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Heh. Of course the answer is Rome wants them to because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good. The more they flourish in the Greek Catholic churches, the more credible union with Rome looks.

I disagree.  Wink  

The reason we should delatinize is because Latinizations are arbitrary additions that run counter to our way of prayer and worship...

That seems to mean the same as 'because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good'. So where do you disagree with me?
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,261


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #153 on: March 13, 2012, 09:58:58 AM »

This should get innerestin'.

If you're not swimming the Bosphorus, you're swimming in Phosphorus.
 

I swam (well, floated, is more like it) in the Dead Sea.  Does that count for anything? Grin Grin

Nothin' like a good mineral bath, eh?  Grin
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #154 on: March 13, 2012, 10:14:17 AM »

LOL. Welcome to the forum Montenero1439.

Thanks Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #155 on: March 13, 2012, 01:02:59 PM »

This should get innerestin'.

If you're not swimming the Bosphorus, you're swimming in Phosphorus.
There's always the Volga, the Nile, the Orontes, the Potomac/Hudson...even the Danube and Bug.  Many in Romania came home, and the Bug flowed back into the Dnieper (figuratively, not geographically).

And then, we always have the Jordan.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #156 on: March 13, 2012, 08:41:43 PM »

Going back to the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" topic, something else I just read on catholic.com (though not the same thread as before) seems pretty relevant:

Quote from: Ghosty
As for reunion, it's hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me. :shrug:
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #157 on: March 13, 2012, 08:56:49 PM »

Going back to the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" topic, something else I just read on catholic.com (though not the same thread as before) seems pretty relevant:

Quote from: Ghosty
As for reunion, it's hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me. :shrug:


True.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #158 on: March 13, 2012, 09:09:47 PM »

Going back to the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" topic, something else I just read on catholic.com (though not the same thread as before) seems pretty relevant:

Quote from: Ghosty
As for reunion, it's hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me. :shrug:


True.

So you agree that it's relevant?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #159 on: March 13, 2012, 09:41:41 PM »

Going back to the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" topic, something else I just read on catholic.com (though not the same thread as before) seems pretty relevant:

Quote from: Ghosty
As for reunion, it's hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me. :shrug:


True.

So you agree that it's relevant?

I'm saying that what Ghosty said is true.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #160 on: March 13, 2012, 09:47:56 PM »

Well put, Montenero. That's what the Catholic Church teaches.

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Heh. Of course the answer is Rome wants them to because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good. The more they flourish in the Greek Catholic churches, the more credible union with Rome looks.

I disagree.  Wink  

The reason we should delatinize is because Latinizations are arbitrary additions that run counter to our way of prayer and worship...

That seems to mean the same as 'because those Orthodox traditions are in themselves good'. So where do you disagree with me?

Ooops, not quite.  I meant more with the statement PeterJ made, with the Wink.   Wink

As far as Ghosty's quote, see the one I made on That Other Forum.   Wink
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #161 on: March 13, 2012, 10:03:52 PM »

Going back to the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" topic, something else I just read on catholic.com (though not the same thread as before) seems pretty relevant:

Quote from: Ghosty
As for reunion, it's hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me. :shrug:


True.

So you agree that it's relevant?

I'm saying that what Ghosty said is true.

Well that's good too. And more surprising.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #162 on: March 14, 2012, 10:39:00 AM »

I think the "imposition of Latin practices" was on a more formal, liturgical level rather than on the level of private praxis that Papist was, I believe, referring to.  Unless one is under obedience to a "spiritual father" how and where and in front of what one prays and which prayers are said, etc. is strictly between the person praying and God--provided, of course, that one is doing nothing heretical or outside of Church norms.

Actually very little was ever mandated by Rome other than celibacy outside Eastern Europe and the Middle East for Eastern Catholics.  Rome certainly encouraged others or turned their head the other way, but most of the Latinization was voluntary adoption with strong encouragement from Latin Religious Orders in the area.

Very interesting!  I never knew that.  So why, then, all the whining and criticizing of some about "imposed" Latinizations?

Regarding "'imposed' Latinizations", a good example to consider is Canon 209 of the CCEO.

Quote
Canon 209

1. The eparchial bishop must commemorate the Roman Pontiff

before all as a sign of full communion with him in the Divine

Liturgy and the divine praises according to the prescriptions of

the liturgical books and to see to it that it be faithfully done

by the other clergy of the eparchy. 2. The eparchial bishop

must be commemorated by all the clergy in the Divine Liturgy and

the divine praises according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.

I hope you will all excuse my whining.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 10:43:35 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #163 on: March 14, 2012, 10:46:19 AM »

So the real reason they should delatinize is that Rome wants them too?

Wink

Freudian slip I guess.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,261


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #164 on: March 19, 2012, 03:37:52 PM »

I think the "imposition of Latin practices" was on a more formal, liturgical level rather than on the level of private praxis that Papist was, I believe, referring to.  Unless one is under obedience to a "spiritual father" how and where and in front of what one prays and which prayers are said, etc. is strictly between the person praying and God--provided, of course, that one is doing nothing heretical or outside of Church norms.

Actually very little was ever mandated by Rome other than celibacy outside Eastern Europe and the Middle East for Eastern Catholics.  Rome certainly encouraged others or turned their head the other way, but most of the Latinization was voluntary adoption with strong encouragement from Latin Religious Orders in the area.

Very interesting!  I never knew that.  So why, then, all the whining and criticizing of some about "imposed" Latinizations?

Regarding "'imposed' Latinizations", a good example to consider is Canon 209 of the CCEO.

Quote
Canon 209

1. The eparchial bishop must commemorate the Roman Pontiff

before all as a sign of full communion with him in the Divine

Liturgy and the divine praises according to the prescriptions of

the liturgical books and to see to it that it be faithfully done

by the other clergy of the eparchy. 2. The eparchial bishop

must be commemorated by all the clergy in the Divine Liturgy and

the divine praises according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.

I hope you will all excuse my whining.

First of all, I didn't notice you were whining  Wink

Secondly, very generally speaking when one speaks or writes about anything being "imposed", as in "imposed Latinizations", there is usually a negative connotation associated with it.  Since Eastern Catholics are, by definition, in communion with Rome and the Pope, it seems quite natural and logical that the Pope would be commemorated in the Divine Liturgy.  Are you implying that that is an "imposed" Latinization?  And if so, how is it?  If EC's were unwilling to commemorate him, then it seems they wouldn't be in communion with him and would, therefor, be Orthodox rather than Catholic.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand.  Am I missing something about this?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #165 on: March 19, 2012, 04:43:29 PM »

I can understand them EC praying for the pope, however, the choice of words could be better. I have no idea what an ecumenical pontiff is. I know that in that in some Orthodox jurisdictions we commemorate the Primate and have been told that this is not correct. (can't say whether this is true or not.) I was told that we should only be commemorating our bishop who will commemorate the primate who in turn will commemorate the other heads of the churches. I am not very knowledgeable about protocols. To my ears it would sound better and more accurate for ECs to pray for the universal  pontiff or just for the Bishop of Rome. I went to an EC parish for years before I became Orthodox and we never said the filioque.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,261


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #166 on: March 19, 2012, 05:05:32 PM »

I can understand them EC praying for the pope, however, the choice of words could be better. I have no idea what an ecumenical pontiff is. I know that in that in some Orthodox jurisdictions we commemorate the Primate and have been told that this is not correct. (can't say whether this is true or not.) I was told that we should only be commemorating our bishop who will commemorate the primate who in turn will commemorate the other heads of the churches. I am not very knowledgeable about protocols. To my ears it would sound better and more accurate for ECs to pray for the universal  pontiff or just for the Bishop of Rome. I went to an EC parish for years before I became Orthodox and we never said the filioque.

When we last worshiped at an EC parish, it was before the Revised Divine Liturgy was put into use.  I remember that in some of the DL pew books we used back then, the filioque was blacked out.  And in some it wasn't  laugh.  Go figure!  In any event, we recited the Creed without the filioque.  I don't remember how the Pope was referred to but I'm pretty sure it sure wasn't "ecumenical pontiff".  Is that the wording from the RDL?  If so, you're right--it could be better.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 05:21:01 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #167 on: March 19, 2012, 05:22:07 PM »

"For our holy ecumenical
pontiff N., the pope of Rome, let
us pray to the Lord."

This is from the 1964/1965 translation. However, I see that they (Ruthenians) have updated it over the last few years to
"For our Holy Father,
N., the Pope of Rome, let us pray
to the Lord."

I think that is a real improvement.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #168 on: March 19, 2012, 07:06:17 PM »

I think the "imposition of Latin practices" was on a more formal, liturgical level rather than on the level of private praxis that Papist was, I believe, referring to.  Unless one is under obedience to a "spiritual father" how and where and in front of what one prays and which prayers are said, etc. is strictly between the person praying and God--provided, of course, that one is doing nothing heretical or outside of Church norms.

Actually very little was ever mandated by Rome other than celibacy outside Eastern Europe and the Middle East for Eastern Catholics.  Rome certainly encouraged others or turned their head the other way, but most of the Latinization was voluntary adoption with strong encouragement from Latin Religious Orders in the area.

Very interesting!  I never knew that.  So why, then, all the whining and criticizing of some about "imposed" Latinizations?

Regarding "'imposed' Latinizations", a good example to consider is Canon 209 of the CCEO.

Quote
Canon 209

1. The eparchial bishop must commemorate the Roman Pontiff

before all as a sign of full communion with him in the Divine

Liturgy and the divine praises according to the prescriptions of

the liturgical books and to see to it that it be faithfully done

by the other clergy of the eparchy. 2. The eparchial bishop

must be commemorated by all the clergy in the Divine Liturgy and

the divine praises according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.

I hope you will all excuse my whining.

First of all, I didn't notice you were whining  Wink

Well, it was subtle.

If EC's were unwilling to commemorate him, then it seems they wouldn't be in communion with him and would, therefor, be Orthodox rather than Catholic.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand.  Am I missing something about this?

Yes, something very significant. The canon I quoted doesn't just say that the Melkite patriarch will commemorate the Pope (which wouldn't be a latinization) but that every Melkite bishop must commemorate him. That's a latinization.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,636



« Reply #169 on: March 19, 2012, 07:19:55 PM »

Going back to the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" topic, something else I just read on catholic.com (though not the same thread as before) seems pretty relevant:

Quote from: Ghosty
As for reunion, it's hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me. :shrug:


True.

So you agree that it's relevant?

I'm saying that what Ghosty said is true.

My understanding is that Patriarch Cyril IV had his election declared invalid in 1724 by the Ecumenical Patriarch, who installed his own rival patriarch (whether he had the authority to do that is another question). Union with Rome only happened five years later, in 1729. If I am right, then it would not be quite right to say that the remaining church of Antioch comes from a group which splintered off after union with Rome, but rather that a schism formed, and instead of eventually being healed, one group entered into union with Rome, while the other remained in Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 07:21:08 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #170 on: March 19, 2012, 07:40:27 PM »

Going back to the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" topic, something else I just read on catholic.com (though not the same thread as before) seems pretty relevant:

Quote from: Ghosty
As for reunion, it's hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me. :shrug:


True.

So you agree that it's relevant?

I'm saying that what Ghosty said is true.

My understanding is that Patriarch Cyril IV had his election declared invalid in 1724 by the Ecumenical Patriarch, who installed his own rival patriarch (whether he had the authority to do that is another question). Union with Rome only happened five years later, in 1729. If I am right, then it would not be quite right to say that the remaining church of Antioch comes from a group which splintered off after union with Rome, but rather that a schism formed, and instead of eventually being healed, one group entered into union with Rome, while the other remained in Orthodoxy.

I'm a little rusty on the details, but as I understand it the schism happened in such a way that both sides had about an equally good claim to having the real Patriarch of Antioch.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,261


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #171 on: March 20, 2012, 09:41:26 AM »

"For our holy ecumenical
pontiff N., the pope of Rome, let
us pray to the Lord."

This is from the 1964/1965 translation. However, I see that they (Ruthenians) have updated it over the last few years to
"For our Holy Father,
N., the Pope of Rome, let us pray
to the Lord."


I think that is a real improvement.

That's the prayer that was in our (Ruthenian) prayer books--now that I see it.  Much better than "ecumenical pontiff"! 
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,261


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #172 on: March 20, 2012, 09:48:24 AM »

I think the "imposition of Latin practices" was on a more formal, liturgical level rather than on the level of private praxis that Papist was, I believe, referring to.  Unless one is under obedience to a "spiritual father" how and where and in front of what one prays and which prayers are said, etc. is strictly between the person praying and God--provided, of course, that one is doing nothing heretical or outside of Church norms.

Actually very little was ever mandated by Rome other than celibacy outside Eastern Europe and the Middle East for Eastern Catholics.  Rome certainly encouraged others or turned their head the other way, but most of the Latinization was voluntary adoption with strong encouragement from Latin Religious Orders in the area.

Very interesting!  I never knew that.  So why, then, all the whining and criticizing of some about "imposed" Latinizations?

Regarding "'imposed' Latinizations", a good example to consider is Canon 209 of the CCEO.

Quote
Canon 209

1. The eparchial bishop must commemorate the Roman Pontiff

before all as a sign of full communion with him in the Divine

Liturgy and the divine praises according to the prescriptions of

the liturgical books and to see to it that it be faithfully done

by the other clergy of the eparchy. 2. The eparchial bishop

must be commemorated by all the clergy in the Divine Liturgy and

the divine praises according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.

I hope you will all excuse my whining.

First of all, I didn't notice you were whining  Wink

Well, it was subtle.

If EC's were unwilling to commemorate him, then it seems they wouldn't be in communion with him and would, therefor, be Orthodox rather than Catholic.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand.  Am I missing something about this?

Yes, something very significant. The canon I quoted doesn't just say that the Melkite patriarch will commemorate the Pope (which wouldn't be a latinization) but that every Melkite bishop must commemorate him. That's a latinization.

I see that the canon isn't particular to Melkite bishops, but refers to all EC bishops.  It may be a "latinization" but, if one is Catholic and in communion with the Pope,  is there anything particularly objectionable about it?  Why would any Catholic bishop, Eastern or Western, object to commemorating the Pope?  (Remember, the baggage I bring to the Catholic Church is quite different than that carried by long-time or cradle Catholics, EC or RC, and even Protestant converts, so I guess I'm not as "sensitive" about those kinds of things  Wink.)
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 09:48:46 AM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #173 on: March 20, 2012, 10:38:39 AM »

I see that the canon isn't particular to Melkite bishops, but refers to all EC bishops.  It may be a "latinization" but, if one is Catholic and in communion with the Pope,  is there anything particularly objectionable about it?  Why would any Catholic bishop, Eastern or Western, object to commemorating the Pope?  (Remember, the baggage I bring to the Catholic Church is quite different than that carried by long-time or cradle Catholics, EC or RC, and even Protestant converts, so I guess I'm not as "sensitive" about those kinds of things  Wink.)

So your argument is that it's okay because the canon requires papal commemoration in all the EC Churches?  Huh Now I think I'm missing something.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #174 on: March 20, 2012, 10:41:10 AM »

It may be a "latinization"

If it's a latinization that's imposed, doesn't that mean that it's an "imposed latinization"?

P.S. Sorry I forgot: "imposed latinization" has a negative connotation.  Lips Sealed
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 10:44:00 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,261


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #175 on: March 20, 2012, 10:44:35 AM »

I see that the canon isn't particular to Melkite bishops, but refers to all EC bishops.  It may be a "latinization" but, if one is Catholic and in communion with the Pope,  is there anything particularly objectionable about it?  Why would any Catholic bishop, Eastern or Western, object to commemorating the Pope?  (Remember, the baggage I bring to the Catholic Church is quite different than that carried by long-time or cradle Catholics, EC or RC, and even Protestant converts, so I guess I'm not as "sensitive" about those kinds of things  Wink.)

So your argument is that it's okay because the canon requires papal commemoration in all the EC Churches?  Huh Now I think I'm missing something.

Is there something objectionable about requiring papal commemoration by all *Catholic* bishops, Western or Eastern?  If so, what?  We commemorate him at every Mass I attend in the RC parish I belong to.  And when I belonged to a BC parish, we commemorated him at every DL.  I don't hear any objections now, nor did I then.  Doesn't mean there aren't those who object, mind you, but at least the BC parish we were in was pretty small, people were very talkative and opinionated and never once did we hear any grumblings about the Pope or commemorating him in the DL.  Perhaps it's different with the Melkites--I wouldn't know.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 10:46:57 AM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #176 on: March 20, 2012, 10:50:18 AM »

I'm not saying you're wrong,

I always find it interesting when people use "I'm not saying you're wrong" as a lead-in to setting themselves up as the judge/jury. (I'm not saying that's you're doing.  Wink)

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #177 on: March 20, 2012, 10:52:26 AM »

Is there something objectionable about requiring papal commemoration by all *Catholic* bishops, Western or Eastern?

Have you been reading the discussion?  Huh

 
It may be a "latinization"

If it's a latinization that's imposed, doesn't that mean that it's an "imposed latinization"?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 10:53:36 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,261


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #178 on: March 20, 2012, 10:56:19 AM »

I'm not saying you're wrong,

I always find it interesting when people use "I'm not saying you're wrong" as a lead-in to setting themselves up as the judge/jury. (I'm not saying that's you're doing.  Wink)



So, what are your objections to having Catholic bishops of all persuasions commemorate the Pope during Mass/DL?  I ask because you seem to have some but haven't yet said what they are, other to imply that because of Canon 209 of CCEO, this is, for Eastern Catholics, an "imposed latinization", i.e., an *imposition*, and therefor something negative.  And, if it is indeed negative, how and why is it?  (And *please* don't say, going round and round in circles, "because it's 'imposed'".)

Let me put it a little differently.  My question is, irregardless of whether it is "imposed" (*forced* upon them?) or not, why would any Catholic bishop object to commemorating the Pope?  Does it somehow go against their faith or their beliefs?  If so, why would they remain *Catholic*?  Do you, as a Catholic, object to what the Church requires of you?  Does it go against your faith, your beliefs?  If so, why do you remain Catholic?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 11:14:27 AM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,261


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #179 on: March 20, 2012, 10:59:02 AM »

Is there something objectionable about requiring papal commemoration by all *Catholic* bishops, Western or Eastern?

Have you been reading the discussion?  Huh

 
It may be a "latinization"

If it's a latinization that's imposed, doesn't that mean that it's an "imposed latinization"?


Well...yes, I have, as a matter of fact.  But I beg of you to cut me some slack, being old, dumb, and ignorant as I am.  I may have, probably did in fact, miss something.  So, I beg your indulgence and ask for patience, and a little assistance for some greater clarity on your part.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.168 seconds with 73 queries.