OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 08:11:10 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic misconceptions regarding the schism  (Read 15429 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #90 on: February 18, 2005, 09:41:26 AM »

John,

Rome denounced error but it never denounced the East for simply being Eastern in the same way the Orthodox routinely denounce everything Latin simply because it is Latin.  And there was ample pride on both sides.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #91 on: February 18, 2005, 09:58:10 AM »


Rome denounced error but it never denounced the East for simply being Eastern in the same way the Orthodox routinely denounce everything Latin simply because it is Latin. And there was ample pride on both sides.


I'm sorry Father Deacon, but I must have missed the encyclicals and synod publications of the Orthodox heirarchy which routinely do this. Perhaps you could direct me to them?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #92 on: February 18, 2005, 11:55:59 AM »

John,

These sites give a good overview. 

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/sep15.html

The reposed GOA Metropolitan of San Francisco refused to let his clergy have anything to do with Western Rite Orthodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #93 on: February 18, 2005, 12:26:40 PM »

John,

These sites give a good overview.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/sep15.html

The reposed GOA Metropolitan of San Francisco refused to let his clergy have anything to do with Western Rite Orthodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Oh, please, Leacon Lance.
You must do better thans these. I fail to see how the first linked piece is relevant; the second is hardly anything but a polemical piece taking out of context the situation of the day. And the third comment is also meaningless here (besides, the metroplitan was within his rights within his see - something you RCs can't understand, I'm sure).

To your comment that the east abandoned the West: Do you have some persecution complex? Have you bookmarked every negative piece you can find on the internet? My read is that St. Photios bent over backwards to insure the communal integrity of the Church. The west persisted in it's ways - still is.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #94 on: February 18, 2005, 12:39:07 PM »

Demetri,

They certainly are relevant as all underline there is still an anti-Latin undercurrent in much of Orthodoxy.  St. Augustine is denounced in some cirlces and ritual variances are still criticized.  The Western Orthodox are forced to insert the Byzantine Epiclesis into the ancient Roman Canon and use leavened bread.  And you think there is no bias against Latin practice, even those that predate the schism?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #95 on: February 18, 2005, 01:11:27 PM »

Demetri,

They certainly are relevant as all underline there is still an anti-Latin undercurrent in much of Orthodoxy. St. Augustine is denounced in some cirlces and ritual variances are still criticized. The Western Orthodox are forced to insert the Byzantine Epiclesis into the ancient Roman Canon and use leavened bread. And you think there is no bias against Latin practice, even those that predate the schism?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,
Were it not for fora such as this one I would be unaware of this alleged "anti-Latin" undercurrent. We Greeks don't think much about the Latins at all. Many of my close personal friends are RC (alas, no BCs) and I do not see them insulted by any remarks I have made.
The GOA piece states about Blessed Augustine exactly what I have been taught by my GOA priests - all of them- so I have no experience of these "some circles". Again, you are overly sensitive.
As to Western Rite: you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Any changes made (and relatively minor at that) in the liturgy were not made to make them more Orthodox for the western riters, but to protect our existing flocks from the possible impression that the service (outside of the communion) itself IS Orthodox. Call it a qualtifier to prevent confusion. The metropolitan of San Francisco simply avoided the problem totally in his see.
As to my opinion of bias against Latin practice, I have none. I haven't been in an RC church in 37 years. If there was bias pre-schism, it was on both sides.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #96 on: February 18, 2005, 01:16:44 PM »

They certainly are relevant as all underline there is still an anti-Latin undercurrent in much of Orthodoxy.

Oh please, Deacon Lance. And you're telling me that there is no chauvinism in the Latin Church towards Orthodoxy? Give me a break. The only difference is that people in the Latin Church TEND to be more polite about it when speaking with you face to face. This seems to be very important to people like your Robert Taft, but in many cultures of the East, politesse is not held in the same high esteem as in the West. You know this as well as I. I'm sure you are also quite aware that MANY in the Latin Church regard the Orthodox Church as either a quaint museum piece or as a bunch of crypto-monophysites, or both. The Orthodox don't corner the market on chauvinism, so let's please put away this red herring.

Bob
« Last Edit: February 18, 2005, 01:20:59 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #97 on: February 18, 2005, 01:42:30 PM »



. The East has not ignored/abandoned Rome in her time of need. Rome, in her pride, has cut herself off from the East.John.

 Well, Bishop +Kallistos in his history of the Orthodox Church has pointed out that there was pride and arrogance on BOTH sides leading up to the time of the Schism.  It is never just one side which is guilty in such cases.  It is only a spirit of mutual love and charity in truth which will bring unity.
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #98 on: February 18, 2005, 02:05:46 PM »

Demetri,

"but to protect our existing flocks from the possible impression that the service (outside of the communion) itself IS Orthodox"

It IS Orthodox. Orthodox Saints like St. Gregory Dialogos and St. Leo the Great celebrated the the Roman Rite without the Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread. The only reason these were changed for Western Rite Orthodox was to bow to Byzantine chauvinism.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #99 on: February 18, 2005, 02:11:13 PM »

"And you're telling me that there is no chauvinism in the Latin Church towards Orthodoxy? "

I did not say that.  But on the othehand Rome is very tolerant of ritual divergence.  It certainly never required an Eastern Church to use unleavned bread or replace their Anaphora with the Roman Canon.  And I would challenge you to find statements by current Latin theologians or hierarchs calling Byzantine liturgy or praxis errors.  On the otherhand one can find such statemnets from Orthodox about Latin liturgy or parxis quite easily.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #100 on: February 18, 2005, 02:28:09 PM »

Demetri,

"but to protect our existing flocks from the possible impression that the service (outside of the communion) itself IS Orthodox"

It IS Orthodox.  Orthodox Saints like St. Gregory Dialogos and St. Leo the Great celebrated the the Roman Rite without the Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread.  The only reason these were changed for Western Rite Orthodox was to bow to Byzantine chauvinism.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Obviously we disagree as to the reasoning. So what's new?  :-";"xx
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #101 on: February 18, 2005, 02:30:12 PM »

"And you're telling me that there is no chauvinism in the Latin Church towards Orthodoxy? "

I did not say that. But on the othehand Rome is very tolerant of ritual divergence. It certainly never required an Eastern Church to use unleavned bread or replace their Anaphora with the Roman Canon. And I would challenge you to find statements by current Latin theologians or hierarchs calling Byzantine liturgy or praxis errors. On the otherhand one can find such statemnets from Orthodox about Latin liturgy or parxis quite easily.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Turn it around...
No problem with ritual diversity as long as Rome gets the last word.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Ian Lazarus
The Main Man!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOA
Posts: 1,545


yIjah, Qey' 'oH!


« Reply #102 on: February 18, 2005, 02:32:18 PM »



 Well, Bishop +Kallistos in his history of the Orthodox Church has pointed out that there was pride and arrogance on BOTH sides leading up to the time of the Schism. It is never just one side which is guilty in such cases. It is only a spirit of mutual love and charity in truth which will bring unity.

I dont thinkwe can deny that the schism was partly the fault of bad blood, but there were more pertinant issues as well. Rome was already steeped in the "Ruler of the Church" mindset because of false documentation unknown in the east (Donation of Constantine) and having to play the political front with Charlamagne and his merry bunch at Aix-la-Chapelle. It was little wonder that Partiarch Michael had a very hard time with Cardinal Humbert and the other papal emmesaries, because they had the emminance grise mindset instilled in them, especially when they made their bull of excommunication and threw it on the alter table durring Divine Liturgy at the Hagia Sophia. The point being made is that the Orhodox stayed the course of the traditions passed down from the apostles, and Rome deviated. Now, after long centuries, we look at what the Roman Chruch has become, and we see somthing entirely different, even from the time of the schism, and that they want unity on their terms, aka, papal monarchy, and not concilliar brotherhood. In the East, it is the brotherhood of bishops (and there is no title higher than Bishop) and the unity of voice that prevails in arguments and disputes. In Rome, it is the will of the Pope that is the supreme authority, and for a bishop in the west to speak out against the Pope is to garner not only disfavour, but defrocking, and possible exommunication. I have Roman Catholic friends that attest to this, and ask if it is the same in my Church, of which I answer as above. When the question of unity comes about, the Orthodox answers that I have seen generally state "Come back the same way you left". The Greek Catholics in the Orthodox view are a thorn in the side of such talks because of the background. they did not come in to Roman communion voluntarily, but by force. Even now it is an uneasy arrangement, because they want freedom, and Rome seems unwilling to give it.

This is my two cents. Take 'em or leave 'em


Peace,

Ian Lazarus :grommit:
         
Logged

"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 747



« Reply #103 on: February 18, 2005, 02:54:23 PM »

Demetri,

"but to protect our existing flocks from the possible impression that the service (outside of the communion) itself IS Orthodox"

It IS Orthodox. Orthodox Saints like St. Gregory Dialogos and St. Leo the Great celebrated the the Roman Rite without the Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread. The only reason these were changed for Western Rite Orthodox was to bow to Byzantine chauvinism.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

St. Gregory Dialogos and St. Leo the Great may not have used unleavened bread. Some accounts state that the use of unleavened bread in the West didn't take place until the 9th century. But I believe you are correct about the epiclesis not being in the Roman canon during their pontificates.

There are some tendencies for Western Orthodox to "byzantinize" themselves, just as there have been self-inflicted "latinizations" committed by Eastern Catholics. E.g., many people in our Western Rite mission cross themselves in the Eastern manner (although this used to be the Western manner centuries ago). Most stand to receive communion, but those of us who kneel are not discouraged from doing so. Of course standing to receive now appears to be the norm in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (at least in the USA). Some of our people even stand during the canon.

I doubt that there would be any theological objection to using unleavened bread in the Western Rite, but for now the rubrics say we have to use leavened bread. It's not exactly a hot issue. I'm not aware of any desire of Western Orthodox to have the epiclesis removed, either. In fact, Rome herself has incorporated explicit epicleses in the newer eucharistic prayers, although the position of the epiclesis in these prayers is before the institution narrative, rather than after as in Orthodox rites.

James
« Last Edit: February 18, 2005, 02:56:38 PM by James2 » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #104 on: February 18, 2005, 08:28:58 PM »

"And you're telling me that there is no chauvinism in the Latin Church towards Orthodoxy? "

I did not say that. But on the othehand Rome is very tolerant of ritual divergence. It certainly never required an Eastern Church to use unleavned bread or replace their Anaphora with the Roman Canon. And I would challenge you to find statements by current Latin theologians or hierarchs calling Byzantine liturgy or praxis errors. On the otherhand one can find such statemnets from Orthodox about Latin liturgy or parxis quite easily.

Deacon Lance,

Historically, Rome has only been tolerant because it suited her purposes, i.e. biting off pieces of the Orthodox Church little by little. I have already cited the eighteenth century example of Pope Benedict XIV referring to the Roman rite as "Ritus praestantior." How about one of many nineteenth century examples? The "grandfather" of the liturgical movement, no less, a certain Prosper Gueranger OSB. He said something to the effect that unless the Byzantine rite could be made to parallel the Roman one in every way (i.e. no cherubic hymn, trisagion etc. etc. should be allowed) it should be eliminated. I guess there's no chauvinism evident in either of these examples? There are many more where these came from, right up to Vatican II.

Are you so sure that Rome never required any Easterners to adopt Western things like unleavened bread etc.? Maybe you could look into goings-on during the time of the Latin Empire in 13th century Constantinople. In any event, both sides have been bickering about these things forever, it seems to me.

The newfound Latin appreciation for all things Eastern is only 30 or 40 years old, which really doesn't amount to much chronologically speaking. I do think that it's a very welcome development. Except when it is so often twisted into the "compliment" of "my, what a RICH tradition you Orthodox have. Such a beautiful museum!" What you dismiss as chauvinism on the Eastern side is actually much more than this, though I would never deny that chauvinism creeps into it. There are actually those who are seriously debating the idea of the Western rite and its place in Orthodoxy, and really thinking about what it means.

I'm sure that many Latin hierarchs say nothing negative publicly about the East because they know what's good for them: they know that the East is currently "de riguer" for some in the Vatican. Plus they are all just into being generally ecumenically minded, so they don't say many nasty things about any other confessions, as far as I know. You may have heard differently.

Bob
« Last Edit: February 18, 2005, 08:50:31 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
emmanuelmelo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


OC.net


« Reply #105 on: February 18, 2005, 08:39:57 PM »

deacon Lance,

You consistently use the word "Chauvinism."  How rude of you!  If I remember correctly, it was the Roman Bishops who forced Eastern Rite bishops to always stand behind them in processions (in this country and abroad).  Talk about Chauvinism- Uniate bishops couldn't even walk side by side with their Latin counterparts.  As far as the ROMAN CANON, who cares?  The Mass in the Western Rite "has been destroyed" in the words of Msgr. Klaus Gamber.  See my previous post for Roman toleration of Mass Abuses- why just limit Masses to include other traditions?  Why not other religions as well.  For every parish that uses the Roman Canon, I can tell you 20 that don't. 

You can encourage dialog between the Churches, but the bottom line is that NO ONE TAKES THE CATHOLIC POSITION SERIOUSLY ANYMORE.   Until you can get that through your head, why even bother posting.  Orthodoc, Aristokles, and Prodromos thrash you mercilessly every time you do.

Take Care

Emmanuel
Logged

NULL
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #106 on: February 18, 2005, 09:04:52 PM »


The newfound Latin appreciation for all things Eastern is only 30 or 40 years old, which really doesn't amount to much chronologically speaking.  I do think that it's a very welcome development. 


I'm not sure if that's true.  I've been told that a lot of the 'authentic' "reformers" in the latin Church were very appreciative of the Byzantine rite before Vatican II.   I've heard that there was an influential publication devoted to the Byzantine rite.  What I find very telling is that after the 'destruction' of the western liturgical tradition, that publication ceased to exist. 
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #107 on: February 18, 2005, 09:09:20 PM »

Now that you mention it, Jennifer, i can think of other exceptions too. Like the monks at Chevtogne who have been working sincererly towards reconciliation between East and West since at least the 1920's, I think. Of course, you're right too if you're talking about people like Louis Bouyer and other "reformers".

Bob
« Last Edit: February 18, 2005, 09:13:09 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #108 on: February 18, 2005, 09:56:43 PM »

Emmanual taking pride in thrashing a person is uncalled for & sinful, especially at this time of year, give the Deacon his just respect.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #109 on: February 18, 2005, 11:10:20 PM »


  I would second Bob's appreciation of the work of the Benedictines of Chevetogne and their great work for unity.  I also would mention the work of Father Lev Gillet of blessed memory who wrote under the name of "A Monk of the Eastern Church"  He always wrote in charity of the Catholic Church and was an Orthodox who was truly ecumenical in Spirit.  I wish there were more priests and HIerarchs like him around today!!
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #110 on: February 19, 2005, 01:08:26 PM »

[I did not say that. But on the othehand Rome is very tolerant of ritual divergence. It certainly never required an Eastern Church to use unleavned bread or replace their Anaphora with the Roman Canon.]

If this were true Deacon Lance, perhaps you can explain why the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Celtic, and Gallican Rites were abloished by Rome?

If Rome has always been so tolerant of ritual divergence these Rites should still be in existence as an integral part of the RCC, but they are not

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #111 on: February 19, 2005, 06:18:29 PM »

Actually, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites haven't been abolished.  The latter, as I understand it, is celebrated on Sundays and feasts in the Archdiocese of Milan, although the regular Roman rite is celebrated on other days, while the former, through disuse (most people preferred to switch to the Roman rite), is used in the Cathedral of Toledo (although I hear some/all of the Spanish bishops want to try and bring it into more widespread use). 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #112 on: February 19, 2005, 06:37:03 PM »

Actually, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites haven't been abolished. The latter, as I understand it, is celebrated on Sundays and feasts in the Archdiocese of Milan, although the regular Roman rite is celebrated on other days, while the former, through disuse (most people preferred to switch to the Roman rite), is used in the Cathedral of Toledo (although I hear some/all of the Spanish bishops want to try and bring it into more widespread use).

Perhaps I should not have used the word abolished but restricted instead. The fact of the matter is that if the RCC was as tolerant of other Rites as Fr Deacon Lance claims both Rites you mention should not be restricted to certain feast days of certain specific areas or churches as it is.

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: February 19, 2005, 06:38:19 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #113 on: February 19, 2005, 06:51:59 PM »

With regard to the Mozarabic rite, I think it was the decision of the Spaniards themselves, over time, to adopt the Roman rite instead of maintaining their own (a "latinisation" of the "Latins"?).  I don't know why the Milanese don't use their own rite on weekdays, but I'm not sure if that is a Roman decision or a Milanese one.  I think the geographic restrictions for these rites stem from the council of Trent (rites in continuous use for at least 200 years could remain in use in those places, while the rest of the Catholic world went Roman rite), but I'm not sure of the background for that decision.  Maybe Dn. Lance or Neil can fill us in. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #114 on: February 19, 2005, 08:39:38 PM »

[With regard to the Mozarabic rite, I think it was the decision of the Spaniards themselves, over time, to adopt the Roman rite instead of maintaining their own (a "latinisation" of the "Latins"?).]

From a former RC priest who is now Orthodox Catholic regarding the Mozarabic Rite -

 With regard to the Mozarabic rite, I think it was the decision of the Spaniards themselves, over time, to adopt the Roman rite instead of maintaining their own (a "latinisation" of the "Latins"?). 

Today the Mozarabic Mass is celebrated once daily at the Capilla Muzarabe in the Toledo cathedral.
See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10611a.htm

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
emmanuelmelo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


OC.net


« Reply #115 on: February 19, 2005, 11:13:03 PM »

We must not forget that after the council Rome pressured those of the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites to "update" their Liturgy.  The Ambrosian rite is so modernized one can hardly tell it apart from apart from the Modern Roman Rite-  Mass facing the people, etc.  This is why internet sites such as Una Voce advertise the Ambrosian Rite done "Pre-Vatican II."  As far as the Mozarabic Rite of Toledo, that was also butchered, but from my recollection not until the late 1980s.

Logged

NULL
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #116 on: February 21, 2005, 09:55:23 PM »

Emmanuel,

I am sorry you find the truth rude.  What else do call the Byzantinization the Orthodox have done to the Roman Rite?

Whether the Catholic position is taken seriously is hard to say but it appears that at least yuor hierarchs feign interest.

Why bother posting? I enjoy the company here even if we debate alot.  Everyone here is a good Christian and I value their opinion even if I may disagree with them. 

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #117 on: February 21, 2005, 10:14:02 PM »

Orthodoc,

The dominance of the Roman Rite over the other Latin Rites was unfortunate.  As Phil said at Trent every area that didn't have a use at least 200 years old had to adopt the Roman leaving only the Ambrosian and Mozarabic and a few uses of Religious Orders. 

Despite this however I think Rome still has a better track record than Constantinople.  Grottaferratta still thrives in Rome, Amalfion sits in ruins on Athos.  Also the GO Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem lost their Liturgies of St. Mark and St. James, except for token use of St. James on his Feastday and the Sunday after Christmas among some.

Also be careful quoting the encyclopedia at New Advent it is very dated.  The Spanish have been reviving the Hispano-Mozarabic rite and its use is becoming more common accoring to a poster at byzcath who lives in Spain.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #118 on: February 22, 2005, 01:52:21 AM »

It is ironic that the Roman Church successfully suppressed just about all the Rites which once flourished in the West in the early days but for the past few hundred years they have been hard at work filching the Byzantine Rites of the East!!! I wonder why don't they make similar efforts to restore their proper ancient Rites to the Irish and the Spanish and the French, etc? If Greek Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics may keep the Byzantine Rites, why cannot Irish Catholics and Spanish Catholics be allowed their own Rites?


If we look at the geographical territory of the Roman Patriarchate we find wide-spread suppression of local Rites over the centuries.

The wonderful Mozarabic Rite of Spain and Portugal was completely suppressed and allowed to remain, as a kind of museum piece, only in Toldeo, while the rest of Spain was required to adopt the Roman Rite. This was accomplished by Pope Alexander II (1061-1073) and later by St. Gregory VII (1073-1085). Today the Mozarabic Mass is celebrated once daily at the Capilla Muzarabe in the Toledo cathedral.
See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10611a.htm

The Gallic Rites spread across France and Germany but were suppressed by the Papacy and by the Franks. By the end of the 9th century nothing remained and all had been replaced by the Roman Rite.

The Celtic Rites of Ireland, Scotland, Wales were entirely and utterly destroyed by the close of the 12th century. In Ireland this was accomplished at the insistence of the Papal Legate of Pope Adrian (at the Synod of Cashel in 1172AD) and with the assistance of the invading Anglo-Norman army.

So we see that some of the most sizeable areas of the Church of Rome--Spain, France, Germany, the Celtic areas--were obliged to abandon and suppress their ancient Rites and adopt the Rite of the Church of Rome.

(As an aside, the Celtic Rite, specifically the 8th century Irish Lorrha-Stowe Missal now has a small, very very small, revival in the Orthodox Church. It has been resurrected, and re-rubricised into a workable
Liturgy by Hieromonk of the Australian ROCA Diocese and awaits an episcopal blesing for its use. Whether it will ever be more than something for occasional use by liturgical enthusiasts is another question.)

« Last Edit: February 22, 2005, 03:46:18 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #119 on: February 22, 2005, 03:30:54 AM »



[Emmanuel,

I am sorry you find the truth rude. What else do call the Byzantinization the Orthodox have done to the Roman Rite?]


Reply:

Father Deacon Lance:

The above comment reminds me of a true story regarding an old Russian priest in Russia. When a western Christian once asked him what he believed his reply was - "Don't ask me what I believe. Ask me how I worship. For what I believe is completely expressed in the way I worship."

The fact that you, as a Byzantine Catholic, cannot comprehend that.. is just another reason why the oxymoron 'we are Orthodox In Communion With Rome' is such a ridiculous claim!

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: February 22, 2005, 03:33:20 AM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #120 on: February 22, 2005, 09:10:33 AM »

Orthodoc,

I comprehend it very well.  The fact remains that Western Saints that the Orthodox recognize used the Roman Rite without a Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread showing that to be Orthodox one does not have to incorporate the Byzantinizations to be Orthodox, yet it is required of Western Orthodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #121 on: February 22, 2005, 10:06:56 PM »

<<I comprehend it very well. The fact remains that Western Saints that the Orthodox recognize used the Roman Rite without a Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread showing that to be Orthodox one does not have to incorporate the Byzantinizations to be Orthodox, yet it is required of Western Orthodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance>>

First question. I'm new here. Dear Father Deacon, have Eastern Catholics abandoned the Eastern tradition of having Saints' names as Christian names? Is this some sort of Latinisation of the Eastern Catholics? Why are you addressed as "Lance"? Short for something else?

Speaking of Latinisations, I think that the Roman requirement that Eastern Catholic clergy outside their 'homelands" must be unmarried is more of a gross attack on the Eastern Catholics in the West than any small requirement by the Orthodox about inserting one epiclitic phrase in a three hour Liturgy. And yes, I know that Bishop John Elya took his life in his hands and ordained a married priest not too long ago, but that was seen and is still seen as a challenge to Rome and its ruling: NO married Eastern Catholic priests in the States and Canada.


Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.115 seconds with 59 queries.