FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: It's good to be a Melkite
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(02-15-2012, 08:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 05:45 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: [ -> ]Respectfully Melkite, this is absolutely nothing to be proud of.  This confirms for the thousandth time that there is, within Eastern quarters, organized disobedience and schismatism under the cover of sui juris.

At the same time that Latin tradition has been virtually stamped out and made illegal in a de facto sense, the exact same traitors urged on an artificial 'de-latinization' to roll back changes with communities for several centuries.  Read the Bishop's letter: he is demanding that local communities suddenly follow a liturgically excavated tradition thanks to Bugnini's Protestant freemason crew.

There are legitimate liturgical and spiritual methods to be lively lived out in the Uniate bodies.  However, this has become an all-out assault on A) Latin customs and spirituality that, over the course of time and events, permeated Eastern boundaries B) Revealed truth, at least implicitly (e.g., I understand the organically developed spiritual uniqueness, but how in the world is it theologically acceptable to, by fiat, forbid Eastern Catholics from enjoying the fruits of Catholic devotions like Adoration?) C) Good natured piety (by constantly attacking Thomism, Latin, Latin rituals, etc. it is just becomes a climate of nastiness and clinging to empty traditions, essentially superstition.)

Consider this, step back and look at that avatar picture proclaiming ‘Damn, I’m eradicating freely and willfully practiced traditions centuries ago imported from Latin brothers.  AWESOME!’  

Vetus and the others are absolutely right; this is tragic and truly another opportunity of pain on the Body of Christ.

You're being completely rediculous.  Organized disobedience and schism because we're going back to our own practices?  Seriously, will you Latins ever get over yourselves?  Your **** don't smell like roses just cause it splats in Latin.

Whether individual Eastern Catholics have become accustomed to certain Latin practices is irrelevant.  You are being dishonest historically when you suggest that all the Easterners gladly adopted Latin practices, as if the Latins swept in to save the day, saving us barbarous Easterners from dreadfully inferior practices.  You *forced* them on us, you don't now get to complain that we are returning to our own traditions in our own parishes.  When we start forcing you to do things our way in your parishes, then we'll talk.

The fact is, no Eastern Catholic is forbidden from taking part in any Latin practice they want to.  They are just as free to practice them in a Latin parish if that is what they want.  There is absolutely NO GOOD REASON that we should also have to follow your practices in our parishes as well.  You are so concerned about Easterners that want to practice Latin traditions, yet you show no concern for Easterners who want to practice Byzantine traditions.  For those of us who would like to be truly Byzantine, where exactly are we supposed to go if our own parishes are to be reserved for the Latin wannabes?  The only reason a Latin Catholic could be troubled by a Latin practice being discontinued in an Eastern parish, when it is still practiced in the more numerous Latin parishes, is if your extraordinarily inflated egos suffer such an inferiority complex that it is impossible to see any goodness in your own traditions unless everyone else practices them as well.  Seriously, GET OVER YOURSELVES.  When have we ever, even once, tried to force our traditions on you in your own parishes.  You have 99.87% of the entire Church.  If you complain that you don't have the remaining 0.13% practicing according to your will, where exactly are people like me, who appreciate our Byzantine traditions, supposed to go?  If we cannot even have our own parishes, how can you possibly say you respect our traditions and hold no animosity against us, when your very actions and complaints say you shall never be happy until you have molded every last one of us into your image?

Not really helping your case here. If people are so narrow minded, as you make out, that they cannot deal with both east and west, that they cannot (as many ukranian and eastern european catholics have done) integrate the rosary, the sacred heart etc... into their practices and vice versa then they need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Do you think that the Blessed Virgin approved the Rosary for only the western Church or that Jesus only wishes to propogate devotion to his Sacred heart amongst latins? Or that the popes and many saints who promoted these devotions did as well? No tradition is entirely 'pure', the very idea is nonsensical and ridicalous, if we want to be consistent should the western Church get rid of incense? That came from th east. And Ikons too, we can't have any of those, we'll get rid of the 'kyrie eleison' as well as it's not in Latin. You may say thats absurd but I've seen eastern Catholics suggesting no eastern catholic church could be named 'Our lady of Fatima'  :eyeroll:

These comments seem to come from a chronic insecurity seemingly prevelant amongst eastern catholics and a kind of spiritual stagnation and parasitism which can only survive by attacking the west and making itself as different from the west as possible, never considering whether it is chucking the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

It is as if you believe that to appreciate the east one must denigrate the west and vice versa, what nonsense! I appreciate michelangelo but that does not mean I insult byzantine art, I like the hail mary but I do not trash the jesus prayer, I like the Roman mass that does not mean I trash the byzantine liturgies or for that matter the ambrosian or mozarabic (which I actually prefer).

It is not Latins who need to get over ourselves but you and others like you who need to swallow their pride, people often talk about the SSPX being on a schismatic trajectory, well I'm sorry but many of the eastern catholic churches are way further down any so called schismatic trajectory than they are
Trent, there is only one point in your post reasonable enough to address.  You can say you're not trashing byzantine liturgies, but your complaining that we want to make byzantine liturgies less latin, and actually byzantine.  By making a byzantine liturgy look latin, you DO trash our liturgy. 
(02-15-2012, 08:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If we cannot even have our own parishes, how can you possibly say you respect our traditions and hold no animosity against us, when your very actions and complaints say you shall never be happy until you have molded every last one of us into your image?

Why wouldn't you want to be molded in God's image?
(02-15-2012, 08:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 08:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If we cannot even have our own parishes, how can you possibly say you respect our traditions and hold no animosity against us, when your very actions and complaints say you shall never be happy until you have molded every last one of us into your image?

Why wouldn't you want to be molded in God's image?

God is a Latin?  Or was that sarcasm again?
(02-15-2012, 09:17 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 08:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 08:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If we cannot even have our own parishes, how can you possibly say you respect our traditions and hold no animosity against us, when your very actions and complaints say you shall never be happy until you have molded every last one of us into your image?

Why wouldn't you want to be molded in God's image?

God is a Latin?  Or was that sarcasm again?

:LOL:
Despite being Byzantine, I have no opinion on communion for infants. I have been to numerous UBCC's and had differing experiences. For example, St Stephens in Calgary was a secular priest parish, allowed infant communion, stood not kneeled, and other 'more eastern' practices. On the other hand, my home parish of St. Basils is OSBM and doesn't allow infant communion, and tell congregation to kneel not stand.

I guess I like things about both ways.
By the way, it is good to be Byzantine too.  :)
(02-15-2012, 12:40 AM)nmoerbeek Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2012, 03:57 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 08:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]More importantly, it's not an absolute requirement, seeing as the Apostles themselves did not see fit to withhold it from infants.  There's nothing in the verses you quoted about proper discernment, but being properly prepared, i.e., not in a state of mortal sin.  Christ himself said no one has life in him unless he eats his flesh and drinks his blood.  He also said to not hinder children from coming to him.  Obviously, the Apostles understood reception of the Eucharist to be included in that.  The current Latin practice is a relative novelty.  It is MODERN.  Its defense hasn't a leg to stand on.  Unless you have something actually new to add, I think we're about done here.

'CHAPTER IV.
That little Children are not bound to sacramental Communion.

Finally, this same holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist: [Page 143] forasmuch as, having been regenerated by th by the laver of baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God. Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom; for as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation. '
  Council of Trent

(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty sure that a practice that is at least 500+ years old is not modern   :P

Compared to over 1500 years it is.  :grin:

Man you guys really are just like your Protestant progeny, ever the minimalists. Why just worry about what's "necessary" for salvation? The question isn't what's the least I have to do make make it to heaven, the question is what is the most I can do to grow in love and communion with God right now.

Why not just confirm and commune infants because they are children of God, members of Christ's body and so they can begin to grow in love and communion with Him right now? That is the reason infants are and should be communed.

It is beyond question that this has been the practice of the Eastern Churches from time immemorial and that the later Latin practice of withholding communion and it's adoption by some Eastern Catholics is an unnatural break from their long established practice. Good for them for returning to this venerable tradition.

Interesting argument that infants should be allowed to grow in love and communion with God right now but at the same time Orthodox seem to be against the practice of daily communion unless you are perpetually fasting and remaining continent.  Why not just let married people grow in love and communion with God?


There's a heck of a big difference between going 7 days between Eucharists and waiting 7 years, no? Either way there's nothing wrong with daily communion, it's just not practical in most circumstances. Not only must the priest abstain from food and sexual relations anyone wishing to receive must as well. Couple that with the length of the Divine Liturgy and the fact that every liturgy requires at the very least one altar server, a cantor and in some traditions a choir you see why it isn't usually done.
(02-15-2012, 01:33 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2012, 05:55 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]But the practices in question did not develop organically in the Eastern Churches.

But they did develop organically in Catholic Churches.
If you consider Latin bishops forcing them to adopt these practices organic then I suppose you are right.   :)

(02-15-2012, 01:33 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: Look at all the fuss about communion in the hand in the Novus Ordo. Communion in the hand was a common practice in the early Church. Fairly quickly it fell out of practice for a number of reasons and not taking communion in the hand was the norm for many, many centuries. Then the practice was reintroduced, much to the consternation of many traditionalist, very artificially in the 20th.

You prove my point. Re-introducing an alleged ancient practice merely because it is ancient is not a guarantee of it's viability or effectiveness when newer traditions may have the benefit of having a more beneficial effect by their intrinsic value.

Quote: It is the same with the practices Melkite is speaking of. They may have been around for a very long time in the Latin Church but they did not develop naturally from the spiritual traditions of the Eastern Churches.

Again, that does not mean that it is not better for the welfare of souls, which are more important than cultural patrimony in any Church.

Perhaps not, but it certainly doesn't mean that it is for the welfare of souls.  


(02-15-2012, 01:33 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: As such they are out of place and should be removed for the spiritual well being of those Churches.

Those Eastern Churches located in the West are themselves are geographically out of place and by your reasoning the West should remove them for the spiritual well being of the Latin Church. 

Is that really the principle you are defending? 


Come on now I know you are smarter than that.  :shame:
(02-15-2012, 05:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2012, 03:57 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 08:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]More importantly, it's not an absolute requirement, seeing as the Apostles themselves did not see fit to withhold it from infants.  There's nothing in the verses you quoted about proper discernment, but being properly prepared, i.e., not in a state of mortal sin.  Christ himself said no one has life in him unless he eats his flesh and drinks his blood.  He also said to not hinder children from coming to him.  Obviously, the Apostles understood reception of the Eucharist to be included in that.  The current Latin practice is a relative novelty.  It is MODERN.  Its defense hasn't a leg to stand on.  Unless you have something actually new to add, I think we're about done here.

'CHAPTER IV.
That little Children are not bound to sacramental Communion.

Finally, this same holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist: [Page 143] forasmuch as, having been regenerated by th by the laver of baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God. Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom; for as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation. '
  Council of Trent

(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty sure that a practice that is at least 500+ years old is not modern   :P

Compared to over 1500 years it is.  :grin:

Man you guys really are just like your Protestant progeny, ever the minimalists. Why just worry about what's "necessary" for salvation? The question isn't what's the least I have to do make make it to heaven, the question is what is the most I can do to grow in love and communion with God right now.

Why not just confirm and commune infants because they are children of God, members of Christ's body and so they can begin to grow in love and communion with Him right now? That is the reason infants are and should be communed.

It is beyond question that this has been the practice of the Eastern Churches from time immemorial and that the later Latin practice of withholding communion and it's adoption by some Eastern Catholics is an unnatural break from their long established practice. Good for them for returning to this venerable tradition.

Yes and so far as the Catholic Church is concerned the advantages of communing infants are outweighed by the disadvantages, as for it being an 'unnatural break', no it is called a change, the Catholic Church unlike the Orthodox is capable of distinguishing between traditions and Tradition and does not slavishly follow the former.


The Catholic Church? You mean the Roman Church because of all the Catholic Churches most certainly have not made determination. Hence the entire point of this thread.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20