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
(02-13-2012, 04:20 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Ridiculous.

They're just playing into the hands of the Eastern Orthodox. It's the old Eastern intellectual scleorosis all over again. Remove any "taint" from Latin traditions.

Is Nicholas going to suppress the rosary too? That is, if he even prays that perverse latinism!

Of course not!  Why would he suppress a private devotion?  Stop being emotional!  And try showing some respect to a bishop!  I doubt people around here would much like if I started referring to Marcel, Richard or Bernard.
(02-13-2012, 09:21 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 04:20 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Ridiculous.

They're just playing into the hands of the Eastern Orthodox. It's the old Eastern intellectual scleorosis all over again. Remove any "taint" from Latin traditions.

Is Nicholas going to suppress the rosary too? That is, if he even prays that perverse latinism!

Of course not!  Why would he suppress a private devotion?  Stop being emotional!  And try showing some respect to a bishop!  I doubt people around here would much like if I started referring to Marcel, Richard or Bernard.

Calling a bishop by his given name is not disrespectful. It's a convention like any another.

Anyway, the anti-latinisation trend of the Eastern churches is worrisome. It reinforces their belief of being "special" and apart from the rest of the Church.
(02-13-2012, 09:28 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 09:21 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 04:20 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Ridiculous.

They're just playing into the hands of the Eastern Orthodox. It's the old Eastern intellectual scleorosis all over again. Remove any "taint" from Latin traditions.

Is Nicholas going to suppress the rosary too? That is, if he even prays that perverse latinism!

Of course not!  Why would he suppress a private devotion?  Stop being emotional!  And try showing some respect to a bishop!  I doubt people around here would much like if I started referring to Marcel, Richard or Bernard.

Calling a bishop by his given name is not disrespectful. It's a convention like any another.

Anyway, the anti-latinisation trend of the Eastern churches is worrisome. It reinforces their belief of being "special" and apart from the rest of the Church.

Do you have any specific issue with the Eastern practice of communing infants?
(02-13-2012, 09:28 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, the anti-latinisation trend of the Eastern churches is worrisome. It reinforces their belief of being "special" and apart from the rest of the Church.

I'm going to start referring to Marcel, Richard and Bernard, you watch the reactions I get.

To your final point, I'll just reiterate that if it's so important to you that we all do everything the same way, then you can start adopting what we do wherever it differs from what you do.
(02-13-2012, 09:35 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 09:28 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, the anti-latinisation trend of the Eastern churches is worrisome. It reinforces their belief of being "special" and apart from the rest of the Church.

I'm going to start referring to Marcel, Richard and Bernard, you watch the reactions I get.

To your final point, I'll just reiterate that if it's so important to you that we all do everything the same way, then you can start adopting what we do wherever it differs from what you do.

It is a common tradition to refer to bishops by Christian name, preceded by the Cross.  I think this is very respectful.

+Nicholas, +Bernard, and so on.  Notice how +Nicholas signs his own name at the end of the letter you linked to.

ETA: It seems this is only the practice for ordinaries and for cardinal-bishops, so it would not apply to Bishop Fellay.
(02-13-2012, 09:28 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 09:21 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 04:20 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Ridiculous.

They're just playing into the hands of the Eastern Orthodox. It's the old Eastern intellectual scleorosis all over again. Remove any "taint" from Latin traditions.

Is Nicholas going to suppress the rosary too? That is, if he even prays that perverse latinism!

Of course not!  Why would he suppress a private devotion?  Stop being emotional!  And try showing some respect to a bishop!  I doubt people around here would much like if I started referring to Marcel, Richard or Bernard.

Calling a bishop by his given name is not disrespectful. It's a convention like any another.

Anyway, the anti-latinisation trend of the Eastern churches is worrisome. It reinforces their belief of being "special" and apart from the rest of the Church.

I'm not sure this is about sclerosis or antiquarianism.  A lot of the latinizations were forced upon the Eastern Catholics for bad reasons.  A superficial and overly concrete understanding of "unity" and "conformity" were the main motivations, and they were relatively recent.

The East, IMHO, has every right to undo every single one of these.  Individual customs or changes, from East or West, can than be considered case by case if something is very helpful (like Eastern Catholics taking up the Rosary).  But as an autonomous Church, why should they have to justify returning to their own practices and have to account for every single thing they return to?
Yes, putting a cross in front of their name is fine, and the common way of doing it, rather than having to spell out archbishop everytime.  I've never seen anyone refer to a bishop merely by their first name though.
(02-13-2012, 09:47 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure this is about sclerosis or antiquarianism.  A lot of the latinizations were forced upon the Eastern Catholics for bad reasons.  A superficial and overly concrete understanding of "unity" and "conformity" were the main motivations, and they were relatively recent.

The East, IMHO, has every right to undo every single one of these.  Individual customs or changes, from East or West, can than be considered case by case if something is very helpful (like Eastern Catholics taking up the Rosary).  But as an autonomous Church, why should they have to justify returning to their own practices and have to account for every single thing they return to?

I'm still at a loss to understand how certain so-called "latinisations" are to simply be rejected by Catholics of the Eastern rites. Rosaries? Stations of the Cross? Eucharistic adoration? Corpus Christi? What's wrong with these practices? Nothing. Do they harm their spirituality and understanding of the faith? Impossible. While these practices were not Apostolic, they nonetheless reflect a normal maturing of the faith that occured in the Church. We're not stuck in the 3rd century or in the 11th.

The main reason the Eastern bishops wish to de-latinise is the the same reason that prevents many Orthodox from converting: aversion to anything post-1054. And that is intellectual sclerosis, if not outright superstition.
(02-13-2012, 09:35 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 09:28 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, the anti-latinisation trend of the Eastern churches is worrisome. It reinforces their belief of being "special" and apart from the rest of the Church.

I'm going to start referring to Marcel, Richard and Bernard, you watch the reactions I get.

If you get hostile reactions, they are unwarranted. Calling bishops simply by their given or family names is not a sign of "disrespect" in itself. Too much ado about nothing.

Quote:To your final point, I'll just reiterate that if it's so important to you that we all do everything the same way, then you can start adopting what we do wherever it differs from what you do.

As we had the opportunity to exchange a few thoughts about this last year, I'll restate what I said then: I'd be more than willing to accept some "byzantinisations" like icons and the iconostasis, for instance.
(02-13-2012, 09:57 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 09:47 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure this is about sclerosis or antiquarianism.  A lot of the latinizations were forced upon the Eastern Catholics for bad reasons.  A superficial and overly concrete understanding of "unity" and "conformity" were the main motivations, and they were relatively recent.

The East, IMHO, has every right to undo every single one of these.  Individual customs or changes, from East or West, can than be considered case by case if something is very helpful (like Eastern Catholics taking up the Rosary).  But as an autonomous Church, why should they have to justify returning to their own practices and have to account for every single thing they return to?

I'm still at a loss to understand how certain so-called "latinisations" are to simply be rejected by Catholics of the Eastern rites. Rosaries? Stations of the Cross? Eucharistic adoration? Corpus Christi? What's wrong with these practices? Nothing. Do they harm their spirituality and understanding of the faith? Impossible. While these practices were not Apostolic, they nonetheless reflect a normal maturing of the faith that occured in the Church. We're not stuck in the 3rd century or in the 11th.

The main reason the Eastern bishops wish to de-latinise is the the same reason that prevents many Orthodox from converting: aversion to anything post-1054. And that is intellectual sclerosis, if not outright superstition.

But they don't reflect a "normal maturing of the faith" everywhere.  They were forced on the Easterners in recent times, and the Latin hierarchy were not concerned with even harmonizing them with the Eastern traditions.  So Easterners have a right to want to go back.

I don't think they'd be justified in condemning the practices.  But they can say, "we are going back wholesale and removing these because they were artificially tacked on.  If some individual practices are harmonized and valuable, we can add them or retain them, but as a rule, we are not going to just tack on things from the West because we were forced to in the past."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20