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
(02-17-2012, 11:31 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If there were a true need, no.  But can you think of a reason that would constitute true need, and not merely Latin arrogance?  I don't know of any Latinizations that have truly been needed by the East.

The rosary, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the devotion to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary, etc.

These are all non-liturgical developments that occured in the West after 1054 that have become a legitimate spiritual patrimony of the universal church. If an Eastern Catholic objects to these because they "hurt" his faith, then there's simply something very wrong going on. The tirade against latinisations belies an antiquarian spirit that is contrary to authentic Catholic tradition: there are no "pure" Roman or Byzantine traditions, they all drink from the same source and influence one another. Again, the problem here is that you implicitly or explicitly accept liturgical (and non-liturgical) development until the 11th century alone. It's an irrational stance. The things that developped in the West after the schism didn't develop in the East because you were outside the Church. When some churches began slowly returning to the fold in the 16th century, these new developments were adopted there, sometimes forcibly, other times quite willingly. It's simply a gross violation of truth to imply that latinisations, quite a loaded term by the way, are not part of "authentic" Ruthenian tradition, for instance. They are. Authentic tradition does not report to any pristine era (11th century) but it's rather something that is built on organically by the Church as time goes by.
(02-17-2012, 01:08 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-17-2012, 11:31 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If there were a true need, no.  But can you think of a reason that would constitute true need, and not merely Latin arrogance?  I don't know of any Latinizations that have truly been needed by the East.

The rosary, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the devotion to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary, etc.

These are all non-liturgical developments that occured in the West after 1054 that have become a legitimate spiritual patrimony of the universal church. If an Eastern Catholic objects to these because they "hurt" his faith, then there's simply something very wrong going on. The tirade against latinisations belies an antiquarian spirit that is contrary to authentic Catholic tradition: there are no "pure" Roman or Byzantine traditions, they all drink from the same source and influence one another. Again, the problem here is that you implicitly or explicitly accept liturgical (and non-liturgical) development until the 11th century alone. It's an irrational stance. The things that developped in the West after the schism didn't develop in the East because you were outside the Church. When some churches began slowly returning to the fold in the 16th century, these new developments were adopted there, sometimes forcibly, other times quite willingly. It's simply a gross violation of truth to imply that latinisations, quite a loaded term by the way, are not part of "authentic" Ruthenian tradition, for instance. They are. Authentic tradition does not report to any pristine era (11th century) but it's rather something that is built on organically by the Church as time goes by.

Excellent.
(02-17-2012, 01:08 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-17-2012, 11:31 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If there were a true need, no.  But can you think of a reason that would constitute true need, and not merely Latin arrogance?  I don't know of any Latinizations that have truly been needed by the East.

The rosary, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the devotion to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary, etc.

These are all non-liturgical developments that occured in the West after 1054 that have become a legitimate spiritual patrimony of the universal church. If an Eastern Catholic objects to these because they "hurt" his faith, then there's simply something very wrong going on. The tirade against latinisations belies an antiquarian spirit that is contrary to authentic Catholic tradition: there are no "pure" Roman or Byzantine traditions, they all drink from the same source and influence one another. Again, the problem here is that you implicitly or explicitly accept liturgical (and non-liturgical) development until the 11th century alone. It's an irrational stance. The things that developped in the West after the schism didn't develop in the East because you were outside the Church. When some churches began slowly returning to the fold in the 16th century, these new developments were adopted there, sometimes forcibly, other times quite willingly. It's simply a gross violation of truth to imply that latinisations, quite a loaded term by the way, are not part of "authentic" Ruthenian tradition, for instance. They are. Authentic tradition does not report to any pristine era (11th century) but it's rather something that is built on organically by the Church as time goes by.





I think I agree with both of you.  For private devotions, I don’t think any of these things are detrimental. I personally pray the rosary.  Actually, I’ve seen a Byzantine variant of it on the internet, which is a good example of “drinking from the same source” as you say Vetus.  I actually like to sing the Divine Mercy Prayer in plainchant style like a Byzantine.  I’ve had nothing but success with it. I don’t see this as detrimental either.

For public prayers, where I am at, I have not seen these practices be used publicly at a Byzantine Church, but I would be a bit miffed if I showed up for Solemn Vespers Saturday Night and Vespers was cancelled for adoration or public rosary.  On the same token, if I showed up at the Perpetual Adoration Chapel in town and it was made into a Vespers Service chapel instead, I’d be miffed also.
The public singing of at least some of the canonical hours in the parishes is an excellent tradition that unfortunately almost disappeared in the West, especially after the counter-reformation. That should be restored in the Latin rites rather than eclipsed from the Eastern ones.

But, at the same time, I cannot understand how something so evidently beneficial as the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament can be shunned by Eastern parishes.
(02-17-2012, 01:08 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-17-2012, 11:31 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If there were a true need, no.  But can you think of a reason that would constitute true need, and not merely Latin arrogance?  I don't know of any Latinizations that have truly been needed by the East.

The rosary, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the devotion to the sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary, etc.

These are all non-liturgical developments that occured in the West after 1054 that have become a legitimate spiritual patrimony of the universal church. If an Eastern Catholic objects to these because they "hurt" his faith, then there's simply something very wrong going on. The tirade against latinisations belies an antiquarian spirit that is contrary to authentic Catholic tradition: there are no "pure" Roman or Byzantine traditions, they all drink from the same source and influence one another. Again, the problem here is that you implicitly or explicitly accept liturgical (and non-liturgical) development until the 11th century alone. It's an irrational stance. The things that developped in the West after the schism didn't develop in the East because you were outside the Church. When some churches began slowly returning to the fold in the 16th century, these new developments were adopted there, sometimes forcibly, other times quite willingly. It's simply a gross violation of truth to imply that latinisations, quite a loaded term by the way, are not part of "authentic" Ruthenian tradition, for instance. They are. Authentic tradition does not report to any pristine era (11th century) but it's rather something that is built on organically by the Church as time goes by.

I think I agree, too, with the principle you're getting at, at least, especially now that I better understand what Gerard was trying to say.  But beyond the basic principle, of the specific traditions you mentioned, why are any of them necessary in the East?  Specifically Eucharistic adoration.  The whole reason that that practice developed was because in the West, faith in the True Presence was failing.  We have never had that problem in the East, so if that is the reason that the practice came about, it doesn't seem that it is necessary for it to be adopted in the East until such time as we have the same problem.
Eucharistic Adoration is not simply to counteract the disbelief in the real presence, although it continues to be a valid remedy to such a problem that usually comes up in every generation of men.

It's a tradition that enables the believer to worship God "face to face," so to speak, outside the liturgical setting. It gives us a richer and more profound meaning to that question of Christ, "could you not watch one hour with me?" (Matt. 26:40) If you add to that the processions of the Blessed Sacrament through the streets, you'll also get an astounding confirmation of Christ's kingship over us, His blessings and graces on the believers and also His real dwelling amongst us. It's not merely spiritual, He's really there in a substantial way, hidden under that appearance of bread: the King of kings, the merciful Lord, the almighty Saviour. It's a profoundly rich spiritual experience that can only benefit any Catholic of any rite whatsoever.
There are some things better about some rites; other things are better about other rites. Cut the bullshit and fight the real enemy. We (east and west) are on the same side, no?
(02-17-2012, 09:05 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: [ -> ]There are some things better about some rites; other things are better about other rites. Cut the bullshit and fight the real enemy. We (east and west) are on the same side, no?

In theory, in practice no, no more than the orthodox are on the same side.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20