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, 11:03 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]National pride has to be tempered with levelheadness and cannot take precedence over religious matters. The Portuguese share the same rite as the rest of the Western church: we're all brothers in Christ. This union was especially enhanced by the constancy and universality of the TLM. The peculiar religious traditions of the country are completely accessory.

I'm not talking about religious traditions, I'm talking about basic national pride.  You're proud of your country, right?  Of course, it's not more important than religious things, but I was emphasizing the point that some degree of pride in what makes one unique is normal and healthy.  Of course we in the East take pride in what makes us different from the West.  Can it be overdone?  Of course, but it doesn't mean such pride is inherently bad in moderation.
(02-13-2012, 11:22 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 11:03 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]National pride has to be tempered with levelheadness and cannot take precedence over religious matters. The Portuguese share the same rite as the rest of the Western church: we're all brothers in Christ. This union was especially enhanced by the constancy and universality of the TLM. The peculiar religious traditions of the country are completely accessory.

I'm not talking about religious traditions, I'm talking about basic national pride.  You're proud of your country, right?  Of course, it's not more important than religious things, but I was emphasizing the point that some degree of pride in what makes one unique is normal and healthy.  Of course we in the East take pride in what makes us different from the West.  Can it be overdone?  Of course, but it doesn't mean such pride is inherently bad in moderation.

I take issue with clothing these eastern traditions with an aura of inherent mysticism and superiority as if they couldn't change, develop and adopt new trappings. They're not divine law, set in stone. Any honest look at the development of the diverging rites of the Church will show you that the "easterness" is basically a product of the political and cultural division of defunct Roman Empire. The more you go back in history prior to the schism, the less differences exist between "West" and "East" as it is quite expectable: everything proceeds from the twelve apostles, after all. The very fact that we continue to speak in terms of "West" and "East" is a historical anachronism that has not accompanied the evolution of the Church in the last millennium.

And it's actually a bit ironic to hear you, an English speaking American citizen, talk about "we in the East."
(02-13-2012, 11:40 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I take issue with clothing these eastern traditions with an aura of inherent mysticism and superiority as if they couldn't change, develop and adopt new trappings. They're not divine law, set in stone. Any honest look at the development of the diverging rites of the Church will show you that the "easterness" is basically a product of the political and cultural division of defunct Roman Empire. The more you go back in history prior to the schism, the less differences exist between "West" and "East" as it is quite expectable: everything proceeds from the twelve apostles, after all. The very fact that we continue to speak in terms of "West" and "East" is a historical anachronism that has not accompanied the evolution of the Church in the last millennium.

Those aren't bad points.  Sure, Eastern traditions could change, but if it were natural, don't you think they'd move even further away from what the West has, if the differences are less and less the further you go back?  You're certainly not arguing it would be more natural for them to swerve over in your direction and start adopting what the Latins do?

But you're right about the false dichotomy in the East/West distinction.  In some ways, Byzantines are far closer to Latins than to the Copts or Syriacs.  We are a bit more western than they are.  I once read an opinion article from an Orthodox writer saying they shouldn't call Catholics heterodox if they're going to call the miaphysites Orthodox, since the Eastern Orthodox and the Latins were on the same side at Chalcedon and didn't split and diverge until centuries after the Oriental churches broke off and left. 

Be that as it may, there's no reason to assume that every act of abandoning a latinization is done out of spite, even if that sometimes actually is the case.  To say so is to basically say the Byzantine traditions are worthless in comparison to the Latin equivalent.  If we need Latin traditions that are beneficial, you're effectively saying our respective traditions can't provide the same benefits on it's own.  That as long as we're completely Byzantine, we'll never be capable of climbing the ladder as high as we could if we imitated the Latins.  That is the very same ritual pride you condemn in us.
(02-13-2012, 11:53 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, Eastern traditions could change, but if it were natural, don't you think they'd move even further away from what the West has, if the differences are less and less the further you go back?  You're certainly not arguing it would be more natural for them to swerve over in your direction and start adopting what the Latins do?

Move further away? Not really. Since the schism was been healed in part at the beginning of the 16th century and since there are no longer any significant political divisions that hinder dialogue and cooperation, we can all move forward together, not thinking in anachronistic terms of West and East but in universal terms. Surely, accidental differences will always exist but there's no point in fostering local traditions to the point of exclusion as it has been done in the East. The Western Church still has other rites, which is quite natural given the long history of the Church, but over time they've become subsidiaries of the Roman rite: essentially, it's all a variation of the same thing.

You see, it's not a matter of you having to do what we do but of you not doing it because we do it. It's a negative stance, in principle, and it belies a distrust that it's really not healthy for the unity of the Church. Underneath it lies the same problem that keeps the Orthodox at bay: a narrow concept of catholicity, the evolution of dogma and liturgical practices.

Quote:Be that as it may, there's no reason to assume that every act of abandoning a latinization is done out of spite, even if that sometimes actually is the case.  To say so is to basically say the Byzantine traditions are worthless in comparison to the Latin equivalent.  If we need Latin traditions that are beneficial, you're effectively saying our respective traditions can't provide the same benefits on it's own.  That as long as we're completely Byzantine, we'll never be capable of climbing the ladder as high as we could if we imitated the Latins.  That is the very same ritual pride you condemn in us.

As long as you keep thinking in terms of "us vs. them" and "East vs. West" you'll never get it. It's a bunker mentality.

There's nothing wrong with the byzantine traditions. You've never seen anyone seriously argue that kind of idiocy. But there are things that developped and matured in the Church after 1054 and that is what you seem unable to recognise and accept. By "byzantine traditions" you essentially mean the status quo of the 11th century and that is almost an antiquarianist stance. More often than not, we witness an incredible distrust and open criticism of western traditions and theological concepts, especially those that came about after the 11th century, from people who supposedly belong to the same church as we do and who are supposed to believe in the same faith as we do. Catholics saying that the procession of the Blessed Sacrament "hurts" their faith is quite unbelievable, not to say unacceptable! There's something very wrong here. This criticism is so dire that it sometimes becomes indistinguishable from the polemics of the Eastern Orhtodox. Unfortunately, for some Eastern Catholics it seems that everything thought, taught and developped by Rome after 1054 is suspect and non-essential and that is a flawed conception of Catholicism.
(02-13-2012, 12:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, for some Eastern Catholics it seems that everything thought, taught and developped by Rome after 1054 is suspect and non-essential and that is a flawed conception of Catholicism.

And, unfortunately, for some Western Catholics it seems that everything thought, taught and developed by Rome after 1054 is perfect and absolutely essential to being truly Catholic, as most of your posts on this thread show.
(02-13-2012, 11:03 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 10:53 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 10:19 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Liturgical diversity is not a problem per se, but I do see a problem in the self-imposed enclave of Eastern churches that take pride in being different from the rest.

Do you not take, even some meager, pride in being Portuguese over being Spanish?  Do you not take some pride in having had a traditional Catholic grandmother in your family rather than being born into a thoroughly modernized family?

National pride has to be tempered with levelheadness and cannot take precedence over religious matters. The Portuguese share the same rite as the rest of the Western church: we're all brothers in Christ. This union was especially enhanced by the constancy and universality of the TLM. The peculiar religious traditions of the country are completely accessory.

Again, good points.  I'm thinking about this a bit more.

Still, to follow the example of Portugal and the West ... I think the Rite of Braga is great.  I like to have that diversity.  I think that Dominicans and Carmelites who have their own usages should be proud.

I think that if the right that the Iberians have to use blue as a liturgical color were taken away, they would be right to be disappointed, and they should be proud of the distinction.

I like the differences in Ambrosian vestments.  It would be sad if the standard rite of Rome and vestments of Rome were imposed everywhere.  I think there was great wisdom in the post-tridentine imposition of the Roman Rite *with the allowance of those rites older than 200 years old* ... it reflects the inherent value in organically-developed apostolic traditions that vary, and the variations can be good.

My thinking on the East is similar.
Re: pre and post 1054: perhaps Vetus and Melkite and the rest of us should clarify this.  Perhaps Byzantines should be more open to legitimate development in their own traditions, including influence from the West, post-1054.

But if something develops after 1054 in Rome, that doesn't mean it automatically should be part of Byzantine tradition, or Spanish tradition for that matter.  Not every local feast has been made universal by a Pope ... only some of them were.
(02-13-2012, 12:20 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-13-2012, 12:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, for some Eastern Catholics it seems that everything thought, taught and developped by Rome after 1054 is suspect and non-essential and that is a flawed conception of Catholicism.

And, unfortunately, for some Western Catholics it seems that everything thought, taught and developed by Rome after 1054 is perfect and absolutely essential to being truly Catholic, as most of your posts on this thread show.

Rome didn't fall into massive schism and became isolated from the rest of Christendom. Constantinople and the sees that followed her did.

The Church didn't stop existing and developping in 1054. You need to get over it. There are things defined by the Ecumenical Councils of Trent and Vatican I, like the Scriptural Canon and the Immaculate Conception for instance, that are essential for you to accept and that weren't yet dogmatically defined in the 11th century. Scholasticism, which has been a great blessing to Catholic theology as even mature Easterners acknowledge, was also developped after the Photian split. The rosary, that blessed devotion that the heavens endorse, is a late medieval development, as well as Eucharistic Adoration and so forth. Other things that were commonplace in the early church, dire public penances for instance, have both been abandoned by East and West due to organical development. If the Church back then were to follow the same "rigour" as you do now concerning "latinisations," it would have never adopted the mild penances you have today.

There's nothing inherently "special" in belonging to the Melkite, Byzantine, Syro-Malabar, Gallican, Sarum, Roman, Dominican, Mozarabic, Bragan or Ambrosian rite, just to name a few. It's being a Christian and a Catholic that truly matters. Being so hung up on accidentals is unhealthy.
(02-13-2012, 12:21 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Still, to follow the example of Portugal and the West ... I think the Rite of Braga is great.  I like to have that diversity.  I think that Dominicans and Carmelites who have their own usages should be proud.

Just like the Mozarabic, they're all usages of the Roman rite. They have become (almost) obsolete over time, especially after Trent. The keeping of those rites is historically interesting but not a motive of pride, nor something extremely important or essential to the spirituality of Catholicism in the Peninsula.

Quote:I think that if the right that the Iberians have to use blue as a liturgical color were taken away, they would be right to be disappointed, and they should be proud of the distinction.

Again, it's an interesting exception but not very relevant.

Quote:I like the differences in Ambrosian vestments.  It would be sad if the standard rite of Rome and vestments of Rome were imposed everywhere.  I think there was great wisdom in the post-tridentine imposition of the Roman Rite *with the allowance of those rites older than 200 years old* ... it reflects the inherent value in organically-developed apostolic traditions that vary, and the variations can be good.

My thinking on the East is similar.

Small variations like these are likely to occur and reflect the universality of the Church. My problem comes when we start clothing these accidental changes with an inherent and immutable sacredness that must be preserved at all costs. It's a lie and it's something that's unfortunately fostered in the Eastern churches.
(02-13-2012, 12:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Just like the Mozarabic, they're all usages of the Roman rite. They have become (almost) obsolete over time, especially after Trent. The keeping of those rites is historically interesting but not a motive of pride, nor something extremely important or essential to the spirituality of Catholicism in the Peninsula.

Which is why the churches that still use them are basically liturgical museums, exhibiting a rite that is effectively extinct.

(02-13-2012, 12:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Small variations like these are likely to occur and reflect the universality of the Church. My problem comes when we start clothing these accidental changes with an inherent and immutable sacredness that must be preserved at all costs. It's a lie and it's something that's unfortunately fostered in the Eastern churches.

Ok, I started the thread about our bishop requiring that children receiving chrismation and eucharist immediately upon being baptized.  Rosaries and eucharistic processions are one thing, but if you're suggesting that this practice is just some mere oddity that could be done away with at the flick of a pen with no negative consequences, you're seriously off your rocker.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20