FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
i went to a tlm today... - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: i went to a tlm today... (/showthread.php?tid=33078)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Vetus Ordo - 01-04-2010

(01-04-2010, 03:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: Before the time of the Pentarchy, Antioch was Rome's hand in Asia, and Alexandria was Rome's hand in Africa.  So, technically, the Syriac rite is the rite for all Catholic Asians, and the Coptic rite is the rite for all Catholic Africans.  It's not that Eastern Catholics are better, but what if we just don't want to be latinized, is that ok?  Latinizations aren't evil, but they are certainly not prudent.

It depends. The Holy Rosary, the Monstrance, the Stations of the Cross, Novenas, etc., all those seem rather good latinizations to adopt everywhere in the Church. Why would any eastern catholic reject those? They have been benefiting the spiritual lives of millions of catholics worldwide for centuries. Why deprive the easterns of these good fruits?

(01-04-2010, 03:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: For example, let's say you take an Eastern parish that has Akathist on a friday evening in Lent, and then you make them get rid of it and replace it with Stations of the Cross.  That is a latinization. It doesn't mean that Stations of the Cross is bad, but to suppress Akathist for it implies that the Akathist is bad, or at the very least, inferior to Stations of the Cross.

You're the one who is inferring the superiority of one over the other but the replacement doesn't necessarily imply that. It may simply mean the universal adoption of a once western medieval practice that is particularly fitting to the Lenten Fridays.

I was under the impression - correct me if I'm wrong - that the Akathist was a hymn. The Stations of the Cross have a different focus altogether and I can't honestly see how bad it would be for the eastern catholics to adopt such a beautiful practice in remembrance of the Passion of Our Lord, even if it means dropping a previous practice. And I don't mean by saying this that the Akathist should be suppressed; it could very well still be kept.

(01-04-2010, 03:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: If there is nothing inherently bad about an Eastern tradition, what's there to fear in leaving it alone?  Why do the Latins need to fix that which isn't broken?

Even if there's nothing inherently bad in the eastern traditions, it doesn't mean that things cannot be improved or corrected when necessary.

(01-04-2010, 03:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: Can you explain more about what you mean by bringing the other rites closer to the Roman rite?  Because, I don't see how you can bring them closer without suppressing their Easterness.  The more you make an Eastern rite look Roman, the less Eastern it is, and that, by definition, is suppression.

Once more, I can't see any harm in rites becoming more Roman or Latin. You speak of that as something to be feared and, frankly, I find that astonishing coming from a fellow catholic. Nevertheless, since you ask for examples of what I mean by "bringing them closer to the Roman Rite"; I think - for instance - that it would be beautiful if the Roman Canon and its Words of Institution were adopted everywhere; and the same could be said for unleavened bread as the matter for the Eucharist.

The Church is certainly Catholic (universal) but it's also Roman because the Pope, the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, is the bishop of Rome and the Holy See has preeminence and authority over all others, it's the see which all must be in communion with in order to remain in the bosom of the Church. While this doesn't mean that all other sees should immediately abdicate their authentic local rites and practices in favor of Rome's, it's only natural that the Roman Rite should be the reference to the whole catholic world, either because of its unquestionable orthodoxy, universality and apostolicity, but also because it's the rite of the Pope, the head of the Church.

The differences in the catholic rites have always existed and have always been sanctioned by Holy Mother Church, as long as they conform to the Faith. This is clear and unquestionable to all of us. However, I can't see any "evil" or "lack of prudence" to desire more uniformity in these matters, having the Roman Rite as the reference to all. Now that communication is easier, contrary to previous times, this goal should be possible to achieve, although certainly not necessary, nor fundamental to the Faith. I can't stress hard enough that what is of utmost concern to us today is to eradicate modernism from within the Church and to fight the so-called Conciliar religion. All these considerations about uniformity in rites should be resumed only when the Church comes back to Her senses.


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Melkite - 01-05-2010

(01-04-2010, 10:54 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It depends. The Holy Rosary, the Monstrance, the Stations of the Cross, Novenas, etc., all those seem rather good latinizations to adopt everywhere in the Church. Why would any eastern catholic reject those? They have been benefiting the spiritual lives of millions of catholics worldwide for centuries. Why deprive the easterns of these good fruits?

The Rosary, Stations of the Cross and Novenas are devotions, so there is no problem if individual Eastern Catholics wish to adopt them into their own personal prayer life, and doing so would not accurately be described as a latinization, since latinization usually pertains to the liturgy.  As for the Monstrance, this is not something proper to Byzantine liturgical life and understanding of the Eucharist.  While we do have a means of Eucharistic adoration as we are approaching to receive communion, we don't have it outside of the liturgy.  Further, human sexuality is a divine foreshadowing of the Eucharist.  Just as we would never (hopefully) dream of exposing a married couple for the world to see in their most intimate act of communion, likewise, from a Byzantine perspective, parading Christ around in the form of that same marital bond between Him and His Church, for all the world to see, affects the Byzantine sensibilities in the same way.  In my opinion, this is a good fruit of the East that would be wonderful if the West would learn as well.  Why should the West be deprived of it?

(01-04-2010, 10:54 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: You're the one who is inferring the superiority of one over the other but the replacement doesn't necessarily imply that. It may simply mean the universal adoption of a once western medieval practice that is particularly fitting to the Lenten Fridays.

I was under the impression - correct me if I'm wrong - that the Akathist was a hymn. The Stations of the Cross have a different focus altogether and I can't honestly see how bad it would be for the eastern catholics to adopt such a beautiful practice in remembrance of the Passion of Our Lord, even if it means dropping a previous practice. And I don't mean by saying this that the Akathist should be suppressed; it could very well still be kept.

Yes, the Akathist is a hymn.  While there is no problem with individuals wishing to adopt the Stations for themselves, during Lent, our entire focus is on the anticipation of the Resurrection.  The only time that we specifically focus on the Passion is on Holy Friday, which technically is not Lent.  Adopting it, in and of itself, would not be bad, but to do so, especially at the expense of the Akathist, would be imprudent.  You are likewise inferring superiority of the Latin practice over the Byzantine.  I could likewise say perhaps the Latin Church should learn from the East, and it would be good for Western Catholics to adopt such a beautiful practice in remembrance of the Theotokos, even if it means dropping a previous practice.  And, of course, I don't mean by saying this that the Stations of the Cross should be suppressed; it could very well still be kept.  Maybe just moved to earlier in the afternoon?

See what I mean?  Do you think it would a bad idea to bump the Stations in a Latin church for the Akathist?  If it is, then by saying it would be good for us to push aside the Akathist for the Stations, you are inferring the superiority of the Latin practice.

(01-04-2010, 10:54 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Once more, I can't see any harm in rites becoming more Roman or Latin. You speak of that as something to be feared and, frankly, I find that astonishing coming from a fellow catholic. Nevertheless, since you ask for examples of what I mean by "bringing them closer to the Roman Rite"; I think - for instance - that it would be beautiful if the Roman Canon and its Words of Institution were adopted everywhere; and the same could be said for unleavened bread as the matter for the Eucharist.

You yourself said "The differences in the catholic rites have always existed and have always been sanctioned by Holy Mother Church, as long as they conform to the Faith."  This is antithetical to saying that the rites should become more Roman or Latin.  If the Eastern rites are continuing to move closer and closer to the Roman rite, then eventually, the Eastern rites become the Roman rite, and there are no Eastern rites left.  So it is not a fear of the Roman rite, at least for me, but a fear of losing an equally Catholic rite unneccessarily.  If it is not necessary for me to be Latin to be Catholic, then it is not necessary for my church to look like the Latin Church.  I'm not familiar with the words of the traditional Roman Canon, if they were adopted in the East, you realize they would be said in either Greek or the vernacular, right?  Also, instead of the East using unleavened bread, something which it has never done, how about having the Latin Church return to its original practice of using leavened bread?

(01-04-2010, 10:54 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The Church is certainly Catholic (universal) but it's also Roman because the Pope, the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, is the bishop of Rome and the Holy See has preeminence and authority over all others, it's the see which all must be in communion with in order to remain in the bosom of the Church. While this doesn't mean that all other sees should immediately abdicate their authentic local rites and practices in favor of Rome's, it's only natural that the Roman Rite should be the reference to the whole catholic world, either because of its unquestionable orthodoxy, universality and apostolicity, but also because it's the rite of the Pope, the head of the Church.

Whether all the other sees abdicate their authentic local rites and practices in favor of Rome's immediately or over time, the end result is the same.  The authentic local rites and practices cease to exist.  This has been done before, so we know from history what happens.  The authentic Maronite, Coptic, Ethiopic, Chaldean, Syriac, Malankara and Syro-Malabar rites have adopted Roman practices that for the most part of their history in communion with Rome, they have mirrored the Latin practice and their own practice is virtually lost.  Only recently has this begun to turn around, and it is still not certain that these rites haven't been truly lost to the Catholic Church already.

(01-04-2010, 10:54 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The differences in the catholic rites have always existed and have always been sanctioned by Holy Mother Church, as long as they conform to the Faith. This is clear and unquestionable to all of us. However, I can't see any "evil" or "lack of prudence" to desire more uniformity in these matters, having the Roman Rite as the reference to all. Now that communication is easier, contrary to previous times, this goal should be possible to achieve, although certainly not necessary, nor fundamental to the Faith. I can't stress hard enough that what is of utmost concern to us today is to eradicate modernism from within the Church and to fight the so-called Conciliar religion. All these considerations about uniformity in rites should be resumed only when the Church comes back to Her senses.

If your true concern is to eradicate modernism, then you should leave the Eastern rites alone, as they are in most cases older than the traditional Roman rite itself.  Again, while romanizing the Eastern rites might not be intrinsically evil, it is grossly imprudent, if for no other reason than it puts a huge, unneccesary stumbling block in the path of the Orthodox for conversion.  There are many Orthodox today who would not mind being in communion with Rome, but their greatest fear is that if they become Catholic, they have to become Latin.  Latinizing the Eastern Catholic churches will do nothing but strengthen this fear, and the Orthodox point to the Latinized Eastern Catholic churches as proof of what will happen to them if they become Catholic.  How could it be good for the Church to play with peoples' salvation so lightly?


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Vetus Ordo - 01-06-2010

Melkite,

I was going to prolong this discussion further since I still had some few other things to say about this but since it was a matter of putting forward my personal opinion from the beginning, I find that it may be counterproductive. We all must strive to think with the mind of the Church and not with our own prejudices.

I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way or if I have needlessly prolonged this argument. I only know you from the internet but I trust you to be a fellow catholic. There are indeed graver things for us to deal with right now.

Yours in Christ the King,

Vetus Ordo


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Gerard - 01-07-2010

(01-05-2010, 11:14 AM)Melkite Wrote:     As for the Monstrance, this is not something proper to Byzantine liturgical life and understanding of the Eucharist.  While we do have a means of Eucharistic adoration as we are approaching to receive communion, we don't have it outside of the liturgy.  Further, human sexuality is a divine foreshadowing of the Eucharist.  Just as we would never (hopefully) dream of exposing a married couple for the world to see in their most intimate act of communion, likewise, from a Byzantine perspective, parading Christ around in the form of that same marital bond between Him and His Church, for all the world to see, affects the Byzantine sensibilities in the same way.  In my opinion, this is a good fruit of the East that would be wonderful if the West would learn as well.  Why should the West be deprived of it?


I find this whole passage disconcerting to say the least.  Human sexuality is not "divine" in any sense.  The marital bond of Christ and the Church is not even remotely akin to our fallen nature's experience of the marital bond. 

"Parading" around our Lord while he's having sex with His Church, which  is what you are saying, is blasphemous at least and it betrays a willful lack of understanding and an undeserved sense of condescension.  If that is truly the Byzantine perspective, that's a seriously small understanding of the Eucharist .  It sounds more like Islam and it's promises of sensuality in the afterlife and not intimacy (which are two different things) The marital love of the Eucharist is in the Cross and it is the expression not of erotic love but sacrifice for one's spouse.  That is the highest form of love.  Human marital love is the lower that points to the higher love.  The higher does not point to the lower.  And a final point on that, human marital love could not have been greater than that of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary, and it was chaste and completely built on service and sacrifice as expressions of love and it was on display for the whole world to see, just as Christ's love on the Cross was displayed by it's very nature for the whole world to see.  "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up" --"-And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. 9 Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed. 10 And the children of Israel setting forwards camped in Oboth."

Eastern practices have a mysticism about them that is perfectly orthodox, but unfortunately, the East has a tendency to fall into heresies very easily for the simple fact that they do not have Thomism to define and delineate where the essence of the doctrine goes off the rails in the various metaphors and poetic references. 

It was the use of Eastern practices in the Latin Church that lead to the disaster that the Novus Ordo has become.  Paul VI wishing to show more unity with the East changed the rites of consecration of bishops in the Latin Church to correspond to some of the Eastern Churches.  Those rites now lack clarity about the purpose and identification of the bishop, his role and sacramental power.  That has lead to confusion and the springing up of sedevacantism.  Had the reverse been done, the Coptic bishops would not be doubted about their consecrations.

Had the Novus Ordo brought in some of the declarative prayers that occur at the eastern rites forms of  consecration. (I forget which rite says something like "He is here! He is here! Alleluia!"  those would have been positive developments and helped belief in the Real Presence.  Unfortunately it was a series of vague prayers that were brought in by the deformers and the clarity of the prayers of the TLM were removed.  Likewise, the Eastern priests don't pinch their fingers in the preparation of the bread, for practical purposes, but that good discipline was relaxed in the Latin rite and abuse resulted. 

The whole point of Liturgy is not it's long age, nor it's pomp and ceremony, it is how it best expressed the faith to the people and prepares them for the reception of Christ's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, so they don't go to Hell and instead go to Heaven.

If the Eastern Catholics have a particular lack in understanding or even a misunderstanding of some point of doctrine, a practice must either be developed naturally, brought back or brought over from some other rite that will guard against that weakness or error.  For example, if they were hypothetically to believe they MUST have communion by intinction and that the Body and Blood are not both present in the Sacred Species of either bread or wine.  They have to be taught that is wrong, and if necessary they should be forced to communicate under a single species until the error is eradicated. 

On the other hand, if the Latin Church has a problem that cannot be solved and there is a legitimate Eastern solution in one of the rites, it could be imported if the situation warranted it and it would not be considered an "Easternization."  And even if it was, who cares?  If it helps the people in their relationship wtih God, why let a petty ethnic triviality get in the way of  helping  a person love God?  The whole point of being a Catholic is to recognize the universality of God's Love towards Man and Man's purpose to know, love and serve God in this life and in the next.

Similarly if the Church decides that the East needs some form of Eucharistic Adoration that should be 24/7 instead of just during Liturgical Services, they need to do it.  And if the solution is found in a Latin ritual, where an Eastern ritual does not suffice, it solves the problem. 


Traditions naturally are flexible in order to preserve the faith for the future, not to remain so frozen that they actually stop expressing the faith.  For example, since the Nicene-Constantinople Creed is used by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox,  the Catholic Church in all of her rites should adopt a uniform addition of  the supremacy of the Pope and unity of faith and  sacraments.

A final thought, the Roman Rite is not "Western" it is the Mass of St. Peter and Paul both from the East.  It is every bit as old as the Liturgy of St. James and goes right back to the last supper and was foreshadowed by the rites of the Old Temple.  It was not shaped by the West, it shaped the West.  It is Catholic (ie. Universal) 







Re: i went to a tlm today... - Joshua - 01-07-2010

Very well stated, Gerard. A blessed Epiphany to you!

In Corde Regis,
Joshua




Re: i went to a tlm today... - Melkite - 01-07-2010

(01-07-2010, 01:26 AM)Gerard Wrote: I find this whole passage disconcerting to say the least.  Human sexuality is not "divine" in any sense.  The marital bond of Christ and the Church is not even remotely akin to our fallen nature's experience of the marital bond. 

"Parading" around our Lord while he's having sex with His Church, which  is what you are saying, is blasphemous at least and it betrays a willful lack of understanding and an undeserved sense of condescension.   If that is truly the Byzantine perspective, that's a seriously small understanding of the Eucharist .  It sounds more like Islam and it's promises of sensuality in the afterlife and not intimacy (which are two different things) The marital love of the Eucharist is in the Cross and it is the expression not of erotic love but sacrifice for one's spouse.  That is the highest form of love.   Human marital love is the lower that points to the higher love.  The higher does not point to the lower.   

If you re-read what I said, I obviously was not suggesting that human sexuality is divine, nor was I saying that that the marital bond between Christ and the Church was the fulfillment of fallen human sexuality.   Nor did I in any way imply that the higher points to the lower.  It is the lower (human sexuality) which points to the higher (Christ/Church).  This is how typology works.  And the parallels between the two are irrefutable.  Referring to the Church as the Bride of Christ, in and of itself, immediately associates our relationship with Christ with that of a human marriage.  The most clear expression of the marital union is that which takes place during sexual intercourse, the union of two bodies into one.  In the Church's relation with Christ, this same union does not take place at the Crucifixion, but at the reception of the Eucharist.  It is precisely then that Christ offers his body, blood, soul and divinity, all that he is, to us, and we receive it and become fully united with him, i.e., one flesh, just as the husband offers himself to the wife, the wife receives it and they are united in one flesh.  So just as we keep this intimate union between husband and wife veiled, likewise we keep this intimate union between Christ and Church veiled.  The foreshadowing of the Eucharist in human sexuality is obvious.  There indeed is a willful lack of understanding being betrayed here, but that willful lack is not coming from me.

EDIT:  Similarly, existance of the Iconostasis is another manifestation of the liturgical veiling of that which is highly sacred.  It represents that that which is taking place, more or less behind closed doors, is most sacred.  Like the Most Holy Place of old Temple.  And this veiling of the most sacred is not entirely alien to the Latins either.  You still have altar rails, which is the remnant of rood screens.  While you still can see all that is going on, the altar rail is still a barrier, on the other side of which the most sacred and intimate act of Christian worship is taking place.  Likewise, you have Latin in your liturgy, which veils the Eucharistic canon, the Roman words of marital intimacy, in a form of secrecy.  It has been this way since the beginning.  This is why monks in the East where veils.  They are separated for the Lord.  This is why nuns, both Eastern and Western, are veiled.  They are reserved for the Lord.  This is why we wear clothing, why Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves.  That which is most sacred must be veiled.  The mystery signifies its sacredness.  Removing the veil profanes it.


Re: i went to a tlm today... - salome - 01-07-2010

(01-07-2010, 11:53 AM)Melkite Wrote: The mystery signifies its sacredness.  Removing the veil profanes it.

Very well said Melkite. 

This exchange between Gerard and Melkite points to yet another difference in Eastern and Western theology.  The East understands marriage and human sexuality differently than the West.  The East is not as afraid of human sexuality as the West sometimes appears to be.  (I mean no offence).  For instance one of the traditional icons of Joachim and Anna on the conception of Mary shows the couple embracing in front of a bed tipped toward the viewer. 

Another poster asked where to read more about the Eastern theology/catechism.  Melkite may know differentiy but my priest (who is a biritual Catholic priest) advises me freely to read theology from Orthodox lay persons and/or bishops because the Eastern Rite Catholics still use theology books from the Orthodox.  Antiochan Orthodox and Greek Orthodox do not write in polemics at least not anymore.  They don't bash the Roman Catholic Church.  I certainly have not come across any of that.  The Russians...well...some do...however, they too are stepping away from such separatist talk quite a bit these days.  Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev is wonderful and the priest I mentioned above was fine with me reading anything by him.  I won't post links to such because it is against the forum rules but it is all easily Googled if anyone wishes to do so. 


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Gerard - 01-07-2010

(01-07-2010, 11:53 AM)Melkite Wrote: If you re-read what I said, I obviously was not suggesting that human sexuality is divine, 

You called it a "divine foreshadowing." 

Quote: nor was I saying that that the marital bond between Christ and the Church was the fulfillment of fallen human sexuality.   Nor did I in any way imply that the higher points to the lower.  It is the lower (human sexuality) which points to the higher (Christ/Church).  This is how typology works. 

That is what I wrote.   

Quote:And the parallels between the two are irrefutable.  Referring to the Church as the Bride of Christ, in and of itself, immediately associates our relationship with Christ with that of a human marriage. 

The Church is also referred to a Mother, Christ's Body, a Boat and a Vine.

Quote: The most clear expression of the marital union is that which takes place during sexual intercourse, the union of two bodies into one. 

No, the clearest marital union on the natural level is that of Adam and Eve, flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone.  Eve's special creation from Adam's rib. 

Quote: In the Church's relation with Christ, this same union does not take place at the Crucifixion, but at the reception of the Eucharist. 

Pope Pius XII quoting Pope Leo XIII " As We set out briefly to expound in what sense Christ founded His social Body, the following thought of Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, occurs to Us at once: "The Church which, already conceived, came forth from the side of the second Adam in His sleep on the Cross, first showed Herself before the eyes of men on the great day of Pentecost."[23] For the Divine Redeemer began the building of the mystical temple of the Church when by His preaching He made known His Precepts; He completed it when he hung glorified on the Cross; and He manifested and proclaimed it when He sent the Holy Ghost as Paraclete in visible form on His disciples.

The reception of the Eucharist is the uniting of ourselves to Calvary.


Pope Pius XII also states:  " For there are some who neglect the fact that the Apostle Paul has used metaphorical language in speaking of this doctrine, and failing to distinguish as they should the precise and proper meaning of the terms the physical body, the social body, and the Mystical Body, arrive at a distorted idea of unity. They make the Divine Redeemer and the members of the Church coalesce in one physical person, and while they bestow divine attributes on man, they make Christ our Lord subject to error and to human inclination to evil. But Catholic faith and the writings of the holy Fathers reject such false teaching as impious and sacrilegious; and to the mind of the Apostle of the Gentiles it is equally abhorrent, for although he brings Christ and His Mystical Body into a wonderfully intimate union, he nevertheless distinguishes one from the other as Bridegroom from Bride."

Quote:It is precisely then that Christ offers his body, blood, soul and divinity, all that he is, to us, and we receive it and become fully united with him, i.e., one flesh, just as the husband offers himself to the wife, the wife receives it and they are united in one flesh. 

No. No NO.  He does not offer his body, blood, soul and divinity to us.  He offers it to the Father.  He allows us to share in His perfect sacrifice of God by God to God.  You are not the sacred species.  It is only Christ.  You do not become Christ when you partake of the Eucharist.  You gain the Sanctifying Grace of His living in you.  Christ offers his body, blood, soul and divinity as a sacrifice to the Father for the forgiveness of sins, not as a form of coitus for the begatting of children. 

Quote: So just as we keep this intimate union between husband and wife veiled, likewise we keep this intimate union between Christ and Church veiled.  The foreshadowing of the Eucharist in human sexuality is obvious.  There indeed is a willful lack of understanding being betrayed here, but that willful lack is not coming from me.

We keep the union of husband and wife veiled because of concupiscence, not because it is holy.  The union between Christ and the Church is not veiled precisely because the veil represented the separation between God and Man because of the Fall.  The Temple Curtain was torn at the Crucifixion to show that the obstacle had been overcome. 

Furthermore, it is Pope Pius XII again who states in Mystici Corporis Christi, that the nature of the marital love between Christ and the Church is chaste and sacrificial because it is His Mother who is the New Eve who was the representative of humanity.  "...she whose sinless soul was filled with the divine spirit of Jesus Christ above all other created souls, who "in the name of the whole human race" gave her consent "for a spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature."[216] Within her virginal womb Christ our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him forth as the source of all supernatural life, and presented Him newly born, as Prophet, King and Priest to those who, from among Jews and Gentiles, were the first to come to adore Him. Furthermore, her only Son, condescending to His mother's prayer in "Cana of Galilee," performed the miracle by which "his disciples believed in Him."[217] It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members. She it was through her powerful prayers obtained that the spirit of our Divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed, accompanied by miraculous gifts, on the newly founded Church at Pentecost; and finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, she, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ...for His Body, which is the Church";[218] and she continues to have for the Mystical Body of Christ, born of the pierced Heart of the Savior,[219] the same motherly care and ardent love with which she cherished and fed the Infant Jesus in the crib."

Quote: EDIT:  Similarly, existance of the Iconostasis is another manifestation of the liturgical veiling of that which is highly sacred.  It represents that that which is taking place, more or less behind closed doors, is most sacred. Like the Most Holy Place of old Temple. 

Sacred merely means "to set aside" or "to make special" you are confusing that to mean "to hide."  Something can be sacred like the ground Our Lord walked upon and be in plain sight.  Or as in the case of the Old Temple, opened up and revealed by God Himself to show that the separation due to sin was no more.

Quote:    And this veiling of the most sacred is not entirely alien to the Latins either.  You still have altar rails, which is the remnant of rood screens.  While you still can see all that is going on, the altar rail is still a barrier, on the other side of which the most sacred and intimate act of Christian worship is taking place.  Likewise, you have Latin in your liturgy, which veils the Eucharistic canon, the Roman words of marital intimacy, in a form of secrecy.  It has been this way since the beginning.

 Again, you are confusing the type of intimacy of marriage to be that of eros and not that of sacrifice.  But to clarify, the Sanctuary is separated from the nave in order to signify the realty of the action that is taking place.  We are witnesses to Calvary in which Christ is present as High priest and Victim.  It is Divine Sacrificial Worship taking place.  We unite ourselves to His Sacrifice to the Father.  Not His sacrifice to us and our sacrifice to Him.  That would be infinitely unbalanced in terms of Justice. 

Latin is not what veils the Eucharistic Canon it is the quiet of the prayers that denotes mystery first and then intimacy on the part of each individual.  Latin is preserved for the precision of doctrine it offers. 

Quote: This is why monks in the East where veils.  They are separated for the Lord.  This is why nuns, both Eastern and Western, are veiled.  They are reserved for the Lord. 

These are done out of humility.  They have died to the life they previously had and have sacrificed that life for God. 

Quote: This is why we wear clothing, why Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves. 

This was done only because they were ashamed.  Prior to the Fall they were not covered as God intended them to be. 

Quote:  That which is most sacred must be veiled.  The mystery signifies its sacredness. 

I think you mean the sacredness signifies the mystery.  The veil is merely a reminder for us of how separate we are from the holy.  That veil must be periodically removed to demonstrate our faith and hope in the Lord.  Just as Moses wore a veil and periodically removed it, just as Christ was transfigured on Mt. Tabor, the tabernacle veil is opened at Mass, the Eucharist is elevated as Christ was was raised on the Cross for all to see just as Moses raised the Bronze serpent for all to gaze upon.  Just as all the statues in Latin Churches are veiled in purple for Holy Week, they are done so in the anticipation of removing the veils on Easter.


Quote: Removing the veil profanes it. 

That is frankly nonsense and I suspect that is not the official theology or sacramental understanding that the Eastern Churches hold.  Because you are objectively stating that the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is a form of profanity and that is unacceptable as a Catholic position. 
[/quote]


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Gerard - 01-07-2010

(01-07-2010, 10:46 PM)salome Wrote:
(01-07-2010, 11:53 AM)Melkite Wrote: The mystery signifies its sacredness.  Removing the veil profanes it.

Very well said Melkite. 

This exchange between Gerard and Melkite points to yet another difference in Eastern and Western theology.  The East understands marriage and human sexuality differently than the West.  The East is not as afraid of human sexuality as the West sometimes appears to be.  (I mean no offence).  For instance one of the traditional icons of Joachim and Anna on the conception of Mary shows the couple embracing in front of a bed tipped toward the viewer. 

You're not making sense.  The logical conclusion to your premise that the East is not afraid of sex and the West is, would dictate that if the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament were signified by the marital union/embrace of Christ and the Church, the East should be having Exposition all the time next to the paintings of St. Joachim and St. Anna "gettin' it on"  and the fearful West (Latin) would be the ones covering everything up. 

So there is an inconsistency being displayed here.  All the talk of veiling the intimate moments of marriage is to be respected, but look at our icons of saints humping!



Re: i went to a tlm today... - salome - 01-07-2010

(01-07-2010, 11:07 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-07-2010, 10:46 PM)salome Wrote:
(01-07-2010, 11:53 AM)Melkite Wrote: The mystery signifies its sacredness.  Removing the veil profanes it.

Very well said Melkite. 

This exchange between Gerard and Melkite points to yet another difference in Eastern and Western theology.  The East understands marriage and human sexuality differently than the West.  The East is not as afraid of human sexuality as the West sometimes appears to be.  (I mean no offence).  For instance one of the traditional icons of Joachim and Anna on the conception of Mary shows the couple embracing in front of a bed tipped toward the viewer. 

You're not making sense.  The logical conclusion to your premise that the East is not afraid of sex and the West is, would dictate that if the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament were signified by the marital union/embrace of Christ and the Church, the East should be having Exposition all the time next to the paintings of St. Joachim and St. Anna "gettin' it on"  and the fearful West (Latin) would be the ones covering everything up. 

So there is an inconsistency being displayed here.  All the talk of veiling the intimate moments of marriage is to be respected, but look at our icons of saints humping!

Well I realized after I posted that I did not really explain myself thoroughly.  My apologies.  "Afraid" was not a good choice.  I was speaking more about your reaction to Melkite using human sexuality to explain the Eucharist.  Perhaps I inferred something in your response that was not there though.  Again, I meant no offence to you or anyone and I certainly did not mean to confuse you.  It is so much easier to site references (copy and paste) but my references would be Orthodox and that is against the forum rules.

Nevertheless there is a difference in the understanding of human sexuality, particularly in marriage, between the East and the West.  Anyone interested in learning further about those differences will have to Google an Eastern/Orthodox Catechism online.  I'll just leave it at that.

pax