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... - salome - 01-09-2010

What I am most concerned about it not the appreciation of fertility in the west and the metaphors of human intimacy with Divine intimacy.  What I am most concerned about is the idea that the ritual of Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is an objective  form of profanation.  It is unacceptable for an Eastern Catholic to even hold the thought, it was condemned by Trent. 

The Council of Trent was 1559-1563.  The Union of Brest was 1595 and though it does not explicitly mention Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for Adoration it does mention the procession of the Blessed Sacrament in procession which is the same thing just in procession.  The 7th article states that these Eastern Catholics were not to be forced to participate in such because the Mysteries were(are) understood differently by the Easterners.  Rome accepted this agreement after Trent therefore it seems to me Rome was not then, nor is now, asking Eastern Catholics to accept the Western understanding of the Blessed Sacrament.  The Brest Agreement was posted by Melkite on another thread.  I think the RDL liturgy thread if you wish to read more. 

pax


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Gerard - 01-09-2010

You've got it backwards.  It's not about the West forcing the East to understand the Blessed Sacrament in a different way.  It's about someone claiming to speak for the  East calling the Western Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament a "profanity." 

There is no "understanding" that entitles any Catholic of any kind to call a legitimate ritual concerning the Eucharist and the adoration of Him a "profanity." 

Blasphemy is blasphemy, there is no contextual understanding of blasphemy that excuses it. 


Re: i went to a tlm today... - salome - 01-09-2010

I don't see what Melkite said as blasphemy.  Perhaps you can find some links or text to further your argument and help me see your point.  If not then my point stands that the East and the West view the Blessed Sacrament differently.  Exposing it is viewed as an abuse to the East.  The West sees it differently. 


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Gerard - 01-09-2010

(01-09-2010, 05:57 PM)salome Wrote: I don't see what Melkite said as blasphemy.  Perhaps you can find some links or text to further your argument and help me see your point.  If not then my point stands that the East and the West view the Blessed Sacrament differently.  Exposing it is viewed as an abuse to the East.  The West sees it differently. 

Back to the passage that I quoted in my first post.


quote author=Melkite link=topic=3426638.msg33205881#msg33205881 date=1262704462]    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?
[/quote]

Byzantine sensibilities are not any excuse nor a reason to describe the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament as such.  While I can't seem to get a clarification on what exactly this Eastern "understanding" of the Eucharist is.  It sounds to me like a confusion between Christ's Body and His Church.  The  Sacred Species is not the Bride and the Bridegroom.  That is merely a metaphor.  I cited Pope Pius XII's clarification on this from Mystici Corporis Christi. 

"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."








Re: i went to a tlm today... - salome - 01-09-2010

I can't answer for Melkite.  All I can say is the Eastern argument is that isolating the Eucharist outside of the liturgy (or obviously giving communion to the sick) is inappropriate.  The Eucharist has a specific function/purpose and to remove the focus from that, that which the Eucharist was institituted for i.e. the Liturgy/Mass, is inappropriate. 

My opinion, I actually like Eucharistic Adoration but I am technically a Latin Rite Catholic.  To someone who has never been brought up around such a tradition I can understand how it could seem strange to them.  From my understanding Adoration started around the 11th century to counter someone in France denying the real presence.  It was a "European thing" for lack of a better phrase therefore Easterners would have not point of reference for it. 

Just my 2 cents. 


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Vetus Ordo - 01-09-2010

(01-09-2010, 09:25 PM)salome Wrote: All I can say is the Eastern argument is that isolating the Eucharist outside of the liturgy (or obviously giving communion to the sick) is inappropriate.  The Eucharist has a specific function/purpose and to remove the focus from that, that which the Eucharist was instituted for i.e. the Liturgy/Mass, is inappropriate. 

IF the Eastern argument is that, then it is clearly erroneous and unacceptable.


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Gerard - 01-09-2010

(01-09-2010, 09:25 PM)salome Wrote: I can't answer for Melkite.  All I can say is the Eastern argument is that isolating the Eucharist outside of the liturgy (or obviously giving communion to the sick) is inappropriate.  The Eucharist has a specific function/purpose and to remove the focus from that, that which the Eucharist was institituted for i.e. the Liturgy/Mass, is inappropriate. 

My opinion, I actually like Eucharistic Adoration but I am technically a Latin Rite Catholic.  To someone who has never been brought up around such a tradition I can understand how it could seem strange to them.  From my understanding Adoration started around the 11th century to counter someone in France denying the real presence.   It was a "European thing" for lack of a better phrase therefore Easterners would have not point of reference for it. 

Just my 2 cents. 

This is getting stranger and stranger.  The Eucharist was instituted for the Liturgy?  I thought it was instituted for the salvation of souls.  And I thought the Liturgy was built around the Eucharist. 

Where can we actually get ahold of a document from one of the Eastern rites that explains this?  This sounds so much like a "veiled" (no pun intended) explanation of "trans-signification" instead of transubstantiation. 

A bi-ritual priest (Maronite and Novus Ordo) tried to explain to me a few years ago that transubstantiation "no longer works"  and after a bit more discussion, he let his guard down and told me the Filioque was wrong, there was no devil, everyone is already saved and Angels don't really exist as separate beings from God. 



Re: i went to a tlm today... - salome - 01-10-2010

Gerard,  with all due respect I seriously I doubt anything I provide for you would satisfy you.  It seems to me you are bound and determine to think the Western understanding/Scholasticism is the only way for the Church.  There is nothing else for me to add.  You have access to a computer obviously and seem very capable.  I am sure you can find documents on the theology of the Eucharist as understood by the Eastern Rite.   

Pax


Re: i went to a tlm today... - Gerard - 01-10-2010

(01-10-2010, 10:33 AM)salome Wrote: Gerard, you'll have to "Google" or do your own research because my sources would be Orthodox and I won't post that on this forum.   Besides, with all due respect I seriously I doubt anything I provide for you would satisfy you.  (You are obviously not satisfied with the Brest document which clearly states the Easterners view the Mysteries/Sacraments differently and that Rome is satisfied with that) It seems to me you are bound and determine to think the Western understanding/Scholasticism is the only way for the Church so....I'm not debating you.  Think as you will. 

Pax

You can always pm me with the links.  I find it stunning that you can provide no information on teaching from a Byzantine Catholic source in union with Rome.  St. John Chrysostom is the Doctor of the Eucharist.  Don't you have any links to what he taught?  Or are his beliefs no longer the same faith some of those in the Eastern Churches? 

If your sources are Orthodox and they claim that Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is a profaning of the Holy Eucharist.  Then your sources are blasphemous.  This is not about a different understanding.  This is about a profoundly derisive understanding or misunderstanding vs an orthodox understanding. 

In other words, you need to have an orthodox view of the entire Church and not one that trashes one approved and time-tested practice that has borne great fruit in one rite because it's not done in another rite. 

You claim that I think only one way of understanding the Eucharist is permissible.  That is simply not true.  While the Thomistic  understanding of transubstantiation is clear and understandable, it is not necessary since for example St. Augustine didn't even know how to express it.  It had to wait another 8 centuries.  But what Augustine understood was that the Eucharist was His flesh and blood and he took that on faith against the testimony of his senses.  How that fact is explained was unknown to him and he chalked it up to a "latent mystery."  Aquinas gave a categorized explanation of what the event of transubstantiation consisted of.  There are others that have variations or different aspects emphasized that co-exist beautifully.  But they are not set against each other. 

You can hold whatever approved understanding you want, but what you do not have is the right to claim that your approved understanding includes blaspheming a Catholic practice from another  rite of equal dignity.


Re: i went to a tlm today... - salome - 01-10-2010

As I stated in my edited post Gerard, you seem quite capable to research Eastern theology on the Mysteries/sacraments on your own.  Surely you can find something that will satisfy you. 


Peace be to you.