It's good to be a Melkite
(02-14-2012, 10:07 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It was meant in jest. Don't be so uptight.

Ok.  I considered that possibility, but it seemed completely out of character for you, so I figured you were probably being serious.  It's good to know you have a sense of humour :)
Reply
(02-14-2012, 10:09 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 10:07 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It was meant in jest. Don't be so uptight.

Ok.  I considered that possibility, but it seemed completely out of character for you, so I figured you were probably being serious.  It's good to know you have a sense of humour :)

Actually despite his usual dry, serious stance, Vetus can be very funny on the forum.
Reply
I do have a sense of humour.

Don't judge me too harshly.
Reply
(02-14-2012, 10:19 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I do have a sense of humour.

Don't judge me too harshly.

It's more the internet than you.  For whatever reason, sarcasm is a bitch in written form.
Reply
(02-14-2012, 03:57 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 08:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: More importantly, it's not an absolute requirement, seeing as the Apostles themselves did not see fit to withhold it from infants.  There's nothing in the verses you quoted about proper discernment, but being properly prepared, i.e., not in a state of mortal sin.  Christ himself said no one has life in him unless he eats his flesh and drinks his blood.  He also said to not hinder children from coming to him.  Obviously, the Apostles understood reception of the Eucharist to be included in that.  The current Latin practice is a relative novelty.  It is MODERN.  Its defense hasn't a leg to stand on.  Unless you have something actually new to add, I think we're about done here.

'CHAPTER IV.
That little Children are not bound to sacramental Communion.

Finally, this same holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist: [Page 143] forasmuch as, having been regenerated by th by the laver of baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God. Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom; for as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation. '
  Council of Trent

(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Pretty sure that a practice that is at least 500+ years old is not modern   :P

Compared to over 1500 years it is.  :grin:

Man you guys really are just like your Protestant progeny, ever the minimalists. Why just worry about what's "necessary" for salvation? The question isn't what's the least I have to do make make it to heaven, the question is what is the most I can do to grow in love and communion with God right now.

Why not just confirm and commune infants because they are children of God, members of Christ's body and so they can begin to grow in love and communion with Him right now? That is the reason infants are and should be communed.

It is beyond question that this has been the practice of the Eastern Churches from time immemorial and that the later Latin practice of withholding communion and it's adoption by some Eastern Catholics is an unnatural break from their long established practice. Good for them for returning to this venerable tradition.

Interesting argument that infants should be allowed to grow in love and communion with God right now but at the same time Orthodox seem to be against the practice of daily communion unless you are perpetually fasting and remaining continent.  Why not just let married people grow in love and communion with God?
Reply
(02-14-2012, 05:55 PM)Silouan Wrote: But the practices in question did not develop organically in the Eastern Churches.

But they did develop organically in Catholic Churches. 

Quote: Look at all the fuss about communion in the hand in the Novus Ordo. Communion in the hand was a common practice in the early Church. Fairly quickly it fell out of practice for a number of reasons and not taking communion in the hand was the norm for many, many centuries. Then the practice was reintroduced, much to the consternation of many traditionalist, very artificially in the 20th.

You prove my point. Re-introducing an alleged ancient practice merely because it is ancient is not a guarantee of it's viability or effectiveness when newer traditions may have the benefit of having a more beneficial effect by their intrinsic value.

Quote: It is the same with the practices Melkite is speaking of. They may have been around for a very long time in the Latin Church but they did not develop naturally from the spiritual traditions of the Eastern Churches.

Again, that does not mean that it is not better for the welfare of souls, which are more important than cultural patrimony in any Church. 


Quote: As such they are out of place and should be removed for the spiritual well being of those Churches.

Those Eastern Churches located in the West are themselves are geographically out of place and by your reasoning the West should remove them for the spiritual well being of the Latin Church. 

Is that really the principle you are defending? 
Reply
(02-14-2012, 06:00 PM)Melkite Wrote: Our traditions are equally tried and true.

But the bishop doesn't make that argument. He makes the argument that the Latin traditions are not tried and true even though they have been successfully tried and true in the Eastern and Western Churches. 


If he could actually prove that a particular Latin practice is harmful to the faithful instead of the strawman "party" wisecrack, I would think he would have something to rely on other than brute authority. 

Quote: One can question whether such a change is beneficial to the faithful or not, but ultimately, in the context of the letter, this is a question of whether one is going to obey their bishop or not.

Another is the question of the motives of the bishop.  I don't think you can appreciate the disappointment in reading this thread initially thinking I was going to read something really courageous from an Eastern Bishop only to read instead of the scorn he shows for the "taint" of the Roman Church, who he only seems to agree with when they sanction his cabined view of the faith and the Church. 

A Greek Orthodox friend of mine once said to me, "It's more about being Greek than being religious." 

Quote: It's interesting to see in this thread how many Latins will come up with excuses on why it's ok to disobey one's bishop when it's something they don't like, but God forbid anyone suggest disobeying a bishop who would impose Latin practices on unwilling Easterners.

But that's not what's happening.

First, it's not about "like."  It's about what works.  I don't think any trad is opposed to anyone in the East fighting for the preservation of their traditions.  For years the rumor has been circulating of the Novus Ordization of the East and Western Trads have been hoping that the East won't get rolled like the West was. 

(Interestingly, it's those same traditions that were subdued in order to bring the Novus Ordo onboard that are part of the "De Latinization" --perhaps they are the best weapons against the Novus Ordo-ization. )

It seems this bishop is acting like he is resenting things that were never done to him directly but only to those in the past and now, he's forcibly removing Latin practices that have actually taken root in the Eastern Churches.  His attitude is the same as that of a liberal black activist that has all the indignation of slavery upon him, even though he was never in chains and wants to punish the white man and purify his friends and family of all of the influences of Europe, whether they like it or not. (Forgetting that fact that slavery was very well established and his own "kind" are equally guilty of oppression and slavery within their own tribal cultures.) All the while, he engages in about 50 practices in any given hour that were provided by Western Civilization.

There is an unseemly character to this whole attitude of forcing a certain purity based on an ideal past.  Notice it's not a "return to authentic Melkite traditions" in which the Melkite traditions are thought about, reintroduced in various forms, practiced, adapted or discarded along with the "Latinizations" which like it or not are as much a part of the Melkite tradition as anything else, the Counter Reformation's mark is on the Latin Church. And the Novus Ordo will leave its mark also.  But it's stricly "De-Latinization."  It's a psychological ethnic cleansing in which the "pure" model of the Church will be reborn.

It could very well be a "lowering of defenses" and a "razing of the bastions" in which a mirror attack by those working for the enemy from within the Church will initiate the attack on the Eastern Churches in order to do to it, what was done to the Latin rite after Vatican II. 




Reply
(02-14-2012, 03:57 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 08:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: More importantly, it's not an absolute requirement, seeing as the Apostles themselves did not see fit to withhold it from infants.  There's nothing in the verses you quoted about proper discernment, but being properly prepared, i.e., not in a state of mortal sin.  Christ himself said no one has life in him unless he eats his flesh and drinks his blood.  He also said to not hinder children from coming to him.  Obviously, the Apostles understood reception of the Eucharist to be included in that.  The current Latin practice is a relative novelty.  It is MODERN.  Its defense hasn't a leg to stand on.  Unless you have something actually new to add, I think we're about done here.

'CHAPTER IV.
That little Children are not bound to sacramental Communion.

Finally, this same holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist: [Page 143] forasmuch as, having been regenerated by th by the laver of baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God. Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom; for as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation. '
  Council of Trent

(02-14-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Pretty sure that a practice that is at least 500+ years old is not modern   :P

Compared to over 1500 years it is.  :grin:

Man you guys really are just like your Protestant progeny, ever the minimalists. Why just worry about what's "necessary" for salvation? The question isn't what's the least I have to do make make it to heaven, the question is what is the most I can do to grow in love and communion with God right now.

Why not just confirm and commune infants because they are children of God, members of Christ's body and so they can begin to grow in love and communion with Him right now? That is the reason infants are and should be communed.

It is beyond question that this has been the practice of the Eastern Churches from time immemorial and that the later Latin practice of withholding communion and it's adoption by some Eastern Catholics is an unnatural break from their long established practice. Good for them for returning to this venerable tradition.

Yes and so far as the Catholic Church is concerned the advantages of communing infants are outweighed by the disadvantages, as for it being an 'unnatural break', no it is called a change, the Catholic Church unlike the Orthodox is capable of distinguishing between traditions and Tradition and does not slavishly follow the former.
Reply
(02-13-2012, 08:58 PM)Melkite Wrote: More importantly, it's not an absolute requirement, seeing as the Apostles themselves did not see fit to withhold it from infants.  There's nothing in the verses you quoted about proper discernment, but being properly prepared, i.e., not in a state of mortal sin.  Christ himself said no one has life in him unless he eats his flesh and drinks his blood.  He also said to not hinder children from coming to him.  Obviously, the Apostles understood reception of the Eucharist to be included in that.  The current Latin practice is a relative novelty.  It is MODERN.  Its defense hasn't a leg to stand on.  Unless you have something actually new to add, I think we're about done here.

Here you go attacking western practices again and further making suspect statements:

Quote: Christ himself said no one has life in him unless he eats his flesh and drinks his blood

Seems to imply someone must communicate in order to be saved, this is true as regards adults who have the use of reason, false as regards children as the Council of Trent makes clear.

Quote: He also said to not hinder children from coming to him.  Obviously, the Apostles understood reception of the Eucharist to be included in that


This implies that the western church and those that do not commune infants disobey a command of Christ and go against Apostolic teaching and practice when not communing infants, this is false, rash, scandalous, offensive to pious ears and in as much as it suggests that the Church has been putting the salvation of little children at risk for 800 or so years, suspect of heresy.

This shows, yet again, that the Councils eastern catholics claim aren't relevant to them, are very relevant.
Reply
(02-15-2012, 06:05 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Here you go attacking western practices again and further making suspect statements:

Quote: Christ himself said no one has life in him unless he eats his flesh and drinks his blood

Seems to imply someone must communicate in order to be saved, this is true as regards adults who have the use of reason, false as regards children as the Council of Trent makes clear.

I was just quoting Christ.  He didn't qualify that it was only necessary for adults.  The fact you can call Christ's own words suspect when they're not saying what you want them to say shows no more discussion is possible with you.  Take care!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)