It's good to be a Melkite
[Image: It%27s+Better+in+Latin.jpg]

:LOL:
Reply
(02-16-2012, 03:33 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 03:30 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote: This thread reminds me of a line from a poem by Rudyard Kipling:

"Oh, East is East, and West is West
And never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently
At God's great Judgment Seat!"


Bar the maronites, the society of St Josaphat, and some other reasonable eastern catholics of Good will, I suspect that may be true.


Maronites are a terrible example.  Their "openness" to Latinization has directly translated into openness to "neo-Latinization" which gives them the distinction of being the one Eastern rite that nearly *always* has liturgy ad populum. 

I see the analogy very different from Gerard and TrentCath.  I see the move to restore authentic Eastern traditions as analogous to the move to restore authentic Latin traditions.

The most Latinized Eastern parishes seem (from the experience of most Easterners I talk to on both sides of this issue) also to be the ones that are the most liberal, most pro-novus ordo, etc.

The most traditional Eastern parishes (like St. Elias in Brampton) are young, fully of families, take the faith seriously, and are the ones who seem to be pro-TLM and who feel that a return to the TLM would aid in bringing back the Orthodox.

So I know who I side with.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 05:59 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 03:33 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 03:30 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote: This thread reminds me of a line from a poem by Rudyard Kipling:

"Oh, East is East, and West is West
And never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently
At God's great Judgment Seat!"


Bar the maronites, the society of St Josaphat, and some other reasonable eastern catholics of Good will, I suspect that may be true.


Maronites are a terrible example.  Their "openness" to Latinization has directly translated into openness to "neo-Latinization" which gives them the distinction of being the one Eastern rite that nearly *always* has liturgy ad populum. 

I see the analogy very different from Gerard and TrentCath.  I see the move to restore authentic Eastern traditions as analogous to the move to restore authentic Latin traditions.

The most Latinized Eastern parishes seem (from the experience of most Easterners I talk to on both sides of this issue) also to be the ones that are the most liberal, most pro-novus ordo, etc.

The most traditional Eastern parishes (like St. Elias in Brampton) are young, fully of families, take the faith seriously, and are the ones who seem to be pro-TLM and who feel that a return to the TLM would aid in bringing back the Orthodox.

So I know who I side with.

They are for my purposes and even if they more 'Traditional' their de facto schism and hatred of the west is nothing to be proud of.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 06:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 05:59 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 03:33 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 03:30 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote: This thread reminds me of a line from a poem by Rudyard Kipling:

"Oh, East is East, and West is West
And never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently
At God's great Judgment Seat!"


Bar the maronites, the society of St Josaphat, and some other reasonable eastern catholics of Good will, I suspect that may be true.


Maronites are a terrible example.  Their "openness" to Latinization has directly translated into openness to "neo-Latinization" which gives them the distinction of being the one Eastern rite that nearly *always* has liturgy ad populum. 

I see the analogy very different from Gerard and TrentCath.  I see the move to restore authentic Eastern traditions as analogous to the move to restore authentic Latin traditions.

The most Latinized Eastern parishes seem (from the experience of most Easterners I talk to on both sides of this issue) also to be the ones that are the most liberal, most pro-novus ordo, etc.

The most traditional Eastern parishes (like St. Elias in Brampton) are young, fully of families, take the faith seriously, and are the ones who seem to be pro-TLM and who feel that a return to the TLM would aid in bringing back the Orthodox.

So I know who I side with.

They are for my purposes and even if they more 'Traditional' their de facto schism and hatred of the west is nothing to be proud of.

How are Eastern Catholics in union with the Pope and supportive of the Latin Mass in any sort of schism, de facto or de jure? ???

You are not making any sense.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 06:40 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 06:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 05:59 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 03:33 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 03:30 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote: This thread reminds me of a line from a poem by Rudyard Kipling:

"Oh, East is East, and West is West
And never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently
At God's great Judgment Seat!"


Bar the maronites, the society of St Josaphat, and some other reasonable eastern catholics of Good will, I suspect that may be true.


Maronites are a terrible example.  Their "openness" to Latinization has directly translated into openness to "neo-Latinization" which gives them the distinction of being the one Eastern rite that nearly *always* has liturgy ad populum. 

I see the analogy very different from Gerard and TrentCath.  I see the move to restore authentic Eastern traditions as analogous to the move to restore authentic Latin traditions.

The most Latinized Eastern parishes seem (from the experience of most Easterners I talk to on both sides of this issue) also to be the ones that are the most liberal, most pro-novus ordo, etc.

The most traditional Eastern parishes (like St. Elias in Brampton) are young, fully of families, take the faith seriously, and are the ones who seem to be pro-TLM and who feel that a return to the TLM would aid in bringing back the Orthodox.

So I know who I side with.

They are for my purposes and even if they more 'Traditional' their de facto schism and hatred of the west is nothing to be proud of.

How are Eastern Catholics supportive of the Latin MAss in any sort of schism, de facto or de jure? ???

You are not making any sense.

Traditional is broader than the latin mass, as you should well know.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 06:43 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Traditional is broader than the latin mass, as you should well know.

Sure; which is why I am not sure why you are saying that Byzantine Catholics who are themselves Traditional and supportive of Latin Tradition (even if not necessarily in their parishes) are in any fashion schismatic.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 06:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 06:43 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Traditional is broader than the latin mass, as you should well know.

Sure; which is why I am not sure why you are saying that Byzantine Catholics who are themselves Traditional and supportive of Latin Tradition (even if not necessarily in their parishes) are in any fashion schismatic.

Those two facts are entirely unrelated, and frankly the subject of any thread, but as I made clear the hatred of the west and its traditions, the constant insecurity about their own tradition, the unacceptable eclessiology, the denial that councils where the orthodox were not invited were not ecumenical (which was a principle I believe found in a melkite catechism), absurd statements that their purpose is to 'disappear' when the orthodox reconcile, that their mother church is their eastern orthodox counterpart to name but a few problems all show de facto schism and serious theological errors which are not only imprudent but border on heresy.
Reply
(02-15-2012, 08:10 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-15-2012, 05:45 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: Respectfully Melkite, this is absolutely nothing to be proud of.  This confirms for the thousandth time that there is, within Eastern quarters, organized disobedience and schismatism under the cover of sui juris.

At the same time that Latin tradition has been virtually stamped out and made illegal in a de facto sense, the exact same traitors urged on an artificial 'de-latinization' to roll back changes with communities for several centuries.  Read the Bishop's letter: he is demanding that local communities suddenly follow a liturgically excavated tradition thanks to Bugnini's Protestant freemason crew.

There are legitimate liturgical and spiritual methods to be lively lived out in the Uniate bodies.  However, this has become an all-out assault on A) Latin customs and spirituality that, over the course of time and events, permeated Eastern boundaries B) Revealed truth, at least implicitly (e.g., I understand the organically developed spiritual uniqueness, but how in the world is it theologically acceptable to, by fiat, forbid Eastern Catholics from enjoying the fruits of Catholic devotions like Adoration?) C) Good natured piety (by constantly attacking Thomism, Latin, Latin rituals, etc. it is just becomes a climate of nastiness and clinging to empty traditions, essentially superstition.)

Consider this, step back and look at that avatar picture proclaiming ‘Damn, I’m eradicating freely and willfully practiced traditions centuries ago imported from Latin brothers.  AWESOME!’  

Vetus and the others are absolutely right; this is tragic and truly another opportunity of pain on the Body of Christ.

You're being completely rediculous.  Organized disobedience and schism because we're going back to our own practices?  Seriously, will you Latins ever get over yourselves?  Your **** don't smell like roses just cause it splats in Latin.

Whether individual Eastern Catholics have become accustomed to certain Latin practices is irrelevant.  You are being dishonest historically when you suggest that all the Easterners gladly adopted Latin practices, as if the Latins swept in to save the day, saving us barbarous Easterners from dreadfully inferior practices.  You *forced* them on us, you don't now get to complain that we are returning to our own traditions in our own parishes.  When we start forcing you to do things our way in your parishes, then we'll talk.

The fact is, no Eastern Catholic is forbidden from taking part in any Latin practice they want to.  They are just as free to practice them in a Latin parish if that is what they want.  There is absolutely NO GOOD REASON that we should also have to follow your practices in our parishes as well.  You are so concerned about Easterners that want to practice Latin traditions, yet you show no concern for Easterners who want to practice Byzantine traditions.  For those of us who would like to be truly Byzantine, where exactly are we supposed to go if our own parishes are to be reserved for the Latin wannabes?  The only reason a Latin Catholic could be troubled by a Latin practice being discontinued in an Eastern parish, when it is still practiced in the more numerous Latin parishes, is if your extraordinarily inflated egos suffer such an inferiority complex that it is impossible to see any goodness in your own traditions unless everyone else practices them as well.  Seriously, GET OVER YOURSELVES.  When have we ever, even once, tried to force our traditions on you in your own parishes.  You have 99.87% of the entire Church.  If you complain that you don't have the remaining 0.13% practicing according to your will, where exactly are people like me, who appreciate our Byzantine traditions, supposed to go?  If we cannot even have our own parishes, how can you possibly say you respect our traditions and hold no animosity against us, when your very actions and complaints say you shall never be happy until you have molded every last one of us into your image?

Calling "us" "Latins", promoting an "us versus them" mentality, and saying "your pracitices, your church, your traditions", is not helping the case that there's a spirit of schism and disobedience in the Eastern Churches.

Vetus throughout this thread has presented a truly CATHOLIC look at tradition and Church history...one that incorporates traditions and practices instituted among the Church since 1054, AND acknowledges that the West could learn from traditions of the East.  I don't even agree with him on iconostasis', so he's probably more "pro-Eastern tradition" than I am.

You, on the other hand, have yet to show much difference in your understanding of a perceived East/West divide from Silouan, which is troubling.

(Sorry I'm late to the party).
Reply
(02-16-2012, 07:45 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 06:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 06:43 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Traditional is broader than the latin mass, as you should well know.

Sure; which is why I am not sure why you are saying that Byzantine Catholics who are themselves Traditional and supportive of Latin Tradition (even if not necessarily in their parishes) are in any fashion schismatic.

Those two facts are entirely unrelated, and frankly the subject of any thread, but as I made clear the hatred of the west and its traditions, the constant insecurity about their own tradition, the unacceptable eclessiology, the denial that councils where the orthodox were not invited were not ecumenical (which was a principle I believe found in a melkite catechism), absurd statements that their purpose is to 'disappear' when the orthodox reconcile, that their mother church is their eastern orthodox counterpart to name but a few problems all show de facto schism and serious theological errors which are not only imprudent but border on heresy.

I think we post-Vatican II Trads should be as aware of anyone how squishy the idea of an Ecumenical Council is in fact.  And just because the designation of a Council as Ecumenical or not does not entail rejection of what it teaches.  The Councils of Orange are not counted among the Ecumenical, but they are important sources of Catholic Doctrine.  It is reading in bad will to think that Melkites, for example, deny the legitimacy of the teachings of Fifth Lateran Council, so much as holding the term Ecumenical in high esteem compared to other teaching Synods of Bishops.  I can usually argue my Eastern Catholic friends who want to make a case of it up to accepting Trent as Ecumenical, because of ecumenical reception and the Emperor's having called it, if nothing else.

As to saying their purpose is to disappear: there are five Patriarchs of Antioch.  This is absurd.  One of the goals of a reunified Church would be to reform a united, solid Patriarchate, which would involve all the Catholic and Orthodox Patriarchs to be folded into one.  One city, one Bishop.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 08:25 PM)Norbert Wrote: Calling "us" "Latins", promoting an "us versus them" mentality, and saying "your pracitices, your church, your traditions", is not helping the case that there's a spirit of schism and disobedience in the Eastern Churches.

Vetus throughout this thread has presented a truly CATHOLIC look at tradition and Church history...one that incorporates traditions and practices instituted among the Church since 1054, AND acknowledges that the West could learn from traditions of the East.  I don't even agree with him on iconostasis', so he's probably more "pro-Eastern tradition" than I am.

You, on the other hand, have yet to show much difference in your understanding of a perceived East/West divide from Silouan, which is troubling.

(Sorry I'm late to the party).

The Iconostasis is great; bring back the Western Rood Screen, I say.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)