i went to a tlm today...
#31
(01-01-2010, 09:24 PM)Melkite Wrote: latinization can be a parish wide problem

For me, the Latinization of the Eastern Rites is the second saddest thing at the moment in the church ...  :(
Reply
#32
(01-03-2010, 07:01 PM)SinfullyLate Wrote:
(01-01-2010, 09:24 PM)Melkite Wrote: latinization can be a parish wide problem

For me, the Latinization of the Eastern Rites is the second saddest thing at the moment in the church ...  :(

If it's proper Latinization (i.e., "modernist-less"), I think it's a rather good thing.
Reply
#33
(01-04-2010, 01:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-03-2010, 07:01 PM)SinfullyLate Wrote:
(01-01-2010, 09:24 PM)Melkite Wrote: latinization can be a parish wide problem

For me, the Latinization of the Eastern Rites is the second saddest thing at the moment in the church ...  :(

If it's proper Latinization (i.e., "modernist-less"), I think it's a rather good thing.

In terms of the Eastern Catholic churches, there is no such thing as a "proper" Latinization.  To Latinize the Eastern Churches is to deny the universality of the Catholic Church.
Reply
#34
(01-04-2010, 01:52 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-04-2010, 01:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-03-2010, 07:01 PM)SinfullyLate Wrote:
(01-01-2010, 09:24 PM)Melkite Wrote: latinization can be a parish wide problem

For me, the Latinization of the Eastern Rites is the second saddest thing at the moment in the church ...  :(

If it's proper Latinization (i.e., "modernist-less"), I think it's a rather good thing.

In terms of the Eastern Catholic churches, there is no such thing as a "proper" Latinization.  To Latinize the Eastern Churches is to deny the universality of the Catholic Church.

Well, I don't see it that way. The Roman Rite is universal, as universal as the Roman See and the Church herself. The Roman Rite is the rite of the catholics in the Americas, Africa and Asia. Why are the eastern catholics so special that they can't have it? Surely, the Apostolic Sees of the East are respected and important to the Church and it's only fitting that it is so, in conformity with the splendor and universality of the Catholicism. However, while I can understand that they may want to keep their different rites, I can't honestly see no harm in latinizing them to bring about more uniformity. What's there to fear? Roman "supremacy"? Unquestionable orthodoxy? Do they feel "second-class catholics" if they are latizined?

I'm not saying we should suppress other rites but bring them closer to the Roman Rite. The way many catholic easterners cling so fanatically to their local rites as if it were the single most important aspect of their faith and especially the way they contemptuously speak of the West and how they should get rid of the "evil" latinizations, belies a schismatic mentality, so ever present in the East.
Reply
#35
(01-04-2010, 03:00 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-04-2010, 01:52 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-04-2010, 01:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-03-2010, 07:01 PM)SinfullyLate Wrote:
(01-01-2010, 09:24 PM)Melkite Wrote: latinization can be a parish wide problem

For me, the Latinization of the Eastern Rites is the second saddest thing at the moment in the church ...  :(

If it's proper Latinization (i.e., "modernist-less"), I think it's a rather good thing.

In terms of the Eastern Catholic churches, there is no such thing as a "proper" Latinization.  To Latinize the Eastern Churches is to deny the universality of the Catholic Church.

Well, I don't see it that way. The Roman Rite is universal, as universal as the Roman See and the Church herself. The Roman Rite is the rite of the catholics in the Americas, Africa and Asia. Why are the eastern catholics so special that they can't have it? Surely, the Apostolic Sees of the East are respected and important to the Church and it's only fitting that it is so, in conformity with the splendor and universality of the Catholicism. However, while I can understand that they may want to keep their different rites, I can't honestly see no harm in latinizing them to bring about more uniformity. What's there to fear? Roman "supremacy"? Unquestionable orthodoxy? Do they feel "second-class catholics" if they are latizined?

I'm not saying we should suppress other rites but bring them closer to the Roman Rite. The way many catholic easterners cling so fanatically to their local rites as if it were the single most important aspect of their faith and especially the way they contemptuously speak of the West and how they should get rid of the "evil" latinizations, belies a schismatic mentality, so ever present in the East.

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.  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.  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?

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.
Reply
#36
(01-04-2010, 01:52 PM)Melkite Wrote: In terms of the Eastern Catholic churches, there is no such thing as a "proper" Latinization.  To Latinize the Eastern Churches is to deny the universality of the Catholic Church.

Amen to that.

That said, I do support things that some people have termed Latinization  (e.g. I believe that Eastern Catholics must accept papal infallibility), but I don't consider such things Latinizations.
Reply
#37
(01-04-2010, 04:58 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(01-04-2010, 01:52 PM)Melkite Wrote: In terms of the Eastern Catholic churches, there is no such thing as a "proper" Latinization.  To Latinize the Eastern Churches is to deny the universality of the Catholic Church.

Amen to that.

That said, I do support things that some people have termed Latinization  (e.g. I believe that Eastern Catholics must accept papal infallibility), but I don't consider such things Latinizations.

This is true.  There is no Latin doctrine or Eastern doctrine, just Catholic doctrine.
Reply
#38
(01-04-2010, 05:11 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-04-2010, 04:58 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(01-04-2010, 01:52 PM)Melkite Wrote: In terms of the Eastern Catholic churches, there is no such thing as a "proper" Latinization.  To Latinize the Eastern Churches is to deny the universality of the Catholic Church.

Amen to that.

That said, I do support things that some people have termed Latinization  (e.g. I believe that Eastern Catholics must accept papal infallibility), but I don't consider such things Latinizations.

This is true.  There is no Latin doctrine or Eastern doctrine, just Catholic doctrine.

There are too many "Eastern" Doctors of the Church for me to disagree with this.
Reply
#39
If there had been an Eastern Rite Catholic Church within 50 miles of where I used to live, I would have made the switch! One friend went Greek Orthodox and I could never do that though. Their traveling priest was an ex-Catholic priest who wanted to marry and so jumped ship. I thoroughly accept the Roman Catholic theology on the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception and the papacy and so forth and could not go schismatic even though in many ways my parish  " in union with Rome" was anything but.

I have attended Byzantine and Ukranian Catholic Divine Liturgies and appreciated them. (although so much standing!)

But if I could , I would attend the TLM all the time.  As it is, I am able to assist at the TLM four times a month and I am grateful to have this at least, at long last.
Reply
#40
I live in NovusOrdoland; and thus for years have attended only Novus Ordo, and have awaited the suppression of the Novus Ordo and the full reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass in its rightful place as the classic and authentic Roman Rite.  However, over this past summer, I discovered much to my own surprise a small Byzantine Catholic Chapel, St. Nicholas of Myra Byzantine Catholic Church. 

I love Divine Liturgy! And though, I need to brush up on my Eastern Rite Catechism-----IS THERE AN orthodox and NON-MODERNIZED EASTERN RITE CATECHISM?

I was curious, as I wish understand the Byzantine Catholic Church I frequent.  I wish to attend to a TLM, as such has been my dream for years; and if after having experienced both, I MAY become Eastern rite if God's calling me that way. I must admit that there's a rather robust and strong attraction for me of the Ancient-ness of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum; particularly, considering, it's the most reverent and holy alternative that I have to the regular and lack-luster Novus Ordo Mass.

Dominus Misereatur!

In Jhesus's Charity and our Lady's prayers,
Matthew
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)