Traditional Eastern Catholic group(s)
#31
(06-02-2010, 12:52 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: I, Pope Eastern Catholic the 1st declare that you Latins will now change everything. You will …

1) Have married clergy
2) remove all statues and pictures from your churches and can only have Iconostasis and Iconography
3) use only the Greek Catholic calendar, the roman calendar will be suppressed
4) remove altar rails, you will receive communion standing
5) not genuflect, you will now only bow
6) use Carpathian chant, Gregorian chant will be suppressed
7) vernacular only liturgies (with some church Slavonic), the use of Latin in the liturgy will be surpressed

People like myself who defend latinizations (and even subscribe to a mutual enrichment of rites) don't do so because they disregard authentic eastern piety and worship, they do so because they believe some latin customs can enrich the eastern churches and, hopefully, perhaps bring about further external unity among the different rites of the Church. The goal is always the welfare of the Church as a whole and the salvation of souls. Now, as for your list of "demands":

1) Married clergy is a permission for eastern rite sui juris churches. The ideal norm should be clerical celibacy everywhere, as even many in the East admit;
2) There's no reason why statues and icons can't coexist side by side, both in the East and in the West. Personally, I love icons;
3) A harmonization of both calendars is surely possible if there is a will to do it (assuming the East accepts the Gregorian reforms);
4) Altar rails and the reception of Holy Communion kneeling exemplify our submission to God much better, so it would be best for the East to adopt the western practice here;
5) Same as above;
6) Both can be used;
7) Ideally, only Latin should be used as the common liturgical language of the Church. However, some allowances could be made for Church Slavonic but not vernacular languages of any type.

Quote:In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with Latin customs coming into the Ruthenian, or other Eastern Catholic rites, if it is from the ground up. The problem is, "latinization" is typically a top down deal, usually from an incensed Latin Rite Bishop or Bishops. Its usually brutal and it only serves to create schisms.

There's no problem with that, it's just how the Church works. There can be only problems with what it is being done or changed (like modernist changes), not with the "top down" method itself. The Church isn't a democracy and she will never be one. Remember:

"Subjects do not make the superiors; it is the superiors who make the subjects."
Reply
#32
4 and 5 for the latins are frankish culturally customs.  genuflection is how you reverance a king if you're a german.  if you are a semite, or even a greek, you prostrate yourself.  i think the latins would be better enriched by adopting the eastern custom of prostration, rather than vice versa.  we wouldn't be able to adopt altar rails, because our iconostases serve the same 'border' between the holy place and the most holy place.  also, for the sake of the Eucharist, it would be better to stand if receiving in both forms.  there would be a much greater danger of spilling if the priest had to lower the spoon down to someone who is kneeling.  as far as vernacular languages go, there is certainly no need to have the entire liturgy in a language that no one understands.  it is more enriching to be able to hear the prayers in your own language without having to translate in your head.  after all, the only reason the liturgy in Rome switched from greek to latin was because latin was the vernacular at the time.  likewise, in the beginning, greek and syriac were the vernaculars where Christians were.  so i really can't see any strong argument to support suppression of vernaculars in the liturgy.
Reply
#33
also, there have already been a few eastern catholic popes. :D
Reply
#34
(06-02-2010, 07:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: 4 and 5 for the latins are frankish culturally customs. genuflection is how you reverance a king if you're a german.

Genuflexion has been the standard form in Western europe to show reverence to someone superior like a King or a Bishop, not just in Germany. Therefore, it also became a fitting gesture to show our reverence to the King of Kings present in the Tabernacle. It seems to me that such gesture of humility is better than just standing, which can be humble as well but also be confused with other trivial situations.

Quote:if you are a semite, or even a greek, you prostrate yourself.

The only semites I see prostrating themselves regularly are the mohammedans. Well, to be fair, I once saw an eastern christian prostrate herself ritually in prayer, I think she was á Syrian, but it did not seem to be an acknowledgement of the Real Presence in the Tabernacle but just a ritual prescribed for that prayer.

Quote:i think the latins would be better enriched by adopting the eastern custom of prostration, rather than vice versa.

It was clear that I was talking about kneeling vs. standing, not prostrating. Obviously, the Byzantines aren't prostrating and the same can be said for other eastern christians.

Secondly, even if prostrating is theoretically the humblest physical position one can adopt in reverence to God, it wouldn't be very convenient to adopt it today due to its unfortunate but undeniable link with Islam. So, we're left with kneeling, that "frankish" custom.

Quote:we wouldn't be able to adopt altar rails, because our iconostases serve the same 'border' between the holy place and the most holy place.

The iconostases serve the same border between nave and altar as the old rood screens did in the West. Now, if Holy Communion were to be administered universally to the communicants whilst kneeling, then I can't see how you couldn't adopt altar rails for the "communion tables" they really are. Secondly, to bring back the rood screens to our churches would be interesting as well.

Quote:also, for the sake of the Eucharist, it would be better to stand if receiving in both forms.  there would be a much greater danger of spilling if the priest had to lower the spoon down to someone who is kneeling.

Nonsense.

The danger of spilling the Precious Blood is always there, whether standing or kneeling. That's why it would be prudent to continue the practice of administering Holy Communion under the species of bread alone.

Quote:as far as vernacular languages go, there is certainly no need to have the entire liturgy in a language that no one understands.  it is more enriching to be able to hear the prayers in your own language without having to translate in your head.  after all, the only reason the liturgy in Rome switched from greek to latin was because latin was the vernacular at the time.  likewise, in the beginning, greek and syriac were the vernaculars where Christians were.  so i really can't see any strong argument to support suppression of vernaculars in the liturgy.

Latin serves the purpose of being the liturgical (and official) language of the Church, the language to be used with God alone in the sacred mysteries, a language solemn and mysterious (I thought you easterners valued that). It also serves a purpose of unity, so that everywhere you go, the Holy Mass is the same, and said in the same Holy language. Finally, because Latin is a dead language, the dogmas of the faith - necessary to be kept even in liturgical texts as the recent conciliar revolution came to prove - are better perserved in it.
Reply
#35
(06-02-2010, 08:13 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-02-2010, 07:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: 4 and 5 for the latins are frankish culturally customs. genuflection is how you reverance a king if you're a german.

Genuflexion has been the standard form in Western europe to show reverence to someone superior like a King or a Bishop, not just in Germany. Therefore, it also became a fitting gesture to show our reverence to the King of Kings present in the Tabernacle. It seems to me that such gesture of humility is better than just standing, which can be humble as well but also be confused with other trivial situations.

The Franks were Germans.  It developed in the Frankish Empire.  It is fitting for those who are of Frankish patrimony, but outside of Germanic culture it doesn't make much sense.

Quote:if you are a semite, or even a greek, you prostrate yourself.

The only semites I see prostrating themselves regularly are the mohammedans. Well, to be fair, I once saw an eastern christian prostrate herself ritually in prayer, I think she was á Syrian, but it did not seem to be an acknowledgement of the Real Presence in the Tabernacle but just a ritual prescribed for that prayer.

Most Byzantine parishes that I have been to have seating now, and it is because of that that prostrations for the Eucharist are rare.  Remove the seats, prostration returns.

Quote:i think the latins would be better enriched by adopting the eastern custom of prostration, rather than vice versa.

It was clear that I was talking about kneeling vs. standing, not prostrating. Obviously, the Byzantines aren't prostrating and the same can be said for other eastern christians.

Secondly, even if prostrating is theoretically the humblest physical position one can adopt in reverence to God, it wouldn't be very convenient to adopt it today due to its unfortunate but undeniable link with Islam. So, we're left with kneeling, that "frankish" custom.

Who do you think the Muslims got it from?  Why allow the Muslims to tarnish a pious Christian custom when we could reclaim it for ourselves?  You must not have seen many Byzantines if you think we all are not prostrating.

Quote:we wouldn't be able to adopt altar rails, because our iconostases serve the same 'border' between the holy place and the most holy place.

The iconostases serve the same border between nave and altar as the old rood screens did in the West. Now, if Holy Communion were to be administered universally to the communicants whilst kneeling, then I can't see how you couldn't adopt altar rails for the "communion tables" they really are. Secondly, to bring back the rood screens to our churches would be interesting as well.

Were the altar rails directly under the rood screens?  It would be kind of awkward to have an altar rail in front of the iconostasis.  Especially when the faithful go up to venerate the icons on the iconostasis.  It would be impractical and confusing to allow people behind the altar rail sometimes and not other times.

Quote:also, for the sake of the Eucharist, it would be better to stand if receiving in both forms.  there would be a much greater danger of spilling if the priest had to lower the spoon down to someone who is kneeling.

Nonsense.

The danger of spilling the Precious Blood is always there, whether standing or kneeling. That's why it would be prudent to continue the practice of administering Holy Communion under the species of bread alone.

Administering the Eucharist under one species was solely to destroy a heresy.  That heresy doesn't exist anymore, so there really is no good reason to continue this practice.  It is ideal to return to the practice of receiving the Eucharist under both species since this is how it was instituted by Christ.

Quote:as far as vernacular languages go, there is certainly no need to have the entire liturgy in a language that no one understands.  it is more enriching to be able to hear the prayers in your own language without having to translate in your head.  after all, the only reason the liturgy in Rome switched from greek to latin was because latin was the vernacular at the time.  likewise, in the beginning, greek and syriac were the vernaculars where Christians were.  so i really can't see any strong argument to support suppression of vernaculars in the liturgy.

Latin serves the purpose of being the liturgical (and official) language of the Church, the language to be used with God alone in the sacred mysteries, a language solemn and mysterious (I thought you easterners valued that). It also serves a purpose of unity, so that everywhere you go, the Holy Mass is the same, and said in the same Holy language. Finally, because Latin is a dead language, the dogmas of the faith - necessary to be kept even in liturgical texts as the recent conciliar revolution came to prove - are better perserved in it.

Latin is only the official language of the Latin Church sui iuris, not of the entire Catholic Church.  It only serves a purpose for unity in the liturgy if the same liturgy is being offered everywhere.  So it doesn't make much sense unless you have that.  Latin certainly works as a legal language.  Doctrinally, I have been told Greek is better because it has a precision of description that is absent in Latin, but I haven't studied either so I don't know how accurate that is.
Reply
#36
(06-02-2010, 09:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: The Franks were Germans.  It developed in the Frankish Empire.  It is fitting for those who are of Frankish patrimony, but outside of Germanic culture it doesn't make much sense.
There is a theological significance.  Western European culture was formed by Catholicism.  It was the Catholicism from the East that effectively crushed the pagan pressures to the point where the pagan influences are almost unrecognizable and  the significance of the deposit of faith was given the opportunity to flourish and develop in a way that the disturbances of the East did not have the chance. 

Frankishness can't exist without Catholicism. Kings sit on Thrones because they are seats of authority like the Chair of Moses and the See of Peter.   Any Catholic should be able to see "the family resemblance" in each others Churches and not treat them like a contaminent or an unwelcome stranger and when the cousins do something that works for the family, the whole family should be able to share in it.  The recipes go from Grandmom to Mom and the Aunts and when the cousins come over we all have the shared experience of the family recipes and any differences that creep in from the in-laws are there to be enjoyed, adopted if the family likes it.  That is what tradition is all about. 

Genuflection is based on the biblical quote: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth."  That is why it is 'fitting" it's not fitting just for Germans to do it, since it doesn't say, "That in the name of Jesus every German knee should bow, but Greeks should stand on their heads because they are Greeks and it's fitting." 

The fact that the Germans developed a tradition that more directly expresses a truth of God should be celebrated and adopted by every Church and it may be eventually adapted and improved upon by one of the Eastern Churches. 

These ethnic arguments are very disturbing and unnatural.  As if a geographical location makes a different kind of human and no one can influence another for fear of "taint"  But, cross-polination is the most natural thing in the world.  It's only proper that it should be present in the Church as communication and contact  and scholarship increase.  Traditions that started  in the East developed in the West,  would eventually go back East and then be modified and the cycle would continue until all parts of the world are contributing to living the one, true faith. 

It's as natural as potatos in Ireland coming from South America.   Imagine someone saying it's not "fitting" for an Irishman to have his taters.   

Reply
#37
Wow, check out the "live" crucifixion pics on st josephat's website.

http://www.saintjosaphat.org/fotohalerey...028.03.09/
Reply
#38
(06-02-2010, 09:03 PM)Melkite Wrote: The Franks were Germans.  It developed in the Frankish Empire.  It is fitting for those who are of Frankish patrimony, but outside of Germanic culture it doesn't make much sense.

Gerard already explained this point better than I. Besides, kneeling is not a Frankish patrimony alone since it's present in cultures that never were ruled by Franks, like my own.

Quote:Most Byzantine parishes that I have been to have seating now, and it is because of that that prostrations for the Eucharist are rare.  Remove the seats, prostration returns.

I'm very doubtful that prostration was ever a constant byzantine custom. Could you provide sources that indicate that?

Quote:Who do you think the Muslims got it from? Why allow the Muslims to tarnish a pious Christian custom when we could reclaim it for ourselves?  You must not have seen many Byzantines if you think we all are not prostrating.

Probably, Muhammad got it from the pagan Arabs in Mecca, from the Persians or made it up himself. Whether you like it or not, prostration has become a synonym with Islam. Kneeling, however, hasn't and it is particularly christian. Furthermore:

"The simple bending of the knee, unlike prostration, cannot be traced to sources outside Christian worship. Thus, the pagan  and classical gesture of adoration consisted in the standing before the being or thing to be worshipped, in putting the right hand to the mouth (ad ora), and in turning the body to the right. The act of falling down, or prostration, was introduced in Rome  when the Cæsars brought from the East the Oriental  custom of worshipping  the emperors in this manner as gods. "Caium Cæsarem adorari ut deum constituit cum reversus ex Syria non aliter adire ausus esset quam capite velato circumvertensque se, deinde procumbens" (Suet., Vit., ii)." -  CE

Quote:Were the altar rails directly under the rood screens?  It would be kind of awkward to have an altar rail in front of the iconostasis.  Especially when the faithful go up to venerate the icons on the iconostasis.  It would be impractical and confusing to allow people behind the altar rail sometimes and not other times.

The altar rails are good as "communion tables" that is why I said that you should adopt them. It's better for people to kneel on to receive Our Lord with little danger of the Host being dropped or the Precious Blood being spilled. It has a practical side to it.

Quote:Administering the Eucharist under one species was solely to destroy a heresy.  That heresy doesn't exist anymore, so there really is no good reason to continue this practice.  It is ideal to return to the practice of receiving the Eucharist under both species since this is how it was instituted by Christ.

Even if the Church were to return to the practice of distributing Holy Communion under both species universally, the altar rails would be better to prevent any spilling of the Precious Blood.

Quote:Latin is only the official language of the Latin Church sui iuris, not of the entire Catholic Church.  It only serves a purpose for unity in the liturgy if the same liturgy is being offered everywhere.  So it doesn't make much sense unless you have that.  Latin certainly works as a legal language.  Doctrinally, I have been told Greek is better because it has a precision of description that is absent in Latin, but I haven't studied either so I don't know how accurate that is.

As far as I know, Latin is the official and legal language of the whole Church, the language where the Bible, bulls and catechisms are written on for instance. I'm not saying that Byzantine Greek or Old Church Slavonic as a dead languages should be discarded altogether but that Latin could eventually replace them even in liturgical settings of possible.

And as I said before sui juris churches should become obsolete.


EDIT: Grammar.
Reply
#39
(06-03-2010, 10:35 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As far as I know, Latin is the official and legal language of the whole Church, the language where the Bible, bulls and catechisms are written on for instance. I'm not saying that Byzantine Greek or Old Church Slavonic as a dead languages should be discarded altogether but that Latin could eventually replace them even in liturgical settings of possible.

And as I said before sui juris churches should become obsolete.

Would you favor elimination of all the other Rites?  Even the other unsuppressed Western Rites such as Ambrosian and Sarum?

(Please do not think I am attacking you, I want to know where you stand on this)
Reply
#40
(06-03-2010, 11:16 AM)Robert De Brus Wrote:
(06-03-2010, 10:35 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As far as I know, Latin is the official and legal language of the whole Church, the language where the Bible, bulls and catechisms are written on for instance. I'm not saying that Byzantine Greek or Old Church Slavonic as a dead languages should be discarded altogether but that Latin could eventually replace them even in liturgical settings of possible.

And as I said before sui juris churches should become obsolete.

Would you favor elimination of all the other Rites?  Even the other unsuppressed Western Rites such as Ambrosian and Sarum?

(Please do not think I am attacking you, I want to know where you stand on this)

I wouldn't say an "elimination" properly speaking, at least in the beginning, but a steady and organic convergence (mutual enrichment) of all rites towards a more substantial liturgical uniformity, taking the Roman Rite as the reference or the "head-rite". This could only occur, though, when the Church would return to her rightful senses, not today when Modernism reigns.

As for the other Western rites, almost all of them have fallen prey to Modernism or become obsolete for the wrong reasons. Some could be restored in a brighter future but I believe it would be best to let them disappear or converge to the rite of the See of Rome until ultimate assimilation. Having said that, you must keep in mind that their resemblance with the Roman Rite is greater than those of the East to the point that some of those western rites (like the Sarum and the rite of the see of Braga in Portugal) are nothing but different usages of the Roman Rite. So, the push towards uniformity would be easier in the West since it is already almost complete.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)