Traditional Eastern Catholic group(s)
#51
(06-03-2010, 06:23 PM)Melkite Wrote: You're Portuguese, are you not?  You worship according the the Roman rite, one that was heavily influenced by the Franks, do you not?  It is then no surprise that you genuflect in your Frankish influenced church, even though your culture is not itself Frankish.  Although I'm sure you do have some Visigothic influence.

Genuflexion comes in the Bible itself: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." (Ph. 2:10)

It has become an universal custom, fitting to show reverence to authority.

Quote:No, I don't.  I never thought about it that much.  Do you have any reason to doubt it, other than whim?

Yes, I do. I've never seen eastern christians prostrate on a regular basis so it's only natural that I would ask you for some sources.

Quote:I don't have any source, but I'm pretty sure we were prostrating before Islam even existed.  If it has become a synonym for Islam, it has done so at the hands of ignorance.  We won't accept that and let it go.

Same as above.

Quote:I see greater danger of it being spilled by greater distance between priest and communicant.  I don't see any realistic practicality for kneeling versus standing.  This is a subjective bias on your part.  Just be honest.

I am being honest.

If Holy Communion is to be distributed to communicants kneeling and not standing (since kneeling is better), then the altar rail or "communion table" is the safest way to ensure that none of the sacred species gets desecrated.

Quote:The communion cloths held underneath the spoon as it travels from chalice to the mouth of the communicant is sufficient, and since it is level if the communicant is standing, there is no chance of crumbs rolling down an inclined cloth onto the floor.  Our custom irrefutably does a better job at protecting the Eucharist.

Same as the above.

Quote:Even if sui iuris churches were to become obsolete, there is no need to impose Latin as the language of the Eastern liturgy, since Latin is completely alien to the cultures which are Byzantine liturgically.  It seems that, for the sake of unity within the Church, and the salvation of souls, since Byzantines are apparently more susceptible to schism than the most holy Latins, if liturgical uniformity were a must for the Church, for the sake of salvation (since that is your greatest concern), it would be a great act of humility to make the Byzantine rite the uniform rite of the Church.  After all, if unity is your goal, and not mere imposition of Roman customs, the Pope could certainly adopt the Byzantine rite, and then it would be the head rite of the Church since it would be the rite of the Pope.  I see this as a win/win situation.  The Latins would have their desired liturgical/ritual unity, and we would maintain our own customs.  Don't you agree?

As you should recall, what I have been proposing is a mutual enrichment of all rites with the Roman rite as the reference. I didn't call for a one-way road precisely because it could seem unjust for those in the East. A certain degree of merger would be inevitable and it would not be a point of Latinising or Byzantinising per se but of mutual enrichment. Having said that, the official language of the Church is indeed Latin since the head of the Church is in Rome, not in Constantinople or Moscow. Latin was also the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire up until the time of Heraclius (7th century) so there's a precedence there even in the East. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the liturgy had more Byzantine Greek besides the Kyrie Eleison so it would be a matter open to further discussion.

Your posts, however, belie a continuous defensive posture and a lack of openness to anything I'm saying so it seems this is getting nowhere. Apparently, you value your "easterness" in a way quite incomprehensible to me and, frankly, in a way that seems spiritually dangerous.

Quote:I have yet to see any good results by Latinizing us.  Your opinion on what is good is not objective.  The SSJK is a perfect example of the destruction the Eastern churches face at the hands of Latinization.  There are no laudatory reasons for Latinizing us any more than there are laudatory reasons for Byzantinizing you.

The SSJK is a good example of preserving Tradition and the true doctrine of the Church in the East where all the other uniates are crumbling in the face of Ecumenism and pacification with the schismatics. The spiritual fruits are there for everyone to see.
Reply
#52
(06-04-2010, 12:37 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Example: The Ruthenians were growing by leaps and bounds in the early part of the 20th century in the USA.  The Roman Bishops in the USA did not like the fact that the Ruthenians had married priests, so they maneuvered the Vatican to surpress the married Ruthenian clergy in the USA.  When I say surpress, I mean no new married clergy and existing married clergy had there faculties revoked.  The majority of Ruthenian clergy at the parish level was married.  Instantly, the Roman Bishops actions caused one of 2 choices. Go into schism and retain your clergy or obey the Vatican and have an instant priest shortage.  I would say 75% told the Vatican to buzz off and formed the Carpatho-Russ Orthodox Church.  The Byzantine movement in the USA was halted and has never recovered its success in the USA.

Your example just serves to show us how far pride can lead men into the abyss. These ruthenians should have obeyed Rome but chose "easterness" instead of faith.

The fact they went into schism and risked eternal damnation just because of a misguided desire to keep married clergy is quite nonsensical. Celibate clergy is the ideal norm for the universal church, something even the uniates recognize.
Reply
#53

I’m just showing you the consequences. You have a lot of grand theories of saving us Byzantines from Hell and schism by Latinizing us, but the historical records show quite the opposite.results

There is NOTHING wrong with a married clergy. The choice was either church closures and instant priest shortages, thus infrequent Divine Liturgies and sacraments, or Schism. Your blessed Latinizations drove people into the abyss, not pride.

I agree, celibacy is the ideal, but how in the world does that justify surpressing exisitng clergy? 
Reply
#54
(06-04-2010, 01:01 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: the historical records show quite the opposite.results

What the historical records show us is that pride led men into schism, not latinisations. You're seeing things the wrong way.

Quote:There is NOTHING wrong with a married clergy.

Do you need to shout?

Married clergy is permitted by the Church for those priests in the East that cling to their customs. It is a permission out of concern for souls. However, it's clearly preferable to push for an all celibate clergy and many uniates were beginning to realise this and taking steps in that direction prior to the Council.

Quote:The choice was either church closures and instant priest shortages, thus infrequent Divine Liturgies and sacraments, or Schism. Your blessed Latinizations drove people into the abyss, not pride.

No, the only sensible choice was to obey Rome. You're not making much sense.

The immediate priest shortage could be supplied with an influx of bi-ritual priests and with new ordinations in the eastern rites of celibate clergy. The choice to go into schism is the choice of pride, the choice of Satan, not of sensible catholics.

Quote:I agree, celibacy is the ideal, but how in the world does that justify surpressing exisitng clergy?

I don't know the particulars of the situation. Perhaps Rome's decision was misguided but the consequences of going into schism far outweigh an attachment to eastern customs.
Reply
#55
Vetus,
Shouting? What are you talking about?

Follow your logic …

1) you want to save souls
2) you want to Latinize the Byzantines because it saves souls
3) Latinizing actually causes schism because Byzantines are attached to their customs and do not want to give them up
4) Schism causes a loss of souls
5) Thus Latinizing the Byzantines actually causes a loss of souls
6) Conclusions
a. If you persist in your stance, then you are the one guilty of pride. Then you don’t really give a hoot about saving souls at all
b. If you back off your position, then you are showing some humility and actually do care about saving souls.
Reply
#56
(06-04-2010, 03:59 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Vetus,
Shouting? What are you talking about?

You used cap locks when typing "nothing."

Quote:Follow your logic …

1) you want to save souls
2) you want to Latinize the Byzantines because it saves souls
3) Latinizing actually causes schism because Byzantines are attached to their customs and do not want to give them up
4) Schism causes a loss of souls
5) Thus Latinizing the Byzantines actually causes a loss of souls
6) Conclusions
a. If you persist in your stance, then you are the one guilty of pride. Then you don’t really give a hoot about saving souls at all
b. If you back off your position, then you are showing some humility and actually do care about saving souls.

1) Of course, but that's not really the point of this thread.
2) Not really. If you had read me carefully since the beginning, you'd know that I'm proposing a mutual enrichment of rites as an ideal when a brighter future arrives.
3) This isn't so. Uniates prior to the Council and even the SSJK today are living proofs that latinising does not entail schism in itself. It only entails schism for those are crypto-orthodox or who put their faith in their "easterness" rather than in the Church.
4) Certainly.
5) No. Your conclusion is wrong because it's based on a false premise, i.e., that latinising necessarily causes schism. History has proven otherwise.
6) Your conclusions are, thus, irrelevant.
Reply
#57
LOL @ pretty much everything Vetus Ordo said in this thread.
Reply
#58
(06-04-2010, 12:47 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Genuflexion comes in the Bible itself: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." (Ph. 2:10)
That's not a clear image of genuflexion.  It could be any knee bending.  The knees are bent in prostration as well, so that verse could just as easily be referring to prostration.

It has become an universal custom, fitting to show reverence to authority.
How is it universal when it's only the Latins that do it?

Yes, I do. I've never seen eastern christians prostrate on a regular basis so it's only natural that I would ask you for some sources.
If your source is personal experience, then it's ok that mine is too.  Eastern Christians prostrate during every liturgy if there is no chairs blocking them.  I also served as an acolyte and, except during Easter season, we still would prostrate at the consecration on every Sunday.  Out of curiousity, how many Eastern Catholic parishes are there in Portugal?

If Holy Communion is to be distributed to communicants kneeling and not standing (since kneeling is better), then the altar rail or "communion table" is the safest way to ensure that none of the sacred species gets desecrated.
Ok, let's split this up.  On terms of position of communicant, all else being equal, I agree, kneeling to receive is far better than standing.  However, in and of itself, kneeling is not safer for preventing desecration than standing.  The two are separate issues.  So, we agree that kneeling is the more humble position to receive the eucharist.  But we disagree on which position is safer.  What is it about the altar rail that you believe makes it safer for preventing desecration than standing with a cloth in between, so that every dropped particle will go into the cloth and fall to the center, to be consumed by the deacons immediately thereafter?  And after that, what do you believe is more important?  Receiving the eucharist with humility, or preventing desecration of the Eucharist?  I would think a good Catholic would rather show another form of humility, even a somewhat lesser form, like a deep bow, in order to more safely protect OLG&SJC, than to show the, arguably, highest form of humility but to put his precious Body and Blood in greater danger.

As you should recall, what I have been proposing is a mutual enrichment of all rites with the Roman rite as the reference. I didn't call for a one-way road precisely because it could seem unjust for those in the East. A certain degree of merger would be inevitable and it would not be a point of Latinising or Byzantinising per se but of mutual enrichment. Having said that, the official language of the Church is indeed Latin since the head of the Church is in Rome, not in Constantinople or Moscow. Latin was also the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire up until the time of Heraclius (7th century) so there's a precedence there even in the East. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the liturgy had more Byzantine Greek besides the Kyrie Eleison so it would be a matter open to further discussion.

I appreciate that you are open to mutual enrichment rather than a one-way imposition and in theory it sounds nice, but how has it happened practically?  Let's take the SSJK for example.  You can't honestly suggest that their ecclesial life is equally Latin and Ukrainian.  Judging by the pictures on their website, the Latin elements disproportionately outweigh the Byzantine for anyone to call it a mutual enrichment.  And, let's face it, for all the enriching the West has given to the East, how much enrinching have you accepted from us in return?  I have never walked into a Latin parish, traditional or not, and seen anything that remotely appears to be Byzantine in origin.  Even if you were to have more Greek in your liturgy than Kyrie Eleison, to call adding a few Greek phrases into the liturgy, but the rest remaining Roman, and calling it mutal enrichment, is at best disingenous.  If it were a true and equal mutual enriching, I might be more favorable towards it, but from what history has shown so far, in practice it has never been anything other than a deluge in one direction and a trickle, if anything, in the other.  This is undeniable.

Your posts, however, belie a continuous defensive posture and a lack of openness to anything I'm saying so it seems this is getting nowhere. Apparently, you value your "easterness" in a way quite incomprehensible to me and, frankly, in a way that seems spiritually dangerous.

Of course I'm defensive, I don't want to see the rite that I cherish dismantled and treated as worthless refuse.  I'm sorry if I have come across as closed off, but, I give you my word, I am sincerely trying to consider every point you make objectively.


The SSJK is a good example of preserving Tradition and the true doctrine of the Church in the East where all the other uniates are crumbling in the face of Ecumenism and pacification with the schismatics. The spiritual fruits are there for everyone to see.

Again, you're mixing two different issues into one.  SSJK may be great at preserving Catholic doctrine, but for a supposedly Ukrainian Catholic group, they are woefully miserable at preserving Ukrainian tradition.  The only groups of Eastern Catholics that are crumbling are the ones that are heavily latinized and now novusordoized.  The traditional Byzantines among us are maintaining the Catholic traditions of the East.  And we have no lack of vocations, the same sign given by the trad Latins of their superiority over the NO.

(06-04-2010, 12:52 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-04-2010, 12:37 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Example: The Ruthenians were growing by leaps and bounds in the early part of the 20th century in the USA.  The Roman Bishops in the USA did not like the fact that the Ruthenians had married priests, so they maneuvered the Vatican to surpress the married Ruthenian clergy in the USA.  When I say surpress, I mean no new married clergy and existing married clergy had there faculties revoked.  The majority of Ruthenian clergy at the parish level was married.  Instantly, the Roman Bishops actions caused one of 2 choices. Go into schism and retain your clergy or obey the Vatican and have an instant priest shortage.  I would say 75% told the Vatican to buzz off and formed the Carpatho-Russ Orthodox Church.  The Byzantine movement in the USA was halted and has never recovered its success in the USA.

Your example just serves to show us how far pride can lead men into the abyss. These ruthenians should have obeyed Rome but chose "easterness" instead of faith.

The fact they went into schism and risked eternal damnation just because of a misguided desire to keep married clergy is quite nonsensical. Celibate clergy is the ideal norm for the universal church, something even the uniates recognize.

I don't understand how disobedience to the Pope (Lefebvre) to preserve Latin tradition is not an act of schism, but disobedience to the Pope (Toth) to preseve Greek tradition is an act of schism.  Please explain.  Is it just because Toth not only disobeyed but also united himself to the Eastern Orthodox?  If so, if he had created a separatist group that maintained unity with the Pope, at least by its words, but refused to obey the Pope on issues of latinization (continued ordaining married men {if Toth were a bishop}, using unleavened bread for the consecration, etc., etc., for the sake of preserving authentic Eastern Catholic tradition, would you still have viewed them as schismatics, or would you view that as acceptable?  If they would still have been schismatics, please explain why the SSPX is not when they did the exact same thing, just for the Latin tradition instead.

Quote:The choice was either church closures and instant priest shortages, thus infrequent Divine Liturgies and sacraments, or Schism. Your blessed Latinizations drove people into the abyss, not pride.

No, the only sensible choice was to obey Rome. You're not making much sense.

The immediate priest shortage could be supplied with an influx of bi-ritual priests and with new ordinations in the eastern rites of celibate clergy. The choice to go into schism is the choice of pride, the choice of Satan, not of sensible catholics.

I have a hard time not seeing this statement as blatant hypocrisy, since you justify Lefebvre disobeying the Pope.  Why wasn't his only sensible choice to obey Rome?

Quote:I agree, celibacy is the ideal, but how in the world does that justify surpressing exisitng clergy?

I don't know the particulars of the situation. Perhaps Rome's decision was misguided but the consequences of going into schism far outweigh an attachment to eastern customs.

I think we're really going to need to hear a detailed explanation of why the SSPX is not guilty of this same schism, since they did the same thing, i.e., disobeyed the Pope out of an attachment to pre-v2 traditions.

Also, latinizing doesn't necessarily cause a schism, but in practice, Eastern Catholic schism would have always been prevented were it not for latinization.  The Latins of the time are guilty for all the lead up to the Ruthenian schism except for the actual decision to go into schism itself.  If Bishop Ireland hadn't acted so arrogantly and full of ritual pride, there would be more Eastern Catholics in North America today than Eastern Orthodox.
Reply
#59
(06-05-2010, 12:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: That's not a clear image of genuflexion.  It could be any knee bending.  The knees are bent in prostration as well, so that verse could just as easily be referring to prostration.

It would seem that if the Apostle meant prostration rather than kneeling in that passage then he would be clearer. He only tells us that "every knee should bow" which would be exactly the way to put it if he's referring to kneeling rather than prostrating oneself. What defines kneeling is that the knees bow but what defines prostration is that the whole body bows, so if the Apostle would be referring to prostration, we would likely read something different than we read.

Quote:How is it universal when it's only the Latins that do it?

It is universal because the Latins have spread it everywhere.

Quote:If your source is personal experience, then it's ok that mine is too.  Eastern Christians prostrate during every liturgy if there is no chairs blocking them.  I also served as an acolyte and, except during Easter season, we still would prostrate at the consecration on every Sunday.  Out of curiousity, how many Eastern Catholic parishes are there in Portugal?

Granted.

There are only eastern orthodox chapels here, I believe. All the ones I've seen are orthodox.

Quote:Ok, let's split this up.  On terms of position of communicant, all else being equal, I agree, kneeling to receive is far better than standing.  However, in and of itself, kneeling is not safer for preventing desecration than standing.  The two are separate issues.  So, we agree that kneeling is the more humble position to receive the eucharist.  But we disagree on which position is safer.  What is it about the altar rail that you believe makes it safer for preventing desecration than standing with a cloth in between, so that every dropped particle will go into the cloth and fall to the center, to be consumed by the deacons immediately thereafter?  And after that, what do you believe is more important?  Receiving the eucharist with humility, or preventing desecration of the Eucharist?  I would think a good Catholic would rather show another form of humility, even a somewhat lesser form, like a deep bow, in order to more safely protect OLG&SJC, than to show the, arguably, highest form of humility but to put his precious Body and Blood in greater danger.

One of the things that makes the distribution of Holy Communion safe to kneeling communicants are the altar rails. The altar rail is really a "communion table" and has a cloth covering it from one end to the other. When the priest approaches the communicant to administer the Host orally, the acolyte puts a plate below the communicant's chin to prevent the Host from falling to the cloth or to the ground in case something happens. There's a double protection there: the plate behind his chin (where the Host would fall to) and the cloth covering the altar rail (in case the Host would fall from the plate as well).

In case there should be distribution of the Precious Blood, other safety measures could be adopted.

Quote:I appreciate that you are open to mutual enrichment rather than a one-way imposition and in theory it sounds nice, but how has it happened practically?

It hasn't happened, at least on a significant scale. The rites have diverged and grown apart from each other.

However, eastern traditions have been adopted in the west before like, for instance, the Agnus Dei which was a Syrian import from the 8th century to the Roman Mass. In fact, all authentic liturgy is eastern in origin because it is Apostolic in origin. There is no "pure" Roman rite, such as there is no "pure" byzantine rite.

Quote:If it were a true and equal mutual enriching, I might be more favorable towards it, but from what history has shown so far, in practice it has never been anything other than a deluge in one direction and a trickle, if anything, in the other.  This is undeniable.

I've been talking about two things in this thread:

1) That latinisations has they have happened in the uniates are not to be rejected;
2) That in a brighter future, there could be a push for more liturgical uniformity, with mutual enrichment of rites.

Point one has happened in history with good results (uniates). Point two hasn't.

Quote:Again, you're mixing two different issues into one.  SSJK may be great at preserving Catholic doctrine, but for a supposedly Ukrainian Catholic group, they are woefully miserable at preserving Ukrainian tradition.  The only groups of Eastern Catholics that are crumbling are the ones that are heavily latinized and now novusordoized.  The traditional Byzantines among us are maintaining the Catholic traditions of the East.  And we have no lack of vocations, the same sign given by the trad Latins of their superiority over the NO.

Which eastern groups, besides the SSJK, reject Vatican II?

Quote:I don't understand how disobedience to the Pope (Lefebvre) to preserve Latin tradition is not an act of schism, but disobedience to the Pope (Toth) to preseve Greek tradition is an act of schism.

Arch. Lefebvre disobeyed the Pope in order to preserve the Faith untainted against Modernism, not to preserve a custom (married priests). That is the big difference. 

Quote:I have a hard time not seeing this statement as blatant hypocrisy, since you justify Lefebvre disobeying the Pope.  Why wasn't his only sensible choice to obey Rome?

Because married priests are not an issue of faith, it's just an eastern custom. The case of Arch. Lefebvre is completely different. What was (and still is) at stake was the faith itself, like in the dire times of St. Athanasius.

Quote:I think we're really going to need to hear a detailed explanation of why the SSPX is not guilty of this same schism, since they did the same thing, i.e., disobeyed the Pope out of an attachment to pre-v2 traditions.

You obviously have a big misunderstanding of the reasons behind the apostolate of the SSPX. I honestly thought you knew better since you've been around in FE for quite some time.

It has nothing to do with "attachment" to pre-VII traditions. If that were the case, all their apostolate would be illicit and sinful. The reason that justifies their existence is the grave state of necessity in the Church. This state of necessity exists because the faith is at risk, not because there are customs at risk.

Quote:Also, latinizing doesn't necessarily cause a schism, but in practice, Eastern Catholic schism would have always been prevented were it not for latinization.

The Roman Bishop's decision may have been imprudent but no matter how imprudent it was it could never result in schism if it weren't for an ill-faith on the part of the ruthenian clergy. The schism would have been prevented if the ruthenian clergy had understood that maintaining the custom of married priests against a decision from Rome doesn't justify separating themselves and their parishioners from the Church.
Reply
#60
(06-03-2010, 06:23 PM)Melkite Wrote: The problem here is, our side of the family doesn't like the same things your side likes. 


"Like" or "dislike" is not the point.  It's the effect the tradition evokes in the person who makes it a part of their life.   If you "like" the Eucharist in and of  Himself,  you don't just "like" Him when he's appearing under your terms or preferences.  I don't like that His presence is in schismatic Churches, but I make the sign of the Cross when I pass Orthodox Churches. 

You don't like Grandmom less when she spends Christmas at the cousins house instead of yours this year when last year it was at yours. 

Quote:  You're certainly welcome for a visit, but no one invited you to live in our house permanently. 

Your attitude doesn't portray anyone who would be welcome.   If the cousins or brother brings you a gift, it's not offensive, it's got a practical function and it complements something you already have,  you're attitude is it is to be rejected and further, the relative can visit, but the house must be sanitized and no evidence of his ever being there is to be allowed to remain. 

Quote: I completely disagree with your opinion that what the Germans developed more directly expresses a truth of God.  Prostration certainly expresses that truth far better than genuflection does.  Could you give me some examples of Eastern devotions in the Latin church that shows this cross-polination of which you speak is more than a one-way street?

We're already discussing it.  The fact is the Roman Church utilizes both prostration and genuflection.   

On kneeling and genuflecting from the C.E.

"To kneel while praying is now usual among Christians. Under the Old Law the practice was otherwise. In the Jewish Church it was the rule to pray standing, except in time of mourning (Scudamore, Notit. Eucharist., 182). Of Anna, the mother of Samuel we read that she said to Heli: "I am that woman who stood before thee here praying to the Lord" (1 Samuel 1:26; see also Nehemiah 9:3-5). Of both the Pharisee and the publican it is stated in the parable that they stood to pray, the attitude being emphasized in the case of the former (Luke 18:11, 13). Christ assumes that standing would be the ordinary posture in prayer of those whom He addressed:" And when you shall stand to pray", etc. (Mark 11:25). "And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues", etc. (Matthew 6:5). But when the occasion was one of special solemnity, or the petition very urgent, or the prayer made with exceptional fervour, the Jewish suppliant knelt. Besides the many pictorial representations of kneeling prisoners, and the like, left us by ancient art, Genesis 41:43 and Esth., iii, 2 may be quoted to show how universally in the East kneeling was accepted as the proper attitude of suppliants and dependents. Thus Solomon dedicating his temple "kneeling down in the presence of all the multitude of Israel, and lifting up his hands towards Heaven", etc. (2 Chronicles 6:13; cf. 1 Kings 8:54). Esdras too: "I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands to the Lord my God" (Ezra 9:5); and Daniel: "opening the windows in his upper chamber towards Jerusalem, he knelt down three times a day, and adored, and gave thanks before his God, as he had been accustomed to do before" (Daniel 6:10), illustrate this practice. Of Christ's great prayer for His disciples and for His Church we are only told that "lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said", etc. (John 17:1); but of His Agony in the Garden of Gethsemani: "kneeling down, he prayed" (Luke 22:41). The lepers, beseeching the Saviour to have mercy on them, kneel (Mark 1:40; cf. 10:17).

Coming to the first Christians, of St. Stephen we read: "And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying", etc. (Acts 7:59); of the Prince of the Apostles: "Peter kneeling down prayed" (Acts 9:40); of St. Paul: "kneeling down, he prayed with them all" (Acts 20:36; cf. 21:5). It would seem that the kneeling posture for prayer speedily became habitual among the faithful. Of St. James, the brother of the Lord, tradition relates that from his continual kneeling his knees had become callous as those of a camel (Eusebius, Church History II.23; Brev. Rom., 1 May). For St. Paul the expressions "to pray" and "to bow the knee" to God are complementary (cf. Philippians 2:10; Ephesians 3:14, etc.). Tertullian (To Scapula 4) treats kneeling and praying as practically synonymous. And when forgiveness of offences has to be besought, Origen (De Orat., 31) goes so far as to maintain that a kneeling posture is necessary. ......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). The liturgical rules for genuflecting are now very definite. "

Further,  you'll find anything that we have in common is due to the fact that the Roman rite is an Eastern Rite that has organically developed in the West and built the West.  Both geographical halves of the Church have traditions arising out of Judaism,  the externals are more similar than they are different.   Incense, the sign of the cross, candles, domes on Churches, vestments with symbolic meanings.   

But the Roman Church does not have this attitude of the East that any Eastern influence must be chased out of the Church with a can of Lysol spray.   Roman Churches have icons,  which of course came out of mosaics before them and developed into paintings in the West.   The Roman Church has and utilizes all three of those artforms for the contemplation of Icons. 

The traditional Roman Popes made their blessings with the 3 fingers pointed outwards representing the Trinity and the two inward fingers representing the two natures of Christ.   

Theologically, the Roman Church embraces the Eastern Fathers as well as the Western Fathers. 

You seem to think that the family resemblance in so much of the Church is a pure coincidence and the fact that we share the Jewish influences, the Last Supper and the inevitable decades and centuries of development has been completely independent of each other  doesn't exist.  And it is somehow untouchable when the very developments you wish to keep frozen and untainted were exactly that "developments, pulling from pagan and jewish sources, taking in completely practical decisions that became traditions.   Everything must be as it was at one particular random but still undefined period.  Of course, we make exceptions for air-conditioning, electric lighting and parking lots.

For any traditions to be worth anything, they must be relevant to the people using them.  They must have a concrete purpose, a practical concern, a reminder by way of education, a vehicle for interior piety.  If and when some traditions don't work so well, people adopt other traditions and sometimes they adapt those traditions to suit their needs.  That is what a tradition is and that is what it does. 





Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)