Why the Mass in Latin?
#51
(06-15-2011, 08:57 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:"That Photius was one of the greatest men of the Middle Ages, one of the most remarkable characters in all church history, will not be disputed. His fatal quarrel with Rome, though the most famous, was only one result of his many-sided activity. During the stormy years he spent on the patriarch's throne, while he was warring against the Latins, he was negotiating with the Moslem Khalifa for the protection of the Christians under Moslem rule and the care of the Holy Places, and carrying on controversies against various Eastern heretics, Armenians, Paulicians etc. His interest in letters never abated. Amid all his cares he found time to write works on dogma, Biblical criticism, canon law, homilies, an encyclopædia of all kinds of learning, and letters on all questions of the day. Had it not been for his disastrous schism, he might be counted the last, and one of the greatest, of the Greek Fathers. There is no shadow of suspicion against his private life. He bore his exiles and other troubles manfully and well. He never despaired of his cause and spent the years of adversity in building up his party, writing letters to encourage his old friends and make new ones.

And yet the other side of his character is no less evident. His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius's deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius's ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies. His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84), John VIII's successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate. The Orthodox, who look upon him, rightly, as the great champion of their cause against Rome, have forgiven all his offences for the sake of this championship. They have canonized him, and on 6 Feb., when they keep his feast, their office overflows with his praise. He is the "far-shining radiant star of the church", the "most inspired guide of the Orthodox", "thrice blessed speaker for God", "wise and divine glory of the hierarchy, who broke the horns of Roman pride" ("Menologion" for 6 Feb., ed. Maltzew, I, 916 sq.). The Catholic remembers this extraordinary man with mixed feelings. We do not deny his eminent qualities and yet we certainly do not remember him as a thrice blessed speaker for God. One may perhaps sum up Photius by saying that he was a great man with one blot on his character---his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. But that blot so covers his life that it eclipses everything else and makes him deserve our final judgment as one of the worst enemies the Church of Christ ever had, and the cause of the greatest calamity that ever befell her."

I don't disagree at all.  But such was St. Paul as well, at one time.  Perhaps Photios died in communion with Rome due to St. Paul's intercession.
Reply
#52
(06-15-2011, 09:24 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 06:14 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 01:51 AM)Melkite Wrote: St. Augustine whored himself out for a large portion of his life, and was a heretical Manichaen after that.  Certainly you don't accept him as a saint who was a bad example for most of his life while rejecting St. Photios for the same thing?  It doesn't matter how they lived their lives, if they reconciled with God and the Church and died in a state of grace, they are saints.

St. Augustine and Photius' situations are not similar at all. Augustine clearly converted from his sinful past and became a saintly man.
Even if Photius died in communion with the church, there's nothing which points to the fact that he reconciled with God and the Church. Just because there is a possibility doesn't mean he should be venerated in my opinion.  :shrug:

As for Palamas, he was anti-Latin and did not reconcile with the church in any way that I know of either.

Listen to what you just said.  "Even if Photios died in communion with the Church, there's nothing which points to the fact that he reconciled with God and the Church."  How can you be in communion with the Church and not reconciled to her?  You're either in the Church or you're not, there's no middle ground.  Isn't that what people here like to say?

Not everyone who dies as a member of the church is to be venerated, especially one like Photius who all signs point to him being vehemently against the Church. And nothing points to the contrary.

Also, still haven't answered the question about how Palamas can be considered a saint.
Reply
#53
(06-15-2011, 09:10 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 09:06 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 02:11 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: I see no reason to think that Photius lived a particularly holy life after he ended his rebellion against ecclesiastical authority.

I never said he lived a particularly holy life, I said he died in communion with Rome, reconciled to the Church.  As such, it is right to recognize him as a saint, since we know from Scripture that God rewards equally those who arrive at the 11th hour as he does those who arrive at the 1st, or, in Augustine's case, the 3rd or 4th.
I see no reason to believe he reconciled with the church. Unless there is something which states otherwise.

And, What about Gregory Palamas who was never in the Church to begin with, was an open schismatic and produced very questionable theology regarding the essence of God?

from: http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.co...with-rome/

St. Photios the Great Died in Communion with Rome
Originally posted 7/31/2009.

MYTH
The non-saintly Photios persisted in schism until the end of his life and died out of communion with Rome

A couple of weeks ago I was blessed to receive a copy of Fr. Francis Dvornik’s The Photian Schism from Barnes & Noble.


1. Fr. Francis Dvornik of pious memory proved conclusively that there was no second Photian schism, i.e., that St. Photios the Great (†2/6/891) was in communion with Rome through the pontificates of John VIII (†882), Marinus I (882-884), St. Adrian III (884-885), Stephen V (885-891), and Formosus. Fr. Dvornik says that if John VIII had excommunicated St. Photios after learning what transpired at the 879-880 Reunion Council of Constantinople, Archbishop Stylianos would have mentioned it in his letter to Pope Stephen V of Rome [Mansi XVI:432], since that would have been immensely important for his purposes [Dvornik 219]. The anti-Photian compiler does not, as promised [Mansi XVI:448-449], produce the anti-Photian synodical letter of Pope John VIII, but should have if such a thing really existed [218].The anti-Photian compiler is untrustworthy for several reasons, one being his claim that John VIII, as Roman archdeacon, authoritatively condemned Photios at the Council of 869-870, whereas the seventh session Acts of the Council show that Bishop Gauderich of Velletri was the spokesman [218].
2. This same compiler also does not, as promised, produce the purported anti-Photian synodical letter of Pope Marinus I, implying that such a letter never existed [220]. The overconfident anti-Photian compiler quotes nothing in the letters of Stephen V that prove that Pope Marinus I, upon his accession to the Chair of St. Peter, broke with Pope John VIII’s proven policy of reconciliation [220]. The letter of Pope Stephen V on Marinus refers to the latter’s 869-870 embassy to Constantinople, not any acts of his afterwards. If Marinus I was not in communion with Photios, he would not have retained Photios’s loyal friend Zachary of Anagni as his librarian [224].
3. St. Photios himself said he was friendly with Pope St. Adrian III [PG 102:381A], and, according to Fr. Dvornik [225], the anti-Photian compiler had no documentary evidence that St. Photios the Great was not in communion with Pope St. Adrian III of Rome (7/8), because he did not even include the latter’s name in his list of allegedly anti-Photian popes [Mansi XVI:445].
4. St. Photios was in communion with Pope Stephen V, who accepted the former as the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople [228-236].
5. St. Photios the Great was also on good terms with Pope Formosus [253-255].
6. Patriarch Sisinnios of Constantinople (996-998), who was in communion with Rome, added the name of St. Photios to the list of saintly patriarchs (tomos tês Henôseôs) [389]. This was a time when, even in the Latin Church, ordinary bishops, not just the Pope, could canonize saints. Fr. Dvornik cites Fr. Martin Jugie, “Le Culte de Photius dans l’Église Byzantine” in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien (1922-3), 3rd ser., tom. III, pp. 109 seq.

Perhaps one isn't aware of certain aspects of history if the Catholic Encyclopedia is their only source?

As for Gregory Palamas, I don't really know much about him, or his theology.  I've never been particularly interested in him, so if he's not to be counted a saint it wouldn't really bother me any.
Reply
#54
The Eastern Orthodox seem to be more connected to their country of origin than to Christianity. I lived in Astoria, Queens, large Greek Orthodox community and they seemed to be Greek first Christian second. This is happening now in places like Italy and Ireland since Vatican 2.
Reply
#55
Its also happening with the Mexicans too
Reply
#56
(06-15-2011, 07:12 PM)salus Wrote: The Eastern Orthodox seem to be more connected to their country of origin than to Christianity. I lived in Astoria, Queens, large Greek Orthodox community and they seemed to be Greek first Christian second. This is happening now in places like Italy and Ireland since Vatican 2.

This is definitely true of the Greeks, but not really of the other Orthodox.
Reply
#57
(06-15-2011, 07:14 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 07:12 PM)salus Wrote: The Eastern Orthodox seem to be more connected to their country of origin than to Christianity. I lived in Astoria, Queens, large Greek Orthodox community and they seemed to be Greek first Christian second. This is happening now in places like Italy and Ireland since Vatican 2.

This is definitely true of the Greeks, but not really of the other Orthodox.

It is true of most Romans as well.

How many Catholics value cultural understanding over the universal Church at least in some way?

Most here will defend WASP standards over tradition. Ignorance of all of the traditions of the Church is dangerous when people start forming opinions based on ignorance.
Reply
#58
(06-15-2011, 08:56 AM)Rosarium Wrote: The Nicene Creed was altered for liturgical use by both the East and West. The problems people have with it are seemingly just excuses. While in traditional Eastern theology it does not really make sense, it does work if understood properly, but it is not essential to the Creed. For example, the Apostles Creed does not explicitly say there is one God. Using the Creed in its original approved form is just as acceptable as a proper alteration to it as long as one is not denying teachings of the Church, there is no reason to add to the Creed. It is very selective in what it professes. Lack of profession does not mean denial.

Lack of explicit profession does not necessarily mean denial, but it definitely makes denial a lot easier. I've met a number of Eastern "Catholics" who deny outright that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. One way to root out this heresy would be to mandate the use of the Filioque whenever the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is recited liturgically.

(06-15-2011, 08:56 AM)Rosarium Wrote: It is not by man's power that Transubstantiation takes place.

Of course it is by the power of God that transubstantiation occurs; I never said otherwise. What I was saying is that the Words of Institution alone constitute the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the "Epiklesis" is no part of the form.

(06-15-2011, 08:56 AM)Rosarium Wrote: And your statements are in contractidiction to what the Latin church publishes to be believed:

Quote:1333 In corde celebrationis Eucharistiae habentur panis et vinum quae, per Christi verba et per Spiritus Sancti invocationem, corpus et sanguis Christi fiunt. Ecclesia, mandato Domini fidelis, in Eius memoriam, usque ad reditum Eius gloriosum, agere pergit id quod Ipse Suae passionis egit pridie: « Accepit panem... », « Accepit calicem, ex genimine vitis repletum... ». Panis et vini signa, cum corpus et sanguis Christi arcano modo efficiuntur, creationis etiam significare pergunt bonitatem. Sic in Offertorio, gratias agimus Creatori propter panem et vinum, 307 fructum « operis manuum hominum », sed etiam prius « fructum terrae » atque « vitis », Creatoris igitur dona. Ecclesia in gestu Melchisedech, regis et sacerdotis, qui protulit « panem et vinum » (Gn 14,18), propriae suae oblationis perspicit praefigurationem.

CCC Wrote:1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread...." "He took the cup filled with wine...." the signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,152 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. the Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.

The CCC, as it is so often, is ambiguous in specifying what the form of the Eucharist is. The Council of Florence, though, is incredibly clear, "The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament" (Denzinger 698).
Reply
#59
(06-16-2011, 01:43 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: Of course it is by the power of God that transubstantiation occurs; I never said otherwise. What I was saying is that the Words of Institution alone constitute the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the "Epiklesis" is no part of the form.

If I'm not mistaken the sacred host was transformed during the words of consecration and not the Epiklesis during the miracle of Lanciano which was a Greek Liturgy said by a Basillian monk.

It does not matter whether it is the Mass or the Divine Liturgy it is the words of consecration alone that constitute the form.
Reply
#60
(06-16-2011, 02:00 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 01:43 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: Of course it is by the power of God that transubstantiation occurs; I never said otherwise. What I was saying is that the Words of Institution alone constitute the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the "Epiklesis" is no part of the form.

If I'm not mistaken the sacred host was transformed during the words of consecration and not the Epiklesis during the miracle of Lanciano which was a Greek Liturgy said by a Basillian monk.

It does not matter whether it is the Mass or the Divine Liturgy it is the words of consecration alone that constitute the form.

Why does it really matter for Latins to know when exactly the consecration takes place?  Is it insufficient for you to preserve the mysteries of God?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)