Why the Mass in Latin?
#71
(06-16-2011, 02:24 AM)Melkite Wrote: 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?

It certainly matters for the Church herself that has authoritatively defined when the consecration takes place.

Is it not sufficient for you to submit to her judgement?
Reply
#72
(06-16-2011, 02:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: Inserting the filioque into the creed by force or coersion will inevitably lead to an otherwise avoidable schism.  Roman pride pitted against Byzantine pride.

It will lead "inevitably" to a schism only if Eastern Catholics aren't Catholics to begin with. Inserting truths of faith into a creed is a point of dissention with heretics and schismatics alone.

Quote:One way to root out this schismatic tendency would be for Rome to lead in humility and remove the filioque from the creed wherever it is recited liturgically.

This is completely unacceptable.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is a truth of our faith. Either Easterners profess it or they will rot in their errors.
Reply
#73
(06-16-2011, 03:18 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 02:24 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(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?

It matters for a number of reasons.

One is so that, if the priest makes a mistake in celebrating the Mass, he knows whether he needs to go back and fix it or not. For example, if a priest accidentally skipped the beginning of the Canon, but still managed to say the Words of Institution properly, does he need to go back and say the part he skipped if he later realizes his mistake? Since we know that the Words of Institution are the only thing necessary for validity, then the priest doesn't have to go back and say "Te igitur" and "Communicantes".

Another reason is that, if a priest has made a mistake that needs to be fixed, he knows how to fix it. Let's say a priest says the entire Canon correctly, except that he accidentally omits the Words of Institution over the Chalice. When he realizes his mistake, he needs to go back and say and say the proper Words of Institution for the Chalice, or else the wine will not be transubstantiated.

A third reason is that, if a person attending the liturgy notices that the priest did something incorrectly, he can know whether he may adore the species or not. If one notices that, in the course of saying the Canon, the priest failed to say the Words of Institution for the bread, that person may not adore the host, since Christ is not present therein. Such a person would also know not to attempt to receive holy Communion, since he wouldn't be receiving anything more than mere bread.

A fourth reason is that, out of piety and devotion, many of the faithful desire to adore Christ as soon as He is substantially present. In order to do this, the faithful must know precisely when transubstantiation occurs.

The East has never made a big deal about when exactly the consecration takes place, and it hasn't been a problem for us, even with these points.  Why does it become a problem in the West?
Reply
#74
(06-16-2011, 03:24 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 02:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: Ruling with an iron fist never goes over well, and is especially not what Christ intended for the successor of St. Peter when he granted him the keys.  Inserting the filioque into the creed by force or coersion will inevitably lead to an otherwise avoidable schism.  Roman pride pitted against Byzantine pride.  One way to root out this schismatic tendency would be for Rome to lead in humility and remove the filioque from the creed wherever it is recited liturgically.

Removing the Filioque from the liturgical recitation of the Creed where it was already present would give the impression that the Church had changed its doctrine. It would lead many falsely to believe that one can reject what the Lyons II and Florence dogmatically defined, namely, "that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" (Denzinger 691).

I'm not saying you have to remove it.  I'm just saying, we don't have to add it and won't be compelled to.  Do you want to retain the filioque in your creed or do you want liturgical conformity?  Because you won't have liturgical conformity on your terms.  You don't get to have your Latin cake and eat it too.

(06-16-2011, 10:50 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 02:24 AM)Melkite Wrote: 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?

It certainly matters for the Church herself that has authoritatively defined when the consecration takes place.

Is it not sufficient for you to submit to her judgement?

It is.  I'm just saying I don't understand why it was absolutely necessary to define it in the West when the East was doing just fine to let it remain a mystery.  Didn't the West ever have the concept of only defining what was necessary for salvation and letting the rest remain debatable?

(06-16-2011, 10:55 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 02:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: Inserting the filioque into the creed by force or coersion will inevitably lead to an otherwise avoidable schism.  Roman pride pitted against Byzantine pride.

It will lead "inevitably" to a schism only if Eastern Catholics aren't Catholics to begin with. Inserting truths of faith into a creed is a point of dissention with heretics and schismatics alone.

But believing that whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son has never been necessary for salvation, and now Rome has made it necessary, unnecessarily putting souls in danger of hell.

(06-16-2011, 10:55 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
Quote:One way to root out this schismatic tendency would be for Rome to lead in humility and remove the filioque from the creed wherever it is recited liturgically.

This is completely unacceptable.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is a truth of our faith. Either Easterners profess it or they will rot in their errors.

It is perfectly acceptable, since not all doctrines of the Catholic Church are included in the Creed.  The Creed without the filioque is perfectly Catholic.  Forcing people to add it when it is a stumbling block to their faith is only justifiable if they cannot be saved without accepting it, and neither Christ himself nor the Apostles ever made this issue one of importance.  While it may now be a requirement for us to accept it theologically, the fact that is so is proof positive that Rome at the time put its intellectual pride over the salvation of souls.  Now THAT is truly unacceptable. 

You have said before, and rightly, my faith isn't very strong.  There are others whose faith is even less strong.  While I can ponder on the filioque, and I can look at it abstractly seeing how it can possibly be true, there are many who can't, and forcing acceptance will force them out of the Church and into hell.  Something the Church absolutely has authority to do, but is it beneficial to do so?  All things are permissable, St. Paul said, but not all things are good.  He can eat meat if he wants, but he would rather never eat meat again than cause a brother with a weaker faith to stumble.  Rome needs to abandon its arrogance and return to this mindset of St. Paul.  Its preference for intellectual superiority over the salvation of souls is abhorrent, and the souls it has unnecessarily sent to hell by coldly demanding obedience on issues not necessary for salvation will likely forever count against it.  It would be better for the individual Popes and other Latins who are guilty of such pride to hang a millstone around their neck and throw themselves into the ocean than to face the judgement of God over the damnation they have unnecessarily caused.

I already have a feeling of what your response will be, and if it is what I expect, it will just be a further example of your inability to accept personal responsibility and just pass the blame off to someone else, as usual.
Reply
#75
Melkite Wrote:The East has never made a big deal about when exactly the consecration takes place, and it hasn't been a problem for us, even with these points.  Why does it become a problem in the West?

It's a big deal because it is the main part of the mass/divine liturgy. Plus, Resurrexi listed several practical reasons as to why it's important to know when the consecration physically takes place.

Melkite Wrote:But believing that whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son has never been necessary for salvation, and now Rome has made it necessary, unnecessarily putting souls in danger of hell.

Defining areas of the faith are not meant to put more souls in danger of hell. The Holy Ghost guides and leads the Church and it's teachings. If you leave everything undefined and up to mystery your'e opening the door to possible schisms and/or heresies as has happened with the orthodox.

Melkite Wrote:It would be better for the individual Popes and other Latins who are guilty of such pride to hang a millstone around their neck and throw themselves into the ocean than to face the judgement of God over the damnation they have unnecessarily caused.

Once again, defining areas of the faith is not meant to condemn people, or to increase the number of damned. The Church is supposed to do the opposite. Certain things must be defined in order to avoid heresies. The orthodox don't clearly define very much and as you can see they have opened the door on divorce, birth control etc.

The divine liturgy can still be a mystery. Knowing the correct time when the consecration takes place does not take away from that. It also ends the argument that the orthodox seem to have that it takes place during the epiklesis.

Certain things have to be defined by the Church, it's that simple.

Reply
#76
(06-16-2011, 11:54 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
Melkite Wrote:But believing that whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son has never been necessary for salvation, and now Rome has made it necessary, unnecessarily putting souls in danger of hell.

Defining areas of the faith are not meant to put more souls in danger of hell. The Holy Ghost guides and leads the Church and it's teachings. If you leave everything undefined and up to mystery your'e opening the door to possible schisms or heresies as has happened with the orthodox.

But the Orthodox don't leave everything undefined.  The Orthodox (granted, while they were still Catholic) have defined that Christ is both God and man, not just God or just man.  It's defined that Christ really died on the cross and rose from the dead, it's defined that Christ really is one person, has two wills and has defined that iconography is permissable and good.  Do you see a connection to these?  They all have to do with God's relationship with Creation.  We can know about that relationship.  The procession of the Holy Spirit pertains to the internal relationship of the Trinity, something that we shall never know, never see, never understand.  Defining a point about something that humans are capable of knowing and then placing the penalty of eternal damnation on it is kind of like saying one will lose their salvation if they don't profess predestination and also profess WHY God predestines.  It's kind of nonsensical.

(06-16-2011, 11:54 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
Melkite Wrote:It would be better for the individual Popes and other Latins who are guilty of such pride to hang a millstone around their neck and throw themselves into the ocean than to face the judgement of God over the damnation they have unnecessarily caused.

Once again, defining areas of the faith is not meant to condemn people, or to increase the number of damned. The Church is supposed to do the opposite. Certain things must be defined in order to avoid heresies. The orthodox don't clearly define very much and as you can see they have opened the door on divorce, birth control etc.

The divine liturgy can still be a mystery. Knowing the correct time when the consecration takes place does not take away from that. It also ends the argument that the orthodox seem to have that it takes place during the epiklesis.

Certain things have to be defined by the Church, it's that simple.

The Orthodox don't argue that the consecration takes place during the epiklesis.  The Orthodox argue that the consecration takes place through the power of the Holy Spirit, not the power of the priest himself, therefore it is necessary to invoke the Holy Spirit for the priest to make it happen.  The Orthodox prostrate themselves during the words of institution, not during the epiklesis.
Reply
#77
(06-16-2011, 12:27 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 11:54 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
Melkite Wrote:But believing that whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son has never been necessary for salvation, and now Rome has made it necessary, unnecessarily putting souls in danger of hell.

Defining areas of the faith are not meant to put more souls in danger of hell. The Holy Ghost guides and leads the Church and it's teachings. If you leave everything undefined and up to mystery your'e opening the door to possible schisms or heresies as has happened with the orthodox.

But the Orthodox don't leave everything undefined.  The Orthodox (granted, while they were still Catholic) have defined that Christ is both God and man, not just God or just man.  It's defined that Christ really died on the cross and rose from the dead, it's defined that Christ really is one person, has two wills and has defined that iconography is permissable and good.  Do you see a connection to these?  They all have to do with God's relationship with Creation.  We can know about that relationship.  The procession of the Holy Spirit pertains to the internal relationship of the Trinity, something that we shall never know, never see, never understand.  Defining a point about something that humans are capable of knowing and then placing the penalty of eternal damnation on it is kind of like saying one will lose their salvation if they don't profess predestination and also profess WHY God predestines.  It's kind of nonsensical.

They leave many things undefined, which opens the door to heresies. As stated they have not defined specifically that birth control in all its forms are condemned, and it has become accepted to a certain extent by some members of their church. They also allow for divorce and remarriage up to 3 times. Because they have not defined that neither is acceptable. We don't fully understand the trinity. But, the church has determined the Filioque part of her creed, and that is that. It is not leading the masses to hell, nor is it meant to. The schismatics separated themselves from the church. And if not for Mark of Ephesus probably would still be part of our church. And this all probably could have been worked out eventually.

(06-16-2011, 11:54 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
Melkite Wrote:It would be better for the individual Popes and other Latins who are guilty of such pride to hang a millstone around their neck and throw themselves into the ocean than to face the judgement of God over the damnation they have unnecessarily caused.

Once again, defining areas of the faith is not meant to condemn people, or to increase the number of damned. The Church is supposed to do the opposite. Certain things must be defined in order to avoid heresies. The orthodox don't clearly define very much and as you can see they have opened the door on divorce, birth control etc.

The divine liturgy can still be a mystery. Knowing the correct time when the consecration takes place does not take away from that. It also ends the argument that the orthodox seem to have that it takes place during the epiklesis.

Certain things have to be defined by the Church, it's that simple.
Melkite Wrote:The Orthodox don't argue that the consecration takes place during the epiklesis.  The Orthodox argue that the consecration takes place through the power of the Holy Spirit, not the power of the priest himself, therefore it is necessary to invoke the Holy Spirit for the priest to make it happen.  The Orthodox prostrate themselves during the words of institution, not during the epiklesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#Orthodox Wrote:"Conventionally this change in the elements is understood to be accomplished at the Epiclesis (Greek: "invocation") by which the Holy Spirit is invoked and the consecration of the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ is specifically requested, but since the anaphora as a whole is considered a unitary (albeit lengthy) prayer, no one moment within it can be readily singled out."

The moment is not defined (as far as I know) but transubstantiation has occurred by the completion of the Epiclesis. I don't understand why defining the moment of consecration is an issue. It does not take away from the sacrament whatsoever.
Reply
#78
(06-16-2011, 11:34 AM)Melkite Wrote: I'm just saying I don't understand why it was absolutely necessary to define it in the West when the East was doing just fine to let it remain a mystery.  Didn't the West ever have the concept of only defining what was necessary for salvation and letting the rest remain debatable?

This has nothing to do with "West vs. East" as if we were talking about two different churches. There's only one Catholic Church who encompasses all legitimate traditions and theological leanings but who alone has the authority to define what is the faith and what isn't. The filioque isn't debatable, you are required to profess it.

There's doctrinal development. The filioque clause is just another one of thoses cases. It was added to the creed first to combat a heresy in Spain. Eventually, over time, it became a universal custom in the west to recite the creed with it. Since the filioque expresses a truth of our faith, there should be no issue with it to begin with. As there should be no problem if tomorrow the pope unilaterally added the Immaculate Conception to the creed. The ones to make a grievous scandal out of such a benign article were the Easterners, headed by the man you dare call "St." Photius.

Their problem wasn't the filioque itself but political and ecclesiastical ambition. The same remains true today.

(06-16-2011, 02:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: But believing that whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son has never been necessary for salvation, and now Rome has made it necessary, unnecessarily putting souls in danger of hell.

Souls are not put in danger of hell for having to profess truths of faith. What you write is scandalous!

Quote:It is perfectly acceptable, since not all doctrines of the Catholic Church are included in the Creed.  The Creed without the filioque is perfectly Catholic.  Forcing people to add it when it is a stumbling block to their faith is only justifiable if they cannot be saved without accepting it, and neither Christ himself nor the Apostles ever made this issue one of importance.  While it may now be a requirement for us to accept it theologically, the fact that is so is proof positive that Rome at the time put its intellectual pride over the salvation of souls.  Now THAT is truly unacceptable.

The Apostles' Creed, which is far simpler than the Nicean Creed, is also perfectly Catholic. St. Athanasius' Creed, which is far longer that both combined, is also Catholic. That's not the point.

The filioque only became a point of contention because Photius and his partisans wanted it to become so in order to further their ambitions. Constantinople always represented the epitome of imperial and ecclesiastical pride, having usurped the rights of the old patriarchal sees of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria against the protests of Rome. Nevertheless, this matter has already been definitely settled by the Church at the Council of Florence, which you are required to accept and profess. Certainly, you don't expect to debate things which you are required to believe, do you?

Quote:You have said before, and rightly, my faith isn't very strong.  There are others whose faith is even less strong.  While I can ponder on the filioque, and I can look at it abstractly seeing how it can possibly be true, there are many who can't, and forcing acceptance will force them out of the Church and into hell.

This is utterly absurd. The filioque is not just "possibly true", it is true and you're required to believe it.

And what kind of faith these Eastern Catholics have to begin with? According to your logic, if they really thought about it they would conclude that they're in communion with people who profess heresies (i.e., the filioque). So, these people are only Catholics because of ignorance or intellectual laxity. Amazing!

Quote:Rome needs to abandon its arrogance and return to this mindset of St. Paul.  Its preference for intellectual superiority over the salvation of souls is abhorrent, and the souls it has unnecessarily sent to hell by coldly demanding obedience on issues not necessary for salvation will likely forever count against it.  It would be better for the individual Popes and other Latins who are guilty of such pride to hang a millstone around their neck and throw themselves into the ocean than to face the judgement of God over the damnation they have unnecessarily caused.

Your insolence regarding the Church is disgusting. What pathetic folly! You condemn yourself with those words.

Why are you even Catholic, Melkite? What kind of faith do you have? You have to start asking yourself some serious questions. Pretending to be Catholic won't profit you anything. At best, you'll only poison those around you.

Quote:I already have a feeling of what your response will be, and if it is what I expect, it will just be a further example of your inability to accept personal responsibility and just pass the blame off to someone else, as usual.

Said by someone who has just maligned the Church.

Hit and run.
Reply
#79
Pot, kettle, as usual vetus.

It absolutely has to do with east and west.  It was never necessary to define when the consecration takes place in the east, so rather than explaining why the west needed to define it despite the east being a living proof the west's concerns were unnecessary, you dodge the question and accuse the east of schismatic mentality.

It doesn't matter if the filioque is true or not.  Some truths are not prudent to make binding on all the faithful.  The filioque was, and still is.  Why isn't it binding yet on all the faithful to believe that the Theotokos is co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate?  There is certainly nothing untrue about it, and yet the Church has determined it is imprudent to define it right now.  Why did the Pope have the creed posted in Greek and Latin without the filioque?  The only reason it was defined by Rome was because Rome was suffering from the same imperial and ecclesiastical pride as that of Constantinople, the epitome of which Constantinople could not hold since Rome retained that title as well.

Look at yourself.  You're like the people of Westboro baptist who loves to proclaim that God hates fags, and when people are repulsed by their hatred, they accuse them of being enemies of God, rather than take any personal responsibility for their lack of charity.  You are a Catholic and are BOUND to profess the truth in charity.  You have shown yourself to be completely lacking in charity because of your own sinful arrogance and continue to refuse any responsibility for your own actions.  It's downright immature and not fitting of the Catholic you claim yourself to be.
Reply
#80
So, Melkite, you constantly malign the Church, question dogmas you are obliged to believe and then play the victim as if you knew no better?

You're walking a dangerous path.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)