It's good to be a Melkite
Speaking of mutual enrichment of western and eastern practices, I thought of kneeling. That's something that could be beneficially adopted by the East.

Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy Wrote:“The kneeling of Christians is not a form of inculturation into existing customs. It is quite the opposite, an expression of Christian culture, which transforms the existing culture through a new and deeper knowledge and experience of God.”

“Kneeling does not come from any culture -- it comes from the Bible and its knowledge of God . . . The Christian Liturgy is a cosmic Liturgy precisely because it bends the knee before the crucified and exalted Lord. Here is the center of authentic culture - the culture of truth. The humble gesture by which we fall at the feet of the Lord inserts us into the true path of life of the cosmos.”
Reply
(02-16-2012, 08:43 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 08:25 PM)Norbert Wrote: Calling "us" "Latins", promoting an "us versus them" mentality, and saying "your pracitices, your church, your traditions", is not helping the case that there's a spirit of schism and disobedience in the Eastern Churches.

Vetus throughout this thread has presented a truly CATHOLIC look at tradition and Church history...one that incorporates traditions and practices instituted among the Church since 1054, AND acknowledges that the West could learn from traditions of the East.  I don't even agree with him on iconostasis', so he's probably more "pro-Eastern tradition" than I am.

You, on the other hand, have yet to show much difference in your understanding of a perceived East/West divide from Silouan, which is troubling.

(Sorry I'm late to the party).

The Iconostasis is great; bring back the Western Rood Screen, I say.

Perhaps it's my protestant upbringing, perhaps this is just the only way in which I am "spoiled" by the NO, but I would like to see the goings on at the altar.  Just me.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 10:07 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 08:43 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 08:25 PM)Norbert Wrote: Calling "us" "Latins", promoting an "us versus them" mentality, and saying "your pracitices, your church, your traditions", is not helping the case that there's a spirit of schism and disobedience in the Eastern Churches.

Vetus throughout this thread has presented a truly CATHOLIC look at tradition and Church history...one that incorporates traditions and practices instituted among the Church since 1054, AND acknowledges that the West could learn from traditions of the East.  I don't even agree with him on iconostasis', so he's probably more "pro-Eastern tradition" than I am.

You, on the other hand, have yet to show much difference in your understanding of a perceived East/West divide from Silouan, which is troubling.

(Sorry I'm late to the party).

The Iconostasis is great; bring back the Western Rood Screen, I say.

Perhaps it's my protestant upbringing, perhaps this is just the only way in which I am "spoiled" by the NO, but I would like to see the goings on at the altar.  Just me.

Bah, understanding the words, seeing the liturgical action in detail.  Modernism, all.  Rood Screens!

[Image: Rood+screen.JPG]

[Image: barton-turf-panels.jpg]

[Image: 6352393_orig.jpg]

[Image: DSC_0283.JPG]

Reply
Roodscreens are a must have.

Bring them back ASAP.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 08:25 PM)Norbert Wrote: Calling "us" "Latins", promoting an "us versus them" mentality, and saying "your pracitices, your church, your traditions", is not helping the case that there's a spirit of schism and disobedience in the Eastern Churches.

Norbert, what is wrong with calling you Latin?  Are you not one? 

If I have blue eyes, and you have brown eyes, am I promoting an us versus them mentality by identifying you as having a different eye color than I have?  If it is inappropriate to call you Latin, what is the proper way to distinguish between Catholics who are different from each other?
Reply
(02-16-2012, 09:54 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Speaking of mutual enrichment of western and eastern practices, I thought of kneeling. That's something that could be beneficially adopted by the East.

We already have kneeling, it's just not done on Sundays.  If we didn't have pews, we would have prostrations every Sunday.  That is arguably doing even better what kneeling accomplishes.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 04:46 PM)Gerard Wrote: I acknowledge most of that.  But the point you are missing is that the nature of "how" the traditions were brought in does not invalidate the adoption of those traditions.  No Melkite going to Church currently was "forced" to adopt a Latinization.  The Latinizations were already there. Now they are being "forced" to abandon things that they know and love for archaic reasoning.  The same reasoning the Novus Ordo was foisted on the Latin Church. 

The descendents of slaves in America do not need to be shipped back to Africa or the West Indies or Scotland in order to return to authentic living. 

So, then, if the Melkite Church forces individual parishes to re-adopt authentically Melkite traditions, and the faithful then become accustomed to them as there own, there will no longer be an issue, right?

Also, yes, the descendents of slaves don't need to be shipped back to Africa.  However, for those who wanted to, I do believe we established Liberia.  

Quote: You don't think this is part of a set up in order soften up the Eastern Churches for a killing blow?

No, actually, I don't. 

Quote:Not as severe or perhaps people find it spiritually beneficial? 

No, what I mean is, not as many Latin practices were adopted.  The average Melkite parish is less distinguishable from an Orthodox parish than the average Ruthenian or Ukrainian parish.

Quote:In other words it's Melkite above Catholic.  Any Melkite who practices a Latinized Tradition is no longer a Melkite.  Sort of like any Latin Catholic that wants a TLM is treated like an outsider.

Who said anything about being Melkite above being Catholic?  But by saying that, you suggest you are of the opinion that Latin is default Catholic, and everything else is extra and expendable.  I could just as easily say you are promoting being Latin above Catholic.

Quote:I don't think anyone is asking for more Latin traditions to be required. You are getting what you want. 

The question is, where are the Melkites who were strengthened and edified by those practices that are a part of their tradition, despite being originally from the Latin Church supposed to go in order to give their children what they had?

If I am going to a Latinized Melkite parish, and I want to belong to a fully Byzantine parish, how am I getting what I want?  If the parish doesn't have Matins in the morning, but rather the rosary is prayed before liturgy, where do I go to get Matins?  If the parish custom is to separate first communion from baptism and delay it until 7 or 8, where am I supposed to go if I want my child to receive if the same day he is baptized?  See, this is my point.  The town my parish is in  has one Melkite parish.  It has 5 or 6 Latin parishes.  So, let's say my parish was one of the ones the bishop was talking to.  Of the Melkites at that parish, some want to keep Latin traditions, others want to keep Melkite traditions.  If I want my child to have a first communion when he is 6 or 7, well, there are already 5 or 6 parishes for me to choose from.  If the Melkite parish communes infants when they receive baptism, I still have 5 or 6 options.  But if my parish holds to the Latin practice, where am I supposed to go?  The next closest Melkite parish is over 200 miles away.  So if I'm a Melkite attached to Latin practices, even though I have 6 other parishes to choose from if I like Latin practices, I should get to have another.  If I'm a Melkite attached to Byzantine practices, and there are other Melkites in the area that want to follow Latin practices, it's better that they get a 7th option to choose from than it is that I have 1.  And, I'm sorry, but if I want to worship in a fully Byzantine parish, merely getting to go to a parish where the priest wears Byzantine vestments isn't exactly getting what I want.  So you're kind of coming across as saying whoever wants the Latin way should get priority, and then anyone else can have what they want as long as there isn't anyone around that prefers the Latin way.


[quote] No. My attitude is one of Catholic Supremacy over any particular rite.  I'm of Christ not Apollo,Kephas or Paul. /quote]
You say that, but again, you are treating the Latin practice as if it is the default Catholic.  That is, Latin is Catholic, and everything else is something extra.  If your attitude is one of Catholic Supremacy over any particular rite, then you should be supporting our equally Catholic practices over the practices of the particular Roman rite.  But that's not what you're doing.  You are supporting a particular rite as having supremacy, you are just equating that rite with all of Catholicism.
Reply
(02-17-2012, 02:17 AM)Melkite Wrote: So, then, if the Melkite Church forces individual parishes to re-adopt authentically Melkite traditions, and the faithful then become accustomed to them as there own, there will no longer be an issue, right?

Also, yes, the descendents of slaves don't need to be shipped back to Africa.  However, for those who wanted to, I do believe we established Liberia.

It would depend on the fruit, first and foremost. Second, you have to remember and accept that it's Rome,through the Melkite bishops that is forcing a similar agenda that the ressourcement theologians were so in love it. 

If there were a need for those so-called "Latinizations" or other "Latinizations" to be adopted or re-adopted would you be opposed to that "force" as well or would you welcome it as much as the "forcing" of "DeLatinization" ? 

Quote: You don't think this is part of a set up in order soften up the Eastern Churches for a killing blow?

No, actually, I don't. [/quote]

Most Latin Catholics including Bishops and Paul VI didn't think they were being set up either. 
Quote:
Quote:Not as severe or perhaps people find it spiritually beneficial? 

No, what I mean is, not as many Latin practices were adopted.  The average Melkite parish is less distinguishable from an Orthodox parish than the average Ruthenian or Ukrainian parish.

But the Orthodox were into forcing churches to abandon their traditions like the Georgian rite in favor of the Divine Liturgy, so why is it so important to look Orthodox and not develop as authentically Melkite which includes influence from the Latin Church?  There is no actual reason for appealing to the Orthodox as an ideal. 

Quote:
Quote:In other words it's Melkite above Catholic.  Any Melkite who practices a Latinized Tradition is no longer a Melkite.  Sort of like any Latin Catholic that wants a TLM is treated like an outsider.

Who said anything about being Melkite above being Catholic?  But by saying that, you suggest you are of the opinion that Latin is default Catholic, and everything else is extra and expendable.  I could just as easily say you are promoting being Latin above Catholic.

I'm not telling Melkites who want to hold onto their traditions that came from the Latin Church that they have to become Latin Rite Catholics.  You were the one who said they have the option if they want any Melkite/Latin Traditions. 

Quote:
Quote:I don't think anyone is asking for more Latin traditions to be required. You are getting what you want. 

The question is, where are the Melkites who were strengthened and edified by those practices that are a part of their tradition, despite being originally from the Latin Church supposed to go in order to give their children what they had?

If I am going to a Latinized Melkite parish, and I want to belong to a fully Byzantine parish, how am I getting what I want?

Nobody is saying you can't work to persuade people that there are other options available. If you can make a case based on something other than running down Melkite/Latin shared traditions, more power to you. 

The Rosary takes about 19 minutes to say at a reasonable pace, how long does Melkite Matins take? 


Quote: If the parish doesn't have Matins in the morning, but rather the rosary is prayed before liturgy, where do I go to get Matins?

You might think this is sarcastic but it's not.  Join the Rosary and make your intention for the inclusion of Matins. I'm sure the Blessed Mother would come through for you.

Quote: If the parish custom is to separate first communion from baptism and delay it until 7 or 8, where am I supposed to go if I want my child to receive if the same day he is baptized?

I don't see why the incorporation of the old tradition has to force the Latinized tradition out.  Baptism is a relatively private event, it doesn't necessarily require the whole parish be present.

So, I don't see how denying the people that want to follow the reasoning laid out for the cognitive reception and preparation for the Lord have to lose that for you to have a private ceremony and you and your child don't have be present at the First Holy Communion services, or you can be present and support them in their parish traditions. 

Quote:  See, this is my point.  The town my parish is in  has one Melkite parish.  It has 5 or 6 Latin parishes.  So, let's say my parish was one of the ones the bishop was talking to.  Of the Melkites at that parish, some want to keep Latin traditions, others want to keep Melkite traditions.

Your still defining the traditions incorrectly.  Latin-Derived or not, they are all Melkite traditions. 

Quote: If I want my child to have a first communion when he is 6 or 7, well, there are already 5 or 6 parishes for me to choose from.  If the Melkite parish communes infants when they receive baptism, I still have 5 or 6 options.

Answered above. You don't have to stop everyone else from having their children's first communion at the age of reason in the Melkite Church for you to have your child communicated at Baptism. Latin rite Catholics can ask for absolution in the vernacular or Latin if the priest is capable. It's child's play for priest's to know more than one form for the ceremonies. 

Quote:  But if my parish holds to the Latin practice, where am I supposed to go?

Explained already.  But I would add that Latin Rite parishes of the Novus Ordo bent lead people to drive for hours to find the SSPX or a traditional parish, not because we have a variety of fairly equally valuable traditions, but rather after we were forced to abandon the Latin practices, heterodoxy became the order of the day. So, you might still be better with a Melkite parish that can hold to ALL of its traditions both the Latin-derived ones and the pre-Latinization ones where possible.

Quote: The next closest Melkite parish is over 200 miles away.  So if I'm a Melkite attached to Latin practices, even though I have 6 other parishes to choose from if I like Latin practices, I should get to have another.

Again, it's a "purity" of traditions thing for you it seems. To those attached to certain Latin practices, they aren't "Latin practices" they are Melkite practices that have become a part of the fabric of the Melkite Church. 

Quote: If I'm a Melkite attached to Byzantine practices, and there are other Melkites in the area that want to follow Latin practices, it's better that they get a 7th option to choose from than it is that I have 1.

"The needs of the many sometimes outweigh the needs of the few or the one."  You've already said the Melkites didn't adopt that many Latin practices. So, you really can't pretend that they are just Latin wannabes and that the local Novus Ordo is going to be indistinguishable from the Melkite first communion. 

Quote:And, I'm sorry, but if I want to worship in a fully Byzantine parish, merely getting to go to a parish where the priest wears Byzantine vestments isn't exactly getting what I want.

The problem might be a flaw in your definition of "fully Byzantine," Melkite parishes with traditions that have come by way of the Latin Church are "fully Melkite" because they are fully Catholic. I'm not keen on the Anglican Ordinariate but I won't deny them as being part of the Latin Church or the Greater Catholic Church or demand they be "fully Traditional Latin"  They will have the options of Summorum Pontificum and maybe they will blend a lot of the TLM practices into their particular parishes, but they are, what they are and if good fruit is coming from them that comes from almost all but forgotten English Catholicism, more power to them.

Quote: So you're kind of coming across as saying whoever wants the Latin way should get priority, and then anyone else can have what they want as long as there isn't anyone around that prefers the Latin way.

No. I'm saying that you and the bishop are simply repeating the "crime" of "forcing" Melkites to give up their traditions solely because you don't like the particular Church where they came from. The bishop is obviously getting resistance to the "De-Latinization" of Vatican II's criminals and so he's relying on "force" to get his will. He can't actually come up with a spiritually pastoral reason to do what he's doing so, he appeals to pride and strawman arguments against the Melkite traditions that came by way of the Latin Church. 

Being anti-Latin isn't a valid reason for wanting to get rid of Melkite traditions that came by way of the Latin Church.

Quote: [quote] No. My attitude is one of Catholic Supremacy over any particular rite.  I'm of Christ not Apollo,Kephas or Paul. /quote]
You say that, but again, you are treating the Latin practice as if it is the default Catholic.

You don't understand, it's not a Latin practice exclusively anymore, it's a Melkite practice as well. 

Quote: That is, Latin is Catholic, and everything else is something extra.

No. Catholic is Catholic and who cares where some tradition came from if it works in sanctifying the people? 

Quote: If your attitude is one of Catholic Supremacy over any particular rite, then you should be supporting our equally Catholic practices over the practices of the particular Roman rite.

You've got the "purity" thing going again. You look at what has been adopted as "alien" instead of an actual adoption. But then you claim that for some unsupported reason because it was forced by authority on previous generations, the people in later generations have no right to see it as a part of their overall faith tradition, but you encourage the same "force" to strip them of their traditions thereby committing the same illegitimate action by your own standards. 

It's like an old Western where the white child was raised by Indians and the Cowboys come in and bring her home to wipe the "Indian" out of her only to discover they are destroying her in trying to "restore" her to her original pristine condition before she was "tainted" by the Indians. 

Quote: But that's not what you're doing.  You are supporting a particular rite as having supremacy, you are just equating that rite with all of Catholicism.

Nope. I'm looking at what is, and I'm looking at it without bias.  I'm not looking at some vision of what "should be" and trying to "right" percieved "wrongs" by committing those same "wrongs" in a recklessly imprudent manner.  Especially when what is being done is the same as "ressourcement theology" that was such a success in the Latin Church.
Reply
(02-16-2012, 08:37 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 07:45 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 06:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(02-16-2012, 06:43 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Traditional is broader than the latin mass, as you should well know.

Sure; which is why I am not sure why you are saying that Byzantine Catholics who are themselves Traditional and supportive of Latin Tradition (even if not necessarily in their parishes) are in any fashion schismatic.

Those two facts are entirely unrelated, and frankly the subject of any thread, but as I made clear the hatred of the west and its traditions, the constant insecurity about their own tradition, the unacceptable eclessiology, the denial that councils where the orthodox were not invited were not ecumenical (which was a principle I believe found in a melkite catechism), absurd statements that their purpose is to 'disappear' when the orthodox reconcile, that their mother church is their eastern orthodox counterpart to name but a few problems all show de facto schism and serious theological errors which are not only imprudent but border on heresy.

I think we post-Vatican II Trads should be as aware of anyone how squishy the idea of an Ecumenical Council is in fact.  And just because the designation of a Council as Ecumenical or not does not entail rejection of what it teaches.  The Councils of Orange are not counted among the Ecumenical, but they are important sources of Catholic Doctrine.  It is reading in bad will to think that Melkites, for example, deny the legitimacy of the teachings of Fifth Lateran Council, so much as holding the term Ecumenical in high esteem compared to other teaching Synods of Bishops.  I can usually argue my Eastern Catholic friends who want to make a case of it up to accepting Trent as Ecumenical, because of ecumenical reception and the Emperor's having called it, if nothing else.

As to saying their purpose is to disappear: there are five Patriarchs of Antioch.  This is absurd.  One of the goals of a reunified Church would be to reform a united, solid Patriarchate, which would involve all the Catholic and Orthodox Patriarchs to be folded into one.  One city, one Bishop.

They are ecumenical or general cases, end of. There is no 'squishy' here unless you're a pedantic who wants to revive centuries old long settled controversies. There is no reason whatsoever to refer to them as anything else and when this goes hand in hand with a denial that they are relevant to eastern catholics, a view that is widespread, it is problematic.

A comparison between the council of orange and ecumenical councils is foolish, one is not talking about influence, one is talking about infallibility, no one assigns the latter to the council of orange.

And as for their disappearing I only repeat what they themselves have said.
Reply
(02-17-2012, 04:04 AM)Gerard Wrote: If there were a need for those so-called "Latinizations" or other "Latinizations" to be adopted or re-adopted would you be opposed to that "force" as well or would you welcome it as much as the "forcing" of "DeLatinization" ? 

If there were a true need, no.  But can you think of a reason that would constitute true need, and not merely Latin arrogance?  I don't know of any Latinizations that have truly been needed by the East.

Quote:But the Orthodox were into forcing churches to abandon their traditions like the Georgian rite in favor of the Divine Liturgy, so why is it so important to look Orthodox and not develop as authentically Melkite which includes influence from the Latin Church?  There is no actual reason for appealing to the Orthodox as an ideal. 

It's not that we need to look Orthodox per se, it's just that, those are our authentic traditions.  The Orthodox, technically, aren't practicing Orthodox traditions, they're practicing Catholic Byzantine traditions.

Quote:Nobody is saying you can't work to persuade people that there are other options available. If you can make a case based on something other than running down Melkite/Latin shared traditions, more power to you. 

The Rosary takes about 19 minutes to say at a reasonable pace, how long does Melkite Matins take? 

Matins is usually anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes.

Quote:You might think this is sarcastic but it's not.  Join the Rosary and make your intention for the inclusion of Matins. I'm sure the Blessed Mother would come through for you.

Ok, so what then if there are more people praying the rosary to not have the rosary replaced by matins?  I know the Church isn't a democracy, but what about the communion of saints?

Quote:I don't see why the incorporation of the old tradition has to force the Latinized tradition out.  Baptism is a relatively private event, it doesn't necessarily require the whole parish be present.

So, I don't see how denying the people that want to follow the reasoning laid out for the cognitive reception and preparation for the Lord have to lose that for you to have a private ceremony and you and your child don't have be present at the First Holy Communion services, or you can be present and support them in their parish traditions. 

Well, baptism may be a relatively private event in the Latin tradition, but it is a public event in the Melkite tradition.  I'm not sure how good an idea it is to have two competing traditions going on in the same parish.  What exactly would an FSSP or SSPX priest's reaction be if I were to approach for communion, inform him that I am a Melkite and it is our tradition to receive the Eucharist under both species and that I would like to continue my tradition there?  What would be his reaction if I informed him that I wanted to have my child confirmed and receive communion on the day of his baptism?  They will tell me the exact same thing. "This is a Roman Catholic parish, we do things the Roman way here."

Quote:Answered above. You don't have to stop everyone else from having their children's first communion at the age of reason in the Melkite Church for you to have your child communicated at Baptism. Latin rite Catholics can ask for absolution in the vernacular or Latin if the priest is capable. It's child's play for priest's to know more than one form for the ceremonies. 

Equally answered above.  Which Latin priest would show me the same courtesy in a Latin parish?

Quote:Again, it's a "purity" of traditions thing for you it seems. To those attached to certain Latin practices, they aren't "Latin practices" they are Melkite practices that have become a part of the fabric of the Melkite Church. 

It's very ironic to read that on a website that praises the purity of the older Latin traditions.  The NO traditions have become commonplace for many in the Latin Church.  They are no longer modernist practices, they are Latin practices that have become a part of the fabric of the Latin Church.

Quote:No. I'm saying that you and the bishop are simply repeating the "crime" of "forcing" Melkites to give up their traditions solely because you don't like the particular Church where they came from. The bishop is obviously getting resistance to the "De-Latinization" of Vatican II's criminals and so he's relying on "force" to get his will. He can't actually come up with a spiritually pastoral reason to do what he's doing so, he appeals to pride and strawman arguments against the Melkite traditions that came by way of the Latin Church. 

Being anti-Latin isn't a valid reason for wanting to get rid of Melkite traditions that came by way of the Latin Church.

Well, I certainly get why suffering is so important in the Latin tradition now.  Something wrong was perpetrated against us, and rather than trying to go back and get justice, it's better to just continue living and move on, and to suffer the loss.  Maybe that's why this is such a difficult issue for me.  I've never been good with letting go of the past.  I know what we had before was better, and what my parish in particular has now.  To have something that was rightfully mine robbed from me (I'm speaking more on other issues now) and knowing that I can never get it back, I don't know, I just can't let go.  Knowing that I can never get something back that was good, it makes me feel violated.  Emasculated.  Raped I guess.  I guess that's why I'm so defensive about what Melkite traditions I do have now being taken away.

Have you ever thought about becoming a therapist?  You seem to be helping me work through stuff I didn't even know was there.


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)