It's good to be a Melkite
#21
Oh for crying out loud vetus, we've been through this before.  Rosaries are fine, it's a personal devotion, no one is trying to stop individuals from praying the rosary.  Stations of the cross take place on fridays during lent.  We have our own tradition that takes place on fridays of lent, so stations at least have to be moved to another date and time, although I suspect it's kind of important to Latins to have it on Fridays?  We have our own form of eucharistic adoration, which is not at all ceremonialized, but having the Latin form does hurt our understanding of the Eucharist, which is the central component of the liturgy.  Having an extra-liturgical eucharistic procession or exposition, while not inherently wrong, is contrary to our eucharistic spirituality.  As for Corpus Christi, it's not a big day for us, or even on the same date, but I think among Eastern Catholics, the Melkites are the only ones that have not expunged the feast of the Body of Christ from our calendar.
Reply
#22
(02-13-2012, 10:01 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 09:57 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 09:47 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I'm not sure this is about sclerosis or antiquarianism.  A lot of the latinizations were forced upon the Eastern Catholics for bad reasons.  A superficial and overly concrete understanding of "unity" and "conformity" were the main motivations, and they were relatively recent.

The East, IMHO, has every right to undo every single one of these.  Individual customs or changes, from East or West, can than be considered case by case if something is very helpful (like Eastern Catholics taking up the Rosary).  But as an autonomous Church, why should they have to justify returning to their own practices and have to account for every single thing they return to?

I'm still at a loss to understand how certain so-called "latinisations" are to simply be rejected by Catholics of the Eastern rites. Rosaries? Stations of the Cross? Eucharistic adoration? Corpus Christi? What's wrong with these practices? Nothing. Do they harm their spirituality and understanding of the faith? Impossible. While these practices were not Apostolic, they nonetheless reflect a normal maturing of the faith that occured in the Church. We're not stuck in the 3rd century or in the 11th.

The main reason the Eastern bishops wish to de-latinise is the the same reason that prevents many Orthodox from converting: aversion to anything post-1054. And that is intellectual sclerosis, if not outright superstition.

But they don't reflect a "normal maturing of the faith" everywhere.  They were forced on the Easterners in recent times, and the Latin hierarchy were not concerned with even harmonizing them with the Eastern traditions.  So Easterners have a right to want to go back.

I don't think they'd be justified in condemning the practices.  But they can say, "we are going back wholesale and removing these because they were artificially tacked on.  If some individual practices are harmonized and valuable, we can add them or retain them, but as a rule, we are not going to just tack on things from the West because we were forced to in the past."

The Eastern churches fell en masse into schism by 1054 and the anti-Latinism of their clergy even precedes that. This event created a spiritual enclave in the East that unfortunately produced an intellectual sclerosis and a superstitious aversion of all things western that continues to this day and that must be acknowledged whenever we speak of latinisations, scholasticism and so forth. The first churches to break from Constantinople were the Ruthenians and that only occurred in the 16th century. Some of these so-called latinisations were forced upon the Uniates but many times they wilfully and enthusiastically adopted them as a way to show their allegiance to Rome, the living Body of Christ which didn't stop thinking and evolving in 1054, and their distancing from the Eastern schismatics. Why would you consider a 400 year old tradition in the East "artificial"? It's nonsensical. I'd call it a normal development, once assimilated into their own church life which it has.

The current move to de-latinise is not healthy in any way. It's a misguided produce of ecumenism.
Reply
#23
(02-13-2012, 10:00 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As we had the opportunity to exchange a few thoughts about this last year, I'll restate what I said then: I'd be more than willing to accept some "byzantinisations" like icons and the iconostasis, for instance.

But are you willing to accept all of them, for the sake of liturgical unity?  We don't need to be liturgically identical to be united to the Latins.  Having your own liturgy in no way scandalizes us or makes us feel separated from you.  You are the one here who seems to feel liturgical diversity equates to implied schism.  If it is so important to you that we all worship alike, would you be willing to accept all of our different practices to achieve that goal?
Reply
#24
(02-13-2012, 10:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: We have our own form of eucharistic adoration, which is not at all ceremonialized, but having the Latin form does hurt our understanding of the Eucharist, which is the central component of the liturgy.  Having an extra-liturgical eucharistic procession or exposition, while not inherently wrong, is contrary to our eucharistic spirituality.

How can it be contrary to your eucharistic spirituality? Aren't you part of the same Church? Don't you believe in the same faith? How can the procession of Christ throught the streets, blessing the homes and the people, "hurt" you in any way?

This is nonsensical. It's the kind of divionism that I loathe.

Quote:As for Corpus Christi, it's not a big day for us, or even on the same date, but I think among Eastern Catholics, the Melkites are the only ones that have not expunged the feast of the Body of Christ from our calendar.

Thank God.
Reply
#25
(02-13-2012, 10:13 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 10:00 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As we had the opportunity to exchange a few thoughts about this last year, I'll restate what I said then: I'd be more than willing to accept some "byzantinisations" like icons and the iconostasis, for instance.

But are you willing to accept all of them, for the sake of liturgical unity?  We don't need to be liturgically identical to be united to the Latins.  Having your own liturgy in no way scandalizes us or makes us feel separated from you.  You are the one here who seems to feel liturgical diversity equates to implied schism.  If it is so important to you that we all worship alike, would you be willing to accept all of our different practices to achieve that goal?

I wouldn't be opposed to a mixed rite, although that's unlikely to ever happen. If it were to see the light of day, though, it wouldn't be the TLM or the Divine Liturgy as they are today but something more encompassing. Some practices would be eastern, others would be western. But that's just speculation.

Liturgical diversity is not a problem per se, but I do see a problem in the self-imposed enclave of Eastern churches that take pride in being different from the rest.
Reply
#26
(02-13-2012, 10:01 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: But they don't reflect a "normal maturing of the faith" everywhere.  They were forced on the Easterners in recent times, and the Latin hierarchy were not concerned with even harmonizing them with the Eastern traditions.  So Easterners have a right to want to go back.

I don't think they'd be justified in condemning the practices.  But they can say, "we are going back wholesale and removing these because they were artificially tacked on.  If some individual practices are harmonized and valuable, we can add them or retain them, but as a rule, we are not going to just tack on things from the West because we were forced to in the past."

I agree on some points, Paul VI changed the Latin rites of consecration of bishops to be closer to some of the Eastern rites and the lack of clarity in the form has lead to doubtful validity and sedevacantist arguments. 

But you have to recognize, you're being forced to remove things that were brought over from the West now, regardless of whether they were tacked on, or helped the faith of the people.  And this is done by the same anti-traditionalist bishops and heirarchy that decimated the Latin Church by removing spiritual defenses. 

The normal maturing of the faith is forced all the time and so is the suppression of the faith.  

It seems a number of Easterners don't want to remove all Latin influence and the bishop is "forcing" them to and he'll run down and ridicule Latin customs in order to fulfill Rome's command to him to remove anything from the Latin Church that edifies the faithful.  

By the way, as soon as two people do any one practice, it becomes a tradition.  There can be and are new traditions developed that are not novelties, and the East's culture and influence will automatically make Latin traditions their own, just as Eastern traditional practices can and do become Latin traditions.  
Reply
#27
(02-13-2012, 10:22 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 10:01 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: But they don't reflect a "normal maturing of the faith" everywhere.  They were forced on the Easterners in recent times, and the Latin hierarchy were not concerned with even harmonizing them with the Eastern traditions.  So Easterners have a right to want to go back.

I don't think they'd be justified in condemning the practices.  But they can say, "we are going back wholesale and removing these because they were artificially tacked on.  If some individual practices are harmonized and valuable, we can add them or retain them, but as a rule, we are not going to just tack on things from the West because we were forced to in the past."

I agree on some points, Paul VI changed the Latin rites of consecration of bishops to be closer to some of the Eastern rites and the lack of clarity in the form has lead to doubtful validity and sedevacantist arguments. 

But you have to recognize, you're being forced to remove things that were brought over from the West now, regardless of whether they were tacked on, or helped the faith of the people.  And this is done by the same anti-traditionalist bishops and heirarchy that decimated the Latin Church by removing spiritual defenses. 

The normal maturing of the faith is forced all the time and so is the suppression of the faith.  

It seems a number of Easterners don't want to remove all Latin influence and the bishop is "forcing" them to and he'll run down and ridicule Latin customs in order to fulfill Rome's command to him to remove anything from the Latin Church that edifies the faithful.  

By the way, as soon as two people do any one practice, it becomes a tradition.  There can be and are new traditions developed that are not novelties, and the East's culture and influence will automatically make Latin traditions their own, just as Eastern traditional practices can and do become Latin traditions.  

I think you and Vetus have good points.  But I think especially Vetus is generalizing too far.  (He is generalizing that Eastern suspicion of Latin practices must permeate all efforts to return to Eastern roots).

Returning to the practice of communing infants is great.  +Nicholas didn't suggest we in the Latin Rite should do this.

Praying the rosary, individually or as a community is great.  But if an Eastern pastor decides that parish rosary in the afternoons will be replaced by Vespers, that's a good thing.  It's not something against the rosary, but the East (actually the West too) should recover the tradition of emphasizing public celebration of Vepers (and Matins!) with the people.

I also don't see the need, at all, for a mixed rite or bring good Latinizations to the East or good Byzantinizations to the West.  I am happy when I go to a Byzantine church to experience everything the Eastern way including, depending upon where I am, standing the whole time, receiving the intincted leavened Host standing, praying in the Vernacular and/or Slavonic, seeing the iconostasis, going by the Julian Calendar, making the sign of the Cross from right to left.

When I go to my usual Latin Rite Church I am happy not to do any of those things.
Reply
#28
(02-13-2012, 10:19 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Liturgical diversity is not a problem per se, but I do see a problem in the self-imposed enclave of Eastern churches that take pride in being different from the rest.

Do you not take, even some meager, pride in being Portuguese over being Spanish?  Do you not take some pride in having had a traditional Catholic grandmother in your family rather than being born into a thoroughly modernized family?
Reply
#29
(02-13-2012, 10:30 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: going by the Julian Calendar

Adherence to the Julian calendar is not something to be proud of but it's rather a symptom of sheer idiocy. The East refused to adopt the Gregorian calendar purely out of anti-Roman sentiments, the same way England and other Protestant countries did.
Reply
#30
(02-13-2012, 10:53 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 10:19 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Liturgical diversity is not a problem per se, but I do see a problem in the self-imposed enclave of Eastern churches that take pride in being different from the rest.

Do you not take, even some meager, pride in being Portuguese over being Spanish?  Do you not take some pride in having had a traditional Catholic grandmother in your family rather than being born into a thoroughly modernized family?

National pride has to be tempered with levelheadness and cannot take precedence over religious matters. The Portuguese share the same rite as the rest of the Western church: we're all brothers in Christ. This union was especially enhanced by the constancy and universality of the TLM. The peculiar religious traditions of the country are completely accessory.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)