S
Seamus_L
Guest
I believe most Orthodox believers would beg to differ with your assessment, Ghosty.
- Status
D
Diak
Guest
Since Rome herself has exhorted the Eastern Catholics to be ever more faithful to each particular Church’s liturgy and spirituality, especially during and after the Second Vatican Council, what may be seen as “anti-Roman” may actually be a greater fidelity of our particular Churches to guidance from Rome and our own Synods in this regard.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Which part? If you mean about the differences being minor, that’s frankly their issue. As Eastern Catholics we don’t view the issues as serious, and the fact that the Catholic Communion views Orthodox theology as non-problematic, and that it co-exists with Latin theology within the Communion proves that for us it’s not a problem.
Peace and God bless!
A
Addai
Guest
But Eastern Catholics should be use to that. Their minority status is much more extreme in other counteries.
as an example…
“Outsiders In Their Own Land”
thetablet.co.uk/article/10564
A
Aramis
Guest
On of the big problems with the EC/EO relationship was abuses by the likes of HG Nicholas Elko… a Ruthenian Catholic Eparch, vested as a Latin bishop, sans maniple. (Ah, the joys of the old photos…)
Many Orthodox still believe that such liturgical mish-mash still occurs, and that it will occur to them, too, should they reunite. They are wrong on both counts, but truth has seldom inhibited propaganda on either side.
Many Orthodox still believe that such liturgical mish-mash still occurs, and that it will occur to them, too, should they reunite. They are wrong on both counts, but truth has seldom inhibited propaganda on either side.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
No, if anything, let the Chaldean Church be an example of the solidarity between Rome and the rest of the Church. Mar Emmanuel III Delly, now Cardinal, is clearly a symbol of this unity. Further, it was Rome that insisted we remove the filioque from our Creed. If by “moving away from Rome” means “getting back to our roots”, then the answer is yes. If it refers to dissonance, then no.
I
india_ker_pala
Guest
In the 16th or 17th century, the Syriac Christians in Iraq (Messepotomia) were under the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius. Iraq was a French colony. There was sultan in Iraq. The French governor asked the sultan to impose heavy taxes on syriac christians. As a result almost all of them were forced to be converted to Catholic rite, which was the aim of French on imposing tax. That is the caldean catholic church in Iraq now under Patriarch Immanuel delly.
When you are proud of your dignity to Rome, do not forget these past events which are painful to Syriac church.
When you are proud of your dignity to Rome, do not forget these past events which are painful to Syriac church.
A
Addai
Guest
Your mixing up lemons with limes. The Chaldeans come from the Assyrian Church of the East, and not the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. The Jacobite Syriacs became the Syriac Catholic Church.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I think the growth of the Priestly Society of St Josaphat in Western Ukraine is a pretty good indication that there is real oppositon to false, one sided ecumenism, and to the so called de-Latinization process.
D
Diak
Guest
I would challenge the assertions of the last post. The “Priestly Society of St. Josaphat” is only a few parishes, and is not growing. In fact, one of their primary supporters, the “Transalpine Redemptoritsts” recently reconciled with Rome and have agreed to support the efforts of the canonical Redemptorists working with the UGCC (several UGCC bishops are Redemptorists) rather than the schismatics.
To respond to the opening post on this thread, what may actually be seen by some (perhaps unduly ultramontane) as “anti-Roman” may actually be a greater fidelity to the directives of Rome and our Synods, especially since the Second Vatican Council.
In fact the Instruction on Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Eastern Code of Canons promulgated by Rome specifically states that liturgical texts should conform to those in use by the Orthodox when possible.
Statements like
It sounds with that kind of language that perhaps your issues are with the post-conciliar Latin Church rather than our particular Church.
To respond to the opening post on this thread, what may actually be seen by some (perhaps unduly ultramontane) as “anti-Roman” may actually be a greater fidelity to the directives of Rome and our Synods, especially since the Second Vatican Council.
In fact the Instruction on Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Eastern Code of Canons promulgated by Rome specifically states that liturgical texts should conform to those in use by the Orthodox when possible.
Statements like
are most certainly polemic in tone, so don’t open a post with an indication that you don’t mean to be “antagonistic” when you make exactly those sorts of statements later. As a Ukrainian Greek Catholic deacon I do not appreciate this sort of blanket judgement passed on my Patriarch and hierarchy, who have endured one of the most bloody and heinous persecutions of any Christians in history and are attempting to be faithful to the spirit of the Union, the authentic traditions of the Kyivan Church, and be faithful to the guidance from Rome to be the same.
It sounds with that kind of language that perhaps your issues are with the post-conciliar Latin Church rather than our particular Church.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Then could you please show me where the Orthodox Churches are being asked to accept that which is contrary to there traditions, doctrines etc ? All the proposed changes I’m seeing are on the RC side. One need only read the statements of any Orthodox Church to see that the view from the other side of the fence is quite different.
D
Diak
Guest
??? Neither Catholics or Orthodox are “being asked to accept that which is contrary to these traditions, doctrines, etc.”.
If we are to be true to our particular ritual Church heritage and tradition as Rome and our Synod has asked us, that is not at all contrary to any aspect of our faith, but rather fidelity to the original covenant of communion between our particular Church and Rome. That Union has statements such as
Perhaps you are unaware that there is not unilateral agreement within the Orthodox Churches on how to proceed with dialogue with the Catholics. In fact some Orthodox Churches are already very critical of the ecumenical dialogue between some other Orthodox Churches such as the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Romanian and some other Orthodox Churches with the Roman and Greek Catholic Churches.
It is best to let those involved in the dialogue work it out, pray for their endeavors, and especially leave it to the hierarchs being faithful to Rome rather than levy third-party assessments of what one believes should be “real oppositon to false, one sided ecumenism, and to the so called de-Latinization process”.
If we are to be true to our particular ritual Church heritage and tradition as Rome and our Synod has asked us, that is not at all contrary to any aspect of our faith, but rather fidelity to the original covenant of communion between our particular Church and Rome. That Union has statements such as
and
and
and so forth. It does not state we have to succomb to Latin accretions and practices, but rather to be faithful to our own. If that puts us closer to the Orthodox, as it should since that is where we came from, all the better. It in no way compromises what our hierarchs and Rome agreed to in the Union.
Perhaps you are unaware that there is not unilateral agreement within the Orthodox Churches on how to proceed with dialogue with the Catholics. In fact some Orthodox Churches are already very critical of the ecumenical dialogue between some other Orthodox Churches such as the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Romanian and some other Orthodox Churches with the Roman and Greek Catholic Churches.
It is best to let those involved in the dialogue work it out, pray for their endeavors, and especially leave it to the hierarchs being faithful to Rome rather than levy third-party assessments of what one believes should be “real oppositon to false, one sided ecumenism, and to the so called de-Latinization process”.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Dear Seamus,
I would not worry about it. The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church and has gone through turbulent times, bad Popes and the sex scandals and has emerged through all that renewed.
She is His Church and He will take care of her. God knows what He’s on about. If something happens that is not to our wishes then God has allowed it according to His own Wisdom.
Let us just continue praying for holy priests and laity and an ever growing unity and leave the rest to God.
Be at Peace, Christ is with us.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I don’t worry about it Benedictus, and even if I did, I’m just a lay person and a Roman Catholic one at that. My strongest sympathies will continue to be with those Ukrainian Catholics, Ruthenians, Maronites, Chaldeans, Armenian Catholics, etc who wish to retain Catholic devotions and identity.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Sadly, more than a few glib polemicists seem to prefer it when Greek Catholics demonstrate and adopt certain latinizations… At least from the standpoint of a certain ilk of polemicists, it gives great fodder to point, mock, and curl their toes all the while.
W
Woody_The_Just
Guest
The question should not be whether Eastern Catholics are moving away from Rome. The question should be why do Latins think of themselves as the only true Catholics. I am a Roman Catholic who grew up in the Diocese of Youngstown and the city of Canton, which also happens to be the See of the Romanian Catholic Eparchy of St. George. I never attended a Byzantine Catholic Church until 1999 although I had been to a Divine Liturgy at a friends Antiochene Orthodox Church. At that time, I saw the “Latinization” as many of the high school students had received the sacraments according to the Latin Church’s disciplines, the church had kneelers, and there was holy water. None of those things are “bad” in and of themselves. Yet, this was not their theological tradition and now Bishop John Michael is reensuring that the Romanian Church returns to its spiritual patrimony.
Yes, this does include a married clergy. We need to remember that when Eastern Catholics came to the US, especially Russians, Ukrainians, etc that the Latin Bishops did not accept the validity of their ordinations. Thus, one result was the fact that the first US Born Russian Orthodox saint was an Eastern Catholic Priest.
I have friends who are celibate and married priests in the Romanian and Roman Catholic churches. Both groups are holy. Both are devoted to their Church. Also, we can not simply say that the Roman Catholic Church has a celibate priesthood as this would be to deny the Pastoral Provision granted to Lutherans and Anglicans.
I have studied the Church Fathers and one should see that despite polemics from both sides that the East views marriage and priesthood as vocations that are not exclusive to each other.
In fact, the fact that Eastern Bishops are allowed to ordain priests who are married in the US rather than having to ordain them in a “home country” and classifying them as visiting priests is demonstration that the “de-Latinizing process” had approval from Rome.
Finally, it should be recognized that prior to Trent that there were numerous liturgies in the west such as the Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, Benedectine that co-existed with equal dignity and without unity being compromised. In fact, the Benedictine Liturgy is now being celebrated in Alaska and some are asking whether the Ecclesia Dei commission will allow for many of the other western liturgies to be celebrated (yes, I know the Ambrosian liturgy is celebrated still). What this proves is that the Church can survive with liturgical diversity especially with Anglican-use parishes being in use throughout the US.
Moreover, the “de-Latinization” process makes us aware that the Catholic Church is composed of many churches and not just the Latin Church. This needs to be emphasized because not all Eastern Christians celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy. I learned this by living outside of Detroit when I went to Liturgy at the Chaldean Church, the Melkite Church, the Romanian Church, the Latin Church, the Maronite Church, and the Ukranian Church.
What does this mean. Well, it means that I can adopt many different devotions such as The Jesus Prayer devotion, the Acathist Prayer, the Rosary, praying with icons, etc. I am richer for this. In fact if it had not been for an Orthodox friend who writes icons I would not have come home to the Catholic Church after drifting into evangelicalism.
God Bless !
Woody the Just
Yes, this does include a married clergy. We need to remember that when Eastern Catholics came to the US, especially Russians, Ukrainians, etc that the Latin Bishops did not accept the validity of their ordinations. Thus, one result was the fact that the first US Born Russian Orthodox saint was an Eastern Catholic Priest.
I have friends who are celibate and married priests in the Romanian and Roman Catholic churches. Both groups are holy. Both are devoted to their Church. Also, we can not simply say that the Roman Catholic Church has a celibate priesthood as this would be to deny the Pastoral Provision granted to Lutherans and Anglicans.
I have studied the Church Fathers and one should see that despite polemics from both sides that the East views marriage and priesthood as vocations that are not exclusive to each other.
In fact, the fact that Eastern Bishops are allowed to ordain priests who are married in the US rather than having to ordain them in a “home country” and classifying them as visiting priests is demonstration that the “de-Latinizing process” had approval from Rome.
Finally, it should be recognized that prior to Trent that there were numerous liturgies in the west such as the Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, Benedectine that co-existed with equal dignity and without unity being compromised. In fact, the Benedictine Liturgy is now being celebrated in Alaska and some are asking whether the Ecclesia Dei commission will allow for many of the other western liturgies to be celebrated (yes, I know the Ambrosian liturgy is celebrated still). What this proves is that the Church can survive with liturgical diversity especially with Anglican-use parishes being in use throughout the US.
Moreover, the “de-Latinization” process makes us aware that the Catholic Church is composed of many churches and not just the Latin Church. This needs to be emphasized because not all Eastern Christians celebrate the Byzantine Liturgy. I learned this by living outside of Detroit when I went to Liturgy at the Chaldean Church, the Melkite Church, the Romanian Church, the Latin Church, the Maronite Church, and the Ukranian Church.
What does this mean. Well, it means that I can adopt many different devotions such as The Jesus Prayer devotion, the Acathist Prayer, the Rosary, praying with icons, etc. I am richer for this. In fact if it had not been for an Orthodox friend who writes icons I would not have come home to the Catholic Church after drifting into evangelicalism.
God Bless !
Woody the Just
M
malphono
Guest
I believe that the Gallican usage had expired before Trent.
The Ambrosian usage still exists in its unexpurgated form, but as with the EF in the Latin rite, that is the exception. Unfortunately (at least it is to me) the Ambrosian usage now it has its own post-conciliar version (think 1970 Roman Missal).
The Mozarabic and Bragan usages are also still alive. So are the proper usages of the Cistercians and Dominicans. So too is the Carthusian usage (albeit in a slightly reformed manner). The one that seems to be truly moribund at this stage is the Carmelite.
Not that it matters much, but I have never heard of a “Benedictine usage.”
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
I readily admit that I could be wrong on this… but I believe the Carmelite Monks in Wyoming are making an effort to use the Carmelite rite… I was aware of at least one other group that (some years ago) were exploring doing the same…
Again, I could be wrong, but I thought this was the case…
M
Madaglan
Guest
I never heard of Bragan until you mentioned it. Very interesting. Of Portugal.
Sounds like a Hindu Rite that emphasizes veganism.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, I’ve heard of that Wyoming group, but I’m not sure how truly “Carmelite” they are. For one thing, they call themselves “monks” whereas Carmelites have always been mendicant friars. They don’t live in monasteries. They live in priories. For another, I have no idea of their standing within the Order. Are they subject to the Prior General?
- Status