Could the Papacy switch rites?

[Hesychios]

I wouldn’t. It’s fairly easy to reclaim something that was abandoned. Not so for something that was suppressed.

OK, perhaps.

But now they have to ask for it back, the superior of the order cannot just say “start using it”.

There is another aspect to these procedures that we have not discussed. Very often, in any type of organization, the leader of a branch or subsidiary will make a decision that goes along with the general policy of the greater organization. In other words, the person might make such a decision before ever being asked, in conformance with company policy. It is something done in anticipation, and if no one involved openly objects, no one outside really knows what the people inside really felt about it.

But we care about these things, and we are looking at it like a voluntary act. Yes, that is true. It is also true that the Greek Catholics of southern Italy 'voluntarily gave up the Byzantine rite. That is an historical fact, their bishops gave it up.

This is largely why the Eastern churches have had to be ordered by Rome to restore their traditions, and I would argue the Carmelites would have to be ordered by Rome to restore their Mass, because on their own they will not ever celebrate it again.

But as to the Carmelites, I am curious about the branches, and whether these were the Calced or Discalced Carmelites who gave up the liturgy, or both at different times.

 

[malphono]

OK, perhaps.

But now they have to ask for it back, the superior of the order cannot just say “start using it”.

I’m not so sure about that. Well, maybe not the Prior General alone, but perhaps in concert with the General Chapter.

As it was explained to me at the time by a Carmelite, when the Novus Ordo was rolled out, Rome did not force it on the Order. The General Chapter then said that it would be left to the Priors Provincial, and at least one Italian province maintained it for some years into the 1970s.

The case of the Dominicans is similar, but there for fact a rescript was given by Rome allowing the continued use of the Dominican Rite at the discretion of the Prior Provincial. Apparently something similar exists for the Cistercians as well, since several abbeys have reverted, in whole or in part, to the proper Cistercian Rite. I do not know if such a rescript exists for the Carmelites. The Carthusians never abandoned their proper Rite in the first place (although it was revised within the past 25 years).

This is largely why the Eastern churches have had to be ordered by Rome to restore their traditions

Several of which Churches politely thumb their noses at that Instruction, and skip merrily down the path of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization.

I would argue the Carmelites would have to be ordered by Rome to restore their Mass, because on their own they will not ever celebrate it again.

As I said above, I’m not so sure about the first part. I have heard (and it is merely hearsay) that there are some younger fraters who are eager to learn the proper Rite. If that’s true, I hope they are successful in helping to turn the tide. The Carmelite Rite is very beautiful, and IMO it would be a great thing to see it used again.

But as to the Carmelites, I am curious about the branches, and whether these were the Calced or Discalced Carmelites who gave up the liturgy, or both at different times.

The Rite is only proper to the O. Carm. As far as I am aware, the OCD never used it: when it was founded, the OCD adopted the Roman Rite.

 

[TP2]

You are mystifying.

You see insults where none is intended, and make insults with reckless abandon.

As you as a priest should know, real Sui Iuris churches have members who are canonically ascribed to them. This can actually be inherited from one’s parent’s or petitioned for by the individual.

Your church does not allow it’s members who attend the Mozarabic rite parishes, the priests who serve it nor the bishops over them to consider themselves as members of a separate church. According to your church they are Latins and nothing else.

The same holds for the Ambrosian rite in Italy. Those two churches were absorbed into the Latin Catholic church many centuries ago and followers are considered Latin Catholics by Sui Iuris church and rite … and nothing else.

Whatever floats your boat. I didn’t call it an insult, maybe it should be called a “jab”? But if you can’t see your insensitivity, I won’t point it out anymore… Yes. I am a priest and I am telling you that your insensitive…and historically slanted.

As to The Catholic Church all your Orthodox Churches over the last centuries have abandoned Orthodoxy for lack of Emperor protection and instead of going underground, they chose to go forward with suffering and resolve and reunite with Rome, Peter. (No Peter, no Apostles, No Church) There are now 350 million Orthodox Faithful all over the world. Is that the best Fruits The EO can do as a sign of It’s Truth? For 2 millenia? Are you kidding me? The Orthodox, sad to say are nothing more than National Churches fighting for juridictions today. Very nice.

And to go back to that quality vs quantity trick you might pull… Don’t. It’s a nice escape “clause”, but too old. The number of Orthodox hasn’t changed for 40 years officially since 1970. The number of Catholics was then marked at 750 Mill… Now it’s 1.8 Billion. Again… It’s not about the quantity… but it sure shows whose “grown” up and whose still stuck…

 

[Leo_The_Great]

TP2,
You are being antisocial and pugnacious. Not qualities I would expect in a real priest.

Haven’t you heard? “The whole world groaned and woke to find itself Arian!”

75-80% of Orthodox Catholic Bishops in the 4th century apostasized from the faith!!!

So where was the church? “A hundred thousand, is that the best you ‘Catholics’ can do?”

You should know better than to assume truth is limited to numbers. Besides, the Roman Catholic Church has always had an empire at its back, or acted in place of the emperor; the Orthodox church lost it after the 15th century, AND THEY STILL EXIST?! By the way the Pope did not call any of the First seven ecumenical councils. It was the Emperor.

Sounds to me like Christ has watered this old Oak of a Church with Blood and he is keeping it alive and strong for his own reasons. I am Catholic, so I believe there is only one Church, but obviously the Holy Spirit has preserved the Orthodox who are deeply rooted in apostolic spirituality, perhaps for “Such a time as this?”

Be careful whom you slander, lest you find yourself slandering the will of God, and thus God himself. “If this movement be of men, it will come to nothing, but if it is of God…do you want to be found fighting God?”

Mind your tongue laddie. :tiphat: The numbers prove nothing.

 

[TP2]

You should know better than to assume truth is limited to numbers. Besides, the Roman Catholic Church has always had an empire at its back, or acted in place of the emperor; the Orthodox church lost it after the 15th century, AND THEY STILL EXIST?! By the way the Pope did not call any of the First seven ecumenical councils. It was the Emperor.

Sounds to me like Christ has watered this old Oak of a Church with Blood and he is keeping it alive and strong for his own reasons. I am Catholic, so I believe there is only one Church, but obviously the Holy Spirit has preserved the Orthodox who are deeply rooted in apostolic spirituality, perhaps for “Such a time as this?”

Be careful whom you slander, lest you find yourself slandering the will of God, and thus God himself. “If this movement be of men, it will come to nothing, but if it is of God…do you want to be found fighting God?”

Mind your tongue laddie. :tiphat: The numbers prove nothing.

We are all entitled to our opinions now, aren’t we "LEO… "

The numbers are extremely important because they show the True Church could bloom. Unlike it’s shadow “other”…

Deeply rooted in what? Recriminations and in fighting for Jurisdictional power instead of sending missionaries to teach and to preach as was Christ’s Command. Sorry. You lose on that one all day long. The fruits are in the growth. Orthodoxy has none.

 

[trophybearer]

We are all entitled to our opinions now, aren’t we "LEO… "

The numbers are extremely important because they show the True Church could bloom. Unlike it’s shadow “other”…

Deeply rooted in what? Recriminations and in fighting for Jurisdictional power instead of sending missionaries to teach and to preach as was Christ’s Command. Sorry. You lose on that one all day long. The fruits are in the growth. Orthodoxy has none.

“The fruits are in the growth.” I’m sure the Arians said the same thing.

 

[WetCatechumen]

“The fruits are in the growth.” I’m sure the Arians said the same thing.

I’m afraid I agree with you, my brother.

Us being the biggest is not a good argument. So many of our laity, while they attend a church which calls itself Catholic, their faith is not Catholic. Humanae Vitae has been rejected en masse by the church (although the faithful among us still believe). In terms of raw numbers, the non-catholic believers in the Roman Church outnumber the Catholic Christians among us.

Father TP, the real argument that proves that they are unorthodox is their acceptance of contraception. The Fathers would have been horrified, the Apostles would have excommunicated them and Jesus Christ would forbid them from entering his Kingdom. When as a whole, their communion has abandoned the apostolic faith that Patriarch Athenagoras applauded Pope Paul for defending.

We still defend the fullness of the apostolic faith and do not actively fight God when he wishes to bring more human beings into existence.

 

[trophybearer]

I’m afraid I agree with you, my schismatic brother.

Us being the biggest is not a good argument. So many of our laity, while they attend a church which calls itself Catholic, their faith is not Catholic. Humanae Vitae has been rejected en masse by the church (although the faithful among us still believe). In terms of raw numbers, the non-catholic believers in the Roman Church outnumber the Catholic Christians among us.

Father TP, the real argument that proves that they are unorthodox is their acceptance of contraception. The Fathers would have been horrified, the Apostles would have excommunicated them and Jesus Christ would forbid them from entering his Kingdom. When as a whole, their communion has abandoned the apostolic faith that Patriarch Athenagoras applauded Pope Paul for defending.

We still defend the fullness of the apostolic faith and do not actively fight God when he wishes to bring more human beings into existence.

Thanks so much for the “schismatic”. I’d call you the same but there’s no need for things like that. You’re awfully judgmental for a catechumen, aren’t you?

 

[WetCatechumen]

Thanks so much for the “schismatic”. I’d call you the same but there’s no need for things like that. You’re awfully judgmental for a catechumen, aren’t you?

I was joking. I apologize for the use of the word.

 

[TP2]

“The fruits are in the growth.” I’m sure the Arians said the same thing.

Oh stop already, will you? How many Arians do you see walking the streets today… Our you saying The Catholic Church is Arian? Remember, The East supported Arianism. Don’t ipen that door…More heresies developed in the Eastern Churches than anywhere!!

Yes, The Catholic Church has growth because it did not shut the door on itslef and get national but international big time. What has the EO church given as a Fruit of Itself? What? Name one Public act of good will to other religions, governments, peoples other than themselves that the EO has done through the ages accept complain and dissent?

At one point in time the whole Church was Arian, almost"… That would include the Orthodox… too.

 

[trophybearer]

Oh stop already, will you? How many Arians do you see walking the streets today… Our you saying The Catholic Church is Arian? Remember, The East supported Arianism. Don’t ipen that door…More heresies developed in the Eastern Churches than anywhere!!

Yes, The Catholic Church has growth because it did not shut the door on itslef and get national but international big time. What has the EO church given as a Fruit of Itself? What? Name one Public act of good will to other religions, governments, peoples other than themselves that the EO has done through the ages accept complain and dissent?

At one point in time the whole Church was Arian, almost"… That would include the Orthodox… too.

…and at one point a great number of the Church left with Rome- but the Orthodox Catholic Church remained whole. Were the RCC to go the way of Arianism the Church would remain as Christ promised. Then again, I do see Arians walking around the street every day. They even ring my doorbell! They call themselves Jehova’s Witnesses now though.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

…and at one point a great number of the Church left with Rome- but the Orthodox Catholic Church remained whole. Were the RCC to go the way of Arianism the Church would remain as Christ promised. Then again, I do see Arians walking around the street every day. They even ring my doorbell! They call themselves Jehova’s Witnesses now though.

The Orthodox Church did not remain whole, there are multiple jurisdictions that have no control over each other. So in reality there are many Orthodox Churches, not one.

The Catholic Chruch remains as one with each of the sui iuris being in communion with the Pope.

 

[Hesychios]

The Orthodox Church did not remain whole, there are multiple jurisdictions that have no control over each other. So in reality there are many Orthodox Churches, not one.

The Catholic Chruch remains as one with each of the sui iuris being in communion with the Pope.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “under the control of the Pope” ? Being one church, according to this line of thought, implies a reporting order, and the church does formally claim that the Pope has the control if he should choose to exercise it.

 

[dcointin]

The Orthodox Church did not remain whole, there are multiple jurisdictions that have no control over each other. So in reality there are many Orthodox Churches, not one.

The Catholic Chruch remains as one with each of the sui iuris being in communion with the Pope.

Orthodoxy doesn’t think of unity in terms of administration, but in terms of sacramental communion. The Church is the “mystical body of Christ”, united with Christ through faith and the sacraments, and with one another through him. As long as churches are in communion with each other, i.e. freely share the sacraments with one another, they are one in Christ. I think that Catholics too often ignore this fundamental reality with their emphasis on office of the papacy as the source of unity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Orthodoxy doesn’t think of unity in terms of administration, but in terms of sacramental communion. The Church is the “mystical body of Christ”, united with Christ through faith and the sacraments, and with one another through him. As long as churches are in communion with each other, i.e. freely share the sacraments with one another, they are one in Christ. I think that Catholics too often ignore this fundamental reality with their emphasis on office of the papacy as the source of unity.

The source of our unity is shared communion. It is just most visible through the papacy.

 

[Vico]

Orthodoxy doesn’t think of unity in terms of administration, but in terms of sacramental communion. The Church is the “mystical body of Christ”, united with Christ through faith and the sacraments, and with one another through him. As long as churches are in communion with each other, i.e. freely share the sacraments with one another, they are one in Christ. I think that Catholics too often ignore this fundamental reality with their emphasis on office of the papacy as the source of unity.

Maybe I misunderstand, but what I read before is that, for Orthodoxy, sharing the Orthodox faith is the pre-requisite to sharing the mysteries. Rather, in the Catholic Church, the hierarchy, mysteries, and faith (dogma) are required for full communion, but sister Churches (Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Polish Catholic Church, etc.) share less than full communion.

 

[dcointin]

Maybe I misunderstand, but what I read before is that, for Orthodoxy, sharing the Orthodox faith is the pre-requisite to sharing the mysteries. Rather, in the Catholic Church, the hierarchy, mysteries, and faith (dogma) are required for full communion, but sister Churches (Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Polish Catholic Church, etc.) share less than full communion.

That’s correct, Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other (i.e. share the sacraments, concelebrate at certain occasions, participate in councils together, etc.) because they recognize that they have the same faith and essential practices. What I was trying to do is contrast the Orthodox mystical view of communion against the Catholic administrative one. It just seems to me that Catholics seem to stress “submission to the Pope” so much that the essential nature of what communion really is seems to be lost. I believe that it’s not primarily a thing of submission to an authority, although certainly the historic hierarchy of the Church’s administration is important.

 

[Vico]

That’s correct, Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other (i.e. share the sacraments, concelebrate at certain occasions, participate in councils together, etc.) because they recognize that they have the same faith and essential practices. What I was trying to do is contrast the Orthodox mystical view of communion against the Catholic administrative one. It just seems to me that Catholics seem to stress “submission to the Pope” so much that the essential nature of what communion really is seems to be lost. I believe that it’s not primarily a thing of submission to an authority, although certainly the historic hierarchy of the Church’s administration is important.

I see, there does seem to be a pronounced difference there. There is a Catholic Church understanding of hierarchy as twofold: orders (mysteries) and jurisdiction (Church), mirroring faith and works. Orders trumps jurisdiction.

Baptism gives fundamental communion but excommunication does not erase but rather means sanctions effect the exercise of ones rights an obligations. This idea may be different also.

I don’t know the Orthodox concepts equivalent to these.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Orthodoxy doesn’t think of unity in terms of administration, but in terms of sacramental communion. The Church is the “mystical body of Christ”, united with Christ through faith and the sacraments, and with one another through him. As long as churches are in communion with each other, i.e. freely share the sacraments with one another, they are one in Christ. I think that Catholics too often ignore this fundamental reality with their emphasis on office of the papacy as the source of unity.

Hmmmm… I think “administration” and questions of jurisdiction (and power politics for that matter) do indeed also enter into questions of “sacramental communion” in World Orthodoxy. I do not believe it so clear-cut at all.

For instance: the situation in Estonia:
1/ One Orthodox Church under the EP of Constantinople. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Apostolic_Orthodox_Church

2/ Another Orthodox Church under the MP of Russia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Orthodox_Church_of_Moscow_Patriarchate

Things got so bad that the-then Patriarch of Moscow temporarily removed the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch from the diptychs in the 1990s. Now surely this has more to do than with just “sacramental communion”.

At a meeting in Ravenna in early October 2007 of participants in the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue Conference, the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, walked out of the meeting due to the presence of representatives from the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (EP). The Ecumenical See’s representative in Ravenna said that Hilarion’s position “should be seen as an expression of authoritarianism whose goal is to exhibit the influence of the Moscow Church. But like last year in Belgrade, all Moscow achieved was to isolate itself once more since no other Orthodox Church followed its lead, remaining instead faithful to Constantinople.” catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=54270

In my humble opinion, there is more to “sacramental communion” in Orthodoxy than simply uniting in Christ through faith and sacraments; clearly “earthly” concerns are also quite palpable. In any event, this might be taking a tangent and digression away from the original OP but I merely wished to comment on the post.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Orthodox Church did not remain whole, there are multiple jurisdictions that have no control over each other. So in reality there are many Orthodox Churches, not one.

The Catholic Chruch remains as one with each of the sui iuris being in communion with the Pope.

Liddell and Scott translation of “εκκλησια”:

2 in NT, the Church, as a body of Christians, Ev.Matt. 16.18, 1 Ep.Cor.11.22 ; ἡ κατ’ οἶκόν τινος ἐ. Ep.Rom.16.5 ; as a building, Cod.Just.1.1.5 Intr., etc.

Notice the definition says “a body”, not “the body”, it doesn’t define boundries. Similarly Orthodox do the same thing, It is quite possible to have “a body of Christians” within “a [greater] body of Christians”.

The Orthodox communion, itself is The Church, an individual jurisdiction within The Church is a church.

Just because we don’t have a central authority does not mean we are not whole, that is a fallacy. Centralization is not implied in the definition of εκκλησια, and never has been.