Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[Jordan_Francis]

It seems to me that the Pope could not throw out the Divine Liturgy because, as I believe Ratzinger himself has said, the office of the Pope exists as a “final guarantee against the defection from Tradition”. Tossing out a Liturgy merely on his own personal whim, without some kind of sense of the faithful, would represent exactly that- a defection from a tradition, and such an action would give just cause for the Church to rebel against that decision.

(From my small understanding of these issues, anyways).

 

[SyroMalankara]

I specifically said it was not impossible, just like a lot of other things. If you think it is possible, then instead of just dreaming, show me specifically the plan and the way in which this is going to come about. It is a dream, It is not realistic, because the Latin Catholics are making a big deal about when the Orthodox cleaned up a small portion of an area at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Latin Catholics made a big stink and required them to put everything back into the disorder and mess that it was before the Orthodox cleaned it up, becasue they siad that they were not consulted on the plans for the cleanup. If the Latin Catholics are so petty and picky about such a minor thing, well, I don’t see how any unity will ever result, given such a mean and petty attitude as they show in this case and other cases at the Chuch of the Holy Sepulchre. For another example, an Orthodox priest asked the Franciscans if they would be able to close the door to the area of the Latin section of the Church as their Orthodox procession walked by as this was announced and agreed to ahead of time. The Latin priests refused and then beat up the Orthodox bloodied their nose and several monks had to be taken to the hospital.

The Church of the Resurrection is an anomaly as far as Unity is concerned – even those in union are fighting amongst themselves in that tight, closed space… You shouldn’t blame the Latins as if they are the aggressors in every situation there. The Ethiopians and Syrians got into a scuffle there regarding rooftop space, as have the Armenians and Greeks, as well as Latins and Greeks… why single out the Latins??

 

[dvdjs]

I agree, the EC may not be required to recite it, but they are definitely bound by it. There is no escape. I don’t believe that was the original understanding of the Orthodox signatories at Unia Brzeska but that’s what they have now. They are forbidden to deny the filioque even though they are not required to recite it or even teach it.

Your idea that the Bishops at Brest entered into union with people that they regarded as heretics is bizarre. A far less fantastic idea is that the signatories had much the same in mind about the filioque as the signatories at Florence who only repudiated it after they were under the Ottomans.

Being at best questionable, and at worst heretical Orthodox will never accept it the way it is phrased and used today.

Well it is never very clear what the Orthodox think (eight ecumenical council, huh?), but I agree they will never accept it, and that substantive knowledge about “the way it is phrased and used today”, which is generally lacking in discussions on the filioque, is irrelevant to that opinion.

It is a sacrilege to introduce the current filioque into a Creed recited within the Divine Liturgy. It’s like serving a spoiled dish with dinner for an Honored Guest. This is the obstacle the Papacy will eventually overcome, by admitting that it was inadvisable to include a pious opinion in the Creed as if it were dogma, then correcting that mistake.

I am sorry that you feel this way, and am sorry that you feel that it is your right to express it this way on a Catholic forum. I also question your standing to speak for EC’s on the filioque.

The person who loves you will be the one to tell you about the spinach stuck in your teeth, or the fly that is open.

It is only love if what is spoken is the plain truth, not some glib opinion formed by someone who is speaking far outside of any demonstrated area of competence. More often then not, those who feel the urge to say that the emperor has no clothes are just wrong.

 

[bobzills]

The Church of the Resurrection is an anomaly as far as Unity is concerned – even those in union are fighting amongst themselves in that tight, closed space… You shouldn’t blame the Latins as if they are the aggressors in every situation there. The Ethiopians and Syrians got into a scuffle there regarding rooftop space, as have the Armenians and Greeks, as well as Latins and Greeks… why single out the Latins??

I mention the Latins because they appear to be in an unrealisitc dreamworld concerning the prospects for reunion under the present model.

 

[JReducation]

I mention the Latins because they appear to be in an unrealisitc dreamworld concerning the prospects for reunion under the present model.

Bob,

Are you Latin Rite or Catholic?

Reunification begins with love. As in any family, there are small and large issues that separate people. This is not different in Christianity. However, what makes Christianity different from any other family is its desire to do the will of God. When we search in our hearts, in revelation, in the Magisterium, and in Tradition, we find that we have much more in common that not.

It is these common elements that come from grace that we must focus on. We (the Christian family) cannot begin the process of reunification from a negative standpoint. We must begin by engaging. An engaging person is one who keeps your attention and brings out the best in you. So it is with the Church.

To begin the process we must engage. We do not engage by starting the conversation with the points on which we disagree. That is counterproductive, even in a typical family. Just look at marriage. Reconciliation begins with what? It begins what what both parties love the most. In a married couple it is usually their children. Among Christians, it will be Jesus Christ.

Let us help the process by putting on the table what we know and love about the Lord Jesus Christ. Our differences will surfface. They will not go away by magic. But when they surfface, we will be in a better frame of mind to speak about them, because we will have built up trust in each other through our brotherly dialogue and shared prayer life.

This is the ecumenical process currently in place between Orthodox and Catholics. Let us not sabbotage it. It is a delicate process. Making negative statements or being pessimistic is not helpful.

Some people would say that this is realistic. I will subscribe to my own spiritual father, Francis of Assisi, who never paid much attention to the realist and decided to follow the Gospel instead. Now look at the great legacy that he has left the Church, 1.7 million sons and daughets and 800 years of faith, service, and holiness.

I know you’re going to bring up every lose canon and every horrible thing that some Franciscans have done over those 800 years. Before you do, let us remember there have been more saints and more graces and more good than wrongs.

The naivete of St. Francis is very similar to what you’re calling the “dreamworld of the Latins”. To trust that Christ wants his people to be one, that Christ can make it happen, and that Christ will make it happen, despite ourselves, is naive, but it is also true holiness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SyroMalankara]

Dare I suggest that should reunion occur, the infighting in that Church would continue…

Status quo must be maintained at all costs… right?

 

[JReducation]

Dare I suggest that should reunion occur, the infighting in that Church would continue…

Status quo must be maintained at all costs… right?

Doesn’t your family find something to argue about or disagree on? I know mine does. But we still love each other and come to our mutual assistance.

The only way to stop infighting in any family or nation would be for everyone to be dead.

To goal is to become one Church again. Silence and peace will follow, but that will be one person at a time, as each man or woman discovers the union with the Divine in his or her soul.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bobzills]

I will subscribe to my own spiritual father, Francis of Assisi, who never paid much attention to the realist and decided to follow the Gospel instead. Now look at the great legacy that he has left the Church, 1.7 million sons and daughets and 800 years of faith, service, and holiness.

I know you’re going to bring up every lose canon and every horrible thing that some Franciscans have done over those 800 years. Before you do, let us remember there have been more saints and more graces and more good than wrongs.

The naivete of St. Francis is very similar to what you’re calling the “dreamworld of the Latins”.

Unfortunately, according to the major study, “A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov,” as posted on the Orthodox Information center: orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
“The Orthodox Church does not include Francis of Assisi among its saints. He was a fanatic papist, lived after the separation of the Roman Catholic Church from Orthodoxy, and practiced a romantic and emotional spirituality foreign to genuine Orthodox spiritual traditions.”
If we are speaking seriously about prospects for unity here, from the article it looks like the whole tradition of spirituality developed by St. Francis represents a real obstacle to unity between Orthodox and Catholics inasmuch as it takes into consideration the human body and emotions as means to leading to mental and contemplative prayer. St. Seraphim, for example, was a saint of the spirit. “St Seraphim’s mysticism appears as a purely spiritual ecstasy, as something bestowed on the ascetic, as a gift of a spiritual vision, as an enlightenment of his higher intellect, while Francis’ spiritual experience is a mysticism induced by his will, and obviously darkened by his own imagination and sensuality.”
And yes, I am sorry to say that it appears that many of the Catholic Croatian Franciscans do not have such a good reputation at least in the minds of many of the Serbian Orthodox when they recall the sad events of WWII.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Unfortunately, according to the major study, “A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov,” as posted on the Orthodox Information center: orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
“The Orthodox Church does not include Francis of Assisi among its saints. He was a fanatic papist, lived after the separation of the Roman Catholic Church from Orthodoxy, and practiced a romantic and emotional spirituality foreign to genuine Orthodox spiritual traditions.”
If we are speaking seriously about prospects for unity here, from the article it looks like the whole tradition of spirituality developed by St. Francis represents a real obstacle to unity between Orthodox and Catholics inasmuch as it takes into consideration the human body and emotions as means to leading to mental and contemplative prayer. St. Seraphim, for example, was a saint of the spirit. “St Seraphim’s mysticism appears as a purely spiritual ecstasy, as something bestowed on the ascetic, as a gift of a spiritual vision, as an enlightenment of his higher intellect, while Francis’ spiritual experience is a mysticism induced by his will, and obviously darkened by his own imagination and sensuality.”
And yes, I am sorry to say that it appears that many of the Catholic Croatian Franciscans do not have such a good reputation at least in the minds of many of the Serbian Orthodox when they recall the sad events of WWII.

that entire website is a bunch of bs and anyone who buys it is blind and ignorant to its obvious biased, ridiculous, anti-christian tone.

from orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
The sad fact is that the attainment of a true spiritual relationship with Christ was never a possibility for Francis, for being outside the Church of Christ, it was impossible that he could have received Divine Grace, or any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.** His gifts were from another spirit**.

cursed be the one who judged St. Francis in this unworthy manner.

 

[bobzills]

that entire website is a bunch of bs and anyone who buys it is blind and ignorant to its obvious biased, ridiculous, anti-christian tone.

cursed be the one who judged St. Francis in this unworthy manner.

I understand your reaction. I apologise to anyone who was offended by the article, but I felt it was appropriate to mention that reunion would not be that easy to attain under the model advocated.

 

[mardukm]

I specifically said it was not impossible, just like a lot of other things. If you think it is possible, then instead of just dreaming, show me specifically the plan and the way in which this is going to come about. It is a dream,

It is a dream only to people who think all blame is to be given to one side, instead of the humble attitude that all sides have had their share in the fracture of the Church. It is a dream only to those who cannot distinguish between matters of Faith and matters of discipline. It is a dream only to those who want to impose one standard on the rest - like when you advocated several months back the destruction of all things not Byzantine (get rid of the use of unleavened bread, get rid of any imagery of Mary without her Son, get rid of filioque in the Latin Creed, get rid of confessionals, get rid of priestly celibacy, etc. etc.). In short, it is a dream only to those who espouse hypocrisy - which is why it is probably only a dream to you.

 

[LumenGent]

If the Pope were to replace the Eastern Liturgies with the Roman, wouldn’t that equate to the destruction of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

 

[JohnVIII]

It is my understanding that the Eastern Churches view the filioque as heretical since it was condemned by the “Eighth Ecumenical Council”, a council at which papal legates participated and which Pope John VIII confirmed. And according to the treaty of Brest, the Greek Catholics were supposed to be allowed to say the creed without the filioque. However, under pressure from the Vatican, and against what was agreed to in the treaty of union, it was required that the filioque be inserted in the creed said in the Divine Liturgy.

I do believe this indeed happened. I’m sure the majority of people on this forum do not believe that this happened. Nevertheless, I think the primary motivation that Pope John VIII had for doing what he did was to persuade the Bulgarians to come under the jurisdiction of Rome, rather than the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

Chaldean Rite;5382412:

that entire website is a bunch of bs and anyone who buys it is blind and ignorant to its obvious biased, ridiculous, anti-christian tone.

cursed be the one who judged St. Francis in this unworthy manner.

I understand your reaction. I apologise to anyone who was offended by the article, but I felt it was appropriate to mention that reunion would not be that easy to attain under the model advocated.

(I better not say anything about St. Francis!)

I have said this before and I will say it again. Unity under the pope WILL occur, when the patriarch of Moscow submits the entire Russian Church to the pope. I seem to stand alone in this belief, but I’m sure it will happen under the terms of the pope and in less than five years - mark my words! As I have said before this is not what I want to happen (if unity occurs I would like it to occur in an orthodox fashion) but that’s the way it will happen. Just wait and see!

 

[Harpazo]

I have said this before and I will say it again. Unity under the pope WILL occur, when the patriarch of Moscow submits the entire Russian Church to the pope. I seem to stand alone in this belief, but I’m sure it will happen under the terms of the pope and in less than five years - mark my words! As I have said before this is not what I want to happen (if unity occurs I would like it to occur in an orthodox fashion) but that’s the way it will happen. Just wait and see!

Hello,

I’m curious as to why you say this. I have heard the Russians regarded as the most anti-ecumenical (though perhaps not as much as some of the monks on the Holy Mountain ). Has His Holiness Kirill of Moscow been that interested in “submitting to the Pope?”

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JohnVIII]

hello,

i’m curious as to why you say this. I have heard the russians regarded as the most anti-ecumenical (though perhaps not as much as some of the monks on the holy mountain ). Has his holiness kirill of moscow been that interested in “submitting to the pope?”

In christ,
andrew

This is OFF TOPIC.

Goto another posting elsewhere [post]5243131[/post]

Or send me a private message.

God bless!
-JohnVIII

 

[Traditional_Ang]

The problem I see with that line of thinking for the Eastern Churches is that according to the first Vatican Council, it looks like the Pope would have the power and authority to throw out the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and replace it by the New Mass. I don’t see why the Pope would want to have that power or authority and I can see where that would make an Eastern Christian wary of the Roman Church.

Bobzilla:

Hasn’t happened & wouldn’t happen - You might want to examine the Articles of the Union of Brest which directly brought the Ukrainian Catholics, & indirectly brought several other bodies, into Communion with the Holy See.

Here are some links on the Treaty…

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM
jbburnett.com/resources/union-of-brest.html
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Union_of_Brest

I know the article from the Original Catholic Encyclopedia is propagandistic, but it does contain references to Ecumenical Councils & Papal Bulls which must be taken by all Popes as Binding Precedents.

The First Vatican Council only stated that the Pope has the Spiritual Gift (or Charism) of Infallibility when making solemn prononcements on matters of Faith and Morals in the Name of Christ and when what he says is consistent with the Tradition of the Church and the Church’s understanding of Holy Scripture. It’s actually a pretty NARROW definition.

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ
**Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
**1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6

Can you see that the Pope is bound by Precedent and the Tradition of the Church?

And, The Holy Spirit has ways of PROTECTING the Church and Insuring that the Pope doesn’t teach error “Ex Cathedra”. I understand (from a historian friend of mine) that at least one Pope met an untimely (but natural) end, because he TRIED to teach error.

There are things we do need to worry about such as pathetic, banal liturgies in our local parishes. and, Then, There are things we don’t need to worry about, such as some Pope deciding to ban the beautiful Divine Liturgy of St. Basil which is part of the heritage of the East.

I hope this clarifies things.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[bobzills]

Bobzilla:

Hasn’t happened & wouldn’t happen - You might want to examine the Articles of the Union of Brest which directly brought the Ukrainian Catholics, & indirectly brought several other bodies, into Communion with the Holy See.

Here are some links on the Treaty…

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM
jbburnett.com/resources/union-of-brest.html
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Union_of_Brest

I know the article from the Original Catholic Encyclopedia is propagandistic, but it does contain references to Ecumenical Councils & Papal Bulls which must be taken by all Popes as Binding Precedents.

The First Vatican Council only stated that the Pope has the Spiritual Gift (or Charism) of Infallibility when making solemn prononcements on matters of Faith and Morals in the Name of Christ and when what he says is consistent with the Tradition of the Church and the Church’s understanding of Holy Scripture. It’s actually a pretty NARROW definition.

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ
**Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
**1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6

Can you see that the Pope is bound by Precedent and the Tradition of the Church?

And, The Holy Spirit has ways of PROTECTING the Church and Insuring that the Pope doesn’t teach error “Ex Cathedra”. I understand (from a historian friend of mine) that at least one Pope met an untimely (but natural) end, because he TRIED to teach error.

There are things we do need to worry about such as pathetic, banal liturgies in our local parishes. and, Then, There are things we don’t need to worry about, such as some Pope deciding to ban the beautiful Divine Liturgy of St. Basil which is part of the heritage of the East.

I hope this clarifies things.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

I went to the link you gave on the Treaty of Brest and saw this:
“1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”
But did not the Vatican go against this in 1692, requiring that the filioque be inserted in the creed at the Divine Liturgy according to the western concept of the teaching?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Unfortunately, according to the major study, “A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov,” as posted on the Orthodox Information center: orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx
“The Orthodox Church does not include Francis of Assisi among its saints. He was a fanatic papist, lived after the separation of the Roman Catholic Church from Orthodoxy, and practiced a romantic and emotional spirituality foreign to genuine Orthodox spiritual traditions.”
If we are speaking seriously about prospects for unity here, from the article it looks like the whole tradition of spirituality developed by St. Francis represents a real obstacle to unity between Orthodox and Catholics inasmuch as it takes into consideration the human body and emotions as means to leading to mental and contemplative prayer. St. Seraphim, for example, was a saint of the spirit. “St Seraphim’s mysticism appears as a purely spiritual ecstasy, as something bestowed on the ascetic, as a gift of a spiritual vision, as an enlightenment of his higher intellect, while Francis’ spiritual experience is a mysticism induced by his will, and obviously darkened by his own imagination and sensuality.”
And yes, I am sorry to say that it appears that many of the Catholic Croatian Franciscans do not have such a good reputation at least in the minds of many of the Serbian Orthodox when they recall the sad events of WWII.

Bob:

I see no reason for this… And, I seriously do not understand why we should be discussing the 500 year long conflict in the Balkins, and why you should use it to claim that Serbian Orthodox particularly hate one group of Religious.

If you really feel that strongly about it, why don’t you research it & start a thread rather than trying to impugn someone’s spirituality.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[bobzills]

Bob:

I see no reason for this…

Well, this saint was mentioned in the same post as was unity, which I don’t see how it could occur. I did not mean to offend anyone, only to point out that the model for unity recommended was not going anywhere. As you say, it is somewhat off topic here.

 

[Hesychios]

And, The Holy Spirit has ways of PROTECTING the Church and Insuring that the Pope doesn’t teach error “Ex Cathedra”. I understand (from a historian friend of mine) that at least one Pope met an untimely (but natural) end, because he TRIED to teach error.

I have heard this spewing before but never could accept it.

This is one of the most horrible things one can say about the recently departed, “God killed him to prevent him from making a mistake”. God must have been looking elsewhere for a long time because he surely missed a few. I think it is an urban legend among traditionalists with over active imaginations.

This is just one more myth circulating around the church that has got to stop.

If anyone cares to discuss this very serious allegation about a recently deceased bishop I suggest that they start a thread somewhere with all the facts at their disposal.