Councils & Eastern Catholic Churches

[Thomas48]

Know what you’re talking about mate. Though I’m not trying to tell anybody what they ought to be. I’m only noticing where what people claim to be and what evidence shows that they are don’t match up, most probably due to lack of awareness.

Thomas48, thank you for your reply So basically what you’re saying is that your church has essentially been completely Latinised and it has indeed lost its authentic heritage almost completely, however there has been an attempt to restore it over the last half a century. Is that a correct understanding of what you meant?

Dear Brother,

I guess you could say its a so-so topic about losing authentic liturgical heritage. My main argument is that after the 1500’s the clergy and community of Syrian Catholics in Kerala who eventually became the Syro Malabar Church would continually petition Rome to maintain their East Syriac Rite. The people never blindly and so easily accepted the Latin Rite. Even though the Syro Malabar Church was very Latinized, we were still allowed our own Syrian Catholic priests,parishes, and during some periods of time, even hierarchs. The first Syro Malabar hierarch was Parambil Mar Chandy in 1663, the Vatican had consecrated Mar Chandy soon after the events of the Leaning Cross Oath. After Mar Chandy there were a few other Syrian Catholic Hierarchs, whom all attempted to maintain our distinct rite.

It should also be noted that Syrian Catholics were allowed by Rome to celebrate in the East Syriac language. They were also permitted to recite numerous East Syriac prayers and parts of the Holy Qurbana. I am voicing that technically it would not be right to say the Syrian Catholics* completely* lost their authentic liturgical heritage. Yes, we were vastly Latinized but we still maintained our separateness. One could say that the Syro Malabar Community always maintained an East Syriac heritage, though our Holy Qurbana was majorily Latinzed. In example, if an individual visited a Latin Catholic Church and a Syro Malabar Church in 1750 they would easily see a difference. One being the Latin Catholic and Syro Malabar Communities, though sharing the religion of Christ, were completely different in traditions and customs. Furthermore the fact that the individual would hear East Syriac being chanted in the Syro Malabar Church and Latin-Malayalam (Native Language of Kerala) being chanted in the Latin Church.

After the Syro Malabar Church was officially restored in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the East Syriac Rite was especially encouraged and pushed for. In 1962 using authentic resources as well as local tradition, Syro Malabar Clergy officially created a restored East Syriac Liturgy. This liturgy was accepted by the Vatican and has been used since then. Even so, the restored rite has been ever changing since 1962. As Syro Malabar Clergy dig deeper into our heritage and East Syriac Tradition, the restored rite is being brought to more and more authenticity. There is even an opinion among some that the Syro Malabar Church today uses the most authentic version of the East Syriac Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mari.

 

[Seraphim73]

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that you’re not trying to insult us. However, I have to wonder if Orthodox aren’t a little too quick to tell us what we ought to be. (This is just based on my personal experiences over the years.)

Actually I would be pretty quick to tell anyone they ought to be Orthodox.

 

[SyroMalankara]

After the Syro Malabar Church was officially restored in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the East Syriac Rite was especially encouraged and pushed for. In 1962 using authentic resources as well as local tradition, Syro Malabar Clergy officially created a restored East Syriac Liturgy. This liturgy was accepted by the Vatican and has been used since then. Even so, the restored rite has been ever changing since 1962. As Syro Malabar Clergy dig deeper into our heritage and East Syriac Tradition, the restored rite is being brought to more and more authenticity. There is even an opinion among some that the Syro Malabar Church today uses the most authentic version of the East Syriac Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mari.

I’d say they may be technically correct regarding the text of the East Syriac Liturgy, but the sacred music, and orthopraxis is still not consistent. I’m not disparaging the Syro-Malabar Church here, just pointing out an observation - one may find a parish that practices the Tradition organically and fluidly (like in Changanacherry) and it will resemble the Malankara or other Eastern Churches; or one may find a parish where the texts are the same, but the practice is vastly different (priest still reluctant to face the altar as required, long pauses between the prayers of the priest and songs of the people, music that goes on and on in no relation to the text, uneven chanting - meaning - it seems disconnected from the next chant or song or prayer, of course the Latin hosts, adoration, public Latin devotions instead of East Syriac prayers, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually I would be pretty quick to tell anyone they ought to be Orthodox.

Touche.

 

[Jeffgo]

Well, in terms of what the Eastern Catholic Churches officially subscribe to, the best place to look would be their own canon law, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. According to Canon 51 of the CCEO, “It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.” Source

All 21 Councils were convoked or at least approved by the Roman Pontiff and explicitly recognized by him as ecumenical, not just the first seven, so according to the criteria laid out in the CCEO, all 21 are Ecumenical.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, in terms of what the Eastern Catholic Churches officially subscribe to, the best place to look would be their own canon law, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. According to Canon 51 of the CCEO, “It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.” Source

All 21 Councils were convoked or at least approved by the Roman Pontiff and explicitly recognized by him as ecumenical, not just the first seven, so according to the criteria laid out in the CCEO, all 21 are Ecumenical.

Hi Jeffgo. Saying that it is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke etc an ecumenical council does not say that doing so makes a council ecumenical.

If I may say, as an Eastern Catholic I find your post a tad offensive.

 

[Seraphim73]

Well, in terms of what the Eastern Catholic Churches officially subscribe to, the best place to look would be their own canon law, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. According to Canon 51 of the CCEO, “It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.” Source

All 21 Councils were convoked or at least approved by the Roman Pontiff and explicitly recognized by him as ecumenical, not just the first seven, so according to the criteria laid out in the CCEO, all 21 are Ecumenical.

Actually none of the seven ecumenical councils were convoked by the pope. In fact in the case of one the pope didn’t even know about it and in another it was held against his expressed wishes. The early Church wasn’t Rome centric in the way people imagine today.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Well, in terms of what the Eastern Catholic Churches officially subscribe to, the best place to look would be their own canon law, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. According to Canon 51 of the CCEO, “It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to confirm its decrees.” Source

All 21 Councils were convoked or at least approved by the Roman Pontiff and explicitly recognized by him as ecumenical, not just the first seven, so according to the criteria laid out in the CCEO, all 21 are Ecumenical.

Thanks mate, that’s a nice theory but that’s not what the Melkites say in practice. While the letter may be permitted to kill the spirit in the West, in the East the letter is void if it does not conform to the spirit.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Actually none of the seven ecumenical councils were convoked by the pope. In fact in the case of one the pope didn’t even know about it and in another it was held against his expressed wishes. The early Church wasn’t Rome centric in the way people imagine today.

I’d have to agree with much of this. It was the emporers who convoked the early councils. However it may be correctly said today that the Pope convokes the Catholic councils seeing there is no emporer to do so.

 

[Jeffgo]

That’s a good quotation, but IMO you might need a few more credit hours in Logic.

I’m sorry you feel the need to resort to personal insults. That’s quite unfortunate.