Do Eastern Catholics have stations of the cross? rosary? adoration?

[Joab_Anias]

This is the 4th (at least) time that you’ve used that terminology in this thread.

It’s not my wont to jump into discussions about theology or spirituality, but I cannot ignore this thread any longer.

No one, no one, cares what pious praxis or devotion any individual adopts as their private expression of spirituality. It is, however, implicitly contrary to both the explicit instructions of the Pope and the primatial hierarchs, holy snyods, and hierarchical councils of our respective Churches sui iuris that our parishes continue to promote, undertake, and support Western or Latin devotional praxis as a substitute for or to the detriment of our religious liturgical and spiritual heritage. (And, yes, it is detrimental when those babas no longer can separate in their own minds which religious tradition is their own versus acquired in passing or by having been thrust on them.)

That Latin Catholics, however well-intended, should effectively urge that we and our presbyters ignore those mandates is to encourage disobedience to our spiritual fathers. Furthermore, whether they can see this or not, it is reflective of the triumphalism that pervaded relations between West and East for so long and brought the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches to the point of estrangement from their religious roots - which mounted stations on the walls of our temples, installed altar railings in lieu of iconostases, placed rosaries in the hands of the babas and old aunties, vested our priests in fiddleback chasubles, and denied the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist to our infants. Get over yourselves.

Let’s see - I just read this forum’s mission statement - a tad less broad than the former which invited dialogue, discussion, debate, and education, but

Nowhere there do I see an invitation to Latin Catholics to disparage our religious heritage - either directly or using the more subtle vehicle of urging that we supplement it by adoption of their praxis, as if what has historically nourished our peoples is less than adequate. I see no Eastern or Oriental Catholic pontificating in L&S that the Latin spiritual experience would be enhanced by placing icons on tetrapods before your altar rail or alongside your statuary.

The “us and them” dichotomy that someone raised is being fostered not by us, but by those among you.

It is laughable that there are those who presume to suggest that we take up a practice and, when told that we already have a different style of spirituality that expresses our devotion, are so uninformed that they must ask “what’s that?” You neither know what we do nor do you come to inquire. You present yourself, lecture to us on what we should or should not do, then ask us what it is that we actually do. It is presumptuousness at its height!

Yes, John Ireland is dead but he, at least, knew what we did and how we did it - just didn’t like it! That’s pitiful in its small-mindedness, but decidely more intellectually honest than being ignorant of what we do but urging that, instead, we do it your way!

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil

I respect Eastern praxis but there is one thing I do not understand. Perhaps you can enlighten me. I made mention of my confusion in post 105 but no one set me straight on it.

I have been to Eastern Catholic Churches that have statues but here in the threads I am hearing this is considered a Latinization and I am unsure why.

Do the Eastern Churches really consider statues contrary to their praxis and a Latinization? If so can you offer a practical reason why? My intention isn’t to insinuate you should or shouldn’t have them but just to understand this.

I am confused because as I read the 7th Council I would think both hemispheres would have both statues and icons. I know I have Icons and see them in Roman Catholic Churches and have always appreciated them as part of Catholic culture never thinking they were something I shouldn’t have because they were intruding on Western praxis?

Was what was going on between East and West at the time of the 7th Council the cause of the East to reject this part of the 7th council and just not adopt statuary or was it a matter of location or something else all together? Also would this similarly relate to relics of saints as mentioned in the Council?

Thanks,

Peace.

 

[wannabee]

I have been to Eastern Catholic Churches that have statues but here in the threads I am hearing this is considered a Latinization and I am unsure why.

Do the Eastern Churches really consider statues contrary to their praxis and a Latinization? If so can you offer a practical reason why? My intention isn’t to insinuate you should or shouldn’t have them but just to understand this.

I can’t quote Councils I leave that to those who can.

BUT I have always been taught that we regard statues as being 3 dimensional attempts to represent someone .

Icons are 2 dimensional and do not attempt to represent the person - they are to help us see beyond the physical .

This is , to my simple mind , why we do not use statues - we leave them to the West.

In Confession I stand before the Icon of Christ on the Iconostasis and remember I am confessing to Christ , my Confessor standing beside me is my witmess and guide. I do not Confess to the Icon - I look at it and remember I am standing in front of Christ Himself - a truly humbling experience.

Some churches may still have statues there - remember our history , some still have Stations of the Cross on the walls . This is wrong and is slowly being ‘dealt’ with. We should have Icons there . In time we will.

I hope you will understand what I am trying to say.

 

[JohnPaulSteve]

No, it isn’t.

Venice was a major trade city. It was constantly buying stuff from the east, legal or not. Relics and statuary, quite often.

Likewise, most of southern Italy, not just Sicily, was Byzantine. Italian in dress, Byzantine-Greek in praxis.

Michael is rather terse, but hardly polemical, in this case.

Good to see you again, Michael.

Um, I knew all that.

Hey, I’m even familiar with the famous Byzantine Pantocrator at Monreale.

As I’ve said before, we Latins aren’t as dumb as we look.

Re “polemical”: I think I was referring to the “smothered” part.

 

[JohnPaulSteve]

This is the 4th (at least) time that you’ve used that terminology in this thread.

It’s not my wont to jump into discussions about theology or spirituality, but I cannot ignore this thread any longer.

No one, no one, cares what pious praxis or devotion any individual adopts as their private expression of spirituality. It is, however, implicitly contrary to both the explicit instructions of the Pope and the primatial hierarchs, holy snyods, and hierarchical councils of our respective Churches sui iuris that our parishes continue to promote, undertake, and support Western or Latin devotional praxis as a substitute for or to the detriment of our religious liturgical and spiritual heritage. (And, yes, it is detrimental when those babas no longer can separate in their own minds which religious tradition is their own versus acquired in passing or by having been thrust on them.)

That Latin Catholics, however well-intended, should effectively urge that we and our presbyters ignore those mandates is to encourage disobedience to our spiritual fathers. Furthermore, whether they can see this or not, it is reflective of the triumphalism that pervaded relations between West and East for so long and brought the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches to the point of estrangement from their religious roots - which mounted stations on the walls of our temples, installed altar railings in lieu of iconostases, placed rosaries in the hands of the babas and old aunties, vested our priests in fiddleback chasubles, and denied the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist to our infants. Get over yourselves.

Let’s see - I just read this forum’s mission statement - a tad less broad than the former which invited dialogue, discussion, debate, and education, but

Nowhere there do I see an invitation to Latin Catholics to disparage our religious heritage - either directly or using the more subtle vehicle of urging that we supplement it by adoption of their praxis, as if what has historically nourished our peoples is less than adequate. I see no Eastern or Oriental Catholic pontificating in L&S that the Latin spiritual experience would be enhanced by placing icons on tetrapods before your altar rail or alongside your statuary.

The “us and them” dichotomy that someone raised is being fostered not by us, but by those among you.

It is laughable that there are those who presume to suggest that we take up a practice and, when told that we already have a different style of spirituality that expresses our devotion, are so uninformed that they must ask “what’s that?” You neither know what we do nor do you come to inquire. You present yourself, lecture to us on what we should or should not do, then ask us what it is that we actually do. It is presumptuousness at its height!

Yes, John Ireland is dead but he, at least, knew what we did and how we did it - just didn’t like it! That’s pitiful in its small-mindedness, but decidely more intellectually honest than being ignorant of what we do but urging that, instead, we do it your way!

Many years,

Neil

Goodness! Such a lot of heat!

When did I ever suggest, let alone insist, that anyone do things “our way”?

When did I disparage your liturgical heritage or praxis? To the contrary, I find it beautiful.

But I think there is room for the perspective of East and West, Hail Mary, A Simple Sinner, and others.

And BTW, I am not quite as ignorant of Byzantine stuff as you may think.

Peace, brother.

 

[Aramis]

The fundamental problem is that, under the current system and instructions, there is no room for the hybrid as a system.

Folks like Niel see no value in a hybridized church sui iuris.

I see such as a potential “third tradition” situation. The latinization of the UGCC, for example, was a vibrant and very different tradition from the UkO. A tradition which was killed by Cardinal +Hussar. A tradition being kept alive by the FSSJ… true, it’s not going to convert the UkOrthodox… but it is a valid expression of the same basic catholic beliefs, and intolerance of it is just as bad as forcing it.

Similar attitudes are alive in the Met. Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh (Ruthenian). Many do not want to be “Orthodox in Union With Rome”, while a great many do.

THis is why I’m all for allowing a “latinized eastern catholic” church (besides the Maronites) to exist and thrive. I don’t want to be in that church, but I have no objection to it existing. (Same attitude to the TLMers… I feel they should be a separate church sui iuris)

 

[Mickey]

The fundamental problem is that, under the current system and instructions, there is no room for the hybrid as a system.

I see such as a potential “third tradition” situation.

THis is why I’m all for allowing a “latinized eastern catholic” church (besides the Maronites) to exist and thrive.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Any non-emoticom commentary to share?

 

[wannabee]

you mean such as

" You have to be kidding ???"

" I simply do not believe this "

" what a load of rubbish "

Actually I have to admit that having read Aramis’s comments I ran away to try and make some sense of it.

Having had coffee and coming back - I’m still flabbergasted and unable to make any comment other than the ones above.

 

[Mickey]

Any non-emoticom commentary to share?

No. I’m pretty much speechless.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

you mean such as

" You have to be kidding ???"

" I simply do not believe this "

" what a load of rubbish "

Actually I have to admit that having read Aramis’s comments I ran away to try and make some sense of it.

Having had coffee and coming back - I’m still flabbergasted and unable to make any comment other than the ones above.

Maybe after a little more caffiene your charity will be stimulated enough to have a discussion about it.

I can’t say I agree with him but “What a load of rubbish” is on par with

“You’re a dummy”
“Am not!”
“Are too!”

Doesn’t serve any good end well.

 

[Hesychios]

Mikes’ commentary…

I have so many thoughts on this subject…I barely know where to begin. I also could not find the time to express them all today, but some things are worth mentioning.

The Eastern Catholic churches were never intended to be separate unique traditions, which would be totally contrary to the original goals of the creators of them. There really is no “third way”.

The UGCC is an excellent example of that, the metropolitan of Kyiv and several other bishops (interestingly, not that of L’viv, however) gathered at Brest (in modern Belarus) and basically created that church. It was not a Belarusian church, nor a Ukrainian church, and it was certainly not intended to be Polish. It was the Metropolitanate of the Kyivan Rus leaving the omophor of the Patriarch of Constantinople for the omophor of the Patriarch of Rome. This was never intended to be a permanent separation; they were so concerned about this that two special clauses were inserted into the conditions of Brest:

2.—That the divine worship and all prayers and services of Orthros, Vespers, and the night services shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the ancient custom of the Eastern Church, namely: the Holy Liturgies of which there are three, that of Saint Basil, that of Saint Chrysostom, and that of Epiphanius which is served during the Great Lent with Presanctified Gifts, and all other ceremonies and services of our Church, as we have had them until now, for in Rome these same services are kept within the obedience of the Supreme Pontiff, and that these services should be in our own language.
how many UGCC parishes faithfully follow this canon today?]

And

31.—And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we shall share all this as people of the same religion.

This is huge (when considering the topic of this thread). The bishops were concerned first of all (as in article #2) that their traditional practices not be changed as a result of this new union, BUT, they were concerned about the possibility that practice of their separated brethren might change organically over time, and yet they were NOT willing to be considered (in name or practice) as a group separated from them. They wanted to share in any organic change of their separated brethren. In other words: change at the behest of Rome…no; change to conform to (the praxis of) the separated brethren…yes.

The union was a political accommodation, not a religious one…at least originally. They really saw themselves as Orthodox, not conforming to Rome but communing with it. This sounds familiar to Orthodox today, as many of the same arguments are being suggested for a future union. Orthodox (not surprisingly) are somewhat skeptical, the union of Brest has so far been a poor example of how to achieve churchwide reconciliation.

This union (and the conditions attached) formed a template of sorts for the Byzantine unions which came afterward: namely the sub-Carpathian Rus in the kingdom of Hungary and the Melkite Orthodox in the Turkish empire.

In my opinion, to admit to any other purpose or result of those union agreements is to proclaim their cause a failure, an accident destined for the dustbin of history.

Who among Eastern Catholics is ready to allow that to happen?

This is why so many are so keen to restore the Eastern Catholic churches to conform to the original promises. It seems to me John Paul II understood this, my brother Neil understands this (and it looks like my sister Anhelyna and brother Mickey understand it too), false ecumenism indeed…

Michael

 

[wannabee]

Thank you Michael - beautifully put

 

[JohnPaulSteve]

LOL, well I guess that settles it. Our Latin devotions do have cooties.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way…

 

[yeshua]

LOL, well I guess that settles it. Our Latin devotions do have cooties.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way…

Your insensitivity towards this topic is offensive. This is not an attack on Latin devotions, it is an attack on their unsound place in our liturgical and spiritual constructs. I would ask for a tad more charity. Thank you.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[JohnPaulSteve]

Sorry, Yeshua. I was not trying to be insensitive at all. Rather, I was trying to lighten the mood hereabouts, which (IMHO) is growing rather heated.

OK, now I’ll skulk away into corner…

 

[jj2011]

Actually back in the early eighteenth century, one of the Melkite bishops (I’m pretty sure it was Euthymios Saifi) introduced certain latinizing innovations within the DL, as well as relaxations of the fasting rules, and Rome ordered them to be stopped. I wish I could remember more details.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I can’t quote Councils I leave that to those who can.

They are easily looked up on-line.

Here is a summation of what the 7th council stated. Note what I have bolded:

SITE: Nicaea
YEAR: A.D. 787
POPE: Hadrian I, 772 - 795
EMPERORS: Constantine VI, 780 - 797 and Empress Irene (797 - 802)

Condemned iconoclasm, which held that the use of images constituted idolatry; Condemned Adoptionism, which held that Christ was not the Son of God by nature but only by adoption, thereby denying the Hypostatic Union; Defined that veneration of images and relics of saints is both right and beneficial.(TFW: 48)

As you can see this is what raises my question here. It’s not to say you should want statues but to ask why you don’t.

BUT I have always been taught that we regard statues as being 3 dimensional attempts to represent someone .

Icons are 2 dimensional and do not attempt to represent the person - they are to help us see beyond the physical .

This is , to my simple mind , why we do not use statues - we leave them to the West.

I think I see the difference between them. I only have the confusion about why one would dominate the other from East to West especially in light of what the 7th Council says.

Have we in the west expected the east to leave statues to us or has the east felt they alone should lay claim to icons?

Was it a matter of patronizing the arts differently in different places perhaps?

In Confession I stand before the Icon of Christ on the Iconostasis and remember I am confessing to Christ , my Confessor standing beside me is my witmess and guide. I do not Confess to the Icon - I look at it and remember I am standing in front of Christ Himself - a truly humbling experience.

I ponder my sincere contrition at length before I go. If I had an Icon of Christ I would use that too. Instead after reading and reflection on conscience I sit in the Church and see Jesus in the tabernacle, on the Cross and Corpus, on the Stations in His passion, in the Stained Glass, and then the statues of His Earthly parents who were such a good example and then of the Saints and Angels who are such a good help. Then when I am there in the confessional I know that the priest is the Lords representative and has the power to absolve me. Not only does all this strengthen the experience but it allows me to believe I am truly forgiven. A side effect is that it also seems to help to see Jesus in all of us a bit better which in turn helps to go forth and keep firm that renewed commitment to not displease the Lord further.

Some churches may still have statues there - remember our history , some still have Stations of the Cross on the walls . This is wrong and is slowly being ‘dealt’ with. We should have Icons there . In time we will.

You express the same thing I have heard here through out. What I can’t understand is why this is wrong given the 7th Ecumenical Council accepted as valid.

Is it to do with the culture while it was in schism that is being sought after to preserve because its tradition is proven to be efficacious? Certainly I can see this is good reason never to loose it. Perhaps it is truly a simple matter of culture. I am trying to imagine how westerners would react to having the Church plastered with icons. I can see both good and bad.

I know there were schisms before 1054 and 15th century, 3 I think if memory serves me. However, I am unaware of the history and background of each of the Eastern Catholic Churches and if and when they were ever separated and reunited. So I ask;

Is this statement from the 7th Council which I presented incorrect perhaps or something that has been overlooked, neglected, denied or simply found unnecessary by some in the Church?

I hope you will understand what I am trying to say.

Yes I do. I have been to many places and see people living their lives how they are most comfortable. I cannot fault anyone’s culture be it Eastern Catholic or Amish for that matter so long as for them its efficacious in bringing them closer to God. There are other secular cultures of course that are not.

Please, I hope you can understand that I am not passing judgment but only trying to get a hand on why the Orthodox historically never adopted statues as well as Icons. I have seen mention of art history here previously, maybe that’s where I need to dig further.

cont…

 

[Joab_Anias]

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful to me, but not all things profit. All things are lawful to me, but not all things build up.

1Co 14:12 So also you, since you are zealots of spiritual things, seek to build up the assembly that you may abound.

1Th 5:11 Therefore, encourage one another, and build up one another, as you indeed do.

One scripture that troubles me:

Col 2:8 Watch that there not be one robbing you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.

Is anyone suggesting that either Icons or statues are wrong? This makes me wonder; was the West robbed of Icons or the East of statues?

And:

Mar 7:9 And He said to them, Well do you to set aside the commandment of God so that you may keep your tradition?

Are we somehow doing this by not universally accepting what is efficacious for the faith in favor of holding fast?

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Actually back in the early eighteenth century, one of the Melkite bishops (I’m pretty sure it was Euthymios Saifi) introduced certain latinizing innovations within the DL, as well as relaxations of the fasting rules, and Rome ordered them to be stopped. I wish I could remember more details.

Interesting. Yes more details would be interesting. Given this is the case, why do you think Rome would have ordered them stopped. Would it have been from sensitivity to Eastern praxis?

 

[jj2011]

Interesting. Yes more details would be interesting. Given this is the case, why do you think Rome would have ordered them stopped. Would it have been from sensitivity to Eastern praxis?

Yes, it was an example of applying the old principle, nihil innovetur– let there be no innovation. There are many forgotten examples where Rome intervened in a similar sense. It should be remembered that many of the blatant Latinizing innovations were not introduced by Rome at all, but by missionaries ignorant of eastern tradition.

Pope Leo XIII in Orientalium Dignitas instituted severe canonical penalties for Latin missionaries who would draw eastern Christians into the Latin Rite.

Another example would be when Pius XI commissioned Cardinal Tisserant to restore the liturgical books of the Ethiopic Church in Ge’ez. Some Latin missionaries were skeptical that there was such a thing as an Ethiopic rite, and wanted to Latinize their charges pure and simple.

Another example would be Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914) and his directive that Russian Catholics do nec plus nec minus nec aliter
(neither more nor less nor differently) than the traditional Slavonic liturgical books prescribe.