M
mardukm
Guest
I concur.Dzheremi, excellently put
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear sister Josie,
What you are saying brother Dzheremi was saying is not what he was saying. He even gave his own personal example of having appreciation for the Syriacs when he was yet a Latin Catholic.
Blessings,
Marduk
What you are saying brother Dzheremi was saying is not what he was saying. He even gave his own personal example of having appreciation for the Syriacs when he was yet a Latin Catholic.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
MorEphrem
Guest
Hmm I must’ve missed that part of dzheremi’s post. I can’t find it anywhere, he must’ve edited it out.
V
Vico
Guest
I think he is referring to “Not to be rude, but taking bits and pieces of distinct heritage while discarding those things that are ‘strange’ or ‘not very pleasant’ to you is just about the worst kind of cafeteria religion imaginable. These are ancient churches, rituals, and practices, not your buffet to pick and choose from.”
Of course, we see in the CCEO that :
17 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own Church sui iuris, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.
403.1. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite, lay persons have the right to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the norms of the liturgical books.
M
MorEphrem
Guest
I was being facetious
. As I previously said, I think Dzheremi hit the nail on the head.
J
josie_L
Guest
And I am not denying this, but is it so harmful spiritually to adopt a prayer/practice from another rite (a Latin adopting a prayer from the East to add to his repertoire of prayers is not a crime against humanity), i.e., there’s nothing wrong with experiencing the many different forms of catholicity without fearing that we’re undermining our own rite or sui iuris church (it is a PRIVILEGE that we belong to a Church that has such spiritual diversity).
God bless!
J
josie_L
Guest
St. Ephraem of Syria was/is a father of the Church, i.e., when I read the Church fathers am I to read only the Latin fathers because I am of the Latin rite??
J
josie_L
Guest
Some people were/are reared into their respective rites, this doesn’t mean as such that one who is reared in such a rite can’t experience other rites if said rite is Catholic (I don’t want to be insulated by virtue of my (birth) rite from experiencing other rites, i.e., learning of their practices/prayers, and if I’m so inclined even adopting them for my own spiritual benefit).
p.s., I agree to a degree with what you’re saying, but it’s a little too rigid for my taste (and recollect we’ve had a similar discussion once before).
A
Aramis
Guest
It can be.
Keep in mind - byzantine spirituality and theology is couched in different wordings - and coming to grips with that is a problem for the poorly catechized. It even leads some to grave theological errors… and in a few cases, while the dogma is the same (and vaguely worded) the doctrinal wordings of the different churches are incompatible. (Assumption/Dormition), which can lead to accusations of dogmatic error.
The practices of various rites differ strongly in obligations - and these are couched in the extraliturgical praxis.
Syncretic practices also can give rise to scandal.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I never said they couldn’t. Please take note of the post I wrote that in reply to, which said:
I’m merely pointing out that, no, this is not a healthy way to form one’s spiritual life.
To take it out of the specific examples above, if I were to replace the litanies and doxologies of the Agpeya with the Rosary, I would no longer be being faithful to my adopted tradition. Why? Not because there is necessarily anything wrong with the Rosary in itself, but because it simply does not belong there. It does not and has never had any place in the Coptic tradition. It does not matter if it would make me happy to do so or if I am uncomfortable with the actual content of the Agpeya (well, that would matter, in that it would be something I would need to deal with and get over in order to use it, but hopefully you know what I mean). What matters is the Alexandrian tradition and my adherence to it, since I am Coptic Orthodox and not something else. Again (since you seem to have missed that part in my original post), there is absolutely nothing wrong with appreciating these various other ways of worshiping for what they are. I have numerous books on Syriac Christianity (both Orthodox and non), wonderful recordings of the Tewahedo kidase, etc. But these things belong to those traditions, not the Coptic, so it would be wrong for me to incorporate them privately at the expense of some part of Coptic ritual I find less pleasing/less able to make me happy. Again, the central point is that it’s not about me and how I’m being deprived of all the neat “stuff” out there by having to be Coptic (as though someone is holding a gun to my head and forcing me to recite the Thanksgiving prayer instead of a Syriac prayer). And it does not mean that I couldn’t go to a different liturgy and participate in it to the best of my ability. It just means that out of respect for the different histories and communities in which these prayers developed, it is wrong to try to make one’s own ad hoc spirituality from different pieces of this and that because you think Ethiopian drumming is “neat” or you like everything about Syriac Christianity except the fasting or whatever. Again, these are distinct traditions which are very, very old and venerable, not parts of religious buffet from which you may pick and choose until you end up with something that is just right for your personally. That kind of golidlocks religion forms a person unwilling to commit to anything in particular, not a well-formed, informed, respectful, and serious Christian who values his or her own tradition and those of others equally. This is not the kind of thing that someone who believes in the equal dignity of all rites (or whatever the Catholic phrasing would be) would do in the first place. For example, if I recall correctly the Archbishop Fulton Sheen (a man very highly thought of by me, but don’t hold that against him) was trained and granted facilities to preside over Roman Catholic masses (his native rite) and Melkite liturgies. I am willing to bet you 1,000,000 fictional dollars that he never attempted to combine the two, although he certainly saw both as equally Catholic and was respectful in either case.
Just because you are Catholic of some kind doesn’t mean that everything that another Catholic of another church does is therefore your property to do with as you wish (think about it: when Eastern Catholics pray the Rosary at the expense of some traditional prayers of theirs, nobody here applauds them for being “more Catholic” as a result). By all means, when you are among the Maronites or the Chaldeans or the whoevers, then you should do as they do, but in your personal prayer life, it is important to recognize the the Shhimo is not just a neat book you can use to augment your praying Latin prayers, and the Beth Gazo is not a cool ‘Eastern’ substitute for Gregorian chant or whatever. In a way, this approach of taking in everything more or less indiscriminately, like some sort of big trawl of Christian traditions, is ultimately harmful to your own discovery of the wealth of Latin Christianity which has largely been reduced to a bland Latin-esque monolith in today’s world. You could, with some more digging, be learning about whatever your own ancestors did. If you are Hispanic, why not learn about the Mozarabic liturgy – not its current fate (Lord have mercy!), but its history, chants, iconography, etc.? Or the similar tradition in Portugal, the later Bragan liturgy. Or if you are French, the Galician liturgy could be enlightening to you (from what I understand, it very closely parallels the rites of Iberia, too, so it could be studied alongside the Mozarabic and Bragan). Or if you are Italian, why not seek out information on the history of the Ambrosian liturgy? It is a person who does not appreciate his own history that resorts to fetishizing that of another person or culture.
Bottom line: Everything has its place, and that place is not everywhere. Call that ‘rigid’ if you wish. I would prefer to think of it as respectful and serious.
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, I know that byzantine spirituality and theology are expressed differently, but “different” does not mean “opposed to” or “contra” per se, i.e., there is a lot we can learn from each other without necessarily blurring the lines, i.e., for individual Catholics to enjoy some of the practices/prayers/teachings of other particular churches does not hinder our Catholic identity, and moreover, should not give rise to scandal (on condition that it is not done in an inflammatory way).
p.s. If more Latins were aware of our Eastern brethren you would see a far greater appreciation for other sui iuris churches.
J
josie_L
Guest
You’re taking what I said out of context, i.e., I am not attempting to blur the lines between varying Catholic rites/churches, but neither do I wish to be so rigidly inclined to my own rite that I can’t see past the beauty of adopting other Catholic traditions/practices, i.e., I am not undermining my own rite simply because I recite prayers (or practice some form of . . . ) of another Catholic rite. As I said before, your stance is way too rigid, and in fact would compartmentalize and insulate the particular churches from experiencing the fullness of Catholic spirituality (I refer to reasonable accommodation here, not some Frankenstein-ian experiment of liturgical spirituality).
I am not saying to adopt another particular church’s prayer at the expense of your own, i.e., why does it have to be an either/or situation?
Of course, I would emulate the Maronites and/or Chaldeans if I had a chance to, however, how is it wrong to augment my Latin prayers with those of the East if it is done at the personal level?
My ancestors??? Does that mean my ancestors do not include the myriad Eastern fathers of the Catholic Church (pre-schism), i.e., am I to compartmentalize my Catholic faith by virtue of my rite (and can’t I learn about my particular church while simultaneously learning about the whole of the Catholic faith)?
to be continued. . . .
J
josie_L
Guest
Obviously, one should learn the history, chants, prayers . . . .etc. of their own particular Church, but where in my post did I say otherwise? And moreover, it is not a fetish if a Latin Catholic, for example, wants to learn about the entirety of the Catholic faith.
Yes, I will say it is rigid, because there should be a reasonable approach (accommodation) between the universal and the particular.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I guess I’ll just quote myself (ughhh) from now on, as I’m out of ways to explain this:
p.s.- what you call ‘the particular’ is universal. Syriac Christianity is just as universal as Latin or Byzantine or Coptic, and vice-versa. Your dichotomy supports your supposed right to take whatever it is you want and make it your own while not appreciating the depth of the tradition you are taking from in order to create your own syncretic or individualized spirituality, but it does not exist in reality, since all of these particular forms of Christianity have various cultural if not geographic boundaries. So what is “universal” if not every way we praise God (taken as a whole, not by any one person or church but with a ‘universal’ view, e.g., the Greeks worship like this, the Syriacs like this, the Latins like this, the Tewahedo like this, etc.)? Read: if every particular way is included, then there is no ‘universal’ spirituality that is not also particular, e.g., existing within its own context. As an OO, I am well aware of both Latins and Byzantines who take their own ways as being self-evidently “the Church” or the Church’s way, but again it is just as odd and inappropriate for me as a Coptic Orthodox Christian to take from them as it would be for them to take from me. Because I respect their right to be whatever it is they are, there is nothing that should be missing from their traditions (if they are properly appreciated and lived) that should require them or pardon them from taking from my own, or someone else’s. What is rigid about saying that each tradition is self-sufficient and unique in itself? Because then Latins can’t come by and take others’ patrimony? Is that what we’re really talking about here, in not so many words?
V
Vico
Guest
You may be interested in this from the fourth edition of the Enchiridion Indulgentarium (Manual of Indulgences USCCB 2005). Latin Catholics are encouraged to do eastern prayers, and all Catholics are granted indulgences for these.
See “23 Preces Orientalium Ecclesiarum” at the link, if you can read Latin, or see my rough translation below.
vatican.va/roman_curia/tr…tiarum_lt.html 23
Prayers of the churches of the East
Catholicity of the church by nature ensures that, “each individual part or the Church contributes through its special gifts to the good of the whold Church, so that the whole and each part increase” (Lumen Gentium No. 13) in regard to all the spiritual gifts of Divine generosity: from thence the prayers from the various traditions of the East have spread, even among the faithful of the Latin rite, especially in recent years, and with considerable advantage to religious piety, whether public or private use.
§ 1 A Plenary Indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who sing (devoutly recite) the Akathistos hymn or the Office of the Paraclesis in the church or the oratory, and / or in the family, in religious communities and in the associations of the faithful and in general, when several of the faithful are gather to some honorable purpose. In other cases, the indulgence will be partial.
But in regard to Akathistos, when we sing the hymn for a plenary indulgence to be acquired, it is not required that the recitation be entire, but it is sufficient that continuous recitation is done of an appropriate part according to lawful decrees of custom.
Among the Christian faithful of the East, where the practice of these devotions does not exist, other similar exercises in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, according to the statutes established by the patriarchs, enjoy the same indulgences.
§ 2. The Partial Indulgence is granted to the faithful who, for the time and occasion of some prayer recite devoutly one from the following: A Prayer for the giving of thanks (from a tradition of the Armenians); an evening in Prayer, Prayer for the dead (from the Byzantine Tradition); Prayer of the sanctuary, Prayer “Lakhu Mara,” or the “To thee, O Lord” (from a tradition of the Chaldeans); Prayer to the incense, glorified at Prayer to the Mother of God Mary (from the Coptic Tradition); A Prayer for the remission of sins, A Prayer for the acquiring the following of Christ (from a tradition of Amharic); A Prayer for the Church, he has completed the Prayer Liturgy of the (from the Maronite Tradition); Intercessions for the dead from the Liturgy of the S. James, (from a tradition of the Syrian-Antioch)
D
dzheremi
Guest
^ Thank you, Vico. Very interesting, informative stuff.
Pursuant to the above, I think what we’re really talking about here is different ecclesiologies. While I don’t know any Orthodox person who would disagree with the idea that each individual church contributes to the whole church throughout the world (so, a slight reworking of the statement from Lumen Gentium, above), I think where we part ways is with the idea that therefore each church is only somehow a constituent part of the church, as that lends itself to this thinking that they’re all variations on some more “universal” (Latin?) way of being, rather than complete and whole churches in themselves. Whereas from the Orthodox view, each church is whole (truly Catholic), in the sense that it needs no outside authority by which it functions in electing its own bishops (hence the term ‘autocephalous’ is often used, i.e., self-governing), presiding over the eucharist, etc. In other words, the Armenian Church is the Church just as the Coptic Church is the Church or the Syriac Church is the Church, etc. They are not merely parts that make up a wider whole, but actually whole churches in themselves (if the Coptic Church didn’t exist for some reason, I could be Syriac Orthodox and would still be a member of the Church).
Pursuant to the above, I think what we’re really talking about here is different ecclesiologies. While I don’t know any Orthodox person who would disagree with the idea that each individual church contributes to the whole church throughout the world (so, a slight reworking of the statement from Lumen Gentium, above), I think where we part ways is with the idea that therefore each church is only somehow a constituent part of the church, as that lends itself to this thinking that they’re all variations on some more “universal” (Latin?) way of being, rather than complete and whole churches in themselves. Whereas from the Orthodox view, each church is whole (truly Catholic), in the sense that it needs no outside authority by which it functions in electing its own bishops (hence the term ‘autocephalous’ is often used, i.e., self-governing), presiding over the eucharist, etc. In other words, the Armenian Church is the Church just as the Coptic Church is the Church or the Syriac Church is the Church, etc. They are not merely parts that make up a wider whole, but actually whole churches in themselves (if the Coptic Church didn’t exist for some reason, I could be Syriac Orthodox and would still be a member of the Church).
J
josie_L
Guest
Thank you, Vico, it is very kind of you to have brought this to my attention, i.e., this is exactly what I meant! God bless you!
p.s. I believe you are Eastern Catholic, correct?
J
josie_L
Guest
When I spoke of universal and particular, I meant the dynamics between the Universal and Particular Church (if ever you get the chance read “Called to Communion” by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, it’s a really good book).I guess I’ll just quote myself (ughhh) from now on, as I’m out of ways to explain this:
p.s.- what you call ‘the particular’ is universal. Syriac Christianity is just as universal as Latin or Byzantine or Coptic, and vice-versa. Your dichotomy supports your supposed right to take whatever it is you want and make it your own while not appreciating the depth of the tradition you are taking from in order to create your own syncretic or individualized spirituality, but it does not exist in reality, since all of these particular forms of Christianity have various cultural if not geographic boundaries. So what is “universal” if not every way we praise God (taken as a whole, not by any one person or church but with a ‘universal’ view, e.g., the Greeks worship like this, the Syriacs like this, the Latins like this, the Tewahedo like this, etc.)? Read: if every particular way is included, then there is no ‘universal’ spirituality that is not also particular, e.g., existing within its own context. As an OO, I am well aware of both Latins and Byzantines who take their own ways as being self-evidently “the Church” or the Church’s way, but again it is just as odd and inappropriate for me as a Coptic Orthodox Christian to take from them as it would be for them to take from me. Because I respect their right to be whatever it is they are, there is nothing that should be missing from their traditions (if they are properly appreciated and lived) that should require them or pardon them from taking from my own, or someone else’s. What is rigid about saying that each tradition is self-sufficient and unique in itself? Because then Latins can’t come by and take others’ patrimony? Is that what we’re really talking about here, in not so many words?
p.s. I’m sorry if I hurt you in any way I simply do not agree with being so rigid about spirituality in the CC.
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, Byzantine Metropolitan Catholic Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, USA.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I’m not sure if I’ve read that one. I read his book on Jesus and another one on Peter, both of which were very interesting. Thank you for the recommendation.
I know already that we’ll never see eye to eye on this, Josie, and so be it. I respect that you don’t agree with me. My point, as I hope I explained in my last post, is that our different ways of looking at what is appropriate ultimately stem from different ecclesiologies. If, as is apparently common in the Roman communion, each church is taken to be only a constituent part of the whole and not a complete/whole church in itself, then I suppose it makes sense by some logic to say that anything that a Catholic does (regardless of particular church) is okay, since it’s all catholic, after all. If, on the other hand, you have a view that sees each individual church as being the Church as it exists in a particular location and/or context (liturgically-speaking), then obviously particular ways of being which belong to others outside of your own quite literally belong to them, and are not for you to take for any reason. I avoided all that stuff about increasing piety in Vico’s quote for precisely that reason – not only are we not pietists to begin with (look that up, if necessary…this is not a view of Christianity that actually arose within traditional Roman Catholicism, but rather within Lutheranism), but it is wrong to use such an idea in order to justify taking bits and pieces from other churches and incorporating them into a sort of “super-Catholic” mismash, even if you do like them (or rather, especially if you do like them, but don’t like or know anything about where they come from beyond the fact that they are somehow ‘catholic’).
I’ve made this point before in other contexts to much agreement from people who actually belong to these specific non-Latin churches, e.g., that even in an entirely Catholic context there is a right way and a wrong way to embrace Eastern or Oriental spirituality. One involves…um…actually embracing it (the first vid), and the other involves taking from it what you like so as to give your essentially Latin worship a seeming ‘Eastern’ depth, while retaining in your heart and soul this sort of Western/Latin normativity that reduces entire/whole churches to particular prayers or other individual forms of worship which you are permitted or encouraged to say. Especially since these things do not work the other way around (again, people don’t cheer on ECs engaging in Latin devotions these days, or when they do they are met with stiff opposition from other ECs who know their own traditions), defining Catholicism in this manner is baffling to the outsider, as it seems that Catholicism is thereby reduced to “Latin rite base + whatever eastern ‘stuff’ particular Latins think is neat”, which honestly…well, I suppose I can’t be too honest here, so suffice it to say I’m not sure that’s really respecting anybody’s tradition (not theirs or your own).
I know already that we’ll never see eye to eye on this, Josie, and so be it. I respect that you don’t agree with me. My point, as I hope I explained in my last post, is that our different ways of looking at what is appropriate ultimately stem from different ecclesiologies. If, as is apparently common in the Roman communion, each church is taken to be only a constituent part of the whole and not a complete/whole church in itself, then I suppose it makes sense by some logic to say that anything that a Catholic does (regardless of particular church) is okay, since it’s all catholic, after all. If, on the other hand, you have a view that sees each individual church as being the Church as it exists in a particular location and/or context (liturgically-speaking), then obviously particular ways of being which belong to others outside of your own quite literally belong to them, and are not for you to take for any reason. I avoided all that stuff about increasing piety in Vico’s quote for precisely that reason – not only are we not pietists to begin with (look that up, if necessary…this is not a view of Christianity that actually arose within traditional Roman Catholicism, but rather within Lutheranism), but it is wrong to use such an idea in order to justify taking bits and pieces from other churches and incorporating them into a sort of “super-Catholic” mismash, even if you do like them (or rather, especially if you do like them, but don’t like or know anything about where they come from beyond the fact that they are somehow ‘catholic’).
I’ve made this point before in other contexts to much agreement from people who actually belong to these specific non-Latin churches, e.g., that even in an entirely Catholic context there is a right way and a wrong way to embrace Eastern or Oriental spirituality. One involves…um…actually embracing it (the first vid), and the other involves taking from it what you like so as to give your essentially Latin worship a seeming ‘Eastern’ depth, while retaining in your heart and soul this sort of Western/Latin normativity that reduces entire/whole churches to particular prayers or other individual forms of worship which you are permitted or encouraged to say. Especially since these things do not work the other way around (again, people don’t cheer on ECs engaging in Latin devotions these days, or when they do they are met with stiff opposition from other ECs who know their own traditions), defining Catholicism in this manner is baffling to the outsider, as it seems that Catholicism is thereby reduced to “Latin rite base + whatever eastern ‘stuff’ particular Latins think is neat”, which honestly…well, I suppose I can’t be too honest here, so suffice it to say I’m not sure that’s really respecting anybody’s tradition (not theirs or your own).
- Status