Eastern Rite and Pope Benedict XIV

[Formosus]

There is a phrase that limits the equal at the end of the sentence.

It is the same as saying that all men are created equal. In a sense it is true, all men require certain dignity. But God does not studder, He has never created anything equal. Everything is hierchical. I am not saying that the other rites must be treated inferior or that the Latin Rite should be boastful. I am saying that there is an obvious superiority. Without counting details, isn’t the Mother of God superior to other mothers? Sure she is a mother like every mother is a mother, equal in that she is a mother. But the fact that she is THE MOTHER OF GOD, it makes her superior for that very fact. The Latin Rite is the mother rite of the whole church. And what is pure pride is that tendentious attititude of minimalizing the fact they are in submission to the Roman Pontiff and that the Church is overwhemingly Roman!
That is like not sinning but wanting to. Oh I am in communion with the Pope, but you sure hate the fact that the West is the head.

You realize for the first 1000+ years of the Church, the majority of the Church was not Western Roman, but Byzantine? Or perhaps you missed that bit of Church history. Just because the Church today is majority latin doesn’t make the latin Church any more important then the other churches in communion with her. You sure make some interesting accusations against us, calling us prideful and likening our attitude to “not sinning but wanting to” and those hardly seem like charitable words to lay at the feet of your Eastern brethern.
Also, you keep claiming this “superiority” and yet you have never explained what it is. Why is the Latin church superior ? Can you please cite extra ordinary magisterial documents?

 

[Pro_Domina]

You realize for the first 1000+ years of the Church, the majority of the Church was not Western Roman, but Byzantine? Or perhaps you missed that bit of Church history. Just because the Church today is majority latin doesn’t make the latin Church any more important then the other churches in communion with her. You sure make some interesting accusations against us, calling us prideful and likening our attitude to “not sinning but wanting to” and those hardly seem like charitable words to lay at the feet of your Eastern brethern.
Also, you keep claiming this “superiority” and yet you have never explained what it is. Why is the Latin church superior ? Can you please cite extra ordinary magisterial documents?

The first 1000+ years no my friend. First couple hundred. Second remember that schism is a sin of above all pride. Old habits die hard. My heart goes out to the Maronites, semper fidelis.

If it is not obvious then it is a matter of egalitarianism.
Again pride doctrinified.

 

[Formosus]

Then you obviously do not know your history. Its a well known fact that the major population centers of the civilized world were deep inside the Eastern Roman empire during the first 1000 years of Christianity. Western europe had a much much lower population, not to mention far more arian heretics running about since the germanic tribes took so long to convert to the Faith. Many of the Popes during the first 1000 years were from the Byzantine church or the Syriac church.

You keep saying that the Latin church’s superiority is “obvious” and you continue to avoid explaining yourself. You can’t keep evading by parroting the word “egalitarianism”. And are you accusing me of being schismatic?

 

[Pro_Domina]

The Pope is what?

Latin.

The rite of Rome is what?

Latin.

The universal language of the Church is what?

Latin.

The majority of the Church is of what rite?

Latin.

The greatest devotions of all time are?

Latin.

The rites that rebelled against the Pope aren’t?

Latin.

 

[malphono]

The Pope is what?

Latin.

In practice maybe, but there is not, and most certainly has never been, any requirement of same.

The rite of Rome is what?

Latin.

So?

The universal language of the Church is what?

Latin.

Sorry, but that’s true ONLY for the Western (i.e., Latin) Church. Let’s not denigrate Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Church Slavonic, etc.

The majority of the Church is of what rite?

Latin.

Yes, that is true now, but Formosus already dealt with that issue very clearly (and, IMHO, correctly). I will only reinforce what Formosus said by adding “quantity does not quality make.”

The greatest devotions of all time are?

Latin.

That is a matter of opinion. I, for one, do not agree.

The rites that rebelled against the Pope aren’t?

Latin.

It’s well known that all of the East certainly did not “rebel” against the Pope, and there is really no need in this discussion for a lengthy treatise on church history. Also, it would seem the comment that “schism is a sin of above all pride” is rather a two-edged sword: methinks there was a lot of pride, (and a lot of bluster, rather than a lot of theology), on both sides in what is called the “Great Schism” so perhaps it would be better not to go there.

In speaking of who “rebelled against the Pope” one really should look to the West, where we have what is called the “Reformation” as well as Henry VIII etc.

In sum, I can only refer to bpbasilphx earlier post.

The Eastern Churches are inferior in NOTHING AT ALL!

As long as Latins persist in the attitude that the Latin Church is intrinsically superior, so long will the Eastern Churches be uninterested in reconciliation.

 

[bpbasilphx]

** The rites that rebelled against the Pope aren’t?

Latin.**

**The Protestant Reformers were all in origin Latin rite.

Try again.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

** The rites that rebelled against the Pope aren’t?

Latin.**

**The Protestant Reformers were all in origin Latin rite.

Try again.

Furthermore, it was a Pope who said that ALL the rites are of EQUAL DIGNITY. By your attempt to be “plus papist que le pape” you are disagreeing with him and showing yourself to be nothing more than a cafeteria Catholic. **

 

[Ignatius]

Could someone please help me understand what Pope Benedict XIV was saying in “Allatae Sunt” when he said

He was addressing the issue of the Moto Proptio re: the Extraordinary Liturgical form of the Western Church. It had nothing whatever to do with the Eastern Churches.

 

[bpbasilphx]

He was addressing the issue of the Moto Proptio re: the Extraordinary Liturgical form of the Western Church. It had nothing whatever to do with the Eastern Churches.

Look again. The original poster is talking about Benedict the FOURTEENTH who lived in the 18th century, NOt B 16.

 

[Addai]

Then you obviously do not know your history. Its a well known fact that the major population centers of the civilized world were deep inside the Eastern Roman empire during the first 1000 years of Christianity. Western europe had a much much lower population, not to mention far more arian heretics running about since the germanic tribes took so long to convert to the Faith. Many of the Popes during the first 1000 years were from the Byzantine church or the Syriac church.

You keep saying that the Latin church’s superiority is “obvious” and you continue to avoid explaining yourself. You can’t keep evading by parroting the word “egalitarianism”. And are you accusing me of being schismatic?

Yes Formosus I’m glad your setting him straight., the Assyrian Church of the East in terms of numbers held the majority for quite some time. By the year of AD 800 or so there were suppose to have been more COE then all the Latin West and Byzantine East combined.

 

[Addai]

** The rites that rebelled against the Pope aren’t?

Latin.**

**The Protestant Reformers were all in origin Latin rite.

Try again.**

I’m not sure if that really prooves anything… The Khlyst sect, the Old Believers and the Bolshevics were all Russian Orthodox before they went their own way… Russia was a haven of neoGnostic influence as this article details.

Occult Roots of the Russian Revolution
gnostics.com/newdawn-1.html

If the Protestants rising out of the West proves the wrongness of Catholicism doesn’t this also prove the defectiveness of the EO in germinating the seeds of Atheistic Communism, Theosophy and the New Age movement?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is a problem of egalitarianism.
People hate to admit that something is superior to another.

The Latin Rite is superior, but that does not mean undermine the others.

Which one? NO or TLM?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There is a phrase that limits the equal at the end of the sentence.

It is the same as saying that all men are created equal. In a sense it is true, all men require certain dignity. But God does not studder, He has never created anything equal. Everything is hierchical. I am not saying that the other rites must be treated inferior or that the Latin Rite should be boastful. I am saying that there is an obvious superiority. Without counting details, isn’t the Mother of God superior to other mothers? Sure she is a mother like every mother is a mother, equal in that she is a mother. But the fact that she is THE MOTHER OF GOD, it makes her superior for that very fact. The Latin Rite is the mother rite of the whole church. And what is pure pride is that tendentious attititude of minimalizing the fact they are in submission to the Roman Pontiff and that the Church is overwhemingly Roman!

That is like not sinning but wanting to. Oh I am in communion with the Pope, but you sure hate the fact that the West is the head.

The Latin rite is the mother rite of only the West. She is the daughter of the East.

 

[Addai]

On second thought… the previous mentioned article doesn’t cover what I’m talking about as well as this one.

RUSSIA’S GNOSTIC UNDERGROUND

“The Gnostic Tradition was represented in the early Christian centuries by a multitude of Secret Schools, communities and Master Teachers. The religious scholar W.H.C. Frend writes that “in the second century gnosticism was a world-wide movement.” There were Gnostic communities in Syria, Greece, Palestine, Rome, Egypt, North Africa and Western Europe. With the rise of the Church of Rome and the widespread persecution unleashed on ‘dissident Christians’, Gnostics found refuge in the desert hermitages of Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor. Gnostic truths were preserved within the ascetic tradition of the Byzantine Church. After the conversion of Russia to Byzantine Christianity, Gnostic doctrines heavily influenced the Russian Orthodox Church. The ancient wisdom took root in the Russian Orthodox ascetic religious communities. In the words of G.P. Fedotov, “the countries of the East were the homelands not only of great religions and artistic cultures, but deep thought.” Orthodox Christianity, true to its Eastern origin, developed in a way completely different from Western Christendom.”

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m not sure if that really prooves anything… The Khlyst sect, the Old Believers and the Bolshevics were all Russian Orthodox before they went their own way… Russia was a haven of neoGnostic influence as this article details.

Occult Roots of the Russian Revolution
gnostics.com/newdawn-1.html

If the Protestants rising out of the West proves the wrongness of Catholicism doesn’t this also prove the defectiveness of the EO in germinating the seeds of Atheistic Communism, Theosophy and the New Age movement?

No.

Communism was a Western import. I think it was Bismark that once remarked that Russia should concentrate in Asia, where she was the beacon of civilization (I won’t comment on that), instead of Europe, where she could only catch European diseases like socialism, communism, nihilism…

If you read the Russian novels, in particular Dostoyevsky, you see the occultism, atheism, theosophy, etc. emenating by those classes emulating the West.

Case in point: before the Bolschevik revolution, the most successful communist/socialist party was that of Germany, where it was the majority party. And of course, the first Communist government was the Paris Commune.

The “Russian” Blavatsky (her family was from Germany) spent most of her life outside of Russian, and none of the influences I’ve seen she quotes are Orthodox.

Berdayev and Solovyev are a different story: they were firmly from the Orthodox tradition. Berdayev was being tried for blasphemy when the October Revolution came. But even the Marxists wouldn’t have Berdayev, and shipped him off. Solovyev claimed to be an “Orthodox in union with Rome.”

 

[Addai]

No.

Communism was a Western import. I think it was Bismark that once remarked that Russia should concentrate in Asia, where she was the beacon of civilization (I won’t comment on that), instead of Europe, where she could only catch European diseases like socialism, communism, nihilism…

If you read the Russian novels, in particular Dostoyevsky, you see the occultism, atheism, theosophy, etc. emenating by those classes emulating the West.

Case in point: before the Bolschevik revolution, the most successful communist/socialist party was that of Germany, where it was the majority party. And of course, the first Communist government was the Paris Commune.

The “Russian” Blavatsky (her family was from Germany) spent most of her life outside of Russian, and none of the influences I’ve seen she quotes are Orthodox.

Berdayev and Solovyev are a different story: they were firmly from the Orthodox tradition. Berdayev was being tried for blasphemy when the October Revolution came. But even the Marxists wouldn’t have Berdayev, and shipped him off. Solovyev claimed to be an “Orthodox in union with Rome.”

Good to hear from you Almistry

I’m talking where the movement really took off (in a big way)…

I mean if you want to talk where the first Protestants started wouldn’t you have to go to the East. As in the Arians ala Maximinus (Augustine, “Debate with Maximinus”). Which started in Egypt.

As well as the Gnostic, Paulicians of Armenia

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Good to hear from you Almistry

I’m talking where the movement really took off (in a big way)…

I mean if you want to talk where the first Protestants started wouldn’t you have to go to the East. As in the Arians ala Maximinus (Augustine, “Debate with Maximinus”). Which started in Egypt.

As well as the Gnostic, Paulicians of Armenia

If you want to talk about where the first Catholics started you have to go to the East. As in the first attestation of the term, ala St. Ignatius (“Episitle to the Smyrneans”), which was sent on the way from Antioch to Asia.

As well as the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Catholicism was an import into Rome. Unfortunately, so were Marcionism, Montanism, Valentinianism, Manichaeism, etc. Rome, as capital, was where everything vile congregated and became fashionable.

As for communism taking off in a big way, it didn’t in Russia until the purges, the Holodomor (Ukrainian holocaust) etc did their work. This on top of WW I. Looking over the stats, the Bolsheviks had a huge pool of orphanes to mould into the new “Soviet man.”

Alas, even with that head start, things didn’t work out. The Soviet union stopped asking religious questions on the census in the thirites because it didn’t like that answers. With the invasion of WWII Stalin had to depend on the Church to ralley the Russians in the “Great Patriotic War.” On the verge of the collapse of Communism, over half of all infants were baptised, and over half of the deceased received Christian burial.

Communism never went beyond a minority ideology imposed from above, though it did manage to confuse many under its sway.

One of the ironies is that Gorbochev was the first leader born in the Soviet Union, but his mother baptized him and remained a believer all her life. Mikhail’s religious views remain murky, however.

Theosophy has more claim to be an offshoot of Orthodoxy, but since it arose in the classes most dislodged from their Orthodox roots and emulating the West (where most of the Theosophists, including Blavatsky, did their work), that is even questionable.

 

[Addai]

If you want to talk about where the first Catholics started you have to go to the East.

Oh yeah, I’ll buy that! My first experience of an Apostolic Church came from the Syriac Tradition and have great interest of the Church of Jerusalem and Antioch.

And of course our Alexandrian brethren were the first to use the title “Pope” long before the Latins made it there trademark.

Of course any good Catholic worth his/ her salt will say that their Church originated with the promise / keys the Lord gave to Peter and not when Paul and Peter happened to actually make it over there on their first mission trip.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Oh yeah, I’ll buy that! My first experience of an Apostolic Church came from the Syriac Tradition and have great interest of the Church of Jerusalem and Antioch.

Yes, with the forgetfulness of the Europeans of the Syriac (Christ spoke what language?) I often feel like saying to both Old AND New Rome “a pox on both your houses.”

And of course our Alexandrian brethren were the first to use the title “Pope” long before the Latins made it there trademark.

Yes, and Alexandria was GIVEN the title, Rome TOOK it.

Btw, your profile says Coptic convert. What’s that mean?

Of course any good Catholic worth his/ her salt will say that their Church originated with the promise / keys the Lord gave to Peter and not when Paul and Peter happened to actually make it over there on their first mission trip.

Yes, and the feast day in Rome of St. Peter’s chair was originally the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter in Antioch.

 

[Addai]

Btw, your profile says Coptic convert. What’s that mean?

I was born and raised American Protestant (Lutheran and later became a non denominational Charismatic). Almost 30 years practicing, before becoming an Orthodox Seeker then years after that eventually joining the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt.

I’m not a very good convert (Fasting wise especially. A bit of a culture shock going from free range Protestantism to the Coptic Church).