Latin Rite modernization vs. he traditional Eastern Rite?

[Phillip_Rolfes]

They do not object to any lines, they object to the missing lines. The Roman Canon has an implied Epiclesis rather than an explicit one.

That is why those who use the EF who join an Orthodox jurisdiction would be required to add the Epiclesis from the Divine Liturgy, so that they would now have an explicit one.

I find this to be a sad situation: the Byzantinization of the Latin Church, at least that which enters into communion with Holy Orthodoxy. I find it every bit as reprehensible as the Latinization of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. To me it’s basically the Orthodox version of Uniatism. I’ve even heard Orthodox priests of the Western Rite complain of “Romophobia” in much the same way as certain Eastern Catholics of old (Met. Sheptytsky for example) complained about those who opposed the return of the Eastern Catholic Churches to their authentic Orthodox roots. One day the Western Rite Orthodox will wake up and realize that they are a Western and Roman Church, then they will begin the process of returning to their authentic roots in much the same way that the Eastern and Oriental Catholics have begun the process of returning to their authentic Eastern roots. Perhaps that’s what it’ll take for both Orthodox and Catholics to realize that there is truly no theological reason for our division.

 

[Bbigam]

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church is NOT a part of the “Holy Roman Catholic Church”. It is in communion with said Church, but is not a part of it. The “Holy Roman Catholic Church” is one sui juris Church (albeit the largest, at least here in the West) among a communion of 22+ sui juris Churches.

And the Melkite Church and the Roman Church are both part of the Catholic Church, the whole Church in union with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Yes, there are 23 sui juris Churches but ultimately there is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

They do not object to any lines, they object to the missing lines. The Roman Canon has an implied Epiclesis rather than an explicit one.

I would like to amend that to say “presumed missing lines.” The Roman Canon is quite complete with its implicit Epiclesis, it’s just that some from the East don’t see it so.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

And the Melkite Church and the Roman Church are both part of the Catholic Church, the whole Church in union with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Yes, there are 23 sui juris Churches but ultimately there is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I would like to amend that to say “presumed missing lines.” The Roman Canon is quite complete with its implicit Epiclesis, it’s just that some from the East don’t see it so.

I don’t disagree that there is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but neither would any Orthodox Christian. What I decry is the equation of “Catholic” with “Roman Catholic” which is not only typical of the vast majority of Roman Catholics, but can even be found among many Eastern Catholics.

Your ecclesiology that the Melkite Church and the Roman Church are “parts” of the Catholic Church is not quite accurate. Both Churches, as sui juris Churches, are the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; they are, however, different expressions of the Church.

 

[smad0142]

Why in the world would a TLM fall under the jurisdiction of an Orthodox prelate?

 

[malphono]

Why in the world would a TLM fall under the jurisdiction of an Orthodox prelate?

It doesn’t really. This has to do with the various so-called “Western Rite Orthodox”. Have a look (or a second look) at [post=7528733]Phillip Rolfes earlier post[/post].

 

[Vico]

Interesting. What particular lines do they object to?

They add an epiclesis after the Words of Institution:
"And make this bread the body of Thy Christ, and make that which is in this cup, the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Spirit.

Amen, Amen, Amen."

And deletion of the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed.

The liturgy may the extraordinary form or from the Common Book of Prayer, in Latin or English. There are a lot of French Orthodox that use this rite.

Here is a link that discusses the Orthodox Western Rite:

westernorthodox.com/whatis

 

[Bbigam]

I don’t disagree that there is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but neither would any Orthodox Christian. What I decry is the equation of “Catholic” with “Roman Catholic” which is not only typical of the vast majority of Roman Catholics, but can even be found among many Eastern Catholics.

Your ecclesiology that the Melkite Church and the Roman Church are “parts” of the Catholic Church is not quite accurate. Both Churches, as sui juris Churches, are the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; they are, however, different expressions of the Church.

My wording was poor. Sorry about that. There is one Church, and that is most fully realized in all the Churches in union with the Bishop of Rome, and each Church has its own expression. Thanks for clarifying. (I say “most fully realized” in reference to “subsists in” and that fact that schismatic Churches and ecclesial communities are still a part of the Church in impaired communion through Baptism.)

I don’t have any problems with the term “Roman Catholic” - when used properly - that is, to refer to Catholic people or institutions of the Roman Rite. I am a Roman Catholic, and my parish and diocese are Roman Catholic. But the Church as a whole is simply Catholic, and Melkite Catholics are just as Catholic as Roman Catholics. The Roman Rite is prominent because it’s by far the biggest and because the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, but that doesn’t make other Catholics less Catholic.