Maronite Monks of Adoration

[smad0142]

But Ciero here is my problem,

If nothing is wrong with Adoration per se, and we should merely avoid it because it is not Eastern, doesn’t that seem a little ridiculos? If the East had any sort of parallel to Adoration I could see your line of thinking. But to say that we should not engage in a practice that is Scriptural, used by Saints, Martyrs, and Patriarchs, and beneficial because the West came up with it does not make Christian sense. Your only argument is because the West came up with it in its fullest form, even though elements have been present in the East since the beginning, that we can’t use it. That unduly limits the Christian expereince for no reason and denies people a source of grace because we are not humble enough to learn, when we can, from our Western bretheren.

Blessed Leonid Fyodorov, the Russian Catholic who zealously guarded Eastern traditions, didn’t mind saying that “when it comes to Eucharistic Adoration, we Easterners are the Latins’ pupils.” (from Alex)

 

[ciero]

But Ciero here is my problem,

If nothing is wrong with Adoration per se, and we should merely avoid it because it is not Eastern, doesn’t that seem a little ridiculos? If the East had any sort of parallel to Adoration I could see your line of thinking. But to say that we should not engage in a practice that is Scriptural, used by Saints, Martyrs, and Patriarchs, and beneficial because the West came up with it does not make Christian sense. Your only argument is because the West came up with it in its fullest form, even though elements have been present in the East since the beginning, that we can’t use it. That unduly limits the Christian expereince for no reason and denies people a source of grace because we are not humble enough to learn, when we can, from our Western bretheren.

Blessed Leonid Fyodorov, the Russian Catholic who zealously guarded Eastern traditions, didn’t mind saying that “when it comes to Eucharistic Adoration, we Easterners are the Latins’ pupils.” (from Alex)

Smad…I will say it one more time…why not just go to the Latin church if you are so hung up on a particular Latin devotion? Why must we continue to Latinize our churches? Even Rome has told us to purge ourselves of Latinization! If you are so intent on Eucharistic Adoration go to the Latins for it…I’m not saying to become Latin…just go to the Latins for Adoration.

I believe we as Eastern catholics have a duty to be true to our traditions and to work to remove all Latinizations…NOT because these latinizations are bad but because they are NOT ours.

A HYBRID CHURCH IS A WEAK CHURCH!

 

[dvdjs]

.
As a Greek Catholic IMO we have an obligation ( as Rome has been telling us since Vatican II as well as a number of our bishops) to re-cliam and preserve our patrimony WITHOUT Latinizations. Even if SOME Orthodox have picked up these same Latinizations.

We Eastern catholics by being in communion with Rome have a duty to follow the directions of Rome (or why be in communion with them?).

I believe one of the biggest witnesses we as eastern catholics have to the Orthodox is that Orthodoxy CAN be lived in communion with Rome, and that if and when they do come into communion with Rome they need not fear that they too will be Latinized. So once again I will say I have no real problem with these Latin traditions within the Latin church…but they do become problematic when we try to incorporate them into the other eastern churches.

This argument is, IMO, not sound.

First, as a Greek Catholic, the very idea of subjugating our sense of ourselves, our mission, or our practice to Rome - indeed the suggestion that it is our duty to do so - strikes me as the epitome of the model of uniatism that we should be laboring to avoid. What kind of witness to “the Orthodox” is this? Hospodi Pomiluj!

Having said that, it is important to state that Rome has no such pretensions. The Liturgical Instructions to the ECCs are very important, ISTM, because they place the implementation, and the decision-making that that entails - in our hands, and applies a strict brake against Latin intrusion - of any kind - into this process.

They also provide a thoughtful framework for restoration; this framework has three fundamental principles: authentic tradition, organic development, and pastoral sensitivity. All three principles are important, even though the matter is often reduced in some quarters to an instruction to reclaim some target “tradition”.

There is a lot of heavy lifting to do in working toward restoration. We must first establish criteria and norms of authenticity. As a BCC, for example, I look to ACROD and the churches in the Carpathians - even the north slopes. I am not especially interested is some alien Muscovite or Athonite standard; as glorious as they may be, they are not authentically “nas”.

Second, we need to discern “organic development” over the past several centuries. For example, we have organically developed a hymnody and a usage of that hymnody that has become authentically ours. I am not planning to give it up, even if some see it as oddly Latin as compared to practices of other, distant Eastern churches. In the same way, I would be shocked by Russians giving up their choirs in favor of monophonic chant - even though the impetus of the development of part-singing clearly came from their western neighbors. What about Benediction? I am not sure. I would like to see some scholarly study of the development of this practice in various Eastern Catholic churches, before drawing any conclusions. And some appreciation of the fact that our Benediction service was done in a clearly and beautifully Eastern manner.

Finally, there is the question of pastoral sensitivity. Nothing WEAKENS a church more than clumsy changes that make it seem alien to its devoted members. And let’s admit: we cannot change “with” to “to” - even when it is clearly correct (and agrees with Orthodox translations), without rending of garments and “nashing” of teeth.

We are all in a position to give (name removed by moderator)ut into the details and tempo of restoration to the priests and bishops who must make the decisions. FWIW, my recommendation is first to emphasize adding - hours vespers matins, presanctified, etc. - before working on subtracting “Latin” practices. It is jarring to the faithful if priests were to recommend that parishioners not pray the rosary, or sacred heart devotions, etc. before the alternative of hours are in place; it sends a terrible message.

A HYBRID CHURCH IS A WEAK CHURCH!

So weak that they just collapsed into oblivion when liquidated during the Soviet era. Oh wait, they were not so weak after all.

 

[smad0142]

Smad…I will say it one more time…why not just go to the Latin church if you are so hung up on a particular Latin devotion? Why must we continue to Latinize our churches? Even Rome has told us to purge ourselves of Latinization! If you are so intent on Eucharistic Adoration go to the Latins for it…I’m not saying to become Latin…just go to the Latins for Adoration.

I believe we as Eastern catholics have a duty to be true to our traditions and to work to remove all Latinizations…NOT because these latinizations are bad but because they are NOT ours.

A HYBRID CHURCH IS A WEAK CHURCH!

Say that to the Eucharistic Adorers among the Eastern Patriarchs, Eastern Saints, and Eastern Martyrs.

 

[mardukm]

What say you folks about the idea that Eucharistic Adoration appropriately combats the heresy of receptionism (the Protestant heresy that states that the Eucharistic elements are the Body and Blood of Christ ONLY during the Liturgy)?

Dear brother Ciero,

What would you say if daily Eucharist was introduced into your local Church outside of the monastic setting? Would you say that was a Latinization?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ciero]

What say you folks about the idea that Eucharistic Adoration appropriately combats the heresy of receptionism (the Protestant heresy that states that the Eucharistic elements are the Body and Blood of Christ ONLY during the Liturgy)?

Dear brother Ciero,

What would you say if daily Eucharist was introduced into your local Church outside of the monastic setting? Would you say that was a Latinization?

Blessings,
Marduk

There is nothing wrong with a daily Divine liturgy at all! And is even part of our tradition…as long as there is a priest and a congregation…why not have a daily Divine Liturgy in the parish setting? Now a private “mass”…thats another story!

 

[Apotheoun]

A hybrid Church is not an Eastern Church, nor is it a Western Church for that matter; instead, it is something altogether novel.

Now as interesting as the idea of a hybrid Church may be to some people it is important to remember that the Eastern Catholic Churches have been entrusted with the specific mission of safeguarding their spiritual, doctrinal, and liturgical patrimony, and of course Latinizations are not a part of that inheritance, which is why they must be expunged in as timely a fashion as possible.

Finally, if it becomes clear that Latinizations are truly unavoidable it follows that it would be unwise for the Eastern Orthodox Churches to ever consider entering into communion with the Latin Church; and moreover, those Eastern Catholics who cherish their ecclesial traditions would have to consider conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy as the only way to maintain their legitimate spiritual, doctrinal, and liturgical heritage.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

All well and good sir.

But could someone please define “Latinization” for all of us here? If Latinization is a criterion for separating from Rome, are you saying that the Orthodox Churches are free of such? Is a practice originating from the Latin West a Latinization when the hierarchy of an EC church accepts it via synod etc.?

Also, are you saying that EC adherence to the papal dogmas in faith, the basis of their union with Rome, is NOT a Latinization?

If it is Latinization (and how can it not be), how do you explain your own continuing communion with Rome?

Again, we need to talk about realities, the realities in the life of the EC Churches for one thing, and the realities that certain Orthodox in communion with Rome people refuse to acknowledge, but engage in what seems to be a lot of “ecclesial pretending.”

Whenever you’re ready ,

Alex

 

[Apotheoun]

All well and good sir.

But could someone please define “Latinization” for all of us here? If Latinization is a criterion for separating from Rome, are you saying that the Orthodox Churches are free of such? Is a practice originating from the Latin West a Latinization when the hierarchy of an EC church accepts it via synod etc.?

Also, are you saying that EC adherence to the papal dogmas in faith, the basis of their union with Rome, is NOT a Latinization?

If it is Latinization (and how can it not be), how do you explain your own continuing communion with Rome?

Again, we need to talk about realities, the realities in the life of the EC Churches for one thing, and the realities that certain Orthodox in communion with Rome people refuse to acknowledge, but engage in what seems to be a lot of “ecclesial pretending.”

Whenever you’re ready ,

Alex

Those things (spiritual, liturgical, and doctrinal) that are peculiar to the Latin Church, e.g., the recitation of the filioque, the worship of the exposed Eucharist in a monstrance or ciborium, the law of celibacy for parish clergy (presbyters and deacons), stations of the cross, devotions to the Sacred Heart (which has Nestorian connotations in Byzantine theology), suppression of the presanctified liturgy during Great Lent, the use of musical instruments during the liturgy, and the suppression of the antidoron, to name just a few liturgical things. Do you want a list of doctrinal issues also?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Those things (spiritual, liturgical, and doctrinal) that are peculiar to the Latin Church, e.g., the recitation of the filioque, the worship of the exposed Eucharist in a monstrance or ciborium, the law of celibacy for parish clergy (presbyters and deacons), stations of the cross, devotions to the Sacred Heart (which has Nestorian connotations in Byzantine theology), suppression of the presanctified liturgy during Great Lent, the use of musical instruments during the liturgy, and the suppression of the antidoron, to name just a few liturgical things. Do you want a list of doctrinal issues also?

So you are saying that a Particular Eastern Catholic Church cannot accept any of these voluntarily on its own volition via its Synod? Historically, Latinizations have come via domination and imposition.

But there are those Latinizations that have been adapted by EC Churches and their faithful as very popular practices. These same Churches will resist the corollary or “enforced Easternization.”

For example, the forcible removal of the Filioque by the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine began its program of ecclesiacide. And the people remember that very well.

These are all socio-cultural issues that theologians do tend to overlook, but which exercise a powerful hold over the people.

And what about what some, such as myself, consider the “ultimate Latinization” - those who define themselves as “Orthodox Christians” but who are organically linked with the Church of Rome which has the Filioque and other faith matters which are at variance with Orthodoxy.

Even when “OICWR” have removed the last Latinization, as they define them, they are still faced with: a) the fact that they are outside communion with the Orthodoxy they identify with and b) they are in communion with Rome on the basis of the papal dogmas that are surely the product of Latin scholasticism.

Also, there have been and are many Latinizations that have established a kind of “ritual citizenship” within Orthodoxy Churches, as you know.

The Orthodox Church doesn’t seem bothered by them - why are you?

Alex

 

[dvdjs]

But could someone please define “Latinization” for all of us here?

As far as I can tell, the operative definition is pretty much: stuff one doesn’t like.

 

[Apotheoun]

So you are saying that a Particular Eastern Catholic Church cannot accept any of these voluntarily on its own volition via its Synod? Historically, Latinizations have come via domination and imposition.

But there are those Latinizations that have been adapted by EC Churches and their faithful as very popular practices. These same Churches will resist the corollary or “enforced Easternization.”

For example, the forcible removal of the Filioque by the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine began its program of ecclesiacide. And the people remember that very well.

These are all socio-cultural issues that theologians do tend to overlook, but which exercise a powerful hold over the people.

And what about what some, such as myself, consider the “ultimate Latinization” - those who define themselves as “Orthodox Christians” but who are organically linked with the Church of Rome which has the Filioque and other faith matters which are at variance with Orthodoxy.

Even when “OICWR” have removed the last Latinization, as they define them, they are still faced with: a) the fact that they are outside communion with the Orthodoxy they identify with and b) they are in communion with Rome on the basis of the papal dogmas that are surely the product of Latin scholasticism.

Also, there have been and are many Latinizations that have established a kind of “ritual citizenship” within Orthodoxy Churches, as you know.

Alex

No it cannot accept Latin traditions and remain Eastern.

The Orthodox Church doesn’t seem bothered by them - why are you?

What the Eastern Orthodox Churches do is their own business, but they have never been as Latinized as the Eastern Catholics, and the Latinizations that they have suffered have been and continue to be removed, as one of my Orthodox seminarian friends likes to remind me.

 

[Apotheoun]

As far as I can tell, the operative definition is pretty much: stuff one doesn’t like.

Having been a Latin Catholic for eighteen years, I have no hatred for the Latin Church and its traditions, but I did choose to become Byzantine for a reason, and I will defend the traditions of my sui juris Church from corruption of any kind.

 

[Apotheoun]

For example, the forcible removal of the Filioque by the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine began its program of ecclesiacide. And the people remember that very well.

Alex

Alex,

We will not agree on the filioque, and you should know that by now, having read the things I have written over the course of many years. There is NO place for the Latin filioque in the Byzantine tradition. I maintain that the Father alone is the sole cause, principle, and font of divinity within the Godhead, and nothing will make me waver from that doctrinal truth.

Christos Voskrese!
Todd

 

[dvdjs]

Having been a Latin Catholic for eighteen years, I have no hatred for the Latin Church and its traditions, but I did choose to become Byzantine for a reason, and I will defend the traditions of my sui juris Church from corruption of any kind.

Fair enough. Stuff one doesn’t like in Byzantine churches.
Defending traditions requires knowing them and their organic development, and working with pastoral sensitivity in any restoration. Otherwise you risk offending tradition. A mere list really doesn’t cut it.

 

[Apotheoun]

Even when “OICWR” have removed the last Latinization, as they define them, they are still faced with: a) the fact that they are outside communion with the Orthodoxy they identify with and b) they are in communion with Rome on the basis of the papal dogmas that are surely the product of Latin scholasticism.

Alex

Alex,

The Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod have endorsed dual communion. I know that Rome rejects it, but the Holy Synod has not altered its stated position one bit. Perhaps that is not something that you Ukrainians can do, but not only do we hold this as our stated position, we also practice it in our home territory. But of course I don’t need to tell you that.

Todd

 

[Apotheoun]

Fair enough. Stuff one doesn’t like in Byzantine churches.
Defending traditions requires knowing them and their organic development, and working with pastoral sensitivity in any restoration. Otherwise you risk offending tradition. A mere list really doesn’t cut it.

I hold that the Latins should be Latin, and we Byzantines should be Byzantine. Moreover, let the Orientals be Oriental. Hybridization is the way to ecclesial death for the Eastern Catholic Churches. We cannot out Latin the Latins (heck the modern Latins are having a hard time being Latin themselves), but we can out Orthodox the Orthodox (St. Elias Church in Canada is a good example of that). Eastern Catholics need to make it so that the Orthodox can see that one can be fully Eastern and in communion with Rome. If we cannot do that our Churches are doomed to death, and ecumenism will suffer a set back that will last a thousand years.

 

[dvdjs]

I hold that the Latins should be Latin, and we Byzantines should be Byzantine. Moreover, let the Orientals be Oriental. Hybridization is the way to ecclesial death for the Eastern Catholic Churches. We cannot out Latin the Latins (heck the modern Latins are having a hard time being Latin themselves), but we can out Orthodox the Orthodox (St. Elias Church in Canada is a good example of that). Eastern Catholics need to make it so that the Orthodox can see that one can be fully Eastern and in communion with Rome. If we cannot do that our Churches are doomed to death, and ecumenism will suffer a set back that will last a thousand years.

Non-responsive. What does it mean to be Byzantine? What is authentic, what is legitimate organic development? What does it mean to out Orthodox someone? Your slogan is fine, but it is only a slogan.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Has anyone been to their monastery: www.maronitemonks.org

I’m thinking of making a retreat and would be interested in anyone’s experience there.

In Christ,
Anthony

Yes, it was amazing. I went there a few years ago. Fr. John Marie is incredible. Go to morning and evening prayers. Their homemade yogurt is out of this world!

 

[dvdjs]

Alex,

The Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod have endorsed dual communion. I know that Rome rejects it, but the Holy Synod has not altered its stated position one bit.

Actually Orthodoxy rejects it. Rome very clearly endorses it: properly disposed orthodox are welcomed to communion in Catholic Church. Rome criticized as premature were piecemeal attempts at re-union operating outside of the effort for corporate re-union of the Orthodox and Catholic churches.