Maronite Monks of Adoration

[ciero]

You mean, in their own “rite!”

I don’t know what Rome has taken from the East, only that it has let go of a lot that used to give Roman Catholics their specific RC identity . . . But that is another discussion.

The main issue of Latinization in the EC Churches is how they see themselves - as a Particular Church or as a branch of the Roman Catholic church?

The Maronites see themselves as a Particular Church, period. I wish the UGCC had their “sense of self.”

And historically what is a “Latinization” came as a result of pressure from the RC environs. At the same time, the Orthodox church itself (in E. Europe) would adopt many Latin forms (St Peter Mohyla’s Catechetical approach, the Passia, the various Western devotions adopted and promoted by Orthodox saints like St Dmitri of Rostov (Immaculate Conception, rosary) St Joasaph of Bilhorod, St John Maximovych of Siberia, St Paul Koniuskevych, St Tikhon of Zadonsk, St Yuri Konissky, etc.). Somehow, these devotions did not hamper that Church’s ability to be itself - although later theologians had more than afew things to say about them.

Again, like my good old Vostochnik friends, we haven’t defined what a “Latinization” is - we are assuming everyone knows Latinization when they see it.

And I just don’t see that. The UGCC has a full range of what some of our Easterners here would readily condemn as Latinizations, yet its resolve to be a fully Particular Church with her own patriarchate has never been greater.

Also, I’ve noticed that our really “Eastern” brethren here know a lot about canon law (especially when they speak with Vico ).

Canon law, especially when created by Latins for Eastern Churches, sends shivers up my spine.

Eucharistic Adoration doesn’t.

Alex

Alex…do you see the UGCC as a body of it’s own or part of a larger Byzantine tradition?

 

[Catholicguy45]

I am blessed as I read some of posts here. The wisdom and insights are amazing. At the same time I am really sorry that the Monks ever allowed the making of the video and then allowed it on their website. It seems that it has opened up a can of worms. Arguing about what is and is not custom can damage our soul and the souls of others. Really the only people who have a right to criticize these monks are perhaps Maronite Catholics. So far I have not seen that.

There is no eastern orthodox counterpart to the Maronites. I am confused that some want to hold them to their own byzantine standards and ideas which seem to vary a bit according to location and ethnicity.

This monastery is not all about the rite so to speak. They are focused on living a contemplative life centered on adoration. They are a part of the Maronite Church. It would be wise to let the Maronite Synod decide just how latinized they are or are not as some people have suggested. We all can agree that the Maronites have been latinized over the centuries. In the catholic mind this is not a total disaster. Our catholic minds know it will work itself out. We often say as Catholics, “The wheels of Rome turn slowly”. This is a good example of that.
This is however harder to accept coming from the eastern orthodox mindset. There really is a difference in understanding the church between orthodox christians and catholic christians. The posts I read here show that. This is not a bad thing. We are still all brothers and sisters in Christ. We are seperated brothers and sisters not superior and inferior brothers and sisters.

They will tell you at this monastery that no one has joined them because of the rite or customs. They join this community to seek God in silence, solitude, penence, prayer, fasting, obedience and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Are these things not Maronite? The Maronite synod seems to think they are. Maronite monastic history for the past few hundred years would seem to support this too.

There is a reverence at this monastery that I have never seen before. Not exterior show but genuine reverence. If you ever visit this monastery they wil offer you bread not a stone, a fish not a serpent.

I am bothered by the disrespectful tones some have used with Fr. Michael. I hope he never posts on here again for his own good. It is amazing that some will respect a rite or custom but not respect a priest - monk.
I do know that the Maronites as well as all of those in union with Rome are better off because they have such a dedicated group of men as these. Even if they are not living the ideals of others.

I am humbled whenever I am in the presence of these monks. ( I have known them for about six years). Not because of the rite or customs. I am humbled in their presence because of their dedication to our Lord.

In eternity I doubt that we will be seperated by rites and customs. We will however be seperated by heaven and hell. May we always remain brothers and sisters united in Jesus Christ no matter which rite or jurisdiction we are in on this side of eternity.

 

[dzheremi]

There is no eastern orthodox counterpart to the Maronites.

Nor would it make sense for there to be. The Maronites are an Oriental, Syriac church, not an Eastern/Byzantine one.

I am confused that some want to hold them to their own byzantine standards and ideas which seem to vary a bit according to location and ethnicity.

Who is holding the Maronites to the “standards” of the Byzantines? Syriac Christians aren’t Byzantines, and the subject of attempted Byzantinization of the Maronite church has been discussed here on CAF before. The consensus from all involved was that such things are equally harmful as the Latinizations that are more numerous.

This monastery is not all about the rite so to speak.

Well then what’s the point of presenting themselves as MARONITE monks?

This is however harder to accept coming from the eastern orthodox mindset.

Malarkey. I am not Eastern Orthodox, Ciero is not Eastern Orthodox, etc.

There really is a difference in understanding the church between orthodox christians and catholic christians. The posts I read here show that. This is not a bad thing. We are still all brothers and sisters in Christ. We are seperated brothers and sisters not superior and inferior brothers and sisters.

Yet one of the siblings would like to rule over everyone else in the family, and establish the norms by which the others can run their respective households. Sounds pretty dysfunctional to me.

They will tell you at this monastery that no one has joined them because of the rite or customs. They join this community to seek God in silence, solitude, penence, prayer, fasting, obedience and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Are these things not Maronite? The Maronite synod seems to think they are. Maronite monastic history for the past few hundred years would seem to support this too.

And yet the concerns of actual Maronites in this thread (Malphono and Yeshua) are dismissed or derided. Why is that?

Nice words are one thing. The “dirty work” of true spiritual and ritual renewal are something else. To be workers in the vineyard of the Lord is an honor, and also a responsibility. We work together best when we respect each others’ unique contributions.

 

[dvdjs]

…I’d like to ask a few questions to everyone here who does not see a problem with the adoption of Latin practices and the theology that goes with them such to the point that they have replaced the traditional practices of the various churches.

I think that you going a bit too far into begging the question. Who here “does not see a problem with the adoption of Latin practices and the theology that goes with them such to the point that they have replaced the traditional practices of the various churches.” I think the answer is no one. What has been being discussed, I think, is the question of some Western ideas that adapted and added to Eastern practice. The difference in that of night and day.

One idea is that if a practice has been established for a long enough time among a given community, then it can rightly be taken as “organic” and hence should not be excised in the name of returning to authentic Oriental or Eastern spirituality (as Pope Benedict has urged you to do). My question regarding this idea is: Is it at least theoretically possible that something can be well-established in a particular place (“organic” in that sense), and yet also wrong, with regard to the authentic (pre-Latin contact) practice and spirituality of the church in question?

I would very strongly object to the idea that “authenticity” somehow means “pre-Latin contact”. In the first place, there was considerable contact between East and West from the earliest times. Moreover, for many EC churches, that contact was strong and continuous from pre-schism to post-schism (whenever that might have been). Contact with the West is an authentic element of our history. Thus “pre-Latin contact” as a criterion of authenticity makes little sense. In addition, even while it is met with deliberate resistance, contact with the West has had strong effects among the Eastern Orthodox, most notably on the Russian Church - thus one cannot fairly dismiss post-schism Latin influences as ipso facto inauthentic - at least if Orthodoxy can be assume to pracitce orthodoxy. (The choral music of Russian churches is my favorite example.) Finally, the idea of organic development is always part of the “urgings”. So the target of restoration has more latitude than you allow, and has to have more latitude for a living church. Overall, antiquity is not a reliable hallmark of authentic, rather it is the hallmark of antiquarianism.

It seems to me that if Eastern and Oriental Catholics are to be, as is often claimed, “Orthodox in union with Rome”, then their pre-Latin practice and theology ought to trump any number of centuries spent indulging in Latinizations as a result of what the Latin church itself now rightly sees as a harmful relationship between Rome and its non-Roman communicants.

Again, I think that this idea of pre-Latin practice totally misses the mark. But this comment goes a step further into unpleasantness with these ideas of “indulging” and “trumping”. You presuppose that Latin contact means inorganic growth, conflict, and a goal of displacement. I suppose that some of these features may have characterized certain times and places in history. But I have seen scant evidence of this reality in play here. Restoration of substantive, lapsed practices is critical to all - albeit with some variance on what is deemed critical.

I also am not at all persuaded by your “harmful relationship” idea. At Balamand, we agreed that the idea of a “missionary apostolate” was harmful. I don’t think that the minor variations in practice are an issue - apart from the Pharisees of our age, or people who just want to find fault.

 

[dvdjs]

I am admittedly not Catholic, but from my point of view this stance by the defenders of Latinization seems to be essentially claiming that an imposition, if successful enough, ceases to be an imposition. I don’t think things work this way in any other facet of life (e.g., “hey guys, remember how slavery became okay once the slaves could no longer remember anything else?”).

Again with the presuppositions. Tell me, with validation, what was “imposed” in my particular church (BCC Ruthenian). Is it anything that we have been talking about in this thread? If you can’t provide the validation then, please, I ask you to retract this terribly insulting remark.

The other argument that I have seen in defense of Latinizations is this idea that it is right that there be some degree of give and take among the various members of the Roman communion. After all, everyone is united in communion with Rome, and there should be some distinctive practices related to that, right? Nevermind that this completely clashes with any sort of “Orthodox in union with Rome” stance (since I am willing to accept that good non-Roman Catholics can disagree in this regard)…

I think that, again, this remark is largely off-base. The issue does involve communion, by virtue of which the strong barrier that might otherwise militate against contact - concerns about heresy, heterodoxy, etc. - are lifted. But the key is cultural contact. It is thus unlikely to see, for example, much Ukrainian influence in India, but you will certainly find it throughout Eastern Europe. (Perhaps, this will all change with the internet.) And consequently one would see Latin influence pretty much everywhere. Organic cross fertilization is not done by calculation of a breeder, it is just a natural cultural realty. (The Russians heard and loved the Western chorale style adapted it, with their own harmonies, and made it their own.)

Maybe this example will help: I believe that an enduring element of the music tradition of Ruthenians is the adoption of popular musical motifs into the common chant. This pattern probably continues abroad, but largely stopped for us in America. But ACROD doesn’t have our hangups: at the very end of the funeral service for beloved Metropolitan Nicholas the faithful slowly left the church singing Vichnaja Pamjat’ to the tune of “Nearer my God to thee”. I salute their vitality and their courage to be themselves, and wonder what the OiCwR thought. They would have been howling objections if that were done in a BCC.

…it still seems wildly out of whack to me. Eastern and Oriental Catholics have accepted/tolerated/promoted any number of Latin practices (rightly or wrongly), and Rome in return has taken…what, exactly?

The Latin church is big, and widespread. Insofar as cultural contact is important, then this situation is natural. The Latins are in strong contact with all other churches. The other churches, so small, by comparison are in contact with very little of the Latin church. I would expect little reciprocity. In fact, I would expect that Eastern influences in the Western church come from contact with large, Orthodox churches. It’s OK with me. I also like boutique wineries better than E&J Gallo.

It seems, forgive me, as though the non-Latin churches are treated as sort of tokens of Catholic diversity or universalism, rather than proper churches in their own right…

If you feel the need to ask for forgiveness, why not just pass on the remark. I am happy if they do their thing, and leave us alone to do ours. I am not sure what you think Latins should be doing? But I would like you to give us a list. You may have some nice ideas.

 

[dvdjs]

What I find more revealing is what this entire discussion or approach to these issues can say about the nature of the Roman communion, regardless of what particular church you’re in. I actually spent a little bit of time with Byzantine Catholics before deciding to leave Catholicism all together, and it was these types of issues that made it clear to me that I couldn’t be at peace as an Eastern or Oriental Catholic. So naturally, I’m curious as to how you guys manage to do what I couldn’t do, and presumably many others couldn’t do (as the transition from Latin to Eastern to Orthodox seems to be a common enough that I feel a bit strange not having taken that middle step).

In the East, we think that a salient characteristic of theoria and praxis is our avoidance of an overly intellectualized view of the church. For all of the great intellect of Cappadocian fathers, we are *moved *by charity and by holiness. It is very recent in our history that the a majority of adults in our churches could read. I am not sure even now that many are prepared to read esoteric theology. I am pretty sure that few are interested or see reading as an important tool for advancing their salvation. Certainly not as important as liturgy, private prayers, asceticism. This is the way I was immersed in Eastern religion, by family and by clergy. This is what we do. It is an experiential church as people like to say - and that experience is local.

So what about the concerns that puzzle you so much? They simply are not my concerns. You can be worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is necessary. And shopping for an issue free church is not the way to find it.

 

[dvdjs]

Amin, Amin, Amin!!

Bravo!

Alex

Thank you, Alex.

 

[dzheremi]

I think that you going a bit too far into begging the question. Who here “does not see a problem with the adoption of Latin practices and the theology that goes with them such to the point that they have replaced the traditional practices of the various churches.” I think the answer is no one. What has been being discussed, I think, is the question of some Western ideas that adapted and added to Eastern practice. The difference in that of night and day.

Alright, that was my attempt to not make it about picking on this particular monastery, since I am aware that some feel that this is what has been happening here. What then of the kinds of things present in the video that Maronites are objecting to?

I would very strongly object to the idea that “authenticity” somehow means “pre-Latin contact”.

While it may be a bit of a stretch, if we take the view that ECCs are essentially to be “Orthodox in union with Rome”, then it does not seem so inflammatory to assume that the normative practices should be those well-established within the Orthodox churches, In so far as some things may have been adopted by the Orthodox themselves from the Latin West in the time before the schism, you are right that “pre-Latin contact” is not the best way to put this. However, I didn’t want to write “pre-Latinizations” because that just reopens the whole debate on what exactly is a Latinization (for the purposes of this discussion, I would like to suggest that a Latinization is anything that those Maronites who have objected to these practices on solid liturgical footing have suggested should be replaced by something else found in their rubrics; cf. Yeshua’s comments). If you can think of a more concise way to say “the practices not introduced by the post-schismatic West”, feel free to substitute that for what I originally wrote. (I also didn’t want to write “post-schismatic West” in deference to the idea that I’ve read more than a few times here on CAF that it is the Orthodox who are schismatics, not the Catholics.)

In the first place, there was considerable contact between East and West from the earliest times. Moreover, for many EC churches, that contact was strong and continuous from pre-schism to post-schism (whenever that might have been). Contact with the West is an authentic element of our history.

Granted.

Thus “pre-Latin contact” as a criterion of authenticity makes little sense.

See above. This was another attempt to be diplomatic that came out wrong.

In addition, even while it is met with deliberate resistance, contact with the West has had strong effects among the Eastern Orthodox, most notably on the Russian Church - thus one cannot fairly dismiss post-schism Latin influences as ipso facto inauthentic - at least if Orthodoxy can be assume to pracitce orthodoxy. (The choral music of Russian churches is my favorite example.)

No one has said it hasn’t had a strong effect on any of the Eastern or Oriental churches. I would think that the question is better stated as: If Maronites (or whatever group is under consideration) see a problem with it, and can substantiate this with reference to something they see a more legitimate practice which is NOT being followed, then why are the arguments like the ones I’ve asked about (and others provided in this thread, such as the “we’re being obedient” idea) brought out as though they should satisfy all concerns?

Overall, antiquity is not a reliable hallmark of authentic, rather it is the hallmark of antiquarianism.

Indeed, there are many things that are very old and very wrong (heresies, for instance), but without a sense of your own spiritual and liturgical roots (which necessarily involves looking into history), what do you have? I find it hard to believe that the Maronite Church’s roots are the sort of hybrid (N.O.) Latin-Arabic with a veneer of Syriac that I have personally seen within the last week while viewing contemporary Maronite liturgies on Noursat/Telelumiere. If old is not necessarily gold, it also does not follow that anything that is condemned as novelty is done so in a knee-jerk fashion. I believe it is possible to have contemporary liturgies that are also authentic. That is just not what I have observed going on in the Maronite world.

But this comment goes a step further into unpleasantness with these ideas of “indulging” and “trumping”. …] I suppose that some of these features may have characterized certain times and places in history.

Indeed, certain times and certain places which, according to certain Maronite historians who I have read (Georges T. Labaki, for one) include Lebanon at certain times in her history.

Restoration of substantive, lapsed practices is critical to all - albeit with some variance on what is deemed critical.

Agreed.

I also am not at all persuaded by your “harmful relationship” idea. At Balamand, we agreed that the idea of a “missionary apostolate” was harmful. I don’t think that the minor variations in practice are an issue - apart from the Pharisees of our age, or people who just want to find fault.

And I have not meant to imply that the relationship between Rome and the East/Orient, or even Rome and the Maronites in particular, is entirely negative. Please note my wording: “…what the Latin church itself now rightly sees as a harmful relationship” (as in, it was a mistake when such and such a thing happened/was attempted). To the RCCs great credit, there seems to be an openness about admitting that it hasn’t always had a sterling past in this regard.

 

[dzheremi]

Again with the presuppositions. Tell me, with validation, what was “imposed” in my particular church (BCC Ruthenian). Is it anything that we have been talking about in this thread? If you can’t provide the validation then, please, I ask you to retract this terribly insulting remark.

I think you may be getting the idea (and I am sure I am at fault for this) that if I use a word like “imposed” or similar, I must be talking about the Pope coming into some Eastern or Oriental church, putting his boot on the neck of its Patriarch, and declaring that such and such a practice MUST be adopted. I don’t really think that’s the case. Particularly with regard to the Maronites, the more reading I do and the more Maronite friends I meet, the more it seems that sometimes their own leadership at various levels is their church’s worst enemy.

I think that, again, this remark is largely off-base.

If you are referring to the argument itself, I agree!

The Latin church is big, and widespread. Insofar as cultural contact is important, then this situation is natural. The Latins are in strong contact with all other churches. The other churches, so small, by comparison are in contact with very little of the Latin church. I would expect little reciprocity. In fact, I would expect that Eastern influences in the Western church come from contact with large, Orthodox churches. It’s OK with me. I also like boutique wineries better than E&J Gallo.

I see. My only point in approaching things this way is to point out some of the problems with this idea of “give and take” as it relates to the Catholic communion. There definitely is a balancing act to be attempted in any communion, and I’m not meaning to fault the Latin church in this instance so much as explaining why I am unconvinced by this particular rationale (because I don’t see the give and take that others apparently do).

I am happy if they do their thing, and leave us alone to do ours.

If that has been your experience, then that is very good to hear. It does not seem to be the case for all, unfortunately. Eastern and Oriental Catholics don’t become Orthodox (or just give up and go to Latin masses or stop attending church) for no reason.

I am not sure what you think Latins should be doing? But I would like you to give us a list. You may have some nice ideas.

Ultimately, this is for those in union with Rome to work out. I am presenting my view (that I don’t expect any Eastern or Oriental Catholic to agree with, of course) because there seem to be some conflicting ideas about what is appropriate for the Maronites which have involved no small amount of discussion on these issues. I have a lot of respect for the Maronites, and frankly I think they get a raw deal in these discussions. I don’t intend to tell the Latins, the Ruthenians, the Maronites, or anyone else what they should be doing. Having been a Latin myself, though, I know when something looks to me. The video looks Latin to me. If it weren’t for video title, I would’ve assumed that I was watching a video on Latin Catholics who have a particular interest in the Syriac language (another thing I am familiar with – I was one of these, too).

 

[dzheremi]

In the East, we think that a salient characteristic of theoria and praxis is our avoidance of an overly intellectualized view of the church. For all of the great intellect of Cappadocian fathers, we are *moved *by charity and by holiness. It is very recent in our history that the a majority of adults in our churches could read. I am not sure even now that many are prepared to read esoteric theology. I am pretty sure that few are interested or see reading as an important tool for advancing their salvation. Certainly not as important as liturgy, private prayers, asceticism. This is the way I was immersed in Eastern religion, by family and by clergy. This is what we do. It is an experiential church as people like to say - and that experience is local.

So what about the concerns that puzzle you so much? They simply are not my concerns. You can be worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is necessary. And shopping for an issue free church is not the way to find it.

And indeed it was my experience with the Byzantine Catholics that disabused me of this notion that I could or should be one, and it will be my experience (God-willing) of the Coptic Orthodox church that will help to determine if I will be nourished in it. I really don’t see what you’re getting at here. I don’t think I’ve presented any sort of “esoteric theology” in the quoted portion you are responding to, or anywhere else in this thread. Yes, these concerns are not your concerns. In a way, they are not even my concerns anymore, either, as I was referring to a time when I was not on my current path to Orthodoxy. I suspect that if I were to return to a Byzantine Catholic (or for that matter Byzantine Orthodox) church, it would be a fundamentally different experience for me than it was during the time period I was describing. I might even get more out of it, given my subsequent learning at the feet of many good and kind Orthodox friends, and the absolutely transformative effect of my discovery of the Desert Fathers. But that’s neither here nor there. I don’t live in a possible world where I could possibly conceive of heading back to Rome (through Lviv, or anywhere else), only the actual world.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex…do you see the UGCC as a body of it’s own or part of a larger Byzantine tradition?

I see it as both - a Particular Church, the Church of Kyiv, which has inculturated into the Ukrainian heritage. This is also how Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor saw it and suffered for it, as you well know, and yet didn’t see things like Eucharistic Adoration as being ultra vires Eastern Christianity.

Today, there is no “pure” Byzantine tradition that is not, at once, an expression of Greek, Russian etc. cultural traditions as well.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Your lack of knowledge regarding this issue gives credence to the good father’s arguments, and you both miss the point. Many elements of the rubrics are given options by Synodal approval, i.e. ad orientem vs. ad populum. You and Fr. Michael are confusing obligation with options. Not only can he and his community practice the apex of our tradition as much as the rubrics will allow, but that they as a community choose not to. Everything I listed is valid and approved by the Synod. Furthermore, Fr. Michael has demonstrated a lack of general knowledge about his tradition, case in point believing that the veil or curtain is somehow only a Syriac exclusive tradition. Monks in our tradition, nay Eastern Christianity, are called to be those spiritual icons, reflecting the obedience we laity should strive to reflect. How is this community living up to that calling by sanctioning the bare minimum of our tradition’s expressions? Focusing on contemplation over tradition? It’s a poor understanding of our church’s history if that is going to be used as an argument.

What the Synod and Patriarch does about keeping our liturgical house in order is another topic; how this community expresses its liturgical self is the topic of this thread.

The self-imposed Latinizations for the sake of distinguishing oneself is a tangential issue, and I’d rather not entertain it in this thread.

Dear Yeshua,

Unfortunately, your own lack of knowledge about me and my Church led you to a mistaken conclusion. What you describe for the Maronites is the same in the UGCC - there are options which is why there is no across the board homogeneity in the UGCC.

The Latinizations for the sake of identity isn’t a tangential issue - at least it was never such in the UGCC. Fr. Michael’s point is not based on lack of knowledge, but on keen historical, socio-cultural insight.

You are very much like my Eastern Rite friends who seem to see a chasm between faith and culture where it will never exist (which is why I left their company).

The question then is what is the cultural reason for Latinizations, as you say, to have arisen in the Maronite tradition? What is the true Maronite tradition and why then, are there “options” if that tradition is defined.

Our UGCC Patriarch, His Beatitude Joseph Cardinal Slipyj led the return of our Church to her Eastern traditions, including the placement of St Gregory Palamas (formerly villified by Western theologians) into our calendar together with the patriarchal movement. Yet he and his martyr/confessor colleagues all had what you and your ilk call “Latinizations” by way of Eucharistic Adoration and the like.

I strongly suspect that there is much more to the Maronite story than you are willing to share here, for whatever reason.

I don’t accept your arguments because they lack the rudimentary foundation that any argumentation should have - in addition to an appalling lack of Christian charity that should exist in any discussion on a Catholic forum. If I come across the same, it is only because I am offended at your post, both for Fr. Michael and for myself.

Alex

 

[ciero]

I see it as both - a Particular Church, the Church of Kyiv, which has inculturated into the Ukrainian heritage. This is also how Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor saw it and suffered for it, as you well know, and yet didn’t see things like Eucharistic Adoration as being ultra vires Eastern Christianity.

Today, there is no “pure” Byzantine tradition that is not, at once, an expression of Greek, Russian etc. cultural traditions as well.

Alex

Alex…the point I would like to make is that the particular churches are part and parcel of a bigger tradition. (Unfortunately not so for the Maronites) The churches of the Byzantine tradition in communion with Rome are a small part of that Byzantine tradition, and in my opinion should be following the lead of our mother churches. Changes in the liturgy and para liturgical life of the church should be no different between the Orthodox & Catholic churches.

Here is a link to a paper Abbot Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Monastery in Newberry Springs Ca gave a number of years ago at the Orientale Lumen conference. I think he makes a number of good points. I would be interested in your comments. hrmonline.org/PDFs/Abbot_Nicholas’_paper_at_Orientale_Lumen_Conference_V,_2001.pdf

As to Hieroconfessor Josef…we live in a very different church today then he did…many thinks have changed…the big one being we no longer accept the idea of Uniatism as being a healthy way for us Eastern Catholics to move forward.

I am working on putting together a trip to Russia and Ukraine probably in July…any info on those villages of Greek Catholics with 24/7 Adoration…or any other highly Latinized places you might recommend for my visit…I like to get a feel for where the need for these things come from…and in my experience doing it “on the ground” gets the best results. The Theological Institute in L’viv was no help…not sure if they wanted to hide these things or they just don’t know about them.

Thanks!
Ciero

 

[frmgc]

… Not only can he and his community practice the apex of our tradition as much as the rubrics will allow, but that they as a community choose not to.

We’ve chosen to be like St. Sharbel and St. Nimtallah and NOT to crusade against the hierarchy. You are unaware of how I have privately addressed this issue with our bishop. Nevertheless, are we not free, even to be commended, for complying in this case with his wishes? There’s not a matter of conscience here, to be sure — and yet, I agree that our tradition is to be preferred, even as the Holy See counseled all the Eastern Churches 15 years ago. IIRC, the Chaldean Church renewed the liturgy a few years ago and mandated a universal return to “ad orientem”.

Monks in our tradition, nay Eastern Christianity, are called to be those spiritual icons, reflecting the obedience we laity should strive to reflect. How is this community living up to that calling by sanctioning the bare minimum of our tradition’s expressions?

Here is the example to follow: St. Sharbel and St. Nimtallah. Neither one complained publicly, AFAIK, of using Roman vestments, the filioque, the lack of a curtain, the Roman canon (consecration) translated into Syriac to be used in every anaphora, etc. They complied, even if they may have privately expressed their opinions and desires to their fathers.

What the Synod and Patriarch does about keeping our liturgical house in order is another topic; how this community expresses its liturgical self is the topic of this thread.

The self-imposed Latinizations for the sake of distinguishing oneself is a tangential issue, and I’d rather not entertain it in this thread.

Any “Latininzations” we use are part and parcel of anything Maronite … they’re not “self-imposed”. Now, if you want to see the self-imposed kind, go to the Maronite parishes where you’ll see altar girls, etc.

United in adoration of Jesus,

fr. michael gilmary, mma

 

[ciero]

We’ve chosen to be like St. Sharbel and St. Nimtallah and NOT to crusade against the hierarchy. You are unaware of how I have privately addressed this issue with our bishop. Nevertheless, are we not free, even to be commended, for complying in this case with his wishes? There’s not a matter of conscience here, to be sure — and yet, I agree that our tradition is to be preferred, even as the Holy See counseled all the Eastern Churches 15 years ago. IIRC, the Chaldean Church renewed the liturgy a few years ago and mandated a universal return to “ad orientem”.

Here is the example to follow: St. Sharbel and St. Nimtallah. Neither one complained publicly, AFAIK, of using Roman vestments, the filioque, the lack of a curtain, the Roman canon (consecration) translated into Syriac to be used in every anaphora, etc. They complied, even if they may have privately expressed their opinions and desires to their fathers.

Any “Latininzations” we use are part and parcel of anything Maronite … they’re not “self-imposed”. Now, if you want to see the self-imposed kind, go to the Maronite parishes where you’ll see altar girls, etc.

United in adoration of Jesus,

fr. michael gilmary, mma

So Eucharistic Adoration is not self imposed by your community?

 

[dzheremi]

Alex…the point I would like to make is that the particular churches are part and parcel of a bigger tradition. (Unfortunately not so for the Maronites)

Are the Maronites not part of the Syriac tradition? Isn’t the official name of the church the Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch? (ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܬܐ ܡܪܘܢܝܬܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ‎)

 

[ciero]

Are the Maronites not part of the Syriac tradition? Isn’t the official name of the church the Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch? (ܥܕܬܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܬܐ ܡܪܘܢܝܬܐ ܕܐܢܛܝܘܟܝܐ‎)

Sorry…what I meant by that was the Maronites have no Orthodox counterpart.

 

[frmgc]

So Eucharistic Adoration is not self imposed by your community?

It’s as “self-imposed” as any other obedience to grace. Of that, I’m sure.

It’s a charism judged by the Church to be a gift of God for the Maronite Church, i.e., the judgment of the Holy See, the Patriarch and the Bishop of St. Maron of Brooklyn.

United in adoration of Jesus,

fr. michael gilmary, mma

 

[ciero]

It’s as “self-imposed” as any other obedience to grace. Of that, I’m sure.

It’s a charism judged by the Church to be a gift of God for the Maronite Church, i.e., the judgment of the Holy See, the Patriarch and the Bishop of St. Maron of Brooklyn.

United in adoration of Jesus,

fr. michael gilmary, mma

Can you elaborate on how or where the Holy See has judged that Eucharistic Adoration is or should be a charism of the Maronite church? I know your bishop is all in favor of Latinization…but the Holy See?

 

[Aramis]

Can you elaborate on how or where the Holy See has judged that Eucharistic Adoration is or should be a charism of the Maronite church? I know your bishop is all in favor of Latinization…but the Holy See?

The Holy See approved their typicon, and their multi-ritual membership.

(For a man to be enrolled as a monastic of another rite than his enrollment requires the permission of the Holy See. It doesn’t require him to transfer enrollment, but it does require the same level of oversight. Likewise ordination requires such permissions.)

And the Holy See did so with the encouragement of both the eparch of Brooklyn and the patriarch of the Maronites.

For those thinking the MMA should be more vocal about return to tradition, I disagree. The good hieromonk has pointed out their call to obedience. A call that, for a monastic, is in the finest traditions, and the rules of many orders. St. Francis’ children are not even to disagree privately once the decision is made. St Dominic’s will obey, and ask for an explanation… but not disagree openly.

Monks chastising the bishops openly is an almost uniquely byzantine thing… and perhaps, even, a bad example from Mt. Athos…