My Big Discovery!

[Allyson]

The Western Liturgy is just as elaborate and complex as the East, or at least it was until quite recently.

So sadly true. However, I have been to and heard of Novus Ordo’s which are done well, but the text is no where near the complexity as the Liturgies of Sts. Basil and John Chrysostom with which I am most familiar (that has changing parts every week). I, sadly can not say that I know the text of the Old Latin Rite, or of the other Orthodox Liturgies, etc.

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Servus Pio XII,

I have personally never seen it in this manner. A study of orthodox Catholic history demonstrates that there were always tensions. However, by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, unity was always maintained.

In my personal view, the problem came during the time of Florence, when the lay people of the Eastern Orthodox Church sought to judge her bishops and depose them. This opened the way for an ecclesiology that is foreign to Catholic and patristic thought. It is today not uncommon to hear of EO Christians state that there is no such thing as a head bishop, or that the primacy of a head bishop (forget the Pope for a moment) is one of mere honor and not actual jurisdiction. This innovation has made it that much harder for reunion to occur. I know for a fact that the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oriental) would not accept the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox. The SOC regard the primacy of authority (not merely primacy of honor) of St. Peter as a matter of Faith (i.e., not just a canonical or disciplinary issue), a primacy of authority that has been handed down in the apostolic succession.

Thus, I do not blame the matter on intra-jurisdictional tension, but rather the innovative popular ecclesiology that the EO now possess.

Blessings,
Marduk

The problem with the reference to the Syrians is that they profess their patriarch of Antioch to be the successor of Peter. They don’t believe the Pope of Rome has any more authority than their own patriarch of Antioch.

 

[twf]

Servus Pio XII:

The Western Liturgy is just as elaborate and complex as the East, or at least it was until quite recently.

Remember, as per the Holy Father’s recent legislation, the Latin Church has two standard liturgies at the moment: the Ordinary Form (the missal of Paul V, commonly called the “Novus Ordo”) and the Extraordinary Form (the missal of Bl. John XXIII, a revision of the missal of St. Pius V, commonly called the “Tridentine Latin Mass”), so it’s not fair to say “it was until quite recently”. The Ordinary Form can be very beautiful and quite elaborate. I attended an Oridnary Form (Novus Ordo) mass in my city recently with a beautiful choir singing in Latin, an elaborate procession of literally dozens of priests, incense, etc lasting close to two hours. Yes sadly they are often watered down, but I have been to some stunning Ordinary Form masses. Did you, by chance, see Pope John Paul’s funeral mass? No one could call that anything but complex and elaborate…

Jimmy: According to Pope St. Gregory the Great the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch ARE all successors of St. Peter. I, as a Latin Catholic, have no problem with this theological position. It must be remembered, however, that Pope St. Gregory CLEARLY taught the superority of the Chair of Peter in Rome over that of the other two Petrine Chairs…

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Remember, as per the Holy Father’s recent legislation, the Latin Church has two standard liturgies at the moment: the Ordinary Form (the missal of Paul V, commonly called the “Novus Ordo”) and the Extraordinary Form (the missal of Bl. John XXIII, a revision of the missal of St. Pius V, commonly called the “Tridentine Latin Mass”), so it’s not fair to say “it was until quite recently”. The Ordinary Form can be very beautiful and quite elaborate. I attended an Oridnary Form (Novus Ordo) mass in my city recently with a beautiful choir singing in Latin, an elaborate procession of literally dozens of priests, incense, etc lasting close to two hours. Yes sadly they are often watered down, but I have been to some stunning Ordinary Form masses. Did you, by chance, see Pope John Paul’s funeral mass? No one could call that anything but complex and elaborate…

Point conceded, but it actually argues in my favour that Latin liturgies may be elaborate…

The OP asserted “noble Roman simplicity” as the hallmark of Latin liturgies, and I felt compelled to disagree.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy: According to Pope St. Gregory the Great the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch ARE all successors of St. Peter. I, as a Latin Catholic, have no problem with this theological position. It must be remembered, however, that Pope St. Gregory CLEARLY taught the superority of the Chair of Peter in Rome over that of the other two Petrine Chairs…

It might be the case that Rome is superior to the others. But I don’t think it is accurate to refer to the Syrians view that Peter was pre-eminent among the apostles and the petrine see as pre-eminent as a source to say that the pope of Rome is superior. They viewed their own patriarch of Antioch as a petrine see. If they view Rome as superior then their seperation is hypopcrisy in itself. I don’t think their reference to the Petrine see has any reference to Rome.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Another point in the OP I would like to contest is that the Orthodox have “overemphasised liturgy at the expense of doctrine”.

I beg pardon, but is it not purity of teaching that the Orthodox take the most pride in? Is it not the Catholics who are willing to communicate those who are not in doctrinal agreement with the Catholic Church (for starters the Orthodox)?

Who, then, is substituting liturgy for doctrine?

 

[Aramis]

Servus:

Living in a state with as many Orthodox as Catholics…

The Orthodox churches have emphasized highly orthopraxis, but have not done any better at chatechesis than the Catholics, east or west.

Many of the Orthodox I meet are less well catechized than most of the Latin Rite catholics, and they tend to be a woeful state. This isn’t to say there is no emphasis on othodoxis; but at least in the RO diocese of Alaska, they do no better than the Catholics at emphasizing orthodoxis…

The RO in Alaska are FAR more fixated on othopraxis than are the Catholics, both Ruthenian and Roman.

Both the Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches operate under a mentality of “As they pray,so they believe.” Too bad that that isn’tas axiomatic as it sounds.

 

[Allyson]

Servus:

Living in a state with as many Orthodox as Catholics…

The Orthodox churches have emphasized highly orthopraxis, but have not done any better at chatechesis than the Catholics, east or west.

Many of the Orthodox I meet are less well catechized than most of the Latin Rite catholics, and they tend to be a woeful state. This isn’t to say there is no emphasis on othodoxis; but at least in the RO diocese of Alaska, they do no better than the Catholics at emphasizing orthodoxis…

The RO in Alaska are FAR more fixated on othopraxis than are the Catholics, both Ruthenian and Roman.

Both the Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches operate under a mentality of “As they pray,so they believe.” Too bad that that isn’tas axiomatic as it sounds.

Aramis,

Thank you for the perspective of your experience. Growing up in as a member of the Latin Rite, I got my cathechesis more from my Father (who was catechised before Vatican II) than from CCD. I searched out the content of the faith for myself, since it was not really present more than the bare bones in CCD. At least I can say the CCD program was not heretical!

What I took from the original poster was: in his words “They remain stagnant, trapped in some ways in the year 1054, when they fell into schism. The hunger for understanding the profundity of the Faith has somewhat gone down the drain.” AND “These Christians had something the EO’s did not have: a living Teaching Authority to spread and clarify the Faith. When the EO Church went into schism, they lost almost all sense of doctrinal catechesis (at least uniformly). This led to the EO’s overemphasis on Liturgy and ritual, at the expense of doctrine.” nope: One does not necessitate the other.) That is that proposing that the Orthodox did have not had their own vibrant development of theology and spirituality since 1054AD is a sad misrepresentation of the history of the last ~1100 years!

However, it is true that cathechesis as a whole suffers today just about everywhere. I like to blame Modernism for that.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Both the Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches operate under a mentality of “As they pray,so they believe.” Too bad that that isn’tas axiomatic as it sounds.

Yet the prayers of the East reflect far more belief than those of the West…O Woeful state of Western Liturgy!

Also remember that to many Orthodox (esp. those higher theologians responsible for catechesis) praxis = doxis. To separate them would be criminal. Unfortunately, this understanding often stops at the subdiaconate, and fails to reach the lay.

And I do acknowledge that in practice, ideals usually remain unmet.

I was comparing, however (as is meet in theological discussions) the official teachings of both Churches.

 

[Aramis]

Yet the prayers of the East reflect far more belief than those of the West…O Woeful state of Western Liturgy!

Also remember that to many Orthodox (esp. those higher theologians responsible for catechesis) praxis = doxis. To separate them would be criminal. Unfortunately, this understanding often stops at the subdiaconate, and fails to reach the lay.

And I do acknowledge that in practice, ideals usually remain unmet.

I was comparing, however (as is meet in theological discussions) the official teachings of both Churches.

Both the Orthodox and Western liturgies are intended to teach orthodoxis through orthopraxis; neither has attained this with the modern social structures in Western society.

It is my experience that it is harder to remain heterodox in an Eastern parish, in part, because they are smaller. Further, at least in the slavic cultures, Debate and Argument are cultural norms… Irascible Old Poles, Ukrainians, Rusyn’s & Russians debating after liturgy are a well based stereotype… Most slavic-culture raised individuals I know love to argue. Much as most of the culturally Irish individuals I’ve known are prone to storytelling; neither is a universal, but both are valued in the culture, and thus even in the diluted subcultures of immigrants, still trained in.

Every week, or nearly so, two of the guys at St. Nick’s are discussing some of the finer points of church history and/or theology. Sometimes I join them. Sometimes, so does the diaconal candidate. At any given point, there is likely to be one or more heated debates going on… and no feelings are hurt. The Slavs are noted for complaining, and for debating… it’s so strong a cultural norm that the Marquis de Custine remarks on it in some of his works. Solzhenitsyn has commented on the western lack of willingness to debate informally.

It’s been said that any time you have a topic and three slavs, you have a debate. This helps drive orthodoxis in the Slavic East… if you are not exhibiting what the others think is orthodoxis, they will correct you. Or give it a good try.

I’ve noticed exactly the same in the Russian Orthodox parishes. Debates on theology and praxis after liturgy.

Heck, I stopped in to buy an Icon at Our Lady in Kenai (RO-OCA), and wound up in a 45+minute discussion with the Pastor, and a visting Ukrainian couple. All of us enjoying it. (My wife was quietly cringing the whole time. She doesn’t understand it, but she’s noticed it, too.)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Aramis,

Thank you for the perspective of your experience. Growing up in as a member of the Latin Rite, I got my cathechesis more from my Father (who was catechised before Vatican II) than from CCD.

To be honest, I think that is as it should be. Too often we think the priest etc. should be taking the primary responsibility for religious education of our children. No, as parents, it is ours. That’s why they are OUR children.

However, it is true that cathechesis as a whole suffers today just about everywhere. I like to blame Modernism for that.

Having taught in secular universities and high schools, I have to say catechesis is not the only place that suffers as a whole.

 

[Allyson]

To be honest, I think that is as it should be. Too often we think the priest etc. should be taking the primary responsibility for religious education of our children. No, as parents, it is ours. That’s why they are OUR children.

Yes, you are right to make this point, without the parental guidance there is no real direction, because children always look to their parents first for leadership.

Having taught in secular universities and high schools, I have to say catechesis is not the only place that suffers as a whole.

Sooo Sadly True! ( Said Note:My Dad always thought critical thinking skills got lost in my public education - he fixed that too! He was a chemist.) And the secular schools do much to undermine cathechesis where they can.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Point conceded, but it actually argues in my favour that Latin liturgies may be elaborate…

The OP asserted “noble Roman simplicity” as the hallmark of Latin liturgies, and I felt compelled to disagree.

While not the OP’s strongest point, it is worth noting that the glorious photographs of various High Masses that are circulating all about the net since the establishment of the EF as the EF… The vast majority of all liturgies in the west - when daily and private Masses are factored in - were not grand complicated affairs.

Low Mass - an unsung recited Mass was by far the most common. Ironically, I have heard complaints from a few folks who attend in the EF that they would like more opportunities for low Masses as in the heady excitement of the restoration of the EF so widely, so very many locations where it is celebrated is putting all emphasis on the more graniose forms of the expression.

All in all, I think I get what the OP was trying to say, he perhaps just did not qualify it enough.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It might be the case that Rome is superior to the others. But I don’t think it is accurate to refer to the Syrians view that Peter was pre-eminent among the apostles and the petrine see as pre-eminent as a source to say that the pope of Rome is superior. They viewed their own patriarch of Antioch as a petrine see. If they view Rome as superior then their seperation is hypopcrisy in itself. I don’t think their reference to the Petrine see has any reference to Rome.

Jimmy I think you read the post to fast - you are essentially repeating what mardukm wrote:

This opened the way for an ecclesiology that is foreign to Catholic and patristic thought. It is today not uncommon to hear of EO Christians state that there is no such thing as a head bishop, or that the primacy of a head bishop (forget the Pope for a moment) is one of mere honor and not actual jurisdiction. This innovation has made it that much harder for reunion to occur. I know for a fact that the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oriental) would not accept the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox. The SOC regard the primacy of authority (not merely primacy of honor) of St. Peter as a matter of Faith (i.e., not just a canonical or disciplinary issue), a primacy of authority that has been handed down in the apostolic succession.

Without reference to the Pope of Rome, he is saying “They viewed their own patriarch of Antioch as a petrine see.” and demonstrating that certain modern and innovative ecclesiologies in Orthodoxy that express a view of NO bishop being a ranking bishop for reasons besides perhaps expedience would NOT fly with the Syrian Orthodox. (I have heard patriarchates explained away as “honorary heads of bishops conferences” by some who were adamnantly trying to prove their is no ranking in episcopal authority.)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, you are right to make this point, without the parental guidance there is no real direction, because children always look to their parents first for leadership.

Sooo Sadly True! ( Said Note:My Dad always thought critical thinking skills got lost in my public education - he fixed that too! He was a chemist.) And the secular schools do much to undermine cathechesis where they can.

I have to commend your father on doing his job, although I am sure he considered it a privilege.

I also have to commend you for giving credit where credit is due. As St. Paul says, that Commandment, among the top Ten, comes with a promise.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Jimmy I think you read the post to fast - you are essentially repeating what mardukm wrote:

Without reference to the Pope of Rome, he is saying “They viewed their own patriarch of Antioch as a petrine see.” and demonstrating that certain modern and innovative ecclesiologies in Orthodoxy that express a view of NO bishop being a ranking bishop for reasons besides perhaps expedience would NOT fly with the Syrian Orthodox. (I have heard patriarchates explained away as “honorary heads of bishops conferences” by some who were adamnantly trying to prove their is no ranking in episcopal authority.)

Still doesn’t explain, as Jimmy points out, why the Syriac Church does not defer to the Latin Church while it does to the Coptic Church. One would think that St. Peter trumps St. Mark in any contest of “apostolicity.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Exactly the point: the See with the best documented claim to being divinely established as a patriarchate, and it wasn’t.

No, if you compare the territory Alexandria and Antioch etc. covered, it was coterminous with their status as capitals.

Rome’s status as a honorary capital (Milan had replaced it as the real capital in the West) was the same as its status in the Church.

You’ve gotta be kidding! You’ve got it all mixed up.

The reason these became Patriarchates was NOT because they were capitals, but because they had huge numbers of Christians living in them. Their high status in Christendom did NOT depend on the imperial favor. THEY ALREADY POSSESSED THE HIGHEST STATUS WITHIN CHRISTENDOM EVEN BEFORE CONSTANTINE CAME INTO THE PICTURE. The importance of these cities to the Christian world reflected, in the minds of the Roman and Alexandrian Fathers, a certain divine favor, a divine establishment.

The reason Jerusalem lost its initial importance was not only because of its sparse Christian population, but because Scripture predicted that the Sacrifice would no longer be offered there.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Still doesn’t explain, as Jimmy points out, why the Syriac Church does not defer to the Latin Church while it does to the Coptic Church. One would think that St. Peter trumps St. Mark in any contest of “apostolicity.”

There’s not a problem here. The SOC are members of the Oriental Orthodox communion, not the Catholic communion. That is why Alexandria holds precedence in their eyes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

There’s not a problem here. The SOC are members of the Oriental Orthodox communion, not the Catholic communion. That is why Alexandria holds precedence in their eyes.

And why doesn’t St. Peter at Antioch? Zakka Iwas Ignatius still claims the succession of St. Peter (as does the EO, Melkite, Maronite and Syrian under Rome). If the primacy is in Peter, why does his disciple St. Mark have it among the OO?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

You’ve gotta be kidding! You’ve got it all mixed up.

The reason these became Patriarchates was NOT because they were capitals, but because they had huge numbers of Christians living in them. Their high status in Christendom did NOT depend on the imperial favor. THEY ALREADY POSSESSED THE HIGHEST STATUS WITHIN CHRISTENDOM EVEN BEFORE CONSTANTINE CAME INTO THE PICTURE. The importance of these cities to the Christian world reflected, in the minds of the Roman and Alexandrian Fathers, a certain divine favor, a divine establishment.

So it just “happens” that their ranking in the Church followed their civil ranking? Ooops, I mean paralleled, copied, or whatever term you want to you. Bottom line: Rome was on the decline and had shrunk by the time we are talking of to a fourth of its size at her height, and would sink further still. Alexandria and Antioch were still vibrant cities. Jerusalem was a town at most, and was under Caesarea’s shadow, until the pilgrim trade changed that, resulting in her elevation.

Yes, the Fathers speak of divine favor, how Romulus founded Rome, how Alexander founded Alexandria, how Ausgustus united the world so that the Church could spread in it. The divine favor was shown through, not despite, the secular order.

The reason Jerusalem lost its initial importance was not only because of its sparse Christian population, but because Scripture predicted that the Sacrifice would no longer be offered there.

Funny, my Bible ends with the vision of a New Jerusalem.

I’ve never heard such a justification of why Jerusalem did not have patriarchal status, and were that the reason, why did the Fathers elevate it? Did sacrifices resume?