The Orthodox and the Hail Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silyosha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ciero said:
You are HARDLY Eastern!! You are a Latin thru and thru , and whats even worse one who mixes traditions. Pick a church and embrace its theology and traditions fully, mixing and matching results in Uniatism at its worst.
You give the Latin church a bad name by trying to force your Latin ways of thinking on us Easterners. Until you understand we see things VERY differently then the Latins, we aproach things differently you will never be Byzantine, no matter how much you love the liturgy and read the fathers.
I love the Traditional Latin Mass and plenty of the Roman Saints, that Hardly makes me a Latin! I just dont get it, refugees from the Latin church telling us Easterners how our own churches should think! Annoying to say the least.
Please excuse my rambling I am just so annoyed :mad:!

Metropolitan Jonah here I come!!
Click to expand...
In that case share some of your vile for me too, because I’m in the same boat. We’re not “Western” or “Eastern” so much as Catholic - there is NO GOOD REASON why the riches of the Faith have to be compartmentalized and isolated from each other. I for one am a Catholic who knows nothing but the Faith, and knows no disagreement or division within the One Church. There is one Faith and one Truth, and if there is any disagreement between East and West, then somebody is right, and somebody is wrong. I also wear the brown scapular, pray the Rosary, genuflect, and attend the Byzantine Divine Liturgy every week I’m home. (At college, I go to the Tridentine Latin Mass, where I continue to pray the Jesus Prayer during Mass and make the sign of the Cross right to left - going left to right just feels weird now, and who is going to care?)

The schism was caused by lack of charity between the particular churches - if you want unity, then please try to practice some of that charity yourself.
 
Diak said:
What I am saying I have said, which is nothing more than summarizing the proclamations of the Magesterium, my Synod, and the official statement of communion between my particular Catholic Church of the Kyivan tradition and the Roman Catholic Church.
…
Click to expand...
I am glad your synod presents the full faith.

I did not make these thing up, I learned of hierarchy by reading CCEO. Also I have read the 33 articles of the Union of Brest, I suppose there is a lot more I have not read. The Byzantine Catholic Church is a little different, originating from Mukachevo. Is this not definitive?:

CCEO Canon 42
Just as, by the Lord’s decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.
CCEO Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
 
Vico said:
I am glad your synod presents the full faith.

I did not make these thing up, I learned of hierarchy by reading CCEO. Also I have read the 33 articles of the Union of Brest, I suppose there is a lot more I have not read. The Byantine Catholic Church is a little different originating from Mukachevo. Is this not definitive:

CCEO Canon 42
Just as, by the Lord’s decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.
CCEO Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
Click to expand...
That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t talk about the Curia.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t talk about the Curia.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
The Curia has authority delegated to it by the Pope - it is his bureaucracy. What they decree is done in the Pope’s name.
 
Volodymyr said:
… But you must remember that for Orthodox is fear that Bishop of Rome has too much administrative power - but that it should not ever in past or in future extend to Orthodox church…

But there is very little “Easterner” otherwise in your remarks - you are a person who likes Divine Liturgy. …
Click to expand...
That is understandable since so many remarks have focused on the indulgences dogma, you have not read what I think of Eastern theology.
 
Cecilianus said:
The Curia has authority delegated to it by the Pope - it is his bureaucracy. What they decree is done in the Pope’s name.
Click to expand...
The Pope can’t delegate Papal authority, any more than he can delegate infallibility; it would be like the President delegating the running of the Executive Office to a group of his interns. It is absurd to suggest that a group of priests, who don’t even refer everything they do to the Pope, can order around non-Latin Churches. There is absolutely nothing in the history of the Church which validates such an authority.

This is entirely different from delegating a priest, or anyone else, to carry the Pope’s decrees; that’s not how the Curia operates.

Vico: I recommend taking Ciero with a grain of salt. He called me a Protestant for citing Scripture in support of Catholic teaching. 🤷

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
The Pope can’t delegate Papal authority, any more than he can delegate infallibility; it would be like the President delegating the running of the Executive Office to a group of his interns. It is absurd to suggest that a group of priests, who don’t even refer everything they do to the Pope, can order around non-Latin Churches. There is absolutely nothing in the history of the Church which validates such an authority.

This is entirely different from delegating a priest, or anyone else, to carry the Pope’s decrees; that’s not how the Curia operates.

Vico: I recommend taking Ciero with a grain of salt. He called me a Protestant for citing Scripture in support of Catholic teaching. 🤷

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
I don’t know all the laws, but this is from the Vatican web site:

“THE ROMAN CURIA
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm

So you see, it is confusing to me, because I was never trained in the technical details of Church administration, I have had to research it, recently. Our Byzantine Catholic parish catechical program does not focus on Church government or hierarchy.

Once in a while it is good to add a comment related to the thread.

stjohndc.org/Russian/fathers/e_Prayer_Sarov.htm

westernorthodox.com/rosary.html

The sources above mention this prayer:

Saying one hundred and fifty times the “O Hail, Mother of God and Virgin.” After every ten repetitions say the Our Father once and “Open unto us the doors of thy loving-kindness….”

The full prayer:

15 decades:

Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne Christ the Savior, the Deliverer of our souls.

After each decade say the Our Father and

Open unto us the door of thy loving-kindness, O blessed Mother of God, in that we set our hope on thee, may we not go astray; but through thee may we be delivered from all adversities, for thou art the salvation of all Christian people.
 
The Oriental Tradition is generally more penitential than the Eastern Tradition. As others have noted, a priest giving penance after confession does not seem to be the norm in the Eastern Tradition (though it can occur), but it is the norm in the Oriental and Western Traditions.

The similarities between the Western and Oriental teaching on Penance are:
  1. It is done by an individual to make up for the damage of sin committed to one’s soul.
  2. The Grace of one’s penitential acts can be applied for the benefit of others, both in this life and the next.
The differences between the Western and Oriental teaching on Penance are:
  1. In the Oriental Tradition, it is not done to satisfy the Justice of God, but simply for increase in holiness (i.e., theosis). It should be noted that in the Western Tradition, acts for increase in holiness are themselves regarded as satisfaction for the Justice of God.
  2. The Oriental Churches do not have an ecclesiastical system that claims to have the power to apply the Grace of penitential acts to others - this is left in God’s hands alone.
I personally do not believe that these distinctions warrant disunity. They are all sides of the same multi-faceted coin. A problem would only exist if one seeks to impose one Tradition over and above any other Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Vico: It’s not that there are any canons that prevent the Curia from operating in such a way towards the Eastern Churches, it’s that they shouldn’t and that there is absolutely no sound precedent for it. It is unacceptable, by and large, to the Eastern Catholic Churches that they should be put under Latin functionaries. It is also something that absolutely will not fly with the Orthodox; Papal supremacy is one thing, but Curial supremacy is beyond any acceptability.

If the Catholic Church is at all serious about reunion, the role of the Curia must be greatly modified and severely limited when it comes to the Eastern Catholic Churches (why would the Orthodox accept what the Eastern Catholic Churches can barely tolerate). While they may technically hold sway, they are de facto not immediately accepted by many Eastern Catholics, and with good reason.

Peace and God bless!
 
Dear brother Vico,
Vico said:
“THE ROMAN CURIA
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.”
Click to expand...
This is very ideal, but in praxis, it has not always been the case. There have been several instances in the 18th and 19th centuries when tension existed between the Pope and the Curia because of the Curia’s Latinizing tendencies. Often, the Pope of Rome was the sole defender of the dignity and Traditions of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

I agree with the general apprehensions of the other non-Latins on this thread regarding the Curia. However, I do disagree with them on one point. As I have expressed in the past, I believe the Curia remains the most efficient way that the papacy can help the Eastern and Oriental Churches when they are in need, financially and otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Ghosty,
Ghosty said:
Vico: It’s not that there are any canons that prevent the Curia from operating in such a way towards the Eastern Churches, it’s that they shouldn’t and that there is absolutely no sound precedent for it. It is unacceptable, by and large, to the Eastern Catholic Churches that they should be put under Latin functionaries. It is also something that absolutely will not fly with the Orthodox; Papal supremacy is one thing, but Curial supremacy is beyond any acceptability.

If the Catholic Church is at all serious about reunion, the role of the Curia must be greatly modified and severely limited when it comes to the Eastern Catholic Churches (why would the Orthodox accept what the Eastern Catholic Churches can barely tolerate). While they may technically hold sway, they are de facto not immediately accepted by many Eastern Catholics, and with good reason.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have better info than myself. From what I understand, the only section of the Curia that has a direct hand in the affairs of Eastern and Oriental Churches is the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (I think that’s the name). I believe the only Latin in the group is the Secretary (or Prefect?), and the rest of the members are from Eastern or Oriental Churches. From what I understand, the rest of the Curial dicasteries affect only the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Ghosty said:
The Pope can’t delegate Papal authority, any more than he can delegate infallibility; it would be like the President delegating the running of the Executive Office to a group of his interns. It is absurd to suggest that a group of priests, who don’t even refer everything they do to the Pope, can order around non-Latin Churches. There is absolutely nothing in the history of the Church which validates such an authority.

This is entirely different from delegating a priest, or anyone else, to carry the Pope’s decrees; that’s not how the Curia operates.

Vico: I recommend taking Ciero with a grain of salt. He called me a Protestant for citing Scripture in support of Catholic teaching. 🤷

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
The Curia IS the Pope’s “Executive Office”. The President’s Executive Office has absolutely no authority, or even a right to its existence, from the U.S. Constitution - all of its authority is delegated by the U.S. President, and they act in his name. The Curia is an exact parallel.

I frankly don’t understand the antipathy some Eastern Catholics show towards “interference” by the Pope. The Eastern Catholic liturgy and theology is so Catholic, so orthodox, so traditional and so conservative, that I cannot fathom why they are not the staunchest ultramontanists. It would make much more sense for a Byzantine Catholic to be a staunch ultramontanist than a Latin using the modernist Bugnini Liturgy. I personally love the Pope, love having a Pope, and want more “papal monarchy”, not less. We see what happened to less when the Pope let bishops run amock at Vatican II - not to mention the contemporary American Latin church.
 
Dear brother Cecilianus,
Cecilianus said:
I frankly don’t understand the antipathy some Eastern Catholics show towards “interference” by the Pope. The Eastern Catholic liturgy and theology is so Catholic, so orthodox, so traditional and so conservative, that I cannot fathom why they are not the staunchest ultramontanists. It would make much more sense for a Byzantine Catholic to be a staunch ultramontanist than a Latin using the modernist Bugnini Liturgy. I personally love the Pope, love having a Pope, and want more “papal monarchy”, not less. We see what happened to less when the Pope let bishops run amock at Vatican II - not to mention the contemporary American Latin church.
Click to expand...
Was it the bishops that ran amok, or was it the experimentation of the lower clergy and laypersons?

More papal monarchy would not have solved the problem.

Besides, papal monarchy was not proposed by V1, so it couldn’t exist. As long as a certain region has a bishop, the Pope is constrained by V1 to respect that bishop’s authority and prerogatives, and cannot act as if the bishop was not there.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I added a new thread under Eastern Catholicism entitled: How does the Catholic Church hierarchy work, especially with regard to the Eastern Churches?
 
To all: I’ve responded to both Cecilianus and Mardukm in Vico’s new thread.

Peace and God bless!
 
I frankly don’t understand the antipathy some Eastern Catholics show towards “interference” by the Pope. The Eastern Catholic liturgy and theology is so Catholic, so orthodox, so traditional and so conservative, that I cannot fathom why they are not the staunchest ultramontanists. It would make much more sense for a Byzantine Catholic to be a staunch ultramontanist than a Latin using the modernist Bugnini Liturgy. I personally love the Pope, love having a Pope, and want more “papal monarchy”, not less. We see what happened to less when the Pope let bishops run amock at Vatican II - not to mention the contemporary American Latin church.
Click to expand...
Vatican II has been the most important and influential Council for Eastern Catholics since the Seventh. Thank God our bishops were emboldened to be authentically Eastern Catholic. Otherwise we would still be in the midst of latinized accretions under the influence of “staunchest ultramontanists”.

This also shows that for many Latins we Eastern Catholics are only seen within the context of “mass”, New Mass/Not New Mass rather than any serious study of liturgy, spirituality, cultural history and the teachings of the Fathers.
 
Diak said:
Vatican II has been the most important and influential Council for Eastern Catholics since the Seventh. Thank God our bishops were emboldened to be authentically Eastern Catholic. Otherwise we would still be in the midst of latinized accretions under the influence of “staunchest ultramontanists”.

This also shows that for many Latins we Eastern Catholics are only seen within the context of “mass”, New Mass/Not New Mass rather than any serious study of liturgy, spirituality, cultural history and the teachings of the Fathers.
Click to expand...
No - I HAVE made a serious study of your (our) liturgy, spirituality, cultural history, and the teachings of your (our) Fathers, including post-schism Orthodox saints and fathers (Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Cabasilas, St. Symeon the New Theologian, Russian monasticism, modern Orthodox theologians, etc. - and I will read the Philokalia as soon as I can get to it), and I’ve been practicing your entire spirituality (the Jesus prayer, akathists, Rule of St. Pachomius, and a half-hearted occasional effort at some of the psycho-physical methods meant to aid hesychasm) for several years, not just going to Liturgy. But orthodoxy (by which I mean the traditional Faith handed down to us in its integrity; i.e., “right glory”) is a major and inseparable component of Byzantine Catholicism, and orthodoxy is central to our Faith - rather like the place of the Pope. Any distancing between the two doesn’t make sense to me.

(And, incidentally, I fully plan to get a canonical transfer as soon as I can handle the fasts - we’ll see how the next Great Lent goes - so please don’t call me a Latin. I still preserve my deep love for the authentic Latin tradition - the Tridentine Mass - but I love the Byzantine one even more. Again, though, I don’t see any reason for putting distance between those two either. 🙂 )
 
Diak said:
Vatican II has been the most important and influential Council for Eastern Catholics since the Seventh. Thank God our bishops were emboldened to be authentically Eastern Catholic.
Click to expand...
This is perhaps true for the Byzantines, but certainly not for the Maronites. Not by a long shot. 😦
Diak said:
Otherwise we would still be in the midst of latinized accretions under the influence of “staunchest ultramontanists”.
Click to expand...
Some of us are members of Churches that, unfortunately, still are. :(😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top