The supposed inferiority of the Latin Rite

[palmas85]

The Orthodox East does not have a corresponding dogma for the filioque, and one is not needed. It is one of the Latin additions, which as I pointed out, were not addressed by the Zoghby Initiative.

If the Zoghby Initiative were composed differently (to the satisfaction of most Orthodox Catholic Christians), for instance, if it did say I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches 'and disbelieve all of the Latin additions’ then I think perhaps you would have a cause for concern.

But that is not in fact the position of any Eastern Catholic church under the Pope, and it is not what Archbishop Zoghby and the Melkite synod stated. It is therefore not what bpbasilphx claims to support.

I think the issue that most of the Roman Rite would find hard to swallow is the second part of the profession of faith submitted by the late Archbishop which states as follows:

I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.[6]

As I am sure you are well aware, that particular section stands in stark contrast and yes, even opposition to what those of the Roman Rite believe about the Holy Father.

You can try to get a little wiggle room with the first phrase in the profession of faith through semantics, but the second is very clear and is indeed a very powerful statement.

If one does not accept what they Holy Father is, then explain to me how you can be in full communion with the Church that he leads? To me the obvious answer is that you cannot be.

 

[IrishEddieOHara]

Unless I missed it, though, you didn’t say what kind of church St. Ann’s is.

Byzantine Catholic – Reuthenian Rite

 

[malphono]

Byzantine Catholic – Reuthenian Rite

Ah. OK, now I got it.

 

[CradleCath]

I think the issue that most of the Roman Rite would find hard to swallow is the second part of the profession of faith submitted by the late Archbishop which states as follows:

I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.[6]

As I am sure you are well aware, that particular section stands in stark contrast and yes, even opposition to what those of the Roman Rite believe about the Holy Father.

You can try to get a little wiggle room with the first phrase in the profession of faith through semantics, but the second is very clear and is indeed a very powerful statement.

If one does not accept what they Holy Father is, then explain to me how you can be in full communion with the Church that he leads? To me the obvious answer is that you cannot be.

Yep!! The emboldened part is what I cannot accept, either. One who cannot accept the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith & morals, is NOT in full Communion with the Catholic Church.

I also find the title of this thread, & the fact that it was posted in the Traditional Catholic forum, suspicious.

 

[Patchunky]

Byzantine Catholic – Reuthenian Rite

Which St. Anne’s do you go to? The Harrisburg parish or the San Luis Obispo parish?

 

[Diak]

“Present-day nostalgia for what is inaccurately referred to as the Tridentine rite is the
luxury of those who, not having been around at that time, do not have their thought processes
inconvenienced by such things as facts.”

Going on those comments alone he’s obviously someone we’d never take seriously.

“We’d never take seriously”? I think the Church doesn’t take seriously those who repudiate the teachings of the last Council and who work against its decrees (see the proclamation of the Holy Father that the SSPX is separated because of doctrinal differences).

Fr. Taft is greatly respected in both Eastern and the Latin Churches and wrote what is considered universally to be the definitive book on the development of the Divine Office in both the East and West.

 

[Diak]

I think the issue that most of the Roman Rite would find hard to swallow is the second part of the profession of faith submitted by the late Archbishop which states as follows:

I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.[6]

As I am sure you are well aware, that particular section stands in stark contrast and yes, even opposition to what those of the Roman Rite believe about the Holy Father.

You can try to get a little wiggle room with the first phrase in the profession of faith through semantics, but the second is very clear and is indeed a very powerful statement.

If one does not accept what they Holy Father is, then explain to me how you can be in full communion with the Church that he leads? To me the obvious answer is that you cannot be.

First of all, please define “If one does not accept what they Holy Father is” actually means. Check Magisterial documents such as Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, Orientale Lumen, and Ut Unum Sint regarding the nature of the Church and communion with her.

 

[Seamus_L]

By “we” I was referring to Traditional Catholics only. Still, I don’t know why you brought about the SSPX.

 

[Diak]

Only to definitively demonstrate that acceptance of the last Council is not negotiable in the eyes of Rome.

 

[Seamus_L]

Pretty much a non issue for me since I attend Vatican approved Latin Masses in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Never been inside an SSPX Chapel in my life.

 

[Diak]

Good for you. I wouldn’t want anyone to be in a position of dogmatic differences (using the language of the Holy Father) for refusing to accept the last Council. I was a bit confused of your position as on a now-closed thread you stated “I can sympathise with anyone who took refuge at an SSPX Chapel.” as that sympathy would be with someone supporting clergy whom the Holy Father has declared clearly “do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” and with those whom the Church has also declared have doctrinal differences with the Church.

 

[IrishEddieOHara]

There are three ways in which the Byzantine Liturgy is superior (theologically) to the TLM:

1. No Filioque clause in the BL.
2. Explicit epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in the BL (may be part of what Fr. Taft meant by “Trinitarian emphasis”).
3. Communion in both host and chalice by Laity in the BL.

Other than those, they’re both good.

I’m going to add one here.

1. Reception of the Body and Blood of Christ by ALL members of the Body of Christ, even those who are still carried by their mothers in their arms.

Where did the Latins get the idea that infant children should not receive Jesus???

 

[malphono]

I’m going to add one here.

1. Reception of the Body and Blood of Christ by ALL members of the Body of Christ, even those who are still carried by their mothers in their arms.

Where did the Latins get the idea that infant children should not receive Jesus???

I would imagine it comes from the fact that baptized infants are without stain, and also that they are incapable of understanding what they are receiving. The Eucharist is “for the forgiveness of sins” which would seem to say that those who have been cleansed of “original sin” (through Baptism) and are as yet incapable of “actual sin” may not require the Eucharist for their spiritual well-being.

That said, I do not disagree with the Eastern practice of communing infants, but neither do I take it as a requirement. Even where it is done, there is often a “formal communion” that takes places after a certain amount of catechesis.

 

[Frbrendan]

IrishEddyOhara said:

I’m going to add one here.

1. Reception of the Body and Blood of Christ by ALL members of the Body of Christ, even those who are still carried by their mothers in their arms.

Where did the Latins get the idea that infant children should not receive Jesus???

I would imagine it comes from the fact that baptized infants are without stain, and also that they are incapable of understanding what they are receiving.

Does anyone, really? Can you say that you fully understand the Mystery of Holy Eucharist to such a point that you can explain it to a non-believer without using the word “mystery?”

I can’t, but then, I am not called to know exactly how the bread becomes the Body, while still veiled in the element of bread. All that I need to know is that when I receive that little bit of bread, dipped into the wine, I am actually receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

**Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” **Mt 19:14 NIV

If Jesus tells us to let the little ones approach Him, who am I to deny Him, or them?

The Eucharist is “for the forgiveness of sins” which would seem to say that those who have been cleansed of “original sin” (through Baptism) and are as yet incapable of “actual sin” may not require the Eucharist for their spiritual well-being.

In the Byzantine tradition, when a babe in arms comes before the priest, he says, “The child of God receives the precious Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ unto life everlasting.” instead of “The servant (or handmaid) of God receives the precious Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ unto forgiveness of sins and life everlasting.”

The don’t have to understand it. The Eucharist is available to them unto life everlasting!

 

[babochka]

I would imagine it comes from the fact that baptized infants are without stain, and also that they are incapable of understanding what they are receiving. The Eucharist is “for the forgiveness of sins” which would seem to say that those who have been cleansed of “original sin” (through Baptism) and are as yet incapable of “actual sin” may not require the Eucharist for their spiritual well-being.
.

Baptism is also for the forgiveness of sins, but it is not denied to infants. It is an indisputable fact that infant communion was the norm in the East and the West until at least the 12th century. The theology of needing to understand the sacrament came later, and can also be used as an argument against infant baptism. It seems Fr. Taft isn’t particularly respected by some on this forum, but the following is his explanation of the matter:
“The practice [of communing infants] began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the “age of reason” (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the “age of reason” (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist.
“Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious — realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants….So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants. Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the ‘age of reason’ theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the “age of reason” requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants. Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation.”

Elizabeth

 

[malphono]

The don’t have to understand it. The Eucharist is available to them unto life everlasting!

Baptism is also for the forgiveness of sins, but it is not denied to infants. …

A minor point of clarification: my previous post was very simply to offer a possible explanation of the rationale behind the Western practice. It was certainly not an apologetic for that practice. I had thought that was clear, but apparently not.

 

[Frbrendan]

A minor point of clarification: my previous post was very simply to offer a possible explanation of the rationale behind the Western practice. It was certainly not an apologetic for that practice. I had thought that was clear, but apparently not.

Mea culpa!

 

[CradleCath]

Good for you. I wouldn’t want anyone to be in a position of dogmatic differences (using the language of the Holy Father) for refusing to accept the last Council. I was a bit confused of your position as on a now-closed thread you stated “I can sympathise with anyone who took refuge at an SSPX Chapel.” as that sympathy would be with someone supporting clergy whom the Holy Father has declared clearly “do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” and with those whom the Church has also declared have doctrinal differences with the Church.

I’d like a documentation of your first remark. How can anyone, who calls him/herself a Roman Catholic “refuse to accept the council”? It happened, it was called by Pope John XXIII, it lasted until the Papacy of Paul VI, the hierarchy was there. Of course, we, as ROMAN CATHOLICS accept it. However, since no doctrine was defined, no ex-Cathedra statements promulgated…it was pastoral, as Pope John XXIII intended it to be. Myself, I feel that it failed in it’s pastoral intent…by writing documents that are too ambiguous…too open-ended, but I accept that it was a valid Council that declared no wrong doctrine.

Since the beginning of the 21st century (& before) the Pope has viewed the council with honest eyes:

"ROMA, December 5 2005 – Benedict XVI’s homily during the December 8th mass in Saint Peter’s, exactly forty years after the end of the Second Vatican Council, is eagerly awaited.

“There are conflicting interpretations within the Church of this event and its consequences. One wide-spread idea is that Vatican II marked a “new beginning” in Church history, and that thanks to it – its “spirit” more than the words of its actual texts – the dogmas, laws, structures and traditions of the Church entered a phase of permanent reform”.

**However, Joseph Ratzinger has shown on a number of occasions that he does not share this reading of the facts. And so has – amongst others – his cardinal vicar for the diocese of Rome, Camillo Ruini.

Only last June Ruini declared: “It is time for history to produce a new reconstruction of Vatican II – one that finally tells a true story”. **

I have never attended an SSPX Church or known anyone who has, so who are you addressing here? Nor do I, as a Traditional Roman Catholic believe that the fruits of Vatican II has brought us a better Church. Do we have to be members of the SSPX to recognize the fact that:

Mass attendance is down.
We’ve been shamed before the world by Pederast priests who should never have been ordained.
We have a regional priest shortage.
Our schools are disappearing.
etc, etc, ETC.

One doesn’t need to be a part of the SSPX crowd to see that. In fact, anyone who CAN’T see that is being dishonest with him/her self.

 

[Seamus_L]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Fr Robert Taft also critical of Eucharistic Adoration ?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I would like to urge all on this thread to charity. I know Fr. Taft personally and have worked with him on several occasions. He is not one who wishes merely to stir up controversy, nor is he a “Jesuit quack.” He is one who seeks truth, and when he finds it he does not sugar-coat it. When he speaks or writes it is always done in charity, but with firm conviction and conveyance of truth. He has spent decades studying the Liturgies of the Western, Eastern and Oriental traditions and has no illusions or triumphalistic opinions about them. Fr. Taft knows more about their history, theology and development than most of us here could ever hope to know. He and his opinions are held in high regard by Popes and Patriarchs alike. He is not afraid to voice the truth as he has encountered it through decades of diligent study and research, done in more languages than all of us here combined know. So please, show some respect.

That being said, this article states nothing on the Latin Rite being inferior in any way. He simply states, from what I can remember, that the Trinitarian theology of the Latin Rite isn’t as explicit as in the Eastern Rites. The reason that it isn’t is because the West never went through the Trinitarian controversies that the East did. Similarly the West’s Christological theology is much more explicit in the Mass than in the East because historically the West (and its liturgies) has always been more Christologically focused. Fr. Taft presents these as facts, not as a commentary on which Liturgy is better/best. He would be the first to say that all Liturgies fall short because they are meant to be a foretaste of the perfect Liturgy that we will participate in throughout eternity (I’m paraphrasing his words to me in a conversation that I had with him a in January).

Once again, please show some respect.