Uniting the Patriarchs of Antioch

[twf]

…and that’s a good thing??

U-C

Depends. Illict local variations and abuses are obviously a bad thing. Arbitrary novelties are obviously a bad thing. Approved, organically developed, valid local traditions are, on the other hand, beneficial to the local faithful and serve to enrich the Universal Church’s collective tradition. Remember that unlike most Eastern Churches the Latin Church is not tied to any one ethnicity or region. The Latin Church is a truly global church geographically and demographically.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Depends. Illict local variations and abuses are obviously a bad thing. Arbitrary novelties are obviously a bad thing. Approved, organically developed, valid local traditions are, on the other hand, beneficial to the local faithful and serve to enrich the Universal Church’s collective tradition. Remember that unlike most Eastern Churches the Latin Church is not tied to any one ethnicity or region. The Latin Church is a truly global church geographically and demographically.

Uniformity of liturgy has nothing to do with ethnicity and/or culture. Why so much irregularity from one Latin bishopric to another? How can it be OK to not recite the Creed during weekday liturgies in one Latin Diocese, and not in the neighboring diocese? Why such diversity from diocese to diocese?

U-C

 

[jimmy]

Consistency. Any opportunity that presents itself to take a pot shot at “the west” you seize. Opportunities for contradistinction and contradefinition - even when hardly applicable - are NEVER missed.

I speak how I see it. The western, dogmatic approach to theology is oppressive to any sense of mystery. As long as it continues to define new dogmas on its own it will continue to oppress the eastern Churches in communion with it because it expects the east to keep up with its definitions. Until they stop defining new dogmas and begin to recognize mystery in God and in the faith it will be impossible for there to be any true communication between east and west.

It relates to the present discussion because I said that it would be ideal for there to be one bishop per city. Consequenly the various traditions should simply be the expression by the local Church of the one faith which was given to the apostles by Christ and handed down through tradition. Ideally there should not be this absolute contradistinction between what is Maronite and what is Byzantine and what is Roman but until the west simplifies their approach there will always be this absolute contadistinction.

Everything I take shots at is part of the same problem, a dogmatic view of the faith. They seem to think that by defining the faith we somehow grow closer to God. Consequently they think they have a right and even a duty to consciously develop the faith. Papal infallibility and every other problem that I have with the west can be traced back to this.

 

[twf]

Jimmy: If you read the catechism or the liturgy of the mass (Ordinary or Extraordinary Form) you will see countless references to mystery…the first seven ecumenical councils continued to define new dogmas, consciously elaborating upon the faith. The Catholic Church has continued to do this as the Spirit guides. This in no way takes away from mystery. The faith is infinite and there is always more to explore. Did Chalcedon take away from ‘the mystery’ by clarifying the natures of Christ? The Orientals would say yes, the Byzantines would say no. Perhaps the Greeks are the “dogmatic oppressors”. (Remember the Byzantine Empire PERSECUTED those Christians who disagreed with the various councils’ dogmatic decrees…)
To suggest that there is no longer mystery in the Latin Church is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard in my life. Talk to Ghosty…he argues that the Latin tradition is the most mystical of all (when properly understood). I attend daily mass and constantly hear references to the “mysteries of faith”, the “mysteries of the church”, the “mystery of salvation”, the mystery of deification, etc etc. How does defining the “Immaculate Conception”, for example, take away from mystery? It doesn’t. The nature of Mary is still largely a mystery. The Church has clarified that she was sinless and pure, in perfect union with the Holy Spirit (full of grace), from the moment of her conception. This statement could be elaborate on for all eternity…it remains very mysterious.
Maybe it was “dogmatic oppression” to clarify the nature of the Trinity at Nicea…where will you draw the line? Chalcedon’s “dogmatic definitions” led to a major schism in the Church. Your arguments against the Latin Church seem, to me, totally and absolutely arbitrary.

 

[twf]

Ungcsertez:

Uniformity of liturgy has nothing to do with ethnicity and/or culture. Why so much irregularity from one Latin bishopric to another? How can it be OK to not recite the Creed during weekday liturgies in one Latin Diocese, and not in the neighboring diocese? Why such diversity from diocese to diocese?

There are variations among the Eastern Churches as well. The liturgies of the Syrian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Chaldean Catholics, the Syro-Malabar Catholics, the Maronite Catholics, the Armenian Catholics, the Ethiopian Catholics, and the Byzantine Catholics vary considerably. Within Byzantine Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) there are various localized traditions and distinctions as well. The mysteries of the Church are infinite and can thus be expressed in many valid and licit ways within the finite confines of time and space. Different places and cultures require different approaches…it’s called pastoral care. This is why Christ entrusted the Apostles (and the bishops) with the power of binding and loosing. He could have given us one liturgy for the entire world to follow but He chose to leave that to his vicars the bishops. (And yes all Catholic bishops are vicars of Christ, as the Catechism clearly teaches…the pope is simply the Vicar of Christ on a global scale).

That being said, sadly in the current Western World Latin Church there are many abuses. Reciting the creed on weekdays is not one of them. That’s a matter of local custom. (I’m taking your word on this…as far as I know the creed is only recited on Sundays and feast days).

 

[Aramis]

GIRM:

1. The Creed is to be sung or said by the priest together with the people on Sundays and Solemnities. It may be said also at particular celebrations of a more solemn character.
   If it is sung, it is begun by the priest or, if this is appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir. It is sung, however, either by all together or by the people alternating with the choir.
   If not sung, it is to be recited by all together or by two parts of the assembly responding one to the other.

Under the GIRM for English, as promulgated by the USCCB, the creed is not normally used for daily mass.

 

[Erich]

Multiple Patriarchs is just a symptom of a much larger issue.

That of multiple bishops over a city.

The city of São Paulo, Brazil, has an area of 588 sq mi and a population of 10.9 million (over 65%, or 7.1 million, of whom are Catholic)… in other words, it’s about the size of Houston, Texas, but with almost 5 times as many people (and a much higher percentage of Catholics).

But, according to catholic-hierarchy.org there are only 5.9 million Catholics out of a total population of 7 million in the Archdiocese of São Paulo. So, that tells me there are multiple dioceses within the city limits of São Paulo!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How do you think Constantinople deformed the tradition. My impression was that urban Antioch was primarily of Greek speakers, and thus the Byzantine tradition. And the country-side was primarily Syriac speaking, thus the Syrian tradition. Independent traditions existing side by side. Not always peacefully of course. But, could it really be any worse than the Dominicans and Franciscans in the middle ages? Talk about snippy. (Or were you just talking about the fact that Constantinople meddled causing the split between Orthodox and Catholic Melkites?)

I am just not clear how one can theologically justify multiple Patriarchs for common Apostolic churches.

That said, I am sympathetic to what you are saying. There is always a tendency for whomever is in power to play favorites. Practically I understand the problems that could arise. This was why I suggested that the Patriarchate be rotated through the particular churches.

Just as a side note…my experience here is limited but I am already aware of, specifically, Maronite and Melkites coming together when they are otherwise isolated here in the States. It seems there is already a sense of a common heritage.

In some way Antioch would need to understand that it was not just Byzantine (or Syriac, depending), but that it was the fountain from which flows many streams. This strikes me a compliment to Antioch, not a burden.

salaam.

Although Antioch the city was mostly Greek, its liturgies were the same as the Syriac, until “Patriarch” Theodore Balsamon of Antioch: he, as far as I know never set foot in his “patriarchate” (he was born and died in Constantinople), and like an absentee landlord suprressed Antioch’s liturgies among the Chalcedonians in the Patriarchate.

 

[Ghosty]

Although Antioch the city was mostly Greek, its liturgies were the same as the Syriac, until “Patriarch” Theodore Balsamon of Antioch: he, as far as I know never set foot in his “patriarchate” (he was born and died in Constantinople), and like an absentee landlord suprressed Antioch’s liturgies among the Chalcedonians in the Patriarchate.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but how did a Constinopolitan, who didn’t even LEAVE Constantinople, become Patriarch of Antioch? I’m not as familiar with that period of the Antiochian Church as I’d like to be.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ungcsertez]

Ungcsertez:

There are variations among the Eastern Churches as well. The liturgies of the Syrian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Chaldean Catholics, the Syro-Malabar Catholics, the Maronite Catholics, the Armenian Catholics, the Ethiopian Catholics, and the Byzantine Catholics vary considerably. Within Byzantine Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) there are various localized traditions and distinctions as well. The mysteries of the Church are infinite and can thus be expressed in many valid and licit ways within the finite confines of time and space. Different places and cultures require different approaches…it’s called pastoral care. This is why Christ entrusted the Apostles (and the bishops) with the power of binding and loosing. He could have given us one liturgy for the entire world to follow but He chose to leave that to his vicars the bishops. (And yes all Catholic bishops are vicars of Christ, as the Catechism clearly teaches…the pope is simply the Vicar of Christ on a global scale).

That being said, sadly in the current Western World Latin Church there are many abuses. Reciting the creed on weekdays is not one of them. That’s a matter of local custom. (I’m taking your word on this…as far as I know the creed is only recited on Sundays and feast days).

I attended a wedding held in a parish of the Archdiocese of Washington. It was held on a Saturday at 1:00 PM in the afternoon. The Creed was absent, totally. I was informed that in the Washington Archdiocese, there is no public recitation (or singing) of the Creed when a weekday liturgy is celebrated. I was appalled. How can an Eucharistic liturgy not have a Creed??

U-C

 

[Badaliyyah]

Although Antioch the city was mostly Greek, its liturgies were the same as the Syriac, until “Patriarch” Theodore Balsamon of Antioch: he, as far as I know never set foot in his “patriarchate” (he was born and died in Constantinople), and like an absentee landlord suprressed Antioch’s liturgies among the Chalcedonians in the Patriarchate.

Does the liturgical split become entrenched in the conflict between Chalcedonians=Melkites and non-Chalcedonians? I’m with Ghosty; I don’t really know the liturgical history here either. If Isa or someone else can suggest a good study of the development of the liturigies in Syria that would be great. We seem to end up with three independent liturgical traditions: Melkite, Antiochene Syriac, and St. Thomas Syriac (who don’t look back to Antioch, but to the missionary activities of St.Thomas). Is that right?

salaam.

 

[Aramis]

I attended a wedding held in a parish of the Archdiocese of Washington. It was held on a Saturday at 1:00 PM in the afternoon. The Creed was absent, totally. I was informed that in the Washington Archdiocese, there is no public recitation (or singing) of the Creed when a weekday liturgy is celebrated. I was appalled. How can an Eucharistic liturgy not have a Creed??

U-C

As previously cited, by me, in this thread, the Roman liturgy does not normally include the Credo in daily use, only on sundays and major feasts (solemnities).

See the General Instructions for the Roman Missal, USCCB, April 2005, instruction number 68.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I know this is a bit off-topic, but how did a Constinopolitan, who didn’t even LEAVE Constantinople, become Patriarch of Antioch? I’m not as familiar with that period of the Antiochian Church as I’d like to be.

Peace and God bless!

At the time the excuse was that the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem could not occupy their sees, and they were mostly ornaments at court in Constantinople, sort of like centuries later where bishops were appointed by the EP as an operation of the Ottoman state system for Christians. It also resembled the situation of the Latin Patriachates of the East before the Vatican abolished them, except for Jerusalem, which was transformed into a real, living Latin patriarchate, now with a local as its primate.

At the time there would be some periodic deputations from the actual patriarchates to the patriarchs permanently “visiting” the EP. On one such visit Balsamon saw what the Liturgies of Antioch actually were, and ordered them suppressed and the rite of Constantinople imposed (a log the Orthodox might remember before picking out/at specks of Latinizations).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Does the liturgical split become entrenched in the conflict between Chalcedonians=Melkites and non-Chalcedonians? I’m with Ghosty; I don’t really know the liturgical history here either. If Isa or someone else can suggest a good study of the development of the liturigies in Syria that would be great. We seem to end up with three independent liturgical traditions: Melkite, Antiochene Syriac, and St. Thomas Syriac (who don’t look back to Antioch, but to the missionary activities of St.Thomas). Is that right?

salaam.

Somewhat. The Melkite is imported, the Syriac native, St. Thomas exported. Taft has some stuff on the liturgical developments. And yes, it becomes emeshed with Chalcedonian/Non-Chalcedonian, but not completely until amost a millenium after the Council (the rites of Alexandria were not suprressed until the 1300s).

 

[Ghosty]

At the time the excuse was that the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem could not occupy their sees, and they were mostly ornaments at court in Constantinople, sort of like centuries later where bishops were appointed by the EP as an operation of the Ottoman state system for Christians. It also resembled the situation of the Latin Patriachates of the East before the Vatican abolished them, except for Jerusalem, which was transformed into a real, living Latin patriarchate, now with a local as its primate.

At the time there would be some periodic deputations from the actual patriarchates to the patriarchs permanently “visiting” the EP. On one such visit Balsamon saw what the Liturgies of Antioch actually were, and ordered them suppressed and the rite of Constantinople imposed (a log the Orthodox might remember before picking out/at specks of Latinizations).

Very interesting, thank you! Eastern Orthodox ecclesial history is certainly a lot more complex than what we usually get to hear in modern polemics from either side, eh?

Do you happen to know how long this “dominance” of Constantinople lasted? It seems to have been gone, at least in large part, by the time of the Antiochian/Melkite split at which point it was re-asserted, or else the local Synod wouldn’t have been able to elect a “pro-Rome” Patriarch.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Very interesting, thank you! Eastern Orthodox ecclesial history is certainly a lot more complex than what we usually get to hear in modern polemics from either side, eh?

Do you happen to know how long this “dominance” of Constantinople lasted? It seems to have been gone, at least in large part, by the time of the Antiochian/Melkite split at which point it was re-asserted, or else the local Synod wouldn’t have been able to elect a “pro-Rome” Patriarch.

Peace and God bless!

In the thirteenth century, after the demise of the Crusader state in Antioch and Latin patriarchate in Antioch (that was another factor in the titular patriarchs being in Constantinople).

 

[Ungcsertez]

As previously cited, by me, in this thread, the Roman liturgy does not normally include the Credo in daily use, only on sundays and major feasts (solemnities).

See the General Instructions for the Roman Missal, USCCB, April 2005, instruction number 68.

When did this happen, Vatican II? Is this an US Catholic Conference of Bishops accomodation, or is this a world wide Latin Church rubric?

U-C

 

[Aramis]

When did this happen, Vatican II? Is this an US Catholic Conference of Bishops accomodation, or is this a world wide Latin Church rubric?

U-C

I grew up (in the Roman Church) post V II, and do not recall the creed in Daily masses in my youth. I do recall it on feast days of obligation and Marian feasts.

From the Australian CBC
GIRM:

1. The Creed is to be sung or said by the priest together with the people on Sundays and Solemnities. It may be said also at particular celebrations of a more solemn character.

If it is sung, it is begun by the priest or, if this is appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir. It is sung, however, either by all together or by the people alternating with the choir.

If not sung, it is to be recited by all together or by two parts of the assembly responding one to the other.

acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/200707031933.pdf

The CCCB doesn’t have an approved GIRM yet.

I don’t read latin, so I can’t tell you if it’s universal, but it seems to be.

 

[Ungcsertez]

I grew up (in the Roman Church) post V II, and do not recall the creed in Daily masses in my youth. I do recall it on feast days of obligation and Marian feasts.

From the Australian CBC

acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/200707031933.pdf

The CCCB doesn’t have an approved GIRM yet.

I don’t read latin, so I can’t tell you if it’s universal, but it seems to be.

To me and other Eastern and Oriental Particular Church members in union w/Rome, this is very odd. Is not the Creed the foundation of our orthodox catholic (small “c” and small “o”) Christian faith? Was not the Council of Nicea (325 AD) the most important Ecumenical Council because the Creed was needed to define true doctrine during a time of numerous heretical teachings that was rampant throughout the then united universal Church? How can an Eucharistic liturgy not contain a recited/sung Creed?

Ungcsertezs

 

[Ghosty]

How can an Eucharistic liturgy not contain a recited/sung Creed?

The same way it was for three centuries prior to the First Ecumenical Council.

The Faith is the same, whether the Creed is recited every day or not. It’s not as if the words of the Creed make the Faith or the Liturgy, after all. The Liturgy is the presence of Christ and the Communion between man and God in the Eucharist; the Creed verbally expresses our Faith, but the Eucharist is our Faith.

One could say that the Creed is implicitely present in Christ, who is the Word, and who is received in the Eucharist. It’s not as if leaving the Creed out of a Liturgy in any way represents a refutation of it.

Peace and God bless!