The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Augoustinos, Poliscifi, The Cub, P H, Hardrada
5604 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 324 guests, and 538 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,743
Posts411,995
Members5,604
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Open Letter to ByzCath #327467 07/15/09 10:57 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
A
asianpilgrim Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
In recent months it seems to me that ByzCath forum has become inundated with what can only be described as a ferociously anti-Latin sentiment, such that the harsh criticism of the Latin liturgical and theological tradition -- as this has developed in the past thousand years -- has become completely acceptable, and even -- it seems to me -- encouraged by certain commentators.

I find it ironic that in this forum, the slightest changes to the Byzantine Rite are assailed with great intensity -- which, in my opinion, is but just and right. Nevertheless, certain commentators have, as of late, spoken with what can only be described as great disdain for the venerable and historic forms of the Latin liturgy, the very same liturgy that our current Holy Father has spoken so highly of, and which he has defended with comparatively forthright vigor.

I find it ironic that sometimes, it is the Orthodox commentators here who end up siding with the Latin-Rite commentators when it comes to certain topics.

I think that this is not acceptable. I respectfully call upon the moderators of the forum to ensure that greater respect is given not just to the Byzantine and Eastern tradition, but to the Latin tradition as well.

Last edited by asianpilgrim; 07/15/09 10:59 AM.
Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: asianpilgrim] #327471 07/15/09 11:10 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
StuartK Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Asian Pilgrim,

If you want to discuss changes in the Latin rite, that is your privilege. But when you do so, you have an obligation to hew to the facts, and not engage in romance. Conversely, when your posts are factually erroneous, there we have an obligation to point this out to you. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

If your positions are well considered, you should be able to defend them based on facts and reason (the Holy Father has commented on that, as well). The purpose of discourse is to arrive at truth, not simply to give personal affirmation and validation.

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: StuartK] #327479 07/15/09 11:34 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,472
Administrator Offline
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,472
I will add to Stuart's point that some Latins here not only hold a very romantic view of the Latin Rite but also subjugate all Catholic theology to this inaccurate understanding of Catholicism.

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: StuartK] #327483 07/15/09 11:37 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
A
asianpilgrim Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by StuartK
Asian Pilgrim,

If you want to discuss changes in the Latin rite, that is your privilege. But when you do so, you have an obligation to hew to the facts, and not engage in romance. Conversely, when your posts are factually erroneous, there we have an obligation to point this out to you. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

If your positions are well considered, you should be able to defend them based on facts and reason (the Holy Father has commented on that, as well). The purpose of discourse is to arrive at truth, not simply to give personal affirmation and validation.


And the same goes for you, Stuart. Asserting that Vatican II negated the developments in the Latin Church between 1054 and 1965 is something that even Pope Benedict XVI has clearly rejected.

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: asianpilgrim] #327485 07/15/09 11:43 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
StuartK Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Quote
Asserting that Vatican II negated the developments in the Latin Church between 1054 and 1965 is something that even Pope Benedict XVI has clearly rejected.


He's certainly entitled to say so. We, for our part, are given rational faculties and endowed by the Holy Spirit with the gift of discernment precisely so we can judge whether such statements are true. I'm an historian. I apply historical methods to my understanding of the development of doctrine, and am quite capable of making up my own mind on the objective truth of such statements.

As Father Taft likes to say, history will judge. As he also likes to say, Church history liberates us to see the Tradition clearly.

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: StuartK] #327491 07/15/09 11:54 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
A
asianpilgrim Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Quote
He's certainly entitled to say so. We, for our part, are given rational faculties and endowed by the Holy Spirit with the gift of discernment precisely so we can judge whether such statements are true. I'm an historian. I apply historical methods to my understanding of the development of doctrine, and am quite capable of making up my own mind on the objective truth of such statements.


So... what do we need the hierarchy for, if we are free to disbelieve even what they authoritatively say on doctrinal matters?

Last edited by asianpilgrim; 07/15/09 11:55 AM.
Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: asianpilgrim] #327493 07/15/09 11:57 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
A
asianpilgrim Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
I have not been as blessed with free time as Stuart, but that does not mean that the necessary paucity and spareness of my posts show that I am ignorant of history. I do know my history of the liturgy, thank you very much.

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: asianpilgrim] #327497 07/15/09 12:05 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
StuartK Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
"So... what do we need the hierarchy for, if we are free to disbelieve even what they authoritatively say on doctrinal matters?"

The hierarchy has an obligation to teach and maintain the Tradition in matters of faith. It does not, however, have the competency per se to dictate how history will be recorded or interpreted, nor are statements outside of its competency to be considered either authoritative or infallible. That is to say, if the Church ventures into disciplines which are governed by observable fact, it cannot complain if the veracity of its statements are judged according to those facts. It's two different epistemologies. That's one reason why the Church does not dispute with science on the facts, but only when science oversteps its competency and makes metaphysical claims that science cannot sustain.

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: StuartK] #327505 07/15/09 12:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
F
Father Deacon Ed Offline
Administrator
Member
Offline
Administrator
Member
F
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Might I suggest that the tenor of this discussion be carefully controlled so that it not slip into the realm of the ad hominem. Since this is an Eastern forum there will, naturally, be a tendency to be more sensitive to the Eastern traditions. Discussion of Latin traditions is certainly permitted, especially as they bear influence on the way in which Eastern traditions are lived out. Yet such discussion must always take place in and environment of love.

Fr. Deacon Ed

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: Father Deacon Ed] #327506 07/15/09 12:31 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
A
asianpilgrim Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by Father Deacon Ed
Might I suggest that the tenor of this discussion be carefully controlled so that it not slip into the realm of the ad hominem. Since this is an Eastern forum there will, naturally, be a tendency to be more sensitive to the Eastern traditions. Discussion of Latin traditions is certainly permitted, especially as they bear influence on the way in which Eastern traditions are lived out. Yet such discussion must always take place in and environment of love.

Fr. Deacon Ed


Thank you very much, Father Deacon. This is all I ask for. I have been accused of being "insulting" but while I do ask difficult questions -- questions that few seem willing to ask -- I am always careful never to personally attack those who disagree with me. Indeed, I pride myself on working with people who share a variety of opinions, including those opposed to mine.

Last edited by asianpilgrim; 07/15/09 12:32 PM.
Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: asianpilgrim] #327508 07/15/09 12:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
F
Father Deacon Ed Offline
Administrator
Member
Offline
Administrator
Member
F
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Originally Posted by asianpilgrim
Thank you very much, Father Deacon. This is all I ask for. I have been accused of being "insulting" but while I do ask difficult questions -- questions that few seem willing to ask -- I am always careful never to personally attack those who disagree with me. Indeed, I pride myself on working with people who share a variety of opinions, including those opposed to mine.
Frankly, I have not noticed any strong tendency toward an anti-Latin sentiment in the forums -- something that I do not appreciate. Hard questions may always be asked, but we have to be careful that we do not ignore the answer that is given when that answer does not correspond to what we expect to get.

Fr. Deacon Ed

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: Father Deacon Ed] #327636 07/16/09 08:31 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
I
Irish Melkite Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
I
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
I would agree with my brother, Deacon Ed. I, too, haven't noted any particularly anti-Latin sentiment ... but I think I may understand what prompted asianpilgrim's observations and I'd suggest that he consider those in this particular context ...

In recent months, there has been a noticeable increase in new posters to the forum who self-identify as Latin and who appear, by their postings, to be 'traditionalists'. Now, there is nothing wrong with being a traditionalist - certainly, among Eastern and Oriental Catholics, we value that as a positive characteristic. And, I suspect that Eastern Christians on this forum, whether Catholic or Orthodox, are generally more likely to 'appreciate' the pre-Vatican II forms of Latin worship than those that developed post-Council.

That said, my use of the term 'traditionalists' in the opening sentence of the preceding paragraph was intended as what has become a colloquial characterization for those who, left to their own devices, would ascend to the pulpit, hurl anathemas, preach EENS, and generally look askance at Eastern (and, to a lesser extent, Oriental) Catholics when they voice objection, take exception, and (subtly or otherwise) express reservations or adopt stances that suggest the relationship of their Churches with Rome is, or should be, not one of subjects, but of partners.

While I would not suggest that our Filipino brother is of this bent, I think that, were he to examine some of the instances which he perceives as having been Latin bashing, he might find that they are, instead, outright rejections of condescension and worse that is little more than Latinism, a modern-day version of John Ireland's Americanism - the difference being that the effort is not toward imposition of latinized praxis ('traditionalists' of the ilk - the Ukrainian SSPX'ers aside - often too much like the smells and bells to want us to abandon or change rubric and ritual) but inculcation of latinized thinking. I'd suggest that to be as much or more a threat to our Churches today than was blatant latinization of the past century.

You speak of 'disbelief' on doctrinal matters. We speak of 'interpretation' and 'understanding'. Do those terms equate? I don't pretend to know. Can Eastern Catholics be in union and yet reserve or mitigate their willingness to unequivocally accept that which has not been presented to their consideration, but only proclaimed to them. To do such offends our sense of collegiality, a concept late in returning to the Latin Church, if in fact it can be accepted as having had a time there in some distant past. We are not content to be the red-headed stepchildren and Rome, I suspect, realizes and accepts that the era of such is of another time and place. The attitude erodes slowly, however, and there are those who are unwilling to understand that our Catholicity is not dependent on slavish acceptance of every pronouncement emanating from Rome. Doctrine and dogma are distinct concepts and the latter is, in these days, sparingly proclaimed - a good thing to my way of thinking. The Latin traditionalists (in the definition that I've applied to the term) would equate the two and see the necessity to have us cease 'thinking outside the box' - how boring and pedestrian!

So, yes, there has been strong sentiment expressed as to those who would 'change' us, denigrate our way of thinking, and otherwise seek to mold us into Latins who wear different vesture and serve differently - but Latins through and through when it comes to expression of our theological thought and, perhaps, even our spirituality other than as it is expressed in form and function. I can't take much exception to that reaction on the part of our peoples.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: Irish Melkite] #327637 07/16/09 08:53 AM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Fr Serge Keleher Offline
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564

"Doctrine" and "theology" are related but distinct concepts. It might be helpful to explore the differences and similarities.

Fr. Serge

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: Fr Serge Keleher] #327644 07/16/09 09:34 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
StuartK Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Theology, I would submit, refers to the Greek theologia, and the Latin theologia prima; i.e., the fundamental revelation of the mystery of God. Doctrine, should be seen as Greek theoria or Latin theologia secunda--the elaboration of the implications of theologia/theologia prima. While all Churches share the fundamental theologia/theologia prima, they may differ in how they express and elaborate through theoria/theologia secunda. And these differences are entirely legitimate, as long as they (a) are consistent with the underlying theologia; and (b) are understood to be unique to a particular Tradition and not to be imposed on any other.

John Paul II put it slightly differently when he said we must distinguish between the underlying truth of doctrine (i.e., the theologia), and its linguistically, historically and culturally conditioned modes of expression (i.e., theoria).

Re: Open Letter to ByzCath [Re: StuartK] #327670 07/16/09 02:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Logos - Alexis Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Well, this is probably all a matter of perspective.

As a Latin, I, too, have definitely noticed an anti-Latin sentiment of late. And I must say that never once can I recall having noticed it from any Eastern Orthodox posters.

Alexis

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3