www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Papal Authority

Hi,


And isn't it? And if so, who says so?

In fact, we will be having a Mariachi Mass tomorrow evening to welcome the Image of "La Generala", The Virgin of Zapopan, patroness of the Archdiocese of Guadalajara, who is visiting the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

Our Archbishop is perfectly OK with that and the Pope has never said anything to the contrary.

Shalom,
Memo.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Is it not the genius of the new Roman Liturgy to provide for greater inculturation?

I used to watch the Spanish Mass on TV when I was a kid; it was quite wonderful!

Memo, God Bless!

In Christ,

Robert

I am certain that most Roman Catholics see the radical diversity of their liturgy as a great strength. There are �evangelical� masses and mariachi masses, etc. I am uncertain of the motives for the mass in these forms, but this is neither the thread nor the forum to discuss the validity of those forms within the Roman Catholic tradition. That belongs in a Roman Catholic forum.

Whether or not they are legitimate, the point I was making was that, in the event of a union, they would likely cause scandal within the Eastern churches. The East takes the liturgy a bit more, how should I say this, piously. They do so primarily because liturgy has a different role than it does in the West. Some of the things I have seen at mass (besides what is normally disputed between East and West) are theologically suspect. That is, of course, from my own perspective.

The problem I am attempting to highlight is not this single issue, but that a tortured use of the definition of terms to artificially force union will not bring anything lasting. The West will continue to assert its authority as it has defined it for itself in all areas, including the example above, and the Orthodox will continue to deny it.

So, a manufactured union based on stretching existing terminology regarding papal authority will not result in a lasting, legitimate union. The only road to the union of the churches is through honest dialogue, not semantic maneuvering.

Hi,

Well, I think you should have said it in a less insulting way.

What makes you think the diversity of the liturgical expressions in the West is less pious than the Byzantine monolithic cultural imperialism?

Your unwillingness to understand that diversity is good, and that not everybody has to do everything following your exact same ways, a treat well corresponded from the West, I honestly need to add, is what has placed us in this sad, divided situation for the last thousand years.

When are we going to stop?

Eastern Christianity is diverse in its own right, but the typical Byzantine claim that you are the whole East and nothing but the East, and that being such somehow makes you better than the rest of us, is uncharitable not only to the West, but to the *other* Eastern traditions.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo,

I apologize if you understood me to say that all diversity in liturgy is bad. I don't see my unwillingness to do anything. I am simply stating what I think would be an issue if the churches were reunited under a certain scenario. That has nothing to do with my own personal feelings about whatever masses the Roman Catholic Church deems fitting for its own use.

The word I should have used, by the way, is solemn, not pious. I have seen the mariachi and evangelical masses. Assuming the theological issues between the Roman Mass and Orthodoxy are solved, I don't think some of these liturgies would be seen as acceptable.

I was simply stating that some of these forms of the mass would cause scandal for the Orthodox and that this, as well as other working issues, would likely be decided by Romans somewhat deaf to the Orthodox.

As stated before, I don't think it is appropriate for me to discuss what forms of the mass are or are not a legitimate part of the Roman Catholic tradition. I'm not Roman Catholic.

Hi,

I see. That is better. Yes, in the West, we currently see the liturgy not just as a solemn act of worship, which of course it is, but also as an intimate act of love.

In that act, the Lover of Mankind brings forth His best gift: Himself as sacrifice, food, medicine and communion.

We correspond by also bringing forth the best of our gifts, which include the best of our music.

Now, you will probably agree that "the best of our music" is an essentially subjective statement. What is good for me, might not be good for you, and I can understand that.

I can understand that some people do not *like* mariachi bands acting as choirs for the Mass.

What I cannot understand is people who would not *accept* that other people do like sacred mariachi music and do use it for the Mass.

Oh, don't worry, nobody will impose the mariachi mass on you. However, if unity is to be achieved, the Orthodox will need to agree to be in communion with people who do these things and the Catholics will need to agree to be in communion with people who do not do and do not like these things.

I assume most Catholics are willing (because our Communion is diverse enough as it is, that we already have groups not liking what other groups do, and yet all partake from the same Altar). Are most Orthodox willing as well?

The Orthodox fear that unity with Rome will impose changes upon their traditions. Might it be that this fear is less because of Rome's actual policy and practice, and more because the Orthodox are quite ready to return the favor as soon as they get the chance?

Shalom,
Memo.

I would like to set the record straight a little bit.

Folk music, handclapping, rock-n-roll, etc., are JUST AS FOREIGN to the Latin liturgical tradition as they are to the Byzantine.

Their incorporation into Catholic worship over the past two generations is an anomaly in the history of the Church--not the Latin way of doing things.

Despite the fact the I believe the incorporation of these practices into Catholic Masses to be a tragedy and a scandal, they do not erode my belief in the Church one iota. The Church will overcome these things just as she overcame Arianism and Iconoclasm, which had wormed their way into her very heart.

But all--both Easterners and Westerners--do themselves a disservice when they assume that the modern aberrations and spectacles are part of the Latin liturgical patrimony.

Introibo ad altare Dei,

LatinTrad

Memo,

You are making my point exactly. The Romans will require acceptance of things that the Orthodox will not likely accept. An agreement on juridical vs. immediate authority of the pope (or some other factors) will not, by itself, lead to a valid union of the churches. On the ground, other issues are likely to cause schism.

I understand your argument for allowing whatever music the people find entertaining, or good, or whatever criteria you wish to use, into the mass. That's not my problem. I'm not in communion with Rome and Rome can and does do as it pleases. I am not personally accepting or rejecting whatever it is folks are doing at mass these days.

Of course Orthodoxy will not accept the Roman Tradition as it is now interpreted and implemented. If that were not the case there would not be a schism. The opposite is also true. Rome demands changes as well. We disagree. What's the surprise?

The fear of the Orthodox is, of course, something more complex. There is enough material here for twenty different threads.

1. Role of Pope � Immediate
2. Role of Pope � Appellate
3. Major obstacles to union
4. Minor obstacles to union
5. Validity of certain Roman liturgical practices (not necessarily for this forum)
6. Liturgical harmonization of churches in case of union
7. What are Orthodox fears and why
8. What are Roman fears and why
9. Where did I put my beer
10. etc. etc. etc.

All of these could probably be split into one or two more subcategories.

WHOA, THERE!

I brought the Roman liturgical issue to the discussion for a different reason. I don't think I want to get involved with that question and don't want to be seen as having an opinion on it. PLEASE start another thread or discuss it somewhere else.

There are a lot of issues similar in Orthodox churches, arguing about this that or the other thing in their liturgies. I think if one of you guys started posting about it I'd get upset. I'm really trying not to do the same. I'm sorry I used that as an example. I should have picked something else.

No offense, I just don't want to be perceived as having opened that can of worms. If I have, I'm really sorry.

May I suggest, LatinTrad and Memo, that if you decide to discuss this issue that you please go out and have a beer with each other FIRST. It would be best if you went out and made some homebrew, but that takes more time.

So don't just post, go for a beer. If you're in different cities, coordinate it so you can chat on the phone and drink your beer. Talk about the price of pork bellies and watch Tampa Bay lose another hockey game.

Maybe we need to set some new forum rules?

I thought last night's game was AWESOME.

That should be mandatory for the Byz forum because everybody and their brother on both teams has a Slavic last name . . .

Just musing here.

Basically, entering into communion is like getting married. If you don�t like your future bride�s family you simply don�t have to marry her.

The issue for you is that if you do marry her, you are stuck with her family!

Now she might promise you that she will keep uncle Fred away from you, but after the honeymoon, things can change.

It�s been proven the case over, and over, and over again.

Then sometimes she says to herself �there are one or two small things about him I don�t like, but after the wedding we�ll have a little talk��

Bill,

My brother, as always, very interesting reading, some parts of which I can readily understand and likely agree with, others with which I would disagree but believe merit serious consideration and the presentation of which contribute to understanding, just by being put out there in a clear, concise manner - all in all, a valuable addition to a valuable site. The depth of your site never ceases to amaze me (btw, I'm glad you haven't dismantled the Armenian Catholic portion of the site, it's still a valuable resource in its own right).

Many years,

Neil

p.s. I'm sending you a pm about a minor point that I thought you might want to address

Dear Neil,

As always I'm very thankful for your enlightening feedback. You are always very thoughtful with your encouragement and constructive criticism. I thank God for our continued correspondence.

On the document "Principles of Primacy..." (thank you for the spelling correction ) allow me to give some background on this. I put this together when I was still a Roman Catholic. I had many Roman Catholic friends and knew of Roman Catholic writers who belittled the Eastern Orthodox position on the Pope as totally unreasonable and unhistorical. I wanted to study the Orthodox arguments and present them fairly to

1. Show they are not all unreasonable and
2. Give further opportunity to address their legitimate concerns in the name of ecumenical dialogue.

Rather than this being a catalog of my personal held beliefs about Primacy or the Papacy, it is instead my best attempt to present a catalog of the traditional Eastern Orthodox objections to some of the positions of our Latin brethren.

So, with you, I can say about this document, there are "some parts of which I can readily understand and likely agree with, others with which I would disagree" but as you rightly summarized, most of them "merit serious consideration" in order to "contribute to understanding" between the Oriental and Occidental Churches.

Personally, I love the Pope of Rome and the flock entrusted to him. I look forward with great optimism to the day when our real, substantial -yet limited Communion- will become fully realized. I think this Communion grows day by day between us. And for this I thank our Lord.

As for the Armenian Catholic portions of the site, thanks for the feedback on the usefulness of this still. I toyed with the idea of eliminating them, thinking they might make my site confusing or redundant but I was able to keep both sites separate yet still somewhat linked.

I hope you know that I still believe in the Eastern Catholic cause of being "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and will do everything I can as an Orthodox Christian to assist them in realizing this goal (especially Armenian Catholics). Only, on the local level, I had little opportunity to live and learn my Church's Orthodox heritage as an Armenian Catholic. This is primarily what led to the decision I made. But I still worship often with Melkites. And the Melkite Bishop (Samra) is very close with my Armenian Orthodox pastor. I'm not sure if he even knows the Armenian Catholic one. This, to me, speaks volumes about the orientation of not only the Melkites but also the Armenian Catholics in my area.

your brother trusting in the Illumination of the Holy Spirit,

Wm. Ghazar

Oh well, one thing is to have diversity in the liturgy and another one is to have abuses, folk music, etc. There's a deep confussion.

A diverse liturgy would be the celebration of a Mexican mass for example, in various national languages of Mexico, with their special prayers, a typical Mexican procession, etc.

A different one is to use mariachi party and guitars inside the Church. Those are probably external aspects, cultural problems that will have to be solved sooner or later.

Among the Orthodox in Mexico there are many elements coming from the local Catholic culture, prayers, processions, traditions, fests, etc. but it's the Orthodox Church, and its liturgy is respected.

It's been said that among the Roman Rite Christians, the differences between parishes can be even wider than those existing in Orthodox from different cultures, and that's probably true.