www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Maximos IV Saigh

Dear Diak,

Patriarch Maximos IV finally gave in and accepted the cardinal`s hat. He was created a cardinal in the consistory of 22 February 1965 along with Patriarch Paul Pierre Meouchi and Patriarch Stephanos I Sidarouss. It was at that time that Paul VI decreed that patriarchs entering the College of Cardinals would become members of the order of cardinal bishops and not receive a Roman title. At that same time, Cardinal Tappouni became a cardinal bishop and gave up his titular church in Rome.

Patriarch Maximos V consistently refused the cardinal`s hat.

I hold Patriarch Maximos IV and Patriarch Maximos V in high esteem. They were both holy and learned men, always solicitous for the flock entrusted to them.

Peace,

Charles

Charles, I stand corrected and did not know that. I read one letter of his refusing the hat, and assumed he did not reconsider. You learn something new every day.

Maximos IV was one of the greatest Patriarchs of our time, hands down, period. A visionary whom every Eastern Catholic should thank God for profusely. A man who was not afraid to defend his flock as well as safeguard their venerable and holy traditions.

What an outrage to see him being made as a scapegoat like this.

Christ is Risen!

Diak,

Where might I find some good reading material about the good Patriarch? All I can find on the net are Roman Catholic articles about him.

dan l

Hi,

I haven't read the entire post, since my eyes get crossed after reading lengthy posts online (something to do with the monitor).

But I wanted to make a comment about somebody saying at the beginning that Western Churches having iconostasis (called Iron Screen). That is TRUE!

When I went to Italy 2 years ago, I've encountered few churches, especially in Assisi, having Iron Screens. Very similar to the Byzantine Iron Screens (pre-Iconoclasm era).

The reason the Byzantines have Iconstasis is because they put Icons onto the Iron Screens after the Iconoclasm heresy. And I guess the Byzantines stuck with it since then.

However, the ceiling to floor Iconostasis like in many Russian Churches, aren't "natural" or what the Church Fathers intended. They intend to show the faithful as they are able to...what's happening at the Altar area.

In fact, many Iron Screens at the earliest Churches were about 3 feet high...just high enough for people to see...but also high enough to keep people out of the Holy of Holies.

Interesting history though.

So, I respect Churches that have Iconstasis halfway down to the middle, (not having ceiling to floor iconostasis) because I'm so attracted to my Mother, who is more spacious than the heavens, as she's dispicted in the Altar Area.

Blessings!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear SPDundas,

That was me!

The Western Iconostases are truly beautiful!

Almost as beautiful as the Eastern ones!

Alex

True!

Although, for western Churches, Iron Screen would be more appropriate term since they don't have Icons on the screen (hence the term Iconostasis).

Hmmm lemme look for photos that my priest friend or I took of our trip 2 years ago. Do you know how to put a photo onto the forum? (do you know what the maximum size it can take?)

I'm excited about this. Although it should be on another post since we're going off the subject. Perhaps Mr. Alex the Great could initiate a new topic?

Yours,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

PS, I'm thinking in my head that many Churches in Rome have this "canopy" or whatever is it called...the 4 legged or 4 columned "tent" over the Altars, famous example is the one at St. Peter's Basilica. I'm thinking...that it could be a "modern" form of Iron Screens? INTERESTING TOPIC!!!

I wonder when these Western Re-Re-Dos (is that the right term? of an altar with a "hutch"? where priests face the altar) started? Maybe in the medievel German era?

Lot of good posts here. Especially from Theophan, Diak, newcomer Doug, and the ever insightful incognitus .

No one should blame Vatican II or anything else for the "destruction of the liturgy" in the US or anywhere else. The "blame" lies in the individual bishops and priests who abandoned their traditions and in some cases embraced heterodoxy. Tradition loving laypeople shouldn't have let them get away with it.

The rubrics that are right now genrally used in the Roman Mass in the US are mere tradtion with the smallest "t" and could change overnight.
There is NOTHING that says you can't use Gregorian Chant in the Mass, or that you have to have outrageous abuses in Church.

In fact, all the young priests I know and all the young, active laypeople I know would be either open or outright supportive to a Roman "return to our legitimate traditions" if it were done prudently, moderately and without fanaticism.

Getting back to the original subject of this thread-

What is the source for that quote? What was the context? I'm hestitant to make any judgment about it until we can find it in that collection of interventions another poster suggested.

I repeat that it's completely unfair to blame the good Patriarch for the abuses or even for serving as a banner for heterodox forces. The heterodox rally around whatever banner they find convenient, often because they use conveniet quotes as justification for their actions. The "blame" for "destruction of everything distinctive about the West" lies in the heterodox and the bishops, priests, and laypeople that still allow them to set the Roman Church's agenda.

Sorry for the rant.

Marc

[who - assuming that we have a Gothic-type church, Gregorian chant, a chanted Mass and are only discussing book versus book- will take the 1970 "Pauline" missal over the 1962 "Tridentine" missal every day]

You know, there was an English Missal between those two that was produced by Vatican II. I am thinking it would have been around 1964? perhaps. Everything was in English except the canon, which was kept in Latin for the sake of universality.

Dear Marc - many thanks for the compliment. It is not every day that I am described as "ever insightful"!

Incognitus

from the bottom of page two:

and all I can add is "Preach, Bob!!!"

That there's been a thread ongoing for a week questioning the dastardly intervention of His Beatitude Maximos IV, of thrice-blessed memory, at Vatican II, and I'm only just now reading it, tells me that I really have to stop spending time answering questions on make-believe EC forums attached to Latin boards (as I have been doing on an all too regular basis these past 6 weeks) and get back to spending my time here at home.

I had the very great honor to meet Patriarch Maximos IV once, on the occasion of his final visit to Boston. He was a powerful and awesome figure and a gentle, loving, hierarch to our people.

As memory serves me, the interventions of His Beatitude with respect to introduction of the vernacular into the Latin Liturgy were highly praised at the time that they were taken. They were deemed to be an insightful and profound contribution to bringing the people into touch with their liturgical services, considerably more so than they were accustomed as they attempted to read the English translation of the Mass on the facing Missal page from its Latin presentation.

What was done beyond this, in terms of the liturgical rubrics, was accomplished after Vatican II, not within its confines. Like Randy, my recollection is of a date around 1969. And, as someone noted, no Eastern hierarch, let alone His Beatitude, was involved.

Those who would disparage the memory of this dedicated and courageous Patriarch and his part in the deliberations of Vatican II are ignorant of history and looking for a scapegoat on whom to lay blame for liturgical abuse in the Western Church. As I'm wont to point out to persons of the Latin persuasion who are observed to be running "from" the West, rather than running "to" the East, the Novus Ordo Mass is neither less authentic nor holy than the Tridentine Mass. Each, as a service of worship directed to God, has its own intrinsic holiness when served faithfully and reverently. To the extent that abuses exist within either, they must needs be addressed; but the form is only that - an external; ultimately, worship comes from within oneself, one's heart and soul.

(And, anyone who doesn't believe that liturgical abuses existed in the days when the Tridentine Mass was Missa normativa is sadly misinformed. The only difference was that they were more transparent, as the average Catholic couldn't read Latin and, if they could, had no ready access to the pre-1970 Latin versions of what today would be called the GIRM.)

The internet has helped to create a generation of Catholics who spend as much time "patrolling" their services as participating in them - coming soon to a parish near you:

Law & Order: Canon Lawyers & Liturgy Police

While I am sympathetic to my Latin brothers and sisters who are truly faced with liturgical abuses, Patriarch Maximos IV certainly neither contributed to those nor did he establish the environment in which they could prosper. We of the East neither caused it, nor can we cure it.

We can and should offer our prayers for our Latin brethren, but I think it is decidely more fitting to His Beatitude's memory that we devote ourselves to the over-riding concern that he had - the unity of our Churches of the East and the Orient, Catholic and Orthodox. That anyone thinks to memorialize his presence at Vatican II in terms of his words regarding the Latin liturgy is to ignore the true treasure of his presence there - his interventions on behalf of our Churches.

Some may remember a story I told a few months back, about a burly Greek Orthodox Massachusetts State Trooper who expressed a desire to meet and be blessed by our current Patriarch, then visiting Boston. When I spoke with him to be sure that he understood this was the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and not a Greek Orthodox Patriarch, his reply was "I know, the Melkite Patriarch is special. He belongs to all of us." I didn't add at the time that, pressed as to what he meant, he explained that his father had told him, years before, how the Melkite Patriarch spoke on behalf of the absent Orthodox at Vatican II.

Remember that, in response to His Beatitude's words on the East, the Orthodox observers present at the Council rose and stood in silent respect and that, embracing him, His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, speaking of the Patriarch's presentations at the Council, said "You were our voice!"

It is for this that he deserves to be remembered and, for our brethren, prayers - but we can neither fix their issues nor correct their misperceptions that they don't want fixed.

Many years,

Neil

Randy,

Christ Is Risen!

I'm not sure "reconsider" covers it. I think Charles' description that he "finally gave in" may even be too subtle. It is my understanding that he ultimately accepted "under obedience" (a characteristic not often attributed to Melkite Patriarchs )

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

You are certainly correct about this:

"It is for this that he deserves to be remembered and, for our brethren, prayers - but we can neither fix their issues nor correct their misperceptions that they don't want fixed."

This thread exists because the Eastern Catholics were being vilified on a thread on the "Defenders of the Catholic Faith" forum. I asserted that as far as I knew the Eastern Catholics had nothing to do with any abuses or even of the promulgation of the NO and that if I were wrong I would apologize for that interference. "Can you point to any specifically," I asked. To which a poster replied simply "Maximos IV Saigh". Upon my prompting for further information he proclaimed that he "hated Maximos IV Saigh more than any Church leader in history". That is when I started this thread which includes some of that writers "thoughts". After getting some helpful information from some posters here I posted some some quotes but mostly the summary of insights. For my efforts the thread was closed. When I asked why I got myself booted off from that forum and eventually off of the entire site.

I'm certainly not the best "shedder of Eastern Light" but I was the only one available. So I did my best.

That forum used to be more hospitable. I was on it for six years. In fact I learned of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches from a participant on that forum. So I have some sentimental ties. I'm also sad because I do firmly believe in our mission of witness to the entire Church as part of our principle vocation. I'm also a great promoter of "The Light of the East."

Dan Lauffer

Law & Order: Canon Lawyers & Liturgy Police

Bless you Neil! Brought a smile to my face, though in fairness, nothing beats:

Law & Order: Lift Inspectors

Christ is Risen!

Anton

Neil

I'm sorry but I have to take exception to some of your comments that implied that RC's had difficulty understanding Latin. 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you without hesitation, but since then I've spoken to so many RC's over the age of 50 that I've now come to the conclusion that claims of RC's inability to understand Latin are simply a myth, often perpetuated by anti-Catholic evangelicals (I know you're not one of those though) To illustrate my point a little better, I spent Good Friday visiting churches with a buddy of mine who's 52 yrs old. This man had not only never studied for the priesthood, or even atended college, but was in fact a lapsed Catholic ! Yet he amazed me with his ability to translate every word of Latin I showed him. I've also met many others like him. Of course some Catholics had a poor understanding of Latin, just as some no doubt were below average in History, Math or Science. Sadly though, anti-Catholics promoted this idea since Reformation times, that Catholics didn't understand there own Mass, till finally most Catholics came to believe it themselves. Interesting though how no one ever seems to ask why Catholic schoolkids got such a heavy dose of Latin until at least the late 1960's.

Hope you had a Blessed and Happy Easter