|
1 members (Protopappas76),
256
guests, and
21
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
I don't see why an Easterner can't love and follow the first Apostle and still have respect shown to him. Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome, and it was in Antioch that first they were called Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
From Fr. Robert Taft, Liturgy in the Life of the Church, a lecture delivered to the assembled Eastern Catholic bishops of North America and Australia in 1999: Some Eastern Catholic clergy see their history as a progress from schism and spiritual stagnation into a life of discipline, renewal and restored religious practice in the Catholic communion. For this group, the adoption of certain Latin—they would say “Catholic”—devotions and liturgical uses is a sign of this new identity. Such attitudes reflect an interior erosion of the Eastern Christian consciousness, a “latinization of the heart” resulting from a formation insensitive to the true nature of the variety of traditions within the Catholic Church.
Others, while not denying their commitment to the Catholic communion nor underestimating the obvious spiritual benefits it has brought to their Churches, see themselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome, distinguished from their Orthodox Sister Churches in nothing but the fact of that communion and its doctrinal and ecclesial consequences. They see the Latinisms that have crept into their tradition as a loss of identity, an erosion of their heritage in favor of foreign customs with which they can in no way identify themselves. For some, latinization is a sign of their identity, for others its negation, and both are right, because they perceive themselves differently.
Underlying these issues, of course, is the more serious question of Rome’s credibility: is the Holy See to be believed in what it says about restoring the Eastern Catholic heritage? The morale of some of the younger Eastern Catholic clergy has of late been deeply affected by this cul-de-sac: they feel mandated to do one thing by the Holy See, and then are criticized or even disciplined by their bishop if they try to obey.
The problem, as usual, is one of leadership, without which the hesitant or reluctant have no one to follow. What is needed is not just discipline and obedience, but also clergy education loyal to the clear policy of the Church on this question, and prudent pastoral preparation. This is the only way out of the vicious cycle that has been created: the proposed reforms are resisted because the clergy and the people are not prepared to accept them—yet some Church leaders do little or nothing to prepare the people for a renewal that the leaders themselves do not understand or accept.
Although I cannot pretend to read minds, I think there are two main reasons behind this deep-rooted reluctance to welcome the clear and unambiguous policy of Rome in its program of liturgical restoration of the Eastern traditions: 1) the restoration seems a pointless archaism; 2) its opponents are convinced in their hearts that some of the practices proposed are not “Catholic”, and hence, not “right”. That this directly contradicts the teaching of the Holy See is an irony that does not seem to dawn on them.
The first objection is easily dispensed with. The orientation of Catholic liturgical renewal is never towards the past but toward present pastoral needs. Of course, the liturgical scholar studies the past, but the purpose of such historical research is not to discover the past—much less to imitate it—but to recover the integrity of the pristine tradition which the past may well have obscured. The aim is not to restore the past, but to overcome it. For history is not the past, but a genetic vision of the present, a present seen in continuity with its roots. It is precisely those who do not know their past who are incapable of true, organic change. They remain victims of the latest cliché, prisoners of present useage because they have no objective standard against which to measure it.
The proposed restoration, then, is not a blind imitation of a dead past, but an attempt, precisely, to free Eastern Catholics from a past in which, severed from the roots of their own tradition, they were deprived of any organic development and could conceive of growth only as sterile servility to their Latin confreres. Can one seriously propose this as a program to be preserved in our day?
Hence the irony of those critics of the Eastern Catholic liturgical restoration who accuse its promoters of fostering a return to the Middle Ages. As we shall see in the next section, it is precisely in the Middle Ages that the practices like infant communion in the Latin rite are first called into question for typically medieval motives that no one with any sense would heed today. So it is not the proponents of restoration but its opponents that are behind the times, stuck in a medieval rut out of which the major Catholic scholarly voices in this field have been leading the Church in this century.
(. . . )
Of course, no one can expect every Eastern Catholic Church leader to know all this history. What one can expect of them, however, is that they trust the leadership of the supreme universal magisterium of the Catholic Church in its indications for this renewal and to do what they are told. The supreme magisterium’s policies for our liturgical renewal may not always meet with understanding and agreement, but they should at least meet with obedience. Otherwise, what can we possibly mean when we say Eastern Catholic? But unless the liturgical restoration is accompanied by an interior renewal of the Eastern Christian ethos and spirit, it will remain little more than ritualism. As the late Archbishop Joseph Tawil wrote in his Christmas message of 1970, we must have “the courage to be ourselves”.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
jjp,
You come off to me like a Democrat inquisitor. You make broad brush charges which are foolish. Father Loya would be greatly surprised to learn that I am actually Latinized. He would be very surprised to learn that he is perhaps Latinized. I think he would bristle at the accusation. If he had the time I'm sure he would respond but he has two radio broadcasts per week one of which is called "Light of the East" and I must make sure that my students read "Orientale Lumen" each semester.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
Friends,
I know as much about the varying spiritual traditions as just about anyone on this board. I'm glad that so many of you wish to quote Father Taft and others but I am quite aware of it all. I'll just keep reading and then let it go.
CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
Latinization of the heart is worse than latinization of form. One can be scrupulous in the celebration of the liturgy, one can conform to all the outward devotions, but, as Taft said, "But unless the liturgical restoration is accompanied by an interior renewal of the Eastern Christian ethos and spirit, it will remain little more than ritualism."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
I am happy to know that. It had never occurred to me before.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610 |
I think ritualism's got a bad rap. Fact is, most of the butts in the pews (or in the you-can-just-keep-your-latinized-pews-thank-you-very-much as the case may be) participate in very little outside Sunday liturgy, so a little ritualism actually goes a long way. Historically, ritual has arrived and been pretty much imposed on the pagan masses, and they've found it kind of gets into them and after a couple of generations, you've got a Christian civilization going. Also, perfect ritual, inasmuch as it represents the best external we've got to offer, is pretty important of itself. I'm not saying ritualism's enough, but it's a pretty fantastic point to work from.
Also, I take some exception to Fr. Taft's assertion. Ritual forms and feeds the "ethos and spirit". Without the ritual, the ethos and spirit are soon gone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
I agree with JDC. I'm being transformed by the liturgy and so are many others. God uses it to transform hearts. We're having a great time in the closest place to heaven known to us.
CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 696 Likes: 2 |
jjp,
You come off to me like a Democrat inquisitor. I have no idea what that means. You make broad brush charges which are foolish. What were they? Father Loya would be greatly surprised to learn that I am actually Latinized. I don't think you are Latinized. I think you see things from a Western point of view. He would be very surprised to learn that he is perhaps Latinized. When did anybody say anything about your priest? I think he would bristle at the accusation. If he had the time I'm sure he would respond but he has two radio broadcasts per week one of which is called "Light of the East" Respond to what? Nobody is talking to him. and I must make sure that my students read "Orientale Lumen" each semester. This part too? "24. I believe that one important way to grow in mutual understanding and unity consists precisely in improving our knowledge of one another. The children of the Catholic Church already know the ways indicated by the Holy See for achieving this: to know the liturgy of the Eastern Churches;(62) to deepen their knowledge of the spiritual traditions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian East,(63) to follow the example of the Eastern Churches for the inculturation of the Gospel message; to combat tensions between Latins and Orientals and to encourage dialogue between Catholics and the Orthodox; to train in specialized institutions theologians, liturgists, historians and canonists for the Christian East, who in turn can spread knowledge of the Eastern Churches; to offer appropriate teaching on these subjects in seminaries and theological faculties, especially to future priests.(64) These remain very sound recommendations on which I intend to insist with particular force." I ask because in other threads, you have scoffed at the knowledge of the spiritual traditions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian East that many have quoted to you and presented to you, when it conflicted with a Roman Catholic teaching that you have adopted. As Stuart pointed out, the outward forms are easy to replicate, but our calling is something that requires much more, as a witness to both our Roman and Orthodox brothers and sisters, as well as, at times, to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
You are an active judge but not an accurate one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610 |
Would someone start a thread titled "Fight Like Foolish Children Here Instead of Screwing up Productive and Interesting Threads with your Idiotic Squabbling"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14
John Member
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14 |
Would someone start a thread titled "Fight Like Foolish Children Here Instead of Screwing up Productive and Interesting Threads with your Idiotic Squabbling"? Are you going to be the star? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 610 |
Would someone start a thread titled "Fight Like Foolish Children Here Instead of Screwing up Productive and Interesting Threads with your Idiotic Squabbling"? Are you going to be the star?  I'll certainly do what I can. I'm not above a little childish spat, but it gets a tiresome when it's constantly interrupting what might be interesting discussion. Children are lovely, but sometimes you just want them to go away so the grown-ups can talk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848 |
From Fr. Robert Taft, Liturgy in the Life of the Church, a lecture delivered to the assembled Eastern Catholic bishops of North America and Australia in 1999: Some Eastern Catholic clergy see their history as a progress from schism and spiritual stagnation into a life of discipline, renewal and restored religious practice in the Catholic communion. For this group, the adoption of certain Latin—they would say “Catholic”—devotions and liturgical uses is a sign of this new identity. Such attitudes reflect an interior erosion of the Eastern Christian consciousness, a “latinization of the heart” resulting from a formation insensitive to the true nature of the variety of traditions within the Catholic Church.
Others, while not denying their commitment to the Catholic communion nor underestimating the obvious spiritual benefits it has brought to their Churches, see themselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome, distinguished from their Orthodox Sister Churches in nothing but the fact of that communion and its doctrinal and ecclesial consequences. They see the Latinisms that have crept into their tradition as a loss of identity, an erosion of their heritage in favor of foreign customs with which they can in no way identify themselves. For some, latinization is a sign of their identity, for others its negation, and both are right, because they perceive themselves differently.
Underlying these issues, of course, is the more serious question of Rome’s credibility: is the Holy See to be believed in what it says about restoring the Eastern Catholic heritage? The morale of some of the younger Eastern Catholic clergy has of late been deeply affected by this cul-de-sac: they feel mandated to do one thing by the Holy See, and then are criticized or even disciplined by their bishop if they try to obey.
The problem, as usual, is one of leadership, without which the hesitant or reluctant have no one to follow. What is needed is not just discipline and obedience, but also clergy education loyal to the clear policy of the Church on this question, and prudent pastoral preparation. This is the only way out of the vicious cycle that has been created: the proposed reforms are resisted because the clergy and the people are not prepared to accept them—yet some Church leaders do little or nothing to prepare the people for a renewal that the leaders themselves do not understand or accept.
Although I cannot pretend to read minds, I think there are two main reasons behind this deep-rooted reluctance to welcome the clear and unambiguous policy of Rome in its program of liturgical restoration of the Eastern traditions: 1) the restoration seems a pointless archaism; 2) its opponents are convinced in their hearts that some of the practices proposed are not “Catholic”, and hence, not “right”. That this directly contradicts the teaching of the Holy See is an irony that does not seem to dawn on them.
The first objection is easily dispensed with. The orientation of Catholic liturgical renewal is never towards the past but toward present pastoral needs. Of course, the liturgical scholar studies the past, but the purpose of such historical research is not to discover the past—much less to imitate it—but to recover the integrity of the pristine tradition which the past may well have obscured. The aim is not to restore the past, but to overcome it. For history is not the past, but a genetic vision of the present, a present seen in continuity with its roots. It is precisely those who do not know their past who are incapable of true, organic change. They remain victims of the latest cliché, prisoners of present useage because they have no objective standard against which to measure it.
The proposed restoration, then, is not a blind imitation of a dead past, but an attempt, precisely, to free Eastern Catholics from a past in which, severed from the roots of their own tradition, they were deprived of any organic development and could conceive of growth only as sterile servility to their Latin confreres. Can one seriously propose this as a program to be preserved in our day?
Hence the irony of those critics of the Eastern Catholic liturgical restoration who accuse its promoters of fostering a return to the Middle Ages. As we shall see in the next section, it is precisely in the Middle Ages that the practices like infant communion in the Latin rite are first called into question for typically medieval motives that no one with any sense would heed today. So it is not the proponents of restoration but its opponents that are behind the times, stuck in a medieval rut out of which the major Catholic scholarly voices in this field have been leading the Church in this century.
(. . . )
Of course, no one can expect every Eastern Catholic Church leader to know all this history. What one can expect of them, however, is that they trust the leadership of the supreme universal magisterium of the Catholic Church in its indications for this renewal and to do what they are told. The supreme magisterium’s policies for our liturgical renewal may not always meet with understanding and agreement, but they should at least meet with obedience. Otherwise, what can we possibly mean when we say Eastern Catholic? But unless the liturgical restoration is accompanied by an interior renewal of the Eastern Christian ethos and spirit, it will remain little more than ritualism. As the late Archbishop Joseph Tawil wrote in his Christmas message of 1970, we must have “the courage to be ourselves”. StuartK, I never thought I'd see the day when I saw you bolding or quoting text that said that both those who support latinisms and those who don't are right because they come from different places. I also never thought I'd see the day you highlighted text to suggest eastern Catholics should obey the instructions of the "supreme universal magisterium", since you spend a lot of time suggesting it is either a Latin point of view easterners don't have to believe in or saying that it's flat wrong. But I'm really happy you've come around to recognising its authority in the Catholic Church;). The bits you highlighted above from Taft I liked, were: For some, latinization is a sign of their identity, for others its negation, and both are right, because they perceive themselves differently.What one can expect of them, however, is that they trust the leadership of the supreme universal magisterium of the Catholic Church in its indications for this renewal and to do what they are told.
Last edited by Otsheylnik; 10/09/11 07:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
The supreme universal magisterium has encouraged us to reclaim our patrimony. Happily we are doing that, some faster than others. www.byzantinecatholic.com [ byzantinecatholic.com]
|
|
|
|
|