www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Celebrating the Divine Liturgy "facing the people"

I am curious to know if there ever was a period following the Second Vatican Council where Byzantine Catholic parishes began to celebrate Divine Liturgy "facing the people"; the celebrant now faces the altar during the anaphora.

The reason I ask is that the practice has become common among the Maronites and almost all the Oriental Catholic Churches (with the general exception of the Armenians). It was also very common among the Chaldeans until their liturgy was reformed.

The only situation where a Divine Liturgy would have been celebrated "facing the people" is if the liturgy took place at a Roman Catholic parish where it was not possible to "face East". I remember seeing photos of a Byzantine Catholic mission having liturgy at a Carmelite monastery and the altar was set up for the celebrant to face the people.

Why were the Byzantine Catholic Churches successful in resisting this neo-latinization?

I can't answer comprehensively, but I have only pictures of it done, and then it was Armenian Catholic. I think it's either common or the norm with Maronites though?

I will make a note on some trends that can be seen as analogous in the Russian Orthodox Church out of interest.

Since (perhaps the sixties? maybe later) a trend has developed in Moscow (but not in ROCOR) of celebrating the anaphora with the great doors open and emerging to face the people on the soleya for particular parts of it.

There is another trend which has entered ROCOR in Australia at least of "teaching liturgies". In this, the whole liturgy is celebrating in the centre of the "lay" part of the Church, including the clergy communion. Not exactly analogous, but I doubt this would have happened before the latter part of the second half of the twentieth century.

It seems that they celebrate the Divine Liturgy facing the people in the Melkite Cathedral in Venezuela.

http://catedralsanjorge.org.ve/album/displayimage.php?album=14&pos=0

http://catedralsanjorge.org.ve/album/displayimage.php?album=9&pos=8

http://catedralsanjorge.org.ve/album/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=5

http://catedralsanjorge.org.ve/album/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=0

http://catedralsanjorge.org.ve/album/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=2

http://catedralsanjorge.org.ve/album/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=8

Christ is Born!

The choir is in the altar area?


Kolya

don't forget the guitar

Yes, the Maronites were and are very latinized, so they do it facing the people.

As for Greek Catholics I have only one anecdote. The late Fr Michael Felock of St Nicholas Church (Ruthenian) in Lorain, Ohio, did it circa early ’70s, thinking it was what the church wanted. That was stopped early on.

I think they were so successful resisting it, thus becoming a refuge for many Roman Riters during the long winter of novusordism, because Vatican II told them to go back to their own traditions so the modernizers couldn't touch them.

Archbishop Nicholas Elko (Ruthenian, Pittsburgh) wanted to go in that direction but it was too much even for his very latinized priests so Rome actually fired him in ’67 (kicked him upstairs to Rome) after they complained.

I am very confused with the linked galleries. What is going on, parts look like a Maronite liturgy, but with Byzantine Vestments.

The photos are really worrying. The bishop is seen in some of the photos to be wearing a chasu-alb and using his small omophorion as a stole. In one photo we get to see rather a lot of his trousers from a side photo. The Lector is wearing a latin alb and cincture. First communions are in progress. Looks like one place the Melkites will have their work cut out sorting this mess out.

I spend a lot of time on another Forum defending my Greek Catholic brothers and family from spurious attacks by Orthodox who have neither direct experience with Eastern Catholicism or have a 'comic-book' like understanding of what they are and how they worship. I think that I have made a difference with some of them by pointing out that stereotypes are a poor basis for decision making - whether you stereotype Orthodox by the actions of some extreme 'monk wannabe' parish or priest or Greek Catholics by - well -these photos.

To my friends in the BCC, I feel confident in saying this truth - if your parents, grandparents and great-grandparents had not challenged Rome in the early 20th century in America (and I mean ALL of us as few failed to challenge what was taking place - whether they 'stayed' or became Orthodox) these pictures represent what likely would have become of our beloved heritage and rituals.

Stuff like this adds fuel to the anti-Eastern Catholic voices within Orthodoxy and empowers those in the western Church who would like to see the Eastern churches be more western.

I hope that someone sends this off to the proper folks in Rome to see what, if any comment, they may have.

Bishops like Bishop Milan in Transcarpathia have done much to restore the full beauty of our shared Eastern traditions, it is sad to me to see that his efforts are not universal.

We have our own issues in Orthodoxy, so feel free to comment when appropriate. Constructive criticism has its place!

S'Bohom!

david

I don't know about the Armenian CC, but unfortunately that's true for the Maronites. And yes it's the "norm" (although there are a precious few churches which hold to the ad orientem posture). The same seems to be true for the Coptic CC (at least for the most part). The Chaldeans have officially restored ad orientem but there are some obstructionist bishops who continue to insist on the versus populum table. The Syro-Malabars are a mixed bag, with come dioceses (Chanangassery for one) holding to ad orientem, while others (Thrissur, I believe, is one) maintain the versus populum table.

And not to worry: even the Melkites are neither exempt nor immune. I've seen quite a number of broadcasts of the DL from Lebanon using a versus populum table.

Disheartening to say the least.

At least the Syro-Malankarese haven't latinised this far, although the push, it seems is inevitable?

Why would anyone even come up with this horrible mess as an option? If a protestant church were doing it, we'd be up surprised. When Catholic and Orthodox (e.g. Antiochian W. Riters in Philippines) do it is more than surprise, I suspect a lack of education, or willful cooperation with heresy/schism.

I can't comment on the currency of this regrettable practice among Maronite, Oriental, and Greek Catholics, but I will note that, for reasons that defy human understanding, the Patriarch of Romania apparently serves versus populum for large outdoor Liturgies. Here is videographic evidence:

http://video.crestinortodox.ro/txENLbQyHvr/Liturghia_de_Sfantul_Dimitrie_cel_Nou.html

I understand from acquaintances in Romania that this was not a one time occurrence.

Esteban

Not sure how I missed this thread for the past 10 days - but, on seeing it, I guess that I wish I still had done so.

I was hoping to find that the photos from Venezuela were not of the Melkites, but that is, indeed, our Cathedral and the hierarch is, indeed, Bishop Georges Kahhalé (Zouhaïraty), BAO, Apostolic Exarch of Venezuela of the Melkites.

It's not the first time that Bishop Georges has been referenced in a somewhat controversial light. Back about 5 or 6 years ago, he attended one of the TLIG (True Life In God - the notorious Vassula Ryden's ministry or whatever one chooses to term it) ecumenical events and was quoted as speaking favorably on her 'work'.

Prayers for my Melkite brethren in Venezuela.

Many years,

Neil

If that's the situation in Venezuela, I can give you a hint of what's the situation in some parts of Romania, where some greek-catholic priests are very latinized:

just a hint: http://www.reginapacis.ro/index.php...paste-mrp-2010&Itemid=45&lang=en

Keep in mind that the church is not roman-catholic, but belong to the byzantine catholic community.

It's a lovely church - for a Latin church ...

I have to admit that, while I've been aware, for quite some time, of latinization among the Romanians in their homeland, this series of photos left me near speechless.

Many years,

Neil

Actually this happens only once a year, or twice because the place is not fit for serving in a proper ad orientem style. But they are serving ad orientem! Even if they face the people. But this is sort of an exception for pastoral reasons in the Orthodox Church...not a rule as in some greek-catholics.

and people wonder why i'm leaving the Greek-Catholic Church.

If I may ask: Where are you going?

apologies, that was an inappropriate comment at an inappropriate time! i didn't mean to announce it like that, but i suppose now that it's out... i'm speaking to the MP priest in Hong Kong in two weeks' time about being received.

If you look through the album of photos titled Junio [catedralsanjorge.org.ve], you will see that at least one Divine Liturgy has been celebrated facing east.

In another album of photos, unleavened bread (a.k.a. "hosts") is used as can be seen in this photo. [catedralsanjorge.org.ve] (Don't get me started on the lack of modesty seen in the photo.)

Ay! Dios mio! Que tonteria. Que asqueroso. Que locura.

I'm not sure if every Byzantine Rite altar has the tabernacle in the middle of the altar, but having the tabernacle there makes it impossible to do the Divine Liturgy versus populum.

On the other hand, if you get 4 priests, the 4th one can face versus populum

I was visiting the Facebook page of Saint Gregory Armenian Catholic Church in Glendale, CA and saw the photos [facebook.com] of the Holy Thursday liturgy. Didn't expect to see the following:

1) Liturgy facing the people.
2) Liturgy celebrated on a low "table".
3) The Holy Eucharist removed and placed in a side repository. (Similar to what takes places in the Holy Thursday Mass in the Roman-rite.)
4) Use of altar girls.

The published schedule gives only one hour for the celebration of the liturgy. Pretty short, if you ask me. I am even wondering if it was the Roman Mass that was celebrated.

I am disappointed to see this, especially to see that it is Bishop Mouradian who is the main celebrant.

After repeated calls for Eastern Catholics to recover their traditions, why does this "neo-latinization" continue???

May I humbly posit three answers?

1 - Even in the East, the cultural issues around "the Vatican II moment," - both radical aggiornamento and counter-revolutionary - won't shake out to sanity until there is no bishop left on earth born before 1990. Right now too many people have emotions and career interests tightly bound up in fighting old mid-century cultural battles.

2 - The nation-state; democratic republics; the public school system; and a success-oriented, "employer-employee economy;" whatever their other blessings, all tend to exaggerate the natural human desire to be like one's neighbors into a slavish cultural conformism.

Thus people join more "mainstream" churches for social standing and business connections.

Interestingly, someone told me in the original "Godfather" novel, Michael wanted to raise his kids Protestant so that they would be "more American," and was upset when his Protestant wife converted. Art reflects life.

Several years ago I had a conversation with a person of Spanish descent (literal Spain, I mean) with whom I do business. He told me about his local mega-church ... I told him about my Ukrainian Catholic Church, and he said that he was familiar with the UGCC - he'd been to Kyiv - but "it's not a very *American* way to worship." That statement and his glare was an eye-opening experience for me.

Not everyone is willing to make the jump right to low-church Protestantism, though, so they will either Latinize themselves to "fit in" with the larger Catholic community, or adopt outright Protestantizations, as happened in many Roman Rite parishes.

From my conversations with local Orthodox, they are not immune, and evidently there are Protestantizations in the Orthodox community as well. But this is outside by bailiwick.

3 - The modern individualist mindset dovetails nicely with an anti-formalism that is destructive of any tradition.

---

The first of these issues should resolve naturally in the passing of generations. The third can be somewhat "cured" in individual persons through proper catechetical training, and prayer and fasting on the part of those who know better.

The second is a real sticky-wicket though, and I don't see any *human* solution. Probably this will not change until either the Democratic Era comes to a close (not the party, but the rule of nation-states and the mindset of bourgeois individualism), or there is severe persecution, or Our Lord graces us with a supernatural solution.

I am deeply convinced, based on certain theologies of history, that God desires the New Israel to have its "Twelve Tribes" thrive, and so that if we cooperate and pray and fast and evangelize, the "Tribes of Andrew and Thomas" (so to speak) will grow and thrive and retain their individuality.

Thanks for entertaining what turned out to be a really long post.

Christ is Risen!

I agree with most of this.

I think the leading cause of continued and new latinizations (of which the RDL is a prime example) is that our bishops and leading clergy are still seeking for the majority Latins to accept them as real Catholics. That will never happen and they should just forget it.

It should. It's part of the rubrics. And usually, it's just called an "artophorion" (bread box). Except during Lent, there's no guarantee that it will even have any reserved particles in it.

One of the things I like about the Melkites is they just don't care what the Latins think about them. After all, "it was in Antioch that they were first called Christians". They are secure in their own identity, comfortable in their own skin.

Latinized stuff like this is great fodder for the anti-ecumenical among the Orthodox when they ask us how can we really trust the Romans. For those who want to worship like that I have some solid advice - just join the RCC and allow the sui juris Churches the space and respect that they were supposed to receive following Vatican 2. Otherwise there will never be any reunion.

A priest turning his back to the Lord isn't a Latinisation. It's a Protestantisation.

You know that's not my point, it's the mimicry of whatever might be the fashion in the Roman Church. Those EC priests and Bishops certainly aren't consciously emulating Protestantism.

Photo [melkite.org.au] of His Beatitude Patriarch Gregorios III celebrating Divine Liturgy facing the people in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel of the basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The occasion was The Sixth Congress of the Bishops of Emigration in Acapulco and Mexico City, Mexico in November 2008.

Gotta say, that looks plain weird.

Somehow, even the word "latinisation" for the Westward celebration of the Eucharist is a misnomer, since even the Liturgy of the Latin Church should not be celebrated in this manner. Would that Pope Benedict had been able to eradicate this impious practice in the Latin Church before his retirement! It makes the Bishop or priest into a performer, always cognisant of how he "looks" to the people rather than doing what he is there to do: pray to God on behalf of the people. The Orthodox or Greek Catholic hierarch or presbyter who dares to adopt the practice of serving the Liturgy from the rear of the Holy Table betrays his tradition.

Archpriest David Straut

Versus populum was used in the relatively small number of Churches that were "occidented"; i.e., which had the altar at the west end of the building. Therefore, when the celebrant stood behind the altar facing the people, he was "facing east". For topographical reasons, St. Basilica was occidented--it was the only way to get the altar immediately above Peter's Tomb; when Constantine's basilica was replaced, the new church was also occidented for the same reason. It is believed that the congregation in Old St. Peters would actually turn around at the Lord's Prayer and the Canon, so that everybody would be facing east--even though this meant turning their backs on the altar.

Perhaps one of the problems with de-Latinization efforts in the wake of Vatican II, is that there has not be an equally active RE-Easternization?

This made me weep and gave me a migraine at the same time.

Dear Royal Stuart,

Our old parish priest would have agreed with you. This is why he preferred that we call ourselves "Orthodox" period.

The term "Eastern Catholic" could suggest that someone is a "funny Catholic"and not truly universal etc.

You've hit the nail on the head when you say that we need to feel comfortable and complete in our own skin.

Alex

Dear DMD,

You are right.

However, I wonder if even "Latinization" isn't the whole story here.

Could it be that there are those who imitate Latin traditions because they want to be "modern" with shorter prayers and otherwise be more "with it."

When I attend a Latin Catholic college (big mistake), my teachers would constantly harass me by saying why my EC parish "hasn't accepted the NO norms yet." And also they would ask me why I just don't move over to a Latin parish and leave my old=fashioned parish behind . . .

I don't believe this has anything to do with Latinization but with anxiety about whether one is accepted as being "modern."

Alex

Dear Griego Amigo,

Yes, in western Canada there were UGCC parishes (when I was in high school) that began serving DL facing the people and our religious orders, male and female, began sending out flyers promoting this as something that should be normative throughout the UGCC.

If you'll forgive the pun, this was no "occident."

Our Latin-minded religious orders were and are deathly afraid that "Easternization" will lead UGCCers to Orthodoxy. Remember that 90% of the Ukr. Orthodox Church in Canada derives from former Greek Catholics.

The more Latinizations, the better the members of these Orders slept at night . . .

Alex

It's not a matter of Maronites being excuse me, "very latinized." Their liturgical traditions are quite pure and in many cases were similar to the Latin Rite practices from the very beginning.

The comparison to Elko is not accurate in this context. Elko was not "fired" -- he was transferred.

Amen.

It seems like many that carp the loudest about "Latinizations" have no idea what the actual eastern practices were/are.

That's a bunch of bunkum. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been celebrated versus populum at St. Peter's Basilica for centuries. To suggest that is an "impious practice" is either a display of ignorance or mean spiritedness.

Is it even that widespread or is it simply something people like to continue to carp about? I don't know of too many people in the Catholic Church pushing to implement Western practices into the East.

I know a GREAT MANY that carp about latinizations even when none exist in their own places of worship. Some seem to take an almost perverse delight in continuing to talk about them.

Elko was "kicked upstairs" after a massive rebellion of his clergy, led by the rector of the seminary (who shall remain nameless). He was given a make-work job at the Oriental Congregation, continually refused permission to return to his eparchy, a bishop without a see. Eventually, he was allowed to return to the United States--as the Latin auxiliary bishop of Cinncinati. He spent the rest of his live indulging in conspiracy theories and writing a roman a clef about the travails of a deeply misunderstood Greek Catholic bishop persecuted for standing up to communists (hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you).

In any case, that might not be fired in the sense of getting a pink slip and a severance check, but it's effectively the same thing.

There's a reason for that--the church is one of few that is occidented (it faces west, so the high altar could be situated over Peter's tomb). So, when the celebrant at St. Peters is versus populum, he is facing east. It is believed that the entire congregation likewise turned around to face east during the reading of the Roman Canon. Perhaps we should restore that custom?

Someone's been drinking the cool aid.

Wow, I am going to stand back, get some popcorn and watch this one.

Most of us old enough to remember Bishop Nicholas Elko of the BCC and Bishop John Martin (his one time protege) who became ACROD's Bishop following "L'affaire Elko" would answer "fired" if this is a multiple choice whether we are BCC or Orthodox. While Bishop Elko was indeed "transferred", the perception of that reality was that it was done one step ahead of yet another rebellion - this time by the clergy.

Dear Franciscum,

How do you know that? I grew up in a very Latinized environment.

I'm still Latinized as my very Eastern Greek-Catholic colleagues here will remind me from time to time. So what? I like being Latinized

But there are those who don't and who work to get rid of Latinizations.

I would rather re-state what you said to say that there are those who (like me) are so attached to their Latinizations that they see them as integral parts of their Eastern Catholic identity (which they are not, but we choose to ignore that).

But I don't care what people think of me as being an East-West "hybrid."

Alex

I know people in EC religious orders who promote Western practices in the East . . .

Alex

Dear Franciscum,

Please be temperate in your language when addressing a Priest.

Rev. Fr. Archpriest Straut is none of the things you suggest.

As a rule, no EC or EO cleric should celebrate the Divine Liturgy facing the people.

I support Rev. Fr. Archpriest in his statement and so please feel free to apply the same invective to me, Latinized though I am.

Alex

Yeah, and I'm thinking we need to do something about that. Like promote our own authentic form of monasticism in place of Eastern "rites" of Western orders.

Does he really want to go there? Because I'm game if he is.

Butter for your popcorn, anyone?

Dear Royal Stuart,

And how is it that Jesuits like Fr. Taft know so much more about the East than, well, Easterners do, for the most part?

But you are more than correct - we need to promote authentic Eastern monasticism. And we need to begin by understanding what that is.

Are you not being engaged as a lecturer/teacher for our parishes and eparchial events?

If you are not, we can begin by asking our bishops and priests why people like you, the Administrator, Todd and others here aren't being utilized for the "new easternization" of the EC Churches?

Alex

The same way one gets into Carnegie Hall--practice, practice, practice.

Begging the question, do most EC Bishops truly embrace "New easternization" or do they fear it? It seems to me, from my limited (and biased) point of view, that many EC clergy are on board, but the leadership, i.e.the hierarchy, often seems to be left waiting on the station's platform.

I can name three or four here who are fully on board. That's out of what? fourteen or fifteen? Abroad, I would say the Melkites and a plurality of the Ukrainians are committed, and the further west you go, the more ambivalent bishops become. But the real opposition, interestingly, lies with the smaller, non-Byzantine Catholic Churches, including the Maronites, the Chaldeans, the Syrians, and the Syro-Malabarese, who are all very thoroughly latinized.

It's all about who appoints the hierarchs . . . and why . . .

It is also the same issue with respect to who appointed Orthodox bishops under Poland in the 16th century.

Ultimately, those same bishops signed the Union of Brest.

Alex

I wonder what Archimandrite Taft would say?

Isn't it interesting to see that he, considered a leading expert by both Catholics and Orthodox in almost all things Eastern, was originally Roman-rite and is an "Eastern-rite Jesuit" of the largest Western religious order in the Church?

Would he ever consider leaving the Jesuits and enter a monastic community, like Holy Resurrection Monastery [hrmonline.org]?

Has anyone ever asked him about that? I certainly would love to know how he would answer.

Dear Griego Amigo,

Just saw a movie about a Basilian priest-teacher who trained students in racing.

He himself could not engage in competitive racing, however. As he told the principal, "When I got to seminary, I was told, 'Basilians don't run . . .' I should have become a Jesuit . . ."

Alex

He probably wouldn't disagree. He has, after all, said that if it came down to a conflict between the Tradition of the Eastern Churches and the rules of the Society of Jesus, he would have to follow the Tradition.

How much time/resources across the Eastern Side of the Catholic Church are spent carping about "latinizations"? Not time/resources spent actually reverting back to correct Eastern practices but time /resources spent simply whining about the current (perceived) condition of the Eastern half of the Church?

THAT is what is such a HUGE turn-off to so many! Fix it! If you're not in a position to fix it yourself, pray for those who are. But to continually whine about "latinizations" is ultimately a killer -- in more ways than one.

Was the parish in question an EC or O parish? If it was EC and you referred to yourself as "Orthodox", wouldn't that be frowned upon by both EC's and O's?

Also, why would you suggest that the label "Eastern Catholic" is in any way "funny?" Because you don't want to use the moniker? Because you want to be "Orthodox"?

Liturgically, the Melkites call themselves Orthodox Christians. So do the Ukrainians. Only the Ruthenians seem allergic to the dreaded O-word. Yet in no way can Pravoslavije Khristianam be translated as "Christians of the true faith", when the simpler rendering of "Orthodox Christians" is available.

We ALL want to be Orthodox. The Pope has instructed us in that regard. Get with the program.

Dear Franciscum,

The parish in question is EC.

We've been working on a proper title for ourselves ever since the Unia of Brest that would signify our union with Rome while, at the same time, underscore our Eastern Christian identity.

The term "Orthodox" fits that bill exactly.

For centuries, the term "Catholic" in Ukraine and Russia signified that one was "Polish." There were no ethnic monikers at that time.

That is why our forefathers when they joined the Union of Brest, didn't refer to themselves as "Catholics" in that sense.

The term "Catholic" has also had a very negative impact on our Church over the years as well.

It opened wide the flood-gates of Latinization which was always accompanied with Polonization - the two went hand in hand.

And it also served to create a second-class citizenship mentality in EC's. Whenever the Catholics (i.e. RC's or "Real Catholics" as many of our people thought) practiced a Latin devotion, then we had to adopt it to show we were just as "Catholic."

In my Slavonic Greek Catholic Book of Needs of 1893, in the back, there are rules laid out and approved by Rome at the time that forbade RC's from going to Communion in an EC Church - but EC's were encouraged to go to Communion in an RC ("Real Catholic") church . . .

Personally, I like the term "Orthodox Catholic" as an official name for our EC Churches.

"Eastern Catholic" is "funny" because it partializes the experience of being Catholic. Latins can call themselves "Catholics" and everyone knows that this means they are of the Latin Rite etc. In some ears, "Eastern Catholic" may sound like "Roman Catholic of the Byzantine or other Rite."

Do we want to be Orthodox? Franciscum, perhaps the question you should pose is, "When have we stopped being Orthodox?"

And to hearken to Stuart's eloquent insightfulness, when we think we've stopped being Orthodox, that is when we have been Latinized.

Alex

Yes. Unfortunately true.


I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

The Maronite Church has become unbelievably tainted with Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations, to such a degree that it is choking the very life out of us.


The traditions themselves are pure, but most of them no longer exist (see the above). So, tell me, please, which ones were, from the very beginning, so similar to the Latins?

Careful, Stuart. Just what exactly do you mean?
The Pope has instructed us to be "Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome"? Deny divinely-revealed dogmas of the Catholic Church and still say "I'm with the Pope"?
Blessed John Paul II's Ad tuendam fidem [vatican.va] certainly blows that out of the water.
Just what program are you saying one should "get with"?

Just read the documents and decide for yourself.

Dear Amigo Griego,

Which Divinely revealed doctrines do we Orthodox Christians deny?

Alex

There you go again, being vague.
I have yet to read any document that even implies "OICWR".
If your position has Church support, why not cite it?

I think that the Church's call for unity trumps anything else. OK? Schism? What schism? I refuse to recognize it or be bound by it, because, to be honest, there is no legitimate reason for us to be separated.

Dear Royal Stuart,

I have a published doctoral dissertation by an RC priest on Lutheranism (i.e. "Reformation theology").

The conclusion that five-year piece of academic work reached was that . . . the differences between the RC and Lutheran churches do not justify their separation.

Surely, there can be no reason (other than more mundane issues) to justify the separation of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Alex

Dear Amigo Griego,

The document you cite by St John Paul II was written, I believe, to address the concerns the Church has with the many liberal Catholic theologs that, today, INFEST the RC church.

It does not relate to Orthodox Christian theology at all.

As for the "defined dogmas" of the RC Church, the problem is that the RC Church seems to have blurred the distinction between what is revealed dogma and what is Latin theological (and liturgical) expression.

And EC's sometimes (or even often) feel they have to adopt Latin theological and liturgical expressions to prove that they are also "Catholic."

The RC Church is in a big mess, not only liturgically, but primarly theologically these days. The number of your colleges that accept theologians who deny key dogmas and even moral principles is appalling.

The RC Church really does need the Orthodox Christian tradition in so very many ways today.

As St Thomas More said to William Roper about his orthodoxy in faith, "We must just pray that when your head has stopped turning, your face is back up to the front again."

Sorry, but that is how I feel and confession is good for the soul . . .

Alex

The document also applies to the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by the fact that His Holiness believed it necessary to add the following to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:


Further reading: http://orthocath.files.wordpress.co...and-zoghby-proposals-dead-20080404-1.pdf

Again, Stuart, when asked to support your position with the relevant Church documents, you evade the issue with an odd response.

Schism? Yes, it exists. It's the reality that we live in and which we pray and work to overcome. To say that there is no separation between Churches East and West is equivalent to a child with hands over the ears yelling, "I don't want to hear it. Lalalala...."
It is a disservice and it weakens your credibility.
With all due respect.

Just recently, I had a very successful collaboration with my Greek Orthodox brethren, but there were things that we were not permitted to do due to our not being in Eucharistic communion with each other. As much as I want it to end, the fact is schism exists.

Behave as if it doesn't and it will end. Be the Fifth Column in the Catholic Church.

Dear Amigo Griego,

All of what you cite simply confirms my belief as state previously.

St John Paul II was simply desirous to put an end to the terrible liberalism and real heresy that the Latin Church is so infected with nowadays - in its parishes, schools, colleges, seminaries.

In truth, much of the Latin Church would fall under interdict on the basis of St John Paul's teaching.

NONE of this applies to the Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Is it a teaching of the Magisterium that our Lady had no sin on her soul ever? The Orthodox Church has believed that from the beginning. It was only because of certain misinterpretations of St Augustine on Original Sin that the Latin Church found itself in a position to have to correct by way of a defined dogma what the Christian East has always believed.

The same goes for every single dogma that Latin Catholics say distinguishes them from the East.

Roman Catholicism should indeed return to the faith and praxis of the united Church of Christ of the first millennium.

It can start by restoring the fasting rules and the like.

Alex

Dear Stuart,

OK, where do I sign up as a "columnist?"

Do you collect any dues for this? What about some additional training.

Oh, and being a Canadian I would never plead the "fifth."

Alex

Dear Griego Amigo,

And the schism would begin to heal itself if both sides acknowledged that they are in schism from each other, that they are in fact in mutual schism and have been hurt, theologically, canonically, liturgically etc. by the fact of that schism.

Roman Catholics started on the road of political correctness by saying that they no longer call the Orthodox "schismatics."

In fact, Roman Catholics are schismatics too.

Unless that sinks in, our separation remains.

Alex

Add using unleavened bread for Communion at this Melkite cathedral in Caracas, Venezuela? The priest and bishop appear to be offering a host in the pictures at the following URLs:

http://catedralsanjorge.org.ve/album/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=4

http://catedralsanjorge.org.ve/album/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=7

Those pictures may not tell the whole story. The Malankara Catholic Church uses flat hosts sometimes, they may or may not be unleavened. In India and where possible, they are leaven then pressed with 13 crosses. In the US, sometimes Latin hosts are easier to come by. Not an excuse, but the reality is this.