|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,601
Members6,169
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 372
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 372 |
Did our monastics weigh in on this at all? Do we have monastics to weigh in on this? John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,173 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,173 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
This is just my two cents but I think the root of all of these problems is communion with Rome. Being subordinate to the beauracracy of the Latin Church and being in competition with the Latin Church is what hampers the eastern Catholic Churches. And it seems to me, that the Roman Church still wants its thumb on the eastern Churches, no matter what beautiful things the Popes say in their encyclicals. On the contrary, if we were truly being faithful to Rome, we would not be making legalistic arguments that the Congregation for the Oriental Churches (which I have no doubt that it did through Fr. Taft's influence) has approved the new liturgy. Rome is not the problem. Following Rome and the Ruthenian Recension is the solution. Im, You may be right. I could be very wrong in my assessment. That is why I said my two cents may not be worth much  . My difficulty would be in figuring out exactly what it is that Rome wants. Now, since I'm no longer Catholic it doesn't bear on me that much practically, except, that I will always sympathize with the confusion and frustration that my eastern Catholic brethren have to endure and I am interested in the vitality of all of Christianity, not just my communion. To be honest (and I'm no liturgical expert), I didn't see that many grevious errors in the revised Ruthenian liturgy. Personally, I don't care for the unaesthetic translation and there were things in the text that seemed odd to me. The only thing that I could see that really bothers me a great deal was the mangling of the Nicene Creed. But, God bless you and all eastern Catholics. I hope I didn't sound too harsh earlier. It wasn't my intent. God bless. Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 01/09/07 10:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 209 |
In the next few weeks we will have in our hands the texts of the new liturgy. Get a copy write out your comments and send them to the proper Roman authorities. We have no recourse in our own "sui juris" church. At another time in history our own hierarchs were the "worst enemy" of the Liturgy, but Rome intervened to help alter the course of self-imposed latinizations. Our own church leaders did not implement the liturgical restoration fostered by Rome.
The new liturgy will be imposed not by the force of tradition by an exercise in legalistic authoritarianism. So we should have recourse to law. We can begin by acquainting ourselves with a couple of canons from he Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. After stating that the faithful have to five due respect and obedience to Church authorities the canons say:
"The Christian faithful are fre to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church." (Can:15.2)
"In accord with the knowledge, comptetence and position whey they possess, they have the right and even at times the dudy to manifest to the pastors of the Church their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have the right to make their opinion known to other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence for the same pastors, and with consideration for the common god and the dignity of persons.." (Can. 15.3)
In the canons, the term pastors usually means bishops and by extension, to the parish priests.
As we are in full communion with the Holy See of Rome, we also have the right and duty to make known our concerns to the Holy See.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
This is just my two cents but I think the root of all of these problems is communion with Rome. Being subordinate to the beauracracy of the Latin Church and being in competition with the Latin Church is what hampers the eastern Catholic Churches. And it seems to me, that the Roman Church still wants its thumb on the eastern Churches, no matter what beautiful things the Popes say in their encyclicals. I could say a lot more but that would involve hijacking the thread, and I don't want to do that. To keep things in line with the thread, I will just say that the eastern Catholic Churches are so overwhelmed by the size and power of their Latin rite counterparts in the U.S., that the culture of the Latin Church (constant liturgical revision, dumbing down the Liturgy, having only celibate priests, distrust and disrespect of the laity, etc.) is bound to influence and impose itself on the eastern Catholic churches whenever it can do so. If the Vatican permits the Bishops of the Latin Church in the U.S. to keep the English translation of the Nicene Creed which omits "for us men" then that will be the sign of things to come for the eastern Catholic Churches. Peace in Christ, You know, I just spoke to a Melkite Priest who wonders the same things as you do JS. He thinks that we are a pain in the side of Rome, and that by not uniting all the eastern churches it weakens us, and over time we will eventually get smaller and smaller until there is nothing left. He thinks the "two lungs" reference by Rome is just a bunch of hooey. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue. Maybe, just maybe, this is yet another way to do away with the Eastern churches. They couldn't Latinize us enough, so they've got to try something else....maybe this is the something else. I suspect if we appealed to Rome we would be told they couldn't do anything because we're a Sui Iuris church. It's the classical catch-22. ByzCat wrote: I do think the hierarchs should clarify both the issue of Slavonic (or Spanish, etc.) in the Liturgy, and the option of taking additional litanies and antiphon verses. But we do have all of this, it's called the 1964 Liturgikon, a.k.a the Red Book. Right? (admittedly, it needs a few corrections.) And, I was told by a Ruthenian Priest from Europe that the Rubrics are perfect. So what's the problem? Well, just for the record I find the "two lungs" notion to be a novelty and theologically problemmatic. But I think the whole east/west distinction is a modern invention (that is another subject). So, please, no one go off on my comment there unless you want to start another post. My experience as a Melkite for 12 years in 2 different Melkite parishes (and in one Ruthenian parish) was that there was a great deal of frustration among the clergy, who generally did not agree with the positions that their Bishop publicly expressed. I also think that the fear that Rome would push the eastern Catholic Churches toward alter girls, unaesthetic liturgy, etc. can be found among many in the Melkite Church, precisely because the Melkites are the most Orthodox of all of the eastern rite Catholic Churches. I love the Melkite Church with all of my heart. I just think that they should be in communion with Constantinople and not Rome. That having been said, I think that the only thing that will save the byzantine heritage of the eastern Catholic Churches is active resistance to any latinizations or modernizations incompatible with the spirit of genuine Orthodox Christianity. I realize that I might be walking a fine line here in potentially advocating rebellion against a Bishop. But in conscience, I must say that we cannot have a slavish obedience to the hierarchy. Our only unconditional obedience is to Christ and it is the laity who have saved the Church from heresy on numerous occasions when a majority of the Bishops fell into error (think the Arian and the Iconoclast heresies). I am not advocating anything or telling anyone to do anything. But, I have to confess that if I were in any Church (Catholic or Orthodox) that tampered with the Creed, then I would walk out and never come back. And I would find the closest Church (Catholic or Orthodox) that recited the true Nicene Creed, whether that was Melkite, Greek Orthodox, ROCOR, etc. God bless and forgive me my excessive passion. Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 01/09/07 10:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 209 |
Did the monastics weigh in on this? ....
The monastics of Mt. Macrina were part of the problem. They have used "inclusive language" for years now. Their versions of the Liturgical books are replete with PC language. The Seminary made use of these texts for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Would it be completely inaccurate to guess the majority of those in the church will not really notice and will adjust, and that a minority will dislike the changes and the perceived shift away from Orthodoxy? You are probably right. But is it about majority vs. minority? Generally speaking, the majority are ignorant of Church history and the intricacies of doctrine and liturgy. That does not make them spiritually inferior. I know that I am the first of all sinners, Lord have mercy on me. But I do think that most people in the pew (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Bahai, etc.) are rather ill informed. God bless. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I could be very wrong in my assessment. In some important ways, in my own opinion, I think you're correct. I will say the whole Rome dimension doesn't make sense to me. The Ruthenian Church is supposed to be a free standing, autonomous church capable of overseeing and governing itself (in theory). However it seems these changes are being pushed down in large part from Rome through a congregation of the Curia in one direction, Rome is telling Eastern Churches that they need to be Eastern or how they should be Eastern apparently in another (it's not clear to me where that's coming from, but someone said it), and lastly people are talking about appealing to Rome to overturn the decisions of their own bishops who are in charge of their own sui juris church and overseers of their own liturgical tradition! It seems to me everything hinges on Rome. I simply don't get it. How can the church be truly Eastern and autonomous with this sort of dependence on the western church? I think that is part of the problem as you identified it.
Last edited by AMM; 01/09/07 10:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
You are probably right. But is it about majority vs. minority? No, I'm definitely not saying the liturgy would be validated simply by majority acceptance. I'm just trying to get a feel for what the majority may or may not think of this. I'm just curious if Byzcath is typical or atypical in its viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
You are probably right. But is it about majority vs. minority? No, I'm definitely not saying the liturgy would be validated simply by majority acceptance. I'm just trying to get a feel for what the majority may or may not think of this. I'm just curious if Byzcath is typical or atypical in its viewpoint. Okay, I see. On that question, I have no idea. God bless. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 280
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 280 |
I am hoping to find some facts, rather than opinions.
1. Where can the text of the liturgy be obtained? I'm sure the new pew books will be around soon, but I don't believe Rome approved a pew book. Some time ago, those supposedly in the know said that fuller antiphons, litanies, etc. would be available as a supplement to the pew book. Hence the question - where can one find the approved liturgy, as opposed to the abbreviation which will supposedly be distributed?
2. When the promulgation decree states that this is the "only text to be used", does this also include the music? Can a parish set the approved words to, for example, an Obikhod tone?
2. When the promulgation decree states that this is the "only text to be used", does this also include the rubrics? If the Proskomedia rubrics describe real prosphora and the means for cutting it, does this mean that pre-cuts are forbidden come June 28? Does this mean that I will never again see a priest enter the sanctuary, approach the Table of Preparation, and less than 90 seconds later have completed the Proskomedia and begin incensing the Holy Table?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373 |
Pre-cut particles forbidden? Riiiggghhhttt. Don't count on it! Ungcsertezs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Rome is telling Eastern Churches that they need to be Eastern or how they should be Eastern apparently in another (it's not clear to me where that's coming from, but someone said it), and lastly people are talking about appealing to Rome to overturn the decisions of their own bishops who are in charge of their own sui juris church and overseers of their own liturgical tradition!
It seems to me everything hinges on Rome. I simply don't get it. How can the church be truly Eastern and autonomous with this sort of dependence on the western church? I think that is part of the problem as you identified it. With the influence of Fr. Taft, the Eastern Congregation is taking positions conrtrary to what Rome is in fact doing in the Roman Rite, ie, correcting translation errors in the Roman liturgy. Rome's position with respect to the position asserted by Fr. Taft on the "inclusive language" issue is a hand's off approach-- Rome's position appears to be, this is a sui juris Church, we're not going to get involved--let them do as they please--unfortunately in this case this means do what Fr. Taft and the other experts want. Fr. Taft, the expert in things Byzantine, wants inclusive language despite the fact that it is contrary to the best theology of the East (and West for that matter). http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-110-r The keynote address by the Reverend Professor Robert Taft, S.J., of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome (himself an Eastern Catholic) dealt with translation problems with respect to liturgy, language, and ideology. He made known his dislike of �sacral,� �numinous,� or �archaic� liturgical English (as confusing obfuscation with mystery). He endorsed �horizontally� inclusive language, on the grounds that liturgical translations are for �people of today� and should be in an idiom and style most readily comprehensible to them. Rome's position is best set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam issued in May of 2001. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the "inclusive" sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission....The translation should not restrict the full sense of the original text within narrower limits. To be avoided on this account are expressions characteristic of commercial publicity, political or ideological programs, passing fashions, and those which are subject to regional variations or ambiguities in meaning. Academic style manuals or similar works, since they sometimes give way to such tendencies, are not to be considered standards for liturgical translation. On the other hand, works that are commonly considered "classics" in a given vernacular language may prove useful in providing a suitable standard for its vocabulary and usage. Rome is our sure guide if we only follow her lead. In this case we're simply not doing that but we are being a sui juris autocephelous Church in the worst sense of the term -- acting as if we have no head other than our own. Everything does hinge on Rome, but Rome isn't the problem, its the answer. Faithfulness to her will allow the Light of the East to shine forth. If the "Rome dimension" doesn't make sense to you, then I simply think you must not be a Catholic (which I am not blaming you for, but rather I am pointing out that our belief is that where the mind of Peter is, there is our peace and well-being).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
A Dhomilsean,
Beidh failte roimh igconai!
le gach beannacht,
(An tAth.) Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia often must advise people who are distressed by various problems which afflict the Church. He often tells people: "Do not grumble. Protest, but do not grumble!"
That, I suggest, is excellent advice. A carefully written and well thought out protest may succeed; grumbling will accomplish nothing.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
