www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

Amen. That was also affirmed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical on the liturgy. He wrote something to the effect that he regarded the liturgy as the most ordinary and pervasive form of magisterium.

Eastern liturgies - whether Orthodox or Catholic - are part of the authoritative magisterium of the Church, especially since the ordo of each flows from episcopal authority.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I didn't say I'd read those works, I said I've read suggested works, i.e. ones suggested by others. I have read Papadakis, but I don't know if was specifically that work in question. When I've gotten my hands on the the works you recommended I'll be happy to discuss them with you.

In the mean time, however, my request still stands. For the purposes of open discussion about this theological issue let's have some examples or excerpts that amount to more than simple re-assertion of the notion that "proinai" can't indicate hypostatic procession. Without that the discussion is dead in the water.

Peace and God bless!

Those who allowed such mistranslations can hardly be considered faithful Catholics. Certainly the chaos of the last 40 years cannot be considered normative. Indeed, Pope Benedict is returning the Latins to their liturgical roots, but simultaneously he is also demanding faithful obedience to the Church's doctrinal and moral teachings, contrary to the modernist tendencies since Vatican II. I think the Orthodox should see a true friend in Benedict as he sees one in them.


Pax!

PS - The Fathers of the Church wrote extensively. Whatever they were doing (even if you don't call it theology) seems like an important part of the Tradition. This cannot be seen as something contrary to the Liturgy, but a fruit of it.

The term proienai, like the other words I mentioned in connection with it, concerns the "movement" or "progression" of an already subsistent being (i.e., a hypostasis).

In other words, the problem with the Western view of the Spirit's procession is that it fails to take into account the fact that ekporeusis, which means a "procession of origin from a source," is -- of its very nature -- a subsistent (i.e., an existential and hypostatic) procession. While the other terms used in connection with the Holy Spirit's "shining forth" through the Son concern the Spirit's "manifestation" (pephenos), "progression" (proienai), or "emanation" (proodos) as an already existent reality. That said, the Spirit is a hypostasis because the Father alone causes Him to exist eternally, and the Son is not involved in this existential and subsistent (i.e., hypostatic) act, but is involved only in "manifesting" the Spirit, Who eternally takes His origin from the Father alone as hypostasis.

Sadly, the West is confusing two distinct realities, i.e., the Spirit's hypostatic origin (i.e., His existence), which is only from the Father, and the "manifestation" or "shining forth" of His existence, which is from the Father through the Son. The first thing is a hypostatic reality, while the second is enhypostatic.

Gordo,

I am not aware of, and certainly have not been taught, that anything that winds in up in liturgy is automatically considered an immutable infallible of the faith. I certainly would not be able to affirm this in the absence of something clear and definitive from the Magisterium.

As for Pope Pius XII, while I know nothing as to what he was saying, and intended to convey, with regard to liturgical considerations, I strongly doubt that he intended it to have such a decisive role in matters of Eastern Catholicism. I think his apostolic letter, Orientales Omnes Ecclesias, issued on the 350th anniversary of Brest, clearly outlines his views towards the 'East' and the nature of reunion with Rome. I think it's fair to say the views he champions in that letter would tend to not go over well on this forum.

Best to all,
Robster

Rob,

could you be specific, just a few bullet points, of what you read John Paul II as saying that would not go well at Byz Forum?

I state again for the record that Rome has added to ambiguity of the situation historically.

For example, at both Brest and Uzhorod we were promised our clergy could be married; but that item of the unions was not honored as we all know- and is not being honored- please robster, per our personal conversations, do not hear my voice as a poor, oppressed Byzantine!- I am simply making a point that Rome has given me reason historically to take some things, like the Pope's letter, (no doubt a prudential statement) with a grain of salt (just an aside, he only addresses the Ukrainians in that letter, not the Belarusins, with whome the Union of Brest was first made).

Blessings,

Lance

The wording here seems a bit strange, not to say irreverent. Anything - including Scripture, Liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, and documents of the magisterium can be quoted out of context and produce bizarre results.

Liturgy is certainly a locus theologicus of high importance for our knowledge of the Faith. The Liturgy is the constant expression of the Holy Tradition, which is why one reacts with alarm at the thought of making drastic changes to the Liturgy.

For a thorough insight into the matter, I recommend the published writings of Joseph Ratzinger, better known as Pope Benedict XVI.

Fr. Serge

Yes, for example, The Spirit of the Liturgy, by Joseph Ratzinger! It is excellent.

Friends,


In fairness to Robster, there have been a number of posts that I've read here that, as expressed, rather than as intended, perhaps, would seem to imply a more dogmatic role for the liturgy per se than is implied in the words of Fr. Serge, which seem to me to be a more correct way of understanding the matter.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael,

I'm trying to track with your sentence, but sorry...I'm not following!

Could you please explain?

Thank you!

Gordon

Appreciate your understanding, Michael.

As for the writings of Josef Ratzinger, I've been hearing about a lot of things he has written and what they supposedly mean. I think I'll content myself to wait and see what he issues as binding, magisterial teaching. More free time, then, to exercise, study Islamic jurisprudence, and dialogue with Zionists.

Best to all,
Robster