Posted on 12/01/2006 7:48:24 PM PST by Pyro7480
Thanks!
Fr. Z's comment was very appropriate, Kolo. The Orthodox, as a rule (I am speaking now of numbers) do not kneel on Sundays, or any other day for that matter (Pentecost notwithstanding).
"Fr. Z's comment was very appropriate, Kolo. The Orthodox, as a rule (I am speaking now of numbers) do not kneel on Sundays, or any other day for that matter (Pentecost notwithstanding)."
Nothing inappropriate at all about it Kosta. I find it odd that he remarked about it and then went on to remark, with apparent disdain, that Latin Catholics seemed to have abandoned the practice of kneeling. Like I said, not inappropriate, odd.
I don't know the details of how the practice originated, but if I were to hazard a guess I would point to the scriptural references of every knee bending at the name of Jesus and at His second coming. Kneeling and genuflecting are signs of respect as well as acts of humility.
The context in which the Patriarch mentioned kneeling was obviously in refrence to the priest serving the Divine Liturgy who will actually kneel at the altar (as Pat. Bartholomew I did) after the consecration at every Liturgy.
There are some gestures that are reserved only for the clergy, such as praying with raised hands (which some Protestant converts to Orthodoxy bring with them), or the peculiar way the deacons pray and read.
In the context of the Patriarch's remark, I believe Fr. Z missed that it was referring to the priests and not the Orthodox in general. Certainly, the laity did not divide Christ's seamless garments, but the hierarchy.
I also noticed another interesting little detail regarding external dmeonstration of pay deference to the Pope as the elder bishop: before Bat. Bartholomew I read his homily, he motion Pope Benedict XVI to sit. But when the Pope read his ho,ily, the Patriarch remained standing.
Likewise, the Joined Declaration bears the signature of Pope Benedict first (on the left), followed by Bat. Bartholomew's (on the right), not below. In other words, equal but after the Pope. Curious, but quite fascinating.
Other than that, I don't know if the Roman Catholics stopped kneeling. I don't go to a Catholic church. I figure, if there are pews with kneelers, people will kneel.
" I also noticed another interesting little detail regarding external dmeonstration of pay deference to the Pope as the elder bishop: before Bat. Bartholomew I read his homily, he motion Pope Benedict XVI to sit. But when the Pope read his ho,ily, the Patriarch remained standing.
Likewise, the Joined Declaration bears the signature of Pope Benedict first (on the left), followed by Bat. Bartholomew's (on the right), not below. In other words, equal but after the Pope. Curious, but quite fascinating."
The ancient canons come alive. Very didactic. Excellent!
Well, it's not the Second Coming yet. :)
The Church specifically designated Sunday (the Day of Resurrection, the name it has in Russian, for instance) as the day when the faithful will not kneel. The reason for that was that we stand resurrected in Christ and that resurrected means to rise again. Now, that which is risen is not sitting or kneeling. :)
But again, we Orthodox do kneel (Pentecostal Sunday), and the priest kneels at the altar (both knees) every Sunday after the consecration of the bread and wine (some even do full prostration). We also prostrate and kneel during the Great (aka Holy) Week (mostly because the services are during week days.
Now, do remember that we receive the Eucharist standing and not kneeling and it doesn't get much closer to being with God.
Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council states:
Commentaries in this Canon (Hammond) notes that Tertullian "in a passage in his treatise De Corona Militis, which is often quoted, mentions it amongst other observances which, though not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet were universally practiced upon the authority of tradition."
This, quoting Terutillian as saying:
Thus, the Greeks to this day observe the period from the Resurrection (Easter) to the Pentecost as a no-kneeling period. Slavic Orthodox Churches practice kneeling on the Pentecost Sunday.
St. Augustine explains that the practice of no kneeling on Sundays was to commemorate the Resurrection of our Lord, and to proclaim the joy of our own resurrection (from the spiritual death we are born with)
This is history. It's fascinating that the Church only lay dormant, yet fully aware of all its canons and traditions, and in full possession of its consciousness and memory.
The whole idea of "primus inter pares" was being manifested throughout the whole visit with the E. Patriarch, down to such details that most of us (certainly I) simply never noticed or thought of as important.
*Both. I could, but won't, take pedantic issue with some of Fr. Z's comments.
No. I absolutely loved the homily.
I know and agree with the vast majority of your commentary and many of the points you raised are ones I have -continually argued.
I do believe I have been robbed of my spiritual heritage in the Liturgy due not to the Church or the legitimate reform but due to the protestants in Fiddlbacks within the Church who are every bit as distatseful and repugnant to me 6as the Protestants in Fiddlebacks in the schism.
I think those whose poverty of humilty has been obscured by their wealth of pride have taken advantage of a particular epoch to advance their personal opinions,predelictions, preferences etc all to the detriment of the Liturgy.
It has been more than 40 years since the end of the Council and I am still waiting for a Liturgy that would please the Church Fathers who desired a reform of the liturgy.
Tahnkfully,God has Graced me with an amsing amount of patience re the matter :)
liturgical discipline. the church, which established the no kneeling, can, later, reform that discipline
Convert. He is much loved and admired due to his knowledge of Latin and his zeal. He is the ONLY reason to get The Wanderer
That's like saying the States can enact something that is contrary to the American Constitution. The Church established Church discipline with regard to praying. The decision was made by an Ecumenical Council and is binding to all particular Churches, who, individually, cannot change it on their own (hence the problem with inserting the Filioque as well).
Thus what the Church as a whole decides (through an Ecumenical Council), the Church as a whole can change (through an Ecumenical Council). To the best of my knowledge, no Ecumenical Council changed Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council.
*No. Disciplinary Canons are not Dogmatic Canons. And I don't know of any general rule that disciplinary Canons are intended to remain in force in perpetuity unless specifically voted out of existence. It is true that subsequent Coun`cils specifically said that some Canons must remain in force but Councils would become excessively pedantic and legalistic were every Ecumenical Council required to re-examine, debate, and vote upon all previous disciplinary Canons.
That is not the purpose of an Ecumenical Council
I don't think I had ever heard of St. Maximus the Confessor before I read this post by Father Z. I have spent parts of the past day reading what I could find about him on the Internet. I find him to be very interesting.
In the Wikipedia article about him, he is quoted as saying, "I have the faith of the Latins, but the language of the Greeks" (this was in the context of his opposition to the heresy of monothelitism). It was because of this opposition that "at age 82 received his final sentence: he was flogged, his tongue cut out, his right hand cut off, he was exhibited in the streets as an example to the people, and was sent into exile" (from Patron Saints Index).
It's occasions like this that makes clear to me how deficient my religious education has been in my life. I've learned more in the past 4 years or so on my own than I probably had during 12 years of Catholic schooling (and that's just plain sad).
I also found this intereting summary from a doctoral dissertation that is available for purchase on Amazon.
Since the ninth century the filioque has been the most contentious theological issue dividing the Western and Eastern Churches. All attempts at resolving the dispute, including the ill-fated Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438--39), ultimately failed because by the eleventh century (if not earlier) the two halves of Christendom had developed theologies of the procession that appeared to be diametrically opposed: either the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone (as the Greeks held) or from the Father and the Son (as the Latins maintained). Yet there was one Church father whose writings offered a way out of this impasse: Maximus the Confessor (c. 580--662). In his Letter to Marinus (PG 91, 136), Maximus claimed that in using the filioque the Romans, 'do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they know that the Father is the one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession, but they show the progression through him and thus the unity of the essence.' This seemingly irenic text was brought forward at Florence several times, but, read solely within the context of the Photian-Carolingian dialectic, the Letter to Marinus remained merely another proof-text---the Greek anti-unionists viewing it as a clear demonstration of the Latins' heresy (since Laetentur Caeli did attribute causality to the Son), the unionists believing it an apology for filioquism. Yet I maintain that the Letter to Marinus, properly understood, provided the hermeneutical key to resolving the ancient question of the filioque, and that even in the fifteenth century there existed a school of Byzantine trinitarian theology capable of providing this interpretation. Seen as a clear explication of Maximus's own trinitarian thinking and the consensus patrum as it existed in the seventh century (i.e., the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and his eternal flowing forth through the Son), the Letter to Marinus offered the Florentine delegates, and continues to offer today, the best way of reconciling East and West and of establishing (or re-establishing) a genuinely ecumenical understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
I get the impression that St. Maximus' writings and intercession could be a key to a closer relationship between East and West.
St. Maximus the Confessor, pray for us!
"It's occasions like this that makes clear to me how deficient my religious education has been in my life. I've learned more in the past 4 years or so on my own than I probably had during 12 years of Catholic schooling (and that's just plain sad)."
Without a working knowledge of The Fathers, and I certainly don't mean in a proof texting manner, there is absolutely no way to have even an inkling of what The Church believed before the Great Schism, except of course for the basics contained in the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Here's a web source which is a good place to start:
"http://www.monachos.net/index.shtml"
Thanks for the link. I was actually thinking about going to graduate school to get a master's in theology, with a concentration in patristics. But now that I know that I'm being called to the priesthood, I'll be learning patristics anyway. ;-)
" But now that I know that I'm being called to the priesthood, I'll be learning patristics anyway. ;-)"
Better start reading those Fathers now and make sure you pick the right seminary.
I am happy to hear that you loved the Ecumenical Patriarch's homily.
Regarding Fr. Z's comments: notice that my seeming-quirky insistence on 'Latin' as a designation for your church is not so odd or obstinate. Fr. Z, when he puts words the the EP's mouth in his comments, scrupulously observes the usage.
I suspect Fr. Z's take on the import of the Patriarch's remarks is both correct, and also in agreement with Pope Benedict's views on liturgics, so you may manage to get back what you were robbed of if his papacy lasts long enough, or he has a successor of the same mold. May God grant it!
"It is true that subsequent Coun`cils specifically said that some Canons must remain in force but Councils would become excessively pedantic and legalistic were every Ecumenical Council required to re-examine, debate, and vote upon all previous disciplinary Canons.
That is not the purpose of an Ecumenical Council"
As a "general" proposition with what are disciplinary canons, I agree with BAC, Kosta. But I don't think we should carry this too far. There are very, very few canons, dixciplinary or dogmatic, which deal with the Liturgy, for example. That's for us to preserve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.