Posted on 12/09/2008 5:52:09 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
Maybe, but we need to know the context. As you go through this exercise, Kosta, let us not forget that the Catholic Church is by definition of many local cultures, some of them -- for example, in Africa -- do not view nudity in quite the same way we do. I think, -- correct me if I am wrong -- that liturgical dance is licit in Africa or at least was experimented upon, as a valid expression of African spirituality. That the Pope, for example, traveled to Africa and was treated to a dance performance with bare feet dangling in the air, as one of your photos show, is not by itself abuse. In Virginia it shocks; in other locales, no.
“If this be true, without prejudicing the final clarification of the nature of this primacy, then there must be the desire among the Orthodox to restore what is of the nature of the Church.”
No doubt that there is a desire among all Orthodox Christians to restore the true and complete nature of The Church.
“Unfortunately, from what I find here on the internet, I get the strong impression from the Orthodox that they have no need or desire for this universal primacy.”
That isn’t true at all. We have a sort of universal Orthodox primacy right now with the EP, though that primacy is nothing at all like the immediate local jurisdiction exercised by or claimed for the Bishop of Rome. That said, the primacy of the EP is nothing to sniff at as developments at both of the recent dialogs have shown as well as how alignments have worked out backing the EP’s position on, for example, autocephally for the Church of Estonia in the face of opposition from Moscow among other situations. The EP’s primacy is vested with a certain degree of power such as is necessary to make the primacy meaningful.
Universality is definitional of the totality of The Church just as, and this must be understood by Rome and Western Christians, the fullness of The Church is found in a single diocese proclaiming The Faith made up of the bishop surrounded by his clergy and monastics and the Laos tou Theou focused or centered on the Eucharist. Thus, the universal Church and the single diocese both are completely definitional of the fullness of The Church; both structures are of the esse, not merely the bene esse, of The Church.
It seems to me that Met. John is correct when he says:
“Catholics must take seriously the notion of full catholicity of the local Church promoted at Vatican Council II, and must apply it to their ecclesiology. This means that every form of primacy at the universal level must reflect the local Church and must not intervene in the local Church without her consent. Every local Church, must have the possibility to affirm its own catholicity, in relation to the primacy. For this reason, I repeat, the golden rule for a correct exercise of primacy is the 34th Apostolic Canon.(”The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent...but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.” Apostolic Canon 34).
And then when he advises:
“Acceptance [by the Orthodox] of the Roman primacy would depend on whether we agree that the Church consists of full local Churches united into one Church without losing their ecclesial fullness.”
“There APPEARS to have been females delivering the Eucharist.”
Yes, tonsured, older widows or virgins. Your Eucharettes, so far as I know, are not tonsured. Eucharettes exist only because some women demanded it as their “right” and accused the bishops of “discriminating”. What has any of that to do with The Church? Its an outrage!
Jo, its the very “flexibility” which has become so prevalent in the Western Church and Western culture since WWII which lead to the liturgical and catechetical mess the Church of Rome finds itself in now. How far does that flexibility go? Based on what? Inspired by whom? Why is his idea better than yours? The Holy Spirit is doing a new thing!... And then, Every man a pope...and heresy! :(
As an aside, it would be nice if our critics remembered Apostolic Canon 34 not only when the exercise of papal authority is questioned by them, but also when such exercise is urged, as for example in removing a liberal bishop.
“As an aside, it would be nice if our critics remembered Apostolic Canon 34 not only when the exercise of papal authority is questioned by them, but also when such exercise is urged, as for example in removing a liberal bishop.”
Yeah...the heavy hand of Rome is always acceptable and welcome if its dropping on the other guy!
There is a solution, however, a synodal one like the Patriarchs used to get rid of the former Pat. Of Jerusalem a couple of years back.
There are indeed instances of that. We have an extraordinary female minister whom the priest had to chastise for her "demands" of doing it her way. Men are not immune from that, either, Kolo. I agree that it is a temptation for SOME to see themselvse as part of a show and get attention. This is one of the reasons why I have chosen not to do this anymore unless their is a shortage. I do not care for watching 8 lay people go to the altar. However, I do know other women who are more humble and see their actions as a service, just as my actions were a service. I don't think a woman should be prohibited from this act of service, as sacramental theology does not prohibit it. The symbol of a female disciple of Christ is not, in my mind, an outrage! As you know, ANY ritual can be abused. We don't do away with rituals because of the potential. If it is theologically licit, then it should be allowed, while watching for abuses. Unfortunately, some priests, in an effort to remain politically correct, are fearful of calling the laity to the task and reminding them what is taking place on the altar...
What theological reason would you have for not allowing a female to give the consecrated host during the Eucharist?
Jo, its the very “flexibility” which has become so prevalent in the Western Church and Western culture since WWII which lead to the liturgical and catechetical mess the Church of Rome finds itself in now.
Perhaps you are correct. However, the Church would have been even worse off today if they HADN'T done ANYTHING. Society is different here. I think there HAD to be some changes on how things were done. Where the problem stems from, my friend, is NOT the flexibility offered, but people taking carte blanc with the Liturgy and going BEYOND what was allowed or envisioned in this "throwing open the windows" movement. Of course I am not happy with some of our Liturgy. But people of the time were ALREADY just going through the motions, a dead faith, when they looked at life of the world around them. The Mass had little meaning and was not relevant to a rapidly advancing society. To make Christ relevant, the Church had to allow the vernacular during Liturgy, for example, to allow participation at an intellectual level.
Please do not think I am the typical Catholic. There are many who are more liberal, others more conservative. I believe in following the essentials to the letter, but leave some room for "schools of thought" in allowable matters. That is how a teacher of the faith has to be. I have to allow for reasonable and allowable reflections from people on both sides. I provide correctives in matters that I feel are necessary and essential. On the rituals, there is more room for being flexible. Thus, I try to hear those who hate altar girls, and those who think they should be up there... I am in a difficult position - what am I going to base my teaching on if I say "NO" to, say, altar girls? "Because we never did that before"? That doesn't fly here. There are a lot of things "we haven't done before" that have been relegated to the trash heap, like belief in a flat earth...
And then, Every man a pope...and heresy! :(
I think that charge can be leveled against the Eastern laity who judge whether synods of Bishops are valid or not, sacking those who do not appeal to the ordinary. To some degree, we all like to "take control" since we "know better" than others. We are all under some self-delusion, and it is dangerous in the religious field.
We do have a Catechism that acts as a guide, despite you disdain for it! We don't make things up on the fly ("we" meaning those who take their faith seriously, that it is revealed from God). Liturgical rites are not part of "Apostolic Tradition" or "Scriptures" that are unchangeable matters of our faith. The Liturgy SHOULD take into account the society for which it acts as a symbol of Divine Worship. If kneeling suddenly takes on a societal meaning of disrespect, you'd get rid of kneeling in Mass, wouldn't you??? You wouldn't care if it was part of the ritual for 1500 years. Rubics are supposed to move the mind to something spiritual and transcendant. If they don't, or move the mind to something different, then you have problems.
Society has changed much more here, so we've had to change here on liturgy. Some changes were poorly handled - an understatement, you'd no doubt agree with. But the concept is valid, my friend.
Brother in Christ
There is a solution, however, a synodal one like the Patriarchs used to get rid of the former Pat. Of Jerusalem a couple of years back.
Well said! Who likes to accept discipline? "WHAT DOES ROME HAVE TO DO WITH ME!" "HOW DARE THEY".
If I may suggest a theory on why Rome may not be a heavy handed as before? I think the Pope is afraid of more schisms. We know the big ones, but there have been numerous "little" ones - and I think there is a sense that schism is to be avoid unless absolutely necessary. I believe this is part of the mindset behind not more strongly disciplining wayward American bishops.
Regards
IMHO,Blessed Pope Paul JPII started the healing process of misinterpretations of Vatican II which is part of the groundwork being done by Benedict XVI.
Our Blessed Lord will heal things in His time,dear brother.
Here is what JP II said..
From DOMINICAE CENAE in 1980
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html
“I would like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people.
May Christ Himself help us to follow the path of true renewal towards that fullness of life and of eucharistic worship whereby the Church is built up in that unity that she already possesses, and which she desires to bring to ever greater perfection for the glory of the living God and for the salvation of all humanity.
Excert 2
In order to be able to continue in the future to put into practice the directives of the Council in the field of liturgy, and in particular in the field of eucharistic worship, close collaboration is necessary between the competent department of the Holy See and each episcopal conference, a collaboration which must be at the same time vigilant and creative. We must keep our sights fixed on the greatness of the most holy Mystery and at the same time on spiritual movements and social changes, which are so significant for our times, since they not only sometimes create difficulties but also prepare us for a new way of participating in that great Mystery of Faith.
Above all I wish to emphasize that the problems of the liturgy, and in particular of the Eucharistic Liturgy, must not be an occasion of dividing Catholics and for threatening the unity of the Church. This is demanded by an elementary understanding of that sacrament which Christ has left us as the source of spiritual unity. And how could the Eucharist, which in the Church is the sacramentum pietatis, signum unitatis, vinculum caritatis,(72) form between us at this time a point or division and a source of distortion of thought and of behavior, instead of being the focal point and constitutive center, which it truly is in its essence, of the unity of the Church herself?
Dear Kosta, We all of seen enough of your pictures of liturgical abuses on this forum and a continual posting of them only serves to to promote scandal. We don't agree with the abuses either,so I pray you stop it.
I wish you a Blessed Day!
But in its [i.e. Vatican II] defense:
1. It is a pastoral council: it did not define any dogmas. It had to be convened to respond to the changes in the sociopolitical realities post WWII.
2. The resurgence of informed traditionally minded laity, — such as your Catholic friends here at FR, — is also a fruit of Vatican II. It had an effect of shaking up the Church and not all that came out of it was negative.
3. The abuses, theological and liturgical, took the wrong cue from the Vatican II, but the Vatican II itself is at worst vague, but never encouraged any abuse.
As such it is not infallible because it was never declared infallible. Therefore it could have been scrapped when things started going "naked" if you know what I mean. I disagree with the "sociopolitical realities" post WWII need simply because the same "realities" did not cause the East to follow suit.
Unlike the laity in the East which is educated through unchanging tradition, in the west there was always a group of theologically minded and informed lay people, such as lay theologians with Masters and PhD degrees. The problem is in the sheepish culture of following whatever the Church does. If the Pope allowed abuses right in front of his eyes, then who was to say it was wrong given the demi-god status of the Bishop of Rome?
As a lay person, no matter how informed you are, you are risking being ostracized at best and excommunicated at worst for questioning the Catholic Church and her clergy. In the mindset where one man is the Church, such questioning is equivalent to disobedience that must be punished.
Finally, the fact that no one "encouraged" abuses is a lame excuse in my opinion. It's like saying Pope Honorius I was not to blame for the heresy of the Bishop of Constantinople because he knew about it but did nothing to stop it! He was condemned as a heretic for it, and rightfully so, because it happened on his watch and with his full knowledge and tacit approval, although he himself never professed it.
At this point, the momentum is with the orthodoxy, not with the modernizers.
But that's where the problem is. The Church scrapped her tradition and now any pope can choose which direction to take the Church in. For the last 500 years or so, the Latin Church was irrevocably bound by the Council of Trent. Obviously someone decided it wasn't. Today it is bound by a "momentum," a pendulum that can, and most probably will, swing as time progresses. Forty years ago the world was nothing like what we have today. This country was not the same country, geopolitically, ethnically, culturally, etc. literally speaking. Chances are, forty years form now, it will be nothing like it is today. So, if you base your Church on the "momentum" it will be unrecognizable in the next generation or so.
The Church faced the same issues as a result of industrial revolution in the 19th century, which is why the Vatican I was convened—to fight modernism! But the Church did not scrap the Tradition in order to accommodate the new "momentum," but decided to stay the course. You can't serve two masters. The Church ought to know that. So, giving in to the "itch," as you say, was giving in to Mammon. And the result is predicable. It's like the wayward Jews fading in and out of Judaism in their history, embracing anything and everything the "momentum" dictated at the moment.
Vatican II will be remembered as the council which transformed the Catholic Church from a collection of ethno-cultural Churches that Western Catholicism was following the Reformation, into a smaller but more vibrant Church of people who chose to be Catholic and want to remain Catholic, because they understand and like Catholicism
How could it be a collection of "ethno-cultural" Churches when it used one and the same language and one and the same liturgy? And I don't now why is being "vibrant" a positive attribute of a Church? To me, seeing things through Orthodox eyes, the Vatican II was an excuse to disown the Church and create a new "Church" in man's own image, an taste. How can anyone know what it means to be "Catholic" in a Church where anything goes ? This is no different than Anglican Communion, where no matter what you believe you will find a parish that shares your belief. The Catholics here tell me that some Catholics are not Catholics and other say the Pope is the Antichrist. It makes me wonder, given the diversity of interpretations of the Vatican II, expressed in vivid pictures, how can anyone for sure know what is really "Catholic."
The Catholic Church today seems to have regressed form being a community of "ethno-culutral" Churches bound by the same tradition and liturgical language throughout the world (which is the meaning of catholic when you think about it), to a community of heterodox sub-culutre assemblies of people who all call themselves "Catholic" while speaking in tongues that others don't understand, and obviously not sharing the same idea of what the liturgy is all about. At one of this rainbow Catholicism, there are the TLM Catholics and on the other are the scantily clad liturgical dancers, with "anything goes" between these two.
We Orthodox are not impressed and do not share your enthusiastic and optimistic view of the Latin Church. We see some positive inclinations and admirable efforts made by the Pope to reform the reform, of which he was himself no small architect, almost as an attempt at "meal culpa," in lieu of Augustinian-like Retractions. But the fact that we see exactly what you see, people who have accepted the reforms and are happy with the product created.
We are happy for you. But do not expect us to buy your product.
Yes, the Conference of US Bishops could engineer the ouster of Cardinal Mahoney, for example. Why it doesn't always work is a mystery.
“What theological reason would you have for not allowing a female to give the consecrated host during the Eucharist?”
You will grant me, I am sure, that women are absolutely forbidden to be ordained. The Councils are uniform in this. I am sure you will agree that sub deacons are in fact ordained, as the canons provide and yet, sub deacons “...have no right to a place in the Diaconicum, nor to touch the Lord’s vessels.” Canon XXI Council of Laodicea, “...must not give the Bread, nor bless the Cup” Canon XXV Council of Laodicea, and most tellingly when one understands the lay out of a church in those days (and to this day in Orthodox, Monophysite and Oriental Orthodox Churches), “Women may not go to the altar.” Canon XLIV Council of Laodicea
Now, it is conceivable that deaconesses did bring communion to sick women, but they received from the priest or a deacon outside the altar. Today’s Eucharettes, or for that matter the male version, are not ordained in any fashion and therefore are forbidden from even touching the Holy Vessels, much less the Holy Mysteries themselves. In the Orthodox Church, women are not allowed inside the altar and frankly no layman should be in their without a good reason. It is arguable that no man, other than clergy and those who have received tonsure is allowed in. The only people who can touch the holy vessels are priests and deacons, though subdeacons can if the vessel is covered with a cloth.
I agree with a lot of what you say: the after effects of Vaticna II are going to be felt for a long time. Like I said, the patient is on the mend, but she is still not well.
The issue is a matter of balance. You will never have the Catholic Church as culturally unified as the Orthodox Church is, because we have all of Europe represented to at least an extent, and we grow in Vietnam, China, Africa — all places that look strange to us. That should not frighten a Christian who was told to go and teach all nations.
It is however not true that the tradition got scrapped at Vatican II — nor was it created at Trent. It is a process. The swings that you and I are talking about, - indeed, more are to come over time, I am sure, — are cultural swings. The theology remained stable. You may find stuff to disagree in the theological refinements, as we discussed earlier, but Vatican II changed nothing theologically.
“You don’t share any cultural affinity with Copts or Armenians?”
I suppose to the extent that we were all under the boot of the Mohammedan Turks, we share some common cultural experiences and, mundanely, food. The Melkites, Maronites and Antiochian Orthodox however are all Syrian/Lebanese. Copts are not Greeks and Greeks are not Armenians and none of us are Slavs.
But you won’t deny that all these, excepting the Russians, share in some common Middle Eastern culture. It is not just food, it is how people interact, celebrate, conduct the family affairs. I have been to a few places in the Balkans and to Armenia and I could see it plainly: it is, exactly, cultural affinity, without, of course, uniformity.
The context was St. Peter's Basilica (I never posted this and I never will).
As you go through this exercise, Kosta, let us not forget that the Catholic Church is by definition of many local cultures, some of them -- for example, in Africa -- do not view nudity in quite the same way we do
That makes our morality and truth relative. Those cultures are pagan cultures.
That the Pope, for example, traveled to Africa and was treated to a dance performance with bare feet dangling in the air, as one of your photos show, is not by itself abuse
Those were acrobatic dancers, scantily clad and in all sorts of compromising positions. I am referring to the presence of bare-breasted women in front of the Pope and the cardinals. (You have mail Alex).
“But you won’t deny that all these, excepting the Russians, share in some common Middle Eastern culture.”
Caught me didn’t you! :) We are, of course, all Levantines!
You know the old saying "love means never having to say you are sorry." It's better to prevent than to fix.
We must keep our sights fixed on the greatness of the most holy Mystery and at the same time on spiritual movements and social changes
I am sorry, sfa, you are sweeping the issues under the rug in my opinion, but that's your pregorative.
Many Western theologians will say Pope John Paul 2 made an infallible teaching declaration verifying what has been said before to that effect. It is no longer up for discussion, despite the femi-nazi's.
I am sure you will agree that sub deacons are in fact ordained, as the canons provide and yet, sub deacons “...have no right to a place in the Diaconicum, nor to touch the Lord’s vessels.”
I do not know what a sub-deacon is or whether he is ordained. We don't have those here in the US as far as I know, maybe in the Curia? I do know that deacons are ordained and they do have the right to "touch the sacred vessels of the Lord".
Women may not go to the altar.” Canon XLIV Council of Laodicea
Here's the rub. Is this considered an infallible doctrine to be held by the Church in all times, everyplace and everywhere, or is this a discipline? It is my contention that if something was licitly done at one time, EVER, and then a later Council ordered it NOT to be done any longer, it is not an infallible doctrine, but a discipline. Why? Because the Church judges that ALL of what we believe, even before being officially defined, was INDEED believed "by the entire Church, everywhere and every place". In other words, it was something already practiced or believed. Not having women at the altar, then, cannot be an infallible part of our faith.
If something was "always" practised and believed, it is an Apostolic Tradition, subjected to being called an infallibly declared doctrine if the Church so wills it through the Spirit at a later time. IF women were EVER allowed to "go to the altar" as part of a licit action, is it reasonable to say Laodicea is more along the order of a discipline that CAN be abrogated later?
Now, it is conceivable that deaconesses did bring communion to sick women, but they received from the priest or a deacon outside the altar.
Maybe. It is conceivable that in the first generation, that women were disciples of the Lord and others were not scandalized by receiving the Body from a female.
Today’s Eucharettes, or for that matter the male version, are not ordained in any fashion and therefore are forbidden from even touching the Holy Vessels, much less the Holy Mysteries themselves. In the Orthodox Church, women are not allowed inside the altar and frankly no layman should be in their without a good reason.
The East is rightly emphasizing the Holiness involved in the Eucharist. I think the West is emphasizing the Banquet aspect. Again, this is a matter of discipline, not infallible doctrine.
Regards
Forgive me, I am not aware of the cultural differences between Slavs and Greeks, or the Copts and Syrians. Is there a big difference in culture between these peoples who live relatively close together?
Regards
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.