|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 22, 2011 14:49:38 GMT
Hibernicus raises two valid issues here:
1. Attitude of radtrads to the Eastern rites; and
2. Attitude of Novus Ordo establishment towards Eastern rites.
Both are ignorant and bigoted. It amazes me how little many trads know about traditional liturgy - as much in the west as in the east (Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, celebrations of the Roman Rite in Greek and in Old Church Slavonic, inter alia). Whatever some of these think, the Catholic Church was a much more diverse place prior to the Second Vatican Council.
The Anglo-Welsh hierarchy exemplifies a very similar mindset - and though they don't have the power to suppress the Syro-Malabarese Rite, the community is remote from its hierarchy and are pretty defenceless. What we have here is a case of disgusting bullying.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 24, 2011 10:23:41 GMT
Part of the problem I think is that much traditionalism derives from an earlier stage of the liturgical reform movement in which the Roman rite was seen as the standard of perfection and the suppression of local uses was regarded as self-evidently good and desirable. (Cf the passage in Belloc's THE PATH TO ROME where Belloc attends an Ambrosian Rite Mass in Milan and is surprised by how little it differs from the Roman rite; he notes having met people who spoke of the Ambrosian Rite "as if the priest said "Non" before the Credo and Nec at every syllable, and renounced his baptismal vows" - clearly these were people who sought suppression of the Ambrosian Rite in the interests of uniformity.) I remember seeing an article by an ICKSP priest in a recent CATHOLIC VOICE which referred to the suppression of local uses in mediaeval Spain as having been self-evidently a good thing, quite oblivious to the fact that this assumption that uniformity is good in itself is exactly that used by opponents of the continued existence of the EF of the Roman Rite!
The idea that the liturgy can be reshaped at will and uniformity imposed by fiat has been a problem of the liturgical movement right from the early nineteenth century if not earlier - like Pugin's view that Gothic was the only style of architecture acceptable to Christians - and there have been both gains and losses.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 1, 2011 20:10:25 GMT
I remember seeing an article by an ICKSP priest in a recent CATHOLIC VOICE which referred to the suppression of local uses in mediaeval Spain as having been self-evidently a good thing, quite oblivious to the fact that this assumption that uniformity is good in itself is exactly that used by opponents of the continued existence of the EF of the Roman Rite! Do you recall which ICRSS priest it was, Hibernicus?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 11, 2011 19:24:27 GMT
I can't remember offhand - he has written a couple of articles for them. This attitude was fairly common in the C19 among French ultramontanes (though uniformity for its own sake was not the only issue since many of the local French rites had been revised by rationalising reformers in the C18).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 11, 2011 19:25:47 GMT
BTW I only found out last week that the Orthodox and Eastern Rites actually began Lent on Monday rather than Wednesday (though I knew they don't celebrate Ash Wednesday and Shrove Tuesday). We all live and learn.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 30, 2011 11:51:46 GMT
RORATE CAELI report on the enthronemnt of the new Maronite Patriarch and complains that the Maronites have wreckovated their ancient liturgy. An interesting debate follows in the comboxes about how far this derives from the fact that the Maronites have always been particularly prone to latinisation. (This would make sense since the Maronites have always emphasised themselves as "an outpost of the West" and since there is no competing Orthodox church as with the other eastern rites.) This then becomes a debate on the merits of latinisation in general. Here are a couple of significant posts, one on each side: LATINISER 29 March, 2011 21:04 Anonymous said... To the issue of latinization per se in the Maronite Rite, I say it's not really that important. 1.) Someone said that it was often self-imposed. What people wish to do, they do. They had the right to their rite and the right to amend/emend their rite. Right? Right. 2.) All Maronites are in communion with the Holy Father. So latinization per se is not blocking anyone from entering into communion with the Universal Church, which is one of the primary problems with latinization in the Byzantine and Malabarese traditions. 3.) Prior to Vatican II, the Latin Rite was great and glorious too, like the Eastern Rites. 4.) If you seek an Eastern liturgy like the one the Maronites formerly had, I venture to guess you'll find it in the Syrian Catholic Church [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Catholic_Church - HIB] . So the Maronite latinization did not obliterate a liturgical tradition, as latinization among the Malabarese threatened to do. 5.) Probably latinization is part and parcel of the specific Maronite tradition. Heirs to the Phoenicians, the Lebanese looked to the Mediterranean, not to Mesopotamia, for their guidance and sense of identity. Lebanese culture owed/owes much to the Crusaders/Franks and to the modern French. The primary Lebanese liturgical tradition accordingly owes much to the Latin Rite, that which prevailed among the Franks/Crusaders/French. 6.) Shall we similarly bewail "Byzantinization," the process by which the Byzantine Rite triumphed among the Chalcedonian Christians of Antioch and Alexandria even though those patriarchal sees, both older than and once preemenint ever Constantinople, have their own liturgical traditions? And those liturgical traditions were maintained among the Monophysite heretics [i.e. the Copts - HIB] while the Chalcedonians of Syria and Egypt abandoned them. Should the Catholic Melkites and the Antiochian Orthodox revert to the Alexandrian or West Syrian [i.e. Nestorian - HIB] liturgical traditions? Should the Serbs, Bulgarians, and Romanians (Catholic and schismatic alike) adopt a Western, Latin Rite instead of the Byzantine because their countries for the most part lie in territory that originally belonged to the Roman Patriarchate, *not* the Byzantine one? What is the statute of limitations for such matters? And why does it never, ever expire for latinization? [this last I think is the key point - HIB] 29 March, 2011 21:49 Anonymous said... The post defending (somewhat) latinization was mine. ~Bonifacius 29 March, 2011 21:50 ANTI-LATINISER Ogard said... Z said: "I hate Vatican II!" He seems unaware that (a) Vatican II liturgical reform was explicitly intended for the Latin Church only, while at the same time the Council gave to Eastern Rites an "equal rights and honour", while should there "be need, they should..be revised in accordance with sound traditions" (SC 4); and (b) they were "empowered and obliged to retain at all times their their own lawful liturgical rites" (OE 6). Their problem was not Vatican II, but the centuries old systematic latinization imposed on them by Latin institutions. The weaker among them in particular, but all up to the point, were trained by Latin brainwashers. [Cf Fr Fortescue's book on the Eastern Rites which notes that because of their poverty their clergy were often trained in Latin Rite institutions which had a strong tendency to Latinise even when the Papacy specifically warned against this - HIB] It was the old principle of "praestantia ritus latini" which was enforced on them by ecclesiastical authorities, to the point that many have lost their faith or returned to their mother Churches. [This I think is relevant to the points I made earlier on this thread about Fr Cekada and the ICKSP taking the view that universal Latinisation is desirable for its own sake -HIB] It was only the Ukrainians who have put an end to this scandal and are now involved in an intensive proces of removal of all Latin intrusions [which has caused its own controversies - HIB]. But the history of all was more than tragic. 30 March, 2011 03:51 rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/03/scenes-from-enthronement-of-new.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 30, 2011 11:54:11 GMT
BTW Fr Schmitz writes for the CATHOLIC VOICE so I think he was the ICKSP priest who wrote there praising the early-mediaeval replacement of local Spanish rites by the Roman rite. The ICKSP's mission statement include the view that it is a good thing to be not merely Catholic but specifically Roman in liturgical tradition as well, and this I think raises problems when addressing other acknowledged Rites.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 15, 2011 20:17:27 GMT
BTW Fr Schmitz writes for the CATHOLIC VOICE so I think he was the ICKSP priest who wrote there praising the early-mediaeval replacement of local Spanish rites by the Roman rite. The ICKSP's mission statement include the view that it is a good thing to be not merely Catholic but specifically Roman in liturgical tradition as well, and this I think raises problems when addressing other acknowledged Rites. I would expect Mgr Schmitz to know better than to opine something like that.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 3, 2011 21:29:48 GMT
I was sorry to hear that Mgr Serge Kelleher has been taken ill. I will remember him in my prayers; I hope anyone who reads this will do so also.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 5, 2011 19:38:51 GMT
Mgr Keleher is still hospitalised, but not in immediate danger. He did receive the last sacraments earlier though.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 16, 2011 15:39:20 GMT
RTE reports that Copts living in Ireland demonstrated outside the Dail today about the treatment of their brethren in Egypt. I wish I had known this was on - I would have turned out to support them. Apparently there are about 250 Copts in Ireland - photo of the demonstration includes a priest in vestments. www.rte.ie/news/2011/1015/copts.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 11:21:48 GMT
I had to walk by them to get to Ely House. A few Paddies were there, but otherwise it was their own I imagine, men and women, children and priests wearing great purple robes. The sight of the latter was arresting.
I've seen a lot of nuns about lately and always stop and thank them for being such a visible sign of Christ in the world. I've heard from a few priests that it's safety that stops them walking out in their clerical garb. It's a great pity, I wish they had the confidence of those priests Saturday, brash and bold taking care of the crowd. Lots of crucifixes being waved about too, great stuff altogether. Between that and the middle-aged spanish-dancing leprechaun on Henry Street, Saturday in town was busy indeed.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 18, 2011 12:03:33 GMT
Oh, so the demo was on Saturday? I didn't look closely at the report so I assumed "today" was Sunday, which was when I saw it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2011 20:48:43 GMT
Yes it was Saturday afternoon, and as they were protesting the anti-IMF crowd were on their way down too. Busy day for the Guards no doubt. They were peaceful enough, only one photographer snapping away.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 4, 2011 19:42:54 GMT
I was at the Requiem in St Kevin's for the Feast of All Souls on Wednesday evening and noticed an Eastern Rite cleric sitting in the congregation. He wore black and purple robes and a black cylindrical hat, had a gold pectoral cross and carried a wooden cross. I asked a couple of people and they didn't know where he came from, though someone suggested he might be a Copt. (There are Copts in communion with Rome, though they are a small minority - their Patriarch is a cardinal; I don't know if there are any in Ireland and I don't know if Copts not in communion with Rome would attend one of our Masses.) Does anyone know? It would be good if our Church leaders could do something on behalf of our threatened brethren in Egypt, whether they are in communion with us or not.
|
|