|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 13, 2014 20:26:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jul 22, 2014 12:30:41 GMT
I hear the Irish Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish is sending a clerical student to Maynooth this year for the Apostolic Visitation. This is a very new departure.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 22, 2014 22:01:49 GMT
Perhaps not - they have had Eastern Rite students there in the past, such as Fr Ragheed Gani, martyred in Iraq. When I was last in the corridor I saw a couple of Easterners in recent ordination-class photos.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 23, 2014 8:09:59 GMT
That is true, but this one will be specifically a student for the Greek-Catholic Apostolic Visitation in Ireland - he will be training to work here. And that will make history.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 23, 2014 18:27:22 GMT
Indeed - it's remarkable to have a student for the priesthood within such a relatively short time of the establishment of a Greek-Catholic congregation in IReland
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 23, 2014 18:32:53 GMT
Fr Zuhlsdorf reports readers expressing concern that they are not being properly absolved because Syro-Malabar priests hearing Latin-rite confessions are using their formula of absolution, which differs from ours. Some illuminating discussion in the combox. I don't see this is such a big deal (other than the failure to explain in advance to the penitent). If they are using a recognised formula and intend to absolve, surely this is perfectly proper and falls into quite a different category from the sort of priest who extemporises off his own bat. I wonder has this situation ever arisen in Ireland? I know there is a Syro-Malabar congregation in Dublin. wdtprs.com/blog/2014/07/when-the-priest-confessor-doesnt-use-the-proper-form-of-absolution-wherein-fr-z-advises/
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 12, 2014 8:37:57 GMT
I know this has been said before, but there is no harm in repeating it.
When I hear the term, "eastern rite", I assume Eastern Catholic, that is anyone of over 20 churches in communion with the Church of Rome who use Eastern Liturgies. Most of these correspond to Orthodox churches, but the Maronite Church in Lebanon is exclusively Catholic with no equivalent outside the Church. When I refer to these churches, I will use the term "Eastern Catholic", which is the term used in Canon Law and any official Church documents (so I'm not being arbitrary here.
"Eastern Orthodox" refers to churches separated from Rome, normally in union with either Constantinople or Moscow (or both), but which accept every Council of the Church before the Great Schism of 1054. These can be fractious; sometimes Constantinople and Moscow excommunicate each other and sort it out later and sometimes individual Churches, which are autonomous, have rows and shift alliances. The Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian Orthodox Churches can be quite independent. The term more or less covers the bulk of Eastern European Orthodoxy. One point I learned recently was that after Henry VIII's schism, many English divines were in favour of going into communion with Constantinople rather than going in a Protestant direction, but it's hard to see how this would work given the suppression of the monasteries.
"Oriental Orthodox" refers to ancient churches in the Middle East and Northern Africa who differ from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches on points of Christology (and often radically with each other). I cannot give an exhaustive list, but one might come across the following:
Copts: Egytpian and Ethiopian, with the Syrian Orthodox Church holding similar positions. These emphasise the divinity of Christ rather than His humanity.
Armenians (the Armenian Apostolic Church): Due to war between Armenia and Persia, these were not at Chalcedon and don't regard it as a legitimate council. The hypostatic union is accepted by Armenians, but it is not a binding dogma as it is among Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
The Assyrian Church of the East: in Iraq and Iran. These emphasise Christ's humanity rather than Divinity.
I'm not saying Copts disregard Christ's humanity or Assyrian His divinity (their theologians would fume if I did), but just wish to give an idea of the differences. These Oriental Orthodox are extremely ancient and trace their roots to the apostles, Thomas in India notably. They are also under a lot of pressure at present.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 12, 2014 8:40:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 18, 2014 20:58:16 GMT
The Vatican has issued a decree lifting (where it existed) the ban on Eastern Rite churches ordaining married men outside their traditional homelands. I think this was pretty much overdue; given that the Eastern discipline exists, it seems strange to restrict its exercise for the convenience of the Latin rite. www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/11/18/eastern-catholics-in-the-diaspora-overjoyed-at-vatican-decree/Meanwhile, Joseph Shaw has an interesting post on the ways in which the preservation of Eastern customs have implications for the preservation of traditional Catholic liturgy. (One thing that complicates this, BTW, is that there was quite a strong element within the Latin rite in the C19 and C20 which thought universal latinisation for the sake of uniformity would be a good idea. There is a comment below the Shaw post by a disgruntled Ukrainian Greek Catholic which recalls this) www.lmschairman.org/2014/11/the-traditional-mass-and-liturgy-of.html
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 19, 2014 9:25:51 GMT
There was a piece in Strammentarius in the BR about a decade ago about a curial official "Bishop Mod" visiting a Greek Orthodox archdiocese, where the Orthodox hierarchs asked him if their liturgy needed updating, and when he said no, they asked about the Latin liturgy. The bishop was Cardinal Kaspar (Nick Lowry wouldn't have known this at the time, because no names where given in the relevant speech he was reporting). There is a certain amount of institutional schizophrenia all over here. There are Latin traditionalists who love the eastern rites; there are others, the more Roman than Rome, who would suppress them utterly in a moment. Likewise there are very liberal Catholics who can at one at the same time admire things they see in the east and despise their analogues in the west. There are Eastern Catholics who make common cause with the Latin traditionalists and there are Easterners who would cross the street to avoid them, whether out of policy or principle. And there are Orthodox clergy who slam the existence of Eastern Catholicism as a Latin "Trojan Horse", but who have tried to get dissident Latin traditionalists to accept communion with Orthodoxy as the "Western Orthodox Church" (to his credit, the late Archbishop LeFebvre dismissed this option). This is a big cross section.
Eastern Catholicism is very old - even after the Schism of 1054, there were communities in communion with Rome using the Byzantine liturgy - even in 1054, the Pope Emeritus Benedict IX (I know he never used that title, but it's in place now) was atoning for his sins during his papacies (and by God they were many: his family made the Borgia popes look like pious boys) in the Basilian monastery of Grottaferrata at the time, which was Eastern rite. The definitive break between East and West seriously happened during the fourth Crusade, when the Roman rite was imposed on Constantinople. Efforts to patch this up at the Council of Florence in 1439, but this was left in tatters by the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Nevertheless, there is an unbroken tradition of Eastern liturgy in communion with Rome outside these times. Theoretically, the Maronite Church in Lebanon was never out of communion with Rome. That doesn't mean there was always a good relationship. One criticism of Benedict XVI's outreach to the Orthodox was the fact that Eastern Catholics suffered. I thought this consistent with the generosity he extended to the SSPX, some might take the message that fidelity was being punished.
Just on another note, liturgy in Greek or Slavonic doesn't necessarily mean Eastern rite. There were Greek-speaking communities in Sicily and southern Italy for many centuries. Up to the change in liturgy, there were dioceses here that were mandated to have the Roman Mass (Missal of St Pius V) offered in liturgical Greek on certain occasions. Likewise, certain Croatian dioceses had an indult to have this Mass offered in Old Church Slavonic, so in a way, "Latin Mass" was a misnomer even before the council. Strangely, the only Latin Divine Liturgy celebrated is in the Orthodox Church, typically in Romania, which is also the only liturgy I am aware of where "Domine, miserere nobis" is said instead of "Kyrie eleison". Liturgical studies can be fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 19, 2014 21:24:43 GMT
Actually, the Maronites were out of communion with Rome between the 7th century and the Crusades, since they were the surviving remnant of the Monothelites (the attempt of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius to produce a doctrinal compromise between the Chalcedonian - that's us and the Orthodox - and Monophysite churches, which wound up being condemned by both). I'm surprised about an initiative for Western Rite Orthodoxy coming from the Orthodox side. I know some Orthodox churches are in communion with WO groups, but I thought the usual position is that the initiative comes from dissident Anglicans or Catholic trads, and that most Orthodox are reluctant to encourage it because they see it as undermining their own position that churches ought to be organised on a national level, and hence that Eastern Rite Catholic churches are illegitimate and ought to be reabsorbed by their Orthodox "parent" churches
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 20, 2014 9:35:53 GMT
It is true the Maronites were monothelites, but a lot of the problem was caused lack of communication and the remoteness of Lebanon. This was fixed up at the time of the Crusades. Likewise, the Armenians are not monophysite as such, they just don't recognise Chalcedon because the Armenian bishops couldn't attend due to war with Persia at the time. So you can believe in hypostatic union or not and remain a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church in good standing either way. This is probably the ultimate ethnic church through Christianity.
Regarding the Orthodox and the WO, this is an example of how the diversity of the Church works. Moscow and Constantinople are aloof of the business; most of the consecrations have been done by the Romanian Orthodox. The point is that none of this has been done unilaterally - the Patriarch of Bucharest would have checked before doing anything on his own. It seems to be a matter of the senior patriarchs being in a position to know nothing. It is also recognised in Orthodoxy that a lot of the would be Western Orthodox are eccentric. If Archbishop LeFebvre went Orthodox, it would have been a major deal.
Of course, I'm talking about the Chalcedonian Orthodox here; the Copts have a huge outreach into the west too.
In general, I think that though many westerners are converting to various varieties of Orthodoxy - Rod Dreher is a case in point and Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) is another - it is rare to see a convert rising too prominently in a mainstream Orthodox church.
With regard to the Western Orthodox, one thing they have done which I think valuable and that is to revive the ancient Gallican liturgy.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 9, 2014 21:23:54 GMT
One complaint I see made by a lot of American converts to Orthodoxy is that a lot of American-born Orthodox see Orthodoxy purely as an ethnic marker (the film MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING would be an example of this) and that many Orthodox congregations assume that in order to join you have to virtually become Russian, Serbian, Greek etc as the case might be.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 4, 2015 14:05:55 GMT
The Russian Orthodox dissident priest Fr Gleb Yakunin, who was sent to a labour camp in the Soviet era and in the post-Soviet period excommunicated by the Moscow Patriarchate hierarchy, has died. Memory Eternal www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gleb-yakunin-r-i-p/#post-commentswww.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/father-gleb-yakuninOn a related topic; some trads seem to be reaching obscenity in their Putin-worship. The November CHRISTIAN ORDER has reprinted an article by the American palaeocon Paul Craig Roberts (from that pious Dublin fortnightly the PHOENIX) which proclaims that when they get a taste of globalisation the Ukrainians will end up begging Russia to rescue them from the West, and the latest CATHOLIC HERALD has a letter from the prolific crank letter-writer Robert Ian Williams, supporting Putin over Ukraine on the grounds that he is a "practising Christian" moryah, who is re-creating Holy Russia and paving the way for the fulfilment of the Fatima prophecies. Considering the past and present treatment of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics in Russian-occupied Ukraine, these people really ought to show some restraints in hailing Putin as the new Messiah just because he clashed with the global elites (and BTW I acknowledge that the UGCC's record is not pristine and the pro-Russian elements in Ukraine have some genuine concerns). Finally, congratulations to our brethren of the Ethiopian Catholic Rite, whose Major-Archbishop has just been nominated as a cardinal by Pope Francis.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 1, 2015 20:42:27 GMT
|
|