Russian Orthodox Met. Hilarion Alfeyev continues to amaze in his direct and unambiguous attacks on Western moral decadency. In his recent address to the soap operatic synod in Rome, he emphasized traditional values common to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. He also, again, spent time going after the Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate for dividing Ukraine from its rightful master, Mother Russia, and made known the ecumenical difficulties of "Uniatism" in general:
"And we have to state regrettably again that Uniatism does not bring the Orthodox and the Catholics any closer to each other; on the contrary, it divides us.
On behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church, I would like to address the representatives of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church present in this hall with an appeal to renounce any statements on political topics and any visible forms of support of the schism as well as calls to create “one Local Church of Ukraine”. For standing behind this call is a simple truth, the wish to tear away the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine from their Mother Church, the Moscow Patriarchate, with which Ukraine has been bound by age-old blood ties."
I am in complete 100% agreement with his excellency! I also agree with his excellency's previous calls for an end to Uniatism altogether. I suggest we begin with the suppression of the Greek Orthodox Uniate Church currently called the "Antiochian Orthodox Church"—formed in reaction to Antiochian Patriarch Cyril VI Tanas' decision to enter communion with Rome. The pro-Russian Ukrainian Orthodox Church—there is a non-Russian Ukrainian Orthodox Church in de facto communion with the Ukrainian Catholics—should also be suppressed and returned to obedience to the archbishop of Kiev, Patriarch Sviatoslav, who then can deal with Moscow on his own accord. True ecumenism requires the end of forfeiting obedience to own's rightful bishops in exchange for political expediency. I am glad our Orthodox brethren feel the same way.
It should also be noted that Hilarion is a wonderful composer.
Yet, Bartholomew of Constantinople has been a supporter of "dual unity" where Greek Catholics could inter-commune with both the Romans and the Byzantine Orthodox. A far more reconciliatory approach.
ReplyDeleteIt seems history taught the once-proud bishopric of Constantinople a valuable lesson. Would that Moscow had not adopted the Greek triumphalism.
I begin to understand Robert Taft't loathing of both Rome and Moscow.
The Ecumenical Patriarch has NEVER been a supporter of "dual Unity" or "inter-communion" despite the misinformation in some Catholic sources.
Deletehttp://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=952&tla=en
"Concerning an inaccurate article for the relations with the Greek-Catholics (Uniates)
PRESS RELEASE
With respect to the recently published articles reporting that allegedly His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew believes that it is possible for the Greek Catholics (Uniates) to have a “double union”, in other words, full communion with Rome as well as with Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate refutes this inaccurate statement and affirms it was never made. The Ecumenical Patriarchate repeats its position that full union in faith is a prerequisite for sacramental communion.
At the Patriarchate, the 5th of July 2008
From the Chief Secretariat of the Holy Synod"
Is there any real evidence about the "dual unity" thesis? I recall the EP coming out and decrying that proposal when its feet was held to the fire.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am not sure what you mean by the Ukrainian Catholics and non-MP Ukrainian Orthodox being in "de facto communion." Care to elaborate?
The Kyiv Patriarchate and the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine share congregations whenever the adherents of one church find themselves in an area without their own church. It's an unofficial inter-communion tolerated and sometimes even encouraged by both bodies.
DeleteThe patriarchs themselves have held many joint prayers and events together. My (Ukrainian) deacon also mentioned that the Kyiv Patriarchate prays for the Pope during their liturgy, just like the Greek Catholics (however, they refer to him as "The Bishop of Rome").
I have heard these tales as well, though depending on the parties I am speaking with, there's a lot of marginal variance in terms of the details. I've been trying to get more elaboration.
DeleteSince the lifting of the mutual excommunications between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Universal Pontiff, the Catholic Church admits Orthodox Christians to communion, since they share the exact same teaching of the Eucharist as do we Catholics. The UOC-KP reciprocates, but this is not a widespread practice in Orthodoxy; in the main, they do not admit Catholics to communion. Canon law permits the reception of communion by Catholics at an Orthodox divine liturgy in case of great need. (Most Orthodox churches in the USA do not admit Catholics to communion, and a Catholic in the USA would very rarely if ever be in a position where "great need" would make an Orthodox church his only option.)
DeleteThe UOC-KP is Not in communion with the Catholic Church. Joint Prayer services (Molebens) and Memorial Services (Panakhydas) have been served but never the Divine Liturgy which includes the Eucharist. In fact when Metr. Adrian of the UOC-KP was visiting Toronto he was asked this question and he denied that there is inter-communion or dual communion or whatever you want to call it.
DeleteThere is huge difference between "official policy" and unofficial reality. In Syria the Syrian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and Syrian Catholics all share congregations and sacraments.
DeleteIt's amazing what a Mahometan persecution can accomplish.
The lists of the parishes belonging to both churches are on the web site so maybe you can tell us which church buildings are being shared??? To my knowledge I have read only of a chapel being built in a hospital in Ivano-Frankivsk. The chapel is used by all faiths BUT not at the same time. And there no "dual communion" which the orthodox do not approve.
DeleteThis level of bigotry, hatred, ecclesiastical imperialism...one could go on and on and on, is actually quite sickening. Of course, let us not forget that this is an imperial denomination that actually burnt thousands at the stake for making the sign of the cross with two fingers instead of three. Keep away, keep far, far away!
ReplyDeleteHere's the real problem: is he St. Josaphat or Josaphat the Malevolent?
ReplyDeleteYou know, the icon of St. Josaphat on the iconostasis of my church was done by an Orthodox iconographer.
DeleteFar left:
http://www.archangelicons.com/files/Texas%202.JPG
I once also saw a Russian Orthodox icon of Stalin. No joke. But this is a real problem--I don't think ecumenism is even possible anymore with the Eastern Orthodox. The Catholic Church holds that canonizations imposed from on high are infallible, and to many the canonization of St. Josaphat would be akin to canonizing the Fourth Crusaders.
DeleteWhilst they are at it, the Eastern Patriarchs could suppress the bizarre 'Western Rite Orthodox' Unite churches they sponsor in the historic territory of the Patriarch of the West.
ReplyDeleteThere are still many Catholic Bishops that refuse to allow the Tridentine rites anywhere near them. If they are to remain stubborn on the matter, might as well let their flock go to the Orthodox that will celebrate those rites. On the other hand: I, as well as many Orthodox, have some serious problems with the 'orthodox-odized' 1662 Book of Common Prayer, so I would not be appalled if that were suppressed.
DeleteActually, the Anglican Use of the Antiochians has nothing to do with 1662, but is based upon the American 1928, a fairly Catholic oriented BCP, much more Catholic than the novus ordo on offer in most of the world's Roman Catholic parishes. It is far better than the novus ordo decked out in Tridentine tat that is on offer in the Ordinariates. Also, although the Antiochian western rite is most likely only a temporary offering, the Antiochians are not at all anti-Roman Catholic (well, some of their converts tend to be a bit too cute on that front) and have very close relations with their Melkite cousins. The so-called western rite in the Russian Church is simply a very bizarre concoction that bears no resemblance to a western rite at all; and they are more or less in the process of closing it down.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, but the 1928 Communion rite is substantially the same as the 1662 BCP's, in which case the Anaphora was composed by a staunch unrepentant heretic that uttered the most obscene of blasphemies and put to death countless martyrs for the faith. There's also the whole matter of "Cranmer's Godly Order" where the whole rite was composed to ambiguously allow both a Catholic and a Zwinglian-Puritan interpretation.
DeleteI can only reply, that yes, you are wrong! Very, very wrong.
DeleteI of course would say that the novus ordo was composed by such unrepentant heretics...one can see where that would lead.
I would suggest, before posting on such issues, to actually compare the two BCP's...
Actually, I had no idea that the Episcopal Church was burning people in 1928!
Regardless of the beliefs of the Novus Ordo architects, we can at least admit that they (a) were not known to utter terrible blasphemies about the Holy Mass, and (b) did not murder Catholics for refusing to bend to their rite. Unlike Thomas Cranmer. Using his rite is a piss in the grave of the English martyrs. The Catholic hierarchy in the U.K. agreed in the 19th century, the only reason they no longer do so is misguided ecumenism.
DeleteDon't really have any desire to do an in-depth comparison of the 1552 and 1928 (American) BCPs, but I just skimmed over the Anaphoras in both of them and most of Cranmer's theology remains (e.g. "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith...").
I dunno, Queen Mary did her own share of burning as well. Your postings are really not too much more than bigotry, half-truths, and very selective, and incorrect use of history.
DeleteAlso, your example used of thanksgiving after the reception of communion does not appear in the Antiochian Anglican use.
But one suspects you are better with the Ordinariate's mass being base upon the very, very theologically defective 1979 Episcopal BCP! Rather more than someone in a glass house casting stones one could say.
As for the novus ordo architects, some of the nasty things that they said and continue to say against the traditional Roman mass are well know, and what they did to the rite of the western Church can only be construed as a blasphemy.
1. Queen Mary's executions were qualitatively different. But that's a discussion for another day.
Delete2. The bigotry accusation; *what*? There is no dispute that Cranmer wrote volumes upon volumes denouncing the Holy Mass as blasphemy and idolatry, and that he executed vast quantities of Catholics. Where does bigotry come in? From stating the truth?
3. "Also, your example used of thanksgiving after the reception of communion does not appear in the Antiochian Anglican use." I was comparing the 1554 rite designed by Cranmer with the 1928 Episcopalian rite. They are substantially the same, which was my point. I am aware that a few of these problematic lines are cleaned up in the Antiochian BCP, that's what "Orthodox-ocized" means.
4. I would rather there be no Ordinariate based off of Protestant liturgies. Not sure what the 'glass house casting stones' comment is supposed to mean. I am ideologically against these Catholic-ocized or Orthodox-ocized liturgies, especially ones based upon the rites of apostates and murderers, but I am not accusing anybody who disagrees with me of being a bad person or bad Christian.
5. Some of the Novus Ordo architects were massively arrogant and overrated their own opinions, and some did privately hold some heretical beliefs. Of this there is no dispute. However certainly what they did could not be construed as blasphemy.
Actually, I don't mind the Anglican Ordinariate. I prefer their liturgy to many Tridentine ones.
DeleteFirst there is the fact that *gasp* people can take part without it being the NO! Second, many traditional externals that were thrown by the wayside have been brought back by them (REAL Gothic vestments, Rood Screens, etc.). Third, the ones I've seen seem to be far more liturgically "alive" than the sterile and impotent Traddielands.
The ordinariate liturgy is like taking the King James Bible and inserting Knox passages where there were modifications or missing sections. The result is quite pleasing.
Of course, I am speaking of the two big ones in Texas (Houston and San Antonio). The ordinariates may be different elsewhere...
And, side note, Mary put to death far fewer people than Elizabeth did even when you factor in the length of their reigns. Mary's was precise and targeted at a few people in power while Elizabeth's was an all out persecution that put the Spanish Inquisition to shame.
I have no experience of the American Ordinariate, which I hear is very liturgically competent. The English Ordinariate was comprised of former "Anglo-Papists" who had been using the Pauline Missal with fiddleback vestments and the JP2 Catechism for years. Hard to say the Walsingham Ordinariate uses the 1662 BCP!
DeleteMary's executions, like that of Cranmer, were in no small part retribution for her mother's downfall and disgrace. Were religion really her primary motive, she would likely have gone after her half-sister Elizabeth.
The whole reference to Queen Mary is a red herring anyway because Queen Mary, even if you think she was a bad person, did not design the Tridentine* rites, nor did she design any rites intended to open the doors to a widespread doctrinally-based purge. However, THAT was the purpose of the Cranmerian liturgical reforms. For this reason I very much dislike the Orthodox Western rites/Catholic Ordinariates, it's all just picking out the rotten parts of a salad and lobbing on extra dressing to cover the fact.
DeleteI would expect those rites to be very beautiful in practice. After all, there's a reason the KJV and BCP are lauded as the epitome of English alongside the Bard. Still though, do you not think Fisher and More and the other martyrs are rolling in their graves?--having been executed for defending Catholicism, and then a few centuries later witnessing their executors' rites being adopted by the Church they died for. The Orthodox should feel the same way, if there had been a great minority of them in England in the 16th century, they would've had their icons smashed, their books burned, publicly scorned as idolaters and then beheaded or burned right alongside the Catholics. That's why I'm very uneasy with the penchant for the KJV/NKJV among Orthodox churches--granted, King James and his translators were considerably less evil than Cranmer was.
(An aside fun fact for Lord of Bollocks: the Ordinariate of Walsingham doesn't use the KJV. They use the RSV-2CE. I think the American Ordinariate as well does not use the KJV, but rather whatever the Episcopalians were using in 1979.)
*Yes, I know at the time England was not using the Tridentine rites, and that the Council of Trent had not happened yet. I'm using 'Tridentine' here as short-hand for authentic Catholic liturgies.
Well, my comment about KJV was an analogy for liturgy. As an aside, the Byzantine church I attend uses the New American Version, but when I read the epistle as a lector I use the Knox version.
DeleteI think the American Ordinariates give a window into how liturgy should be done. Half-Verncular, Half Latin, grand High ceremonies, the congregation participating fully (as opposed to silently flipping through their missals in a Low Mass and watching as mere spectators in a High Mass), and many forgotten externals brought back to add to the atmosphere of the liturgy (it may seem like fetishism, but these things have a profound psychological effect on the congregation).
If the Tridentine could be celebrated this way, or local uses could be brought back to be celebrated like this, it could show a new path that could unite both Pauline mass goers and liturgically competent Trads.
Very interesting--by New American Version, I take it you mean the Bible translation that came between the KJV and RSV? I consult that version from time to time because it's the most literal translation out there that doesn't devolve to nonsense translationese. I didn't know anybody used it for worship anymore though. Is your church an anomaly in this regard?
DeleteBut I'm afraid I have to disagree with your opinion on the Ordinariate liturgical praxis. Preconciliar parish Masses often had the laity saying the responses ("Dialogue Mass") and singing the vernacular four-hymn sandwich, and many Extraordinary Form-celebrating parishes still do. The Byzantine-rite equivalent is the congregational singing that can be found in Ruthenian and OCA churches. Many people love this tradition and I have nothing against it whatsoever. My personal taste however is to spend my time in the liturgy in mystical contemplation; that's why I prefer Solemn High Mass and the Russian Orthodox liturgies.
I certainly hope you don't think I'm a 'silent flippant' or a 'mere spectator' because I don't parrot the responses or sing along. Part of my exhaustion with the Ordinary Form is because my wife and I have decided to stop saying the responses and singing the hymns, for which we sometimes get judgmental glares from our neighbors in the pews.
I am far from a "Participation Fascist". Some find liturgical fulfillment in contemplation (contemplation of the liturgy, and not something like the Irish practice of praying your rosary while the Mass goes on in the background) while others find it in singing the liturgy. In a Byzantine or Oriental liturgy, one can do either.
DeleteMy problem with both the Pauline and "TLM" praxis is that there seems to be a totalitarian emphasis on either participation or lack thereof. On the one hand, I don't want to sing "On Turkey's Wings" despite all the looks I get. On the other hand, getting dirty looks and being hushed for saying the "Domine non sum dignus" before communion aloud is ridiculous.
I never witnessed a single dialogue mass in all my 20 years at the $$PX or FSSP. I loathe the Four hymn or Two hymn sandwich (with the tiring and aggravating "Holy God We Praise Thy Name" or the ridiculous "Faith of our Fathers").
"What pleased me most about a Greek Orthodox mass I once attended was that there seemed to be no prescribed behavior for the congregation. Some stood, some knelt, some sat, some walked; one crawled about the floor like a caterpillar. And the beauty of it was that nobody took the slightest notice of what anyone else was doing. I wish we Anglicans would follow their example. One meets people who are perturbed because someone in the next pew does, or does not, cross himself. They oughtn't even to have seen, let alone censured. 'Who are thou that judgest Another's servant?' " - CS Lewis
I'm not sure whether my church is an anomaly, but I think the entirety of the Ukrainian Eparchy of Chicago (which covers the West US) uses it for English readings.
DeleteMy experience with the Extraordinary Form in the MD/DC/VA area has been entirely Dialogue Masses. Then again, none of those I have been to were FSSP or SSPX, and I only became Catholic the same year that Summorum Pontificum was promulgated.
DeleteI agree that there's an obsession with lay participation in the Pauline rites, but I do not think the converse is true for the Tridentine rites. If you, in the pews, want to say a server's prayer, why can you not do so with a hushed voice so as to not disturb the contemplation of your neighbors? I would not glare at you if you were loud about it, I promise, but do you at least see that if the norm is silence, then everybody can participate as he sees fit, rather than having something foisted upon him?
And I think the poor lady praying her Rosary during Mass has been condemned enough--she's always the one that seems to be brought up whenever one sets out to criticize the preconciliar rites. So what if she wants to contemplate the Rosary mysteries instead of singalong, parrot responses, or even silently follow in a hand missal? Maybe her Low Mass was the one time of the week she had for silent prayer, and since 1965, she has nothing.
Also, I'm a bit bewildered that you criticize the lack of participation in the Tridentine rites but laud the laity's freedom in the Byzantine rite. How's the lady praying her Rosary until Holy Communion any different than the mommy with her procession of children kissing icons until the Gospel reading?
DeleteFrom what I understand, those who attend Diocesan Latin Masses are an entirely different breed than the SSPX or SSPX-lite - I mean FSSP types. Consider yourself fortunate. Many of the FSSP/SSPX trads are highly politicized, have a cult-like mentality, are extremely legalistic, and are a parody of every negative stereotype of a trad.
DeleteI am not contradicting myself. My experience in Trad churches (I need to point out that I have never lived in a diocese with diocesan Latin Masses) is a "be silent or get out" environment. I have never seen "the mommy with her procession of children kissing icons until the Gospel reading" in Byzantine churches. The ones I've been to have everyone either singing the liturgy or paying attention to the liturgy.
When liturgy becomes secondary to private devotions, that is where there is a problem (Geoffrey Hull's excellent "The Banished Heart" goes into this in more detail).
Thanks for the heads up on the SSPX/FSSP. "Be silent or get out" is probably a rather toxic attitude, although in principle I would think that recited responses should be done quietly.
DeleteThe family kissing icons during the Liturgy of Catechumens was experienced at a Melkite church I went to once. While in some Byzantine-rite churches, the laity does not move once the liturgy has begun, in others it's not uncommon (from what I have heard and personally seen) for people to wander around doing devotions prior to the consecration.
I will look for a copy of the book you recommend. But I think it's poisoning the well to say that liturgy becomes "secondary" to private devotions. Praying the Rosary or kissing icons can amplify the liturgy if one is contemplating the Hostia while doing so. Maybe going to Confession while Mass is ongoing is a distraction, but other than that, I cannot think of any glaring examples where it's actually a bad thing if your focus is not 100% aligned with everybody else's.
Actually, when Fisher and More were executed, for treason, not heresy, the only rite permitted in England was the Sarum rite in Latin. Philip, Mary's Spanish husband did indeed want to execute Elizabeth, then after the death of her half-sister, wanted to marry her! Queen Elizabeth only persecuted Roman Catholics who attempted to murder her, or convince her subjects to rebel against her lawful authority. Many English gentry families remained quietly Catholic for centuries, and were even granted the Catholic colony of Maryland; how many Spanish Protestants were ever granted anything other than death?
DeleteThe American 1928, as in the case of all American BCPs, have nothing to do with ether 1552 or 1662, they are based upon the Scottish BCP, composed when the Scottish Church was not even in communion with Canterbury, it was composed by non-juring bishops. Its canon is base upon the Syriac rite, not the Roman or Cranmer's. Please, before posting, at least know what you are posting about!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteActually, Dale that bit about the BCP is interesting. Do you have a link to the canon?
DeleteI respectfully disagree with your assessment of Elizabeth's reign, but I won't go down that rabbit-hole...
Perhaps you missed my little footnote: "*Yes, I know at the time England was not using the Tridentine rites, and that the Council of Trent had not happened yet. I'm using 'Tridentine' here as short-hand for authentic Catholic liturgies." The 'treason' of More and Fisher are that they refused to acknowledge the ecclesiastical authority that the Monarchy had assumed, so one could quite correctly say they were killed for heresy.
Delete"Queen Elizabeth only persecuted Roman Catholics who attempted to murder her, or convince her subjects to rebel against her lawful authority." Riiiiiight. Gotcha. Instead of having a debate that would inevitably come down to how white-washed your view of the Tudors is, I'm going to ignore this whole paragraph altogether--because it's not actually relevant to anything we've been talking about. Cf. "The whole reference to Queen Mary is a red herring anyway..."
Again, not particularly interested in a long drawn out comparison between the lot of the BCPs. I'm looking at the Lancelot Andrewes Press BCP for Antiochian Western-rite Orthodox right now (I'm sure the case is the same for the Ordo of Our Lady of Walsingham) and there's plenty of Cranmer's words littered all around. Cleaning up the particularly worst ones here and there doesn't change that fact. I don't really care if the base text was from 1552 or 1662 or 1928 from England or Scotland or the USA or Timbuktu. If you're a Protestant and you want to use the BCP, great, good for you. Catholics and Orthodox should be more wary of what their ancestors died for. T'was all I was saying, and if you're looking for anything more than that, you're missing the tree whilst staring at the forest.
LoB: this website has uploads of almost every incarnation of the BCP. The link to the 1928 American one: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/BCP_1928.htm
DeleteActually, Joseph, you were the one who brought up useless and unnecessary information about so-called persecutions; I can only suspect that you are still dancing about the massacres in France on St Batholomew's Day. Do tell me, how were Protestants treated in Catholic Spain? You seem to forget that before the planned invasion of England by the Spanish Armada, the Pope had issued a plenary indulgence to anyone who murdered the Queen; also the Jesuits continued to play more political than religious games in England, especially with their contacts with her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots.
DeleteIn the end, those, in Byzantine Orthodoxy who are opposed to an Anglican Use, really do not support the use of the Roman rite in Orthodoxy either, trust me, I know these people; but for you to simply rehash ahistorical sound bits of a very complicated history is problematic (I know that this must seem strange, but there are always two sides to any history). Would you also reject the use of the Byzantine or especially the Syaric rite because some of its composers, from a Roman Catholic standpoint, were heretics? Obviously, yes.
Hello, Lord! If you bother to take the time and compare the two canons of the mass, the one in the American 1928 and the other in 1662, you can see that they bare nothing in common; the one (1662) is a product of the medieval scholastic minimalism that only the Verba is necessary for the confection of the Sacrament; and the other is very much based upon an Eastern model, including the inclusion of a post Verba invocation of the Holy Ghost; personally, the one in the Scottish and 1962 Canadian BCP is much better; but once again the Antiochian version is not the one that appears in the BCP but in the Anglican Missal.
DeleteI will not bother to deal with Joseph, if I wanted a discussion with bigots, I would try and talk to the Orthodox! Which was what this original posting was about.
I forgot what the topic of this post was myself. I assumed it was just meant to clutter my inbox!
DeleteFittingly, tomorrow is the feast of St Hilarion!
In 1588 Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal Bull in which he concluded that Queen Elizabeth was unworthy to live. He officially extended a full Plenary Indulgence from sin for any Catholic who removed or killed the Queen. This was one of the reasons behind the attempted invasion of the Spanish Armada into England.
DeleteIs there any wonder she was slightly distrustful of Catholics?
Dale, it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. No matter how you look at it, Catholics still in England were the ultimate losers of the whole affair.
DeleteElizabeth's administration was executing Catholics who attended mass, which was illegal. So Catholics had to do without mass, attend them in secret, or become exiles.
Despite all that, many English Catholics rallied to defend their nation against the Spanish Armada and fought alongside their Protestant countrymen. Their reward was to be blamed for the attempted invasion.
In truth, the gunpowder plot was a "last straw" affair and was motivated equally by patriotism ("Let's blow back the Scottish bastards back to their mountains!") as much as a desire for returning England to Catholicism.
Sixtus V.... If ever there was a polarizing pontiff....
Yes, Lord, exactly my point. In history everyone has unclean hands. But had Pope Sixtus not been such a fool, actually he issued this offer of a plenary indulgence against the advice of many, loyal, English Catholics; but once it had been issued, what was Elizabeth to do? He had issued several such indulgences against other Protestant rulers, and they were indeed murdered. Thus, Catholics, loyal and disloyal, were thrown into the same boat. But in the end, Elizabeth had no choice; she could trust none of them, and the Jesuits were indeed, stupidly, playing politics. The whole Guy Fawkes affair showed that even in a later generation Catholics in England could not be completely trusted.
DeleteBut to blame this all on Cranmer, who was burnt by the way, by Mary, also as a heretic, is simply mind boggling. We also forget that Thomas More right readily burnt several at the stake for being Protestant heretics in the time of Henry VIII.
//"Actually, Joseph, you were the one who brought up useless and unnecessary information about so-called persecutions;"//
DeleteIt was neither useless nor unnecessary because I suggested that it is a reason why Catholics/Orthodox should not use rites designed or partially designed by a heretic and persecutor of Catholics. With that in mind, let's go through your responses:
[the massacres in France on St Batholomew's Day.] - perpetrators did not design any rites for worship.
[Protestants treated in Catholic Spain] - perpetrators did not design any rites for worship.
[Jesuits in England] - did not design any rites for worship.
[Mary, Queen of Scots] - did not design any rites for worship.
[the Pope] - ah, Pope St. Pius V did promulgate rites for worship. Finally a valid example. However 99% of the Tridentine rites were merely standardizations of what already existed prior to that, most of the Pian changes were either minor rubrical tweaks or calendar adjustments. Not that this matters, as I have no scruples in regards to rites promulgated by a saint who also happened to have encouraged deposing a genocidal heretical tyrant (Elizabeth I of England).
//"In the end, those, in Byzantine Orthodoxy who are opposed to an Anglican Use, really do not support the use of the Roman rite in Orthodoxy either, trust me"//
Why should I trust you when my personal experiences are vastly different? Go to OCnet, there's a gigantic discussion that centers around the Sarum, Celtic, Gothic, Milan, ancient Roman, etc. rites being superior to the Anglican and Tridentine rites on account of pre-dating 1054.
//"Would you also reject the use of the Byzantine or especially the Syaric rite because some of its composers, from a Roman Catholic standpoint, were heretics? Obviously, yes."//
Please do not presume to answer a question from my point of view. The answer is: no! First of all, most of the Byzantine and Syrian rites have no single composer, in their current form they represent a great number of accretions over many centuries. Secondly, even if there was a single composer, it would certainly depend on *what kind of heretic* this person is. Say it's vain murderer that held a wide variety of heretical views; I would say toss the whole shebang out. If the composer were for the most part a saint but happened to hold a heresy like Monothelitism that did not infect their entire worldview, I would say that a learned theologian could go through the rite and make minor adjustments that supported said heretical view(s).
//"I will not bother to deal with Joseph, if I wanted a discussion with bigots, I would try and talk to the Orthodox!"//
You say you will not bother with me, after making a long response to my posts. Fascinating. But I'm still very much bewildered as to whom you're alleging I am bigoted against.
//"But to blame this all on Cranmer, who was burnt by the way, by Mary, also as a heretic, is simply mind boggling."//
Are you even reading what you're responding to? The proposition is that Catholics and Orthodox should not worship in the rites of a heretic and persecutor of Catholics. Absolutely no reason to delve into the entire tragic history of the English Reformation.
St Josaphate, murdered by the Orthodox, pray for us!
DeleteWhat's wrong with the Uniates?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, what's wrong with them? They are just people who wish to be in communion with the Apostolic See. Isn't this a legitimate wish? And this while practicing their historical (a non-Roman, yet Catholic) rite. How do you image their suppression will be carried out? Should the Pope say to them: "From DD-MM-YYYY you are not Catholics any more. Go to the Orthodox, or wherever you wish, I don't care." Or, perhaps, giving them the alternative – switching to the Roman rite? Besides, after their treatment during the Soviet years, and in view of the Moscow Patriarchate openly pursuing the secular politics of the Russian government (as from the citations above), it is doubtful that Ukrainian Catholics would be willing to surrender to their 'rightful masters', no matter how beautiful bp. Hilarion's music is.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoaquin and Pulex:
ReplyDeleteThe post is facetious. "Uniate" means that a a group of Christians left their mother church to be in communion with a sister church. By this definition, many Orthodox churches are, in fact, Uniates (the Antiochian Orthodox, the MP Ukranians). It shows the hypocrisy of Hilarion.
What may be even more true than hypocrisy is that it truly reflects the arrogance of the "we are the one and only true church and the rest of you are wrong and going to hell" type of mentality. Such people can, at least in their own minds, never be wrong. This was a mentality that was very much alive and well in even the Roman Catholic Church not too many years ago; it is tiresome and at the same time dangerous as well. They never see the log in their own eyes. It is often called, correctly, self-righteousness. The Russians tend to glory in it.
Delete"we are the one and only true church and the rest of you are wrong and going to hell"
DeleteIndeed. I was quite floored to discover that the Melkite Church is the one true Church. Extra ecclesiam Antiochiae, nulla salus!
I suggest we veer away from this line of topic before we summon a Feeneyite!
DeleteThere has been a second response from the UGCC: "The UGKTs supported this statement since we consider that just such an act of Uniatism was the Lviv pseudosobor of 1946, as a result of which our church was liquidated by force and joined to the Moscow patriarchate. Of course, the search for the best means of unification of the churches, in particular the convergence between the Catholic and Orthodox churches today, does not have anything in common with Uniatism. At least, on the Catholic side nobody thinks to make such attempts and I hope that there will be not cases of Orthodox Uniatism. In my opinion, Vladyka Ilarion deliberately substitutes the concept of Uniatism for the declared and generally accepted right for the eastern Catholic churches to exist and develop completely, in particular the UGKTs, in order to say that UGKTs should disappear. This was clearly understood and condemned by the fathers of the synod. Almost everybody with whom I met today expressed his solidarity with Ukraine and our church, and was dismayed by the fact that an invited guest "despises members of our Catholic family." Therefore, Vladyka Ilarion's speech, on the contrary, had a positive effect for UGKTs.
ReplyDelete--In his speech, Vladyka Alfeev again accused UGKTs of excessive politicization and of support of only one side in the social confrontation in Ukraine. What can you say about this?
--If one is talking about the fact that the social confrontation in Ukraine was a conflict between the government of Yanukovich and Ukrainian society, then I can agree with the assertion of the Moscow valdyka. As pastors, we stood unequivocally on only one side, the Ukrainian people, and we never distinguished "easterners" from "westerners," Russophones from Ukrainophones. On Maidan, just like today, we were and will be all together as a united society, the united people of Ukraine: Catholics, Orthodox, protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. We, just like incidentally the faithful and clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow patriarchate, prayed on Maidan, were among the wounded and the needy, and tried to conduct a dialogue with the president and all sides of the confrontation, in order to maintain peace and prevent bloodshed."
http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/1410e.html