Hey, Byzantines

[Jack4]

15 hours ago, Gabriela said:

You mean this question:

Quote

Do I understand correctly that Byzantine Catholics are basically a kind of mid-way point between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

?

Yes.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Yes.

Ah okay. I mean it seems like in their liturgy and in their emphasis on (affective/experiential) spirituality over (cerebral) theology, the Byzantines are kinda somewhere between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Like if you took the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and mashed up their liturgy (in terms of aesthetics and what they emphasize in the various elements of the divine liturgy), and you also pinpointed a middle point on the spectrum between experiential religion and rationalist legalism, you'd get Byzantine Catholicism.

[Egeria]

3 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Ah okay. I mean it seems like in their liturgy and in their emphasis on (affective/experiential) spirituality over (cerebral) theology, the Byzantines are kinda somewhere between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Like if you took the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and mashed up their liturgy (in terms of aesthetics and what they emphasize in the various elements of the divine liturgy), and you also pinpointed a middle point on the spectrum between experiential religion and rationalist legalism, you'd get Byzantine Catholicism.

As far as I understand Eastern Catholics, at least those who are seeking to be true to their Orthodox roots, this wouldn't be true of them. Their liturgy is basically the same as the Orthodox Liturgy except that they commemorate the pope of Rome rather than the local Orthodox bishop (and patriarch). Likewise, I think that they would identify with Orthodoxy when it comes to things like "the spectrum between experiential religion and rationalist legalism."

Where they identify with Roman Catholicism is that they are in communion with the bishop of Rome. They also therefore (sort of?) accept post-schism dogmatic developments, although even here they can be pretty murky and often try to explain them away.

This applies specifically to those who are consciously trying to be true to their Orthodox roots and move away from Latinizing influences that were more present earlier - the sort who call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome. Sometimes they are even stricter about things than the Orthodox are - a bit like Anglo-Catholics who are more Catholic than the pope!

(BTW, I'm not sure that the affective/experiential vs cerebral is an entirely valid distinction - although I get what you're getting at - but that is another topic...)

[Gabriela]

6 hours ago, Egeria said:

As far as I understand Eastern Catholics, at least those who are seeking to be true to their Orthodox roots, this wouldn't be true of them. Their liturgy is basically the same as the Orthodox Liturgy except that they commemorate the pope of Rome rather than the local Orthodox bishop (and patriarch). Likewise, I think that they would identify with Orthodoxy when it comes to things like "the spectrum between experiential religion and rationalist legalism."

Where they identify with Roman Catholicism is that they are in communion with the bishop of Rome. They also therefore (sort of?) accept post-schism dogmatic developments, although even here they can be pretty murky and often try to explain them away.

This applies specifically to those who are consciously trying to be true to their Orthodox roots and move away from Latinizing influences that were more present earlier - the sort who call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome. Sometimes they are even stricter about things than the Orthodox are - a bit like Anglo-Catholics who are more Catholic than the pope!

(BTW, I'm not sure that the affective/experiential vs cerebral is an entirely valid distinction - although I get what you're getting at - but that is another topic...)

So you're saying that Eastern Catholics are, for the most part, just Eastern Orthodox who acknowledge the Roman pope? That's not at all the impression I had...  

But hey, I have little experience of these things!

[Jack4]

On 10/26/2016 at 7:59 AM, Gabriela said:

So you're saying that Eastern Catholics are, for the most part, just Eastern Orthodox who acknowledge the Roman pope?

In a certain sense, yes. 

When we acknowledge the Roman Pope, it comes with a certain 'baggage' of sorts. We also have to accept, for example, the Primacy of his predecessors as well.  

[Jack4]

On 10/25/2016 at 10:03 PM, Gabriela said:

 I mean it seems like in their liturgy and in their emphasis on (affective/experiential) spirituality over (cerebral) theology, the Byzantines are kinda somewhere between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Like if you took the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and mashed up their liturgy (in terms of aesthetics and what they emphasize in the various elements of the divine liturgy), and you also pinpointed a middle point on the spectrum between experiential religion and rationalist legalism, you'd get Byzantine Catholicism.

With all due respect (how often is this phrase used with disrespect intended!) ,

1. Have you attended a "Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy"?

2. Have you attended an "Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Divine Liturgy"?

3. If the answers to questions #1 and #2 are in the negative, how did you come to the conclusion that Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy is like a "mid-way point" ?

4.  If the answers to questions #1 and #2 are in the positive, what are the difference you noticed? Specifically the aesthetics and emphasis therein? 

5. PS I have a few more questions, but answer the following one first. What do you mean by "Roman Catholicism"? Do you mean the Church which Jesus established (all parts thereof), or the Latin Church (of all rites), or those parts of the Latin Church that use the Roman rite? 

[Gabriela]

5 hours ago, Jack4 said:

With all due respect (how often is this phrase used with disrespect intended!) ,

1. Have you attended a "Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy"?

2. Have you attended an "Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Divine Liturgy"?

3. If the answers to questions #1 and #2 are in the negative, how did you come to the conclusion that Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy is like a "mid-way point" ?

4.  If the answers to questions #1 and #2 are in the positive, what are the difference you noticed? Specifically the aesthetics and emphasis therein? 

5. PS I have a few more questions, but answer the following one first. What do you mean by "Roman Catholicism"? Do you mean the Church which Jesus established (all parts thereof), or the Latin Church (of all rites), or those parts of the Latin Church that use the Roman rite? 

1. Yes. Two, in different places.

2. Yes, one Greek Orthodox liturgy and I've also seen some Russian Orthodox liturgies in videos.

3. —

4. I'm not sure I can articulate the differences I noticed between Byzantine and Orthodox liturgies, because I was pretty overwhelmed by how different both were from a Roman rite liturgy. I can say I noticed lots of similarities: the architecture—both design and decoration—of the church itself; way more icons; way more attention paid to those icons and way more inclusion of them in the rituals themselves; way more incense and time taken with incense; way more standing and crossing oneself; way more reverence expressed through silence and the body (at least compared to a Novus Ordo); way more going on up on the dais, at both the ambo(s) and altar; way less coordination between the people and the priest (which I don't say in a bad way, I just mean I noticed how it's totally normal at a lot of points in the liturgy for the priest to be doing one thing but the people to be doing some other thing, which is more like a TLM); etc.

All that being said, I can kinda' now see your point about the two liturgies—the Byzantine and the Orthodox—being basically the same. I guess I just assumed they were different but that I hadn't noticed how yet because I'd been so overwhelmed by the differences with the Roman rite. Does that make sense?

5. Yeah, sorry! When I say "Roman Catholicism" I'm referring to those parts of the Latin Church that use the Roman rite. So, the typical parish community in the US, as opposed to the Byzantine/Ukrainian/Maronite/whatever Catholic community that exists in a relatively few cities across the nation.

[Jack4]

18 hours ago, Gabriela said:

4.  I can say I noticed lots of similarities... I guess I just assumed they were different but that I hadn't noticed how yet because I'd been so overwhelmed by the differences with the Roman rite. Does that make sense?

Rest assured, that makes sense. I feel the same way about the Roman rite as well. 

Quote

5. Yeah, sorry! When I say "Roman Catholicism" I'm referring to those parts of the Latin Church that use the Roman rite. So, the typical parish community in the US, as opposed to the Byzantine/Ukrainian/Maronite/whatever Catholic community that exists in a relatively few cities across the nation.

No need to apologise, you did nothing wrong. 

Quote

 

the architecture—both design and decoration—of the church itself; way more icons; way more attention paid to those icons and way more inclusion of them in the rituals themselves; way more incense and time taken with incense; way more standing and crossing oneself; way more reverence expressed through silence and the body (at least compared to a Novus Ordo); way more going on up on the dais, at both the ambo(s) and altar; way less coordination between the people and the priest (which I don't say in a bad way, I just mean I noticed how it's totally normal at a lot of points in the liturgy for the priest to be doing one thing but the people to be doing some other thing, which is more like a TLM); etc.

All that being said, I can kinda' now see your point about the two liturgies—the Byzantine and the Orthodox—being basically the same.

 

1. I do see that you appreciate the Divine Liturgy. Just want to say that the awe and wonder (as opposed to respect and prayerfullness) is in part because you are "new" to it and that feeling will wane after going a few more times. 

1.1 Here's a bit of "insider information": I know some EC's who like and even want to go to Roman rite Masses, at least occasionally, because it is ...... shorter. 

2. You notice similarities between TLM and the Byzantine Mass because both are "unreformed", so to speak, if you get the idea.   

Will get back to you when I have more time. 

[Jack4]

Been wanting to say this:

I hope the following rough analogy helps you understand. USA is a country. It has 50 states. Texas and California are two of them. Texans and Californians are equally American. 

Similarly, the Church which Jesus established; the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church; itself is a group of 24 sui iuris Churches. Each of them is equal in dignity. The most populous sui iuris Church is the Latin Church. The head of the Latin Church is the head of the entire communion. (The 24 sui iuris Churches are in full communion with each other.) 

Now, suppose the Chihuahua state of Mexico wants to join USA. You allow Chihuahua to be the 51st state, have special laws and have Spanish as the official language. Are they true Americans? Yes. Are they Mexicans? No. Do they have Mexican culture? Yes. 

Similarly, suppose a group breaks from an Orthodox Church and wants to join Catholics. The Pope allows them to form their own sui iuris Church and keep their liturgical practices.

Are they Catholic? Yes. Are they Orthodox? No. Do they have the same rite as the Orthodox? Yes.

[Gabriela]

5 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Been wanting to say this:

I hope the following rough analogy helps you understand. USA is a country. It has 50 states. Texas and California are two of them. Texans and Californians are equally American. 

Similarly, the Church which Jesus established; the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church; itself is a group of 24 sui iuris Churches. Each of them is equal in dignity. The most populous sui iuris Church is the Latin Church. The head of the Latin Church is the head of the entire communion. (The 24 sui iuris Churches are in full communion with each other.) 

Now, suppose the Chihuahua state of Mexico wants to join USA. You allow Chihuahua to be the 51st state, have special laws and have Spanish as the official language. Are they true Americans? Yes. Are they Mexicans? No. Do they have Mexican culture? Yes. 

Similarly, suppose a group breaks from an Orthodox Church and wants to join Catholics. The Pope allows them to form their own sui iuris Church and keep their liturgical practices.

Are they Catholic? Yes. Are they Orthodox? No. Do they have the same rite as the Orthodox? Yes.

Aha. That is eminently clear and a fine example of analogic reasoning, which I just failed a bunch of students on, so thank you for making my (pedagogical) day!

One question: Did the Eastern rite Catholics actually break off from Orthodoxy to join the Catholic Church? I don't know the history of the Eastern rites... 

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

Aha. That is eminently clear and a fine example of analogic reasoning, which I just failed a bunch of students on, so thank you for making my (pedagogical) day!

One question: Did the Eastern rite Catholics actually break off from Orthodoxy to join the Catholic Church? I don't know the history of the Eastern rites... 

Depends on the rite. Look into the history of the Union of Brest. That's the document that brought a lot of them into union with Rome. 

[Jack4]

7 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Aha. That is eminently clear and a fine example of analogic reasoning, which I just failed a bunch of students on, so thank you for making my (pedagogical) day!

 

3 hours ago, Amppax said:

Depends on the rite Church.    

 

Just being pedantic. 

[Jack4]

Being pedantic again:

There is no the Eastern Catholic Church. 

The is no the Eastern Catholic theology.

There is no the Byzantine Catholic Church. 

And if you will allow even more nitpicking, There is no the Byzantine rite. 

Further, it is wrong to say, Byzantine=Eastern Catholic.  

 http://forums.catholic.com/picture.php?albumid=601&pictureid=17655 

[Gabriela]

6 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Being pedantic again:

There is no the Eastern Catholic Church. 

The is no the Eastern Catholic theology.

There is no the Byzantine Catholic Church. 

And if you will allow even more nitpicking, There is no the Byzantine rite. 

Further, it is wrong to say, Byzantine=Eastern Catholic.  

 http://forums.catholic.com/picture.php?albumid=601&pictureid=17655 

You can't say "the Byzantine rite"? Why not?

[Jack4]

16 hours ago, Gabriela said:

You can't say "the Byzantine rite"? Why not?

There is more than one Church using the rite, and there are differences (albeit slight ones) in their worship according to it.

 This distinction is not extremely important, and people do say "Byzantine rite" to speak generally.