No Compromise On Vatican Ii: Fellay

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1943807' date='Aug 8 2009, 06:01 PM']Many of our Eastern Catholic brethren use a liturgy almost exactly the same as the one used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.[/quote]
Yes. In fact, the Vatican has indicated that there should be no differences between Eastern Catholic liturgical books and Orthodox ones, even going so far as to say that Eastern Catholics should use Orthodox produced books.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1944032' date='Aug 9 2009, 01:58 AM']Yes. In fact, the Vatican has indicated that there should be no differences between Eastern Catholic liturgical books and Orthodox ones, even going so far as to say that Eastern Catholics should use Orthodox produced books.[/quote]

I don't think that any statement from the Vatican has gone that far. If so, I would definitely like to see it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1944033' date='Aug 9 2009, 01:00 AM']I don't think that any statement from the Vatican has gone that far. If so, I would definitely like to see it.[/quote]
"In fact, some Eastern Catholic Churches lack their own editions of liturgical books, or at least some, and must use editions, which objectively speaking are sometimes very well done, used by the corresponding Orthodox Churches. Such use occurs with the tacit approval of the Apostolic See or the local Authority. This necessity, each case being examined with prudence, may prove itself a valuable custom, as a manifestation of the partial but deep and extensive communion existing till today between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches which come from a common trunk, and may serve as a dynamic seed for the recovery of full communion. On the other hand, quite a number of editions of liturgical books published in Rome are sometimes appreciated and used by Orthodox brethren. Nonetheless, any unnecessary differentiation between the liturgical books of the Eastern Catholic Churches and those of the Orthodox should be avoided. Rather, common editions, in the measure in which it is possible, are encouraged."

[Apotheoun]

It is with great sadness that I note, for the sake of clarity, that recent editions of liturgical books issued by some Eastern Catholic Churches are in many cases falling victim to the same spirit that radically altered the Latin Church's liturgy after Vatican II. These newer texts, which often utilize inclusive language, while simultaneously morphing the prayers of the Church in order to conform to the politically correct sensibilities that dominate certain Western societies, will have lasting detrimental effects when it comes to the future reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Churches, unlike the Latin Church, are not interested in "updating" their ancient liturgy, which they hold -- as a matter of faith -- is the primary patrimony of the God-inspired Fathers.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Apotheoun

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1943936' date='Aug 8 2009, 11:42 PM']Trying to get others back on topic usually just kills the thread.

[img]http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c292/Imfeeningfor1/Grim_Reaper_300.gif[/img][/quote]
Lawl. I like the Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1944042' date='Aug 9 2009, 02:45 AM']"In fact, some Eastern Catholic Churches lack their own editions of liturgical books, or at least some, and must use editions, which objectively speaking are sometimes very well done, used by the corresponding Orthodox Churches. Such use occurs with the tacit approval of the Apostolic See or the local Authority. This necessity, each case being examined with prudence, may prove itself a valuable custom, as a manifestation of the partial but deep and extensive communion existing till today between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches which come from a common trunk, and may serve as a dynamic seed for the recovery of full communion. On the other hand, quite a number of editions of liturgical books published in Rome are sometimes appreciated and used by Orthodox brethren. Nonetheless, any unnecessary differentiation between the liturgical books of the Eastern Catholic Churches and those of the Orthodox should be avoided. Rather, common editions, in the measure in which it is possible, are encouraged."[/quote]

It does seem that [b]when there are no Catholic editions of the liturgical books[/b] for a rite that Eastern Catholics may use the books published by the Eastern Orthodox.

I would assume, though, that the prayer for the Supreme Pontiff would be added.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1944044' date='Aug 9 2009, 02:50 AM']The Orthodox Churches, unlike the Latin Church, are not interested in "updating" their ancient liturgy[/quote]

Many of us Latins aren't very interested in "updating" our own ancient liturgy either.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1944093' date='Aug 9 2009, 08:46 AM']It does seem that [b]when there are no Catholic editions of the liturgical books[/b] for a rite that Eastern Catholics may use the books published by the Eastern Orthodox.

I would assume, though, that the prayer for the Supreme Pontiff would be added.[/quote]
Yes, that is done; although the pope should only be commemorated during the liturgies of the Patriarchal Church, and not in common parishes. The former practice is an ancient patristic tradition, while the latter practice is a Latinization.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1944182' date='Aug 9 2009, 12:30 PM']Yes, that is done; although the pope should only be commemorated during the liturgies of the Patriarchal Church, and not in common parishes. The former practice is an ancient patristic tradition, while the latter practice is a Latinization.[/quote]

[Skinzo]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1943871' date='Aug 8 2009, 10:13 PM']I'm sure there would be outcry no doubt and such a person should be corrected, but I stand by my position that no matter how ludicrous the position, a solely historical matter does not equate with the importance that you give it.

Yes, IF such a position were to be born out of anti-semitism or racism or sexism or whatever-else-ism you want to put onto it then yes there would be problems of doctrinal matters and something more should be done. But unlike yourself I do not immediately assume that a historical belief of this sort is automatically and inherently linked to such things.[/quote]
Hmmm, I thought you said you would not be back? I think you will have to research Holocaust denial more before you can understand it, as I've said before. Those who deny the Holocaust have always been anti-semitic. Try finding one that isn't. There's a reason why it is a crime in 14 European countries now.

S.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Skinzo

[KnightofChrist]

It would be dishonest however to claim that ✠Bishop Williamson is a "Holocaust Denier", he questions the numbers of deaths, not that it didn't happen. The two are not the same. I do not agree with the numbers he thinks died. But it is dishonest to charge he is a Holocaust Denier, because that is simply false.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Skinzo' post='1947314' date='Aug 12 2009, 05:31 PM']Hmmm, I thought you said you would not be back?[/quote]

You're more than welcome to put me on ignore, really I don't mind

[quote]I think you will have to research Holocaust denial more before you can understand it, as I've said before. Those who deny the Holocaust have always been anti-semitic. Try finding one that isn't. There's a reason why it is a crime in 14 European countries now.

S.[/quote]

Perhaps. Personally I've never known anybody (Williamson included) who have outright denied that the holocaust ever happened. Regardless, I believe that holocaust denial and anti-semitism do not have to be inherently connected. Whether they often are or not is irrelevant to me. I don't believe in generalizations and prefer to look at each important case individually.

And making a personal opinion into a matter of law is one of the worst things a country can do imho. Any country that makes it illegal to believe something or not, like the holocaust is doing a grave damage. I might even go so far as to say making anti-semitism and racism/sexism what-have-you itself illegal is wrong so long as an anti-semite does not physically act on his belief. A person's own beliefs should be left to each person and not forced by government no matter how ignorant they may be.

If you disagree fine, doesn't bother me. I'm not going to petition government to have your opinion taken away

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1947320' date='Aug 12 2009, 05:43 PM']It would be dishonest however to claim that ✠Bishop Williamson is a "Holocaust Denier", he questions the numbers of deaths, not that it didn't happen. The two are not the same. I do not agree with the numbers he thinks died. But it is dishonest to charge he is a Holocaust Denier, because that is simply false.[/quote]

very true also

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1947320' date='Aug 12 2009, 07:43 PM']It would be dishonest however to claim that ✠Bishop Williamson is a "Holocaust Denier", he questions the numbers of deaths, not that it didn't happen. The two are not the same. I do not agree with the numbers he thinks died. But it is dishonest to charge he is a Holocaust Denier, because that is simply false.[/quote]

Not so. On occasion, he has denied the Holocaust. At other times he has tried to minimize it. That's why Germany is going ahead with plans to prosecute him.

S.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Skinzo' post='1947332' date='Aug 12 2009, 07:12 PM']Not so. On occasion, he has denied the Holocaust. At other times he has tried to minimize it. That's why Germany is going ahead with plans to prosecute him.

S.[/quote]

Haven't heard that before. Proof and his quotes please.