Rorate Caeli

Synod Assembly for Mid-East proposes adaptation and renewal of the Eastern liturgies

The Vatican website has published a "provisional, off-the-record and unofficial English version" of the 44 Propositions hammered out by the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops. As has been the practice for past assemblies of the Synod of Bishops, these propositions are expected to form the basis of a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation.
The proposition for the liturgy reads as follows:

Propositio 39

The biblical and theological wealth of the Eastern liturgies is at the spiritual service of the universal Church. Nonetheless, it would be useful and important to renew the liturgical texts and celebrations, where necessary, so as to answer better the needs and expectations of the faithful. This renewal must be based on an ever deeper knowledge of tradition and
be adapted to contemporary language and categories.

A mere statement of intent that will soon be forgotten, or seed of major reforms? Will the Pope's Apostolic Exhortation adopt this, or quietly ignore this? In peace let us pray to the Lord...


New Catholic said...

Yes, that is exactly what is needed for a "new springtime" of Christian life in the Middle East. It will surely have the same successful effect it had in the West (and also with the Maronites in Lebanon, for instance).

Archbishop Banana would be most glad.


Anonymous said...

Another liturgical Vatican II disaster in the making a la the Novus Ordo fiasco!

Har Har Har Dee Har Har!!!! LOL!

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Meanwhile, Islam continues to spread, its use of 7th-century Arabic even in the 5 daily prayers notwithstanding. It certainly hasn't gotten in the way of numerous conversions to Islam by formerly Christian apostates and wandering, rootless secularists.

arieh0310 said...

. . . Lord have Mercy.

Anonymous said...

I'll say this. Most Eastern reforms of the liturgy I have seen (Ruthenian, Syro-Malabar, Melkite, etc.) have not been anywhere as far-reching as the reform of the Roman Rite. Even among those rites that were farther-reaching in their reform (e.g., the Maronites), one will not fine wild excesses of the West (puppets, dinner table Mass, free lay access to the altar, liturgical dancers, kites, etc.).

I am not for the renewal of most of the Eastern liturgies, but neither do I think such renewal will reproduce the results we see in the West. In any case, much of what the Council encouraged in liturgical reform (use of the vernacular, active participation, etc.) has always been true of the liturgy of many Eastern particular churches.

LeonG said...

There is the artful exploitation of the term "renewal" by sinister liberal revolutionary forces with which Latin Rite Roman Catholics are so familiar. It brings with it extensive and systemic liturgical abuses; a rapid shrinkage in the "presbyterate"; it encourages mass profanity in the holy places and will eventually lead to the utter chaos that is currently resident in the "renewed" post-conciliar church. What the novel liturgical form will eventually nurture are alien norms & values that will provoke immense ruptures in the Eastern Churches.

LeonG said...

None of the main religions will change their "sacred" languages - neither Hindus nor Mahomatens. The mere thought of doing so is totally alien. Latin Rite Roman Catholics who remain faithful to Sacred Tradition fully comprehend why this is so. The ritual forms are timeless and embody the religion in its entirety. The faithful recognise this and find immense spiritual succour. It provides a certain reference point in rapidly changing times & furnishes stability amidst the frequent socio-political disorder and chaos surrounding us. It carries with it the necessary authority when we live in an era of devolution.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Anonymous of 14:28:

What I find alarming in this text is its open call for the liturgical TEXTS to be adapted to the "expectations of the faithful" and to "contemporary language and categories". This is no longer about how much the congregation should sing, or in what language the liturgy should be celebrated.

Any liturgical reform that takes the ever-changing language and perspectives of modern man as the standard is bound to greatly dilute the value of the liturgy as the bearer of authentic Tradition.

Athelstane said...

You'd think they might have learned a lesson or two from the disasters that have attended the "renewal" of the Roman Rite."

Then again - if the authors of this statement are the sort of folks I think they are - maybe they have.

The power and mystery of the Eastern Rites lies precisely in their timelessness. The absolute last thing they need is an infusion of "contemporary language and categories."

Anonymous said...

Lord, have mercy!

Jordanes said...

"an ever deeper knowledge of tradition" = archaeologism or spurious antiquarianism, such as the invention of completely new Anaphorae while claiming they are ancient, forgotten Eucharistic Prayers (e.g. Archbishop Banana's brand new Eucharistic Prayer that everyone claims, contrary to all fact, came from St. Hippolytus of Rome).

"adapted to contemporary language and categories" = elimination of almost all traditional elements of the Divine Liturgy, which is to be reshaped into something bearing only a passing resemblance to the traditional liturgies of the East, and prayed strictly in modern vernaculars instead of in the Church's ancient liturgical languages.

It's a call to take a wrecking ball to the Eastern liturgies the same way Banana did to the Roman liturgy.

From the arrogant reform of the liturgy, deliver us O Lord.

J.G. Ratkaj said...

If this circularizing calls for "reform" "change" "adaption to the needs of time and man" "accomodation" is answered the Uniates will sink more into total insignificance in the Mid east and their ongoing erosion only will be accelerated. To watch narrowly the already undertaken "simplifications" and "accomodations" in the diaspora alllows to look ahead the banal fiasco in whis this all will end.

Anonymous said...

Appalling... Did they really fail to notice the results of the aggiornamento of the Roman rite?

Anonymous said...

One more thing: all the Eastern liturgical reforms I have experienced or read about have not involved a wholesale abandonment of the traditional liturgical chant for that rite, or the introduction of vast amounts of "contemporary music." For all the grief they might take, the RDL, the new Melkite recencsion, the new Chaldean liturgy, when sung (which is in most cases), are sung in Byzantine chant, E. Syrian chant, etc. And although some latinized** Byzantine churches will sing hymns, you will not hear "On Eagle's Wings" and "Lord of the Dance," etc. Finally, if anything, the younger generation of priests in several of these churches are more "Orthodox" in their liturgical ethos. The continuing example of the Orthodox churches, and the need for Eastern Catholics to remain liturgically in step with them, certainly helps as well.

Again, I think there is strong reason to believe that broader "liturgical renewal" among Eastern churches, if and where executed, will not be as traumatic as it has been in the West.

Anonymous said...

The Ukrainians had a fine 1958 translation of their Divine Litury into English, all in sacral wording. They replaced this with a translation in junk English, one that destroys the sense of reverence. This is already bad enough. This is what these morons mean by 'contemporary' form. They mean moving away from reverent and uplifting regisers of languages to street talk. Naguib the Liberal, who is to be among the new cardinals, is one of those behind this. May he slip ona banana peel and fall down the steps.

It may be that we acquire our Latin Masses worlwide just in the nick of time: as Rome opens one door to tradition, she closes another one behind her.

This sort of renewaql is typical. They have a major problem on their hands, so they distract the faithful by forcing them to change all the wonderful thees and thous to yous. As a result, even more people leave. They abandon Church Slavonic and Syriac and Coptic for Ukrainian and Arabic and then change those latter languages into simplified wording for dolts. More people leave. If the wording used in liturgy is not significantly different in form from street talk, there will be no sense of reverence conveyed because church becomes 'just like talking to Joe about the repair of the car'.

The S.S.P.X has its St. Josaphat colony in the Ukraine. More to follow, I'm sure.

This idea of making the language of liturgy contemporay and 'accessible' needs to be rejected root and branch.


Anonymous said...

Satan struck the Servant of God in the jugular in 1969, with the 'renewal' (read wreckovation) of the ancient Latin Mass.

Now it's time to mop up and wipe out the ancient Eastern liturgies that have been a refuge for the faithful. Time to pump the water out of the oases. Then we shall have nowhere left to worship.

Bishop Fellay: it is time for you to make an alliance with the Eastern Catholic traditionalists, wherever they may be. It looks as if the state of necessity is about to spread eastwards.

At the moment, the question is how many people in the Novus Ordo NewChurch are still Catholic? Soon, the question will be How many in the Eastern Catholic New World Order will still be Catholic.

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Destroy the expression and the evisceratino of the faith will follow in due order.


M. A. said...

"....forgotten Eucharistic Prayers (e.g. Archbishop Banana's brand new Eucharistic Prayer that everyone claims, contrary to all fact, came from St. Hippolytus of Rome)."

Jordanes, where could I find further info on this? The matter recently came up in a conversation and I would like to supply proof that I was correct in denying that St. Hippolytus composed Eucharistic prayer number 2.


wheat4paradise said...

The Holy Father will quietly ignore this nonsense. Obviously these bishops didn't listen to the Pope's magnificent address delivered at the start of the synod (reported in these pages last week). We at least can take succor from it. The Pope isn't playing games with the liturgy or anything else.

wheat4paradise said...

At the moment, the question is how many people in the Novus Ordo NewChurch are still Catholic?

I think that we can defend Tradition without resorting to such arrogant statements. The Catholic Church recently beatified the first of many future saints who grew up in "the Novus Ordo NewChurch", Blessed Chiara Luce Badano. I dare say that Blessed Chiara was "more Catholic" than many who pontificate on Trad discussion boards -- myself included.


Jordanes said...

M.A., you may have heard that more recent scholarship has cast doubt on the belief that the Anaphora found in the Apostolic Tradition was really written by St. Hippolytus, or that that Anaphora was in fact ever used (and in any case, the Apostolic Tradition says it is to be used during the liturgy of the ordination of a bishop, and does not say it is the liturgy for any other occasion). But those questions aside, there is no doubt that Eucharistic Prayer II is not, as falsely claimed, the Anaphora found in the Apostolic Tradition attributed to St. Hippolytus. Just lay them side by side, and you can see:

Apostolic Tradition:

We give thanks to you God, through your beloved son Jesus Christ, whom you sent to us in former times as Savior, Redeemer, and Messenger of your Will, who is your inseparable Word, through whom you made all, and in whom you were well-pleased, whom you sent from heaven into the womb of a virgin, who, being conceived within her, was made flesh, and appeared as your Son, born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin. It is he who, fulfilling your will and acquiring for you a holy people, extended his hands in suffering, in order to liberate from sufferings those who believe in you. Who, when he was delivered to voluntary suffering, in order to dissolve death, and break the chains of the devil, and tread down hell, and bring the just to the light, and set the limit, and manifest the resurrection, taking the bread, and giving thanks to you, said: "Take, eat, for this is my body which is broken for you." . . . .

Eucharistic Prayer II:

It is truly right and just, our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Father most holy, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, your Word through whom you made all things, whom you sent as our Savior and Redeemer, incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin. Fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he endured his Passion, so as to break the bonds of death and manifest the resurrection.

Apostolic Tradition:

Therefore, remembering his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the chalice, giving thanks to you, who has made us worthy to stand before you and to serve as your priests. And we pray that you would send your Holy Spirit to the Oblation of your Holy Church. In their gathering together, give to all those who partake of your holy mysteries the fullness of the Holy Spirit, toward the strengthening of the faith in truth, that we may praise you and glorify you, through your son Jesus Christ, through whom to you be glory and honor, Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit, in your Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen.

Eucharistic Prayer II:

Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you. Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit. Remember, Lord, your Church, spread throughout the world, and bring her to the fullness of charity, together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop. [Remember your servant N., whom you have called (today) from this world to yourself. Grant that he (she) who was united with your Son in a death like his, may also be one with him in his Resurrection.] Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection, and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ. Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever. Amen.

Jordanes said...

Clearly Eucharistic Prayer II is inspired by, or loosely based upon, the anaphora in the Apostolic Tradition, but the differences between them far outnumber the passages that are identical. So, when Annibale Banana and his Consilium invented this entirely new Eucharistic Prayer, they used the Apostolic Tradition as their model or guide, but extensively modified it -- partly to bring it into greater conformity with the historic Roman Rite, partly for reasons we can only guess at.

Abel Myers said...

WRT "contemporary language and categories", contemporary language isn't necessarily bad as long as the elevated sense is preserved. It may actually be good if the old language is so out of date that only language experts understand it.

But the "contemporary categories" is troubling. Quite simply, nothing in the mass fits contemporary categories. Every aspect of the mass means something that is beyond normal experience, as it should. Trying to fit the mass into "contemporary categories" will destroy it.

M. A. said...

Thanks, Jordanes. The important thing is that the notion be dispelled that Eucharistic Prayer II is the Anaphora of Tradition as my friend wrongly believes.

As you mention,the more recent scholarship did come to mind in our conversation, but I could offer nothing of substance since I have not delved into the matter. I was hoping you could refer me to the source of the more recent research.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Abel Myers writes:

"WRT "contemporary language and categories", contemporary language isn't necessarily bad as long as the elevated sense is preserved. It may actually be good if the old language is so out of date that only language experts understand it."

That is just the same old liberal nonsense. Oh, we don't know what beseech meaas. What a lame argument; how unrue it is. It gives the revolutionaries the excuse they need to remove every revernt expression in the liturgy and you'd have to be wilfully blind not to see that after forty years of the N.O. Now the subliterate English translation is being replaced with one that is merely bad.


Anonymous said...

Chaff for Purgatory writes:

"I think that we can defend Tradition without resorting to such arrogant statements."

Really? I was only referring to the very detailed poll done some years ago in the U.S.A. It found that only 18% of American NewChurchers believed in transubstantiation. Who needs the Eucharist. I mean, is the Eucharist really important to the Faith? Nah.


Anonymous said...

Chaff4Purgatory writes:

"The Catholic Church recently beatified the first of many future saints who grew up in "the Novus Ordo NewChurch", Blessed Chiara Luce Badano. I dare say that Blessed Chiara was "more Catholic" than many who pontificate on Trad discussion boards -- myself included."

I daresay Bl. Chiara would have to be holy to have achieved beatification despite a liturgical and doctrinal revolution which has nearly eviscerated the Faith. I agree: holy indeed. Like a martyr.


wheat4paradise said...


I understand all about the leading Catholic indicators. I don't deny that there is a crisis. It's just that I'd prefer to say that there are a lot of Catholics out there who have been poorly catechized, rather than suggest that they're not even Catholic. We don't need to look down our noses at the "Novus Ordites" all the time. You never know when you might be sniffing down at a Blessed Chiara.

By the way, the opposite of wheat4paradise is chaff4hell. The former is an aspiration, not a self-designation.


Praenestinus said...

I heard with my own ears the newly appointed Director of the Sistine Chapel choir, Fr. Dr. Palombella SDB, telling that "the New Missal contians more ancient and traditional prayers than the Tridentine one.." As usual : a Pieromarinian Bertonian appointee disguised as Guidomarinian Ratzingerian pal..


Jack said...

May an Eastern Christian speak?

Nearly 40 years ago, I converted to Orthodoxy.

The last few years, I have been a member a local Eastern Catholic that is the healthiest spiritual environment I've experienced.

I cannot speak for the other Eastern Catholic churches, but by and large "renewal and renovation" for the Byzantine churches have involved returning to their authentic traditions and purging ill-advised borrowings from the Latin church that resulted in a hybridized liturgical and spiritual praxis.

Among these:

1. Restoration of the use of zeon by the Ruthenians and Ukrainians.

2. Dropping of foreign devotions such as Stations of the Cross during Lent, and returning to Great Compline, Akathist, and Great Canon of St. Andrew.

3. Suppression of daily liturgies (usually recited) on Lenten weekdays and restoration of the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.

4. Dropping of recited liturgies and returning to one celebration of ONE Divine Liturgy on Sunday where possible.

5. Return of Vespers and Matins as part of normal parish devotion, rather than Molebens and the like.

6. Dropping of "May Devotions" in favor of the authentic Byzantine practice of daily devotion (usually the Paraclisis) to the Theotokos during the first two weeks of August. (Even this is an abbreviated Matins.)

7. Restoration of infant communion.

I know that in other Eastern Catholic churches there was a great deal of "me-too-ism" and pressure to try to resemble the Latin church as much as possible in liturgy and spirituality.

I cannot speak for them, but there should be NO DIFFERENCE in liturgical praxis or spiritual lifestyle between Byzantine Catholics and the corresponding Orthodox Christians--including such practices as fasting. As one Pope said, "Add nothing, omit nothing, change nothing."

As far as the Ruthenian RDL, I know from my own experience that liturgical translation is an art, rather than an exact science. The text of the RDL is simply not that different from that used by English-speaking Orthodox churches.

And when it comes to adapting an English text to music meant for another language, this can only at best be a series of compromises. What works at the composer's desk will not always work in rehearsal, and what went will in the choir room can be a disaster at the service.

And then, the average man in the pew simply resents change (even possible improvement) on principle.

I'm not forgetting that the average man in the pew is the raw material of the church--and even heaven itself.

Thommo said...

Thanks for your insights, Jack. It might be well to remember that this is one of forty-four propositions, and that while most here are about to have a heart attack, it might be better to wait and see what happens, and take a rain-check on the cardiac arrest.

Anonymous said...


Somehow I just don't think that Blessed Chiara had a Protestant conception of the Eucharist. That's just me.

Poorly catechised? I'd say that most who attend the N.O. belong to a different religion. Call it a Protestant Sect with a Marian Twist. I could be mistaken but I doubt you'll find many in that lot practising indulgences (unless by that they mean eating as much cake as possible) or refusing to vote for candidates who favour the legalisation of widespread abortion. In fact, the figures show that those nutcase Pentecostalists are far more pro-life than are NewChurchers. How embarrassing.


Anonymous said...

Jack writes a very sensible and moderate post here on the issue of orientalism versus Romanisation in the Eastern Divine Liturgies.

Before getting dragged into this, I think it crucial to make a vital distinction. There is a difference between restoring Eastern custom and traditon, on the one side, and wreckovating translations into vernacular tongues, on the other. These two are not the same two issues at all. I find, however, that they frequently have one thing in common: those who favour the first tend to favour the second as well.

I have spent much time worshipping at the Ukrainian Catholic Church. What I find is that there is this new party called the 'orientalists'. They want change. They want to remove now-ingrained Romanisations and they *also* want to remove sacral wording in the official English translations of their liturgies (although they are more determined on the former point than the latter).

In this respect, they are the 'reformers', as they wish to restore old but now unfamiliar practices and change accepted and often loved translations. Their opponents therefore see them as 'disruptors'.

Let us suppose that you an an elderly Ukrainain lady who grew up in the Ukraine (the word must have the definite article) and moved to Saskatchewan in the 1950s. Everyone you ever knew always knelt for the Sanctus--for your entire life of 95 years. Now, suddenly, some young priest with a ponytail and a beard is telling you to stand. He removed the holy water font from the narthex and takes down the Stations of the Cross in the nave; and he wants a hand-shake at the Pax. One by one, the things you have associated with the faith that sustained you are removed. It was this Faith and these symbols that always made you feel different than the Schismatics from the east. Back in the Ukraine, these devotions and symbols and practices were a cherished part of what got you through the Nazi occupation and the Communist take-over and the journey to a strange new land in Saskatchewan. Now some politicians with an agenda are ripping all of this away.

At the same time, there are refugees from the Roman Rite in your parish. They like the Ukrainian Divine Liturgy in the 1958 English translation, with the thees and the thous. Unlike the horrid N.O.M., IT IS SO REVERENT. But the same priest who sports the ponytail and the beard is also attacking this, replacing the grand old translations with garbage street-talk wording. It cheapens the liturgy and makes decent people feel regret.

Is it just me or is this déjà vu all over again? The odd thing is that those of us who are linguistically discerning find that there are traces of expressions in the sermons of that priest with the ponytail. These traces suggest a former hippie who 'discovered' religion. Whatever.

Where are the orientalists and the modernists taking the Eastern churches? They claim that they want all things Orthodox under the Pope. That's odd. The Orthodox in the Ukraine have the Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic and yet the fake Patriarch Husar is stamping that out. They want Orthodox practice but refuse the ancient sacral tongues used by the Orthodox. How odd. I wonder what their *real* agenda is?


wheat4paradise said...


Of course Blessed Chiara didn't have a protestant conception of the Eucharist, yet she was a committed member of the Focolare movement and participated in its youth Masses. I'm not saying that I like youth Masses or that the Focolare movement is above reproach. My point is that you actually know very little about the real Catholics who are members of the "Novus Ordo NewChurch", better known as the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

The problem is the other Rites are often formed in latin rite seminaries or in Rome and are infected with neo Modernism which they carry back to their own Rrites. That is why we get female altar servers in Byzantine Liturgy and latinisation of their liturgies. For some reason copying the Latin Rite is a perennial problem. Why?

Anonymous said...


They're ecumenists. Look for them on forum.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...


The things you've mentioned are well and good, and I'm not ignorant of the move -- in certain Byzantine Catholic circles -- towards recovering those Byzantine liturgical expressions that had disappeared due to Latin influences in the past 3 centuries.

It bears observing, though, that the Eastern Catholic world is much wider than the Byzantine, and that the non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches (those of Syriac and Alexandrian provenance) predominated in the Synod. Indeed, all the calls for liturgical reform have come from the Coptic, Syrian and Chaldean Catholics, as well from at least one Latin-Rite prelate in Jerusalem. This discussion, therefore, is not even primarily about the Byzantine Rite.

Among the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Middle East, the Syrians, Maronites and Chaldeans have copied "ad populum" celebrations and (in the case of the Maronites) "youth liturgies". The Chaldeans have also just finished a major liturgical reform that attempted to eliminate "useless repetitions", among other things. Now, it is true that these reforms have NOT produced the same level of abuse that have occured in the Western rites, but the fact remains that even when "ad populum" and rationalist liturgical principles do not (immediately) result in clown Masses and similar rubbish, they are still profound disruptions of the liturgical heritage that will scarcely cause good fruits in the long run.

As I've already noted before, the proposition (and the discussions that led to it) didn't mention returning to authentic Eastern practices as the path forward for liturgical reform. Instead, the principles now proposed are those of adaptation to modernity and to the subjectivity of the people. I don't think anyone will mistake this for a call to a return to antiquity!

It is true that this is a mere proposition that the Pope is free to disregard. No one should be having a heart attack yet. However, the fact that such a proposition -- couched in exactly the same language and expressing the same mentality that has ceaselessly ravaged the Latin Rite in the last 60 years -- has been passed by a large and representative sampling of Eastern Catholic prelates, can only cause profound disquiet.

Last of the Thaumaturgists said...

Until Bl. Chiara is infallibly canonized, I am not sure if we can seriously hope for "many future saints who grew up in the 'Novus Ordo NewChurch'". It is not difficult to manufacture consent these days. Even Our Lady of Fatima was not spared the shenanigans of "top" men at the Vatican.

If salvaging the "spirit" of VII is the goal we can certainly expect lots of NO beati. There is no shortage of "expert" theologians and "expert" doctors who have no clue about their respective fields of study. Fortunately, we can rely on the infallibility of canonizations.

St. Pio, Pray for Us

wheat4paradise said...

Last of the Thaumaturgists,

I don't think that Bl. Chiara was beatified to salvage the "spirit" of Vatican II. She was beatified for the edification of the faithful and in recognition of her heroic virtue. (Have we really become so cynical about the Church's most solemn acts? Is beatification not an infallible act of the magisterium?) That said, the beatification of Chiara Badano invites us to look at the fruits (good and bad) of Vatican II from a broader, less polemical perspective.

I don't wish to derail this combox further with an off-topic discussion. Feel free to visit my blog and we can discuss further.


picard said...

Thanks Jordanes

for the comparison of the texts.

M.A. and Jordanes,

if you are able to read German then I recommend you the book "Die Mär vom antiken Kanon des Hyppolytos" [The legend/myth of the antique Canon of Hyppolitos] of Dr. Heinz-Lothar Barth.

Picard said...

Dear P.K.T.P.,

once you posted your e-mail adress here.

I did not write it down but would like to contact you via email. Could you please post your e-mail adress again?!(Thanks and GOD bless!)

Picard said...


beatification is not infallible.

Only canonisation is (according to the large majority of the theologians - although there are also some that doubt even this [if I remember right(ly)]).

Anonymous said...

"Is beatification not an infallible act of the magisterium?"

No it is not.

Jack said...

\\I'd say that most who attend the N.O. belong to a different religion. Call it a Protestant Sect with a Marian Twist\\

How weird. This is NOT the seen in the teaching or action of His Holiness Benedict XIV himself, now is it? Or are you saying that the Pope is leading a Protestant sect?

I attended a Ukrainian Church for a while before settling with the Melkites. When speaking English, they would NOT say "the Ukraine." Removal of ill-advised Latinisms such as Stations has been done under the instructions of the Ukrainian Catholic Hierarchy.

A funny story about this. Someone once called the a Ukrainian priest complaining that she always liked to "do the Stations after Mass", and noticed to her sorrowful surprise that they were gone and had been replaced by Festal Icons (the TRUE Ukrainian Catholic practice) and asked why. The priest replied that they had been replaced some three months before, and inquired why she was just now noticing it.

As for personal acts of piety, while the Byzantine tradition prefers standing on all Sundays and Feasts and their periods, I wouldn't appoint myself a liturgical policeman about this. (My health is such that I have to sit throughout most of the Divine Liturgy.)

My contact with non-Byzantine Eastern Churches has been slight, as I said. However, if the Syriac and Alexandrian churches are celebrating versus populum and the like, this simply illustrates my words about their "me-too-ism" and their laboring under the misconception (brought about by centuries of being told this) that to Latinize is to Catholicize.

Finally, if beatifications and canonizations are not infallible acts of the Church, how do you know your favorite saints are truly such?

Anonymous said...

"Finally, if beatifications and canonizations are not infallible acts of the Church, how do you know your favorite saints are truly such?"

Beatification is not; Canonizations are. It is very simple.

Jack said...

\\beatification is not infallible.

Only canonisation is (according to the large majority of the theologians - although there are also some that doubt even this [if I remember right(ly)]).\\

Something to think about:

Is not questioning acts of the magisterium in such a way as to presume to judge them the essence of Protestantism?

In my Baptist youth, I was brought up with "thee and thou". However, unless one can handle Tudor English with all the grace of the King James and Douay Bibles and classical Books of Common Prayer, then it is best not to.

I've seen horrible attempts at such, the most egregious being using thee and thou with modern third person verbs: Thou sees, thou knows, thou is, and the like, to say nothing about misuse of thou (nominative) and thee (objective), or even using the plural "ye" for all cases and numbers.

With Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic congregations, there are large numbers of people for whom English is a second language. Is it charitable to through linguistic stumbling blocks at their feet?

priest's wife said...

PRAYING for this Synod assembly....

Picard said...

\\beatification is not infallible.

Only canonisation is (according to the large majority of the theologians - although there are also some that doubt even this [if I remember right(ly)]).\\

Is not questioning acts of the magisterium in such a way as to presume to judge them the essence of Protestantism?


wheat4paradise said...

Truly there is a protestant and utterly modern spirit among some who style themselves as the purest of pure Catholics. They use the latest communications technology to climb atop a virtual soapbox and lecture the Vicar of Christ in condescending tones. In their intellectual pride they are like Luther, who also thought that he was more Catholic than the Pope. Their traditionalism is a pretense.

wheat4paradise said...

I do not think that Picard's comment is an instance of protestant thinking. Beatification may or may not be a strictly infallible act (theologians can debate the issue). However, I believe that it is Catholic to accept the Church's gift when she presents us Blesseds to whom we can confidently pray for intercession.