tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post2460931508267961664..comments2024-03-28T16:23:19.433-04:00Comments on southern orders: THE CHURCHES OF THE EAST AND WEST IN UNION WITH THE SUCCESSOR OF SAINT PETER: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE EAST AND WEST TODAY!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-58094071806080165602016-02-08T22:22:54.164-05:002016-02-08T22:22:54.164-05:00DJR,
The Christians in the area used the Byzantin...DJR,<br /><br />The Christians in the area used the Byzantine liturgy because the Roman Emperor had removed Sicily from Rome's jurisdiction to that of Constantinople in the 8th century. In 960s, Nicephorus II ordered them to adopt the Byzantine Rite.<br /><br />So, they were Latins (religiously, not ethnically) who were forced to become Byzantines. Interestingly, their bishop sided with Constantinople, but because the so-called Great Schism (which I don't believe ever happened, but that's not important)--more specifically, the events of 1054--coincided with the Norman invasion of Sicily, it ultimately meant nothing.<br /><br />So, Byzantine Catholics in Southern Italy are an historical accident. It's not the same as if, say, Bulgaria had broken communion with Constantinople and sided with Rome.<br /><br />Now, the more common claim is that the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church has always been in communion with Rome. This is true, insofar as the IACC has only existed independently since 1784.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00554830859411216515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32349672404699184182016-02-07T14:14:38.210-05:002016-02-07T14:14:38.210-05:00Flavius Hesychius said...
These started in the Eas...<i>Flavius Hesychius said...<br />These started in the East around the 4th Century and never went into schism with Peter not even in 1054! This is a lie (or misconception). <br /><br />The Syro-Malabar were under the Patriarch of Ctesiphon (the NESTORIAN PATRIARCH) prior to 1599, when the Portuguese forced them to accept Papal supremacy. Further, given that no one in the West seemed to know the St. Thomas Christians existed prior to the Portuguese arrival in India, it's suspect they've maintained communion with Rome since the 4th century.</i><br /><br />My family comes from the Byzantine area of Sicily and southern Italy. My understanding of the history of the area is that my ancestors were Greek Catholics who never left communion with Rome. We were Byzantine Catholics but lived in "the west."DJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028761850444888285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-67685056417179489952016-02-06T05:07:04.971-05:002016-02-06T05:07:04.971-05:00'The current [Latin] Eucharistic liturgy was h...'The current [Latin] Eucharistic liturgy was handed down more or less intact from at least the fourth century.' The author has forgotten to add 'until it was replaced by a new rite in the 1960s.'<br /><br />'The only exceptions [To the Roman liturgy in 1570] were liturgical practices that were more than 200 years old'. That's a lot of exceptions. Those who cast Pius V as rigidly doctrinaire in liturgical terms are in fact making excuses for the actions of his more authoritarian successor, Paul VI.<br /><br />In early 1960 when I was an eight-year-old altar boy, we had a visiting priest from one of the old Eastern Churches. Dressed in a voluminous gold chasuble he celebrated one of the Sunday Masses. The parish priest announced beforehand: 'This is not the Latin Mass with which we are familiar, but it is the same Mass. The language is very similar to that spoken by Our Lord himself'. My role as a server was limited to fetching and carrying things. The congregation didn't turn a hair.<br /><br />Can you imagine this happening in a modern parish, where the self-centred and overly indulged congregation would be up in arms if deprived of their four-hymn sandwich or asked to attend a liturgy in a language other than English?John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70374737909268763622016-02-05T16:13:13.094-05:002016-02-05T16:13:13.094-05:00These started in the East around the 4th Century a...<i>These started in the East around the 4th Century and never went into schism with Peter not even in 1054!</i><br /><br />This is a lie (or misconception). <br /><br />St. Germanicus of Constantinople (pre-schism) wrote that the Maronites were heretics and outside the Church.<br /><br />The Syro-Malabar were under the Patriarch of Ctesiphon (the NESTORIAN PATRIARCH) prior to 1599, when the Portuguese forced them to accept Papal supremacy. Further, given that no one in the West seemed to know the St. Thomas Christians existed prior to the Portuguese arrival in India, it's suspect they've maintained communion with Rome since the 4th century.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00554830859411216515noreply@blogger.com