Western Rite is also 'Catholic' and can have varying opinion about the Church of Rome.noahzarc1 said:He seems to conclude that point at the end of the article with an honest question and answer - i.e. Eastern Orthodox must consider those practicing in the Western Rite as Orthodox. What then should Orthodox conclude about those practicing the same Western Rite under Rome?
I thought you'd have stronger oppositions.Hawkeye said:
They may not be required to, but many Melkites and Ukrainian Greek Catholics do celebrate Corpus Christi. It's on the calendar of the Eparchy of Mukachevo as the Feast of the Holy Eucharist.noahzarc1 said:As a side note, the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church are not required to and do not practice the feast of Corpus Christi. They are considered to be Catholic without the feast. The Western Rite of the Eastern Orthodox do celebrate the feast of Corpus Christi and as the author noted, should still be considered to be Orthodox. We are living over 1,000 years post schism and there really is very little that divides East and West.
Well, I've grown rather self-conscious in my posting habits and have always been much too conciliatory to be as honest around these parts as perhaps I ought.RaphaCam said:
That already exists in the form of the Liturgy of Saint Germanus, which was established in part due to Saint John Maximovitch.hecma925 said:What we need is a Mid-Western Rite to really bridge the gap.
Doesn't float anyone's boat in the Wisconsin or Missouri synod.Eamonomae said:That already exists in the form of the Liturgy of Saint Germanus, which was established in part due to Saint John Maximovitch.hecma925 said:What we need is a Mid-Western Rite to really bridge the gap.
"Liturgy of Saint Germanus of Paris explained"
Also, rites nowadays respectively associated to non-Chalcedonians and Catholics were practiced looooong after the respective schisms.Eamonomae said:He paints this picture that there exists three periods of the Church - one in which there is extreme liturgical diversity, one in which there exist two great liturgical traditions, Byzantium and Rome, and then one in which there is a single liturgical tradition, where liturgy is intimately tied to ecclesial identity.
But this is simply not true.
Not only does this neglect the non-Chalcedonian (which are wildly different from each other and the Chalcedonian liturgical traditions) and the non-Ephesian liturgical traditions, and not only does it also neglects the pretty significant historical schisms which led to significant variation within the Byzantine traditions, but the idea of the liturgy being tied to ecclesial identity today is also not true at all, which I will get into below.