|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 8, 2017 16:19:15 GMT -5
The teplota (Slavic) or zeon in Greek refers to the addition of hot boiling water to the chalice after the fraction of the Lamb and immediately before the communion of the celebrants in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. It was abolished by the Synod of Zamosc, universally for the entire Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, in the early 1700s and in some eparchies soon after the Union of Bresc (in the early 1600s). Bp. Huculak (Bishop of UGCC) in his book on the Divine Liturgy of St. Chysostom states that the problem was that too much water was being added in some cases. The teplota does not invalidate but the addition of too much water to the chalice certainly does. Fr. Mark Morozowich (UGCC priest and Dean of Theological Studies at Catholic University of America) discusses the issue of the Teplota and its reintroduction through the example of John Paul II. He further quotes the Byzantine Modernist/heretic Fr. Robert Taft S.J. as follows re: the use of the teplota:Taft's statement above, opposes the Catholic view of what is necessary for validity and he even acknowledges the scruples of Latinized Ukrainian priests (i.e. read Truly Catholic Ukrainian priests). However I believe this can become a big problem if it isn't already. Morozowich in the same paper states: CONCLUSIONS: (1) We see the danger of acknowledging a heretic as a pope can have on the Eastern Liturgy. It was JPII's example that brought back a custom that can lead to an abuse invalidating the Mass. (2)That is the reason why the Synod of Zamosc and the Ukrainian Church abolished the teplota. The Synod of Zamosc was approved by a true Pope. A false pope brought back this custom. (3) The use of the Teplota does not invalidate the Mass if a few drops are used but it seems that may not be the case since in the seminaries where new priests are trained - this is not even a consideration. (4) From discussions of other Eastern Catholic clerics (mostly the modernist or young priests), they seem not to care about this issue and add more water to the Chalice than they should. [Note, I do not know your situation so its really your choice to find out] (5) Please read the entire article and see the real influence that a false pope (i.e. JPII) and a false council (i.e. VII) really had on the present day Liturgy and theology of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Its really astounding. (5) On a unrelated note, the author, Fr. Mozorowich, also briefly discusses changes to the Consecration of a Bishop celebrated according to a new Archierartikon published in 1975. I know from other sources that at the time many Ukrainian Hierarchs were hesitant to use it. I do not know more than this, perhaps Pacelli may have more pertinent information of what the changes really were. URL for Morozowich Paper: theology.in.ua/page.php?_lang=ua&path=theological_source/&name=liturgics&id=46644&alias=&#_ftn37
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 8, 2017 20:20:37 GMT -5
This is the root of the problem. Until the remaining Catholic bishops and clergy of the eastern rites separate from the antipopes, they are in a clear constant state of grave danger.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Oct 9, 2017 2:56:22 GMT -5
This is scary; “Pope John Paul II’s first opportunity to celebrate the Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy occurred shortly after his visit to Philadelphia. Officiating in Old Slavonic, he ordained Msgr. Dr. Myroslav Lubachivsky to the episcopacy in the Sistine Chapel on November 12, 1979 on the Feast of St. Josaphat with Patriarch Josyf and other Ukrainian Catholic Bishops concelebrating.[5][5] This liturgy was celebrated according to the Roman Archierartikon[6][6] published in 1975 that still was not adhered to throughout the entire Ukrainian Catholic Church. This unique opportunity for the Pope of Rome to celebrate in another liturgical tradition demonstrated not only his facility with languages, but more importantly, his keen awareness and love for the particular liturgical traditions under his care. Likewise he was stressing the importance of adherence to the liturgical norms of our official liturgical books: with this act, he begins to teach by example.” I was under the impression that there were never any changes in their rites. Here is a better link: theology.in.ua/ua/bp/theological_source/liturgics/46644/
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 9, 2017 4:28:38 GMT -5
I see the Teplota up close when I serve at the Byzantine altar. I didnt understand or care for this change either...but if the concern is too much water...the Priest I observe only puts a splash. But again I ask...WHY? Its not like were in siberia where the Chalice would freeze...nor that Our Lord needs the zeal the hot water supposedly represents. The Ukrainians I attend do not do this at all.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 9, 2017 8:14:54 GMT -5
Hi Recusant Here is another quote from Morozowich in a related article re:the new consecration Rite: Not sure what this really means but perhaps others here have the time to study further.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 9, 2017 8:26:26 GMT -5
I see the Teplota up close when I serve at the Byzantine altar. I didnt understand or care for this change either...but if the concern is too much water...the Priest I observe only puts a splash. But again I ask...WHY? Its not like were in siberia where the Chalice would freeze...nor that Our Lord needs the zeal the hot water supposedly represents. The Ukrainians I attend do not do this at all. Hi Vox, i think it’s as simple as “the Orthodox do it, then so should we”. Of course, as Morozowich says that JPII was the iniatiator, to get things rolling- liturgically speaking.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Oct 9, 2017 16:32:59 GMT -5
Hi Recusant Here is another quote from Morozowich in a related article re:the new consecration Rite: Not sure what this really means but perhaps others here have the time to study further. Thanks for this! I think it would be prudent to investigate this. Vox and Pacelli, what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 9, 2017 19:02:51 GMT -5
Hi Recusant Here is another quote from Morozowich in a related article re:the new consecration Rite: Not sure what this really means but perhaps others here have the time to study further. Thanks for this! I think it would be prudent to investigate this. Vox and Pacelli, what are your thoughts? I dont see it as anything more than an annoying sop to the ducks. It is technically licit despite woyolta being involved.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 9, 2017 20:53:39 GMT -5
Hi Recusant Here is another quote from Morozowich in a related article re:the new consecration Rite: Not sure what this really means but perhaps others here have the time to study further. Thanks for this! I think it would be prudent to investigate this. Vox and Pacelli, what are your thoughts? If the Paul VI consecration rite was used, if that is established as a fact, then his orders are doubtful, and cannot be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 9, 2017 21:18:17 GMT -5
Hi Recusant Here is another quote from Morozowich in a related article re:the new consecration Rite: Not sure what this really means but perhaps others here have the time to study further. Thanks for this! I think it would be prudent to investigate this. Vox and Pacelli, what are your thoughts? Another thought is this: the longer this crisis goes on, the more you will see of this. The eastern bishops believe the claims of these antipopes. That fact alone puts them in a dangerous position, the wolf desires to devour the sheep. They are not safe, until they recognize this. The remaining eastern rite bishops who have kept the Faith are the last remaining bishops with jurisdiction who are actually governing flocks. They continue the last lines of apostolic succession. In the Roman rite, we are down to a very small group of scattered and very old men, who are dying off fast. It is also a fact that the eastern rites are hurting. It's like all of the main defenses of a kingdom fell, (the Roman Rite 1965-1970), but smaller castle fortresses hung on for a long time, the enemy was too busy finishing off the main kingdom. As time went on, the enemy did gradually begin to take more notice of the remaining protected enclaves, and with time, their walls were breached, and many of their leaders turned themselves over to the enemy. Anyway, that analogy in my opinion sums up my thinking on this, that's why I strongly urge Catholics who go to eastern rites to check things out first. I placed a statement at the top of every directory I posted giving that warning. I also deliberately omitted putting up directories of rites that I believe have advanced infection. They cannot be trusted at face value. One last point, the Church cannot fail by having no more successors of the Apostles. As this crisis goes on, I see more and more Catholics being tempted to deny this, some actually do. The successors of the apostles of the Roman Rite are just about gone, and even the few that remain don't even know who they are, and live their life in perceived retirement. Probably in just a few years, the Roman lines will have completely ended. I have the belief that while some eastern bishops have defected, and some are certainly to be suspected of heresy, there are others who remain Catholics. I believe this because I know with Faith that the Church cannot die, and I will not subscribe to the heresy of believing the trad bishops are successors of the apostles, as others have done. I will also not follow the some of the home-aloners who seem to imply that the Church has been reduced to the laity only, which is another heresy.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 10, 2017 4:48:52 GMT -5
Dont worry....have no fear.... the Blessed Virgin Marys near...Christ has come and comes again...the devil strives against God in vain...dont be downcast...or bath in tears...Our Mighty King soon appears!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 12, 2017 14:40:06 GMT -5
Since the discussion moved onto other matters, I have split the thread into two. The posts dealing with Traditionalism and Eastern Rites can be found HERE
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 12, 2017 18:06:19 GMT -5
Wenceslav,
I've been trying to research the Church's teaching on this practice of the Teplota. Are you aware of any condemnations of it by the Church, or any decisions by Rome forbidding its use? (It goes without saying that I mean the real Rome, Pre-V2, not the sectarian Vatican II "Rome.")
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 12, 2017 18:28:28 GMT -5
Suppressed by the synod of Zamość later ratified by the Pope. It’s not an invalidating factor unless amount of water exceeds the 1/3 limit for validity. For a more detailed analysis see the attachments from Augustine’s commentary. My concerns are expounded in my opening post. Just a note, Pacelli, I have to take a break from this board. If I don’t answer you, please don’t take it in a wrong way and think I’m ignoring your questions. My day job stuff awaits. Thanks, have a wonderful weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 12, 2017 19:06:38 GMT -5
Suppressed by the synod of Zamość later ratified by the Pope. It’s not an invalidating factor unless amount of water exceeds the 1/3 limit for validity. For a more detailed analysis see the attachments from Augustine’s commentary. My concerns are expounded in my opening post. Just a note, Pacelli, I have to take a break from this board. If I don’t answer you, please don’t take it in a wrong way and think I’m ignoring your questions. My day job stuff awaits. Thanks, have a wonderful weekend. I understand. Your duties of your state in life must come first. When you return, perhaps we can continue, as I have read that the rule on the Teplota was reversed: This poster made this assertion on another forum: I am not certain if this person's assertion is true, but if it is, if this practice was permitted by Met. Sheptytsky in the 1940's, reversing the laws of Zamosc, it would not have happened without approval of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. I will try to dig up more. Have a great weekend as well.
|
|