OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 02:27:42 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Schmemann on The Western Rite  (Read 34380 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« on: May 26, 2003, 02:37:36 PM »

Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann
The Western Rite
Notes and Comments

The article of my esteemed colleague Father W. S. Schneirla in the Spring ‘58 issue of the Quarterly and the recent Edict of the Syrian Archdiocese authorizing, under certain conditions, the use of the Western Rite within the Antiochian jurisdiction make the problem on the Orthodox Western Liturgy a very urgent issue for the Orthodox Church in America. It calls for much thinking and a very careful study of its various theological, spiritual and practical implications. The Edict signed by Metropolitan Antony Bashir specifies that:

". . . The mode of reception of groups desiring to employ the western rite and the character of the rites to be used, as well as the authorization of official liturgical texts, either in Latin or a vernacular, or customs, shall be determined in each instance by a commission of Orthodox Theologians familiar with this field . . ."

In this brief article, I do not pretend to even mention all the aspects of so complicated a matter. All I want is to raise a few questions which in my opinion are especially important.

Let me first of all make it clear that theoretically I find myself in basic agreement with Father Schneirla. The unity of rite in the Orthodox Church is comparatively a late phenomenon and the Church never considered liturgical uniformity a conditio sine qua non of her unity. No one who knows the history of Christian worship will deny the richness of the Western liturgical tradition, that especially of the old and venerable Roman liturgy. One may even ask whether the liturgical unification performed by Byzantium and which deprived the Orthodox East of the wonderful liturgies of Alexandria, Syria, Mesopotamia, etc. was in itself a wholly positive achievement. Last but not least, it is obvious that in case of an eventual return of the West to Orthodoxy, the western Church will have her own Western Liturgy and this will mean a tremendous enrichment of the Church Universal . . . In all this and thus far my agreement with Father Schneirla is complete.

My doubts concern not the theoretical, but the practical aspect of the whole problem. Yet by practical, I mean something much more important than the simple question of prerequisites which would make a definite rite formally acceptable as "Orthodox". No doubt, in advocating the Western Rite, Father Schneirla is ultimately moved by practical, i.e., missionary considerations: its acceptance by the Church should make conversion to Orthodoxy easier for Western Christians. Such is also the main motivation of Metropolitan Antony’s Edict: "it (i.e., the Western Rite) might serve the . . . purpose of facilitating the conversion of groups of non-Orthodox Western Christians to the Church . . ." Maybe it is unfair to point out that the scholarly and objective analysis by Fr. Schneirla of the various Orthodox experiments in the Western Rite hardly substantiates this optimistic assertion, for some future experiment can achieve a greater measure of success in such corporate conversion. The center of my doubts is not here. For me, the only important question is: What exactly do we mean by conversion to Orthodoxy? The following definition will, I presume, be acceptable to everybody: it is the individual or the corporate acceptance of the Orthodox faith and the integration in the life of the Church, in the full communion of faith and love. If this definition is correct, we must ask: can the "conversion" of a group or a parish, for which its spiritual leaders have signed a formal doctrinal statement and which hasretained its Western rite, however purified or amended, can such a "conversion" - in our present situation, i.e., in the whole context of the Orthodox Church as she exists in America today - be considered as a true conversion? Personally, I doubt it very much. And I consider this growing interpretation of conversion in terms of a mere jurisdictional belonging to some Orthodox Diocese, of a "mimimum" of doctrinal and liturgical requirements and of an almost mechanical understanding of the "Apostolic Succession" as a very real danger to Orthodoxy. This means the replacement of Orthodoxy of "content" by Orthodoxy of "form", which certainly is not an Orthodox idea. For we believe that Orthodoxy is, above all, faith that one must live, in which one grows, a communion, a "way of life" into which one is more and more deeply integrated. And now, whether we want it or not, this living faith, this organic spirit and vision of Orthodoxy is being preserved and conveyed to us mainly if not uniquely, by the Orthodox worship. In our state of national divisions, of theological weakness, in the lack of living spiritual and monastic centers, of unpreparedness of our clergy and laity for more articulate doctrinal and spiritual teaching, of absence of a real canonical and pastoral care on the part of the various jurisdictional centers, what holds the Orthodox Church together, assures its real continuity with tradition and gives the hope of a revival is precisely the liturgical tradition. It is a unique synthesis of the doctrinal, ethical and canonical teachings of Orthodoxy and I do not see how a real integration into the Orthodox Church, a genuine communion of faith and life may be achieved without an integration in the Orthodox worship.

I agree with Fr. Schneirla and I have said it on several occasions, that our liturgical tradition has to be purified from many local, antiquated and sometimes utterly un-Orthodox elements and practices. Nevertheless, it stands at present as a living bond of unity and "koinonia".

And then the last question: is it quite correct to define our rite as "Eastern" and therefore "foreign to all the Western Christians have known" to quote the Edict? I would like to suggest a rather sharp distinction between "Eastern" and "oriental". No doubt there are many oriental features, oriental ingredients in our liturgical life. No doubt also, that for many Orthodox this "orientalism" seems to be the essential element. But we know that it is not essential and we know that progressively all these "orientalisms" are being eliminated in a very natural and spontaneous process of adjustment of our cult to the American life. But then what remains and what can be described as "Eastern" is nothing else but the Biblical and the Patristic "content" of our liturgy. It is essentially and structurally Biblical and Patristic, and therefore, it is "eastern" in exactly the same measure in which the Bible and the Fathers, or rather, the whole Christianity can be termed "Eastern". But have we not proclaimed time and again in all our encounters with our Western brothers that it is this "East" precisely that constitutes the common and the catholic heritage of the Church and can supply us with a common language which has been lost or distorted? The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Easter Canon of St. John of Damascus, are, I believe, much closer to that common and Catholic language of the Church than anything else in any Christian tradition. And I cannot think of any word or phrase in these services that would be "foreign" to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox . . .

These considerations, however fragmentary and incomplete, lead to the following conclusion: I think that in the present situation of the Orthodox Church in America, the Western Rite, theoretically justified and acceptable as it is, would, instead of "facilitating conversion", dangerously multiply spiritual adventures of which we had too many in the past, and which can but hinder the real progress of Orthodoxy in the West.

- Alexander Schmemann

St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Vol. 2 - New Series, No. 4, Fall, 1958, pp. 37-38.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2003, 03:23:49 PM »

Thank you Brother Sinjinsmythe , I completely forgot about the Western Rite Orthodoxy and will explore it further.

james
Logged
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2003, 08:47:49 PM »

Just completed a visit to Western Rite Orthodoxy, read Lux Occirentalius ak " The Orthodox Western Rite & the Liturgical Tradition of Western Orthodox Christianity ", The Rite (Liturgy) of St. Tikhon and The Rite of St. Gregory, various articles about St. Tikhon and my brain cells are melting.

I think a will have a Bud Light and re-lax  Roll Eyes.

james
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2003, 11:05:45 PM »

There is also an article by Fr. Michael Johnson on this at The Orthodox Research Institute and here is one by Heiromonk James Deschene, a western-rite Orthodox monk at The Euphrosynos Cafe.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2003, 12:15:37 AM »

Some how I knew Bro Nicholas would respond, especially regarding St. Tikhon, as I have been in the dark regarding this great Saint. I will indeed visit your link.

Pokoj,
james
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2003, 02:28:40 AM »

Just completed a visit to Western Rite Orthodoxy, read Lux Occirentalius ak " The Orthodox Western Rite & the Liturgical Tradition of Western Orthodox Christianity ", The Rite (Liturgy) of St. Tikhon and The Rite of St. Gregory, various articles about St. Tikhon and my brain cells are melting.

I think a will have a Bud Light and re-lax  Roll Eyes.

james

Bud Light?!?  I command you to immediately go to your local store and buy a decent import or microbrew.  No self-respecting Orthodox Christian should drink that swill if they can help it.  Grin
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2003, 08:13:06 AM »

Thanks, sinjin.

I enjoyed Fr. Schmemann's article. I think he makes some good points.

However, I also can see the other side. The West was Orthodox up until the Great Schism and so was its liturgy. Shouldn't there be some effort to recover (or preserve) that heritage?

Just the same, I share some of Fr. Schmemann's reservations. Although by heritage a westerner, I prefer the Eastern Orthodox liturgy.

What does everyone else think? What sorts of problems could the Western Rite cause?

Many of us pray for a return of the RCC to the Orthodox fold. What implications does this issue have for that one?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2003, 10:06:47 AM »

Linus, the "paste and copy" function on my PC doesn't seem to be working, but one of the possible problems I see is the appearance of a Western Rite Uniatism in Orthodoxy (something which I now glean from the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America or the very, very few Western Rite institutions within the ROCOR).

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2003, 11:09:25 AM »

In my brief readings on the Western Rite, I have to agree Hypo, it sounds like a "reverse uniatism" of sorts.

Really, what is appealing about western rite Orthodoxy? Isn't it the "Illumination from the East" that makes Orthodoxy so appealing? I feel that western rite orthodoxy is nothing more than an attempt to create a hybridized frankenstein

just my 2 cents
Bobby
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2003, 11:32:43 AM »


While I think using the Anglican liturgy is uniatism, I think using a pre-schism Western Liturgy is fine. its not my cup of tea, but St. Tikhon was all for it and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco told the French, "Don't ever let anyone tell you that to be Orthodox you have to be Eastern". As long as it is pre-schism theology and praxis, I guess it can be western.

I'd take the Divine Liturgies of Ss. Basil & John Chrysostom over the Sarum Liturgy any day though.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2003, 11:45:22 AM »

Brother Nicholas,

Enjoyed reading the post from your site, however the other one was not.

I think St Tikhon's quote went " Orthodoxy is not for a small circle but is universal for all " or something to that effect.

If the liturgy is pre Tridentine and traditional I do not see a problem, but that is seen through Latin eyes.


In Christ,
james
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2003, 12:00:43 PM »

"... the Light of Orthodoxy is not lit for a small circle of people. No, the Orthodox Faith is Catholic; it is a commandment of its founder, Go into all the world ... (Mark 16:15) It is our obligation, therefore, to share our spiritual treasures, our truth, our light, and our joy with those who do not have these gifts ..." -St. Tikhon
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2003, 02:09:31 PM »

Quote
Really, what is appealing about western rite Orthodoxy? Isn't it the "Illumination from the East" that makes Orthodoxy so appealing? I feel that western rite orthodoxy is nothing more than an attempt to create a hybridized frankenstein

Orthodoxy shouldn't just be reduced to Byzantium.  The pre-schism Western Tradition is just as legitimate as the current Byzantine Tradition.  Some of the ancient Western liturgical texts are just amazing...why throw away half of our Tradition?
Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2003, 02:19:57 PM »

I am pretty convicted that the Western tradition lies with the Latins.
I think it incredibly difficult to assume an eastern spirituality when one is practicing western liturgy.

Just my opinions of course.
Bobby

Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2003, 02:23:44 PM »

Western Rite Orthodox do not need a Eastern Spirituality, but rather an Orthodox spirituality. Me, I prefer the Eastern spirituality as I imagine most here do as well, but for those that do not, why not allow a Western ORTHODOX spirituality, Liturgy & praxis to exist, as it it did pre-schism.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2003, 02:29:22 PM »

I think a can of worms is being opened with the introduction of western rite Orthodoxy.

There hasn't been an organic development of Western Rite Orthodoxy, maybe so, but not as heavily as its eastern counterpart. With the advent of the schism and split, western rite orthodoxy died, and then all of a sudden here in the 21st century we start it back up again.

Maybe I don't understand the situation. I still think western rite orthodoxy is inorganic and playing with fire.

Bobby
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2003, 02:34:46 PM »

Quote
I am pretty convicted that the Western tradition lies with the Latins.
I think it incredibly difficult to assume an eastern spirituality when one is practicing western liturgy.

The problem though is the Latins have utterly squandered their own Tradition.  

There is no vast abyss seperating the early East from the West, IMO.  There is a good little booklet out by the center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies (I think?) that shows how very similar Celtic Monasticism was to the deserts of the East.  Those Saintly Celts would have used the same liturgical texts that a modern Western Rite would.  So it is possible to have a truly Orthodox spirit even in an ancient Western setting.

I would agree with you though if it would simply be a matter of a parish switching jurisdictions but staying basicly the same in approach.  I.e. RC parish de-popes and enters the jurisdiction of the Antiochians but keeps the RC approach and liturgy.  When I say Western Rite I mean the idealized Pre-Shcism West which is vastly different from current practice in the West.
Logged
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2003, 08:59:15 PM »

Brother Nicholas,

I appreciate your tolerance of the West.

Pokoj,
james
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2003, 08:09:41 AM »

There is no vast abyss seperating the early East from the West, IMO.  There is a good little booklet out by the center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies (I think?) that shows how very similar Celtic Monasticism was to the deserts of the East.  Those Saintly Celts would have used the same liturgical texts that a modern Western Rite would.  So it is possible to have a truly Orthodox spirit even in an ancient Western setting.

If that's what they wrote, then they're fantasizing. The truth is that almost nothing is known about Celtic practice. We have lots of devotional material and prayers, but the sort of rite they used is utterly unknown. The impression one has from the conduct of the council of Whitby is that it was something that wasn't too hard to adjust to Roman usage, but beyond that there is little definite that can be said.

Quote
I would agree with you though if it would simply be a matter of a parish switching jurisdictions but staying basicly the same in approach.  I.e. RC parish de-popes and enters the jurisdiction of the Antiochians but keeps the RC approach and liturgy.  When I say Western Rite I mean the idealized Pre-Shcism West which is vastly different from current practice in the West.  

Um, I don't think so. A pre-schism Roman rite is a lot less different from (say) a Tridentine rite than an Eastern rite of similar age is from a modern Eastern rite.

DIfferences occur on different levels. Clearly there are disputes about specific words and phrases (e.g. the Filioque). It seems to me that this is the level on which actual western rite introduction is happening. I think the phrase "Frankenstein rite" needs a lot more justification than it's getting, but anyone who is quite familiar with the unaltered rite can see that it is, to some very limited extent, a composite. Beyond that, one sees a lot of rationalized criticism which I can't take very seriously. It's easy to say that one has some "sound" reason for this or that aspect of western worship, but the value of almost all of this, to my mind, is questionable.

Looking at the overall form of the rite, matters are very different. Western rites have basically the same parts that they had pre-schism; there are differences in wording, and modern Anglican rites put the parts in a quite different order. One can fit any Anglican or Roman rite, of almost any age, into churches ancient and modern without having to alter the rite or the building.

By contrast, what the average person sees as being the chief differences beween modern western and eastern rites are all eastern innovations. A lot of the parts of a western liturgy are there, but they are nearly buried under a plethora of litanies and hidden behind a wall of icons. Now, people come to Orthodoxy for a lot of different reasons. Some few people, like Gilquist, argue themselves into Orthodoxy and thus have no commitment ot a western rite anyway. Perhaps more people are like the Russian visitors to Constantinople, and they clearly enter Orthodoxy with a commitment to the Eastern rites that they first saw.

Those who ask for Western rites are not in these categories. They come to Orthodoxy as refugees from their former churches. That's precisely why they want to bring their rites with them: they were faithful, and they have fled from unfaithfulness (as they see it).

Which leads us to the answer of why a preschism rite is actually unsuitable. Nobody really wants it. Nobody in the East wants to be taken back so far, because they would have to take down the iconostasis and prune back the liturgy radically. Nobody in the west sees the point-- it has a "let them eat cake" quality.

What I see happening here, at bottom, is this notion that anything western is contaminating. I personally don't see a choice of eastern over western spirituality; but then, I'm a Damned Protestant, so what do I know? It seems to me that the real intent is that those who enter Orthodoxy are to be stripped entirely of their spiritual heritage. That is a severe problem for people who are coming to Orthodoxy because they are trying to remain faithful, because it states that, up until their conversion, they were never faithful.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2003, 08:37:51 AM »

I should add a specific criticism of some of Schmemann's remarks. He makes a distinction between "Eastern" and "oriental" which is a bit hard to fathom, lacking (as it is quoted, anyway) any specific examples. But I should object to these words. It seems to me that behind "oriental" lies "local", and behind "Eastern" lies "Catholic". The problem is that since the East now claims the Catholic, there is nobody left to argue for anything Western. In pratice (as is happening in this very discussion) there tends to be no distinction between Eastern and oriental, because the local has been made Catholic.

I will be blunt. The politics of Orthodoxy versus the rest of Christendom makes it impossible for Orthodoxy to investigate this on its own. It must engage in real discourse with the real West in order to know anything about things Western. It cannot keep itself honest on its own. That is why real acts of charity towards some who come from the west are being treated with suspicion if not outright displeasure.
Logged
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2003, 09:01:48 AM »


[What I see happening here, at bottom, is this notion that anything western is contaminating. I personally don't see a choice of eastern over western spirituality; but then, I'm a Damned Protestant, so what do I know? It seems to me that the real intent is that those who enter Orthodoxy are to be stripped entirely of their spiritual heritage. That is a severe problem for people who are coming to Orthodoxy because they are trying to remain faithful, because it states that, up until their conversion, they were never faithful.


Keble,

 You are making some good points here (for a Damned Protestant  Wink). I share your concern about everything Western being viewed as contaminated. As a convert to Orthodoxy I too have been faced with the struggle to combine my western liturgical inheritance (in my case the Tridentine Mass) with my turn to the Christianity of the east. For me, my liturgical inheritance is very precious and I could not disown it. However, I've had to accept that I could no longer in conscience remain within the Roman Church of my forebearers and I made the transition to the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom without any difficulty.

Ours is a ROCOR mission parish here in Ireland where we are mostly converts, and with only occasional cradle Orthodox 'ethnic' visitors.  From my perspective the Byzantine liturgy is really no more foreign or exotic than some restored 'Celtic' rite would be. I think we need to exercise caution in all this Celtic business anyway, and I speak as a subscriber to the yahoo celticorthodoxy list! It seems to me that there is a lot of romantic antiquarianism in the quest to find or reconstruct pre-Schism 'Celtic' liturgy, and we could easily get lost in the Celtic Twilight.

For myself, I feel no compulsion to pretend to be some kind of pseudo-Russian, I am an Irishwoman and as an Irish Orthodox I took the name of our pre-eminent Irish female saint  as my Orthodox name. We have icons of St Patrick and other Irish saints in our church and our priest runs a website on Celtic saints at http://www.orthodoxireland.com/celtic.htm

I personally find this approach of eastern liturgy with geniune appreciation of our Celtic past perfectly satisfying. I continue to pray in Latin and do Gregorian chants at home and at my chrismation I made my profession of faith by singing the Credo in Latin to the traditional Gregorian melody. I see no contradiction or tension here at all. I'm western Orthodox and proud of it, although on March 17th in Ireland, it is very hard to be on the Julian calendar!

Brigid
Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2003, 11:50:10 AM »

Keble, adding litanies does not drasticly change the Liturgy and your repeating it does not make it so. In the west a rood screen was used and a lack of one now is a bigger change than one becoming an iconstasis.

Your point that the Tridentine Liturgy is close to the pre-schism western Liturgy (while the Novus Ordo is not) is true, but your accusation that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is radically different is incorrect.  For the last 1,000 years the Liturgy of Orthodoxy has been very stable.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2003, 11:50:18 AM »

Quote
From Keble: By contrast, what the average person sees as being the chief differences beween modern western and eastern rites are all eastern innovations. A lot of the parts of a western liturgy are there, but they are nearly buried under a plethora of litanies and hidden behind a wall of icons.

I do not see how the iconostasis, which dates from at least the 4th century and possibly earlier, and some additional litanies (based as they are upon Scripture) are such tremedous "innovations." They seem to be rather legitimate additions or developments.

Surely limiting the laity to receiving the Eucharist in one kind (a practice condemned by Pope St. Leo I) and turning the priest's perspective from altar to congregation are greater and more significant changes.

All in all, however, I agree with those who see no harm in the ancient Western Rite. Absolute uniformity in liturgical practice has never been a standard of Orthodoxy; it couldn't have, because once the Church expanded beyond Jerusalem such uniformity as then existed gradually (or maybe not so gradually) ceased to exist.

As a convert from Protestantism, however, I am not inclined to want to celebrate the heritage of western Christendom, since I associate it with the errors from which I fled for refuge to the Eastern Orthodox Church. But that is not a judgment upon the Western Rite, merely an expression of personal preference.  Grin

« Last Edit: May 28, 2003, 11:52:04 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,368


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2003, 12:30:46 PM »

Which leads us to the answer of why a preschism rite is actually unsuitable. Nobody really wants it. Nobody in the East wants to be taken back so far, because they would have to take down the iconostasis and prune back the liturgy radically.

Is this necessarily the case, though?  If the Western rite Orthodox used a pre-schism Western rite, would this require the Eastern Orthodox to change aspects of their Byzantine rite?  I wouldn't have thought so.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2003, 12:38:34 PM »

I suppose in theory a Western Orthodox rite is admissible, but I have problems with the inorganic generation of the rite that is now in use in these parishes.  I think a more organic, restored Western rite would be preferable, but the issue is how to do this.

Personally, I'm not attracted to it spiritually, but I will admit that in the (seemingly unlikely) scenario of reunion between Rome and Orthodoxy there will be some sort of Western rite and it will be rather different from the Byzantine/Orthodox rite (as it always was).

Brendan
Logged

B
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2003, 01:23:39 PM »

This IMO looks pretty darn like an Iconostasis: http://www.odox.net/Liturgy-Western-Culture.htm

This entire Monastery does a great job of taking the pre-shcism Orthodox West and using it today.  Check out this entire page and see what they have to offer...some intersting info on it.
Logged
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2003, 02:13:17 PM »

If you check " Liturgical Text Projects" at odox.net you will find no Filioque in the Western Liturgys  Grin

james
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2003, 03:09:02 PM »

Christus resurrexit! Vere resurrexit!

Jakub,

What did you, a traditional RC at heart, think of the Western Rite stuff that monastery has to offer?  I was of the traditional RC mindset (before becoming Orthodox) and really enjoyed the website.  There is some really coll stuff (and solidly Orthodox) that Byzantine elitests miss out on.  

Nektarios

Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2003, 03:18:01 PM »

My views are pretty well known to many here so I hesitated about writing in this thread but here are a few comments.

Byzantine Rite < orthodoxy, catholicity

Please, no more spite churches/reverse Uniatism. I understand the Eastern Orthodox thinking behind it, given EOxy's view that it alone is the true church and its agnosticism about anyone else, but I'm sure most here understand how hurtful and hypocritical it appears to Catholics and others, especially when some EOs complain about Uniatism as a proselytism tool, even though that was centuries ago.

Just like 'Catholic is Roman' or 'Roman is more Catholic than Byzantine', byzantinocentrism among the EOs does come off as arrogant and bigoted, as does the byzantinization of the current traditional Western rites now used by some EOs. Just as wrong, stupid and unhistorical as the self-latinizations among the Byzantine Catholics.

There is no explicit epiclesis in the Roman Canon - because it is older than the two Byzantine anaphoras.

The business about these EO-ified Western rites being a return to preschism Roman practice is, frankly, rank bullsh*t, although the traditional Roman Rite (Sarum, Tridentine, etc.)'s 'core' is the same as in the early medieval period - the same Canon, for example, and even a lot of the same propers.

No - what most real Western Rite Orthodox use is a slightly byzantinized Prayer Book Anglo-Catholic service.

Their churches are very beautiful and their faith and worship are quite orthodox, as are those of the Byzantine Catholics - but they are as odd and unhistorical IMO as the Byzantine Catholics are, under the Pope of Rome and cut off from the Orthodox Churches whence they came.

And the supposed re-creations of preschism Roman Rite uses and other Latin rites likewise are beautiful and orthodox but they're fake because there is no living, unbroken tradition of using them. It's historical re-enactors in church - British Museum religion. I can't see such getting any real following.

Good points about the 'Celtic Twilight', Brigid and others - fakers such as vagantes seem very enamored of such because as Keble wrote, little is known of it so the fakers can project whatever agenda they have against real churches onto 'Celtic spirituality'.

St Hilarion's Monastery has gone from being fake Old Catholic to being fake Orthodox. In other words, vagante-land. Pretty straight-arrow as far as such go, and their appreciation of both Eastern Orthodox and medieval western Catholic practices is admirable - but they're not the Church.

Vagantes fascinate me ’cos they scare me - the conservative and orthodox of the lot remind me of me. They illustrate the mess one can end up in if one's ecclesiology goes off the rails.
Logged

The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2003, 03:23:00 PM »

I understand the Celts used a Latin rite but not the Roman Rite until later. St Patrick never celebrated Mass in Gaelic, but in Latin. The rites probably weren't that different.

I still think talk of the humongous Catholic Church 'returning' to the Orthodox Church sounds like Taiwan hypothetically trying to order Red China around.
Logged

Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2003, 03:44:30 PM »

Very well put, Serge.

You said pretty much what I have been thinking but too scared to say.

Bobby
Logged
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2003, 03:52:50 PM »

I understand the Celts used a Latin rite but not the Roman Rite until later. St Patrick never celebrated Mass in Gaelic, but in Latin. The rites probably weren't that different.

I still think talk of the humongous Catholic Church 'returning' to the Orthodox Church sounds like Taiwan hypothetically trying to order Red China around.

Nice one Serge! It's often forgotten that St Patrick was a Romanized Briton and that his famous Confessio was written in Latin. The official ending of the 'Celtic church' in Ireland is attributed to a process of Anglicization and Romanization begun in the 12th century. The present day Catholic/Anglican diocesan structure in Ireland dates back to the Synod of Kells/Mellifont in 1152, the same year that a papal bull by Pope Adrian IV donated Ireland to the English King Henry II! Twenty years later the Council of Cashel submitted its Church decrees to Henry for confirmation. The Irish Church was now in line with Roman observance and its Bishops were under the English crown.

There are some surviving liturgical texts  from the early Irish church including the Stowe Missal, which warns of 'disputing overmuch on God's mysteries'. It is this text which the so-called Church of the Culdees led by 'Archbishop' Maelruain promotes today. Personally I would rather be within the authentic canonical church than this sort of group. The fact that so many of these 'Celts' are based in California might also have something to do with it  Cheesy

Celtic Christianity can often be no more than  a vague, nebulous thing on which to hang all sorts of fantasies from eccentric antiquarianism to 'New Age' thinking.

Brigid  

PS There are some good essays at the site www.celticorthodoxy.org for anyone interested in the subject.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2003, 04:32:26 PM by Brigid of Kildare » Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2003, 04:41:33 PM »

This IMO looks pretty darn like an Iconostasis: http://www.odox.net/Liturgy-Western-Culture.htm

This entire Monastery does a great job of taking the pre-shcism Orthodox West and using it today.  Check out this entire page and see what they have to offer...some intersting info on it.  

That picture is of a rood screen.  The accompanying text asserts that iconostates (sp of plural?) where in the west, but does not give any evidence to support this assertion.  Thus, it is not proven.  Further research is in order.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2003, 04:58:20 PM »


[What I see happening here, at bottom, is this notion that anything western is contaminating. I personally don't see a choice of eastern over western spirituality; but then, I'm a Damned Protestant, so what do I know? It seems to me that the real intent is that those who enter Orthodoxy are to be stripped entirely of their spiritual heritage. That is a severe problem for people who are coming to Orthodoxy because they are trying to remain faithful, because it states that, up until their conversion, they were never faithful.


Keble,

 You are making some good points here (for a Damned Protestant  Wink). I share your concern about everything Western being viewed as contaminated. As a convert to Orthodoxy I too have been faced with the struggle to combine my western liturgical inheritance (in my case the Tridentine Mass) with my turn to the Christianity of the east. For me, my liturgical inheritance is very precious and I could not disown it. However, I've had to accept that I could no longer in conscience remain within the Roman Church of my forebearers and I made the transition to the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom without any difficulty.

Ours is a ROCOR mission parish here in Ireland where we are mostly converts, and with only occasional cradle Orthodox 'ethnic' visitors.  From my perspective the Byzantine liturgy is really no more foreign or exotic than some restored 'Celtic' rite would be. I think we need to exercise caution in all this Celtic business anyway, and I speak as a subscriber to the yahoo celticorthodoxy list! It seems to me that there is a lot of romantic antiquarianism in the quest to find or reconstruct pre-Schism 'Celtic' liturgy, and we could easily get lost in the Celtic Twilight.


Yes, indeed.  From my reading, many who espouse "Celtic Christianity" go to it with a idea of "This was the warm, egalitarian mutual woman affirming, nature loving Christianity before those Awful Romans took over".  A sort of allergic reaction to things Latin maybe.  But since little is known, they "reconstruct" i.e. make it up.  Then you get the things like "St. Brigid was  *really* a goddess who was taken over by the evil misogynist RC's" new age stuff.  (gag and also *bang head on keyboard*).

All this makes me wonder if the proponents have actually read Patrick's "Confession" or for that matter "The Tain" for a classic Irish work.  Not warm and fuzzy, but an epic.


Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
James the Just
Guest
« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2003, 05:04:02 PM »

I thought this thread was concerning the Western Orthodox Rite, not the Byzantine/Roman Catholic Rite.

Some of us are just bitter, and a little narrow sighted.

If my brother falls into a pit, do I berate him while he is in the pit, or do I wait and help him out and then discuss how it came to be.

james
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2003, 05:06:42 PM »

Quote
From Keble: By contrast, what the average person sees as being the chief differences beween modern western and eastern rites are all eastern innovations. A lot of the parts of a western liturgy are there, but they are nearly buried under a plethora of litanies and hidden behind a wall of icons.

I do not see how the iconostasis, which dates from at least the 4th century and possibly earlier, and some additional litanies (based as they are upon Scripture) are such tremedous "innovations." They seem to be rather legitimate additions or developments.

Surely limiting the laity to receiving the Eucharist in one kind (a practice condemned by Pope St. Leo I) and turning the priest's perspective from altar to congregation are greater and more significant changes.

I am working on a bit of a theory that the giving only the Bread to the laity seems to coincide with what is called "The Little Ice Age".  Grapes used to grow in southern England and Northern Europe but then the temperature cooled and this ended.  If there is only a small amount of wine and this must be imported, as many records and Medieval cookbooks refer to wine coming from Spain or other southern climes, but wheat still grows, thus there is bread, then could there be a corrolation? If there isn't any, it can't be  given after all.  More research....

Quote

All in all, however, I agree with those who see no harm in the ancient Western Rite. Absolute uniformity in liturgical practice has never been a standard of Orthodoxy; it couldn't have, because once the Church expanded beyond Jerusalem such uniformity as then existed gradually (or maybe not so gradually) ceased to exist.

As a convert from Protestantism, however, I am not inclined to want to celebrate the heritage of western Christendom, since I associate it with the errors from which I fled for refuge to the Eastern Orthodox Church. But that is not a judgment upon the Western Rite, merely an expression of personal preference.  Grin

 

But not all hold to this.  Some of the heritage of Western Christendom has been been examples of great faith, evangelism and beautry dedicated to the Glory of God.  This is something I've been thinking about for the "Why I am" thread.  

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2003, 05:12:37 PM »

I do not fully follow the idea of 'organic/not organic".  Things have been grafted onto Christianity before, starting with the gentiles.  I recall the picture of the Vine with the wild grapes grafted onto it and thus becoming part of the Vine.  

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2003, 07:06:14 PM »

........
I still think talk of the humongous Catholic Church 'returning' to the Orthodox Church sounds like Taiwan hypothetically trying to order Red China around.

Sort of as in the way those Romans felt about those pesky Christians infesting the catacombs? Smiley

or rather: Size DOES matter?Huh? Huh

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2003, 10:04:50 PM »

Surely limiting the laity to receiving the Eucharist in one kind (a practice condemned by Pope St. Leo I) and turning the priest's perspective from altar to congregation are greater and more significant changes.
I am working on a bit of a theory that the giving only the Bread to the laity seems to coincide with what is called "The Little Ice Age".  Grapes used to grow in southern England and Northern Europe but then the temperature cooled and this ended.  If there is only a small amount of wine and this must be imported, as many records and Medieval cookbooks refer to wine coming from Spain or other southern climes, but wheat still grows, thus there is bread, then could there be a corrolation? If there isn't any, it can't be  given after all.  More research....

Why theorize when Rome already has a reason the switched to one form anyway?
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2003, 10:26:09 PM »

Thanks, Brigid.

Ebor is giving the practical reason behind the change, -¥-+-¦-+-+-¦-¦, and I think her idea is brilliant. Never knew the climate was so different 1,000+ years ago such that grapes grew in southern England.

BTW, remember the furore a while back when a priest on EWTN called Hagia Sophia 'once the world's greatest Byzantine Catholic church'?

Well, the way some EOs appropriate early medieval western Catholicism and call it 'Orthodox' strikes me as similarly unhistorical and arrogant... even though I understand why they are saying it (the same reason a Catholic called Hagia Sophia Catholic - belief in one true church).

(Disclaimer: Brigid, I understand 'where you're coming from' and in no way is this attacking you personally.)

Big-O Orthodox, even before the separation, meant the church of the Eastern Roman Empire. England and Ireland never were in that empire.

In the same period, the Latin Church already was known as big-C Catholic. That's what England and Ireland belonged to.
Logged

JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2003, 10:26:28 PM »

If Orthodoxy is to be a missionary Organization, it must reach out to Western Christians in a way they can understand.  some people are mystified and drawn in by Byzantine practices.  But many, and at  one time including myself, are turned off by Byzantine Practices (I'm an American durnit not a Greek, Russian, Serb, etc.).  Also we fail to realize the drawing point of Orthodoxy when we focus on the rite and ritual as important though they be.  The main drawing point for Orthodoxy (and I'm sure Nik would agree) was TRUTH, not some rite or ritual.  

If Orthodoxy is Truth incarnate, than it only follows reason that the Western Rites should be restored.  As for me, I would greatly prefer a Western Liturgy and praxis (say the Sarum, Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, or Gregorian Liturgies) over the Eastern tradition any day.  I am a Westerner.   But Orthodoxy is, or at least should be, our main focus and thus, even though it is Eastern Tradition, I will be becoming Eastern Orthodox.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2003, 10:45:27 PM »

Let me post interesting excerpts from comments that were recently posted at he Euphrosynos Cafe about this very topic of pre-schism Orthodoxy in Britain. (Posted at http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=160&start=20)

In 1054, however, the final and complete break between Rome and Constantinople took place, and was sealed by a fearful anathema. From that moment it became imperative for all members of the Roman Patriarchate to separate from their cursed head on earth if they were to remain members of the Body of Christ Whose Blessed Head was in heaven. One is therefore struck to learn - and the believer in Divine Providence can hardly consider it a coincidence - that from 1052, two years before the anathema, until the completion of the Norman Conquest of England in 1070, the English Church was in fact not in communion with Rome, and was only reintegrated after the most bloody genocide of the English people!  

King Edward died on January 5, 1066. One year and one day after his death, on January 6, 1067, the Roman Catholic William the Conqueror was crowned king of England in Westminster Abbey. Then began a terrible campaign of pillage and bloodshed by the Conqueror against the English people, which culminated in the pseudo-council of Winchester in 1070, when papal legates deposed the Orthodox Archbishop Stigand, who had refused to crown William, and placed the Roman Catholic Lanfranc in his place. On October 15, 1072, the last English Orthodox bishop, Ethelric of Durham, after anathematizing the Pope, died in prison at Westminster, and the grace of the priesthood left the English land, in accordance with King Edward's prophecy. The last part of this prophecy remains to be fulfilled...
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2003, 11:11:06 PM »

very interesting Nicholas
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2003, 11:13:05 PM »

Joe,

Why does "Western" = "easily adaptable to America" and "Eastern" = "For Greeks, Russians, Serbs, etc."?  What does ethnicity have to do with liturgical rite?  A hundred years ago you might not have become a Roman Catholic because they were "German" or "Irish" or "Italian."

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2003, 11:23:05 PM »

Quote
I am working on a bit of a theory that the giving only the Bread to the laity seems to coincide with what is called "The Little Ice Age".  Grapes used to grow in southern England and Northern Europe but then the temperature cooled and this ended.  If there is only a small amount of wine and this must be imported, as many records and Medieval cookbooks refer to wine coming from Spain or other southern climes, but wheat still grows, thus there is bread, then could there be a corrolation? If there isn't any, it can't be  given after all.  More research....

A couple of points for your research, Ebor. First, for your theory to make sense you would have to show that communion in one kind began in the North, where grapes are scarce. I don't think that was the case.

Second, as an historian who has a special interest in the Germanic barbarians, I can say with some degree of assurance that wine began to be imported into the North at a pretty early date. If grapes were grown in southern England it was long before that area was known as "Angle-land," perhaps even before the Celts got there. I could be wrong, but I don't think any grapes were grown in England under the Anglo-Saxons. Remember, they arrived in Britain as pagans and were converted under Pope St. Gregory the Great and the latter St. Augustine.

The Germanic tribes, including the Anglo-Saxons, obtained wine in trade and as booty; the only native wine they knew was mead (honey wine), a product for which Britain was famous indeed. Roman colonists introduced viniculture to the middle Rhein and Mosel regions and among the Scandinavian (from Borgundarholm/Bornholm) Burgundians.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2003, 11:36:53 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2003, 11:43:36 PM »

Ebot, rood screens in the west are just common fact. Up to and even after the Reformation in Catholic and ProtestAnt churches! They are like an iconstasis just with a western look. (i.e. statues and paintings rather than icons)

Here, many rood screens can be found:

http://www.suffolkcc.gov.uk/tourism/churches/ne.html

http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/zrood.htm

http://members.aol.com/Dprsns827/Tintagel/roodscr.htm

http://members.aol.com/GDCSoul/paradise.htm

http://www.odox.net/Liturgy-Western-Culture3.htm

http://www.le.ac.uk/elh/pot/

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/visarts/projects/anglia/yaxley/yaxley.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=86078

Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2003, 02:55:51 AM »

Another "version" of the rood screen, a much scaled-back "version" if you will, is the archetrave.  This is a heavy beam going across the front of the sanctuary where the top of the rood screen/iconostas would ordinarily be expected.  The archetrave is normally topped by a "Golgotha," i.e., a  large central crucifix with St. John the Evangelist on one's right of the crucifix and the Theotokos on the left.  I saw one such archetrave still surviving in the old Roman Catholic church at Lake George, NY, some years ago.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2003, 07:59:36 AM »

There's been rather a barrage of messages here, so I'm going to have to take this in pieces.

The rood screen is not an analogue of the icnonstasis. There is a superficial physical resemblance, but it doesn't have the same function and it's not in the same place in the church.

Exactly what is going on with the rood itself is a little unclear. It may or may not have a gallery; in England a separate rood beam is pretty common. What the gallery is for is also unclear, because it seems to have been put to any number of purposes in different places, up to and including entire chapels.

The screen itself appears to have a practical purpose. It separates the chancel from the nave and makes the former into a separate subchapel. In a monastic establishment this separation would be made complete and the screen would be given a door (and would in fact mark the division between the monastery proper and the outer world). More typically it would separate the choir off for clergy offices (a function which one sees today on occaision).

What the screen does [/i]not[/i] have is any liturgical function-- indeed, the reason it isn't opaque (at least not on purpose) is that when the full church is being used, it's actually in the way of the liturgy. Medieval liturgy evolved to the point where the elevations during the anaphora were the focal point of the rite for the laity; the screen had to be transparent in order to allow the elevations to be seen. That's also why the painting of the the panels at the foot of the screen is a red herring. They were painted because they were there, and often enough they were there and not painted.

Likewise, the space in the choir isn't special, as the space behind the iconostasis is. (Or at least not in the same way-- the monastic situation above is an exception.) It's not the special province of the male clergy-- indeed, in a convent it is the special province of the nuns.

When gothic revival came along, rood screens were reintroduced because gothic churches had them. Around here one sees churches where the altar rail has been converted into a sort of screen, but these are open structures, and it is the railing that carries the function, not the rest of it. In Anglican usage the screen became more and more of a nuisance, and its inclusion became more and more wrong-headed. The high water mark of this is in the National Cathedral, where between the screen and the offset of the choir, about the only place you can actually see the high altar from is the west gallery. Therefore crossing altars have become the rule, in spite of the way they don't work with the rest of the architecture. Naturally, since the screen was there, people rationalized symbolic reasons for its existence, but it's quite clear that these are all after the fact.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2003, 08:06:38 AM »

Which leads us to the answer of why a preschism rite is actually unsuitable. Nobody really wants it. Nobody in the East wants to be taken back so far, because they would have to take down the iconostasis and prune back the liturgy radically.

Is this necessarily the case, though?  If the Western rite Orthodox used a pre-schism Western rite, would this require the Eastern Orthodox to change aspects of their Byzantine rite?  I wouldn't have thought so.  

The point is not that the East should give up its innovations, but that they I expect that they would doggedly refuse.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2003, 08:47:01 AM »

The business about these EO-ified Western rites being a return to preschism Roman practice is, frankly, rank bullsh*t, although the traditional Roman Rite (Sarum, Tridentine, etc.)'s 'core' is the same as in the early medieval period - the same Canon, for example, and even a lot of the same propers.

No - what most real Western Rite Orthodox use is a slightly byzantinized Prayer Book Anglo-Catholic service.

Actually, I would agree with this. One looks at the "Gregorian" service, for instance, and finds that it uses the old Anglican versions of such elements as the Gloria and the Sanctus. (It does have its own anaphora.)

Quote
Their churches are very beautiful and their faith and worship are quite orthodox, as are those of the Byzantine Catholics - but they are as odd and unhistorical IMO as the Byzantine Catholics are, under the Pope of Rome and cut off from the Orthodox Churches whence they came.

And the supposed re-creations of preschism Roman Rite uses and other Latin rites likewise are beautiful and orthodox but they're fake because there is no living, unbroken tradition of using them. It's historical re-enactors in church - British Museum religion. I can't see such getting any real following.

I have to ask what "unhistorical" means and why it matters at all. I know real re-enactors, and this is quite clearly not the same thing. (For that matter, I have participated in a group that does "re-enactments" of older liturgies-- that is, they do worship now using old forms and old music. Your mileage may vary as to the "validity" of this.)

As far as the Anglican refugees are concerned, obviously there is a history and a tradition. It is an Anglican history, of course, and now it is being subjected to new history and thus changed.

Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,368


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2003, 09:03:08 AM »

The point is not that the East should give up its innovations, but that they I expect that they would doggedly refuse.


Probably, but that they would have occasion to doggedly refuse to give up innovations suggests, at least to me, that there would be those advocating that they give them up.  I am basically wondering if there would indeed be people advocating this, and who they would be.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Boswell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Bi, poly, trans and ex-Orthodox


« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2003, 09:44:19 AM »

Let me post interesting excerpts from comments that were recently posted at he Euphrosynos Cafe about this very topic of pre-schism Orthodoxy in Britain. (Posted at http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=160&start=20)

In 1054, however, the final and complete break between Rome and Constantinople took place, and was sealed by a fearful anathema. From that moment it became imperative for all members of the Roman Patriarchate to separate from their cursed head on earth if they were to remain members of the Body of Christ Whose Blessed Head was in heaven. One is therefore struck to learn - and the believer in Divine Providence can hardly consider it a coincidence - that from 1052, two years before the anathema, until the completion of the Norman Conquest of England in 1070, the English Church was in fact not in communion with Rome, and was only reintegrated after the most bloody genocide of the English people!  

King Edward died on January 5, 1066. One year and one day after his death, on January 6, 1067, the Roman Catholic William the Conqueror was crowned king of England in Westminster Abbey. Then began a terrible campaign of pillage and bloodshed by the Conqueror against the English people, which culminated in the pseudo-council of Winchester in 1070, when papal legates deposed the Orthodox Archbishop Stigand, who had refused to crown William, and placed the Roman Catholic Lanfranc in his place. On October 15, 1072, the last English Orthodox bishop, Ethelric of Durham, after anathematizing the Pope, died in prison at Westminster, and the grace of the priesthood left the English land, in accordance with King Edward's prophecy. The last part of this prophecy remains to be fulfilled...


An Orthodox conspiracy theory if there ever was one...

Boswell
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2003, 09:49:12 AM »

Let me post interesting excerpts from comments that were recently posted at he Euphrosynos Cafe about this very topic of pre-schism Orthodoxy in Britain. (Posted at http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=160&start=20)

In 1054, however, the final and complete break between Rome and Constantinople took place, and was sealed by a fearful anathema. From that moment it became imperative for all members of the Roman Patriarchate to separate from their cursed head on earth if they were to remain members of the Body of Christ Whose Blessed Head was in heaven. One is therefore struck to learn - and the believer in Divine Providence can hardly consider it a coincidence - that from 1052, two years before the anathema, until the completion of the Norman Conquest of England in 1070, the English Church was in fact not in communion with Rome, and was only reintegrated after the most bloody genocide of the English people!  

King Edward died on January 5, 1066. One year and one day after his death, on January 6, 1067, the Roman Catholic William the Conqueror was crowned king of England in Westminster Abbey. Then began a terrible campaign of pillage and bloodshed by the Conqueror against the English people, which culminated in the pseudo-council of Winchester in 1070, when papal legates deposed the Orthodox Archbishop Stigand, who had refused to crown William, and placed the Roman Catholic Lanfranc in his place. On October 15, 1072, the last English Orthodox bishop, Ethelric of Durham, after anathematizing the Pope, died in prison at Westminster, and the grace of the priesthood left the English land, in accordance with King Edward's prophecy. The last part of this prophecy remains to be fulfilled...

Please. England by this date had been Roman Catholic for hundreds of years. This isn't about religion; it's about politics.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2003, 11:25:12 AM »

Let me post interesting excerpts from comments that were recently posted at he Euphrosynos Cafe about this very topic of pre-schism Orthodoxy in Britain. (Posted at http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=160&start=20)

In 1054, however, the final and complete break between Rome and Constantinople took place, and was sealed by a fearful anathema. From that moment it became imperative for all members of the Roman Patriarchate to separate from their cursed head on earth if they were to remain members of the Body of Christ Whose Blessed Head was in heaven. One is therefore struck to learn - and the believer in Divine Providence can hardly consider it a coincidence - that from 1052, two years before the anathema, until the completion of the Norman Conquest of England in 1070, the English Church was in fact not in communion with Rome, and was only reintegrated after the most bloody genocide of the English people!  

King Edward died on January 5, 1066. One year and one day after his death, on January 6, 1067, the Roman Catholic William the Conqueror was crowned king of England in Westminster Abbey. Then began a terrible campaign of pillage and bloodshed by the Conqueror against the English people, which culminated in the pseudo-council of Winchester in 1070, when papal legates deposed the Orthodox Archbishop Stigand, who had refused to crown William, and placed the Roman Catholic Lanfranc in his place. On October 15, 1072, the last English Orthodox bishop, Ethelric of Durham, after anathematizing the Pope, died in prison at Westminster, and the grace of the priesthood left the English land, in accordance with King Edward's prophecy. The last part of this prophecy remains to be fulfilled...

Please. England by this date had been Roman Catholic for hundreds of years. This isn't about religion; it's about politics.


No. England had been Catholic for hundreds of years.

There was no Roman Catholic Church (as separate from the Orthodox Church)  before the Great Schism.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2003, 12:48:36 PM »

Quote
In 1054, however, the final and complete break between Rome and Constantinople took place, and was sealed by a fearful anathema. From that moment it became imperative for all members of the Roman Patriarchate to separate from their cursed head on earth if they were to remain members of the Body of Christ Whose Blessed Head was in heaven.

Here's why, like calling the Anglo-Saxon Roman Rite bishops of the time 'Orthodox', this (written by a English ROCOR priest - I've read the book) is stupid. Last week the Russian Church commemorated the moving of St Nicholas' bones to Bari, Italy and the Greek Church didn't - because it happened after (duh-duh-DUMMMMM) 1054. The Russian Church obviously didn't feel compelled to flee the 'evil' Pope of Rome just ’cos the Greeks had a row with him.

Revisionist propaganda. Nothing more.

Quote
some people are mystified and drawn in by Byzantine practices.  But many, and at  one time including myself, are turned off by Byzantine Practices (I'm an American durnit not a Greek, Russian, Serb, etc.).  Also we fail to realize the drawing point of Orthodoxy when we focus on the rite and ritual as important though they be.  The main drawing point for Orthodoxy (and I'm sure Nik would agree) was TRUTH, not some rite or ritual.

You seem to have become an instant authority on a church you've only been to one weekend in your whole young life.

We get it - you don't really like Eastern Orthodoxy. You seem determined to convert to prove something to somebody in spite of not really liking the rite or culture. (Reminds me of those poor kids on the TV program 'Fear Factor' eating worms.)

Don't become another spite convert who chucks it after a year or two.

Brigid, OTOH, is not a spite convert but a healthy one who sees EOxy as part of a whole with one's own past and doesn't feel compelled to hate one's heritage. (The holiest people I know are exactly like B. in that regard.) I say there's a difference because healthy people 'fall in love' with the other rite, see the obvious parallels and make a relatively painless one-on-one switch of practices, etc.

Where you're coming from, Joe, I wouldn't even recommend you make a canonical switch to Byzantine Catholicism, let alone convert to a church your heart obviously isn't in.

Quote
Why does "Western" = "easily adaptable to America" and "Eastern" = "For Greeks, Russians, Serbs, etc."?  What does ethnicity have to do with liturgical rite?  A hundred years ago you might not have become a Roman Catholic because they were "German" or "Irish" or "Italian."

Well put.

Quote
I have to ask what "unhistorical" means and why it matters at all.

Historically, those using Prayer Book Anglo-Catholic services, the English Missal and the Tridentine Mass are offshoots of Roman Catholicism (the Pope) and never were under the Byzantine patriarchs. Just like the ancestors of the Byzantine Catholics were under those patriarchs and never directly 'under the Pope', even preschism, unlike the present-day BCs, who really are an appendage of the Roman Catholic Church, all protests to the contrary notwithstanding. (As a friend once put it, on the official level they're RCs trying to sound and act Orthodox.) Such arrangements as exist today with 'Uniates' of either flavor strike me as false.

Does it matter, Keble? I can't articulate why but yes, it does, even though the people in question are orthodox.

My guess is even the nonexpert can see the unsteady historical foundation of such things - the relative rootlessness - and so they don't get much of a following.

I won't get into objective right and wrong here, but practically speaking, and this makes historical sense, if one wants to be Western, apostolic and traditional, be a Roman Catholic and fight it out there. Anglo-Catholics can either fight it out in their natural home, the Pope's Church, or make the best of it in the Continuing Churches.

If one is in love with the Byzantine Way, be Orthodox. (Coptic Way = be a Copt, etc.)

Quote
Please. England by this date had been Roman Catholic for hundreds of years. This isn't about religion; it's about politics.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Quote
No. England had been Catholic for hundreds of years.

There was no Roman Catholic Church (as separate from the Orthodox Church)  before the Great Schism.

Also true.

Regarding re-enacting extinct rites and uses: not a bad thing in itself, Keble, certainly not evil. As for 'validity', to use a word peculiar to the West, in my view it would depend on whether a priest from a real apostolic church was doing it under the authority (omophor in Orthodox-speak) of his bishop. My point is one can't reasonably expect such lab-experiment rites, with no living tradition in the memory of a people, to get any real following.
Logged

The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2003, 12:55:17 PM »

The Milan Synod that St Hilarion's Monastery (odox.net) now belongs to are not in the Eastern Orthodox communion - they are Greek Old Calendarists who used to be in communion with ROCOR (?) but aren't now.
Logged

Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2003, 01:08:15 PM »

However, the Slavic Grapevine contains rumors that they will again be in communion soon quite possibly. (The GOCs rejected the TOC for being ecumenists, and formal communion between ROCOR and the TOC is what ended said communion as I understand)

Of course that throws Anastasios' unanswered question back into play. If communion happens again, the minute before are their sacraments invalid and a minute later mysticly valid?
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2003, 01:09:55 PM »

The Milan Synod that St Hilarion's Monastery (odox.net) now belongs to are not in the Eastern Orthodox communion - they are Greek Old Calendarists who used to be in communion with ROCOR (?) but aren't now.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Serge, is the so-called Milan Synod in communion with anyone else, be they Greek Old Calendarist or not?  Are they "vagantes?" or just , ahem, schismatics?  {{{{shuddering as I think of the possibilities}}}}

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: May 29, 2003, 01:14:09 PM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2003, 01:13:35 PM »

Hypo,

No, they're not in communion with anyone else. Yes, they're vagantes.
Logged

SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2003, 01:17:13 PM »

Quote
In 1054, however, the final and complete break between Rome and Constantinople took place, and was sealed by a fearful anathema. From that moment it became imperative for all members of the Roman Patriarchate to separate from their cursed head on earth if they were to remain members of the Body of Christ Whose Blessed Head was in heaven.

Here's why, like calling the Anglo-Saxon Roman Rite bishops of the time 'Orthodox', this (written by a English ROCOR priest - I've read the book) is stupid. Last week the Russian Church commemorated the moving of St Nicholas' bones to Bari, Italy and the Greek Church didn't - because it happened after (duh-duh-DUMMMMM) 1054. The Russian Church obviously didn't feel compelled to flee the 'evil' Pope of Rome just ’cos the Greeks had a row with him.

And Patriarch Peter of Antioch protested against that ecclessiastical bar brawl.

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: May 29, 2003, 01:18:14 PM by SamB » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2003, 01:20:02 PM »

Quote
The Milan Synod that St Hilarion's Monastery (odox.net) now belongs to are not in the Eastern Orthodox communion - they are Greek Old Calendarists who used to be in communion with ROCOR (?) but aren't now.

Just out of curiousity who appointed you the supreme judge of this?   Just because you have made up some arbitrary system of determining if you accept a group doesn't make it valid in the real world.  You'll accept the validity of the Latins yet not the Greek Old Calendarists.....how strange.  Rather than attacking Joe's Orthodoxy every chance you get maybe you should work on your own Orthodoxy?  The religion of Serge gets stranger everyday.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2003, 01:37:31 PM »

Kalispera, Nektarios.

Quote
Just out of curiousity who appointed you the supreme judge of this?


I have nothing to do with it - it's basic ecclesiology and with a particularly Eastern Orthodox accent.

Quote
Just because you have made up some arbitrary system of determining if you accept a group doesn't make it valid in the real world.  

I didn't make anything up - as I understand it EOxy doesn't call groups outside its communion 'Orthodox'.

Quote
You'll accept the validity of the Latins yet not the Greek Old Calendarists.....how strange.


'Validity'? What one thinks of the Catholic communion is beyond the scope of this discussion. But the only way one can see the Greek OCs as, ahem, 'valid' (to use a non-EO word) is to fall back on Roman Catholic theology of the Church and of the sacraments. How ironic.

The Byzantine Rite churches that have left the EO communion may well have grace as may the churches under the Pope. But none of these are big-O Orthodox - that was my point.

Quote
Rather than attacking Joe's Orthodoxy every chance you get maybe you should work on your own Orthodoxy?  The religion of Serge gets stranger everyday.  

I'd rather be 'strange' than one of those hateful 'born-again Orthodox' types who explode or shatter into madness after a short time.

I'm not attacking Joe's Orthodoxy because there is no big-O Orthodoxy to attack in this case!

Anyway, I've already written here and on the blog a short summary of what I believe (see blog entry for May 16). IMO EOxy holds all the same beliefs, the same doctrinal, credal statements.

If fundamental apostolic Christianity that includes but transcends rite or ethnicity is strange, so be it.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2003, 01:48:00 PM by Serge » Logged

SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2003, 02:16:21 PM »

Reading the posts on the modifications to the Western Rite in the Orthodox Church, I agree with Serge, and will add some comments of my own:

I understand the Eastern Orthodox thinking behind it, given EOxy's view that it alone is the true church and its agnosticism about anyone else, but I'm sure most here understand how hurtful and hypocritical it appears to Catholics and others, especially when some EOs complain about Uniatism as a proselytism tool, even though that was centuries ago.

Yeppers.  Not surprising given this basic dogmatic premise, but it can blind its adherents to the point of having them commit themselves to a mentality no different from that of the strongly latinized E.C.  This goes along the lines of, "The Catholic Faith is first and foremost; the rest--rite or otherwise--is entirely dispensible."  Such betrays a lack of dedication to truly and reverently preserve the Western Rite intact.  This thinking is similiar to the error of taking an extreme position on say, the cultural, ethnic, and ritual components of a Church, a position built upon the premise that since the Church cannot and should not be reduced to nothing more than ethnic clubs and ghettoes (as true as such an assertion--in highlighting the harm and damage associated with such a floorplan--can be) then on the basis of the idea that Orthodoxy the Abstract (or the Catholic Faith to parallel this with the E.C. line mentioned before) is supreme above all else, everything else can and preferably should be relegated to the maw of oblivion, forgetting the fact that though Orthodoxy and Catholicism transcend culture, ethnicity, and ritual, these qualities are nevertheless contained and included in and embraced by the Church and the Faith, and form some of the former's building blocks.  This sort of attitude can be seen also in the desire of some Orthodox (or rather their indifference to the idea) to have Catholicism (and one fears, Oriental Orthodoxy)—presumably in conformity with the doctrine of one Apostolic Church--assimilated and unpleasantly gobbled up* without regard to the fact that such would entail no different a process than what the Eastern Catholics went through--a detachment from the traditional roots that had sustained Western Christianity, and an uprooting from the paradigms and historical context in which it has operated, and the reduction of that organic body into an ecclessiastical lab experiment or 'mock church', as Serge calls it, that requires the pretense of a return to traditional preschism 'Western Orthodoxy' in order to save face.  Eastern Catholics, a good deal of them anyways, lament the deterioration that their Churches suffered due to their communion with the West.  In the same vein, Serge and I do not wish to see Western Christianity suffer such a fate either (yes, it already has, but let us assume that a restoration will take place in the coming generations).  In the Orthodox Church, this sort of extinction of patrimony has already happened with Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and this was an insidious development that paralleled what some R.C.'s wanted of the Orthodox, an absorption into Latin Christianity (or a transformation into a deformed shrivelled reservation called a Rite) and a Tridentine blanket covering the entire Christian world.

*Montreal is a center of Roman Catholicism with a legacy and history that visibly cries out the mark the Church has left on her.  One Orthodox acquaintance could hardly wait to convert Montreal into an Orthodox city (of course when such is said concerning European Catholic nations boasting of longer periods of existance and with entire histories and experiences steeped in this Western Catholic tradition, 'blech''s the word), which irks me as much as Latins who wouldn't give a care about the patrimonies, histories, and venerable traditions of countries like Russia and the Middle East where Christianity was born, and who carry a social engineer's zeal to convert the entire landmass to Tridentine Roman Catholicism or to reduce the Orthodox world to what the E.C. Churches are today and, in the manner of a bull in a china shop, to break their fragile (as in vulnerable to attack by greater, larger forces) traditions so carefully maintained and preserved and having survived persecution and centuries of threats.

Quote
Just like 'Catholic is Roman' or 'Roman is more Catholic than Byzantine', byzantinocentrism among the EOs does come off as arrogant and bigoted, as does the byzantinization of the current traditional Western rites now used by some EOs. Just as wrong, stupid and unhistorical as the self-latinizations among the Byzantine Catholics.


Yes.  The Eastern Orthodox Church is ultimately Byzanto-centric and hence I think poses a danger of disfigurement to every foreign Rite it takes in (Old Believer traditions excepted) in the same way the Latino-centric Catholic Church does.  The gutting of an entire Western patrimony for a Byzantized liturgical experiment directed by people of ecclesiastical authority who are probably as incompetent and inexperienced in and detached from Western Christian spirituality and traditions as Vatican modernist bureaucrats are in and from basic religion and any proper sense of liturgy (much less Eastern Christianity) is atrocious.  The indifference to such, followed by gleeful shouts and contemptible declarations of joy for eg. 'France having finally returned to Orthodoxy', is too much.  That being said, I don't imply that the Western Rite isn't celebrated beautifully, but that in the Orthodox Church it remains something synthetic that is tinkered with in a manner it shouldn't be.

The R.C.C. (and E.C.C.'s themselves were in many cases culpable in large measure, sometimes more than Rome) had in many cases assaulted the traditions of both the E.C.'s that forged communion with it (and the killer blow that downgraded said Churches into cardboard was the extinguishing of the spirit of monasticism in the E.C. Churches), and non-Catholic Eastern Churches, such as what we had in the cases of Ethiopia and India.

On the other hand, Eastern Orthodoxy was instrumental in the obliteration of the Antiochian, Jerusalemite, and Alexandrian traditions, and (along with other factours such as Islam's consolidation of power over the region) even saw Antioch treated as Constantinople's vassal.

Quote
Their churches are very beautiful and their faith and worship are quite orthodox, as are those of the Byzantine Catholics - but they are as odd and unhistorical IMO as the Byzantine Catholics are, under the Pope of Rome and cut off from the Orthodox Churches whence they came.

Correct.

Quote
And the supposed re-creations of preschism Roman Rite uses and other Latin rites likewise are beautiful and orthodox but they're fake because there is no living, unbroken tradition of using them. It's historical re-enactors in church - British Museum religion. I can't see such getting any real following.

Trying to find out what preschism Western Catholicism looked and sounded like is a daunting task.  Again, I recommend Marcel Peres' circle of scholars and researchers who have devoted much to studying the various Western Rites and to reproducing them in as accurate a way as possible.  They concentrate especially on the Eastern influence on these Rites.  Lycourgos Angelopoulos, well known Greek Orthodox, is a part of the team.

Ultimately, the two sides, each being the only valid patrons and guardians of their own traditions must effect a reconciliation with the preservation of all these traditions being everyone's concern.  Uniatism from both sides doesn't help.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #63 on: May 29, 2003, 02:23:39 PM »


Please. England by this date had been Roman Catholic for hundreds of years. This isn't about religion; it's about politics.


No. England had been Catholic for hundreds of years.

There was no Roman Catholic Church (as separate from the Orthodox Church)  before the Great Schism.

Well, um, that's not strictly true. England was under the jurisdiction of the Pope, not under any Eastern patriarchate (or some other mythical western patriarchate). It's meaningless to talk about Saxon England being somehow organizationally distinct from Norman England in matters of religion. One cannot draw religious distinctions between Harold and William. The notion that Saxon England in 1065 somehow retained an Orthodoxy which Normandy had lost by 1066 is sheer fantasy.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #64 on: May 29, 2003, 02:24:02 PM »

Quote
Kalispera, Nektarios.

Kalimera (still morning way out here on the west coast)

Quote
I have nothing to do with it - it's basic ecclesiology and with a particularly Eastern Orthodox accent.

Not always though.  In the cases of local churches going into schism over autocephaly being granted in the past I would still hold both Constatinople and the other church involved to be Orthodox at the same time.  In the same way the 20th century had a lot of extradinary events between the Soviets and the calendar change and the ecumenical movement.  So under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but I think some economy is needed when dealing with the Old Calendar (and out of communion groups). The Milan Synod is both Orthodox in praxis and creed plus it's bishops were ordained by ROCOR ergo I think vagante is a little too harsh of a word.  


Quote
'Validity'? What one thinks of the Catholic communion is beyond the scope of this discussion. But the only way one can see the Greek OCs as, ahem, 'valid' (to use a non-EO word) is to fall back on Roman Catholic theology of the Church and of the sacraments. How ironic.

Since the Greek OCs believe in the same thing World Orthodoxy did 150 years ago how can they not be Orthodox?  That isn't borrowing the RC theology.  It would be if I believed their mysteries were "illicit," but I do not believe so.  As for using the term valid I simply meant it as a synonym for Grace filled; thank you though for the correct regarding the term.  


Quote
I'd rather be 'strange' than one of those hateful 'born-again Orthodox' types who explode or shatter into madness after a short time.

I'm not attacking Joe's Orthodoxy because there is no big-O Orthodoxy to attack in this case!

That last sentence shows exactly what I was complaining about!  He has said numerous times he believes dogmaticly as the Orthodox Church believes.  You're reducing Orthodoxy to how Byzantinophilic one is...not whether a person believes in the Orthodox faith.  When I first came to Orthodoxy it was because I thought it held the true faith - even though I still to this day like the old Roman Rite.  With time I have picked up some Greek and now actually prefer the Byzantine...give Joe time before attacking him.  My first few times even at all English liturgies weren't easy either...even though I loved the beauty of it, it was still way outside my "comfort zone."  IMO the most important thing for a convert is an Orthodox heart (not always Byzantine) via the Jesus Prayer.  The rest will come later if this is established.


Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 29, 2003, 02:38:58 PM »

Thanks, Samer. Ditto.

Quote
England was under the jurisdiction of the Pope, not under any Eastern patriarchate (or some other mythical western patriarchate). It's meaningless to talk about Saxon England being somehow organizationally distinct from Norman England in matters of religion. One cannot draw religious distinctions between Harold and William. The notion that Saxon England in 1065 somehow retained an Orthodoxy which Normandy had lost by 1066 is sheer fantasy.

Hear, hear.

Quote
Since the Greek OCs believe in the same thing World Orthodoxy did 150 years ago how can they not be Orthodox?

Because they aren't in the Eastern Orthodox communion now. Good point about schisms over autocephaly, though.

Quote
He has said numerous times he believes dogmaticly as the Orthodox Church believes.

Numerous times - that says something right there. IMO Joe is writing things he thinks the board wants to read and that he doesn't necessarily understand. One cannot commit to a church one has visited only once and whose rite and culture one doesn't like.

Quote
You're reducing Orthodoxy to how Byzantinophilic one is...not whether a person believes in the Orthodox faith.

All the positive, required, dogmatic beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy = Catholicism in 11th-century Greek theological language.

Add to that the Byzantine Rite and the present configuration of the EO communion = EOxy!
« Last Edit: May 29, 2003, 02:42:24 PM by Serge » Logged

JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 29, 2003, 03:10:50 PM »

Boy Serge, it amazes me that after having never met me in person, and had no form of contact with me for nearly a month (and before that little if any contact due to your blabbing of the contents of a private message on this forum), you can act as if you are an expert on anything regarding Joe Zollars.  

How do you know if I have only visited an EO Church once.  

How do you know my feelings regarding the byzantine rite?  Yes my original reaction was dislike because it was foreign, but I have grown to love the Eastern Tradition (even if I myself will never consider myself to be Eastern).  You would know of my love for the Eastern Orthodox Faith if I thought for one instant that you were trustworthy.  

I also find it interesting that you would call the Greek Old Calandrists vagantes but speak so highly of the heretical Latins.  

Anastasios,

Because America has a primarily Western European culture.  The Byzantine Rite was adapted to its varios Eastern Cultures, but Western Europe had Western Rites.  

Keble,

England WAS under the Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, but the aforementioned Patriarch was once an Orthodox Heirarch, before he left the Blessed Communion of the Holy Orthodox Church and took most of Western Europe with it.  Why do you think St. Harold, the last Orthodox king of England, refused to pay the Peters Pence?  And thus the Pope blessed William to invade England and execute those who refused to pay the Peter's Pence.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #67 on: May 29, 2003, 04:15:23 PM »

[quote author=Ebor

Yes, indeed.  From my reading, many who espouse "Celtic Christianity" go to it with a idea of "This was the warm, egalitarian mutual woman affirming, nature loving Christianity before those Awful Romans took over".  A sort of allergic reaction to things Latin maybe.  But since little is known, they "reconstruct" i.e. make it up.  Then you get the things like "St. Brigid was  *really* a goddess who was taken over by the evil misogynist RC's" new age stuff.  (gag and also *bang head on keyboard*).

All this makes me wonder if the proponents have actually read Patrick's "Confession" or for that matter "The Tain" for a classic Irish work.  Not warm and fuzzy, but an epic.

Quote

Ebor,
You speak as one after my own heart. When I read the lives of Celtic saints like Kevin of Glendalough, Colum Cille etc. I was struck by the parallels with the spirituality of the Desert Fathers. There is asceticism and struggle with the passions in the lives of these saints, not the cosy comfortable banalities of these modern 'Celts'.

I doubt very much whether too many of these beautiful New Age Celtic people have ever heard of The Tain let alone read it.  One epic I am currently enjoying, however,  is your own story and I look forward to the next instalment!

Brigid

Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #68 on: May 29, 2003, 04:25:51 PM »

Quote
Because they aren't in the Eastern Orthodox communion now. Good point about schisms over autocephaly, though.

What I don't understand is how one can be 100% Orthodox in praxis and faith and suddenly not be Orthodox.  I agree it is an irregular situation (but then again strictly speaking everysinge Orthodox jurisdiction has at least one irregularity - not using the term uncanonical on purpose).  I guess that's why I like the moderate stance of Traditionalists within World Orthodox jurisdictions, they can see at the end of the day everybody in question is really Orthodox.

Quote
One cannot commit to a church one has visited only once and whose rite and culture one doesn't like.

I still don't know what to think of Greek Culture (MY Big Fat Greek Wedding type of Greek Culture).  I am actaully somewhat terrified by it.  But you couldn't do anything to get me away from Orthodoxy.  The culture that really has drawn me in is the monastic culture.  I'd recomend any convert that doesn't know what to make of the Russain/Greek/Serbian thing look into this "culture."  There isn't a great deal of difference from the Rule of Saint Benedict (something I'd assume Joe likes) and the daily life of Orthodox monastics.  It just takes time and patience to work into these things.


Quote
All the positive, required, dogmatic beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy = Catholicism in 11th-century Greek theological language.

One difference that changes everything:  Hesychism!

This makes the entire approach of Orthodoxy different.  Wasn't Bishop Kallistos who said when comparing Orthodoxy to Protestants and Catholics that it is not so much the answers are different but that the questions themselves are differnt (sorry I loaned me copy of "The Orthodox Church" to friend so can't get an exact quote).  

Completely off topic:

I just got a call for a job interview tomorrow at 9:30...could everyone please say an extra prayer for me.  

Many thanks,

Nektarios
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #69 on: May 29, 2003, 04:49:41 PM »

Quote
I won't get into objective right and wrong here, but practically speaking, and this makes historical sense, if one wants to be Western, apostolic and traditional, be a Roman Catholic and fight it out there.

Serge -

Maybe I missed something, but how can one be "apostolic and traditional" and not get into "objective right and wrong"?

If the RCC has gone down the wrong road doctrinally, as we EOs believe, then how can one be truly apostolic and traditional within that communion?

After all, what liturgy one uses - Western, Eastern, or Weastern - pales to insignificance beside the doctrinal issues that divide the Roman Church from the Orthodox Church.

I am not trying to bad-mouth the RCC. I am very open to RCs and often make common cause with them in other venues.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #70 on: May 29, 2003, 04:59:48 PM »


Please. England by this date had been Roman Catholic for hundreds of years. This isn't about religion; it's about politics.


No. England had been Catholic for hundreds of years.

There was no Roman Catholic Church (as separate from the Orthodox Church)  before the Great Schism.

Well, um, that's not strictly true. England was under the jurisdiction of the Pope, not under any Eastern patriarchate (or some other mythical western patriarchate). It's meaningless to talk about Saxon England being somehow organizationally distinct from Norman England in matters of religion. One cannot draw religious distinctions between Harold and William. The notion that Saxon England in 1065 somehow retained an Orthodoxy which Normandy had lost by 1066 is sheer fantasy.


The Pope was a bishop of the undivided Catholic Church before the Great Schism.

There was no separate religion or church called Roman Catholic.

I did not draw distinctions between Harold and William, although there are plenty to draw.

Pre-Schism England may have been under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, but no one was Roman Catholic in those days, not even the Pope.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #71 on: May 29, 2003, 05:27:19 PM »

Re: hesychasm, a friend who is knowledgeable about these things agrees with me that theosis = sanctification. The rest is just a different in practice, not of faith.

OK, Linus, you got me as far as strict EO ecclesiology goes.

Nothing dogmatic in EOxy has said postschism Catholics are heretics. All one can say is they aren't Eastern Orthodox.

The Greek Old Calendarists were personally EOs who left, which is why the vagante label applies to them.
Logged

Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #72 on: May 29, 2003, 05:37:07 PM »

Quote
Nothing dogmatic in EOxy has said postschism Catholics are heretics. All one can say is they aren't Eastern Orthodox.

Well, I don't like to throw the word heretic around either. It is counterproductive, unnecessarily offensive, and it would have hurt my Grandma's feelings, too (she was RC, as were my Dad's sisters).

« Last Edit: May 29, 2003, 05:39:00 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #73 on: May 29, 2003, 06:21:31 PM »

The Pope was a bishop of the undivided Catholic Church before the Great Schism.

There was no separate religion or church called Roman Catholic.

I did not draw distinctions between Harold and William, although there are plenty to draw.

Pre-Schism England may have been under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, but no one was Roman Catholic in those days, not even the Pope.

Well, technically, in 1066 the pope was (supposedly) no longer Orthodox. But that's not the point.

In fact, I don't see what the point is in all this definitional distinction. It's not going to erase the reality that there was no holdout Saxon church against the "heresies" of Rome.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #74 on: May 29, 2003, 06:24:30 PM »

Quote
From Keble: By contrast, what the average person sees as being the chief differences beween modern western and eastern rites are all eastern innovations. A lot of the parts of a western liturgy are there, but they are nearly buried under a plethora of litanies and hidden behind a wall of icons.

I do not see how the iconostasis, which dates from at least the 4th century and possibly earlier, and some additional litanies (based as they are upon Scripture) are such tremedous "innovations." They seem to be rather legitimate additions or developments.

My changes are developments; your changes are innovations......

BTW, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the icnonstasis as we know it is a product of the 16th century. Not that they are an indiputable source, but 4th century seems like a reach to me.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2003, 06:37:40 PM »

Quote
From Keble: By contrast, what the average person sees as being the chief differences beween modern western and eastern rites are all eastern innovations. A lot of the parts of a western liturgy are there, but they are nearly buried under a plethora of litanies and hidden behind a wall of icons.

I do not see how the iconostasis, which dates from at least the 4th century and possibly earlier, and some additional litanies (based as they are upon Scripture) are such tremedous "innovations." They seem to be rather legitimate additions or developments.

My changes are developments; your changes are innovations......

BTW, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the icnonstasis as we know it is a product of the 16th century. Not that they are an indiputable source, but 4th century seems like a reach to me.


I never said all developments in the pre-Schism Western Rite were illegitimate. I do think communion in one kind is illegitimate, but that is a post-Schism innovation.

Remember, I am not one of those knocking the Western Rite or its use within Orthodoxy.

"Before the end of the fourth century in the East it began to be thought necessary to screen off the holy Table by curtains" (Chadwick, The Early Church, p. 267).

Those curtains can be regarded as a primitive iconostasis. Hagia Sophia had a similar iconostasis in the 6th century.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2003, 07:07:26 PM »

Interesting note on a shout out on Celtic Christianity from Serge's Blog:

It''s interesting to note that authentic Celtic Christianity placed a strong emphasis on the Most Holy Trinity.  While much of the lore about Saint Patrick may not be altogether historical, it does indicate the strong Trinitarian Faith of the Celtic Church.

Also, there was a great emphasis on monasticism, which in fact was the great engine of evangelism in the Celtic countries.

In many ways, the Celtic Church resembled Eastern Orthodoxy.

Of course the earliest references to Celtic Christians is in St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians. ....
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #77 on: May 29, 2003, 07:46:39 PM »

Quote
Re: hesychasm, a friend who is knowledgeable about these things agrees with me that theosis = sanctification. The rest is just a different in practice, not of faith.

My friends (mostly Athonite monks) that I have talked to say just the opposite.  Catholics teach that grace is created nor do they serperate energies from the essence of God.  The saints of the Church are all going to disagree with your position on this matter.  Even the modern saints like Saint Nektarios or Elder Joseph of the Holy Mountain.
 
Quote
Nothing dogmatic in EOxy has said postschism Catholics are heretics. All one can say is they aren't Eastern Orthodox.

Not so at all.  The witness of Saint Mark of Ephesos provides a prime example of this.  The Filioque, purgatory, papal infallibility are all heretical.  You simply can't be Orthodox and claim especially that last one is true.

Quote
The Greek Old Calendarists were personally EOs who left, which is why the vagante label applies to them.

The question keeps coming up, why so much papophilia and contempt for Greek OCs?  Like it or not the GOCs are Orthodox in both faith and praxis while the Latins are Orthodox in neither.
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #78 on: May 29, 2003, 07:50:00 PM »

I keep in mind that the main reason of the schism between Rome and Constantinople was not the Papacy or the filioque or other, but the two different cultures. It was a Byzantine-Latin schism mainly, as well as the other schisms such as that of Chalcedon were cultural and political schisms too. It's not a coincidence that there were no Anti-chalcedonian Byzantines or Latin non-chalcedonians as a Church, and if they existed they were absorbed. On the other side, the few Copt or Syriac Chalcedonians were absorbed into the Greek culture. Back to the 1054 schism, the Latins followed their Pope and the Byzantines their Church.

This is why i think the Western Rite, out of being an interesting liturgical experiment has no real success. Those ideas of the "Celtics" and the "iberian churches" being not with Rome or not Western are very much an Anglican myth of the XIX Century, and the restoration of liturgies that died centuries ago such as the celtic rites or the galican rite, would be liturgical archeologism.

I like Serge's article about the western Rite very much, explaining why the WR fails.

Herer is another thing I wrote about the WR, but someone told me some of the information was not accurate and i'd like to know if someone has some comments regarding my post

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=650;start=0

« Last Edit: May 29, 2003, 07:57:28 PM by Snoopy » Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #79 on: May 29, 2003, 07:58:04 PM »

The reasons for the schism are many, yes. But to say the papcy's new powers nor the filoque were not the major reasons would be in error. There is an excellent collection of articles on what caused the schism from the prologue to it to its epilogues here. I learned a lot from it and highly reccomend someone with a lot of time to read the stuff contained among it.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 29, 2003, 08:20:49 PM »

Interesting note on "canonicalness"

"some people can find themselves in a position that may be 'legally correct' but is at the same time profoundly un-Christian-ùas if the Christian conscience is compelled to obey any command of the church authorities, as long as these authorities are properly 'canonical.' This blind concept of obedience for its own sake is one of the chief causes for the success of Sergianism in our century-ùboth within and outside the Moscow Patriarchate." -Fr. Seraphim Rose
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #81 on: May 29, 2003, 08:35:52 PM »

This continual emphasis on the strawman of "Sergianism," a term *invented* by the ROCOR, is beginning to make me gag.   Lips Sealed  I knew Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his family personally for a while...I'd hate to tell you what he really thought of the myth of "Sergianist innovation."

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 29, 2003, 08:42:18 PM »

Hypo,

If you want to deny the heresy of Sergianism, then perhaps you should start a new thread or post it in the existing thread discussing it, rather than to take this thread off-topic.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #83 on: May 29, 2003, 08:48:29 PM »

Um, Nik, didn't *you* bring up the term in your quote from Father Seraphim Rose above as an example of "uncanonicalness?"

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #84 on: May 29, 2003, 09:03:19 PM »

Quote
My friends (mostly Athonite monks) that I have talked to say just the opposite.  Catholics teach that grace is created nor do they serperate energies from the essence of God.  The saints of the Church are all going to disagree with your position on this matter.  Even the modern saints like Saint Nektarios or Elder Joseph of the Holy Mountain.

That stuff goes over my head, and as for its impact on the life of the church and being the reason for the estrangement, most Catholics and most Eastern Orthodox wouldn't have any idea what the hell you're talking about. ('I am Orthodox because I was born Orthodox; I am Greek!') Saints' opinions are not dogma. Even the Church Fathers were wrong now and then.

Quote
Not so at all.  The witness of Saint Mark of Ephesos provides a prime example of this.  The Filioque, purgatory, papal infallibility are all heretical.  You simply can't be Orthodox and claim especially that last one is true.

Like I said. He wasn't an infallible guru either.

Quote
The question keeps coming up, why so much papophilia and contempt for Greek OCs?  Like it or not the GOCs are Orthodox in both faith and praxis while the Latins are Orthodox in neither.

But they're not in the Orthodox Church so how are they different, ecclesiologically, from Mar Harry the garage-church vagante?. As for 'papophilia', the Pope is a towering figure historically and culturally, like it or (as in your case) not, and he has done far more for Christian witness in the world, teaching against contraception, abortion and homosexuality and taking the secular world's derision for it, than a bunch of old Greek cranks yanking each other's beards anathematizing each other, denying each other's orders have grace and obsessing over a f***ing man-made calendar. (Billy Graham, wrong as he may be, probably is more appealing than these jokers.)

Quote
I keep in mind that the main reason of the schism between Rome and Constantinople was not the Papacy or the filioque or other, but the two different cultures. It was a Byzantine-Latin schism mainly, as well as the other schisms such as that of Chalcedon were cultural and political schisms too. It's not a coincidence that there were no Anti-chalcedonian Byzantines or Latin non-chalcedonians as a Church, and if they existed they were absorbed. On the other side, the few Copt or Syriac Chalcedonians were absorbed into the Greek culture. Back to the 1054 schism, the Latins followed their Pope and the Byzantines their Church.

This is why i think the Western Rite, out of being an interesting liturgical experiment has no real success. Those ideas of the "Celtics" and the "iberian churches" being not with Rome or not Western are very much an Anglican myth of the XIX Century, and the restoration of liturgies that died centuries ago such as the celtic rites or the galican rite, would be liturgical archeologism.

Amen.

Quote
But to say the papcy's new powers nor the filoque were not the major reasons would be in error.

Right or wrong, some Church Fathers held something like the filioque (St Augustine?), the Spanish started teaching it centuries before the estrangement and nobody thought of breaking communion over it - until the church became a political football between the German and Greek emperors. So how fershlugginer important can it really be?

As for the Pope thing (a real difference affecting ecclesiology in theory, to be sure - probably the only irreducible difference IMO), it wasn't dogmatized until the 19th century.

Quote
"some people can find themselves in a position that may be 'legally correct' but is at the same time profoundly un-Christian-ùas if the Christian conscience is compelled to obey any command of the church authorities, as long as these authorities are properly 'canonical.' This blind concept of obedience for its own sake is one of the chief causes for the success of Sergianism in our century-ùboth within and outside the Moscow Patriarchate." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

Which is why some people seemingly outside the church will be in heaven and some visibly in the church won't.

Quote
This continual emphasis on the strawman of "Sergianism," a term *invented* by the ROCOR, is beginning to make me gag.    I knew Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his family personally for a while...I'd hate to tell you what he really thought of the myth of "Sergianist innovation."

Not trusting the MP in Soviet times was right. But what on earth has this got to do with the issue at hand - Western rites in Eastern Orthodoxy?
Logged

Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2003, 09:04:58 PM »

It was in the quote, but it was the talking about being legally correct and canonical yet un-Christian, that brought me to use the quote here. He could have been talking about any other heresy from monophysitism to arianism to nestorianism. Again, if you want to deny the heresy of sergianism, feel free to quote my posting and take it to an appropriate thread.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2003, 09:35:16 PM »

Quote
That stuff goes over my head, and as for its impact on the life of the church and being the reason for the estrangement, most Catholics and most Eastern Orthodox wouldn't have any idea what the hell you're talking about. ('I am Orthodox because I was born Orthodox; I am Greek!') Saints' opinions are not dogma. Even the Church Fathers were wrong now and then.

This is the very heart and soul of Orthodoxy though.  If Theosis isn't possible because the light of Tabor was created then this is all for naught.  There is a huge reason Saint Gregory Palamas is so important.  And I'm NOT Greek - I don't care one iota (no poor pun intended) about cultre or nationality here.  You say Saints opinions don't matter but the VAST MAJORITY the so called "mind of the fathers" is abudantly clear that this issue is important and that the Latins are heretics.  You can't have it both ways denying the importance of the majority of fathers than claiming that the odd-ball (Bl. Augustine on the procession of the Holy Spirit) justifies inovative doctrine.  

Quote
Like I said. He wasn't an infallible guru either.

He is just one man in a long long trend of martyrs...  The problem is that it isn't just one father.  Besides Orthodox people don't refer to the fathers or the saints mockingly as infallible gurus.

Quote
But they're not in the Orthodox Church so how are they different, ecclesiologically, from Mar Harry the garage-church vagante?. As for 'papophilia', the Pope is a towering figure historically and culturally, like it or (as in your case) not, and he has done far more for Christian witness in the world, teaching against contraception, abortion and homosexuality and taking the secular world's derision for it, than a bunch of old Greek cranks yanking each other's beards anathematizing each other, denying each other's orders have grace and obsessing over a f***ing man-made calendar. (Billy Graham, wrong as he may be, probably is more appealing than these jokers.)

I am NOT GOC, nor do I intend to be one or agree with everything they have done.  I am GOA for a reason.  But they still are Orthodox at the end of the day.  A group that has order from ROCOR is not the the same thing as any old dude setting up shop in his garage.  The fact that you lable them both vagante is more telling of your discernment than anything else.  Yes the Pope of Rome has done some good things.  His role in the overthrow of communism is often overlooked and he is responsible for many philanthropic deeds.  But none of this makes him hold the True Faith.  



Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 29, 2003, 10:02:21 PM »

Quote
I am NOT GOC, nor do I intend to be one or agree with everything they have done.  I am GOA for a reason.  But they still are Orthodox at the end of the day.  A group that has order from ROCOR is not the the same thing as any old dude setting up shop in his garage.  The fact that you lable them both vagante is more telling of your discernment than anything else.  Yes the Pope of Rome has done some good things.  His role in the overthrow of communism is often overlooked and he is responsible for many philanthropic deeds.  But none of this makes him hold the True Faith.

amen, Amen, and AMEN.  Allow me a short relapse into my old fundagelical days, "Preach it Brother Nektarios."  Relaps ended.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #88 on: May 29, 2003, 10:03:09 PM »

Wow everyone is really getting angry here, but the discussion is interesting.

Serge,

The argument need not be over your head; ask and it will be explained to you.  Basically the issue is: is grace a THING that God made, such as a tree, our human soul, etc.  Protestants often liken grace to a feeling (c.f. their frequent equation of grace with God's mercy), for instance.

Or is grace God himself in his energies (actions), in other words, when God acts does he act by making contact with others in a real way, or does he use a created substance, a power, whatever you want to call it, to affect the thing?  In option 1, the thing becomes one with God, in option 2, the thing is merely influenced.

Orthodox theology teaches that grace is God's energies and is as such truly Him, His presence in the world, etc.  Latins tended to teach the opposite, that grace was a thing.  If it is a thing, St. Gregory Palamas taught, then man can't have union with God because no communion occurs (no contact).

Nektarios,

I think what Serge is trying to say is don't quote every Church Father on everything he says, as if every word were inspired. Using St. Mark of Ephesus as an example, since he was mentioned, he is certainly a saint but from my reading of his teachings he didn't really understand what the Latins thought about purgatory all too well.  He was reacting very strongly in some respects to what he THOUGHT Latins believed. Also, if you read Eustratios Argenti by Timothy (aka Bp Kallistos) Ware, you will see that there were Orthodox into the 1700's who believed in a purgatorial state.  Sure we now would say "they're wrong!" but there was considerable debate about an after-death purification in the 16-1700's Greek world.  One must take all of that into account before one quotes Fathers.  I only bring that subject up to show this, not to try and argue about purgatory which I don't believe in.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2003, 10:08:34 PM »

The writing of services for Western Orthodox Saints was first encouraged, in modern times, by the recently glorified St. John Maximovich, while he was archbishop of Western Europe for the Russian Church Abroad.   Also it was this same Saint who later consecrated the First Bishop for the French Orthodox Church which exclusivly used a Western Rite.

As for those who would rush to condemm  the Greek Old Calandrists, while at the same time rushing to embrace the monophysite, nestorian, and Latin heretics would do well to consider that Metropolitan Philaret, anathematizing the heresy of Ecumenism. Among others it contains such words as these: "Therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics, or who advocate, disseminate, or who defend their new heresy of Ecumenism: Anathema."   Hmm....

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2003, 10:57:53 PM »

Quote
A group that has order from ROCOR is not the the same thing as any old dude setting up shop in his garage.

'Getting orders from' somebody, then going outside the communion of the Church to do your own thing is vagante theology, not EO. Garage-church Mar Harry claims a 'line of succession' from the Russian Orthodox too. So what?
Logged

JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2003, 11:03:34 PM »

The Greek Old Calandrists aren't creating a new religion, that is what the New Calandrists are doing.  

These people have real congregations, Orthodox Belief, and Orthodox Praxis, so Serge how do these people fit your frequently mentioned defintion of a vagante?

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2003, 11:40:40 PM »

Quote
'Getting orders from' somebody, then going outside the communion of the Church to do your own thing is vagante theology, not EO. Garage-church Mar Harry claims a 'line of succession' from the Russian Orthodox too. So what?

You still can't distingiush between a garge church and a church with many congregations with real membership, can you?  The Milan Synod still is Orthodox in praxis and belief.  A true vagante group won't be for long.  Their faith will start to change, praxis will soften up etc.
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #93 on: May 30, 2003, 04:22:32 AM »

Dear friends.

I am not opposed to the Milanese Synod or question the integrity of their priests, but I believe that their possitions are inconsistent. How can a Traditionalist Orthodox jurisdiction have tides with Patriarch Filaret? Do you know that they are now making deals with the Syriac Non-Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch?  Huh

How can one rejevt Ecumenism and at the same time have archeological western liturgies as a part of the Church?

Regarding the canonical AOC-WR, people ignore that the Tridentine Missal which is used is in fact the mass of John XXIII of 1962, with modified rubrics and Calendar, prayers at the foot of the altar reduced, "universal prayer", etc. (the "road" to the new mass) It is even celebrated in English. This is hardly a pre-schism liturgy, not to mention the prayer book of the English heresiarch Cranmer.
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #94 on: May 30, 2003, 05:40:55 AM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

...and he has done far more for Christian witness in the world, teaching against contraception, abortion and homosexuality and taking the secular world's derision for it, than a bunch of old Greek cranks yanking each other's beards anathematizing each other, denying each other's orders have grace and obsessing over a f***ing man-made calendar. (Billy Graham, wrong as he may be, probably is more appealing than these jokers.)
Serge, in the past you have made disparaging remarks about Athonite monasticism and now you mock the priests and bishops of Greece. I ask that you refrain from making such offensive remarks regarding those who shoulder the extremely difficult task and responsibility of being shepherds of God's flock.
Also, those priests and bishops are not the Pope and as such do not have the media attention nor the world audience that he commands. They have their own local communities to minister to. Have you even the slightest clue as to what these "jokers" are managing to do within their own parishes?

John.
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 30, 2003, 07:58:57 AM »

How can one rejevt Ecumenism and at the same time have archeological western liturgies as a part of the Church?

Easily, as long as they are pre-Schism. As I said before, I have no problem with pre-schism, I just do not agree with tweaking newer, post-schism ones. I believe the Milan Synod Wester Rite usages is pre-schism.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #96 on: May 30, 2003, 07:59:28 AM »

Snoopy,

It is my understanding they BROKE communion with the KP when Filaret became Patriarch.

And how can you be pro-Milan Synod and anti-Filaret? They are all in the same boat in my eyes (irregular status, uncanonical, what not, I still call them Orthodox but say they are schismatic).

All,

What is funny is Serge is actually professing in the strictest sense the Orthodox belief that outside the Church is nothing we can measure, and he is being attacked...you would think that traditionalists would be like "Yeah, go Serge!"  Perhaps some are annoyed because he calls Latins apostolic but calls the Milan Synod vagante?  I think he has made his distinction clear: Latins aren't *O*rthodox but they are "apostolic" which you could claim about the Milan Synod, too.  I think personally that Serge should't call the MS vagante since they don't fit the definition of a vagante (a bishop with no diocese who goes around making new, congregationless bishops), but he is right in a way that their status doesn't really matter if they aren't in communion.  Yet Nektarios and others do bring up the question: if it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, what is it?  MS is clearly on a level way above Met. Bill of the True Wiccan Orthodox Non-Chalcedonian Church of Texas in Exile in Nebraska.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #97 on: May 30, 2003, 08:25:48 AM »

The Milan Synod that St Hilarion's Monastery (odox.net) now belongs to are not in the Eastern Orthodox communion - they are Greek Old Calendarists who used to be in communion with ROCOR (?) but aren't now.

The squabble over the Milan Synod seems to me to bring a lot of the issues here together.

First of all, it seems to me that their projection of Orthodoxy onto the Western Rite is strictly woo-woo and loudly unhistorical. They show a bunch of furnishings, vestments, and objects of different periods and places and try to talk an organic whole out of them, saying that it's not that different from current Eastern practice. Well, it's obvious to everyone that a very late medieval French rood screen doesn't go into a very early Mediterranean church. The one thing that can be said about Western rites in general is that there is a considerable indifference to architecture contained in a rite that can be celebrated in buildings as different as St. Mark's Venice, Kings College Cambridge, and tiny Saxon cell churches in North England. All the various arguments about this medieval vestment and that medieval object and some other medieval architectural feature blatantly ignore the ease with which sucessive reforms keep sweeping them away. Rood screens are either gothic survivals or gothic revivals, and other periods don't have them; the shape of the chasuble changes back and forth. Nobody in the West thinks that the number of chains on a thurible matters, or that an alb has to have any particular decoration (indeed, the modern pattern is to combine the alb and the cassock into a single vestment).

Fishing expeditions into the pre-Norman English church are equally as dubious. It's easy enough to show an English/Celtic "school" of spirituality, but that school crosses over the magic line of 1054/1066 without effort. Dame Julian is about as characteristically English as anyone gets, and she dates from around 1400. Saxon and Celtic England are attractive because they are comparatively obscure, so that all sort of claims, from the dubious to the outlandish, can be made without fear of definite refutation.

If this is not strictly vagante, it is exactly the sort of thing that vagante groups do.  Indeed, it strikes me that this talk of who's in communion with whom sounds like a variant of "branch theory" ecclesiology-- "live circuit" or "pipeline" ecclesiology, as it were.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #98 on: May 30, 2003, 11:33:01 AM »

Christos Anesti,

John thanks for saying what needed to be said.  The Greeks, especially the Athonites played a very positive role in my conversion and in my spirituality today.  I don't like to see them get insulted.

Quote
What is funny is Serge is actually professing in the strictest sense the Orthodox belief that outside the Church is nothing we can measure, and he is being attacked...

My contention is with saying communion is the sole factor that makes one Orthodox.  I don't personally go for the out of communion groups, but they are still Orthodox in practice and belief.  OTOH Serge has made obvious his love for the Heretical Churches of the West which is baffeling since the GOCs are much closer to World Orthodoxy.  As an aside is Serge calling a vagante anyone who is a spiritual son of Milan Synod...


Quote
MS is clearly on a level way above Met. Bill of the True Wiccan Orthodox Non-Chalcedonian Church of Texas in Exile in Nebraska.

Thank you this is the main point I am trying to make.  The arbitrary lable vagante isn't proper for some groups that may fit the loose definition...Old Calendarists, SSPX etc.  


NOTE:  The edit was ONLY to fix a gramatical error

« Last Edit: May 30, 2003, 11:34:08 AM by Nektarios » Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 30, 2003, 11:49:20 AM »

Interesting note by Fr. John Shaw, Rector, Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church, Milwaukee, WI from http://www.odox.net/Liturgy-Discussion1a.htm

The Eucharistic Canon of St. Peter is of course better known in its other setting, and it forms the basis of the Western Rite in the Orthodox Church. In that case the surrounding structure is Western, but the Canon is the same. Since there were Latin parishes in what is now Albania that remained under the jurisdiction of the Greek Metropolitan of Dyrrachion until the 12th century, or after the Greek Liturgy of St. Peter is attested by the manuscripts, and since communities in the United States have been using this Eucharistic Anaphora continuously from about 1961—we now see that this ancient Roman Canon has never been “out of use” in the Orthodox Church. Although there were intervening centuries when it was not celebrated (by the Orthodox Church) in Latin, it was none the less celebrated in Greek and Slavonic.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Boswell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Bi, poly, trans and ex-Orthodox


« Reply #100 on: May 30, 2003, 12:24:35 PM »

The St. Peter canon is liturgical archaelology at its worst.
Why not use the pre-existing Roman canon? Just stick to the mainstream-no pre-schism regional oddball liturgies.
I once read the online newsletter of St. Mark's in Denver(antiochian WR) and it was Anglo-Saxon this,Celtic that- not surprising given that they were former Episcopalians, who probably implicitly had an idea that the Norman Conquest meant the endof the true faith.
sorryfor the grammar, my keyboard doesn't work thatwell.

Boswell

Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #101 on: May 30, 2003, 12:31:55 PM »

Pre-Tridentine there were many local Rites in the Western Church with regional canons. The Latin Church when they called their council of Trent, it was to brinng all the Liturgies into line with the one (Ordo of St. Gregory I believe) used in Rome with a few tweaks and changes.

The Western Rite should use Liturgies used pre-schism and not make frankenstein Liturgies from ones being used bythe heterodox today.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #102 on: May 30, 2003, 12:56:29 PM »

It is my understanding that the Tridentine Rite was nothing but the attempt to unify the local variants of the Latin Rite in a single liturgy. The variants were never so different to be "different rites", and the Tridentine Rite of Pope Pius V was like a "koine", it was codified by him and never invented by him or anyone. The narratives of the reformation in Europe clearly show that the Latin rite was already the way it was known after Trent.

The pre or post schism character of the other WR's such as the Galican or Mozarabic rites is also of very little importance and it is not a "guarantee" of its Orthodox Christian faith. The "filioque" started among Spanish Christians who were probably of the Mozarabic or Visigotic rite. The Sarum and Galican liturgies also evoluted after the schism and suffered modifications.

And it's not that easy, it's not just restoring the western rites in the papers and the liturgical texts, it is more complex. What vestments did they use? Were they Roman or Byzantine? Hybrid perhaps? What about the rubrics? The chant? Was it Hreek-like or Gregorian-like? Were they Low-Mass type or High one? Does the modern architecture applies for the celebration of restored western rites? Did they have a screen or not? ..... This is the work of archeologists and anthropologists more than that of religious men.

The development of these liturgies is not a proof of their "hetherodoxy" either. The modifications on the Rite of Pope Pius V by the AOC adding a Byzantine Epiclesis are a lack of respect toward a rite which encouraged so many vocations and saints in the West. Moreover, the pre-schism western liturgy never had a Byzantine Epiclesis.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2003, 01:08:08 PM by Snoopy » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #103 on: May 30, 2003, 02:17:21 PM »

Surely limiting the laity to receiving the Eucharist in one kind (a practice condemned by Pope St. Leo I) and turning the priest's perspective from altar to congregation are greater and more significant changes.
I am working on a bit of a theory that the giving only the Bread to the laity seems to coincide with what is called "The Little Ice Age".  Grapes used to grow in southern England and Northern Europe but then the temperature cooled and this ended.  If there is only a small amount of wine and this must be imported, as many records and Medieval cookbooks refer to wine coming from Spain or other southern climes, but wheat still grows, thus there is bread, then could there be a corrolation? If there isn't any, it can't be  given after all.  More research....

Why theorize when Rome already has a reason the switched to one form anyway?

Because there is often a *practical* reason why something happens or is done that is added to with a Reason of Great Meaning.  I will give an example: An EO priest told me that the waving of the "aer" (veiling over the bread and wine) is held by some to symbolize the waving of angels wings... but it started with waving to keep flies off.  
Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #104 on: May 30, 2003, 02:20:19 PM »

Thanks, Brigid.

Ebor is giving the practical reason behind the change, -¥-+-¦-+-+-¦-¦, and I think her idea is brilliant. Never knew the climate was so different 1,000+ years ago such that grapes grew in southern England.


Thank you for your kind words.   Smiley I am providing a couple of links to Linus re the Little Ice age and wine in England.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #105 on: May 30, 2003, 02:28:02 PM »

Quote
An EO priest told me that the waving of the "aer" (veiling over the bread and wine) is held by some to symbolize the waving of angels wings... but it started with waving to keep flies off.  

I thought that was the purpose of the fans ?
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #106 on: May 30, 2003, 02:30:35 PM »

Quote
I am working on a bit of a theory that the giving only the Bread to the laity seems to coincide with what is called "The Little Ice Age".  Grapes used to grow in southern England and Northern Europe but then the temperature cooled and this ended.  If there is only a small amount of wine and this must be imported, as many records and Medieval cookbooks refer to wine coming from Spain or other southern climes, but wheat still grows, thus there is bread, then could there be a corrolation? If there isn't any, it can't be  given after all.  More research....

A couple of points for your research, Ebor. First, for your theory to make sense you would have to show that communion in one kind began in the North, where grapes are scarce. I don't think that was the case.

Second, as an historian who has a special interest in the Germanic barbarians, I can say with some degree of assurance that wine began to be imported into the North at a pretty early date. If grapes were grown in southern England it was long before that area was known as "Angle-land," perhaps even before the Celts got there. I could be wrong, but I don't think any grapes were grown in England under the Anglo-Saxons. Remember, they arrived in Britain as pagans and were converted under Pope St. Gregory the Great and the latter St. Augustine.

The Germanic tribes, including the Anglo-Saxons, obtained wine in trade and as booty; the only native wine they knew was mead (honey wine), a product for which Britain was famous indeed. Roman colonists introduced viniculture to the middle Rhein and Mosel regions and among the Scandinavian (from Borgundarholm/Bornholm) Burgundians.


Here are a couple of links regarding the growing of wine grapes in England, apparently as far north as Leeds at one point, from Roman times to the 1300's or so:

http://members.aol.com/bellavue/ancient.html  bottom of the page

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html  about a quarter of the way down the page "Impact on Wine Production"

http://www.winejoe.com/archives/July99/littleiceage.htm  wine column on Champagne that refers near the beginning to more northerly vineyards.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 30, 2003, 02:32:01 PM »

I thought that was the purpose of the fans?

That is what I thought too.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #108 on: May 30, 2003, 03:04:43 PM »

It is my understanding that the Tridentine Rite was nothing but the attempt to unify the local variants of the Latin Rite in a single liturgy. The variants were never so different to be "different rites", and the Tridentine Rite of Pope Pius V was like a "koine", it was codified by him and never invented by him or anyone. The narratives of the reformation in Europe clearly show that the Latin rite was already the way it was known after Trent.

Trent did much more than this. The Sarum rite, for instance, had picked up a tremendous accretion of stuff-- liturgical colors, tropes, sequences, etc.-- and all this was pruned away quite heavily. Gallican rites are even more elaborated.

Quote
And it's not that easy, it's not just restoring the western rites in the papers and the liturgical texts, it is more complex. What vestments did they use? Were they Roman or Byzantine? Hybrid perhaps? What about the rubrics? The chant? Was it Hreek-like or Gregorian-like? Were they Low-Mass type or High one? Does the modern architecture applies for the celebration of restored western rites? Did they have a screen or not? ..... This is the work of archeologists and anthropologists more than that of religious men.

Well, in one respect this is seriously wrong-headed. Western rites simply aren't so tied to specifics of architecture, vestments, or utensils. The rite of a votive low mass and of a high pontifical mass is the same, though everything else about them is quite different.

But at the same time, there is a point to this. Attempts at a pre-schism Eucharist are still plagued by the historicity issue. We are all post-schism. Searching the past for an undefiled liturgy is to a greater or lesser extent an exercise in fantasy anyway, but in any case such a liturgy is brought forward into a world which has not only had gothic, but gothic revival. Such a liturgy does not perhaps mean for a modern person what it meant 1000 or 1200 years ago.

That beings me back to the is of the composite rite. Various mentions have been made of the lack of an epyclesis in older Western rites. Modern anglican rites do tend to have an epyclesis; moreover, it tends to be very close to an Eastern form.

That leads me to consider a hypothetical situation. Let's suppose that the Anglican communion breaks up, and that at least one group of bishops sticks with a modern rite and indeed brings it closer to ancient Eastern forms. Eventually they enter into talks with Orthodox bodies with the intention of rejoining the Orthodox communion as a separate episcopate with its own, Western rite. In the course of this they go over their rite, line by line, and corrects their rite according to whatever objections are offered. Would the result be acceptable as an Orthodox rite?

I think that there would be a substantial negative response. There would be plenty of people saying that, since it is at heart an Anglican rite, it would be ipso facto unacceptable. I don't think the historicity arguments obtain at all here, because what one is seeing is simply the continuing development of the rite. Any specific theological disputes presumably would be resolved in the course of the negotiations. So what's left?
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #109 on: May 30, 2003, 03:41:51 PM »


Keble,

England WAS under the Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, but the aforementioned Patriarch was once an Orthodox Heirarch, before he left the Blessed Communion of the Holy Orthodox Church and took most of Western Europe with it.  Why do you think St. Harold, the last Orthodox king of England, refused to pay the Peters Pence?  And thus the Pope blessed William to invade England and execute those who refused to pay the Peter's Pence.

Joe Zollars

Joe, I ask this with *no* offense intended.  Where did you find this information about Harold Godwinson and William of Normandy?   Or that he is "St. Harold"?  

Many rulers didn't pay Peter's Pence at one time or another.  Harold wasn't the first in line to succeed Edward the Confessor; that was Edgar, a boy, who was the only male heir and a great-grandson of Ethelread the Unready.  William also had a claim, distant though it was, through marriage.  Harold had at one point, under less then free circumstances, had sworn to uphold William's claim.  Thus, when he was crowned right after Edward's death, he was deemed an "oath-breaker" a very serious charge.  

All of the parties concerned were Christian and most of the other folk involved as well, including many of the Danes/Norse/Vikings.  Olaf the Stout, king of Norway, became St. Olaf.  Iceland voted to become Christian at the "Althing" in 1000.  This was not a struggle of religion but for power and land and wealth.  The history of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles is mostly about conquest and who gets the most power.

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 30, 2003, 03:49:20 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #110 on: May 30, 2003, 03:45:05 PM »

Quote
An EO priest told me that the waving of the "aer" (veiling over the bread and wine) is held by some to symbolize the waving of angels wings... but it started with waving to keep flies off.  

I thought that was the purpose of the fans ?

On that I have not words.  But that is what the priest told me.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #111 on: May 30, 2003, 04:12:09 PM »

[quote author=Ebor

Yes, indeed.  From my reading, many who espouse "Celtic Christianity" go to it with a idea of "This was the warm, egalitarian mutual woman affirming, nature loving Christianity before those Awful Romans took over".  A sort of allergic reaction to things Latin maybe.  But since little is known, they "reconstruct" i.e. make it up.  Then you get the things like "St. Brigid was  *really* a goddess who was taken over by the evil misogynist RC's" new age stuff.  (gag and also *bang head on keyboard*).

All this makes me wonder if the proponents have actually read Patrick's "Confession" or for that matter "The Tain" for a classic Irish work.  Not warm and fuzzy, but an epic.

Quote

Ebor,
You speak as one after my own heart. When I read the lives of Celtic saints like Kevin of Glendalough, Colum Cille etc. I was struck by the parallels with the spirituality of the Desert Fathers. There is asceticism and struggle with the passions in the lives of these saints, not the cosy comfortable banalities of these modern 'Celts'.

I doubt very much whether too many of these beautiful New Age Celtic people have ever heard of The Tain let alone read it.  One epic I am currently enjoying, however,  is your own story and I look forward to the next instalment!

Brigid


Thank you for your kind words.  I'm hardly on the same level as Finn McCumhail or Beowulf.  Smiley

Re-writing history to suit a modern sensibility is lying about the past.  Using this to say that one has 'recovered' ancient spirituality is doubly false, imo and spiritually dangerous to boot.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #112 on: May 30, 2003, 04:21:08 PM »

I believe he is refered to as St. Harold (the Last Orthodox King of England) on the Calander published by St. John of Kronstadt or the calander published by St. Hilarions.  I could be mistaken though.  I know I read it somewhere.  I shall have to do some digging to find it for you.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 30, 2003, 07:39:14 PM »

Thanks, anastasios - in the scope of this board, that's what I meant. The Milan Synod may keep the same beliefs and practices as EOxy, socially they may be a real church (real congregations) and according to Catholic ecclesiology they're apostolic.

But they don't operate on Catholic terms ('we're a real Orthodox church because the Catholic Church says we're valid - read our list proving our lines of succession' - Mar Harry ecclesiology), do they?

On their own terms they're a contradiction, claiming to be Orthodox but not in the EO communion.

Unless they think they and only they are the Orthodox Church, period. Greek Old Calendarists who think that way are like Russian Old Believers, including the priestless who build churches with iconostases against the wall, who think only they are the Church - they are internally logical and so get my respect, even though I think they're wrong.

But on EOxy's own terms, they're not EO.

The MS may have real churches and Mar Harry may not. But both seem to be using 'what's my line?' sacramentology and ecclesiology - 'getting orders from' some Orthodox source and then breaking away to do their own thing. Not EO, folks.

Are EO converts online so insecure they can't take a little constructive criticism that is orthodox and even Orthodox?

The same people who dismiss Catholics' belief in an infallible papal office go nuts if one points out the gurus they've adopted for themselves aren't perfect.

That's certainly not the ethos of places like St Vladimir's Seminary in the OCA, which some here may attack as 'modernist', but having been there and worshipped there, and knowing that their late, great Fr Alexander Schmemann once called the attempted ordination of women 'the death of all dialogue', I know that's horsefeathers.

Better a church with a congregation of three humble Eastern European immigrants who eat meat on Fridays and confess it than a stadium full of neurotic, insecure, self-righteous converts.

Yes, I should stop reading my psalter, the Word of God, in numerical order twice every day like those 'heretical' Western churches and obsess over a calendar instead. What a shining witness to the world of what's really important.

(Again, What I believe is on my blog, dated May 16, for all to read.)

Personally, I think the Julian calendar is a neat accoutrement of Russian religious culture but not a matter of faith. Since the Church of Russia uses this calendar and is an integral part of 'world Orthodoxy', I guess that means I'm right.

Archimandrite Serge (Keleher) says only a tiny percentage of people in Greece show up for church weekly. (Yes, he's been there.) Like all Mediterranean countries, it seems Greeks are both secularized and have a longstanding love/hate relationship with the church and an anticlerical streak. (Familiarity breeding contempt?)

I'm sure the schisms and counterschisms of the Old Calendarists don't recommend the Church as a way of life to the average Greek.

Great points about ahistoricity and mixing and matching rites as vagante games. Totally true.

From what I remember, St Hilarion's Sarum Mass isn't really preschism, but a medieval Roman Mass translated into English, slightly byzantinized and done in a church with a whimsical mix of Byzantine and Roman trappings. In short, yet another unhistorical trip into fantasy. It's orthodox, to be sure, but historically, it ain't real.

The Sarum Use was a branch of the Roman Rite, not a separate rite. The Council of Trent didn't kill it in England - the 'Reformation' did. But it's true that to restore some order and to ensure orthodoxy, the council and Pope got rid of any missal not in continuous use for 200 years. (The 'R' stopped continuous use of the Sarum.)

I believe the Liturgy of St Peter is real, even though it's on a Milan Synod site, since a real Orthodox priest, Fr John Shaw (ROCOR), vouches for it - I have a link to it on my site's Faith page. Apparently this hybrid, a Byzantine Liturgy with the Canon of the Roman Mass in it, was an authentic Russian variation some Old Believers kept.

The notion of Harold as 'last Orthodox king of England' (impossible since England never was under the Byzantine emperor!) comes from the book quoted by -¥-+-¦-+-+-¦-¦, Orthodox England, by a ROCOR priest in England who is English and a convert (he never was Catholic or Anglican). I forget his name but a link to his site (same title as his book) is on my Orthodoxy page.
Logged

JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #114 on: May 30, 2003, 07:51:20 PM »

Umm, Serge, I just went through a whole bunch of the Milan Synod sites and never once saw mention to Apostolic Succession (other than to say that the Orthodox Faith believes in Apostolic Succession) and certainly not the tables of Apostolic Succession that you would see on a Vagante Website (like any of the ones you would see at ind-movement.org).  

And England, although it may not have been called Orthodox, was part of the Holy Orthodox church up until the time of the Schism.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #115 on: May 30, 2003, 08:07:23 PM »

Quote
Umm, Serge, I just went through a whole bunch of the Milan Synod sites and never once saw mention to Apostolic Succession (other than to say that the Orthodox Faith believes in Apostolic Succession) and certainly not the tables of Apostolic Succession that you would see on a Vagante Website (like any of the ones you would see at ind-movement.org).

Beside the point. 1) No Church in the EO communion is in communion with them. 2) I think it was Nektarios who said, 'They take their [holy] orders from ROCOR'. They're not in communion with ROCOR or any Orthodox church, but they take their orders from one. To which EOxy says, 'So what?' Garage-church Mar Harry thinks like that - he can claim a 'line of succession' from real Russian Orthodox bishops through some cleric who left the EO fold at some point. It means bubkes in Orthodox sacramentology and ecclesiology, without the reality of the Orthodox Church.

Quote
And England, although it may not have been called Orthodox, was part of the Holy Orthodox church up until the time of the Schism.

I understand where people who use the word Orthodox like that are coming from, but maintain it's unhistorical, just the snide flip side of 'Roman is Catholic, period'. Before the estrangement, the Western part of the Church was called Catholic; the part under the Byzantine emperor was called Orthodox.

Both sides did and do use both words, but even back then those were the monikers that stuck.
Logged

Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #116 on: May 30, 2003, 08:08:12 PM »

Quote
The MS may have real churches and Mar Harry may not. But both seem to be using 'what's my line?' sacramentology and ecclesiology - 'getting orders from' some Orthodox source and then breaking away to do their own thing. Not EO, folks.

I am the one who said the milan synod recieved their orders from the ROCOR.  But if you actually read the website you condemn you'd notiec there is no section explaining their orders.  It is an external link that has links to bios of each bishop that says who ordained each bishop.  If I am not mistaken the OCA says the date and who ordained each of their bishops on their webpage, are they vagante now?

Quote
Are EO converts online so insecure they can't take a little constructive criticism that is orthodox and even Orthodox?

Back upon your judgement seat again, mighty Serge?

That is just the thing...us who ARE Orthodox don't see a distinction between Orthodoxy and orthodoxy.  

Quote
The same people who dismiss Catholics' belief in an infallible papal office go nuts if one points out the gurus they've adopted for themselves aren't perfect.

Again, Orthodox people do not refer to the saints, fathers, mothers, or their own spiritual fathers as gurus.  Perhaps I could recomend some reading for you on Athonite Monasticism since you seem to be unclear on this topic?

Quote
That's certainly not the ethos of places like St Vladimir's Seminary in the OCA, which some here may attack as 'modernist', but having been there and worshipped there, and knowing that their late, great Fr Alexander Schmemann once called the attempted ordination of women 'the death of all dialogue', I know that's horsefeathers.

Is Fr. Schmenann your Guru?  

Quote
Better a church with a congregation of three humble Eastern European immigrants who eat meat on Fridays and confess it than a stadium full of neurotic, insecure, self-righteous converts

nice words that pack a big punch, yet mean nothing.  You've made it abundantly clear that you hate converts in general (even though you are one with an obsession with "anglo-catholicism"), but you especially hate anyone with any interest in Orthodoxy Spirituality (not just superficial eastern culture) or the monastic style of life.  Why?  

Quote
Yes, I should stop reading my psalter, the Word of God, in numerical order twice every day like those 'heretical' Western churches and obsess over a calendar instead. What a shining witness to the world of what's really important.

The ironic thing is you'll berate Joe for not being Eastern enough yet you still use your old Western devotions!  Pick one or the other...you can't have it both way.  I guess except in the Serge religion.  

Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #117 on: May 30, 2003, 08:24:11 PM »

Quote
I am the one who said the milan synod recieved their orders from the ROCOR.  But if you actually read the website you condemn you'd notiec there is no section explaining their orders.  It is an external link that has links to bios of each bishop that says who ordained each bishop.  If I am not mistaken the OCA says the date and who ordained each of their bishops on their webpage, are they vagante now?

The MS site doesn't tell you they aren't recognized by any real Orthodox church. But they're not. You and I know the OCA is so recognized, either as a separate church or as the American metropolia of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Maybe you can answer this: do the MS think only they are the Orthodox Church? Then at least their position would make sense.

Quote
Back upon your judgement seat again, mighty Serge?

The more I read forums like this the more I realize I don't like those converts to EOxy with attitudes like yours. To your delight I may just drop my participation here.

Quote
even though you are one with an obsession with "anglo-catholicism"

They were part of my formation and I would be lying and ungrateful not to acknowledge that, but it's clear from my site that being one is not an option, theologically speaking. Next...

Quote
The ironic thing is you'll berate Joe for not being Eastern enough yet you still use your old Western devotions!  Pick one or the other...you can't have it both way.  I guess except in the Serge religion.

Joe is obviously a spite-convert wannabe who doesn't appreciate Eastern Orthodoxy - he even admitted he didn't like the Byzantine Rite liturgy!

Read my blog, Nektarios: May 16, What I believe. You make it sound like I have a prayer life that's nearly all Western. If you have read my writings, you know what you wrote is a calumny. What would the holy Athonite monks think of that?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2003, 08:27:31 PM by Serge » Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #118 on: May 30, 2003, 08:55:29 PM »


That is just the thing...us who ARE Orthodox don't see a distinction between Orthodoxy and orthodoxy.  



OK I am trying to see where both of you are coming from BUT Nektarios, come on, think about what you just said with common sense.  Of course there is a distinction between the two.  Almost everyone makes this distinction, Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics, secular scholars, etc.  Big-O Orthodox believe is the belief of the Orthodox Church.  Small o-orthodox beliefs are beliefs that are considered the traditional Christian teaching.  It's very logical and true: Protestants and Catholics share the orthodox view of the Trinity and the Incarnation, deity of Christ, etc.  So they are orthodox.  But they are not Orthodox as a proper noun.

anastasios
« Last Edit: May 30, 2003, 08:58:00 PM by anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #119 on: May 30, 2003, 09:02:12 PM »

Anastasios,

From what I can tell Serge has a definition all his own of orthodox versus Orthodox.  Like the same way he throws around the lable apostostalic to any group that has fancy vestments and is fairly traditional.  Leaving the secular definition aside and only looking at the religous definition a groups that has any orthodoxy whatsoever is only because of what it shares with The Orthodox Church.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #120 on: May 30, 2003, 09:08:45 PM »

Christos Voskrese,

I know I'm new here but could we all lighten up.  It seems like this particular thread has gotten more than a little venomous.
We're all still celebrating Pascha.  What happened to forgiving all for the sake of the Resurrection?

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #121 on: May 30, 2003, 09:11:45 PM »

Anastasios,

From what I can tell Serge has a definition all his own of orthodox versus Orthodox.  Like the same way he throws around the lable apostostalic to any group that has fancy vestments and is fairly traditional.  Leaving the secular definition aside and only looking at the religous definition a groups that has any orthodoxy whatsoever is only because of what it shares with The Orthodox Church.  

Well of course you're right that orthodoxy is dependent on the source (The Orthodox Church), but I don't think Serge denies that.

From what Serge has wrote, he uses apostolic as a way to reference all traditional churches that have "apostolic succession" but avoid mixing them all up into one CHURCH.  Isn't that Orthodox, he is not saying Catholics are the same as Orthodox, but he is saying that they share an apostolic foundation, which comes in handy when opposing them to Protestantism (which Serge and I see as the true "other"*)
To say Serge throws the word around to any group with fancy vestments is wrong since he doesn't call Anglicans apostolic.

Serge hasn't said anything heretical yet I sense a real anger on your part towards his posts.  Sure I disagree with Serge sometimes but that doesn't mean I think one or the other of us is headed for apostasy.  Can't we allow for some diversity in the Orthodox Church (an honest question, not rhetorical).

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #122 on: May 30, 2003, 09:15:25 PM »

Quote
The MS site doesn't tell you they aren't recognized by any real Orthodox church. But they're not. You and I know the OCA is so recognized, either as a separate church or as the American metropolia of the Moscow Patriarchate.


Actually there was nothing secretive on their site when I looked at it.  I thought was interesting was the lack of polemical "we are the last Orthodox jurisdiction in the world" stuff.  

Quote
Maybe you can answer this: do the MS think only they are the Orthodox Church? Then at least their position would make sense.

You'd be better off writting to them and finding it out without a middleman.  

Quote
The more I read forums like this the more I realize I don't like those converts to EOxy with attitudes like yours. To your delight I may just drop my participation here.

Too bad we all can't be like Serge the Great *falling down making repeated prostrations*

Quote
They were part of my formation and I would be lying and ungrateful not to acknowledge that, but it's clear from my site that being one is not an option, theologically speaking. Next...

But you fall under your anathema (for lack of a better word) for not being "Easter" enough.  Oh wait I forgot Great Serge only condemns and is above his own perfect judgements.

Quote
Joe is obviously a spite-convert wannabe who doesn't appreciate Eastern Orthodoxy - he even admitted he didn't like the Byzantine Rite liturgy!

You have right to judge that in him.  Don't you think the priest who is guiding his conversion will deal that?  (oh wait I forgot spiritual fathers are just guru cult leaders).  My undersanding of what Joes has said is that at first the Byzantine liturgy was hard to get used to ( which is more than understandable) and that he appreciates his roots (i.e. traditional Roman Catholicism).  Now you invoke your right to be gratefull to the anglo-catholics, but deny Joe's same right?



Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #123 on: May 30, 2003, 09:20:01 PM »

Quote
Can't we allow for some diversity in the Orthodox Church (an honest question, not rhetorical).

That is what I am all for.  But it seems a different tune is sung by many people seeking diversity and tolerance when Old Calendarist Orthodox Jurisdictions (like the MS) are mentioned.  I actaully allow for a great deal of diversity by thinking the Antiochians to the ROAC to all in the end be under the same umbrella of the Orthodox Church.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #124 on: May 30, 2003, 10:23:29 PM »

Let me try to de-personalize this thread and break it down to the essentials as they have been of late.

Nektarios doesn't like me. Fine. But that's not relevant to the point here. N, if you are pissed off at me personally or over some point in my beliefs or practices, the places for you to vent are on my blog's shout-outs, my guestbook or via e-mail - not by derailing a thread on a message board.

ISTM the thread drifted, as threads do, from the issue of Western rites being used in Eastern Orthodoxy to the Milan Synod, because St Hilarion's Monastery, now in the MS, specializes in a kind of Western Mass. On another thread Joe Zollars said he didn't know about the background of this group so here (perhaps mistakenly here - should have answered on that thread) I tried to be helpful and fill in the background of St H's and MS, pointing out in all honesty that AFAIK the MS are not in communion with any Orthodox Church and therefore, on EOxy's own terms as I believe them to be, are not EO.

This apparently offended Nektarios, who has a great affinity for Greek Old Calendarist groups. While I understand that, he could not prove to me that the MS are in fact in the Orthodox communion.

Things degenerated from there. I criticized the Greek Old Calendarists and Joe Zollars (sorry for getting personal) and Nektarios retaliated by turning the thread into a sort of Hellenic Inquisition about my own beliefs, even though they are not germane to the topic.

OK, let's agree to disagree.

I see EO ecclesiology and sacramentology as one of communion, of being in the body known as the Orthodox Church.

Nektarios has a different view, basically seeing any Byzantine Rite group not under the Pope and holding EO theology and traditional praxis as big-O Orthodox, thus including 'world Orthodoxy' and groups like the MS, ROAC, etc.

Fine. We don't agree.

As for the alleged conversion process of Joe Zollars, ordinarily it would be none of my business but he has made it public on this forum, loudly and repeatedly.

I won't repeat myself. Just search the forum for my say.

Quote
Like the same way he throws around the label apostolic to any group that has fancy vestments and is fairly traditional.

That's almost true, but beyond the scope of this discussion. If you object to my beliefs, add to the blog's shout-outs under May 16.

It's also the grounds by which I accept the Oriental Orthodox, basically the house's position on this forum.

It's ironic but I have a very similar criticism of your criteria for who is Eastern Orthodox. I see it as communion plus your criteria. We know where we stand, so enough on that.

Quote
From what Serge has wrote, he uses apostolic as a way to reference all traditional churches that have "apostolic succession" but avoid mixing them all up into one CHURCH.  Isn't that Orthodox, he is not saying Catholics are the same as Orthodox, but he is saying that they share an apostolic foundation, which comes in handy when opposing them to Protestantism (which Serge and I see as the true "other"*)

To say Serge throws the word around to any group with fancy vestments is wrong since he doesn't call Anglicans apostolic.

Right. Thanks, anastasios. I never have claimed a group is Eastern Orthodox when it is not - the real issue of this latest turn in the thread.

(Anglo-Catholics have the same apostolic beliefs as me but, sorry, Keble and Ebor, with all due respect I don't believe they are part of an apostolic church. Keble and Ebor of course do - duly and respectfully noted.)

Quote
Serge hasn't said anything heretical yet I sense a real anger on your part towards his posts

Right. Nothing I've written in this conversation has been inimical or foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy, and I personally have no emotional investment in the status of the Milan Synod. It's all just an interesting theoretical argument to me. Nektarios got personal, and I got personal back. Not the place, dude. Take it private - go to my sites and/or e-mail. Not here.

I covered a lot of the ground of this topic in a page, Who is Orthodox?

Finis.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2003, 10:45:23 PM by Serge » Logged

JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #125 on: May 30, 2003, 10:43:52 PM »

Serge, was it any of your business when you sent me the numerous harassing PM's and emails?  

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #126 on: May 30, 2003, 10:48:46 PM »

Quote
Serge, was it any of your business when you sent me the numerous harassing PM's and emails?

Joe, if I'm not mistaken both the former and current churches you identify with teach that detraction and calumny are sins.

I did write you privately, rightly thinking that a public forum wasn't appropriate. If I disclosed any of your answers here, it was a mistake, not deliberate. Forgive me.

Be it known I never have 'harassed' Mr Zollars.

If you don't want to communicate with me via PM or e-mail, that's fine.
Logged

Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #127 on: May 30, 2003, 10:58:31 PM »

Serge,
here is what I don't like:

1) Arbitrarily calling groups vagante.  I think we can both agree there is a world of difference bewtween the MS and Mar Harry (or whatever his name is).  

2) Having more in common with RCs than Old Calendarists.  

3) Disdain shown for Orthodox Monasticism and her Tradition.

4) Constantly attacking a person for not being Byzantine enough, yet still holding many anglo-catholic leanings.

Of these only the last is personal...but I wasn't the one who brought it up in this thread.

But I do like being known as the "Hellenic Inquisition" and have added it to my signiture!

Edited for gramatical errors only
« Last Edit: May 30, 2003, 10:59:47 PM by Nektarios » Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #128 on: May 30, 2003, 10:58:46 PM »

Serge,

Those who actually know anything about me, which you most obviously do not, know that I would sooner don the uniform of the d*myankees and salute the vile Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, etc. than spread rumors.  

I am sorry for the continued derailing of this thread.  I am leaving this forum now and will not return.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #129 on: May 30, 2003, 11:44:36 PM »

Ok friends, it's time to close this one.  If any of you wish to keep talking about Western Rites, please do so, but in a new thread.  We all know how Serge, Nektarios, and JoeZ feel about one another so from now on, let's try not to bring personal info in. I'm not assigning any blame and I tried several times to bring this thread back on track BUT it was to no avail.

All in all a very interesting subject that did get lots of good coverage.

anastasios
ADMIN
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,368


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #130 on: May 30, 2003, 11:45:29 PM »

Dear Nektarios,

1) Arbitrarily calling groups vagante.  I think we can both agree there is a world of difference bewtween the MS and Mar Harry (or whatever his name is).

I don't think that Serge is "arbitrarily" calling groups vagantes.  In all his posts, he seems (at least to me) to have clarified that he's coming from a strict Eastern Orthodox ecclesiological point of view.  You may disagree with his conclusion, but I don't think you can disagree with how he came to that conclusion, since it is Orthodox, unless you want to discount the value and need of being in communion with the Church.  Certainly there is a difference between "Mar Harry" (why, oh why, must they always borrow Syrian titles?) and the Milan Synod, but I personally would say this is a matter of which group is more respectable, trustworthy, etc.  However, ecclesiologically, the status of "Mar Harry" and the Milan Synod seems to be the same according to Eastern Orthodox standards.  If Serge has missed something, however, and communion with the Orthodox Church is secondary to other considerations, I think it would be good to know what those other considerations are and what the basis is for them ranking higher than communion.  

2) Having more in common with RCs than Old Calendarists.

It depends on what you mean by this.  From his writings, I don't think Serge is doctrinally un-Orthodox.  Perhaps his spiritual life has some Western elements in it.  So what?  I don't think anyone has demonstrated what is wrong with those Western things he practices.  Besides, there are other Eastern Orthodox people/groups who might also fit this bill (for instance, I've rarely heard a good word about the Greek Orthodox in this country from those Orthodox friends of mine of the "Russian" tradition that I've personally spoken with, be they OCA or ROCOR, precisely because some of the things they do are "Roman Catholic" or "Western" or whatever; yet, what they complain about are things I don't think affect the integrity of the Orthodox faith...should we now go after the Greeks, then?)

3) Disdain shown for Orthodox Monasticism and her Tradition.

Where did Serge address monasticism?

I will not address the fourth point because enough has been said about it in this thread and in others in recent months.  I'd rather see such personal discussions disappear.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 30, 2003, 11:48:03 PM »

Ah the joys of a MySQL database versus a PostgresSQL.... with MySQL two people can edit a post at the same time, which is why Mor got a post in after I closed this.

LOL

bye!
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #132 on: May 31, 2003, 04:02:30 AM »

Actually, MySQL will NOT let two users edit a table field at the same time.

MySQL isn't an ACID compliant database, and it doesn't even support transactions, which is why it could be said that MySQL isn't a real DBMS. MySQL has row level locking, which means that when I edit a particular field in the table, that whole row in the table is locked and cannot be edited by anyone else while I am manipulating it.
 
PostgreSQL has transaction support which allows multiple people to edit the same fields in the same table without a hitch. Transactions allow the changes to queue up in the table, and them commences the changes without causing conflicts.

Bobby

Code:
Select
   to_number(decode(SID, 65535, NULL, SID)) sid,
   operation_type                           OPERATION,
   trunc(WORK_AREA_SIZE/1024)               WSIZE,
   trunc(EXPECTED_SIZE/1024)                ESIZE,
   trunc(ACTUAL_MEM_USED/1024)              MEM,
   trunc(MAX_MEM_USED/1024)                 "MAX MEM",
   number_passes                            PASS
from
   v$sql_workarea_active
order by 1,2;

Logged
Tags: Fr. Alexander Schmemann Western Rite 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.364 seconds with 160 queries.