OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 08:49:56 AM *
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 34955 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,537


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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« 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
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


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
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


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
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


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
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« 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
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


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
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« 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
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


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: 10,444


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

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
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.
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 0.158 seconds with 72 queries.