OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 07:14:59 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: Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite?  (Read 9588 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2010, 10:13:35 PM »

I just wanna give you all the perspective of a traditional Western Catholic. I love the TLM with a passion. I also love the NO celebrated properly, with reverence, sacred music, and the priest facing Liturgical East.
Now, that being said, I attended a Byzantine Catholic Church for a whole year and I loved it and found it beautiful.
BUT, Byzantine Liturgy still remains alien and foreign to me. I connecting to Christ in the Divine Liturgy of St. John. I don't think that this means that there is anything wrong with the Byzantine Liturgy but I have always experience Christ in the framework of a Western Liturgy. Because my spiritual life was formed in this way,it would be difficult for me to be forced into a a situation where being Byzantine was my only option.
I want to emphasize that I don't think that there is anything wrong with Eastern Liturgies. They are very beautiful. I just couldn't imagine myself fitting well into them permanently.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,266



« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2010, 10:29:24 PM »

Another point that I want to make with my caution to the Western Rite is that I'm afraid some teachings may be carried over from other sects like it does with the Eastern Catholics. Eastern Catholics pretty much ignore the filoque, celebrate post-schism Eastern Saints, and keeping some former theology (for instance some Nestorian ideas from Chaldeans) so are these Western Rite parishes going to celebrate post schism Western Saints who are not Orthodox? The OCA is already letting New Skete get away with that with their celebration of Francis of Assisi. We don't need more churches that do things like that.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2010, 10:49:48 PM »

Another point that I want to make with my caution to the Western Rite is that I'm afraid some teachings may be carried over from other sects like it does with the Eastern Catholics. Eastern Catholics pretty much ignore the filoque, celebrate post-schism Eastern Saints, and keeping some former theology (for instance some Nestorian ideas from Chaldeans) so are these Western Rite parishes going to celebrate post schism Western Saints who are not Orthodox? The OCA is already letting New Skete get away with that with their celebration of Francis of Assisi. We don't need more churches that do things like that.

And the OCA has, up untill the election of Met. Jonah, been fiercely anti-WRO.  New Skete is not the only Eastern Church with such features.

I have never seen a "post schism" saint in a WRO.  The closest I've seen is Our Lady of Walsingham, which dates to a vision of a Saxon noblewoman in 1053-1061.  Since the Theotokos is pre-schism, and the Saxons (as opposed to the Normans) have some question when they really went into schism, I think this is safe, besides the issue of statues.

They do have a lot on Orthodox saints neglected, like St. Benedict (we venerated a relic of his, which we received from the WRO priest who used to serve with us: Memory eternal Father David!).  Despite what many have said of St. John Maximovich and St. Tikhon, I do not think that their involvement in the WRO was an "exception" to their sanctity.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2010, 10:51:58 PM »

I just wanna give you all the perspective of a traditional Western Catholic. I love the TLM with a passion. I also love the NO celebrated properly, with reverence, sacred music, and the priest facing Liturgical East.
Now, that being said, I attended a Byzantine Catholic Church for a whole year and I loved it and found it beautiful.
BUT, Byzantine Liturgy still remains alien and foreign to me. I connecting to Christ in the Divine Liturgy of St. John. I don't think that this means that there is anything wrong with the Byzantine Liturgy but I have always experience Christ in the framework of a Western Liturgy. Because my spiritual life was formed in this way,it would be difficult for me to be forced into a a situation where being Byzantine was my only option.
I want to emphasize that I don't think that there is anything wrong with Eastern Liturgies. They are very beautiful. I just couldn't imagine myself fitting well into them permanently.
So as a traditional RC is the lack of a Western Rite community near you the only thing keeping you from becoming Orthodox?
Logged

Joseph
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2010, 11:15:08 PM »

I've never understood the whole "Eastern" and "Western" Rite thing. Its not as if the Eucharist is a "natural" thing for any culture. The Liturgy is Eternity breaking through into time and space, so it is foreign to all of us.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,266



« Reply #50 on: March 15, 2010, 11:30:45 PM »

New Skete is not the only Eastern Church with such features.

So because some do it makes it ok? I'm not sure why point this out. It is a problem that needs to be fixed but I think that by an increase in Western Rite may increase them. I'm saying may not will. I'm worried that if we do one Western things that that may involve doing others which are not Orthodox.

Quote
They do have a lot on Orthodox saints neglected, like St. Benedict (we venerated a relic of his, which we received from the WRO priest who used to serve with us: Memory eternal Father David!).  Despite what many have said of St. John Maximovich and St. Tikhon, I do not think that their involvement in the WRO was an "exception" to their sanctity.

I go to a Byzantine church and we have St. Benedict's icon on our Southern wall.

I'm going to say that I'm not against the Western Rite but I think we need to have a cautious approach to it and not jump right into the idea. Is it going to turn into something so that converts can do to make church more comfortable and what not? Or should they conform themselves to the Church rather than the other way around? I honestly don't see how Western Rite is a necessity.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 11:33:28 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #51 on: March 15, 2010, 11:57:34 PM »

New Skete is not the only Eastern Church with such features.

So because some do it makes it ok? I'm not sure why point this out.

Because you point out what you fear may happen with the WRO, and I am telling what actually happens in both the WRO and the Eastern Orthodox.

Quote
It is a problem that needs to be fixed but I think that by an increase in Western Rite may increase them.

Why?  They have nothing to do with WRO.  You would have to go to the GOA to find a more hostile environment for the WRO.  And yet the Skete, with NO encouragement for the WRO, still had these problems.

Quote
I'm saying may not will. I'm worried that if we do one Western things that that may involve doing others which are not Orthodox.

How about doing Eastern things which are not Orthodox (yes, it is possible).

Quote
Quote
They do have a lot on Orthodox saints neglected, like St. Benedict (we venerated a relic of his, which we received from the WRO priest who used to serve with us: Memory eternal Father David!).  Despite what many have said of St. John Maximovich and St. Tikhon, I do not think that their involvement in the WRO was an "exception" to their sanctity.

I go to a Byzantine church and we have St. Benedict's icon on our Southern wall.


Until the likes of St. John and others involved in WRO, saints such as Benedict fell off the calendar.

Quote
I'm going to say that I'm not against the Western Rite but I think we need to have a cautious approach to it and not jump right into the idea. Is it going to turn into something so that converts can do to make church more comfortable and what not? Or should they conform themselves to the Church rather than the other way around? I honestly don't see how Western Rite is a necessity.

You just proved it was: Easternization does not equal conforming yourself to the Church, anymore than Westernization=modernization.  If it did, the East would be packed with saints.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #52 on: March 15, 2010, 11:58:56 PM »

I've never understood the whole "Eastern" and "Western" Rite thing. Its not as if the Eucharist is a "natural" thing for any culture. The Liturgy is Eternity breaking through into time and space, so it is foreign to all of us.
So why make it more foreign?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,166


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2010, 12:11:43 AM »

I just wanna give you all the perspective of a traditional Western Catholic. I love the TLM with a passion. I also love the NO celebrated properly, with reverence, sacred music, and the priest facing Liturgical East.
Now, that being said, I attended a Byzantine Catholic Church for a whole year and I loved it and found it beautiful.
BUT, Byzantine Liturgy still remains alien and foreign to me. I connecting to Christ in the Divine Liturgy of St. John. I don't think that this means that there is anything wrong with the Byzantine Liturgy but I have always experience Christ in the framework of a Western Liturgy. Because my spiritual life was formed in this way,it would be difficult for me to be forced into a a situation where being Byzantine was my only option.
I want to emphasize that I don't think that there is anything wrong with Eastern Liturgies. They are very beautiful. I just couldn't imagine myself fitting well into them permanently.
So as a traditional RC is the lack of a Western Rite community near you the only thing keeping you from becoming Orthodox?
No. I have other reasons for not becoming Eastern Orthodox.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 12:34:54 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 16, 2010, 12:27:16 AM »

I've never understood the whole "Eastern" and "Western" Rite thing. Its not as if the Eucharist is a "natural" thing for any culture. The Liturgy is Eternity breaking through into time and space, so it is foreign to all of us.
So why make it more foreign?
It couldn't possibly be more foreign to anyone, so I think that's a moot question.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2010, 12:35:55 AM »

I've never understood the whole "Eastern" and "Western" Rite thing. Its not as if the Eucharist is a "natural" thing for any culture. The Liturgy is Eternity breaking through into time and space, so it is foreign to all of us.
So why make it more foreign?
It couldn't possibly be more foreign to anyone, so I think that's a moot question.
So there should be no problem with WRO then, should there?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #56 on: March 16, 2010, 01:01:17 AM »

So there should be no problem with WRO then, should there?

Just the same problems as the Eastern rite Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #57 on: March 16, 2010, 01:19:12 AM »

So there should be no problem with WRO then, should there?

Just the same problems as the Eastern rite Wink
Exactly.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 16, 2010, 01:41:22 AM »

I've never understood the whole "Eastern" and "Western" Rite thing. Its not as if the Eucharist is a "natural" thing for any culture. The Liturgy is Eternity breaking through into time and space, so it is foreign to all of us.
So why make it more foreign?
It couldn't possibly be more foreign to anyone, so I think that's a moot question.
So there should be no problem with WRO then, should there?
Not necessarily so. There may be problems (including canonical ones) in the way it was implemented, or there may be problems in that it is not tried and tested. Along with this is the fact that just because two local Orthodox Churches introduce something doesn't automatically make it "correct rubric" for the entire Ecumene of the Church. Kissing the Chalice after receiving Communion is "correct rubric" if you are in a Russian Church, but it is "incorrect rubric" in other jurisdictions.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 01:45:09 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
sohma_hatori
Earthbending Novice
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Posts: 526


The Blind Bandit


« Reply #59 on: March 16, 2010, 05:26:23 AM »

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism?  Huh

We can be looking at things from a different perspective, but if you want to "set Orthodoxy apart from Roman Catholicism", why not adopt the Eastern Rite? The Antiochians in the Philippines have adopted the Western Rite and it has not been received well, even amongst their own members (partly due to alleged "un canonical practices"). The Orthodox faithful here want to BE known as Orthodox and if we are merely talking about "identity", then celebrating Eastern Rite is the logical thing to do.

My two cents.
Logged

""Pride is not the opposite of shame, but it's source. True humility is the only antidote to shame.""
— Iroh- Avatar:The Last Airbender
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,515



« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2010, 06:30:20 AM »

Now, that being said, I attended a Byzantine Catholic Church for a whole year and I loved it and found it beautiful.
BUT, Byzantine Liturgy still remains alien and foreign to me. I connecting to Christ in the Divine Liturgy of St. John. I don't think that this means that there is anything wrong with the Byzantine Liturgy but I have always experience Christ in the framework of a Western Liturgy. Because my spiritual life was formed in this way,it would be difficult for me to be forced into a a situation where being Byzantine was my only option.
I want to emphasize that I don't think that there is anything wrong with Eastern Liturgies. They are very beautiful. I just couldn't imagine myself fitting well into them permanently.

Ha, that's exactly how I used to thought before conversion!
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 06:31:05 AM by Alpo » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #61 on: March 16, 2010, 08:20:40 AM »

Quote

Please point me to the rubrics that call for an archaic language in the liturgy.


My favorite is the Gospel of the Road to Emmaus in the Slavic Church:with the two disciples you have all sorts fo duals which have dropped out of the Slavic languages (except Slovenian) still in the Church Slovanic.

Anna Comnena talks about teaching Greeks (i.e. Romans) to speak Greek (i.e. Attic):
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26357.msg416749/topicseen.html#msg416749

That's just it: there is no need for a canon.  It is that deeply engrained in the East.

Not deeply engrained enough, apparently, since the Church translated the liturgy into modern English without anyone raising a fuss.

Here's the problem Isa- your entire argument in favor of the WR and liturgical phyletism is based on obscure historical tangents which have negligible relevance and which the average Orthodox in the US or other western lands is neither aware of nor affected by.

The Eastern rite is served in modern English, not middle English and not Anglo-Saxon, so what are you complaining about? Are you now critiquing the Eastern Rite because the form of English selected was not sufficiently archaic? Did Sts. Cyril and Methodius deliberately pick archaic dialects when they formed Old Church Slavonic? Did St. Innocent of Alaska reach for the oldest forms of native languages they could find?

Quote
Confusing Rome with the World (and uniformity of rite is this part of this Urbs et Orbis error) is the core of its errors.

The Vatican's errors are exactly what the Church says they are- filioque, Papal supremacy, etc. The Church has never made its critique of the Vatican on the phyletist grounds that everyone should get his own rite for his own culture and ethnicity.
The old local rites are dead and gone; let's put away the fantasy roleplaying and accept what the Church has given us.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 08:21:02 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #62 on: March 16, 2010, 09:32:58 AM »

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism?  Huh

We can be looking at things from a different perspective, but if you want to "set Orthodoxy apart from Roman Catholicism", why not adopt the Eastern Rite? The Antiochians in the Philippines have adopted the Western Rite and it has not been received well, even amongst their own members (partly due to alleged "un canonical practices"). The Orthodox faithful here want to BE known as Orthodox and if we are merely talking about "identity", then celebrating Eastern Rite is the logical thing to do.

My two cents.

Hi "sohma_hatori"  Wink (Hey, where's my tea man? You promised to send it before Lent. Cool)

Yeah, you told me that before. But, truly, truly I say unto you: "mas chada jud ang Gregorian bai" (Gregorian chant is really much nicer.)

Anyway, jokes aside, I truly believe that it will be hard for Filipinos to adapt the Byzantine Chant. Even if Lutherans and other Protestants convert they are at least familiar (even a little bit) of Gregorian Chant, owing to Masses on television and Catholic churches with large speakers.

Lets let the Bishops decide anyway.
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #63 on: March 16, 2010, 11:53:24 AM »

Anyway, jokes aside, I truly believe that it will be hard for Filipinos to adapt the Byzantine Chant. Even if Lutherans and other Protestants convert they are at least familiar (even a little bit) of Gregorian Chant, owing to Masses on television and Catholic churches with large speakers.

Lets let the Bishops decide anyway.

What's wrong with Russian choral settings?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 16, 2010, 01:51:29 PM »

Hmmm.. One thought to ponder: Could the Bishops make a new rite? I mean, they did that in Russia right?  Wink

I could be wrong, but I think one of the Czar's did that in Russia. The slavic rite is a hybrid of both Roman Catholicism and Byzantinism.

And so it's both Eastern and Western. I'm not gonna front.....I actually like the slavic rite. I don't like it's statues and some of it's Icons, but I do like alot of other things about it.






ICXC NIKA

Statues? The only one venerated statue in the Slavic Church I know is in Kosovo.

There were at least three major changes of rites in Russia: the one by Patr. Nikon, the one by Peter the Great and the one by the Living Church (thanks God, failed). Which do you mean?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #65 on: March 16, 2010, 03:18:44 PM »

Quote

Please point me to the rubrics that call for an archaic language in the liturgy.


My favorite is the Gospel of the Road to Emmaus in the Slavic Church:with the two disciples you have all sorts fo duals which have dropped out of the Slavic languages (except Slovenian) still in the Church Slovanic.

Anna Comnena talks about teaching Greeks (i.e. Romans) to speak Greek (i.e. Attic):
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26357.msg416749/topicseen.html#msg416749

That's just it: there is no need for a canon.  It is that deeply engrained in the East.

Not deeply engrained enough, apparently, since the Church translated the liturgy into modern English without anyone raising a fuss.

LOL. Where have you been. You're lucky to get English, modern, archaic or Indo-European given the fuss in many quarters over this, e.g. the Greek Archdiocese of Canada/Toronto.

Couple of things on that, first of which is that Orthodox didn't translate it. Hapgood has dominated English liturgy in North America for the past century.  She was, and remained, an Episcopalian, and the ECUSA's predecessor was part, if not the main, part of her intended audience, to reunite the "branches," East and West.  Hence the BCP language, explicitely using the KJV and the BCP for the Psalms, and even the BCP translation of the prayer of St. Chrysostom ("Byzantinization" started before the WRO even existed, or were thought of).  (In contrast, St. Nicholas the Apostle of Japan rejected the earlier translations by Protestants, not for problems of dogma, but because they used vernacular Japanese, and he started his own translation into archaic Classical Japanese).  Prior to her, translations were done by Fr. Bjerring, a convert priest (who later apostacized) who served the East coast Orthodox, being installed in New York in 1870.  He had to translate them for the simple reason that he did not speak either Russian/Slavonic nor Greek, and had to go from a German translation.  Most of his parish barely spoke English, so the English being used didn't become an issue.

Prior to that, English was used in the San Francisco Cathedral, the parishes in New Orleans and Galveston as the lingua franca of the mixed congregations, and liturgical use wasn't in question.  The "English priest" Fr. (soon to officially St.) Sebastian Dabovich translated for the clergy (he was the first priest born in America of European parantage, but just barely: his mother went into labor as their boat sailed past the Golden Gate Bridge towards immigration).

Things didn't change much until the conversion of Fr. Ingrim Irwin, the first of a rash of convert priests when the See of North America was translated to New York.  A former Episcopalian, he began writing English articles in the Russia/Ukrainian publications (oddly, the HGS allowed Ukrainian in North America although banned in the Empire: despite the 1st Ammendment, the Church publications had to get the approval of the Russian censor). When St. Tikhon returned to Russia, he was tranferred to St. Raphael's jurisdiction.  There his started the Anglisation of al-Kalimah (now the Word), and began to target the children of the Arabs, who were being lured away by English services of the Protestants. At the same time, back in the Mother Patriarchate, Arabic had just been restored as the liturgical language, and so was undergoing a process of translation/standardization not unlike what was going on in America, at a time that the Christians were standardizing modern Arabic (yes, the Christians.  The Muslims refused to acknowledge anything but Quranic Arabic at the time).  Given that dynamic, Fr. Irwin placed a premium on intelligibility, as he spoke out forcefully for mission (severely criticizing Hapgood in the process) in North America. Hence, no reason to adopt the Eastern mentality on language (i.e. diglossia). The Syrian Diocese went from 100% Arabic in 1906 to 84% at least some English, including 52% all English, in 1916.  Up until the OCA and the switching to English which picked up steam after Autocephaly, the Antichians were the biggest source of English Orthodoxy.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/08/language-in-american-orthodoxy-1916/

Another source of English translation came from Archb. Fan Noli's Albanians.  Back in the empire the Porte forbade Albanian and the Phanar excommunicated those who used it, and the Greeks brought that rule here in America: the origin of the autocephalous Church of Albania sprung into existence from the refusal of the Greek priest in Boston to bury an "Albanian Nationalist."  So Fan Noli and the Albanians went to the Russian bishop. Fan Noli translated into English and Albanian the classics (Harvard educated, he was a philologist, aside from liturgical translations, and himself a poet in both languages) of English and the writings of Albanian natinalists. His writings helped standardize Albanian (accomplished within his lifetime).  Again, a different dynamic than usual in Eastern countries, and given that history, not suprising that we have the translations we have. (another element being that Vatican, with a different agenda, approved and published all sorts of materials in English, which we all use).

Meanwhile, in Greece the Evangelika "Gospel Questions" (the translation of the NT into Modern Greek and distributed in Greece, at nearly no cost, sponsored by the Queen of the Greeks) resulted in bloodshed and deaths, the deposition of the Archbishop of Athens and the fall of the government.  All that without a canon or a rubric.


Quote
Here's the problem Isa- your entire argument in favor of the WR and liturgical phyletism

You mean the DL in the language the Faithful actually speak: whether English, Yupik, French or Spanish...or whatever?


Quote
is based on obscure historical tangents which have negligible relevance

Like
rococo and baroque?

Quote
and which the average Orthodox in the US or other western lands is neither aware of nor affected by.

Those in the WRO, and the Western detractors of Orthodoxy say otherwise.

Quote
The Eastern rite is served in modern English, not middle English and not Anglo-Saxon, so what are you complaining about?

Since I pray in Arabic, for myself, nothing.  Just defending the Catholicity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic [that means sent] Church.

Quote
Are you now critiquing the Eastern Rite because the form of English selected was not sufficiently archaic?

Just stating the fact that this is not the usual manner of things in the East.

Quote
Did Sts. Cyril and Methodius deliberately pick archaic dialects when they formed Old Church Slavonic? Did St. Innocent of Alaska reach for the oldest forms of native languages they could find?


LOL. Bad examples, as neither the Slavs nor the Amerindians had any means to have an archaic form of their language-that requires a literary form to make the comparison, and the saints were the first to put the languages into writing.  Plus SS Cyril and Methodius were technically a Western mission.  The written form they created, the Glagolithic, survives in Croatia, using the Western rite.  I've refered to the example of St. Nicholas of Japan above, and I'll add the Classical Chinese translations done by the Orthodox missions: both Japan and China had literary traditions, where the choice of an archaic form was available, and chosen.  When Romanian finally came into its own, it borrowed Slavonic for its archaism (the knowledge of Latin was completely gone at the time), as Coptic and Syriac used Greek, and Arabic used Syriac.  But getting back to the Slavonic, once the Cyrillic alphabet was adopted, yes, archaisms like the "Greek letters" (letters that were different in Attic but merged in Koine) and breathings (meaningless in Slavonic) were adopted.

Quote
Confusing Rome with the World (and uniformity of rite is this part of this Urbs et Orbis error) is the core of its errors.

The Vatican's errors are exactly what the Church says they are- filioque, Papal supremacy, etc. [/quote]

The filioque was Spain's error.  It only became the Vatican, and the cause of Rome being dropped from the diptychs, when introduced at Rome, and Rome therefore insisted all the other Churches adopt it.  Same with the authority of its bishop over all the other Churches.

Quote
The Church has never made its critique of the Vatican on the phyletist grounds
Au contraire: The Byzantine lists: errors of the Latins By Tia M. Kolbaba
http://books.google.com/books?id=X8F9EghcuD8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=erros+of+the+latins&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false


Quote
that everyone should get his own rite for his own culture and ethnicity.

Constantinople was not yet underway for a century after the schism to transform itself into the Phanar, and suppressed the rites of the other local Churches.

Quote
The old local rites are dead and gone; let's put away the fantasy roleplaying and accept what the Church has given us.
Like the Resurrection?  Yes, these dead bones live.

Interesting how you both say
I agree here. If established Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran parishes want to convert and adopt this rite, and the Orthodox bishops concede to this,

and tell them to "put away the fantasy roleplaying and accept what the Church has given us."  What when those "established Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran parishes" establish other parishes (as I said, Apostolic means "sent")?  Would they be setting up Eastern parishes?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 03:24:01 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #66 on: March 16, 2010, 04:34:17 PM »

Since the rite of Constantinople has survived and flourished for around 15 centuries, it obviously must have some benefits over those archaic rites once used in the West, but now almost completely obscured and extinct.

The Roman rite has also survived and flourished.  The benefit which both had was the sword in the hand of its supporter.


Quote
I also kind of get a kick at how some Orthodox, mainly converts will decry and disparage all things in Orthodoxy which they find too Eastern, ethnic, and exotic, as well as Ethnicity in general as "phyletheism". However they will, at the same time exhort and praise all things Western (which I guess they equate with "English") almost to the point that you could consider "Anglo-Phyletheist".  Talk about the pot and the Kettle...

But here both pot and kettle are on their stove.

Quote
I have my deep suspicions of the Western rite of Orthodoxy, but I fully except it as a valid choice for those who wish to attend it (as long as it is approved by an Orthodox synod).  I'm just not a fan of having people tell me that I MUST attend to and belong to Western rite Orthodoxy simply because I was born in a country that they define as "Western".
As long as the majority in that country who define themselves as Western can go to the Western Rite.

The Roman rite did not survive in a continuous manner as did the rite of Constantinople.  Many times throughout history has the Latin liturgy used by Rome changed.  Before the Council of Trent there was not even a single standardized Latin rite used throughout the whole Western Church.  Rome got wise to an idea that Constantinople had long since promoted, that it is better for unitys sake to have one standardized rite for the whole Church instead of numerous "local" ones.  This is why the Vatican created the Tridentine rite out of numerous, already existing liturgies that were used in various parts of Europe at that time. 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #67 on: March 16, 2010, 07:51:06 PM »

Since the rite of Constantinople has survived and flourished for around 15 centuries, it obviously must have some benefits over those archaic rites once used in the West, but now almost completely obscured and extinct.

The Roman rite has also survived and flourished.  The benefit which both had was the sword in the hand of its supporter.


Quote
I also kind of get a kick at how some Orthodox, mainly converts will decry and disparage all things in Orthodoxy which they find too Eastern, ethnic, and exotic, as well as Ethnicity in general as "phyletheism". However they will, at the same time exhort and praise all things Western (which I guess they equate with "English") almost to the point that you could consider "Anglo-Phyletheist".  Talk about the pot and the Kettle...

But here both pot and kettle are on their stove.

Quote
I have my deep suspicions of the Western rite of Orthodoxy, but I fully except it as a valid choice for those who wish to attend it (as long as it is approved by an Orthodox synod).  I'm just not a fan of having people tell me that I MUST attend to and belong to Western rite Orthodoxy simply because I was born in a country that they define as "Western".
As long as the majority in that country who define themselves as Western can go to the Western Rite.

The Roman rite did not survive in a continuous manner as did the rite of Constantinople.  Many times throughout history has the Latin liturgy used by Rome changed. 

LOL.  So has the one used by New Rome, which is not even its own native DL, but one imported from Antioch in the late 4th century (by St. John and Nestorius  Shocked).

Quote
Before the Council of Trent there was not even a single standardized Latin rite used throughout the whole Western Church.

The Roman rite had been standardized and had been imposed on England in 664 (to the extermination of the native Celtic rite there) France in 789 (to the detriment of the native Gallic rite), on Milan in 849 (to the detriment of the native Milanese/Ambrosian rite), on Scotland after 1066 (to the extermination of the native Celtic rite there), on Spain in 1085 (to the deteriment of the native Mozarabic rite), on Ireland by Crusade in 1155 (to the extermination of the remnants of the native Celtic rite). Germany knew nothing but the Roman rite, which it proceeded to impose on the Church of Moravia (the present Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia) and other lands evangelized by the Orthodox.  The single standardized Latin rite was imposed from Ireland to Poland-Lithuania, from Scandinavia to the Crusaders states at a time when the Orthodox did not have a single standardized rite.

Quote
  Rome got wise to an idea that Constantinople had long since promoted, that it is better for unitys sake to have one standardized rite for the whole Church instead of numerous "local" ones.

No, it's not.  The debacle of the schism caused by Nikon should show that. But besides the point: Constantinople abolished the Antiochean rite and then the Alexandrian rite around 1200.  The Roman rite had been imposed long before throughout the whole Western patriarchate and what it could get of the East.  In fact, its imposition on Southern Italy was one of the factors that led to the Schism.

Quote
  This is why the Vatican created the Tridentine rite out of numerous, already existing liturgies that were used in various parts of Europe at that time.
By the time of Trent, the other liturgies were reduced to a handful of parishes (the Mozarabic, for instance, to only the Toledo cathedral and six parishes).  There were various uses (as there were, and all in the rite of Constantinople), and various differences caused by manuscripts etc., but no, Trent did not create a new rite by combining rites: it took what Rome had.  The new technology of printing allowed Trent/Pius V to standardize the rite (as Nikon did in Russia).  The Roman rite before Pius V was pretty much the one before him.  The advance in printing, not any great theological breakthrough, produced the Tridentine Mass.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #68 on: March 16, 2010, 08:02:09 PM »

I'm a bit of a liturgical history buff. This interested me. It was quoted in the margins of Rorate Caeli:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/03/classical-roman-rite-c-1570.html

Quote
St. Francis of Assisi can be rightly regarded as the “savior” of the Ancient Roman Rite, since, at the time of the foundation of his Order, on account of his desire to live the same religious life that the Apostles lived with Christ Jesus, the three years before He was Crucified and Died for our salvation, he petitioned Pope Innocent III to take as the rite of his Order, the ancient Rite of the Roman Church, which was held to be the “Rite of St. Peter the Apostle”. During the reign of Innocent III, this rite was only used on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, in the private papal Chapel, for the so-called Gallican Rite was universally employed in the Diocese of Rome. In addition only 3 known copies of the liturgical books of this ancient rite were still extant in 1215, one of which was falling to pieces. Pope Innocent III granted St. Francis’ request and gave him one of the good, still extant copies of the Sacramentum, Lectionary, Rituale and other books.

On account of the Rule of St. Francis, the Order of Friars Minor published the first Missale in 1245 — which was entitled the Missale Regulare — so that all the priests of the Order could easily fulfill their duties, without having to carry about these several liturgical books. Pope Innocent IV attempted to reform the liturgy of the Roman Church in the same year, a reform which was widely unpopular with the clergy of the Diocese of Rome by 1265 A.D..

And so by the reign of Pope Nicholas III, a close collaborator with St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, the pope having heard how well received the Missale Regulare of the Order was throughout all parts of Europe, on account of the great devotion of the Catholic Faithful to St. Peter the Apostle, decided to respond to the failed liturgical renewal of Innocent IV by establishing the Ancient Roman Rite once again as the proper rite of the Diocese of Rome.

This same Missale Regulare of 1245, which was adopted with very minor alterations for the calendar of the diocese clergy in 1265, was republished in 1465 as the curial missal. It was this Missale, that Pope St. Pius V, by his Bull Missale Romanum of 1570, established as the Missale Romanum, and imposed upon the entire Latin Rite in according with the mandate of the Council of Trent, granting to all Roman Rite priests the perpetual privilege of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to this Missal.

Essentially the Gallican Liturgy once nearly reigned supreme in the Roman church! But the Franciscans came along and preferred the private liturgy of the Chair of St. Peter (performed once a year). And because of them, eventually it swallowed up the Gallican and its cousin the Mozaribic (although it borrowed elements like the Gloria). I read some where that the Sarum Rite is a variant of the Missale Romanum and there are links that align the (Norman-imported?) liturgy with the Dominicans and the Carmelites.

Absolute papal "monarchism" and the Roman Catholic culture of obedience, is ultimately the reason why the post-Vatican II liturgical destruction succeeded. The current pope is conscious of liturgical discontinuity and actually cited the Old Believers and the Nikonian reforms as a precaution against those who would impose even minor changes to the liturgy with the stroke of a pen (such as St. Joseph being inserted into the Latin canon/anaphora). Yes, there are old school Catholics who reject the 1962 Missal.

Meanwhile, in Dalmatia/Croatia, their traditional Tridentine Mass was actually in Old Slavonic (!)
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 08:05:55 PM by John Larocque » Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #69 on: March 16, 2010, 11:49:38 PM »

Anyway, jokes aside, I truly believe that it will be hard for Filipinos to adapt the Byzantine Chant. Even if Lutherans and other Protestants convert they are at least familiar (even a little bit) of Gregorian Chant, owing to Masses on television and Catholic churches with large speakers.

Lets let the Bishops decide anyway.

What's wrong with Russian choral settings?

Nothing, Znammeny and Kiev Chants are nice and its much more analogous with Gregorian chants -- even Rachmaninov's vespers are written in western notation.  Smiley Too bad the Patriarchate of Russia isn't the one assigned in the Phil.  Undecided

Don't get me wrong I like Byzantine chant, its just really hard to sing. And ease in assimilation of Orthodoxy in the Philippines is really needed.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 11:51:43 PM by yochanan » Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #70 on: March 16, 2010, 11:55:09 PM »

Do any of you have any links of Western Rite texts in the net?
I read one in our school's library but I can't borrow anymore Sad its finals week.
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #71 on: March 17, 2010, 12:16:04 AM »

Do any of you have any links of Western Rite texts in the net?
I read one in our school's library but I can't borrow anymore Sad its finals week.


Your school had a WRO book?  What kind of school do you go to?

I've posted links before, I'll look if I can find them.

Here's some.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24362.msg376041.html#msg376041
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22944.msg350046.html#msg350046
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 12:30:37 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #72 on: March 17, 2010, 12:47:45 AM »

There's a short history of the Roman Rite here from Michael Davies, largely cribbed from Fortescue. It seems the Franciscans had revised history a little bit.

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/msshst.htm

Long before St. Francis came along, the Gallican liturgy became displaced by a Gallicanized form of the old Roman Rite. It replaced this separate rite, but absorbed elements of the former. Thus the "Gallican" liturgy being celebrated in Rome in the early era of the Franciscans was actually Alcuin's Gallicanized Roman Rite... along with this older rite of St. Peter, which seems to have been held up as an example of an earlier pre-Gallicanized version. There is a strong imprint of St. Gregory the Great on the canon and several prayers - so in many ways, the Roman Rite in its various versions can be said to be his, much in the same way as the liturgy of St. Basil bears the imprint of St. Basil.

This paragraph stuck out for me in the piece:
 
Quote
The Missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman Missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short, the Missal of 1570 was, in all essentials, the usage of the mainstream of medieval European liturgy which included England and all its rites.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 01:00:35 AM by John Larocque » Logged
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #73 on: March 17, 2010, 01:00:34 AM »

Do any of you have any links of Western Rite texts in the net?
I read one in our school's library but I can't borrow anymore Sad its finals week.


Your school had a WRO book?  What kind of school do you go to?

I've posted links before, I'll look if I can find them.

Here's some.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24362.msg376041.html#msg376041
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22944.msg350046.html#msg350046

Thanks. BTW, I go to a Protestant University, which (ironically) has lots of books about Roman Catholicism -- not sure if that was pre-schism though -- it could be post-Vatican I  Embarrassed

Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #74 on: March 17, 2010, 01:56:43 AM »

All I know is that the rite of Constantinople survived down through the centuries while the other, Western ones did not.  Maybe the See of Rome had just cause to suppress the local rites with a standardized one (Just when it was territories within their own jurisdiction).  The idea of having dozens of local rites as opposed to one standardized one can lead to confusion and even heresy (Council of Toledo and the Filique).
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #75 on: March 17, 2010, 04:13:59 AM »

All I know is that the rite of Constantinople survived down through the centuries while the other, Western ones did not. 

LOL.  Well, if that is all you know, then I'm afraid you don't know anything, as such is not the case, as shown above.

Quote
Maybe the See of Rome had just cause to suppress the local rites with a standardized one

No, it did not.

Quote
(Just when it was territories within their own jurisdiction). 

Why the difference, if it were right, it would be right whenever.

Quote
The idea of having dozens of local rites as opposed to one standardized one can lead to confusion and even heresy

Whether it could or could not is moot, as it did not.

Quote
(Council of Toledo and the Filique).

Which had nothing to do with the question at hand, as 1) the rite of Toledo survives to this day 2) at the time of the insertion of the fillioque, the Orthodx had at least a half dozen different rites, 3) the filioque has been inserted in (via those submitted to the Vatican) in all rites, including Constantinople's.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
sohma_hatori
Earthbending Novice
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Posts: 526


The Blind Bandit


« Reply #76 on: March 17, 2010, 07:54:57 AM »

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism?  Huh

We can be looking at things from a different perspective, but if you want to "set Orthodoxy apart from Roman Catholicism", why not adopt the Eastern Rite? The Antiochians in the Philippines have adopted the Western Rite and it has not been received well, even amongst their own members (partly due to alleged "un canonical practices"). The Orthodox faithful here want to BE known as Orthodox and if we are merely talking about "identity", then celebrating Eastern Rite is the logical thing to do.

My two cents.

Hi "sohma_hatori"  Wink (Hey, where's my tea man? You promised to send it before Lent. Cool)

Yeah, you told me that before. But, truly, truly I say unto you: "mas chada jud ang Gregorian bai" (Gregorian chant is really much nicer.)

Anyway, jokes aside, I truly believe that it will be hard for Filipinos to adapt the Byzantine Chant. Even if Lutherans and other Protestants convert they are at least familiar (even a little bit) of Gregorian Chant, owing to Masses on television and Catholic churches with large speakers.

Lets let the Bishops decide anyway.

True enough that Gregorian chants are charming, but allow me to repeat, if we are merely talking about "identity" then the Orthodox in the Philippines adopting the Western Rite would just seem to other Filipinos as if we are just another "rogue catholic group". There are too many other heretical groups in the Philippines who claim to be Orthodox! These heretical bishop's ORDAINED THEMSELVES and proclaimed their group to be "The Orthodox Church", or some people who claim to be divinely ordained to unite the Catholic and Orthodox Churches without any canonical bishop whosoever to back their claims! (At least we know the Antiochians here come from a canonical bishop), but these other "groups" aren't. And you know what? Their rites are western. Modified Catholic Liturgies. They may use Eastern elements in their garb but the rubrics are basically western (with so little modification, ever heard of "His Holiness Patriarch John Florentine Patriarch of the Philippines"?  Undecided )

My fear is that if we adopt a western rite for the Orthodox here, other Filipinos might just view us as another catholic vagante group, instead of us being identified as "Eastern Orthodox". By the way, Byzantine Chant isn't that hard really, you just really need to practice. Besides, our priest here has been very diligent to us in the teaching of chant, so I don't see any "real" problem. Adopting Byzantine Chant in Filipino languages maybe difficult at the start, but think about how the Spanish people adopten Byzantine Chant and how at present, they sing beautiful heavenly hymns.   Smiley

C'mon my friend, the reason why so many Roman Catholic seminarians visit our parish every Sunday is precisely because we have a unique rite in the Philippine context (i.e. Eastern Rite), and us Orthodox Christians are actually "performing them a service" so to speak. LOL!  laugh

By the way. Your tea has to wait until Pascha. (I have money problems at present). I do pray it will reach you in time.  Smiley
Logged

""Pride is not the opposite of shame, but it's source. True humility is the only antidote to shame.""
— Iroh- Avatar:The Last Airbender
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #77 on: March 17, 2010, 08:40:38 AM »

Using the Byzantine rite does not necessitate Byzantine chant. I'm sure the Gregorian style could be imported to the Eastern rite.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #78 on: March 17, 2010, 08:48:52 AM »

Isa- Let's cut through the tangents which you seem very fond of.

We have a modern English liturgy now, so your point about diglossia is moot. No one is fighting to adopt Middle or Old English.

As an aside, Elizabethan English is in fact our closest parallel to, say, Classical Chinese or Attic Greek, because it is generally recognized that English literature and English expressive power reached its highest point in that era (Shakespeare, KJV, Milton, Spenser, etc.), Beowulf, Sir Gawain, and Chaucer notwithstanding. Old and Middle English are often said to be less flexible and less rich in expressive power and subtlety than Early Modern English.

That's why poets continued to write in this language up to the 19th century (and some, even today), even after Early Modern English had been replaced by contemporary English in everyday speech. If there is anything to be called "Classical English" it is Early Modern English, not Old English or Middle English.

Someone who argues that every ethnicity or culture should have its own rite has no right to criticize those who think every ethnicity or culture should have its own church.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 08:52:43 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,515



« Reply #79 on: March 17, 2010, 09:05:17 AM »

Using the Byzantine rite does not necessitate Byzantine chant. I'm sure the Gregorian style could be imported to the Eastern rite.

Sounds like Georgian Baptists to me:

http://www.ebcgeorgia.org/Neue_Dateien/News24/news24-PIX/Easter%20Eucharist.JPG

Or perhaps we should keep different rites separate.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 09:06:28 AM by Alpo » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #80 on: March 17, 2010, 09:18:53 AM »

Using the Byzantine rite does not necessitate Byzantine chant. I'm sure the Gregorian style could be imported to the Eastern rite.

Sounds like Georgian Baptists to me:

http://www.ebcgeorgia.org/Neue_Dateien/News24/news24-PIX/Easter%20Eucharist.JPG

Or perhaps we should keep different rites separate.

You mean, like when the Russians imported Renaissance and Baroque music into their liturgy?

Speaking of Georgians, how often do you hear Byzantine chant in the Georgian Orthodox Church?

A style of music is not inextricably bound to a rite. Adopting Gregorian for the Eastern rite is actually a better fit than a lot of the modern Russian music, since it has common origins with Byzantine chant.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #81 on: March 17, 2010, 09:52:10 AM »

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism?  Huh

We can be looking at things from a different perspective, but if you want to "set Orthodoxy apart from Roman Catholicism", why not adopt the Eastern Rite? The Antiochians in the Philippines have adopted the Western Rite and it has not been received well, even amongst their own members (partly due to alleged "un canonical practices"). The Orthodox faithful here want to BE known as Orthodox and if we are merely talking about "identity", then celebrating Eastern Rite is the logical thing to do.

My two cents.

Hi "sohma_hatori"  Wink (Hey, where's my tea man? You promised to send it before Lent. Cool)

Yeah, you told me that before. But, truly, truly I say unto you: "mas chada jud ang Gregorian bai" (Gregorian chant is really much nicer.)

Anyway, jokes aside, I truly believe that it will be hard for Filipinos to adapt the Byzantine Chant. Even if Lutherans and other Protestants convert they are at least familiar (even a little bit) of Gregorian Chant, owing to Masses on television and Catholic churches with large speakers.

Lets let the Bishops decide anyway.

Quote
True enough that Gregorian chants are charming, but allow me to repeat, if we are merely talking about "identity" then the Orthodox in the Philippines adopting the Western Rite would just seem to other Filipinos as if we are just another "rogue catholic group". There are too many other heretical groups in the Philippines who claim to be Orthodox! These heretical bishop's ORDAINED THEMSELVES and proclaimed their group to be "The Orthodox Church", or some people who claim to be divinely ordained to unite the Catholic and Orthodox Churches without any canonical bishop whosoever to back their claims! (At least we know the Antiochians here come from a canonical bishop), but these other "groups" aren't. And you know what? Their rites are western. Modified Catholic Liturgies. They may use Eastern elements in their garb but the rubrics are basically western (with so little modification, ever heard of "His Holiness Patriarch John Florentine Patriarch of the Philippines"?  Undecided )

My fear is that if we adopt a western rite for the Orthodox here, other Filipinos might just view us as another catholic vagante group, instead of us being identified as "Eastern Orthodox". By the way, Byzantine Chant isn't that hard really, you just really need to practice. Besides, our priest here has been very diligent to us in the teaching of chant, so I don't see any "real" problem. Adopting Byzantine Chant in Filipino languages maybe difficult at the start, but think about how the Spanish people adopten Byzantine Chant and how at present, they sing beautiful heavenly hymns.   Smiley

C'mon my friend, the reason why so many Roman Catholic seminarians visit our parish every Sunday is precisely because we have a unique rite in the Philippine context (i.e. Eastern Rite), and us Orthodox Christians are actually "performing them a service" so to speak. LOL!  laugh

By the way. Your tea has to wait until Pascha. (I have money problems at present). I do pray it will re

His Holiness Patriarch John Florentine Patriarch of the Philippines!!!???  Shocked OMG!

Well, if you say so, then we really do have to use the Eastern Rite. Hmmm..

Look at this:

Using the Byzantine rite does not necessitate Byzantine chant. I'm sure the Gregorian style could be imported to the Eastern rite.

If this is true, then some churches could just use the Eastern Rite - Gregorian Chant model. Easier to assimilate and emphasizes our identity, or does it?

« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 09:54:01 AM by yochanan » Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #82 on: March 17, 2010, 09:55:49 AM »

Using the Byzantine rite does not necessitate Byzantine chant. I'm sure the Gregorian style could be imported to the Eastern rite.

Sounds like Georgian Baptists to me:

http://www.ebcgeorgia.org/Neue_Dateien/News24/news24-PIX/Easter%20Eucharist.JPG

Or perhaps we should keep different rites separate.

Baptists have a liturgy? And they use Gregorian? Shocked
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #83 on: March 17, 2010, 09:59:04 AM »

Is there a substantial difference between the Eastern and Western Rites? They preach the same thing right?
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #84 on: March 17, 2010, 10:01:47 AM »

Using the Byzantine rite does not necessitate Byzantine chant. I'm sure the Gregorian style could be imported to the Eastern rite.

Sounds like Georgian Baptists to me:

http://www.ebcgeorgia.org/Neue_Dateien/News24/news24-PIX/Easter%20Eucharist.JPG

Or perhaps we should keep different rites separate.

Baptists have a liturgy? And they use Gregorian? Shocked

No, they're Georgian baptists who have adopted Georgian Orthodox customs to make conversions easier. Alpo's point seems to be that anyone who uses any music other than Byzantine chant in the Eastern rite is imitating these baptists.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #85 on: March 17, 2010, 10:03:35 AM »

Is there a substantial difference between the Eastern and Western Rites? They preach the same thing right?

Yes. The problem is, the Western rites are defunct. The rites currently being promoted as "Western Rite Orthodoxy" are historical guesswork and pastiche, mostly using post-schism Roman Catholic and Anglican texts.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #86 on: March 17, 2010, 10:06:28 AM »

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism?  Huh

We can be looking at things from a different perspective, but if you want to "set Orthodoxy apart from Roman Catholicism", why not adopt the Eastern Rite? The Antiochians in the Philippines have adopted the Western Rite and it has not been received well, even amongst their own members (partly due to alleged "un canonical practices"). The Orthodox faithful here want to BE known as Orthodox and if we are merely talking about "identity", then celebrating Eastern Rite is the logical thing to do.

My two cents.

Hi "sohma_hatori"  Wink (Hey, where's my tea man? You promised to send it before Lent. Cool)

Yeah, you told me that before. But, truly, truly I say unto you: "mas chada jud ang Gregorian bai" (Gregorian chant is really much nicer.)

Anyway, jokes aside, I truly believe that it will be hard for Filipinos to adapt the Byzantine Chant. Even if Lutherans and other Protestants convert they are at least familiar (even a little bit) of Gregorian Chant, owing to Masses on television and Catholic churches with large speakers.

Lets let the Bishops decide anyway.

True enough that Gregorian chants are charming, but allow me to repeat, if we are merely talking about "identity" then the Orthodox in the Philippines adopting the Western Rite would just seem to other Filipinos as if we are just another "rogue catholic group".

If worshipping in the Western Rite would make you seem to other Filipinos to be Filipino, then indeed it is a matter of identity, and you should be Western Rite.  That is clearest in the Middle East, where an Eastern Rite doesn't mark you as being Orthodox, as everyone else is Eastern too.  That is becoming clear too now in the Ukraine, where the Lutherans have divised an Eastern Rite (somewhere here there is a thread of Baptists doing the same thing in Georgia). And then there is the example of those in submission to the Vatican: I've seen the Immaculate Conception, perpetual adoration, Our Lady of Fatima, the rosary, stations of the Cross etc. etc. etc. done in Eastern style.

Quote
There are too many other heretical groups in the Philippines who claim to be Orthodox! These heretical bishop's ORDAINED THEMSELVES and proclaimed their group to be "The Orthodox Church", or some people who claim to be divinely ordained to unite the Catholic and Orthodox Churches without any canonical bishop whosoever to back their claims! (At least we know the Antiochians here come from a canonical bishop), but these other "groups" aren't. And you know what? Their rites are western. Modified Catholic Liturgies. They may use Eastern elements in their garb but the rubrics are basically western (with so little modification, ever heard of "His Holiness Patriarch John Florentine Patriarch of the Philippines"?  Undecided )

The "Ukrainian Orthodox Church," the one in combat with the Ukrainian Orthodox, also consecrated themselves.  We have a fair amount of such vagante and self-proclaimed groups adopting Eastern rite.  Makes them seem mysterious. It seems that appeal doesn't restrict itself to canonical bishops, or canonical groups with Eastern rite.

Quote
My fear is that if we adopt a western rite for the Orthodox here, other Filipinos might just view us as another catholic vagante group, instead of us being identified as "Eastern Orthodox".

Letting others define your identity is always a bad thing.


Quote
By the way, Byzantine Chant isn't that hard really, you just really need to practice.
Besides, our priest here has been very diligent to us in the teaching of chant, so I don't see any "real" problem. Adopting Byzantine Chant in Filipino languages maybe difficult at the start, but think about how the Spanish people adopten Byzantine Chant and how at present, they sing beautiful heavenly hymns.   Smiley

C'mon my friend, the reason why so many Roman Catholic seminarians visit our parish every Sunday is precisely because we have a unique rite in the Philippine context (i.e. Eastern Rite), and us Orthodox Christians are actually "performing them a service" so to speak. LOL!  laugh[/quote]

Acts 17:21.


Quote
By the way. Your tea has to wait until Pascha. (I have money problems at present). I do pray it will reach you in time.  Smiley
Lord have mercy!  Blessed Pascha!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #87 on: March 17, 2010, 10:07:50 AM »

Is there a substantial difference between the Eastern and Western Rites? They preach the same thing right?

Yes. The problem is, the Western rites are defunct. The rites currently being promoted as "Western Rite Orthodoxy" are historical guesswork and pastiche, mostly using post-schism Roman Catholic and Anglican texts.

Funny, I've been to several of those "defunct" Churches.  If I was going to worry about "defunct" things, I'd start with the diptychs....
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 10:08:11 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #88 on: March 17, 2010, 10:08:06 AM »

Using the Byzantine rite does not necessitate Byzantine chant. I'm sure the Gregorian style could be imported to the Eastern rite.

Sounds like Georgian Baptists to me:

http://www.ebcgeorgia.org/Neue_Dateien/News24/news24-PIX/Easter%20Eucharist.JPG

Or perhaps we should keep different rites separate.

Baptists have a liturgy? And they use Gregorian? Shocked

No, they're Georgian baptists who have adopted Georgian Orthodox customs to make conversions easier. Alpo's point seems to be that anyone who uses any music other than Byzantine chant in the Eastern rite is imitating these baptists.

That's just preposterous! Isn't that like a copyright infringement? I always thought Baptists always hated rituals.
Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
yochanan
Arch-laity of the Room of Supreme Awesomeness
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OMHKSEA (Philippines)
Posts: 185


O majestic aurora, how seeming did He fashion you!


« Reply #89 on: March 17, 2010, 10:16:59 AM »

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism?  Huh

We can be looking at things from a different perspective, but if you want to "set Orthodoxy apart from Roman Catholicism", why not adopt the Eastern Rite? The Antiochians in the Philippines have adopted the Western Rite and it has not been received well, even amongst their own members (partly due to alleged "un canonical practices"). The Orthodox faithful here want to BE known as Orthodox and if we are merely talking about "identity", then celebrating Eastern Rite is the logical thing to do.

My two cents.

Hi "sohma_hatori"  Wink (Hey, where's my tea man? You promised to send it before Lent. Cool)

Yeah, you told me that before. But, truly, truly I say unto you: "mas chada jud ang Gregorian bai" (Gregorian chant is really much nicer.)

Anyway, jokes aside, I truly believe that it will be hard for Filipinos to adapt the Byzantine Chant. Even if Lutherans and other Protestants convert they are at least familiar (even a little bit) of Gregorian Chant, owing to Masses on television and Catholic churches with large speakers.

Lets let the Bishops decide anyway.

True enough that Gregorian chants are charming, but allow me to repeat, if we are merely talking about "identity" then the Orthodox in the Philippines adopting the Western Rite would just seem to other Filipinos as if we are just another "rogue catholic group".

If worshipping in the Western Rite would make you seem to other Filipinos to be Filipino, then indeed it is a matter of identity, and you should be Western Rite.  That is clearest in the Middle East, where an Eastern Rite doesn't mark you as being Orthodox, as everyone else is Eastern too.  That is becoming clear too now in the Ukraine, where the Lutherans have divised an Eastern Rite (somewhere here there is a thread of Baptists doing the same thing in Georgia). And then there is the example of those in submission to the Vatican: I've seen the Immaculate Conception, perpetual adoration, Our Lady of Fatima, the rosary, stations of the Cross etc. etc. etc. done in Eastern style.

Quote
There are too many other heretical groups in the Philippines who claim to be Orthodox! These heretical bishop's ORDAINED THEMSELVES and proclaimed their group to be "The Orthodox Church", or some people who claim to be divinely ordained to unite the Catholic and Orthodox Churches without any canonical bishop whosoever to back their claims! (At least we know the Antiochians here come from a canonical bishop), but these other "groups" aren't. And you know what? Their rites are western. Modified Catholic Liturgies. They may use Eastern elements in their garb but the rubrics are basically western (with so little modification, ever heard of "His Holiness Patriarch John Florentine Patriarch of the Philippines"?  Undecided )

The "Ukrainian Orthodox Church," the one in combat with the Ukrainian Orthodox, also consecrated themselves.  We have a fair amount of such vagante and self-proclaimed groups adopting Eastern rite.  Makes them seem mysterious. It seems that appeal doesn't restrict itself to canonical bishops, or canonical groups with Eastern rite.

Quote
My fear is that if we adopt a western rite for the Orthodox here, other Filipinos might just view us as another catholic vagante group, instead of us being identified as "Eastern Orthodox".

Letting others define your identity is always a bad thing.


Quote
By the way, Byzantine Chant isn't that hard really, you just really need to practice.
Besides, our priest here has been very diligent to us in the teaching of chant, so I don't see any "real" problem. Adopting Byzantine Chant in Filipino languages maybe difficult at the start, but think about how the Spanish people adopten Byzantine Chant and how at present, they sing beautiful heavenly hymns.   Smiley

C'mon my friend, the reason why so many Roman Catholic seminarians visit our parish every Sunday is precisely because we have a unique rite in the Philippine context (i.e. Eastern Rite), and us Orthodox Christians are actually "performing them a service" so to speak. LOL!  laugh

Acts 17:21.


Quote
By the way. Your tea has to wait until Pascha. (I have money problems at present). I do pray it will reach you in time.  Smiley
Lord have mercy!  Blessed Pascha!
[/quote]

sohma_hatori is talking about the identity of Eastern Orthodoxy as a religion in the Philippines while you are talking about identity of the Philippine Orthodox Church as a whole in comparison with the other Orthodox churches in the world.

Indeed, its quite an identity to be WRO -- but in the Philippines there are, as sohma said, so many vagante groups -- we have an Anglican 'offshoot' (Pilipinista), St. Pope Pius Vatican One-ists Undecided, Unorthodox 'Orthodox' and Tridentine Mass Fan Catholics -- all of these causing genuine Eastern Orthodoxy to vanish from the picture  Sad -- if WR was to be used.

Sadly, I have diverted from my former stand of supporting WR to not supporting it.
But I nonetheless still support Gregorian chants.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 10:19:45 AM by yochanan » Logged

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15: 28)
Tags:
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 0.2 seconds with 73 queries.