OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 12:42:29 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 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How has becoming Orthodox from Roman Catholic changed you?  (Read 26622 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #135 on: March 16, 2011, 02:19:10 AM »

I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western.

What do you mean by spirituality?

All of my prayer is western style.  For example, I read Latin and Greek well, but have spent most of my life praying in Latin. I pray the Tridentine Roman Breviary, say the Rosary, adore the Blessed Sacrament even outside of Mass by singing St. Thomas Aquinas' Benediction hymns, and venerate Our Lady with the O Antiphons (the Salve Regina my favorite).  I know of and have tried Eastern devotions and titles, but they seem strange for me.  I prefer the western styles of adoration and veneration.  I do not say Rosary in the Eastern Catholic church, but I do pray it on the way to the DL as preparation for the Eucharist.   

I also confess the Western doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  I find it particularly meaningful.  The Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic mystery is also beautiful, but I have a particular attachment to the Western explanation.  This is deeply tied with my love of the Roman Canon. The Roman Canon describes everything that the Western Church teaches about the Eucharist in very clear detail.  The Canon is also one of the most beautiful (and historically important) late Latin prose compositions ever written. 

The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions.  There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".  An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

There's no such thing as local church's indigenous liturgy or charism of some specific rite. There are just churches and priests. All rites are part of the Tradition of the whole Church so any local church can implement any rite she deems necessary.

Yes, I agree in theory.  The Mass, however, is the epitome of the Western understanding of the Eucharist.  It is not Eastern in its theological understanding.  This is more than an comparison of the Latin, koine Greek, Slavonic, and Aramaic sacred languages.  I don't see the profit in transplanting the Roman liturgy outside of the place where (well, until 1968) it flourished culturally. 

I have no problem with ... the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon.  Those are non-issues.     

Mixing of completely different rites is a non-issue. Huh

I do not have theological difficulties with omission of the filioque, as it is a later addition that even the Vatican has made optional for the Byzantine liturgy.  I do believe that the Roman Canon by itself, without a Byzantine epiclesis, is sufficiently pneumatic even though the notion of epiclesis is not as important in Roman Western theology.  Some Orthodox accept that the quam oblationem or supplices te rogamus is acceptable as an epiclesis.  I am aesthetically troubled by the introduction of the foreign epiclesis, but I understand that this is done for unity with the Eastern liturgies.  Neither changes are dealbreakers.

I am troubled that many Western Orthodox say the Tridentine Mass in English or another vernacular.  I do not like the vernacular translations.  It is much better, in my view, to recite the entire Mass in Latin save the readings.  At the very least, say the Preface and Canon in Latin.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

Thanks!
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 02:21:16 AM by jordanz » 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: 37,359



« Reply #136 on: March 16, 2011, 02:53:36 AM »

First off, I am new here.  Thank you for this beautiful forum!

Is there a Western Rite Orthodox Church near you?

Not that I know of.  Most Eastern Christians where I am are Ukrainians.  Also, I have the impression that many "Western Rite Orthodox" churches are non-canonical or sketchy-canonical.  I'm probably wrong.  "non-canonical Roman Catholicism" (aka the SSPX) is very angry, anti-semitic, and just plain ugly.  Hope that's not the case in the East.  From what I understand, some Western Rite churches are under ROCOR.  ROCOR is a bit too hardcore for me -- they've got some anger/bigotry issues also.

most WRO are under Antioch. Both those under Antioch and those under ROCOR are fully canonical.

I believe that the Roman Rite rightfully resides under the authority of the Pope of Rome.
 

Not if he is a heretic.

The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions.

Rome was once an Orthodox Patriarchate.  Italy is an Orthodox jurisdiction
http://www.ortodossia.it/CONFERENZA%20EPISCOPALE.htm

There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".


If that were true, the Divine Liturgy would have never left Jerusalem.

An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?
No, a priest only can only celebrate a liturgy approved by his bishop, who must be in the Orthodox diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I have no problem with the removal of the filioque or the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon.  Those are non-issues.     
But the Orthodox bishop (+Siluan) in Rome is?
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 #137 on: March 16, 2011, 02:54:09 AM »

Catholic Traditionalists view the "paschal mystery" as kind of ambiguous Trojan horse for an abandonment of sorts of the sacrificial theology of the Mass. Which is to say, the Mass is all about Good Friday, and these same traditionalists - quoting from Trent and Papal encyclicals and old dogmatic manuals - have resisted the intrusion of Easter Sunday into the traditional Catholic theology of the Mass.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/paschal-mystery.htm

Quote
Question 70 of this catechism asks, “what does the Eucharistic memorial make present?” The answer given is “The Eucharistic memorial makes present the complete paschal mystery, the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, so that we may now become part of this mystery.” Then as if fearing not to have been sufficiently clear, five questions later the author asks, “Does the Mass make present Christ’s resurrection?” The answer is “The Eucharist makes present not only the sacrifice of Christ, but the resurrection which crowned his sacrifice. It is the risen Christ, who, in the Eucharist, is the living Bread.” The implication is that in whatever sense the Mass is Christ's sacrifice, it is in the same sense his resurrection. But this is not true. The Mass is literally Christ's sacrifice; it is not literally his resurrection.

It seems the "paschal mystery" theology crept in under the influence of Eastern-leaning theologians.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2010/print2010/klemna_bouyer_nov2010.html

Quote
Fr. Bouyer is known most of all as a scholar of liturgy and spirituality, and it is in these areas that his work has exercised its most overt impact on the course of Catholic theology as a whole. In the area of liturgy, Bouyer, himself drawing on the work of Dom Odo Casel, is the figure who is most responsible for the emphasis that has been placed in recent decades on the theme of the "Paschal Mystery" as central for understanding the mystery of the faith, and he, as much or more than anyone, oriented sacramental theologians to a focus on the liturgical event as the basis for theological reflection on the nature and meaning of the sacraments.

Quote
In terms of books that have had a direct influence on Catholic theology, his book published in 1943 on the Paschal Mystery, Le Mysetere Pascal, has been greatly influential. In this book, Bouyer argues that the liturgical unfolding of what he would call (on the suggestion of a colleague) the "Paschal Mystery" in Holy Week is the central key for understanding the faith. All of the events of the last days of Holy Week must be seen together, Bouyer argues, in order to grasp the Mystery of Christ as a unity.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 03:01:35 AM by John Larocque » Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #138 on: March 16, 2011, 03:37:22 AM »

I believe that the Roman Rite rightfully resides under the authority of the Pope of Rome.


Not if he is a heretic.

I really shouldn't go here, as this is a flamethrower that the board refs would like to avoid.  Look, I understand the sticking points such as papal infallibility and magisterium cannot be reconciled with the synodic governance of the Orthodox.  Nevertheless, the Immaculate Conception is merely the Augustinian formulation of the same Orthodox belief, i.e. that the Theotokos/Our Lady was filled with grace as the pure vessel of Christ.  The Western understanding merely takes into account its understanding of baptism.  Also, the Roman teachings on Purgatory and the Dormition/Assumption are reconcilable with Eastern doctrines.  The main issue between Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow has always been political and national, especially after the crusades and the minutiae that surrounded Ottoman occupation.  The existence of a Western name and an Eastern name for the same doctrine is not heresy.     

There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".


If that were true, the Divine Liturgy would have never left Jerusalem.

Very good point, ialmistry.  Didn't think of the issue that way.

An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

No, a priest only can only celebrate a liturgy approved by his bishop, who must be in the Orthodox diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I sense that your factionalism is quite strong.  Why are you so convinced that the Pope of Rome is a heretic, and that his Church is illegitimate?  For example, even after the schism certain Western theological developments such as Thomistic scholasticism influenced Russian theology.  The boundaries between Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow were still quite permeable even after the break.  Your vision of history is quite monochromatic.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 03:55:51 AM by jordanz » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,436



« Reply #139 on: March 16, 2011, 03:44:21 AM »

I sense that your factionalism is quite strong.  Why are you so convinced that the Pope of Rome is a heretic, and that his Church is illegitimate?  For example, even after the schism certain Western theological developments such as Thomistic scholasticism influenced Russian theology.  The boundaries between Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow were still quite permeable even after the break.  Your vision of history is quite monochromatic.

Thank you. This brought tears of laughter to my eyes.

Jordanz you might want to catch up on his 16k posts before sending water balloons like that over the stern.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #140 on: March 16, 2011, 03:51:55 AM »

Catholic Traditionalists view the "paschal mystery" as kind of ambiguous Trojan horse for an abandonment of sorts of the sacrificial theology of the Mass. Which is to say, the Mass is all about Good Friday, and these same traditionalists - quoting from Trent and Papal encyclicals and old dogmatic manuals - have resisted the intrusion of Easter Sunday into the traditional Catholic theology of the Mass.

I have reservations about the addition of Paschal Mystery doctrine to the Tridentine formulation of the Holy Sacrifice.  I have read progressive Catholic distortions of the orthodox definition of Mass that have completely excluded propitiation.  Personally, I have always held to the Tridentine definition of Mass.  As a faithful Catholic I must consent to the recent Catechism, even if the introduction of the Paschal Mystery doctrine has been a loophole for memorialist or "gender inclusive" understandings of the Eucharist that deliberately lower the ontology of ordination to the level of a "presider" over a service in which the laity "consecrate" with the same authority as the clergy.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 03:52:26 AM by jordanz » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #141 on: March 16, 2011, 03:53:27 AM »

I sense that your factionalism is quite strong.  Why are you so convinced that the Pope of Rome is a heretic, and that his Church is illegitimate?

Quote from: Matthew 18, 18
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Quote
Your vision of history is quite monochromatic.

Quote from: Revelation 3, 15-16
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #142 on: March 16, 2011, 04:26:40 AM »

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

We Latins are also fond of non praevalebunt, as we call the doctrine.  The mosaic work in St. Peter's is quite stunning. Only thing is that Il Papa likes to save on the electric bill, so he doesn't turn the lights on most of the time.  Someone with a good set of eyes (not me!) can still follow the ticker message around St. Pete's. Smiley       
 
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

One of the things that has always baffled me about humanity is bigotry and racism.  We are all 99.9+% genetically related regardless of shape, size, and color.  So many horrors and evils of the world could be avoided if only we kept in mind that melanin content, place of origin, or the even ability to digest lactase are infinitesimally irrelevant matters in the grand beautiful sweep of human diversity. 

Similarly, Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow are closely intertwined thought history.  Our theological DNA is quite close.  Yes, we've had our disagreements and trials along the way.  Right now Rome is in a liturgical trial; who knows what will befall Orthodoxy in the future.  Yet, why magnify the little specks into the greatest rivalries?

Sorry moderators for going way off track with this one.  Not trying to stir the pot.  Let's get back to regularly scheduled programming.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 04:29:35 AM by jordanz » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,594



« Reply #143 on: March 16, 2011, 04:36:59 AM »

I also confess the Western doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  I find it particularly meaningful.  The Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic mystery is also beautthe iful, but I have a particular attachment to the Western explanation.  This is deeply tied with my love of Roman Canon. The Roman Canon describes everything that the Western Church teaches about the Eucharist in very clear detail.  The Canon is also one of the most beautiful (and historically important) late Latin prose compositions ever written.

What do you mean by Western doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass? I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with RC understanding of the Eucharist. We haven't dogmatized the distinction between substance and accidents and our theology tends to be not-so-developed but that's pretty much all differences that I've found.

For the record, since we believe that the Church of Rome used to be Orthodox and since it is said that the Roman Canon predates the Schism I think it could be considered as a legitimately Orthodox prayer. Smiley
 

I am troubled that many Western Orthodox say the Tridentine Mass in English or another vernacular.  I do not like the vernacular translations.  It is much better, in my view, to recite the entire Mass in Latin save the readings.  At the very least, say the Preface and Canon in Latin.

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #144 on: March 16, 2011, 06:08:20 AM »

As a not-yet-Orthodox Christian, I'm not sure it's right that I reply to this. But this seems as good a place as any to make my inaugural post (1+ year after registering for this forum and immediately forgetting about it, apparently; oops), as this is definitely a topic lived out in my recent personal history.

I can say without hesitation that the biggest impact in my journey to becoming Orthodox has been the discovery of the Desert Fathers. Reading of their lives and their sayings is so incredible to me because even though I am about as far from the Egyptian desert as one can be, I can very nearly see Abba Isaiah or St. Moses the Strong standing with me as I pray. I never had this experience when reading the RC spiritual works, which were processed intellectually and so were hard to connect to (and in some cases were downright disturbing to me, but perhaps that is my fault).

More recently the Agpeya (the Coptic book of the hours) has established for me a way of prayer. I remember occasionally praying the hours as a Roman Catholic, but I don't know...there's something so much more fulfilling about the Agpeya. I don't know what it is.

So I would say that what has changed/is changing is my experience of the Christian faith. Away from rationalism and circumstance-driven emotionalism (e.g., very high after a visit to a Benedictine monastery, very low having to struggle to focus on God as a jazz trio replaces the choir at the local Novus Ordo mass) and sentimentality (e.g., the Roman Catholic devotions and adorations). This is more...I don't know how to describe it without sounding cheesy..."interior" focused? On the best days I will pray the Agpeya, the Jesus Prayer, and personal prayers and never once have the feeling of following a routine. Every prayer is made new because there is a depth to it that was never there before. I'm not struggling with unhelpful distinctions and needless dogmas, so it feels like there's more room to be with God. Transubstantiation, the IC, Papal Infallibility, Indulgences...all that stuff just cluttered up my inner room!
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #145 on: March 16, 2011, 07:46:58 AM »

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh

Nothing, in theory.  The Roman Canon might translate well into many languages.  However, it does not translate well into English.  The syntax contains many alliterative and assonantal qualities that are completely lost in any English translation.  Also, there are certain words that convey special theological meaning.  These words cannot be easily translated and are usually poorly paraphrased in translation.  Finally, many translations of the Roman Canon are translated into faux-Elizabethan English.  Latin has no distinction between a formal and informal 2nd person (i.e. tu/vous, du/Sie, etc.)  "Thou, thine and thee", the old informal 2nd person in English, is a false translation of the Latin.

It's better to avoid all of these issues and say the Canon, and preferably the entire Mass save the scripture readings, in Latin.
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: 37,359



« Reply #146 on: March 16, 2011, 11:47:18 PM »

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh

Nothing, in theory.  The Roman Canon might translate well into many languages.  However, it does not translate well into English.  The syntax contains many alliterative and assonantal qualities that are completely lost in any English translation.  Also, there are certain words that convey special theological meaning.  These words cannot be easily translated and are usually poorly paraphrased in translation.  Finally, many translations of the Roman Canon are translated into faux-Elizabethan English.  Latin has no distinction between a formal and informal 2nd person (i.e. tu/vous, du/Sie, etc.)  "Thou, thine and thee", the old informal 2nd person in English, is a false translation of the Latin.

It's better to avoid all of these issues and say the Canon, and preferably the entire Mass save the scripture readings, in Latin.
So that basically instead of losing something in a poor paraphrase the congregation can loose everything in an unintelligble faux Ciceronian Latin.

Btw, it is "thou" because it is singular, not because it is informal.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 11:47:45 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
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: 37,359



« Reply #147 on: March 16, 2011, 11:59:00 PM »

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

We Latins are also fond of non praevalebunt, as we call the doctrine.  The mosaic work in St. Peter's is quite stunning. Only thing is that Il Papa likes to save on the electric bill, so he doesn't turn the lights on most of the time.  Someone with a good set of eyes (not me!) can still follow the ticker message around St. Pete's. Smiley 
 
Our priest made two astute observations 1) Why doesn't it have Matthew 16:16. 2) Why doesn't it continue to 16:23?  
 
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

One of the things that has always baffled me about humanity is bigotry and racism.  We are all 99.9+% genetically related regardless of shape, size, and color.  So many horrors and evils of the world could be avoided if only we kept in mind that melanin content, place of origin, or the even ability to digest lactase are infinitesimally irrelevant matters in the grand beautiful sweep of human diversity. 

Similarly, Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow are closely intertwined thought history.  Our theological DNA is quite close.  Yes, we've had our disagreements and trials along the way.  Right now Rome is in a liturgical trial; who knows what will befall Orthodoxy in the future. 
Not the gates of Hell.
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
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,563


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #148 on: March 17, 2011, 12:09:40 AM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



--
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #149 on: March 17, 2011, 01:46:47 AM »

As a not-yet-Orthodox Christian, I'm not sure it's right that I reply to this. But this seems as good a place as any to make my inaugural post (1+ year after registering for this forum and immediately forgetting about it, apparently; oops), as this is definitely a topic lived out in my recent personal history.

I can say without hesitation that the biggest impact in my journey to becoming Orthodox has been the discovery of the Desert Fathers. Reading of their lives and their sayings is so incredible to me because even though I am about as far from the Egyptian desert as one can be, I can very nearly see Abba Isaiah or St. Moses the Strong standing with me as I pray. I never had this experience when reading the RC spiritual works, which were processed intellectually and so were hard to connect to (and in some cases were downright disturbing to me, but perhaps that is my fault).

More recently the Agpeya (the Coptic book of the hours) has established for me a way of prayer. I remember occasionally praying the hours as a Roman Catholic, but I don't know...there's something so much more fulfilling about the Agpeya. I don't know what it is.

So I would say that what has changed/is changing is my experience of the Christian faith. Away from rationalism and circumstance-driven emotionalism (e.g., very high after a visit to a Benedictine monastery, very low having to struggle to focus on God as a jazz trio replaces the choir at the local Novus Ordo mass) and sentimentality (e.g., the Roman Catholic devotions and adorations). This is more...I don't know how to describe it without sounding cheesy..."interior" focused? On the best days I will pray the Agpeya, the Jesus Prayer, and personal prayers and never once have the feeling of following a routine. Every prayer is made new because there is a depth to it that was never there before. I'm not struggling with unhelpful distinctions and needless dogmas, so it feels like there's more room to be with God. Transubstantiation, the IC, Papal Infallibility, Indulgences...all that stuff just cluttered up my inner room!

Thank you for this! Welcome to the forums and have a blessed Lent! Smiley
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #150 on: March 17, 2011, 02:06:21 AM »

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh

Nothing, in theory.  The Roman Canon might translate well into many languages.  [...]

So that basically instead of losing something in a poor paraphrase the congregation can loose everything in an unintelligble faux Ciceronian Latin.

I have graduate training in both Latin and Greek.  I could insult the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in its current Greek recension by pointing out its characteristic koine semantic and syntactic deviations from the erroneously "pure" classical Attic or Ionic, or even Second Sophistic atticization.  I could make similar criticisms of the Roman Canon versus the "Golden Age" of Latin and even the philology of Cicero, even though he writes in a completely different literary genre than Christian liturgical prayer.  However, both the Canon and the anaphora of Chrysostom are brilliant and beautiful for their unique and period literary qualities.  The separate, and not "impoverished", cultural and linguistic difference in koine and late Latin highlight the genius of Christian prayer across east and west.  

Don't mock something as unintelligible just because you do not read the language and wish to make a polemical point.

If you would like, and the moderators would approve, I would be glad to discuss liturgical Latin and Greek with you and everyone else on this board, in an academically rigorous, friendly, and non-insulting manner.  

Btw, it is "thou" because it is singular, not because it is informal.

From the Oxford English Dictionary sv. "Thou", (full version by subscription, my emphasis):

"Thou and its cases thee, thine, thy, were in Old English used in ordinary speech; in Middle English they were gradually superseded by the plural ye, you, your, yours, in addressing a superior and (later) an equal, but were long retained in addressing an inferior."

"thou, pron." Oxford English Dictionary. Second edition, 1989; online version November 2010. http://www.oed.com:80/Entry/201051; accessed 17 March 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1912.

"Ye" is the obsolete nominative singular plural, i.e. adeste fideles, "Come all ye faithful" &c. "You" has no declension in modern English.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 02:07:38 AM by jordanz » 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: 37,359



« Reply #151 on: March 17, 2011, 03:10:21 AM »

What's wrong with vernacular liturgies? Huh

Nothing, in theory.  The Roman Canon might translate well into many languages.  [...]

So that basically instead of losing something in a poor paraphrase the congregation can loose everything in an unintelligble faux Ciceronian Latin.

I have graduate training in both Latin and Greek.  I could insult the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in its current Greek recension by pointing out its characteristic koine semantic and syntactic deviations from the erroneously "pure" classical Attic or Ionic, or even Second Sophistic atticization.

LOL. No one here should be suprised that I wouldn't be the one insulted by such an analysis.

I could make similar criticisms of the Roman Canon versus the "Golden Age" of Latin and even the philology of Cicero, even though he writes in a completely different literary genre than Christian liturgical prayer.
No matter. Classical Latin was artiicial in his day, more so in Pope St. Damasus and St. Jerome's.

However, both the Canon and the anaphora of Chrysostom are brilliant and beautiful for their unique and period literary qualities.  The separate, and not "impoverished", cultural and linguistic difference in koine and late Latin highlight the genius of Christian prayer across east and west.  

Don't mock something as unintelligible just because you do not read the language and wish to make a polemical point.

Oh, but I do read the language, which is why I speak up for those to whom it is unintelligible.  They usually don't like to take on polemical points against the language they understand.

If you would like, and the moderators would approve, I would be glad to discuss liturgical Latin and Greek with you and everyone else on this board, in an academically rigorous, friendly, and non-insulting manner.

We're not at CAF.  The moderators aren't going to come down on you like the Spanish Inquisition.  You are free to practically say anything reasonable you like.

Btw, it is "thou" because it is singular, not because it is informal.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

LOL. We just had a discussion on my thoughts on the OED.  Whether that's on point here, I don't know: are you talking about Amercian translations or British?

sv. "Thou", (full version by subscription, my emphasis):

"Thou and its cases thee, thine, thy, were in Old English used in ordinary speech; in Middle English they were gradually superseded by the plural ye, you, your, yours, in addressing a superior and (later) an equal, but were long retained in addressing an inferior."

Yes, we are all familiar with that: French, German etc. have a like history except that the singular tu, du etc. were retained more widely and didn't become archaic in the more modern forms.

Quote
"thou, pron." Oxford English Dictionary. Second edition, 1989; online version November 2010. http://www.oed.com:80/Entry/201051; accessed 17 March 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1912.

"Ye" is the obsolete nominative singular plural, i.e. adeste fideles, "Come all ye faithful" &c. "You" has no declension in modern English.
archaic/ironic is perhaps more correct, as it is still in use, just not in unmarked form.

The Elizabethans of the Book of Common Prayer and Shakespeare, and the Jacobeans of the Authorised Version retained a number of features becoming or already archaic in their own day: the use of a singular second person being on of them (others being the third person singular present ending -th, the use of "his" for "its" or using "thereof" (as in German da(r)- constructions), etc. )  In some ways, it was as artificial as Classical Latin was in its day, or shoud I say "his day," or "the day thereof"?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 03:19:36 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
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #152 on: March 17, 2011, 04:30:38 AM »

No matter. Classical Latin was artiicial in his day, more so in Pope St. Damasus and St. Jerome's.

Okay, now I see what you mean by faux-Ciceronian! You are quite right on this account. I am sort of snippy and pushy online and in public, so excuse my brusque manner.  You see, I consume amounts of caffeine that will cause arrhythmia in a normal person.  Time to kick the java.  This is the plight of graduate school -- sleep?  huh?  Wink

Certainly, the Mass, even from the 3rd and 4th centuries, had deliberate archeologizing tendencies.  quaesumus is the poster child for this phenomenon.  In fact, I would like to write my diss. just on quaesumus (as sort of a homage/expansion of Christine Mohrmann), but I don't think the thesis committee will go for it.  In any event, the new English translation for the Novus Ordo (effective 1st Advent 2012) renders quaesumus as "we pray".  That's akin to euphemizing the phrase "berserk psychotic rage" as "I'm a little under the weather today."  quaesumus is relatively strong servile language (at least in the original social derivation of quaeso, as you well know. Again, Morhrmann touches upon this at many points.

If you would like, and the moderators would approve, I would be glad to discuss liturgical Latin and Greek with you and everyone else on this board, in an academically rigorous, friendly, and non-insulting manner.


Maybe it would be a good idea to take a comparative liturgical Latin and Greek discussion to the Languages forum.  Leave this thread, well, for the thread.  In any event, I shouldn't've accused you of knowing or not knowing Latin, or being polemical.  Now that I understand that "faux Ciceronian" is not an insult but a very valid point, I see that I misjudged the situation.

The Elizabethans of the Book of Common Prayer and Shakespeare, and the Jacobeans of the Authorised Version retained a number of features becoming or already archaic in their own day: the use of a singular second person being on of them (others being the third person singular present ending -th, the use of "his" for "its" or using "thereof" (as in German da(r)- constructions), etc. )  In some ways, it was as artificial as Classical Latin was in its day, or shoud I say "his day," or "the day thereof"?

Again, sorry for pressing the red button on this issue.  The nuclear option wasn't necessary.

Don't get me started on the da- constructions in German.  The German reduction of the neuter article/pronoun das to a prefixed particle or even a pseudo-pronoun is one of the most confusing aspects of that language.  ugh.

Thanks moderators for the diversion.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 04:34:21 AM by jordanz » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #153 on: March 17, 2011, 12:42:43 PM »

In any event, I shouldn't've accused you of .... being polemical. 

LOL
Logged


I'm going to need this.
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: 37,359



« Reply #154 on: March 17, 2011, 01:07:30 PM »

Time to kick the java. 
Now don't get crazy.
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
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,563


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #155 on: March 17, 2011, 07:16:44 PM »

No matter. Classical Latin was artiicial in his day, more so in Pope St. Damasus and St. Jerome's.

Okay, now I see what you mean by faux-Ciceronian! You are quite right on this account. I am sort of snippy and pushy online and in public, so excuse my brusque manner.  You see, I consume amounts of caffeine that will cause arrhythmia in a normal person.  Time to kick the java.  This is the plight of graduate school -- sleep?  huh?  Wink

Certainly, the Mass, even from the 3rd and 4th centuries, had deliberate archeologizing tendencies.  quaesumus is the poster child for this phenomenon.  In fact, I would like to write my diss. just on quaesumus (as sort of a homage/expansion of Christine Mohrmann), but I don't think the thesis committee will go for it.  In any event, the new English translation for the Novus Ordo (effective 1st Advent 2012) renders quaesumus as "we pray".  That's akin to euphemizing the phrase "berserk psychotic rage" as "I'm a little under the weather today."  quaesumus is relatively strong servile language (at least in the original social derivation of quaeso, as you well know. Again, Morhrmann touches upon this at many points.

If you would like, and the moderators would approve, I would be glad to discuss liturgical Latin and Greek with you and everyone else on this board, in an academically rigorous, friendly, and non-insulting manner.


Maybe it would be a good idea to take a comparative liturgical Latin and Greek discussion to the Languages forum.  Leave this thread, well, for the thread.  In any event, I shouldn't've accused you of knowing or not knowing Latin, or being polemical.  Now that I understand that "faux Ciceronian" is not an insult but a very valid point, I see that I misjudged the situation.

The Elizabethans of the Book of Common Prayer and Shakespeare, and the Jacobeans of the Authorised Version retained a number of features becoming or already archaic in their own day: the use of a singular second person being on of them (others being the third person singular present ending -th, the use of "his" for "its" or using "thereof" (as in German da(r)- constructions), etc. )  In some ways, it was as artificial as Classical Latin was in its day, or shoud I say "his day," or "the day thereof"?

Again, sorry for pressing the red button on this issue.  The nuclear option wasn't necessary.

Don't get me started on the da- constructions in German.  The German reduction of the neuter article/pronoun das to a prefixed particle or even a pseudo-pronoun is one of the most confusing aspects of that language.  ugh.

Thanks moderators for the diversion.

Are you a linguist? I earned my graduate degree in Linguistics.
It would be interesting to discuss this in another thread.
However, many Catholics when they convert to Orthodoxy struggle greatly with language(s).
The various languages spoken in the Parish Hall and used in the Divine Liturgy can be very challenging.
For example, in the Antiochian Orthodox Churches, often the Divine Liturgy is tri-lingual: English, Arabic, and Greek.
In some cases, where the parish is Pan-Orthodox,  the priest(s) and deacon(s) may employ English, Arabic, Greek, Slavonic, and Spanish during the Divine Liturgy.

In any rate, all this exposure to various languages can really expand a person's schemata if they are open to the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 07:17:53 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,436



« Reply #156 on: March 17, 2011, 07:24:33 PM »

In any event, I shouldn't've accused you of .... being polemical. 

LOL

Amen!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #157 on: March 17, 2011, 07:26:00 PM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



--
FWIW, that guy mentioned above whose picture is on my left probably had more with initially drawing me to Orthodoxy than anyone, even my Orthodox wife!
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,436



« Reply #158 on: March 17, 2011, 07:27:40 PM »

In any rate, all this exposure to various languages can really expand a person's schemata if they are open to the Holy Spirit.

You did spend too much time academia.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #159 on: March 17, 2011, 09:15:32 PM »

Are you a linguist? I earned my graduate degree in Linguistics.

No.  I study Roman religion and early Western Christianity, so I guess you could say I'm a Latinist (but not a Classicist).  I also read koine Greek, but it's not my specialization.  I learned my Latin from Roman priests, even though I have a Classics BA.  So my Latin accent is funny  Wink

It would be interesting to discuss this in another thread.

Yes!  I'd also like to hear more from those who read Coptic, Slavonic, or Syriac.

However, many Catholics when they convert to Orthodoxy struggle greatly with language(s).
The various languages spoken in the Parish Hall and used in the Divine Liturgy can be very challenging.
For example, in the Antiochian Orthodox Churches, often the Divine Liturgy is tri-lingual: English, Arabic, and Greek.
In some cases, where the parish is Pan-Orthodox,  the priest(s) and deacon(s) may employ English, Arabic, Greek, Slavonic, and Spanish during the Divine Liturgy.

I sometimes read from a prayerbook (shouldn't call it a 'missal', though I end up doing so anyway) during Divine Liturgy.  Most of the time, either at Mass or the Divine Liturgy, I prefer just to let Our Lady lead me to her Son.  I just meditate on a prayer or recite the rosary silently.  I am more interested in preparing spiritually for the Eucharist rather than following everything the priest does or says.   

One of the things that I love about the Roman Mass is Low Mass.  Yes, Low Mass is medieval post-schism abuse that was eventually tolerated. The Roman liturgy is always meant to be sung, just like the Orthodox liturgies.  Divine Liturgy is too "busy" for me, and sort of spiritually exhausting, but that is how apostolic liturgy is supposed to be.  Mass isn't supposed to be a priest and a server mumbling to one another for half an hour, even if I like silent meditation.   

« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 09:16:56 PM by jordanz » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,563


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #160 on: March 17, 2011, 09:35:16 PM »

Are you a linguist? I earned my graduate degree in Linguistics.

No.  I study Roman religion and early Western Christianity, so I guess you could say I'm a Latinist (but not a Classicist).  I also read koine Greek, but it's not my specialization.  I learned my Latin from Roman priests, even though I have a Classics BA.  So my Latin accent is funny  Wink

It would be interesting to discuss this in another thread.

Yes!  I'd also like to hear more from those who read Coptic, Slavonic, or Syriac.

However, many Catholics when they convert to Orthodoxy struggle greatly with language(s).
The various languages spoken in the Parish Hall and used in the Divine Liturgy can be very challenging.
For example, in the Antiochian Orthodox Churches, often the Divine Liturgy is tri-lingual: English, Arabic, and Greek.
In some cases, where the parish is Pan-Orthodox,  the priest(s) and deacon(s) may employ English, Arabic, Greek, Slavonic, and Spanish during the Divine Liturgy.

I sometimes read from a prayerbook (shouldn't call it a 'missal', though I end up doing so anyway) during Divine Liturgy.  Most of the time, either at Mass or the Divine Liturgy, I prefer just to let Our Lady lead me to her Son.  I just meditate on a prayer or recite the rosary silently.  I am more interested in preparing spiritually for the Eucharist rather than following everything the priest does or says.   

One of the things that I love about the Roman Mass is Low Mass.  Yes, Low Mass is medieval post-schism abuse that was eventually tolerated. The Roman liturgy is always meant to be sung, just like the Orthodox liturgies.  Divine Liturgy is too "busy" for me, and sort of spiritually exhausting, but that is how apostolic liturgy is supposed to be.  Mass isn't supposed to be a priest and a server mumbling to one another for half an hour, even if I like silent meditation.   



One thing that I discovered when converting to Orthodoxy was the amount of energy that I expended when participating in the Divine Liturgy.
The constant give and take, call and response, in the Divine Liturgy requires full attention. "Let us attend" or "Let us be attentive" is repeated at several times during the Divine Liturgy where we are called to put aside all earthly cares and enter into heavenly worship.

After attending Divine Liturgy, my husband and I often return home to take a nap. Even when I do heavy gardening as I have been doing lately, that kind of outside work is not nearly as exhausting as the work (liturgia) needed to fully participate in the Divine Liturgy (mind, heart, body and soul).
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #161 on: March 17, 2011, 10:58:39 PM »


Great blog. Several TradCath blogs cheered when they saw his English translation of the Vassula excommunication from the EP. An ecumenical moment.

Quote
The Orthodox however still emphasize what was always taught in Scripture and the Church Fathers, that one cannot know if God exists with absolute certainty unless there is direct knowledge and experience of God.

The Augustinian theory of knowledge and divine illumination, influenced by neo-Platonism, seems closer what is described above.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 10:59:15 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #162 on: April 11, 2011, 03:48:28 PM »

I'm technically neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but I am an inquirer into both. I'm 15 years old, and I have an account on both these forums and the Catholic forums. I have felt for a while now like something is missing from my life, and that I need to be a Christian. My mother was raised Catholic and I've attended a few Masses, but I was disappointed at how short they were, even though I enjoyed the time there. There is a Ukrainian Orthodox Church in my town but I'm too nervous to go, even though I really want to, because I'm not Ukrainian. I know that they accept people into ethnic parishes, but I'm just afraid the culture barrier will be too great.

You might see if there's an OCA parish near you. Those tend to be more mixed Orthodox background. My parish has cradle Orthodox of every description--Greeks, Russians, Georgians, Albanians, Romanians--and lots of converts. It's pretty typical OCA, at least for my area (Metro-NY).

I lived in a town where the nearest church (I could have walked) was Greek, and while I loved the church and the people, my not being Greek always felt like a little bit of a handicap. So I sought out my current parish, even though it was further away, and I've never regretted it. So I can relate to what you're saying about the ethnic thing. But it doesn't have to be a barrier or a negative. If I'd stuck with the Greek church I might have learned enough Greek to read the Scriptures and the fathers in the language some of them were written in. Ukrainian is close to Slavonic, which would open up a whole world of Orthodox sprituality. Plus, the ethnic festivals are really fun!
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #163 on: April 11, 2011, 03:55:48 PM »

I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western.

What do you mean by spirituality?

All of my prayer is western style.  For example, I read Latin and Greek well, but have spent most of my life praying in Latin. I pray the Tridentine Roman Breviary, say the Rosary, adore the Blessed Sacrament even outside of Mass by singing St. Thomas Aquinas' Benediction hymns, and venerate Our Lady with the O Antiphons (the Salve Regina my favorite).  I know of and have tried Eastern devotions and titles, but they seem strange for me.  I prefer the western styles of adoration and veneration.  I do not say Rosary in the Eastern Catholic church, but I do pray it on the way to the DL as preparation for the Eucharist.   

I also confess the Western doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  I find it particularly meaningful.  The Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic mystery is also beautiful, but I have a particular attachment to the Western explanation.  This is deeply tied with my love of the Roman Canon. The Roman Canon describes everything that the Western Church teaches about the Eucharist in very clear detail.  The Canon is also one of the most beautiful (and historically important) late Latin prose compositions ever written. 

The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions.  There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home".  An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt.  Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy.  Still, should he say the Mass?  Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

There's no such thing as local church's indigenous liturgy or charism of some specific rite. There are just churches and priests. All rites are part of the Tradition of the whole Church so any local church can implement any rite she deems necessary.

Yes, I agree in theory.  The Mass, however, is the epitome of the Western understanding of the Eucharist.  It is not Eastern in its theological understanding.  This is more than an comparison of the Latin, koine Greek, Slavonic, and Aramaic sacred languages.  I don't see the profit in transplanting the Roman liturgy outside of the place where (well, until 1968) it flourished culturally. 

I have no problem with ... the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon.  Those are non-issues.     

Mixing of completely different rites is a non-issue. Huh

I do not have theological difficulties with omission of the filioque, as it is a later addition that even the Vatican has made optional for the Byzantine liturgy.  I do believe that the Roman Canon by itself, without a Byzantine epiclesis, is sufficiently pneumatic even though the notion of epiclesis is not as important in Roman Western theology.  Some Orthodox accept that the quam oblationem or supplices te rogamus is acceptable as an epiclesis.  I am aesthetically troubled by the introduction of the foreign epiclesis, but I understand that this is done for unity with the Eastern liturgies.  Neither changes are dealbreakers.

I am troubled that many Western Orthodox say the Tridentine Mass in English or another vernacular.  I do not like the vernacular translations.  It is much better, in my view, to recite the entire Mass in Latin save the readings.  At the very least, say the Preface and Canon in Latin.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

Thanks!

Sounds like you're all set!

Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #164 on: April 26, 2011, 01:39:20 AM »

Quote
For one thing, there is the perspective of Traditionalists on the Latin side who say the the Easterners have legitimate Sacraments but that they are heaping damnation upon themselves by partaking of them.

yes traditionalists latin catholic friends of mine do say this.

So ultimately much of the Orthodox response to whether the Latin Papal Catholic communion has validity or grace in it's mysteries/sacraments is simply a slight variation of what most of Rome would have said a few decades ago and its traditional factions still proclaim with such vigour.

I see such profound resemblence to many traditional latin papal catholics and traditional patriachal orthodox...

if we handpicked the members of certain churches and hierarchy we could reinstigate 1054 and fourth crusade all over again without much effort...

This is the flipside of the whole "complaints about false ecumenism"..

Either attitude goes too far.
One can make up the illusion of the other side being overly wrong or overly right.

I stay somewhere in the middle.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #165 on: April 26, 2011, 01:49:21 AM »

Quote
Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  

This depends on the jurisdiction,

Antioch, a little bit,
ROCOR, more so.

I know I was thrown out of an Antiochian church for promoting gregorian chant propers, hymn melodies and antiphons when all they wanted was 1984 Twila Paris contemporary christian hits mixed with whatever "st ambrose hymnal" 19th century presybyterian hymn was their flavor of the week.

In general the antiochian western rite orthodox seem to be a mixture timidity/fear of too much chant or outright rejection of it. Only probably about 5 of the 30 antiochian churches use the "proper chant" melodies in their ancient form. This is largely due to the fact that the "genuine Anglo-Catholic" espiscopal parishes have not embraced the western rite with great vigour. The majority of the churches are from a "low church" evangelical run-of the mill agricultural heritage type background.

My understanding is that ROCOR sets a higher standard but frankly..most western rite parishes across all juridictions are too small, fragmented and uneducated to attempt singing much chant.

See, the reason eastern rite parishes are an advantage for converts is because they have a living tradition that they can witness and copy..they are forced to take it as it is or not be orthodox..

A convert can go over to any Eastern rite psalti/cantor and have them help them learn byzantine ecclesiastical music, whereas if they are from a western rite parish they have a mixture of "taking the easy way out" with protestant hymnody and possibly finding a byzantine cantor reluctant, unwilling or unable to teach them a "dead, foreign, latin" tradition of chant.

I remember once contacting the local greek cantor for help with gregorian chant at a western rite antiochian parish and finding that he was opposed to the western rites existence, therefore it would be against his personal beliefs to help assist in any way.

The only thing you have sung in gregorian/plainchant generally is the "Missa De Angelis" Ordinary chants and most basic psalm tones for vespers/matins and proper of the mass. Really the music is a big problem with them. 90% of the traditional medieval western liturgical music that should be there is missing.

The same problems in the novus ordo papal churches regarding music are pretty evident in the orthodox western rite. Just because their orthodox doesnt mean they can fixed overnight..what will change that I have no idea, right now it's pretty embarrassing.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 02:03:44 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,563


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #166 on: April 26, 2011, 05:26:26 PM »

Quote
Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant?  

This depends on the jurisdiction,

Antioch, a little bit,
ROCOR, more so.

I know I was thrown out of an Antiochian church for promoting gregorian chant propers, hymn melodies and antiphons when all they wanted was 1984 Twila Paris contemporary christian hits mixed with whatever "st ambrose hymnal" 19th century presybyterian hymn was their flavor of the week.

In general the antiochian western rite orthodox seem to be a mixture timidity/fear of too much chant or outright rejection of it. Only probably about 5 of the 30 antiochian churches use the "proper chant" melodies in their ancient form. This is largely due to the fact that the "genuine Anglo-Catholic" espiscopal parishes have not embraced the western rite with great vigour. The majority of the churches are from a "low church" evangelical run-of the mill agricultural heritage type background.

My understanding is that ROCOR sets a higher standard but frankly..most western rite parishes across all juridictions are too small, fragmented and uneducated to attempt singing much chant.

See, the reason eastern rite parishes are an advantage for converts is because they have a living tradition that they can witness and copy..they are forced to take it as it is or not be orthodox..

A convert can go over to any Eastern rite psalti/cantor and have them help them learn byzantine ecclesiastical music, whereas if they are from a western rite parish they have a mixture of "taking the easy way out" with protestant hymnody and possibly finding a byzantine cantor reluctant, unwilling or unable to teach them a "dead, foreign, latin" tradition of chant.

I remember once contacting the local greek cantor for help with gregorian chant at a western rite antiochian parish and finding that he was opposed to the western rites existence, therefore it would be against his personal beliefs to help assist in any way.

The only thing you have sung in gregorian/plainchant generally is the "Missa De Angelis" Ordinary chants and most basic psalm tones for vespers/matins and proper of the mass. Really the music is a big problem with them. 90% of the traditional medieval western liturgical music that should be there is missing.

The same problems in the novus ordo papal churches regarding music are pretty evident in the orthodox western rite. Just because their orthodox doesnt mean they can fixed overnight..what will change that I have no idea, right now it's pretty embarrassing.

Even though I was schooled in Gregorian Chant (Dominican style), I found that Byzantine Chant was more intriguing and exotic, especially the use of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th tones. For example, please look at the Troparion to St. Anne, the mother of the Theotokos. I fell in love with Eastern Orthodoxy and was not at all impressed with the WRO.

Another problem is that most folks do not like learning a "dead language" such as Latin. Then it is almost impossible to have a decent translation of the English words into Gregorian Chant (which is based on the highly inflective language of Latin).

I think that Orthodox Christians can learn a lot from the mistakes of the Latins. It is not good to rush into English translations that do not fit the ancient ecclesiastical chant from the Old Countries: Greek, Arabic, or Latin.

Recently some well intentioned native speaking Arabic chanters tried to fit English into Arabic Byzantine chant. It just did not work. The English came out garbled, and did not make sense.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 05:27:37 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #167 on: April 26, 2011, 06:05:27 PM »

I wonder which type of chant Maria is using and if it is in a dead language.

Both forms of chant have the pluses and minuses.

The medieval chant that was really used is noticeably richer than the official 19th century vatican II solesmes "Graduale Romanum/Liber Usualis" which only were officially adopted as the norm in 1903.

The tropes and sequences from the past, were great..

And you certainly can't say anything was missing in the gregorian Alleluias I think..

There are plenty of advantages to byzantine chant, but one cant very well abandon there tradition either.

Some of what you say is true, but I think its a bit overly biased against english language gregorian chant.

I will surely agree that translations cant be rushed, but one must remember with Gods help anything is possible, the western musical tradition does have profoundly good possibilities for its future. The anglicans have been a big help with that.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #168 on: May 03, 2011, 02:39:29 PM »

Wotta strange thread. I thought I was going to be reading how former Catholics' spiritual lives changed post-conversion. Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #169 on: May 04, 2011, 01:25:20 PM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #170 on: May 31, 2011, 08:39:35 AM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.

I guess that would explain why opinions of Vatican II are so low around here.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #171 on: May 31, 2011, 10:51:38 PM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.

I guess that would explain why opinions of Vatican II are so low around here.
Hell, when your last Ecumenical Council was in the first millenium, I'm sure even Trent looks scandalous to them. Tongue
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,205


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #172 on: June 01, 2011, 10:13:37 AM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.

I am afraid that many of you would be surely upset if your time machine plopped you into the middle of a Christian Church service in the eastern lands during the 9th or 10th centuries. Putting language aside, much of what you would witness would appear foreign or even scandalous to your 21st century eyes. External things do change and evolve - even in the world of Orthodoxy.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #173 on: June 01, 2011, 02:43:47 PM »

Quote
Instead, it seems to be mostly traditionalist Catholics telling each other how great traditional Catholicism is.

If you consider that Orthodoxy IS in fact a form of 1st millenium traditional catholicism in many ways, one could see it that way...

A lot of the discovery of Orthodoxy is in fact a discovery of traditional catholicism (albeit typically with eastern traditions). The overlap is great. It's tradition that leads us all here.

I am afraid that many of you would be surely upset if your time machine plopped you into the middle of a Christian Church service in the eastern lands during the 9th or 10th centuries. Putting language aside, much of what you would witness would appear foreign or even scandalous to your 21st century eyes. External things do change and evolve - even in the world of Orthodoxy.

To say nothing of the fourth or fifth centuries. Once Christianity became the state church, each faction persecuted what it perceived as heresy with unbelieveably ferocious vehemence.
Logged
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #174 on: June 26, 2011, 11:44:55 PM »

I think that for many people, Orthodoxy is a termination point in their investigations. They have done much research into different religions and have 'painted themselves into a corner' so to speak, by eliminating, one by one, all the competing faiths which they determine to be invalid. So I think for many people, their mindframe is "Orthodoxy or bust". That's my take, anyways.

That's how I see it. Orthodoxy is the end of the road. A very long road that began when I was 17 and I'm now 51.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #175 on: July 24, 2011, 07:41:05 PM »

Read "abc to eternal life" to see that Eastern orthodox Church is the true Church established in year 33 by Jesus.
Logged
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #176 on: July 24, 2011, 07:41:30 PM »

Read " abc to eternal life" on google.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #177 on: July 24, 2011, 08:36:43 PM »

It's done a lot for me, I was baptised and raised Roman Catholic...and it always felt so incomplete to me, I even went through an agnostic stage (even though I was still attending mass), then I discovered Orthodoxy and read into Orthodox Theology and the History of The Church...from then on I knew that the Orthodox Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. There is no question in my mind, it isn't "Orthodoxy or bust" for me, it just IS Orthodoxy.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #178 on: July 25, 2011, 12:34:53 AM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



I think that it is very easy to go from being a devout RC to an atheist, and here's why. Let's say you lived through Vatican ii...you were always told the RCC is the one true church, every priest is an alter Christus (another Christ), and then you see the liturgical and other devastation wrought by Vatican II and you start to think that maybe NO religion is the truth, if the RCC wasn't after all.

The only thing that kept me believing in God was the fact that I saw God in nature, and knew it could not have all just blown into being. I had always believed, both as an Orthodox Jew and later as a Traditional RC, that God made everything ex nihilo (from nothing). I never doubted it, I just doubted which religion was His!
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 12:35:20 AM by Xenia1918 » Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #179 on: July 27, 2011, 12:42:04 PM »

I have had several Catholic friends who have become atheists, and I think I was heading in that direction until I discovered Orthodoxy.
For that reason, I am very grateful to God.

I found these links to be very interesting.

Dostoyevsky - Origins of Modern Atheism

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/f-dostoyevsky-origins-of-modern-atheism.html

Catholicism and the Rise of Atheism


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/catholicism-and-rise-of-atheism.html

Atheism - boast of our time

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/atheism-boast-of-our-time.html



I think that it is very easy to go from being a devout RC to an atheist, and here's why. Let's say you lived through Vatican ii...you were always told the RCC is the one true church, every priest is an alter Christus (another Christ), and then you see the liturgical and other devastation wrought by Vatican II and you start to think that maybe NO religion is the truth, if the RCC wasn't after all.

The only thing that kept me believing in God was the fact that I saw God in nature, and knew it could not have all just blown into being. I had always believed, both as an Orthodox Jew and later as a Traditional RC, that God made everything ex nihilo (from nothing). I never doubted it, I just doubted which religion was His!

You'd need then to account for the many millions who did not leave the Church yet became stronger in right belief and are willing to remain with the Church as the years after the Council unfold. 

There has never been a General Council that ended where everything was lovely afterwards.  In fact it is axiomatic that any general council raises the wrath of the demonic and the Church is beset, in one form or another,  for generations until the dust settles.

I don't think your journey in faith is anywhere near complete...yet.
Logged

Tags: Teresa of Avila 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  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 0.211 seconds with 72 queries.