OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 04:47:53 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 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Organs in Orthodox?  (Read 9152 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #225 on: February 14, 2012, 04:56:59 PM »

Punch, have you ever considered switching to WRO?
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #226 on: February 14, 2012, 04:59:05 PM »

Punch, have you ever considered switching to WRO?
We could always use another Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #227 on: February 14, 2012, 06:50:35 PM »

The fact is, that when you smoke, unless you can keep yourself to a "healthy" amount, and unless you can keep yourself from becoming addicted (good luck), you are sinning.
That's not a fact. That's an opinion that you have yet to prove to our satisfaction.

And no handmaiden, I don't have the spirit of the Pharisee. If I did I would be saying "thank God I'm not like them" and I would be condemning them and all smokers for being great sinners.
No, what I'm doing is saying that smoking is a sin, and it is absolutely sickening to try to deny that.
What's truly most sickening here is how you take your own opinions and project them into the mouth of God and expect everyone else here to see their truth as self-evident.

No I don't have to suit your idiotic satisfactions, come down off your high hOrse. I provide you Orthodox sources including two from actual archdiocese. You reject those as not supposedly good enough.
You rejected the sources I provided frOm actual saints against use of instruments in worship...

Frankly you don't give a shit what sources I give, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I'm not here to suit your desires, so get down off your high horse and quit being such a sick liberal and actually accept what your damned church teaches instead of denying it.  I gave you sources and you refuse to accept them, though they come from reliable sources. If you think the Greek Abd Antiochian Archdiocese are unreliable then you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever...

I'm sick and tired of all of the shit I talked about a couple posts ago. You can hold your stupid liberal views, but you damned well better realize that they don't match the tradition and current teachings of our Church.

Go ahead and just discipline me, I'm sick of reading liberal bullshit here... Sure y'all have defended the Orthodox position regularly on here, but you've also been way too damned open to heterodox viewpoints. So I'm done with this discussion.
For using profanity and ad hominem attacks, you are warned for four weeks. Second CHance
How did I miss this tantrum lol
The Most Holy, most Genuine, most Traditional, Extremely Eastern Orthodox Church outside Byzantium (MHMGMTEEOC) extends her motherly arms to receive you.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 06:54:37 PM by augustin717 » Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #228 on: February 14, 2012, 06:55:06 PM »

Punch, have you ever considered switching to WRO?

That thought crosses my mind periodically.  It is really not so much a distaste for Byzantine Orthodoxy, or a love for the West.  Paul lamented for his kinsmen the Jews and longed for their conversion.  I get in moods sometimes where I long for the conversion of my kinsmen, and miss them.  The combination of being in one of those moods along with the pompousness over externals on this thread has just got me in a bit of a funk right now (not that it takes that much these days).  I will get over it and be my usual cheery self soon.  Wink

ps - I also miss the little ROCOR Churches I have attended.  Particularly the one with the Lutheran converts.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #229 on: February 14, 2012, 07:00:08 PM »

The fact is, that when you smoke, unless you can keep yourself to a "healthy" amount, and unless you can keep yourself from becoming addicted (good luck), you are sinning.
That's not a fact. That's an opinion that you have yet to prove to our satisfaction.

And no handmaiden, I don't have the spirit of the Pharisee. If I did I would be saying "thank God I'm not like them" and I would be condemning them and all smokers for being great sinners.
No, what I'm doing is saying that smoking is a sin, and it is absolutely sickening to try to deny that.
What's truly most sickening here is how you take your own opinions and project them into the mouth of God and expect everyone else here to see their truth as self-evident.

No I don't have to suit your idiotic satisfactions, come down off your high hOrse. I provide you Orthodox sources including two from actual archdiocese. You reject those as not supposedly good enough.
You rejected the sources I provided frOm actual saints against use of instruments in worship...

Frankly you don't give a shit what sources I give, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I'm not here to suit your desires, so get down off your high horse and quit being such a sick liberal and actually accept what your damned church teaches instead of denying it.  I gave you sources and you refuse to accept them, though they come from reliable sources. If you think the Greek Abd Antiochian Archdiocese are unreliable then you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever...

I'm sick and tired of all of the shit I talked about a couple posts ago. You can hold your stupid liberal views, but you damned well better realize that they don't match the tradition and current teachings of our Church.

Go ahead and just discipline me, I'm sick of reading liberal bullshit here... Sure y'all have defended the Orthodox position regularly on here, but you've also been way too damned open to heterodox viewpoints. So I'm done with this discussion.
For using profanity and ad hominem attacks, you are warned for four weeks. Second CHance
How did I miss this tantrum lol
The Most Holy, most Genuine, most Traditional, Extremely Eastern Orthodox Church outside Byzantium (MHMGMTEEOC) extends her motherly arms to receive you.

It really was rather impressive, and I am ashamed to admit that I have felt that way myself on occasions, including the choice of words.  So, I must confess, that I was not nearly as indignant over it as I should have been.  It almost looked like . . . well . . . something Luther would have written.  And my heart warmed far more than it should have.


// kind of joking . . . I think.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #230 on: February 14, 2012, 07:56:17 PM »

As far as architecture goes, the below church is my favorite.

I agree, that is beautiful...

Regarding the WRO discussion, in that setting, I think it is somewhat okay to have an organ and more western architecture (though still not modernist).
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #231 on: February 15, 2012, 01:52:40 AM »

-snip-

http://memorybanque.com/blackandwhite.html

Quote
How can anyone say that is okay design? Yes, it exists now, but we need to avoid similar things in the future.

Hatchet job. You would do well in negative political advertising. Why didn't you include Hagia Sophia in the list? It's architecture is likewise somewhat unworldy and also has a spaceship-like dome in my opinion.


You clearly don't understand Orthodox Architecture. Hagia Sophia is extremely traditional. Whereas the church you compared to it is pretty modern and completely departs from traditional Orthodox church layout. The vast majority of our churches never were circular, in fact, the circular design was reserved for martyria and baptisteries because the circular design was not very suitable to Orthodox worship. Originally our churches were in the basilica style, and then that style was merged with the circular style to form the style which all Orthodox Churches have held to for about the last 1,100 years, which is the cross-in-square plan.

Hagia Sophia is a basilica plan that has been modified a little...

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/TfpoDFgxaWhb46XWeojP5A

As you can see above, the only circular buildings are the Baptistery to the south and the Skeuophylakion (the storage area for the Patriarchal treasures).

Pretty much all Orthodox Churches, in all locations around the world have followed the following layout:

http://www.greeceathensaegeaninfo.com/h-athens/byzantine/byz-archetecture-primer.htm

There are some later churches that departed slightly from that, mainly due to influence from the West. These include Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow and St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

The only two types that were ever really used for church design were the cross-in-square plan as discussed before, and the basilica style. The circular style was (for the most part) kept only for baptisteries, martyria, mausoleums/tombs and other holy sites. Usually these were attached to, nearby or even within a basilica style or cross-in-square style church.

So it isn't just the "skin" of those churches that makes them not traditional, its also their layout and overall design.

Our churches certainly were never domes. They had domes, but the domes never formed the whole church. I've been to Hagia Sophia, and it is properly proportioned, to that even though it is a huge volume, and the dome was the biggest in the world for hundreds of years, it doesn't really overwhelm you due to the proportions of the overall structure. Your focus is also not on the center of the dome or its focal point down to the floor. Your focus is towards the area where the templon (the predecessor to the iconostasis) and the altar would be. Whereas in a circular church, it is confusing because the focal point is on the center of the structure, in the middle. This is one of the big reasons they were not suitable to our liturgy, which had to have a holy of holies which had to be behind a wall and the worship was focused to the liturgical east. It is also why the circular design was suitable to the baptisteries and martyria. The font, or the relics of the saint were right under the center of the dome, and the focus was on them.

As mentioned before, that cross-in-square layout became the predominant layout for all Orthodox Churches throughout the world. Even the earliest Russian churches had this layout, such as the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl in Russia. It was built in 1165 A.D., about 200 years after the earliest cross-in-square churches began to appear.

http://zagraevsky.com/pokrov_engl.htm

One of the earliest cross-in-square churches was Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki, built in the 8th Century (700s). It was based on Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, but took on the Greek cross, merging it with the basilica plan, reflecting the emergence of the cross-in-square plan.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thessaloniki_Agia_Sophia15.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia_(Thessaloniki)

The vast majority of Orthodox Churches throughout the world are either of the cross-in-square variety, or the basilica style.

Not arguing here, round churches generally died out following the innovation of Hagia Sophia. An example of a still standing round church is Agios Giorgos in Thessaloniki (c.310):

Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #232 on: February 15, 2012, 02:50:14 AM »

-snip-

http://memorybanque.com/blackandwhite.html

Quote
How can anyone say that is okay design? Yes, it exists now, but we need to avoid similar things in the future.

Hatchet job. You would do well in negative political advertising. Why didn't you include Hagia Sophia in the list? It's architecture is likewise somewhat unworldy and also has a spaceship-like dome in my opinion.


You clearly don't understand Orthodox Architecture. Hagia Sophia is extremely traditional. Whereas the church you compared to it is pretty modern and completely departs from traditional Orthodox church layout. The vast majority of our churches never were circular, in fact, the circular design was reserved for martyria and baptisteries because the circular design was not very suitable to Orthodox worship. Originally our churches were in the basilica style, and then that style was merged with the circular style to form the style which all Orthodox Churches have held to for about the last 1,100 years, which is the cross-in-square plan.

Hagia Sophia is a basilica plan that has been modified a little...

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/TfpoDFgxaWhb46XWeojP5A

As you can see above, the only circular buildings are the Baptistery to the south and the Skeuophylakion (the storage area for the Patriarchal treasures).

Pretty much all Orthodox Churches, in all locations around the world have followed the following layout:

http://www.greeceathensaegeaninfo.com/h-athens/byzantine/byz-archetecture-primer.htm

There are some later churches that departed slightly from that, mainly due to influence from the West. These include Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow and St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

The only two types that were ever really used for church design were the cross-in-square plan as discussed before, and the basilica style. The circular style was (for the most part) kept only for baptisteries, martyria, mausoleums/tombs and other holy sites. Usually these were attached to, nearby or even within a basilica style or cross-in-square style church.

So it isn't just the "skin" of those churches that makes them not traditional, its also their layout and overall design.

Our churches certainly were never domes. They had domes, but the domes never formed the whole church. I've been to Hagia Sophia, and it is properly proportioned, to that even though it is a huge volume, and the dome was the biggest in the world for hundreds of years, it doesn't really overwhelm you due to the proportions of the overall structure. Your focus is also not on the center of the dome or its focal point down to the floor. Your focus is towards the area where the templon (the predecessor to the iconostasis) and the altar would be. Whereas in a circular church, it is confusing because the focal point is on the center of the structure, in the middle. This is one of the big reasons they were not suitable to our liturgy, which had to have a holy of holies which had to be behind a wall and the worship was focused to the liturgical east. It is also why the circular design was suitable to the baptisteries and martyria. The font, or the relics of the saint were right under the center of the dome, and the focus was on them.

As mentioned before, that cross-in-square layout became the predominant layout for all Orthodox Churches throughout the world. Even the earliest Russian churches had this layout, such as the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl in Russia. It was built in 1165 A.D., about 200 years after the earliest cross-in-square churches began to appear.

http://zagraevsky.com/pokrov_engl.htm

One of the earliest cross-in-square churches was Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki, built in the 8th Century (700s). It was based on Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, but took on the Greek cross, merging it with the basilica plan, reflecting the emergence of the cross-in-square plan.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thessaloniki_Agia_Sophia15.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia_(Thessaloniki)

The vast majority of Orthodox Churches throughout the world are either of the cross-in-square variety, or the basilica style.

Not arguing here, round churches generally died out following the innovation of Hagia Sophia. An example of a still standing round church is Agios Giorgos in Thessaloniki (c.310):



Very true, but St George Rotunda was built as a mausoleum for a Roman governor. When Christianity took over, they had to severely modify the rotunda by adding a pretty unusually long apse. That gave it some sense of direction but the problem is still there. The reverb in there is also a bit too much. I wasn't in there for a service, but just talking was interesting and hard to tell what someone is saying.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 02:53:23 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #233 on: February 16, 2012, 03:50:36 PM »

This actually confuses me.  If organs are wrong on theological grounds, why would they be right in the WR.  And, if they are right in the WR, why would a group of Western converts using the Byzantine right not be able to use an organ?  Traditions made by men . . .

As far as architecture goes, the below church is my favorite.

I agree, that is beautiful...

Regarding the WRO discussion, in that setting, I think it is somewhat okay to have an organ and more western architecture (though still not modernist).
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #234 on: February 16, 2012, 04:18:40 PM »

Very true, but St George Rotunda was built as a mausoleum for a Roman governor. When Christianity took over, they had to severely modify the rotunda by adding a pretty unusually long apse. That gave it some sense of direction but the problem is still there. The reverb in there is also a bit too much. I wasn't in there for a service, but just talking was interesting and hard to tell what someone is saying.



Don't forget the Pantheon, another converted imperial Roman structure that has been a Church since 609 AD, long before the schism.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 04:19:27 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #235 on: February 16, 2012, 04:33:07 PM »

This actually confuses me.  If organs are wrong on theological grounds, why would they be right in the WR.  And, if they are right in the WR, why would a group of Western converts using the Byzantine right not be able to use an organ?  Traditions made by men . . .

As far as architecture goes, the below church is my favorite.

I agree, that is beautiful...

Regarding the WRO discussion, in that setting, I think it is somewhat okay to have an organ and more western architecture (though still not modernist).

I don't think it should be confusing. Instruments within worship is something that our Fathers spoke very strongly against. Yet if you know about Western Rite Orthodoxy, you would realize that it is not of the Byzantine Rite, and its Liturgy is closer to Western styles (obviously). Many of these Western Rite Churches do not even have an iconostasis, nor do they sing entirely Eastern hymns.

The two rites are very different from one another. The Western Rites and the Eastern Rites diverged a very long time ago. The Western Churches never had iconostasis, nor did they have a lot of our later additions to the Liturgy (like the Epiclesis). They did have the Templon (the predecessor to the Iconostasis) and then altar rails, rood screens, etc... Yet they never had the iconostasis.
Their style of music and their style of chant became vastly different from the East, as well as their style of architecture. They moved from chanting styles like the Gallican, the Celtic, the Ambrosian, the Mozarabic and Old Roman Chant to Gregorian Chant. Their architecture moved from Roman and Early Byzantine to Romanesque to Gothic. They developed their musical notation from one that was flexible (not specific, based on a range rather than notes) to a notation style which specified actual notes and speed. While organs were not used in Eastern Churches, they began to be used pretty frequently in Western Churches.

The two rites are drastically different, and have been for many centuries. I don't understand your logic. You seem to imply that because it is permissible in one instance, it should be permissible in all.

No, the Byzantine Rite remains the same, as does the Western Rites and the Oriental Rites. You may have the organ in the Western Rites (yet no other instruments), or drums and cymbals in the Oriental Rites, but that doesn't mean that it is suddenly permissible to add instruments into the Byzantine Rite, especially when it was primarily Eastern Fathers who rejected the use of instruments in worship.

Do we (of the Byzantine Rite) suddenly follow the West in enforcing celibacy upon our clergy? Do we suddenly change all of our chant to a Western style and adopt organs and instruments? Do we suddenly do away with the iconostasis because the Western Rites don't have them? Do we suddenly remove the Epiclesis from our Liturgy because the West doesn't have one?

You must understand that you cannot use the "traditions of men" argument. That is the Protestant argument, not the Orthodox one. We distinguish Traditions from traditions. But that doesn't mean that like the Protestants try to argue, that we can just do away with or change the "t"raditions.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #236 on: February 16, 2012, 04:50:37 PM »

This actually confuses me.  If organs are wrong on theological grounds, why would they be right in the WR.  And, if they are right in the WR, why would a group of Western converts using the Byzantine right not be able to use an organ?  Traditions made by men . . .

As far as architecture goes, the below church is my favorite.

I agree, that is beautiful...

Regarding the WRO discussion, in that setting, I think it is somewhat okay to have an organ and more western architecture (though still not modernist).

I don't think it should be confusing. Instruments within worship is something that our Fathers spoke very strongly against. Yet if you know about Western Rite Orthodoxy, you would realize that it is not of the Byzantine Rite, and its Liturgy is closer to Western styles (obviously). Many of these Western Rite Churches do not even have an iconostasis, nor do they sing entirely Eastern hymns.

The two rites are very different from one another. The Western Rites and the Eastern Rites diverged a very long time ago. The Western Churches never had iconostasis, nor did they have a lot of our later additions to the Liturgy (like the Epiclesis). They did have the Templon (the predecessor to the Iconostasis) and then altar rails, rood screens, etc... Yet they never had the iconostasis.
Their style of music and their style of chant became vastly different from the East, as well as their style of architecture. They moved from chanting styles like the Gallican, the Celtic, the Ambrosian, the Mozarabic and Old Roman Chant to Gregorian Chant. Their architecture moved from Roman and Early Byzantine to Romanesque to Gothic. They developed their musical notation from one that was flexible (not specific, based on a range rather than notes) to a notation style which specified actual notes and speed. While organs were not used in Eastern Churches, they began to be used pretty frequently in Western Churches.

The two rites are drastically different, and have been for many centuries. I don't understand your logic. You seem to imply that because it is permissible in one instance, it should be permissible in all.

No, the Byzantine Rite remains the same, as does the Western Rites and the Oriental Rites. You may have the organ in the Western Rites (yet no other instruments), or drums and cymbals in the Oriental Rites, but that doesn't mean that it is suddenly permissible to add instruments into the Byzantine Rite, especially when it was primarily Eastern Fathers who rejected the use of instruments in worship.

Do we (of the Byzantine Rite) suddenly follow the West in enforcing celibacy upon our clergy? Do we suddenly change all of our chant to a Western style and adopt organs and instruments? Do we suddenly do away with the iconostasis because the Western Rites don't have them? Do we suddenly remove the Epiclesis from our Liturgy because the West doesn't have one?

You must understand that you cannot use the "traditions of men" argument. That is the Protestant argument, not the Orthodox one. We distinguish Traditions from traditions. But that doesn't mean that like the Protestants try to argue, that we can just do away with or change the "t"raditions.

I don't think you answered his question because there were a few earlier posts taking stong issue to his attachment to songs he learned in his Lutheran youth. I agree with you that importing instruments into the Eastern tradition is not appropriate, but his fundamental question is one worth answering.

If the Fathers of the undivided pre-Schism orthodox Faith objected to musical instruments in liturgy - was it on account of dogma or pious belief?

In other words, if such objections were not universally accepted as being essentially dogmatic prior to the great schism and organs or their precursors were in use in the west, it would seem that the objections are not so much 'theological' in nature but more in that realm of their not fitting into to Eastern praxis as it incrementally developed. Unlike the 'filioque' - an introduction which altered dogmatic understanding - music has never been mentioned by serious scholars - east or west - as a barrier to union. Some may not LIKE western music, while others may not LIKE Byzantine chant (most Russians come to mind immediately on that count!)

Likewise the iconostasis. There is scant evidence of its presence as we know it today in pre-fifteenth century Byzantium. Does that make its use as we understand it today 'wrong' ? I don't want to make that argument....

Change in Orthodoxy exists - it is incremental and slow in its evolution - but it does occur. To deny it, is to deny objective reality.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,833



« Reply #237 on: February 16, 2012, 05:10:17 PM »


You must understand that you cannot use the "traditions of men" argument. That is the Protestant argument, not the Orthodox one. We distinguish Traditions from traditions. But that doesn't mean that like the Protestants try to argue, that we can just do away with or change the "t"raditions.

I thought that it making the distinction is necessary to make a change. That is, if we have a true Tradition--you don't change; if you have a pious custom type of tradition, you may change--not for he sake of changing to be sure but to make the praxis closer to True Tradition.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #238 on: February 16, 2012, 06:00:28 PM »

You understand the point that I was trying to make.  While on the one hand, comparing an organ with the Filoque seems stupid, we must remember that the Old Believer schism was caused by similar things.  Therefor both view points have to be taken seriously.     


I don't think you answered his question because there were a few earlier posts taking stong issue to his attachment to songs he learned in his Lutheran youth. I agree with you that importing instruments into the Eastern tradition is not appropriate, but his fundamental question is one worth answering.

If the Fathers of the undivided pre-Schism orthodox Faith objected to musical instruments in liturgy - was it on account of dogma or pious belief?

In other words, if such objections were not universally accepted as being essentially dogmatic prior to the great schism and organs or their precursors were in use in the west, it would seem that the objections are not so much 'theological' in nature but more in that realm of their not fitting into to Eastern praxis as it incrementally developed. Unlike the 'filioque' - an introduction which altered dogmatic understanding - music has never been mentioned by serious scholars - east or west - as a barrier to union. Some may not LIKE western music, while others may not LIKE Byzantine chant (most Russians come to mind immediately on that count!)

Likewise the iconostasis. There is scant evidence of its presence as we know it today in pre-fifteenth century Byzantium. Does that make its use as we understand it today 'wrong' ? I don't want to make that argument....

Change in Orthodoxy exists - it is incremental and slow in its evolution - but it does occur. To deny it, is to deny objective reality.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #239 on: February 16, 2012, 06:03:30 PM »

Very good point.  The only sticking point is determining "True Tradition" from custom.


You must understand that you cannot use the "traditions of men" argument. That is the Protestant argument, not the Orthodox one. We distinguish Traditions from traditions. But that doesn't mean that like the Protestants try to argue, that we can just do away with or change the "t"raditions.

I thought that it making the distinction is necessary to make a change. That is, if we have a true Tradition--you don't change; if you have a pious custom type of tradition, you may change--not for he sake of changing to be sure but to make the praxis closer to True Tradition.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #240 on: February 16, 2012, 06:29:27 PM »

Very good point.  The only sticking point is determining "True Tradition" from custom.


You must understand that you cannot use the "traditions of men" argument. That is the Protestant argument, not the Orthodox one. We distinguish Traditions from traditions. But that doesn't mean that like the Protestants try to argue, that we can just do away with or change the "t"raditions.

I thought that it making the distinction is necessary to make a change. That is, if we have a true Tradition--you don't change; if you have a pious custom type of tradition, you may change--not for he sake of changing to be sure but to make the praxis closer to True Tradition.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to suggest that organs are something to enter into schism over. Yet I was trying to point out that there are some changes in tradition that aren't venerable and while may be permissible for one rite, it certainly may not (or should not) be permissible for another rite.

For example, I think there are many "t"raditions that have entered our church that of the negative variety for our rite. These would be things like westernized iconography, organs, pews and modernist architecture. I would also add the idea of a "sacred language" to a negative change in tradition (that Koine Greek or Church Slavonic is more sacred than modern Greek or Russian) that came to us from the West. Or even some non-dogmatic ideas present within the Russian or Greek traditions that clearly were influences from Roman Catholicism, such as the idea of the EP as the "Eastern Pope".

In my mind, some positive recent changes in "t"radition include things like the procession of the cross on the night of the 12 Passion Gospels. Or the return of the kiss of peace before the Creed.

The "t"raditions do change, but there are some parts of our tradition that haven't changed for many, many centuries. We haven't used instruments in worship for at least 1,700 years. We haven't sat in worship for at least 1,900 years. We've retained the same architecture layout and forms (though some slight changes in style and form are done by each peoples) for at least 1,000 years. There are reasons we've retained these traditions for so long, and events of the last 50-100 do not and cannot change it.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #241 on: February 16, 2012, 06:54:10 PM »

You understand the point that I was trying to make.  While on the one hand, comparing an organ with the Filoque seems stupid, we must remember that the Old Believer schism was caused by similar things.  Therefor both view points have to be taken seriously.     


I don't think you answered his question because there were a few earlier posts taking stong issue to his attachment to songs he learned in his Lutheran youth. I agree with you that importing instruments into the Eastern tradition is not appropriate, but his fundamental question is one worth answering.

If the Fathers of the undivided pre-Schism orthodox Faith objected to musical instruments in liturgy - was it on account of dogma or pious belief?

In other words, if such objections were not universally accepted as being essentially dogmatic prior to the great schism and organs or their precursors were in use in the west, it would seem that the objections are not so much 'theological' in nature but more in that realm of their not fitting into to Eastern praxis as it incrementally developed. Unlike the 'filioque' - an introduction which altered dogmatic understanding - music has never been mentioned by serious scholars - east or west - as a barrier to union. Some may not LIKE western music, while others may not LIKE Byzantine chant (most Russians come to mind immediately on that count!)

Likewise the iconostasis. There is scant evidence of its presence as we know it today in pre-fifteenth century Byzantium. Does that make its use as we understand it today 'wrong' ? I don't want to make that argument....

Change in Orthodoxy exists - it is incremental and slow in its evolution - but it does occur. To deny it, is to deny objective reality.

Obviously the 'comparison' is simplistic - I was struggling to find a 'change' which was indisputably doctrinal and dogmatic in nature. That's the first which popped into my head. And you are quite correct in that many of the tragic divisions which have occurred in God's church have more to do with the pride of man and with one's true pride in the possession of Faith. To me music and art are issues upon which east and west may have gone down differing paths, but they are not primarily divisions of Faith - just custom.


Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #242 on: February 16, 2012, 08:08:18 PM »

I see the main problem of "t"radition as retarding the growth of the Church.  You already see differences in "t"raditions within the Church by region.  The Antiochian Church is essentially a "Greek" Orthodox Church, but many of the "t"raditions are different.  Some remain constant due to the Mediterranean flavor of both Churches, but they are different in many ways.  Same with the Slavic Churches.  I have found a lot of differences between the Russian Church and the Serbian Church, even though both are "Russian" Orthodox.  Many of these differences are "t"radition, although sadly some are not. 

The problem comes when dealing with Western converts.  I live in the United States, specifically Nebraska.  This is an area heavily settled by Northern Europeans, and an area heavily Lutheran (the Wisconsin Synod is the smallest of the Lutheran Denominations, and there are still four WELS Churches in the Omaha area).  This is NOT Greece.  This is NOT Russia.  This is NOT Serbia.  Lutherans are NOT Anglicans, nor are they Roman Catholic.  A good number of us wonder why we need to become Russian or Greek or Serbian in order to become Orthodox.  Most of us are highly educated in religion, which is what led to our conversions in the first place.  We really have no interest in your quaint "old world" customs and "t"raditions because we have our own.  And for that matter, given that most of you until recently have lived in countries under slavery to Godless regimes, your "t"raditions have not served you all that well in our eyes.  We are not Masons.  We did not fall for the ecumenism of the WCC.  Many of us hold tighter marriage rules than you do.  Many of us have higher Church attendance, higher charitable contributions, and a higher "T"radition of spreading the Gospel than you do.  Doctrinally, we are closer to you than even the Roman Catholics. We are certainly NOT liberals, and many of us are not modernists (some of our “Conservative” denominations would put your Old Believers to shame).

So, when you tell us that we have to dress like peasants, burn only beeswax, listen to music that assaults our ears, eat foods that we are not accustomed to, follow a bunch of dietary and sexual “canons” that would make Moses proud in order to be “true” Christians, our BS meters tend to go to the high side, if not peg completely.  We are NOT from your world, and two oceans separate us from your world.  In fact, why are YOU here?  Most of you are here because your world pretty well sucks, or you would have stayed put.  So forgive us if we do not convert to your Churches in droves, and get burned out even if we do.  To me, perfect worship would be attending a Lutheran High Mass in a Gothic Cathedral under a German Bishop who was in communion with Moscow.  But that is not the case (yet, even though I pray).  So, while I believe that there is no room to move regarding Doctrine and “T”radition (hence my conversion to the Orthodox Church), I do think there is quite a bit of room to move when it comes to “t”radition.  But then again, maybe I am just a half converted Lutheran after all.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #243 on: February 16, 2012, 10:39:38 PM »

I see the main problem of "t"radition as retarding the growth of the Church.  You already see differences in "t"raditions within the Church by region.  The Antiochian Church is essentially a "Greek" Orthodox Church, but many of the "t"raditions are different.  Some remain constant due to the Mediterranean flavor of both Churches, but they are different in many ways.  Same with the Slavic Churches.  I have found a lot of differences between the Russian Church and the Serbian Church, even though both are "Russian" Orthodox.  Many of these differences are "t"radition, although sadly some are not. 

The problem comes when dealing with Western converts.  I live in the United States, specifically Nebraska.  This is an area heavily settled by Northern Europeans, and an area heavily Lutheran (the Wisconsin Synod is the smallest of the Lutheran Denominations, and there are still four WELS Churches in the Omaha area).  This is NOT Greece.  This is NOT Russia.  This is NOT Serbia.  Lutherans are NOT Anglicans, nor are they Roman Catholic.  A good number of us wonder why we need to become Russian or Greek or Serbian in order to become Orthodox.  Most of us are highly educated in religion, which is what led to our conversions in the first place.  We really have no interest in your quaint "old world" customs and "t"raditions because we have our own.  And for that matter, given that most of you until recently have lived in countries under slavery to Godless regimes, your "t"raditions have not served you all that well in our eyes.  We are not Masons.  We did not fall for the ecumenism of the WCC.  Many of us hold tighter marriage rules than you do.  Many of us have higher Church attendance, higher charitable contributions, and a higher "T"radition of spreading the Gospel than you do.  Doctrinally, we are closer to you than even the Roman Catholics. We are certainly NOT liberals, and many of us are not modernists (some of our “Conservative” denominations would put your Old Believers to shame).

So, when you tell us that we have to dress like peasants, burn only beeswax, listen to music that assaults our ears, eat foods that we are not accustomed to, follow a bunch of dietary and sexual “canons” that would make Moses proud in order to be “true” Christians, our BS meters tend to go to the high side, if not peg completely.  We are NOT from your world, and two oceans separate us from your world.  In fact, why are YOU here?  Most of you are here because your world pretty well sucks, or you would have stayed put.  So forgive us if we do not convert to your Churches in droves, and get burned out even if we do.  To me, perfect worship would be attending a Lutheran High Mass in a Gothic Cathedral under a German Bishop who was in communion with Moscow.  But that is not the case (yet, even though I pray).  So, while I believe that there is no room to move regarding Doctrine and “T”radition (hence my conversion to the Orthodox Church), I do think there is quite a bit of room to move when it comes to “t”radition.  But then again, maybe I am just a half converted Lutheran after all.

You're addressing me as though I were "old world" or a "cradle".

I think the difference, is that I believe we need to shed our Western mentality for the Eastern. The Western mentality, especially when it comes to matters of the faith, has been in heresy for 1,000 years. That is the sad truth... Western worship has become dead (same for the architecture as well). It isn't about absorbing the non-Orthodox into our Church. Its about totally reshaping the minds of the converts to think as Orthodox do rather than as Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons or Muslims do.

As for these statements:
Quote
And for that matter, given that most of you until recently have lived in countries under slavery to Godless regimes, your "t"raditions have not served you all that well in our eyes.  We are not Masons.  We did not fall for the ecumenism of the WCC.  Many of us hold tighter marriage rules than you do.  Many of us have higher Church attendance, higher charitable contributions, and a higher "T"radition of spreading the Gospel than you do.
Actually, their traditions have definitely served them well, they still hold onto them. The "godless regimes" didn't rise to power out of the people being upset with the Church, they rose to power because the secular power, most especially the Czar, had been corrupt for so long and the poor were being suppressed by the government. It just so happened that out of the two evils (White Russia and Red Russia) that were fighting, it just so happened the communists won.

As for marriage rules, i don't understand where you get this, the United States has an extremely high rate of divorce and marital instability. The vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States don't even put a limit on divorces. Here, if you are unhappy, or don't think you "love" your spouse, you can divorce and your church won't really say a thing about it. Yet over in Europe, in Orthodox countries, while divorce rates are higher than previously, still you are encouraged to strive through your marital difficulties. Marriage over there isn't always all about love (which we have been taught it is).

As for higher Church attendance, that might be true. Yet when I was in Greece, the Churches were full on Sundays. That doesn't mean church attendance was high, but the churches they had (which are everywhere) were being filled. Eastern Europe, including Greece, is seeing a rise in church attendance.

Higher charitable contributions? I'd like to see the proof there. It really doesn't matter much in America though, just because you give doesn't mean you are pious or you are a holier person. How many Americans do you see stopping and giving extra change, food and drink to the homeless on the streets? How many Americans are more concerned with sending missions to Africa than sending out aid to those who need it most in their own communities? I tell you, that in Eastern Europe, the poor are right at your feet, you walk by them to the store, to work, to school and to church. You hear their cries and you see the whites of their eyes. I saw plenty of charity in Greece. I don't think you have the ability to judge our Orthodox brethren, especially when we sit in our nice cars on the expressway and act like the homeless guy on the corner doesn't exist. Over there, you live next to the poor and see them every day. Here, we separate ourselves from the poor. The rich have their own neighborhoods, as well as the poor. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians all segregate themselves in their own neighborhoods, in their self-imposed ghettos. I don't see how we are any better than our Orthodox brothers and sisters in Europe, in fact, we are far more despicable.

Higher "T"radition of spreading the Gospel? Do you not know Church history? The Orthodox Church converted the Roman Empire, Armenia, Ethiopia and so many other nations came to Christianity because of Orthodoxy. The Rus became Christian because of the Orthodox in the so-called "old country". When the Protestant missionaries went up to Alaska to "convert" the Native peoples up there, what and who did they find? They found that the Natives were actually Orthodox, because Russia had evangelized up there.

Don't sit so high and mighty in judgement of our heritage and our Orthodox brethren "over there". It doesn't matter where they have come from, the fact is that when you are at a Divine Liturgy, you are celebrating with them, and with every Orthodox Christian and every one of God's people who has ever existed and will exist.

It was a blessing to the Orthodox Church that it fell to the Muslim, to the Turk and to the Communist. It kept us from reform, it protected us from the evils that were plaguing the Roman Catholics and then the Protestant Churches. We, as Orthodox, should be thankful that God both punished us and protected us in that manner. He punished us for trying to "Westernize" and join the heretical Roman Catholic Church, because of the unfaithfulness of so many Bishops and the Emperor, God permitted the Turk to sack Constantinople and take the land from us. He punished us for Westernizing and falling into idolatry and superstition by allowing the Communists to overthrow the Empire. Those were evil groups, just as Babylon and so many nations before, yet he allowed our lands to fall so that we could be chastised and so that we could preserve our faith intact, mostly unmarred by the heretical movements occurring in the West.

Don't be so quick to judge the Orthodox East, for it was God's providence that it be preserved as it has been.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #244 on: February 17, 2012, 01:01:01 AM »


You're addressing me as though I were "old world" or a "cradle".


I did not intend that.  My post was mostly a vent and not even really directed at you.

Quote

I think the difference, is that I believe we need to shed our Western mentality for the Eastern. The Western mentality, especially when it comes to matters of the faith, has been in heresy for 1,000 years. That is the sad truth... Western worship has become dead (same for the architecture as well). It isn't about absorbing the non-Orthodox into our Church. Its about totally reshaping the minds of the converts to think as Orthodox do rather than as Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons or Muslims do.


I have to disagree with you here.  The congregational singing and lay involvement that I saw in my former congregations was FAR more lively and vibrant than I have seen in ANY Orthodox Church.  I really depends on what you consider "dead".  The Word of God is never "dead" and never goes out without effect.  The services of the Conservative mainline churches, as well as the RC, are full of the Scriptures as well as beautiful and Scriptural hymnography.

Quote

As for these statements:

"And for that matter, given that most of you until recently have lived in countries under slavery to Godless regimes, your "t"raditions have not served you all that well in our eyes.  We are not Masons.  We did not fall for the ecumenism of the WCC.  Many of us hold tighter marriage rules than you do.  Many of us have higher Church attendance, higher charitable contributions, and a higher "T"radition of spreading the Gospel than you do."

Actually, their traditions have definitely served them well, they still hold onto them. The "godless regimes" didn't rise to power out of the people being upset with the Church, they rose to power because the secular power, most especially the Czar, had been corrupt for so long and the poor were being suppressed by the government. It just so happened that out of the two evils (White Russia and Red Russia) that were fighting, it just so happened the communists won.


I'll concede that, for now.

Quote

As for marriage rules, i don't understand where you get this, the United States has an extremely high rate of divorce and marital instability. The vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States don't even put a limit on divorces.

[\quote]

In the LCMS and WELS congregations that I attended, a second marriage was rarely granted to the "guilty" party of a divorce.  A third was unheard of.

Quote

Here, if you are unhappy, or don't think you "love" your spouse, you can divorce and your church won't really say a thing about it. Yet over in Europe, in Orthodox countries, while divorce rates are higher than previously, still you are encouraged to strive through your marital difficulties. Marriage over there isn't always all about love (which we have been taught it is).

[\quote]

Again, not all "Western" churches are this way.  You will find no difference in the way that marriage is treated in the WELS and LCMS than it is in any Orthodox Church.

Quote


As for higher Church attendance, that might be true. Yet when I was in Greece, the Churches were full on Sundays. That doesn't mean church attendance was high, but the churches they had (which are everywhere) were being filled. Eastern Europe, including Greece, is seeing a rise in church attendance.

Higher charitable contributions? I'd like to see the proof there. It really doesn't matter much in America though, just because you give doesn't mean you are pious or you are a holier person. How many Americans do you see stopping and giving extra change, food and drink to the homeless on the streets? How many Americans are more concerned with sending missions to Africa than sending out aid to those who need it most in their own communities? I tell you, that in Eastern Europe, the poor are right at your feet, you walk by them to the store, to work, to school and to church. You hear their cries and you see the whites of their eyes. I saw plenty of charity in Greece. I don't think you have the ability to judge our Orthodox brethren, especially when we sit in our nice cars on the expressway and act like the homeless guy on the corner doesn't exist. Over there, you live next to the poor and see them every day. Here, we separate ourselves from the poor. The rich have their own neighborhoods, as well as the poor. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians all segregate themselves in their own neighborhoods, in their self-imposed ghettos. I don't see how we are any better than our Orthodox brothers and sisters in Europe, in fact, we are far more despicable.

[\quote]

Again, you paint all Americans as one homogenious group.  We are not.  You will find a very high degree of financial giving in both the WELS and LCMS.  I won't even get in to discussing Baptists and Penticostals where tithing is the norm.  Most of these congregations also have a goal of giving 10 - 12% of the yearly offerings for mission and charitable use.  They also do not need bingo and bake sales to make their budgets (which includes the above mission giving).  There are no "dues", people give on their own.  And I have seen my share of pretty big, new cars in the parking lots of a lot of Orthodox Churches.

Quote

Higher "T"radition of spreading the Gospel? Do you not know Church history? The Orthodox Church converted the Roman Empire, Armenia, Ethiopia and so many other nations came to Christianity because of Orthodoxy. The Rus became Christian because of the Orthodox in the so-called "old country". When the Protestant missionaries went up to Alaska to "convert" the Native peoples up there, what and who did they find? They found that the Natives were actually Orthodox, because Russia had evangelized up there.

[\quote]

I know Church History, probably as well or better than you.  But I am not talking about the past.  I am talking about now.  As for Russia, it seems that they need laws to keep church groups out because the are converting too many Orthodox to the various Protestant denominations.

Quote

Don't sit so high and mighty in judgement of our heritage and our Orthodox brethren "over there". It doesn't matter where they have come from, the fact is that when you are at a Divine Liturgy, you are celebrating with them, and with every Orthodox Christian and every one of God's people who has ever existed and will exist.

[\quote]

I believe that.  But I also do not judge my brother Orthodox as somehow less pious because they have an organ or pews or electric lights.  It is here that YOU play the hypocrite.

Quote

It was a blessing to the Orthodox Church that it fell to the Muslim, to the Turk and to the Communist. It kept us from reform, it protected us from the evils that were plaguing the Roman Catholics and then the Protestant Churches. We, as Orthodox, should be thankful that God both punished us and protected us in that manner. He punished us for trying to "Westernize" and join the heretical Roman Catholic Church, because of the unfaithfulness of so many Bishops and the Emperor, God permitted the Turk to sack Constantinople and take the land from us. He punished us for Westernizing and falling into idolatry and superstition by allowing the Communists to overthrow the Empire. Those were evil groups, just as Babylon and so many nations before, yet he allowed our lands to fall so that we could be chastised and so that we could preserve our faith intact, mostly unmarred by the heretical movements occurring in the West.

[\quote]

He punished you for more than "Westernizing".  Idolatry and superstition are hardly the fruits of Western enlightenment, but more from the Easts own holding on to its primitive and pagan past.  Not that the West was any better, just not all of it was particularly worse.

Quote

Don't be so quick to judge the Orthodox East, for it was God's providence that it be preserved as it has been.

Gee, it seems to be that most of what started this thread has been about you judging your own Orthodox brothers.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #245 on: February 17, 2012, 01:25:38 AM »

I'm speaking against Westernization and pandering towards the West. Western Christianity is in heresy, it is dead. Lutheranism is heresy and is dead, same for Roman Catholicism and all the other faiths.

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox. If they have scripture, then we have far more scripture than they could imagine, and we haven't fallen to the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

Those of us from the West need to leave our baggage at the door and embrace the East, and reform our minds. If we don't leave our bags at the door, then we will probably leave with our bags. Once we leave all our baggage at the door, we can settle down and accept what the only true Church has to offer.

One cannot be a Lutheran and Orthodox, neither can one be Roman Catholic and Orthodox... The Catholics are willing to accept anyone regardless of specific doctrine or rite, just as long as they accept the Pope as th head. We aren't like that, we require that people leave their old bags at the door and become Orthodox.

As for worship, the only valuable hymn (other than Christmas carols) that are post-schism that the West has to offer is Amazing Grace. I feel like nothing else comes close to comparing to our hymns.

Just look at Agni Parthene, it cant be sung at a liturgy, yet it's deeper than any Western hymn.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 01:33:02 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,332


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #246 on: February 17, 2012, 01:47:14 AM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #247 on: February 17, 2012, 01:55:48 AM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.

I'm sure a Tridentine Mass would be better, but it's both in a dead language and lacks the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But the Novus Ordo is dead and not nearly on the level of orthodox worship.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 01:58:55 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,332


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #248 on: February 17, 2012, 02:01:35 AM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #249 on: February 17, 2012, 02:05:22 AM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,332


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #250 on: February 17, 2012, 02:24:10 AM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)
I don't know that it's safe for me to even make a comparison.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,256


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #251 on: February 17, 2012, 10:46:56 PM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)
I don't know that it's safe for me to even make a comparison.

All I can say is I went to a RC rosary for a sort of distant family member a couple weeks ago, and I'll tell ya, when they recited the creed, it is FAR BEYOND the filioque.  It was so distorted, so twisted up...
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #252 on: February 17, 2012, 10:55:33 PM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)
I don't know that it's safe for me to even make a comparison.

All I can say is I went to a RC rosary for a sort of distant family member a couple weeks ago, and I'll tell ya, when they recited the creed, it is FAR BEYOND the filioque.  It was so distorted, so twisted up...

How so? 
Logged

username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #253 on: February 17, 2012, 11:02:56 PM »

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.  http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed
The one I am used to using in an Orthodox church is above


Here is the Roman catholic english version
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.   http://www.liturgytools.net/2011/07/nicean-creed-icel-2010.html


Logged

Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #254 on: February 17, 2012, 11:24:13 PM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)

If you don't know, how can you judge?  You have made some pretty definite statements for someone so ignorant.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #255 on: February 17, 2012, 11:41:08 PM »

I'm speaking against Westernization and pandering towards the West. Western Christianity is in heresy, it is dead. Lutheranism is heresy and is dead, same for Roman Catholicism and all the other faiths.

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox. If they have scripture, then we have far more scripture than they could imagine, and we haven't fallen to the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

Those of us from the West need to leave our baggage at the door and embrace the East, and reform our minds. If we don't leave our bags at the door, then we will probably leave with our bags. Once we leave all our baggage at the door, we can settle down and accept what the only true Church has to offer.

One cannot be a Lutheran and Orthodox, neither can one be Roman Catholic and Orthodox... The Catholics are willing to accept anyone regardless of specific doctrine or rite, just as long as they accept the Pope as th head. We aren't like that, we require that people leave their old bags at the door and become Orthodox.

As for worship, the only valuable hymn (other than Christmas carols) that are post-schism that the West has to offer is Amazing Grace. I feel like nothing else comes close to comparing to our hymns.

Just look at Agni Parthene, it cant be sung at a liturgy, yet it's deeper than any Western hymn.
Enlighten them, abba, and pray for us sinners.
Logged
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #256 on: February 17, 2012, 11:43:17 PM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.

I'm sure a Tridentine Mass would be better, but it's both in a dead language and lacks the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But the Novus Ordo is dead and not nearly on the level of orthodox worship.
And Koine or Slavonic must be "living languages".
Logged
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #257 on: February 17, 2012, 11:46:36 PM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)
I don't know that it's safe for me to even make a comparison.

All I can say is I went to a RC rosary for a sort of distant family member a couple weeks ago, and I'll tell ya, when they recited the creed, it is FAR BEYOND the filioque.  It was so distorted, so twisted up...

That's because the Nicene Creed isn't prayed at the start of the Rosary. The Apostles' Creed is prayed:

    I believe in God,
    the Father almighty,
    Creator of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died and was buried;
    he descended into hell;
    on the third day he rose again from the dead;
    he ascended into heaven,
    and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and life everlasting. Amen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_Creed
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,332


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #258 on: February 18, 2012, 03:37:00 AM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)
I don't know that it's safe for me to even make a comparison.

All I can say is I went to a RC rosary for a sort of distant family member a couple weeks ago, and I'll tell ya, when they recited the creed, it is FAR BEYOND the filioque.  It was so distorted, so twisted up...

That's because the Nicene Creed isn't prayed at the start of the Rosary. The Apostles' Creed is prayed:

    I believe in God,
    the Father almighty,
    Creator of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died and was buried;
    he descended into hell;
    on the third day he rose again from the dead;
    he ascended into heaven,
    and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and life everlasting. Amen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_Creed
So be careful, yesh, what you call distorted and twisted up. Wink
Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #259 on: February 18, 2012, 03:41:47 AM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)
I don't know that it's safe for me to even make a comparison.

All I can say is I went to a RC rosary for a sort of distant family member a couple weeks ago, and I'll tell ya, when they recited the creed, it is FAR BEYOND the filioque.  It was so distorted, so twisted up...

That's because the Nicene Creed isn't prayed at the start of the Rosary. The Apostles' Creed is prayed:

    I believe in God,
    the Father almighty,
    Creator of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died and was buried;
    he descended into hell;
    on the third day he rose again from the dead;
    he ascended into heaven,
    and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and life everlasting. Amen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_Creed

I thought maybe yeshuaisiam was going to say it was the Freemason's creed har har har
How could I have forgotten it is the Apostle's Creed?
Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #260 on: February 18, 2012, 08:18:07 PM »

Those of us from the West need to leave our baggage at the door and embrace the East, and reform our minds. If we don't leave our bags at the door, then we will probably leave with our bags. Once we leave all our baggage at the door, we can settle down and accept what the only true Church has to offer.

SOME of you converts need to leave your behind your sneering at what you turned your back upon.

The musical truth is that mostly what the east has to offer which is actually good is stuff that they were given by the west. Byzantine chant is annoying and tedious; Znamenny less so, but the really good stuff was written by a bunch of 19th-20th century Russians who all had the benefit of western musical training. And it is very,very beautiful, and of great power; but in comparison to the whole corpus of western sacred music, it's pretty small potatoes.

Quote
As for worship, the only valuable hymn (other than Christmas carols) that are post-schism that the West has to offer is Amazing Grace. I feel like nothing else comes close to comparing to our hymns.

It is really not so wise an idea as to brag about one's ignorance. If "Amazing Grace" is all you know, then you don't know much.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #261 on: February 18, 2012, 08:28:06 PM »

I've been to many services over the years, including Roman Catholic ones, and they were all dead and empty compared to the Orthodox.
How many years have you been able to go to many services?

My whole life, as a Protestant, there isn't a problem attending other services.
While they felt alive back then, now when I go back, they are absolutely dead, I see them for as they are. That is what happens to your worship when you fall to heresy.
Or when you let your triumphalistic subjectivity cloud your judgment. The first time I went to a Lutheran service, I thought it was dead because of its liturgical ritual, and this was years before I became Orthodox. Now I worship in a church whose worship is even more liturgical, and I think it very alive. As such, I've come to recognize the beauty of Lutheran liturgical worship.


Is it anything like the RC Novus Ordo as typically celebrated in the USA? (I really hope not)
I don't know that it's safe for me to even make a comparison.

All I can say is I went to a RC rosary for a sort of distant family member a couple weeks ago, and I'll tell ya, when they recited the creed, it is FAR BEYOND the filioque.  It was so distorted, so twisted up...

That's because the Nicene Creed isn't prayed at the start of the Rosary. The Apostles' Creed is prayed:

    I believe in God,
    the Father almighty,
    Creator of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died and was buried;
    he descended into hell;
    on the third day he rose again from the dead;
    he ascended into heaven,
    and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and life everlasting. Amen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_Creed

And far more ancient.  In the "Old Hymnal" of the LCMS, the Apostles Creed was said during the "Page 5" Service (somewhat like the Typika, no communion), and the Nicene Creed was said at during the "Page 15" Service (very similar to the RC Mass).  The Creed of Athanasius was said on Trinity Sunday and some of the "lesser" services.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,320


« Reply #262 on: February 18, 2012, 08:37:30 PM »

Those of us from the West need to leave our baggage at the door and embrace the East, and reform our minds. If we don't leave our bags at the door, then we will probably leave with our bags. Once we leave all our baggage at the door, we can settle down and accept what the only true Church has to offer.

SOME of you converts need to leave your behind your sneering at what you turned your back upon.

The musical truth is that mostly what the east has to offer which is actually good is stuff that they were given by the west. Byzantine chant is annoying and tedious; Znamenny less so

Haha. Hey, look! A completely subjective opinion presented to counter someone else's completely subjective opinion, and remind them not to be snide! You go, Keble!  Grin

Seriously, though...I don't really care for most Western or EO chant, but I also don't understand what anyone's personal opinion regarding the beauty/tediousness of any particular chant form has to do with anything.
Logged

Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,463



« Reply #263 on: February 18, 2012, 08:39:26 PM »

Those of us from the West need to leave our baggage at the door and embrace the East, and reform our minds. If we don't leave our bags at the door, then we will probably leave with our bags. Once we leave all our baggage at the door, we can settle down and accept what the only true Church has to offer.

SOME of you converts need to leave your behind your sneering at what you turned your back upon.

The musical truth is that mostly what the east has to offer which is actually good is stuff that they were given by the west. Byzantine chant is annoying and tedious; Znamenny less so, but the really good stuff was written by a bunch of 19th-20th century Russians who all had the benefit of western musical training. And it is very,very beautiful, and of great power; but in comparison to the whole corpus of western sacred music, it's pretty small potatoes.

Quote
As for worship, the only valuable hymn (other than Christmas carols) that are post-schism that the West has to offer is Amazing Grace. I feel like nothing else comes close to comparing to our hymns.

It is really not so wise an idea as to brag about one's ignorance. If "Amazing Grace" is all you know, then you don't know much.


There are many great songs in the Western tradition.  "Amazing Grace", while very important to Evangelicals, does not even compare to the great works of the 1500 - 1600's.  Not that it is a bad hymn at all.  There were some pretty good hymns written in the 1700 - 1800's, but they seem to start leaning more into Calvanistic teaching.  There are also hymns in the Western tradition that predate the unfortunate Schism between the East and the West.  O come, O come Emanuel is probably one of the more well known (while many sorces list this one as written in the 1100's, it is close enough since the split between the Greeks and Latin took some time to be complete).  O Gladsome Light from the Orthodox Vespers, and thought to be written in the 4th Century is a part of the hymnology of many Western denominations.  I wonder if it would be appropriate to start a new thread listing some of the favorite hymns of the "convertsky".  Putting them out for everyone to see would make judgment a bit more informed.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,320


« Reply #264 on: February 18, 2012, 09:00:31 PM »

Some Western hymns/Western settings I very much enjoy:

Angelus Domine (Mozarabic chant, 15th century)
Crucem Sanctam Subiit (Templar Chant, 11th cent.)
Dixit Dominus Domino meo (Psalm 110, from the Latin Vulgate)

Logged

yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,256


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #265 on: February 18, 2012, 10:31:21 PM »

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.  http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed
The one I am used to using in an Orthodox church is above


Here is the Roman catholic english version
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.   http://www.liturgytools.net/2011/07/nicean-creed-icel-2010.html




This is NOT close to what I heard.  The one I heard was 10 lines long and seriously revised.  Fully Roman Catholic.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,256


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #266 on: February 18, 2012, 10:36:55 PM »

Here's a site with some of the changes that I heard, but it was VERY revised from this.

http://www.divinesacredheart.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192&Itemid=89


When we consider a good chunk of the Great Schism was over the creed, this is serious stuff... Anyway, not much to do with organs in orthodox.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #267 on: February 19, 2012, 01:23:37 AM »

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.  http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed
The one I am used to using in an Orthodox church is above


Here is the Roman catholic english version
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.   http://www.liturgytools.net/2011/07/nicean-creed-icel-2010.html




This is NOT close to what I heard.  The one I heard was 10 lines long and seriously revised.  Fully Roman Catholic.

Did you see my post on the Apostles' Creed? It's shorter because it's older. The Nicene Creed was made to combat later heresies.

Here's a site with some of the changes that I heard, but it was VERY revised from this.

http://www.divinesacredheart.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192&Itemid=89


When we consider a good chunk of the Great Schism was over the creed, this is serious stuff... Anyway, not much to do with organs in orthodox.

The Catholic Church in the United States has been using the New Roman Missal translation (second column) in the Mass since this past Advent. It's an English translation that's truer to the Latin than what was previously used, and also seems closer to the Creed as recited by the OCA parish that I attend. But again, you most likely heard the Apostles' Creed at the start of the rosary, which is a completely different thing.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #268 on: February 19, 2012, 10:09:03 PM »

Did you see my post on the Apostles' Creed? It's shorter because it's older. The Nicene Creed was made to combat later heresies.

I was surprised to read this since it is not my understanding, that dates the Apostle's Creed to the 6th-7th century. Unless something has changed, the wikipedia article on this is less informative than the Catholic Encyclopedia:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm.

Not a big deal in my opinion but it is something to consider.


Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #269 on: February 19, 2012, 10:22:27 PM »

I'm not sure about organs in the Orthodox church
but for the love of all that is beautiful,

check out this kyrie from an episcopalian high mass in the Anglican tradition in Philly
It's mozart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsFq5rw1cs&feature=related
and the Gloria...

Recently the Catholic Cathedral here had the symphony play I think a Mozart work which was a Mass.  However they didn't HAVE mass with it and there wasn't anything stopping them from actually having a high mass either.  

Here is their website
http://www.saintclementsphiladelphia.org/index.php
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 10:26:42 PM by username! » Logged

Tags: organs 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  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 0.253 seconds with 72 queries.