OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 09:51:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Miss a Sunday OO service, what would you do?  (Read 1170 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,193



« on: August 26, 2012, 05:02:02 AM »

If for some reason you were missing a chance to attend an Oriental Orthodox service, would you attend an Eastern Orthodox service or stay home? What would you do?
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,724


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2012, 07:46:40 PM »

If the reason for not attending the OO Church is it's too far away, and there is an EO parish closer, then I would go to the EO service, but not commune.  Try to make it to the OO parish whenever you can, though.   Smiley
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 07:54:19 PM by Salpy » Logged

HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2012, 12:50:30 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Say my prayers at home from my Agpeya and pray to get there better next week. I feel sometimes its rude to come in late to the Divine Liturgy at another parish not your own, but then again, I harbor the British sentiments that if you're not ten minutes early you're late Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2012, 03:26:29 AM »

If for some reason you were missing a chance to attend an Oriental Orthodox service, would you attend an Eastern Orthodox service or stay home? What would you do?

And if there was no EO parish but some other Christian parish or if non-EO parish was closer to your home than EO parish, would you rather attend that?
Logged

dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2012, 04:23:06 AM »

I would not go to an EO service instead. I do not feel that it would be an appropriate substitute, as I would not be able to commune there. Depending on the reason why I missed it (I've only missed on liturgy so far, due to illness), I might call up our priest to see what can be done (some kind of blessing in an after-liturgy visit, maybe; I know he has done this for others), otherwise I'd just do as Habte said, stay home and pray the Agpeya, follow the daily reading as published on our diocese website, etc. But at my particular location we only have liturgy once every two weeks if we're lucky, so missing one...well, you can always expect a phone call or a visit from somebody who is concerned that you've passed on, or you've fallen and you can't get up, or something terrible has happened. (When I was sick, one of the deacons and a member of the laity came and brought me orange juice, at great personal risk of contracting the bug. I love our church. Smiley)
Logged

Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,193



« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2012, 09:19:32 AM »

If for some reason you were missing a chance to attend an Oriental Orthodox service, would you attend an Eastern Orthodox service or stay home? What would you do?

And if there was no EO parish but some other Christian parish or if non-EO parish was closer to your home than EO parish, would you rather attend that?
If one attends elsewhere for necessity's sake in order to attend somewhere, would it not be best to attend that which is theologically closest?
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 805


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2012, 02:18:37 PM »

I'd sleep in, be lazy, then go to the beach. Oh, do you mean what should I do?
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2012, 03:34:47 PM »

If for some reason you were missing a chance to attend an Oriental Orthodox service, would you attend an Eastern Orthodox service or stay home? What would you do?

And if there was no EO parish but some other Christian parish or if non-EO parish was closer to your home than EO parish, would you rather attend that?
If one attends elsewhere for necessity's sake in order to attend somewhere, would it not be best to attend that which is theologically closest?

Well that's what I think but I try to understand OO perspective on this. I'm not exactly sure whether their ecclesiology is the same as ours. Many seem to be more open-minded than EOs.
Logged

Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,193



« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2012, 04:55:22 PM »

If for some reason you were missing a chance to attend an Oriental Orthodox service, would you attend an Eastern Orthodox service or stay home? What would you do?

And if there was no EO parish but some other Christian parish or if non-EO parish was closer to your home than EO parish, would you rather attend that?
If one attends elsewhere for necessity's sake in order to attend somewhere, would it not be best to attend that which is theologically closest?

Well that's what I think but I try to understand OO perspective on this. I'm not exactly sure whether their ecclesiology is the same as ours. Many seem to be more open-minded than EOs.
I would love to hear another OO comment on this.
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
Tigran
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church
Posts: 23



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2012, 05:11:59 PM »

In my experience, I recently visit Armenia this summer and while in Armenia, I went to Georgia for two days. It was too bad for me to miss the feast of the Mother of God in the Armenian Church on Sunday which is the major feast of five major feasts of the Armenian Church. It was too far and had no ride. So I decided to attend the Holy Trinity Cathedral of Tbilisi and more importantly, saw the Georgian Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church.  God is so good! Alleulia! =)
Logged

"We believe in one, universal, apostolic, and holy Church"
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2012, 06:16:59 PM »

If for some reason you were missing a chance to attend an Oriental Orthodox service, would you attend an Eastern Orthodox service or stay home? What would you do?

And if there was no EO parish but some other Christian parish or if non-EO parish was closer to your home than EO parish, would you rather attend that?
If one attends elsewhere for necessity's sake in order to attend somewhere, would it not be best to attend that which is theologically closest?

Well that's what I think but I try to understand OO perspective on this. I'm not exactly sure whether their ecclesiology is the same as ours. Many seem to be more open-minded than EOs.
I would love to hear another OO comment on this.
IMO our Ecclessiologies are supposed to be the same however, most of our laity and even some of our clergy are extremely ignorant on the matter.
Logged
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 805


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2012, 06:52:43 PM »


Well that's what I think but I try to understand OO perspective on this. I'm not exactly sure whether their ecclesiology is the same as ours. Many seem to be more open-minded than EOs.

I don't think there is such a thing as an OO ecclesiology, or an EO ecclesiology. I think there is only Orthodox ecclesiology. Unfortunately people, in both Communions, disagree about what that is.

There seems to be a mindset that either the EO are the Church, or the OO are the Church, and the Church can't be wrong, so it has to be one or the other, and anyone who says maybe it's both is labeled an Anglican (Branch Theory). But this seems to me to be borrowed RC ecclesiology making a straw man of Orthodox ecclesiology to call it Anglican and wrong.

I believe that the Greek Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church are not Churches. A Church, an ecclesia, is a gathering of Christians, a community, a household, not a bureaucratic administrative institution.

A Church is a diocese, centered around a bishop. "Where the bishop is, there the Church is". Patriarchates are just synods of bishops, with a metropolitan or archbishop or patriarch as president. But that president is the president of a synod of Churches, not of a superchurch. Neither he nor the synod have authority to interfere in the local affairs of a Church, i.e. a diocese. They only decide together in love common issues.

The Churches that meet in a local synod are in Communion with on another automatically, since they all commemorate the same Patriarch, i.e. they are all in Communion with that Patriarch.

But what makes the Coptic Patriarchate in Communion with the Indians or any others? Historically, different patriarchates would exchange letters of Communion, agreeing to provide sacramental hospitality to each other's flocks, this is how they were in Communion.

But if two local Churches broke Communion with each other, this has never meant that one or the other is THE Church, and the other is not. In fact, both Churches might be in Communion with the larger Community, just not with each other. There are human misunderstandings that cause divisions that need healing--divisions within the Church. Even if there is a clean break of Communion, it does not mean that one or the other is or is not the Church. They can reconcile, as has happened in history, and one does not rebaptise and reordain the other, they just carry on, one Church restoring communion with the other.

How were they not two branches? Because the Church is not divided into bishoprics, or patriarchates. The Church is simply not divided. A local Church is not a part of the Church, it is the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ that spans all time and space, encompasses all Christians in all times and all places, all cultures, languages and classes. This is the meaning of Catholic, not world-wide. When two or three are gathered in His Name, around the Eucharistic table, the Church breaks into time and space, and that local community is present at the one Liturgy, united with all Christians in all Churches who are participating in the same Liturgy in all times and places. So even if they are separated from Communion from one another through ignorance, then they are not branches or parts, they are local communities that still participate in the unity of the Church, though through our sin that unity is not manifested to the world.

Now, if a group goes into heresy, then they are cut off from the Communion of the Church, anathematized. This does not mean that we know that when they pray the Liturgy they are not united in the same heavenly Liturgy, in the Body of Christ. It means that we find them defective, and so we cannot say they are a sure manifestation of the Church, or are surely a manifestation of the Church. So we cut them off, cast them out so that they may repent and others may not be scandalized. But this doesn't mean we say we are the Church, the Body of Christ, and they are not. The Church is not an institution, it is a mystery, it is the Body of Christ, and we know that we in the Orthodox Church surely participate in her in the Liturgy, but we cannot say about others.

So, when the Eastern Orthodox met the Anglicans, who presented themselves as Orthodox, as an Apostolic Church that broke from Rome and maintained Apostolic Christianity, it was perfectly normal that the reaction was not "we're the Church, so they can't be, let's convert them", but "we've found lost brothers we didn't know about". So it was perfectly natural that the Greek Patriarch sent a letter to the Anglican Archbishop thanking him for granting Sacramental hospitality to his people in North America where there were no Churches. It was perfectly natural that they should talk, and work towards reunion, not conversion. But when in those talks it became clear that the Anglican position was not as they had made out, that they were not Apostolic as claimed, that they were not a sure manifestation of the Body of Christ, of the Church, then it was perfectly natural to remain separate from them.

This is what has happened between the EO and the OO. We were separated for politics, and any differences in Christology we had have been worked out. It doesn't matter if one was wrong or not then, if they made an error and repented, we should heal the schism and be reunited. We should let the world know we are His by our love for one another. There is no excuse to remain separate now, out of fear of saying we were wrong about each other, out of fear of falling into branch theology, of saying that the there were two Churches... the EO and the OO are not Churches, they are groups of local Churches that participate in the One Church.

So if there are Catholic diocese in parts of the world that are free from the errors that came to Rome through ambition, it does not seem so outrageous to me if Orthodox local Churches and local Catholic Churches there recognize in each other the truth, and Commune. But if it is just a false unity with different beliefs, and only a common belief that belief doesn't matter, that Orthodoxy doesn't matter, then it is clearly wrong. I don't know the situation enough to know.

There is no Church of the 3 councils, or the 7 councils, or the Pope. There are only local Churches that either maintain the Apostolic faith and practise, and are in Communion with some other local Churches and not others, and there are local Churches that do not maintain the Apostolic faith, but follow traditions of men. Some like the Protestants reject even the priesthood and the Liturgy, so they are very clearly not local Churches, they are just gatherings of believers, but they can never be Churches without a bishop and the Eucharist. The RC have clearly deviated from the Orthodox faith, so we must remain separate. But the OO and the EO, if we hold the same faith, and participate in the same heavenly Liturgy, should not fear Communing together and having unity because of a wrong idea about what the Church is that makes us fear that saying so would mean the Church was wrong or there are two Churches, that simply isn't Orthodox ecclesiology.

I believe that what I believe is the Orthodox ecclesiology. But then, everyone with a different opinion also believes they are correct. This is a topic that needs to be explored much more. So many of the things we do wrong stem from bad ecclesiology.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 06:53:16 PM by Jonathan » Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2012, 09:07:25 PM »

^POTFM Nominee right there.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2012, 09:16:07 PM »

I found much of interest/insight in the post as well, but a question about this...

Now, if a group goes into heresy, then they are cut off from the Communion of the Church, anathematized. This does not mean that we know that when they pray the Liturgy they are not united in the same heavenly Liturgy, in the Body of Christ. It means that we find them defective, and so we cannot say they are a sure manifestation of the Church, or are surely a manifestation of the Church. So we cut them off, cast them out so that they may repent and others may not be scandalized. But this doesn't mean we say we are the Church, the Body of Christ, and they are not. The Church is not an institution, it is a mystery, it is the Body of Christ, and we know that we in the Orthodox Church surely participate in her in the Liturgy, but we cannot say about others.

Is this the position of Oriental Orthodoxy generally, or just one opinion among a variety, or... ?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 805


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2012, 09:42:51 PM »

I found much of interest/insight in the post as well, but a question about this...

Now, if a group goes into heresy, then they are cut off from the Communion of the Church, anathematized. This does not mean that we know that when they pray the Liturgy they are not united in the same heavenly Liturgy, in the Body of Christ. It means that we find them defective, and so we cannot say they are a sure manifestation of the Church, or are surely a manifestation of the Church. So we cut them off, cast them out so that they may repent and others may not be scandalized. But this doesn't mean we say we are the Church, the Body of Christ, and they are not. The Church is not an institution, it is a mystery, it is the Body of Christ, and we know that we in the Orthodox Church surely participate in her in the Liturgy, but we cannot say about others.

Is this the position of Oriental Orthodoxy generally, or just one opinion among a variety, or... ?

It's my opinion. I'm not qualified to say any more than that. But it's the only explanation I know of that fits how the Church historically dealt with schism.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2012, 02:28:28 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


Well that's what I think but I try to understand OO perspective on this. I'm not exactly sure whether their ecclesiology is the same as ours. Many seem to be more open-minded than EOs.

I don't think there is such a thing as an OO ecclesiology, or an EO ecclesiology. I think there is only Orthodox ecclesiology. Unfortunately people, in both Communions, disagree about what that is.


This is what has happened between the EO and the OO. We were separated for politics, and any differences in Christology we had have been worked out.  We should let the world know we are His by our love for one another. There is no excuse to remain separate now, out of fear of saying we were wrong about each other, out of fear of falling into branch theology, of saying that the there were two Churches... the EO and the OO are not Churches, they are groups of local Churches that participate in the One Church.



Perhaps we have the same ecclesiology, though I would argue that we definitely have a different approach, and that is what folks tend to notice differently between OO and EO parishes.  We share the same dogmas, Canons, Faith, worship, Liturgies, Holy Communion, vestments, Icons (sort of), Church architecture etc etc.. However the approach of parishioners therein tends to be a bit different in OO than EO, and I only speak from my experience interacting with both communities.  Approach of course has always been a jurisdictional variance, for example when we were truly and ecclesiastically One Church of several regional jurisdictions, we see from the cultural differences and different "schools" that there was a freedom of approach and differences between the Latins, and the Greeks, and the Antiochans, and the Alexandrians, and yet we all worked together mutually respecting these character and personality differences which reflected our geographical separation yet spiritual unity.  Lets work together towards that again, by respecting our differences and dwelling on our common mutuality.



stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,193



« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2012, 04:59:19 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


Well that's what I think but I try to understand OO perspective on this. I'm not exactly sure whether their ecclesiology is the same as ours. Many seem to be more open-minded than EOs.

I don't think there is such a thing as an OO ecclesiology, or an EO ecclesiology. I think there is only Orthodox ecclesiology. Unfortunately people, in both Communions, disagree about what that is.


This is what has happened between the EO and the OO. We were separated for politics, and any differences in Christology we had have been worked out.  We should let the world know we are His by our love for one another. There is no excuse to remain separate now, out of fear of saying we were wrong about each other, out of fear of falling into branch theology, of saying that the there were two Churches... the EO and the OO are not Churches, they are groups of local Churches that participate in the One Church.



Perhaps we have the same ecclesiology, though I would argue that we definitely have a different approach, and that is what folks tend to notice differently between OO and EO parishes.  We share the same dogmas, Canons, Faith, worship, Liturgies, Holy Communion, vestments, Icons (sort of), Church architecture etc etc.. However the approach of parishioners therein tends to be a bit different in OO than EO, and I only speak from my experience interacting with both communities.  Approach of course has always been a jurisdictional variance, for example when we were truly and ecclesiastically One Church of several regional jurisdictions, we see from the cultural differences and different "schools" that there was a freedom of approach and differences between the Latins, and the Greeks, and the Antiochans, and the Alexandrians, and yet we all worked together mutually respecting these character and personality differences which reflected our geographical separation yet spiritual unity.  Lets work together towards that again, by respecting our differences and dwelling on our common mutuality.



stay blessed,
habte selassie
You are saying that OO has one approach and EO has another, or just different by which jurisdiction it is? If the former, how would you describe the differences in approach?
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2012, 06:20:53 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



You are saying that OO has one approach and EO has another, or just different by which jurisdiction it is? If the former, how would you describe the differences in approach?

I'm not sure I could really nail the particulars of what I mean, the nuances are very subtle, but again, we do not necessarily have a different ontology, soteriology, ecclesiology, or theology from the Eastern Orthodox but we do seem to approach all of these things differently.  Oriental Orthodox has a certain feel and flavor that is different than Eastern Orthodox, even though on paper we are largely identical. This was not to suggest one approach is better over another, rather just to put finger more so on what subtly is different about the two.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2012, 06:56:45 PM »

I agree. A Syriac friend of mine once described it as a certain "stuffiness" that he felt among the Byzantines, meaning (I guessed) not that their liturgies aren't beautiful and holy or that their faith isn't Orthodox, but that by virtue of the fact that its expression is more uniform among them than it is among us, they appear a bit more rigid in comparison. The Byzantine approach, if you will, developed throughout the Empire and was codified/standardized through it, whereas the non-Hellenized people such as the Syriacs, Armenians, and Copts (distinct from the usually Hellenized elites of the major cities like Damascus, Alexandria, etc.) related to that approach (e.g., the Copts still have the Greek hymns that attest to that period of their history before the translation of the liturgy into Coptic), but also developed their own traditions informed by their unique cultures, to whatever degree they were not subsumed. In fact, I have read some dubious academic studies of the situation re: Chalcedon that essentially paint non-Chalcedonian opposition to the Council as a kind of ethnic revolt of the non-Hellenized groups against the centralized Byzantine powers, a sort of "right" to assert a uniquely Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, etc. theology and praxis. I find that silly since our Fathers like St. Athanasius and St. Cyril wrote in Greek (and anyway are shared by the Byzantines as well), but at the same time we cannot ignore the very real role of culture in the shaping of our distinctive practices and approaches. The Egyptian non-Chalcedonian Church differs from its Greek counterpart not just on in Christological formula but because it represents the native (that is to say, ethnic Egyptian) tradition, whereas the Egyptian Chalcedonian Church is a continuation of the Greek way of doing things...granted, this wasn't always the case (the Chalcedonians apparently used to worship as we do, even recognizing for a time saints that now are unique to us, such as St. Dioscoros), but again this is where that 'stuffiness' comes in -- through the period of Byzantinization, the diversity that was once common to both parties was lost to one of them.

So, yeah, I would say it is more a matter of approach than something you could put down satisfactorily in list format. Or maybe it would be even better to say "tendency" because neither are the Chalcedonians robots, but we can say in general, there is more variety among the OO than the EO, and that relates back to or is a function of this fundamentally different approach.
Logged

Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 805


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2012, 11:11:21 PM »

What does this discussion of different levels of liturgical unity have to do wih the question of whether there are two different ecclesiologies to explain why some OO today seem to be more open about intercommunion than EO today?
Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2012, 12:29:22 AM »

If one attends elsewhere for necessity's sake in order to attend somewhere, would it not be best to attend that which is theologically closest?

I believe so.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,193



« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2012, 12:51:27 AM »

What does this discussion of different levels of liturgical unity have to do wih the question of whether there are two different ecclesiologies to explain why some OO today seem to be more open about intercommunion than EO today?
It reflects the need to all be alike and allows for cultural nuances of attitudes about others that permits acceptance or rejection of other parishes (OO and EO) based on understandings of how they relate to each other.
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 805


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2012, 08:02:13 AM »

What does this discussion of different levels of liturgical unity have to do wih the question of whether there are two different ecclesiologies to explain why some OO today seem to be more open about intercommunion than EO today?
It reflects the need to all be alike and allows for cultural nuances of attitudes about others that permits acceptance or rejection of other parishes (OO and EO) based on understandings of how they relate to each other.

If they were to say today that we would have to give up our liturgical traditions and accept theirs to be united you might be able to argue that there was an error in ecclesiology behind that. That they adopted one unified liturgy is more a historic an cultural factor than a reflection of their faith today. Having a unified rite has not even saved them from having a unified heck in both America, which would be muh easier than for us with our different practices to deal with. So it seems we have the same ecclesiology, and have even made the same mistakes deviating from it
Logged
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,193



« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2012, 08:37:25 AM »

What does this discussion of different levels of liturgical unity have to do wih the question of whether there are two different ecclesiologies to explain why some OO today seem to be more open about intercommunion than EO today?
It reflects the need to all be alike and allows for cultural nuances of attitudes about others that permits acceptance or rejection of other parishes (OO and EO) based on understandings of how they relate to each other.

If they were to say today that we would have to give up our liturgical traditions and accept theirs to be united you might be able to argue that there was an error in ecclesiology behind that. That they adopted one unified liturgy is more a historic an cultural factor than a reflection of their faith today. Having a unified rite has not even saved them from having a unified heck in both America, which would be muh easier than for us with our different practices to deal with. So it seems we have the same ecclesiology, and have even made the same mistakes deviating from it
Somehow, before you started asking about this, this thread made sense to me.
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.103 seconds with 52 queries.