OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 07:44:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Western Rite Orthodoxy as a Canonical Problem (Lessons from ROCOR WR)  (Read 4501 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2013, 04:29:38 PM »

But the problem is you people make sense. Stop it. You need to man up and become Orthodox.

 laugh
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2013, 04:30:25 PM »

But the problem is you people make sense. Stop it. You need to man up and become Orthodox.

LOL.

Yeah, the thing is the sentiment that Orthodoxy=Byzantine rite is not Orthodox.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,408


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2013, 07:00:34 PM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread? 
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that. 
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

I was just pointing out the fact that you demonstrated, with your rude dismissal-repeated again and again-of Divine Liturgies that pre-date the liturgies of the upstart on the Bosphorus, the principle that when someone holds a wrongheaded principle and thereby comes to false conclusions, holding that principle also leads to wrongheaded conclusions elsewhere.

You said that WRO converts should man up and be Orthodox.  Many came to the WRO already Orthodox, manning up.
I don't see how I was rude whatsoever simply because I had an opinion that disagreed with your own. I have been completely cordial. I only dismiss them because I don't see the purposeof reviving them, something nobody has been able to clearly tell me but instead choose to put words in my mouth and assume things about me that are not true.

Indeed, for almost a millenium after Chalcedon, the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians in Alexandria and Antioch shared the same rite.  Until the never-left-Constantinople "Patriarch of Antioch" Balsamon decided to push his prejudices as piety.
And now you seek to do the same thing. The Byzantine Rite is the norm of Alexandria and Antioch now, to push dead rites on these churches would be no different than what Patriarch Balsamon did.
Logged

Ελέησον με, ο Θεός, κατά το μέγα έλεος σου και κατά το πλήθος των οικτιρμών σου εξάλειψον το ανόμημα μου.

Αναστάς ο Ιησούς από του τάφου, καθώς προείπεν, έδωκεν ημίν την αιώνιον ζωήν και το μέγα έλεος.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #48 on: July 28, 2013, 07:48:17 PM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread?  
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.  

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that.  
Quote
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

If you didn't get it the first time, allow me to reiterate that I don't think it's the best thing in the world to resurrect centuries old defunct rites or to tinker with them and create something that's neither here nor there.  If the worshiping community continues to live but those particular rites have died out and were replaced by others, and it works well for them, I also would want to know why there is a desire to reinvent the wheel.  

But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  

Anything less, and it seems like you're arguing for the "halfway house" to assimilate them into "the real world".  That may be more practical than intentional, but it is what it is.    

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
Quote
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

My comment wasn't directed specifically toward you, but was a general statement.  As such, I stand by it.  

If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  

Edit: tags
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 07:50:55 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,408


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2013, 08:40:05 PM »

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.
Ah, my apologies for not being more clear.
But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  
My misunderstanding, I thought you meant encourage a Western Rite to replace the Byzantine Rite in the West. I am in full agreement with what you said.
Quote
If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  
That is an unfortunate trend, though, at least where I live, that does not constitute the majority opinion.

For me, the rule would be not to force a rite unnaturally. As I said to Isa, I see no purpose other than romanticism, and not true spirituality at its root. I see no purpose in reviving liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria now that the "Constantinopolitan Rite" is the norm in those Patriarchates just as I see no purpose in forcing the Byzantine Rite on Western parishes joining the faith or on the Oriental Churches were there to be union. It's artificial and degrades true spirituality that way, the Church isn't a tool for us to act out our historical and cultural whimsies.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 08:40:29 PM by Antonis » Logged

Ελέησον με, ο Θεός, κατά το μέγα έλεος σου και κατά το πλήθος των οικτιρμών σου εξάλειψον το ανόμημα μου.

Αναστάς ο Ιησούς από του τάφου, καθώς προείπεν, έδωκεν ημίν την αιώνιον ζωήν και το μέγα έλεος.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2013, 09:09:50 PM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread?  
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.  

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that.  
Quote
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

If you didn't get it the first time, allow me to reiterate that I don't think it's the best thing in the world to resurrect centuries old defunct rites or to tinker with them and create something that's neither here nor there.  If the worshiping community continues to live but those particular rites have died out and were replaced by others, and it works well for them, I also would want to know why there is a desire to reinvent the wheel.  

But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  

Anything less, and it seems like you're arguing for the "halfway house" to assimilate them into "the real world".  That may be more practical than intentional, but it is what it is.    

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
Quote
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

My comment wasn't directed specifically toward you, but was a general statement.  As such, I stand by it.  

If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  

Edit: tags

Fantastic post, Mor Ephrem. And the both of you are touching on something very important for Western Rite Orthodoxy; namely that it be based upon the living tradition of living parishes coming into the Orthodox Church, meddling with their catholic way of life as little as possible. Rites aren't created, they aren't frozen in time, they don't exist in books and manuscripts, they are kept alive and handed down by flesh and blood people. The reintegration of tradition with Orthodoxy stands as a stark difference between "reviving" a liturgy no one uses, blessing it for future use by parishes that don't even exist, in hopes of skipping past centuries of history we don't like, to "reclaim" something we can only read about in books. That process is entirely untraditional, inorganic, and ultimately rests on nothing more than what certain individuals think things were like "back then" according to their own scholarly pursuits.

It reminds me of an incident I read about once, involving Fr Peter Gillquist and one of the Orthodox hierarchs with whom he was in discussions to bring the Evangelical Orthodox Church into communion with Orthodoxy. Ft Peter told the hierarch that they had successfully recreated the liturgy of the early Church, and were most certain of its historical accuracy. Ft Peter asked him if he would be interested in seeing it and maybe using it. The hierarch replied that, even if it were 100% correct, it wouldn't matter; they would continue to use the Rite of St. John Chrystostom because it was their living rite, and they know it is Orthodox.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2013, 09:10:25 PM »

Have you actually examined the prayers of the other ancient rites? It IS about spirituality.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,408


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2013, 09:18:35 PM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread?  
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.  

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that.  
Quote
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

If you didn't get it the first time, allow me to reiterate that I don't think it's the best thing in the world to resurrect centuries old defunct rites or to tinker with them and create something that's neither here nor there.  If the worshiping community continues to live but those particular rites have died out and were replaced by others, and it works well for them, I also would want to know why there is a desire to reinvent the wheel.  

But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  

Anything less, and it seems like you're arguing for the "halfway house" to assimilate them into "the real world".  That may be more practical than intentional, but it is what it is.    

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
Quote
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

My comment wasn't directed specifically toward you, but was a general statement.  As such, I stand by it.  

If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  

Edit: tags

Fantastic post, Mor Ephrem. And the both of you are touching on something very important for Western Rite Orthodoxy; namely that it be based upon the living tradition of living parishes coming into the Orthodox Church, meddling with their catholic way of life as little as possible. Rites aren't created, they aren't frozen in time, they don't exist in books and manuscripts, they are kept alive and handed down by flesh and blood people. The reintegration of tradition with Orthodoxy stands as a stark difference between "reviving" a liturgy no one uses, blessing it for future use by parishes that don't even exist, in hopes of skipping past centuries of history we don't like, to "reclaim" something we can only read about in books. That process is entirely untraditional, inorganic, and ultimately rests on nothing more than what certain individuals think things were like "back then" according to their own scholarly pursuits.

It reminds me of an incident I read about once, involving Fr Peter Gillquist and one of the Orthodox hierarchs with whom he was in discussions to bring the Evangelical Orthodox Church into communion with Orthodoxy. Ft Peter told the hierarch that they had successfully recreated the liturgy of the early Church, and were most certain of its historical accuracy. Ft Peter asked him if he would be interested in seeing it and maybe using it. The hierarch replied that, even if it were 100% correct, it wouldn't matter; they would continue to use the Rite of St. John Chrystostom because it was their living rite, and they know it is Orthodox.
This, exactly.
Logged

Ελέησον με, ο Θεός, κατά το μέγα έλεος σου και κατά το πλήθος των οικτιρμών σου εξάλειψον το ανόμημα μου.

Αναστάς ο Ιησούς από του τάφου, καθώς προείπεν, έδωκεν ημίν την αιώνιον ζωήν και το μέγα έλεος.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,105



« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2013, 09:36:08 PM »

If someone were to form an impression about Catholics (and protestants for that matter) based on some of the statements made about us on this thread, he/she might think we were all like this.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,372



« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2013, 09:36:48 PM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread?  
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.  

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that.  
Quote
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

If you didn't get it the first time, allow me to reiterate that I don't think it's the best thing in the world to resurrect centuries old defunct rites or to tinker with them and create something that's neither here nor there.  If the worshiping community continues to live but those particular rites have died out and were replaced by others, and it works well for them, I also would want to know why there is a desire to reinvent the wheel.  

But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  

Anything less, and it seems like you're arguing for the "halfway house" to assimilate them into "the real world".  That may be more practical than intentional, but it is what it is.    

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
Quote
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

My comment wasn't directed specifically toward you, but was a general statement.  As such, I stand by it.  

If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  

Edit: tags

Fantastic post, Mor Ephrem. And the both of you are touching on something very important for Western Rite Orthodoxy; namely that it be based upon the living tradition of living parishes coming into the Orthodox Church, meddling with their catholic way of life as little as possible. Rites aren't created, they aren't frozen in time, they don't exist in books and manuscripts, they are kept alive and handed down by flesh and blood people. The reintegration of tradition with Orthodoxy stands as a stark difference between "reviving" a liturgy no one uses, blessing it for future use by parishes that don't even exist, in hopes of skipping past centuries of history we don't like, to "reclaim" something we can only read about in books. That process is entirely untraditional, inorganic, and ultimately rests on nothing more than what certain individuals think things were like "back then" according to their own scholarly pursuits.

It reminds me of an incident I read about once, involving Fr Peter Gillquist and one of the Orthodox hierarchs with whom he was in discussions to bring the Evangelical Orthodox Church into communion with Orthodoxy. Ft Peter told the hierarch that they had successfully recreated the liturgy of the early Church, and were most certain of its historical accuracy. Ft Peter asked him if he would be interested in seeing it and maybe using it. The hierarch replied that, even if it were 100% correct, it wouldn't matter; they would continue to use the Rite of St. John Chrystostom because it was their living rite, and they know it is Orthodox.
This, exactly.
Not exactly.
http://bhcv.hebrewtanakh.com/deuteronomy/1.htm
Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2013, 09:40:15 PM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread?  
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.  

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that.  
Quote
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

If you didn't get it the first time, allow me to reiterate that I don't think it's the best thing in the world to resurrect centuries old defunct rites or to tinker with them and create something that's neither here nor there.  If the worshiping community continues to live but those particular rites have died out and were replaced by others, and it works well for them, I also would want to know why there is a desire to reinvent the wheel.  

But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  

Anything less, and it seems like you're arguing for the "halfway house" to assimilate them into "the real world".  That may be more practical than intentional, but it is what it is.    

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
Quote
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

My comment wasn't directed specifically toward you, but was a general statement.  As such, I stand by it.  

If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  

Edit: tags

Fantastic post, Mor Ephrem. And the both of you are touching on something very important for Western Rite Orthodoxy; namely that it be based upon the living tradition of living parishes coming into the Orthodox Church, meddling with their catholic way of life as little as possible. Rites aren't created, they aren't frozen in time, they don't exist in books and manuscripts, they are kept alive and handed down by flesh and blood people. The reintegration of tradition with Orthodoxy stands as a stark difference between "reviving" a liturgy no one uses, blessing it for future use by parishes that don't even exist, in hopes of skipping past centuries of history we don't like, to "reclaim" something we can only read about in books. That process is entirely untraditional, inorganic, and ultimately rests on nothing more than what certain individuals think things were like "back then" according to their own scholarly pursuits.

It reminds me of an incident I read about once, involving Fr Peter Gillquist and one of the Orthodox hierarchs with whom he was in discussions to bring the Evangelical Orthodox Church into communion with Orthodoxy. Ft Peter told the hierarch that they had successfully recreated the liturgy of the early Church, and were most certain of its historical accuracy. Ft Peter asked him if he would be interested in seeing it and maybe using it. The hierarch replied that, even if it were 100% correct, it wouldn't matter; they would continue to use the Rite of St. John Chrystostom because it was their living rite, and they know it is Orthodox.
This, exactly.
Not exactly.
http://bhcv.hebrewtanakh.com/deuteronomy/1.htm

?
Logged
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,408


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2013, 09:43:38 PM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread?  
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.  

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that.  
Quote
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

If you didn't get it the first time, allow me to reiterate that I don't think it's the best thing in the world to resurrect centuries old defunct rites or to tinker with them and create something that's neither here nor there.  If the worshiping community continues to live but those particular rites have died out and were replaced by others, and it works well for them, I also would want to know why there is a desire to reinvent the wheel.  

But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  

Anything less, and it seems like you're arguing for the "halfway house" to assimilate them into "the real world".  That may be more practical than intentional, but it is what it is.    

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
Quote
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

My comment wasn't directed specifically toward you, but was a general statement.  As such, I stand by it.  

If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  

Edit: tags

Fantastic post, Mor Ephrem. And the both of you are touching on something very important for Western Rite Orthodoxy; namely that it be based upon the living tradition of living parishes coming into the Orthodox Church, meddling with their catholic way of life as little as possible. Rites aren't created, they aren't frozen in time, they don't exist in books and manuscripts, they are kept alive and handed down by flesh and blood people. The reintegration of tradition with Orthodoxy stands as a stark difference between "reviving" a liturgy no one uses, blessing it for future use by parishes that don't even exist, in hopes of skipping past centuries of history we don't like, to "reclaim" something we can only read about in books. That process is entirely untraditional, inorganic, and ultimately rests on nothing more than what certain individuals think things were like "back then" according to their own scholarly pursuits.

It reminds me of an incident I read about once, involving Fr Peter Gillquist and one of the Orthodox hierarchs with whom he was in discussions to bring the Evangelical Orthodox Church into communion with Orthodoxy. Ft Peter told the hierarch that they had successfully recreated the liturgy of the early Church, and were most certain of its historical accuracy. Ft Peter asked him if he would be interested in seeing it and maybe using it. The hierarch replied that, even if it were 100% correct, it wouldn't matter; they would continue to use the Rite of St. John Chrystostom because it was their living rite, and they know it is Orthodox.
This, exactly.
Not exactly.
http://bhcv.hebrewtanakh.com/deuteronomy/1.htm

?
He's smarter than us, clearly.
Logged

Ελέησον με, ο Θεός, κατά το μέγα έλεος σου και κατά το πλήθος των οικτιρμών σου εξάλειψον το ανόμημα μου.

Αναστάς ο Ιησούς από του τάφου, καθώς προείπεν, έδωκεν ημίν την αιώνιον ζωήν και το μέγα έλεος.
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #57 on: July 28, 2013, 09:51:03 PM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread?  
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.  

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that.  
Quote
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

If you didn't get it the first time, allow me to reiterate that I don't think it's the best thing in the world to resurrect centuries old defunct rites or to tinker with them and create something that's neither here nor there.  If the worshiping community continues to live but those particular rites have died out and were replaced by others, and it works well for them, I also would want to know why there is a desire to reinvent the wheel.  

But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  

Anything less, and it seems like you're arguing for the "halfway house" to assimilate them into "the real world".  That may be more practical than intentional, but it is what it is.    

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
Quote
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

My comment wasn't directed specifically toward you, but was a general statement.  As such, I stand by it.  

If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  

Edit: tags

Fantastic post, Mor Ephrem. And the both of you are touching on something very important for Western Rite Orthodoxy; namely that it be based upon the living tradition of living parishes coming into the Orthodox Church, meddling with their catholic way of life as little as possible. Rites aren't created, they aren't frozen in time, they don't exist in books and manuscripts, they are kept alive and handed down by flesh and blood people. The reintegration of tradition with Orthodoxy stands as a stark difference between "reviving" a liturgy no one uses, blessing it for future use by parishes that don't even exist, in hopes of skipping past centuries of history we don't like, to "reclaim" something we can only read about in books. That process is entirely untraditional, inorganic, and ultimately rests on nothing more than what certain individuals think things were like "back then" according to their own scholarly pursuits.

It reminds me of an incident I read about once, involving Fr Peter Gillquist and one of the Orthodox hierarchs with whom he was in discussions to bring the Evangelical Orthodox Church into communion with Orthodoxy. Ft Peter told the hierarch that they had successfully recreated the liturgy of the early Church, and were most certain of its historical accuracy. Ft Peter asked him if he would be interested in seeing it and maybe using it. The hierarch replied that, even if it were 100% correct, it wouldn't matter; they would continue to use the Rite of St. John Chrystostom because it was their living rite, and they know it is Orthodox.
This, exactly.
Not exactly.
http://bhcv.hebrewtanakh.com/deuteronomy/1.htm
Perhaps you could interpret what you mean by quoting all of Deuteronomy 1 for those of us who are not as enlightened.
Logged

Joseph
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2013, 10:33:35 PM »

My misunderstanding, I thought you meant encourage a Western Rite to replace the Byzantine Rite in the West. I am in full agreement with what you said.

No, I didn't mean to suggest that the Western Rite definitely should replace the Byzantine rite in the West.  For the time being, I think the Byzantine rite works for the EO because it's the least experimental, most stable tradition you have, and that stability is crucial in developing convert and cradle alike into good Christians. 

But as a more long term trajectory for the Church in the West, I think it's a good and necessary question to consider.  I've never been EO, so I don't know how this works in parishes, but I would think that one of the struggles of Western converts to Orthodoxy is adjusting to the liturgy.  Whether they come from a liturgical tradition or not, it's a really tremendous change.  It's a cultural transformation.  The "hyperdox" guys who go all the way and try to live like Greek or Russian peasants may not have to do any of that to be Orthodox, but there is a logic in their lunacy: they rightly sense, however unconsciously, that this religious ritual naturally influences the growth and development of the culture of the worshipers.  "Becoming Greek/Russian" is a misdirected, but logical, move: what Orthodoxy should be doing is affecting and developing the culture of the Orthodox people in a given place, and over time that culture will form and have an effect on the organic development of the rite.

Has not the authentic, pre-schism, Western Orthodox-Catholic tradition done just that for Western society?  Would there be a "Western civilisation" as we know it today without the contribution of Western Christianity (her saints, her fathers, her monks, her divine worship) creating and developing that culture, within which the local Churches' liturgical rites continued to organically develop over centuries?  To a great extent, I believe so, and based on that conviction, I think the overarching concern of some to "remain Eastern" is really just another unhealthy attempt to reinvent the wheel.  As a short-term policy, it works to provide our people with the stability of "what we know works".  But I wonder if, over time, we are not just going to force people to be culturally Eastern at church and culturally Western everywhere else that counts, when it really ought to be that the Church acts as a leaven in society and transforms it into an integral whole.  In the short-term, we definitely do that: not a feasible long-term strategy for accomplishing the Church's mission.

I have a friend who was a convert from a Western Christian denomination to EO, and ended up leaving the Church and joining a liturgical Western denomination.  For him, the liturgy was the reason.  Even if he didn't grow up with a standard RC or Anglican liturgical tradition, he was thoroughly a Western man, and no matter what he tried, Western forms of worship were what resonated with him and enabled him to connect with God.  I don't think he rejects anything about the faith, though obviously he has left the Church.  But the Western liturgical tradition resonated with him because it "fit" with his culture.  I think it's sad that he had to leave the Church in order to "find God".  He may be an exception now, but I wonder how many more of him are out there in our Churches, struggling with a liturgical-cultural schizophrenia in order to "man up".  How many are put off by how esoteric and "weird" our Church seems?  Some people love it, others learn to love it, but many may not even give it a second look after the first seemingly interminable Eucharist.  We can criticise such people all we want, and there are a few here that do just that, but all that makes us is smug, not right.         

Quote
For me, the rule would be not to force a rite unnaturally. As I said to Isa, I see no purpose other than romanticism, and not true spirituality at its root. I see no purpose in reviving liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria now that the "Constantinopolitan Rite" is the norm in those Patriarchates just as I see no purpose in forcing the Byzantine Rite on Western parishes joining the faith or on the Oriental Churches were there to be union. It's artificial and degrades true spirituality that way, the Church isn't a tool for us to act out our historical and cultural whimsies.

I don't know if, for example, Antiochians should be "forced" to adopt the Syriac liturgy rather than keep the Byzantine.  But if they chose to do so, it's not like they'd be resurrecting a dead rite.  The Syriac Church still exists, still lives this rite, and we are all brothers.  Even without a reunion between the two sides, the rite could be learned, applied, and lived.  In a reunion, something like this would definitely happen over time anyway.  The same would go for all the other ancient Patriarchates, and I dare say that would include Rome, were Rome to 'dox.  For a number of reasons, I believe that, were Rome to become Orthodox, just about every Eastern rite practiced in the West would eventually die out, except perhaps among immigrants, within a few generations.  I could be wrong, but come on: WR is much easier liturgically, ascetically, etc., and yet was able to sanctify Benedict, Gregory, and so many other Western saints.  People don't want 210/365 days of fasting when they can have much less.  Tongue 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,372



« Reply #59 on: July 29, 2013, 01:09:24 AM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread?  
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I accept that, but that is not the only way in which your statement could be interpreted.  My question was based on a reasonable alternative interpretation, one that others would support even if you wouldn't.  

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that.  
Quote
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

If you didn't get it the first time, allow me to reiterate that I don't think it's the best thing in the world to resurrect centuries old defunct rites or to tinker with them and create something that's neither here nor there.  If the worshiping community continues to live but those particular rites have died out and were replaced by others, and it works well for them, I also would want to know why there is a desire to reinvent the wheel.  

But to ask without qualification "why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite" seems silly to me.  If you accept, and you say you do, that it is a good thing to accept already existing Western parishes into Orthodoxy and allow them to continue their liturgical usages, why wouldn't you encourage them?  You should encourage them so that they can survive and thrive doing what they've been doing so far, but with a key difference: a vital connection to the Church.  And if they grow to the point of requiring new parishes (i.e., starting new ones, not just receiving converting parishes from without), why shouldn't they be allowed to grow in that way?  Shouldn't they be allowed to do missionary work, start monasteries, etc.?  All of that requires encouragement of one sort or the other.  And if the Church is going to welcome them into communion and allow them to use their inherited rites rather than Hellenise or Russify them, then the Church, by accepting pastoral responsibility over them before God, is obligated to encourage and support them.  

Anything less, and it seems like you're arguing for the "halfway house" to assimilate them into "the real world".  That may be more practical than intentional, but it is what it is.    

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
Quote
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

My comment wasn't directed specifically toward you, but was a general statement.  As such, I stand by it.  

If you say you love the traditional Catholic rite, I believe you.  I don't know your background, so I don't know if that love stems from ever having been RC (and thus worshiped in that rite).  I've never been RC, so my fondness for that tradition is as an outsider looking in.  But I have worshiped/attended services in every major ancient rite of the East except the Ethiopian, and in the major Western rites as well.  I may not be "them" but I can understand how they identify with their rite, how the way they worship ritually is the way they connect and interact with God, and how "something else", however "efficient", is still foreign because it's "not ours".   I understand that because I feel that way about my tradition, and because I've experienced enough of the others to know how beautiful they are but still not quite "home".  

And I think most EO people would identify with that sentiment regarding the Byzantine rite.  But there is a particular type of "ritual chauvinism" among the EO that the other communions don't have because we've maintained a living tradition of worshiping in different rites.  The EO haven't had that for almost a thousand years, and so there is a sense, implied if not explicit, that if you convert, you're buying into the whole package.  For some people (not necessarily you), this ends up involving attempts to refashion their 21st century Western lives along the pattern of Nth century Greek villagers or Slavic peasants, and that's just ridiculous for a host of reasons.  

Edit: tags

Fantastic post, Mor Ephrem. And the both of you are touching on something very important for Western Rite Orthodoxy; namely that it be based upon the living tradition of living parishes coming into the Orthodox Church, meddling with their catholic way of life as little as possible. Rites aren't created, they aren't frozen in time, they don't exist in books and manuscripts, they are kept alive and handed down by flesh and blood people. The reintegration of tradition with Orthodoxy stands as a stark difference between "reviving" a liturgy no one uses, blessing it for future use by parishes that don't even exist, in hopes of skipping past centuries of history we don't like, to "reclaim" something we can only read about in books. That process is entirely untraditional, inorganic, and ultimately rests on nothing more than what certain individuals think things were like "back then" according to their own scholarly pursuits.

It reminds me of an incident I read about once, involving Fr Peter Gillquist and one of the Orthodox hierarchs with whom he was in discussions to bring the Evangelical Orthodox Church into communion with Orthodoxy. Ft Peter told the hierarch that they had successfully recreated the liturgy of the early Church, and were most certain of its historical accuracy. Ft Peter asked him if he would be interested in seeing it and maybe using it. The hierarch replied that, even if it were 100% correct, it wouldn't matter; they would continue to use the Rite of St. John Chrystostom because it was their living rite, and they know it is Orthodox.
This, exactly.
Not exactly.
http://bhcv.hebrewtanakh.com/deuteronomy/1.htm
Perhaps you could interpret what you mean by quoting all of Deuteronomy 1 for those of us who are not as enlightened.
4 Kingdoms/II Kings 22
Quote
8 And Hilki'ah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilki'ah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9 And Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, "Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD." 10 Then Shaphan the secretary told the king, "Hilki'ah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And when the king heard the words of the book of the law, he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilki'ah the priest, and Ahi'kam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micai'ah, and Shaphan the secretary, and Asai'ah the king's servant, saying, 13 "Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #60 on: August 01, 2013, 04:47:48 PM »

If you notice otice I said in my initial post:
Within the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which has been the most stable and consistent in their approval and endorsement of Our rite many people have found a trust and and hope that the full catholicity of the Orthodox Church may be realized. Not simply as an ecumenical concession, but as the genuine manifestation which Christ intended his Church to be. Not confined to a single expression amongst a single people but bringing Christ to all cultures as it always was in the first millenium and the beginning of it's second. It was through the Latin Church in the 9th century that iconoclasm and the Triumph of Orthodox teaching was brought to the entire Church. That churches venerable heritage will continue to survive and live.

It may not be popular or make sense to the majority of Orthodox catholic Christians today, but I am certain that the Latin rite and it's peoples and heritage will live on in unity with the Byzantine rite again someday in the future.


Quote
More to Antonis' point, I don't think the Church is any less catholic for want of a Western rite in any dogmatically important sense, but I do believe there is something to be said for it on a more popular level.  

Let us look at the meaning of the word catholic:

Catholic
Adjective
(esp. of a person's tastes) Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.

The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"[1][2]) comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and όλος meaning "whole".[3][4] The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.".[5] ("Catholicos, the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin).

The term Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English) was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages.

It seems to me that one could say as their own opinion that the lack of the western/latin rite presence would make the church slightly less catholic than it once was (when it did have a latin rite church), but yet no less orthodox, no less true. Within the single byzantine rite, there is still catholicity and different cultures represented.

My original wording was "(I) hope that the full catholicity of the Orthodox Church may be realized." Or you could also say I hope the full potential of the Church representing as many cultures as possible will occur.

Now let us be realistic , the majority of the world's christians are currently worshipping in either the latin rite or a derivative of the latin rite.


Frankly its rather pointless for the Orthodox Church to ignore 1,000,000,000 peoples patrimony.
Those 1,000,000,000 to ignore 300,000,000 peoples byzantine rite patrimony is pointless also, neither should be ignored.

That's all, I do not want the latin rite to be a "ghetto" or ignore the byzantine rite either, we can all have some awareness and familiarity without losing our own ancient inculturated rites. I'm quite familiar and comfortable with both latin and byzantine rite. My interest in the latin rite in the orthodox church is not because I couldn't be happy with the byzantine rite - I could - it;s because I owe to myself to carry on the traditions of my ancestors rather than abandoning them. Their tradition was not byzantine rite.

For example, I've always felt awkward celebrating St. Patrick's day within the byzantine rite. The antiphons and hymns that actual irish people for centuries sang for St. Patrick about his life and holy works were "gregorian/latin" not byzantine. The only way St. Patrick can have anything done in the byzantine rite is by making it up anew. Whereas, I prefer to simply used what was handed on to us (even though most roman catholics and anglicans forgot them by now).

Celebrating St. Patrick within the latin rite - that's ideal for us latins. Just as I would say that to celebrate St. Nektarios of Pentopolis exclusively in the Latin rite would be silly also, his hymns are all within byzantine tradition. Sometimes rites can overlap and mix a bit, but it's not typical. The freedom to not be exclusively confined to one particular cultural expression is of great value.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 05:00:31 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #61 on: August 02, 2013, 10:40:55 AM »

If we want Orthodoxy in the Western world to truly be, and remain, catholic (in the true sense of the term; of course it will always be catholic in terms of doctrine and dogma), then it has to be capable of actually being western. Not Western as it was 1200 years ago, not Western as we imagine it to be, and not Western merely on paper. But truly, authentically, actually Western.

And what makes something "Western"? That's complex, of course, but I would say ultimately: the people. This is why patrimony is so important, because what remains in the process of tradition is that which remains authentically Western. There's simply no other way it can be.

Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 26, 2013, 08:55:53 AM »

If we want Orthodoxy in the Western world to truly be, and remain, catholic (in the true sense of the term; of course it will always be catholic in terms of doctrine and dogma), then it has to be capable of actually being western. Not Western as it was 1200 years ago, not Western as we imagine it to be, and not Western merely on paper. But truly, authentically, actually Western.

And what makes something "Western"? That's complex, of course, but I would say ultimately: the people. This is why patrimony is so important, because what remains in the process of tradition is that which remains authentically Western. There's simply no other way it can be.



This is decidedly Western.  Ain't nothing complex about being a cowboy.

There are some nice things about RC or Anglican piety and traditions and I agree that the Orthodox faith will stay the same, regardless of what culture it's in.  We can't all stick to just Byzantine or Slavic practices as if they were dogma.  I pray that the Western Rite will keep bringing people into the fold of the Church, not merely for the reasons of "not being Rome" or "kinda what I'm used to," but for the faith.
Logged

TsarVladimir92
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 2


We couldn't tell if we were in heaven or on earth.


« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2013, 09:28:07 AM »


For example, I've always felt awkward celebrating St. Patrick's day within the byzantine rite. The antiphons and hymns that actual irish people for centuries sang for St. Patrick about his life and holy works were "gregorian/latin" not byzantine. The only way St. Patrick can have anything done in the byzantine rite is by making it up anew. Whereas, I prefer to simply used what was handed on to us (even though most roman catholics and anglicans forgot them by now).

Celebrating St. Patrick within the latin rite - that's ideal for us latins. Just as I would say that to celebrate St. Nektarios of Pentopolis exclusively in the Latin rite would be silly also, his hymns are all within byzantine tradition. Sometimes rites can overlap and mix a bit, but it's not typical. The freedom to not be exclusively confined to one particular cultural expression is of great value.


So I'm not sure I follow on this point. Certainly a tradition of liturgical services do not exist for St. Patrick (Or Bl. Augustine, or St. Cuthbert, or St. Jerome for that matter) within the Eastern Rite liturgy. But that doesn't seem to me to rule out celebrating them entirely. New services must be made on the glorification of a Saint, and if a Saint gains relevance outside their traditional realm, I don't see why the liturgical celebration shouldn't be formed or adapted. The same goes in reverse (I know it already exists at least to some degree for St. Tikhon and St. John Maximovitch in the existing Western Rite communities). Why should where the Saint comes from determine how he is celebrated in the liturgy? It doesn't stop Byzantines for celebrating St. Clement of Rome, nor does it stop Latins from celebrating St. George, each according to a form fitting to their rite. I apologize if I'm misquoting or didn't understand the thrust of your argument.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 09:29:07 AM by TsarVladimir92 » Logged

“...you said just now, is there a being in the whole world who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? But there is a Being and He can forgive everything, all and for all, because He gave His innocent blood for all and everything." -Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Alyosha to Ivan
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,226



« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2013, 09:38:15 AM »


For example, I've always felt awkward celebrating St. Patrick's day within the byzantine rite. The antiphons and hymns that actual irish people for centuries sang for St. Patrick about his life and holy works were "gregorian/latin" not byzantine. The only way St. Patrick can have anything done in the byzantine rite is by making it up anew. Whereas, I prefer to simply used what was handed on to us (even though most roman catholics and anglicans forgot them by now).

Celebrating St. Patrick within the latin rite - that's ideal for us latins. Just as I would say that to celebrate St. Nektarios of Pentopolis exclusively in the Latin rite would be silly also, his hymns are all within byzantine tradition. Sometimes rites can overlap and mix a bit, but it's not typical. The freedom to not be exclusively confined to one particular cultural expression is of great value.


So I'm not sure I follow on this point. Certainly a tradition of liturgical services do not exist for St. Patrick (Or Bl. Augustine, or St. Cuthbert, or St. Jerome for that matter) within the Eastern Rite liturgy. But that doesn't seem to me to rule out celebrating them entirely. New services must be made on the glorification of a Saint, and if a Saint gains relevance outside their traditional realm, I don't see why the liturgical celebration shouldn't be formed or adapted. The same goes in reverse (I know it already exists at least to some degree for St. Tikhon and St. John Maximovitch in the existing Western Rite communities). Why should where the Saint comes from determine how he is celebrated in the liturgy? It doesn't stop Byzantines for celebrating St. Clement of Rome, nor does it stop Latins from celebrating St. George, each according to a form fitting to their rite. I apologize if I'm misquoting or didn't understand the thrust of your argument.

There are services for St. Patrick and St. Jerome. Don't know about St. Cuthbert though.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
TsarVladimir92
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 2


We couldn't tell if we were in heaven or on earth.


« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2013, 09:49:53 AM »

There are services for St. Cuthbert (and quite a few other British saints) at orthodoxengland.org.uk/zliturgics.htm. I just meant that there isn't a tradition of them, they are mostly modern compositions.
Logged

“...you said just now, is there a being in the whole world who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? But there is a Being and He can forgive everything, all and for all, because He gave His innocent blood for all and everything." -Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Alyosha to Ivan
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #66 on: December 06, 2013, 08:38:42 PM »

The problem is that all the Orthodox (Chalcedonian, that is) accept Trullo.

The 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicea II in 787, also accepted the canons of Trullo, which it considered a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Fr. John Morris
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #67 on: December 08, 2013, 08:58:01 PM »

Quote
Canon 82 aroused particular fury in the Syrian-born pope as he added the chant Agnus Dei to the liturgy and ordered that the mosaic Worship of the Lamb be restored in Saint Peter's Basilica.

Heh. Let no RC or WR on this forum now berate me for sticking to my guns on insisting on proper canonicity of icons.  Wink police



I want an icon of Pope St. Sergius holding an icon of he Lamb.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 08, 2013, 09:07:22 PM »

Has Trullo 82 and its history/context been discussed here before? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #69 on: December 10, 2013, 12:46:36 AM »

Apparently, Fr. John Morris either ignored this quote or he finds it meaningless?

Quote
Finally, John VIII affirmed that the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (including Trullo) were accepted by the Roman Church provided that they "were not contrary to previous canons or decrees of the holy pontiffs of this see or to good moral."'

The Council of Trullo was never accepted fully by the Roman Church.
It has little to do the canons of the west. Does Fr. John Morris realize that there is no latin rite canon law tradition in the Orthodox Church and that without this the Western rite vicariate will never be taken as seriously as it should be???

As the user Alpo said, the problem is that this does "make sense". We do all live our human frailty and limitations.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 12:49:44 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,372



« Reply #70 on: December 10, 2013, 01:09:15 AM »

Apparently, Fr. John Morris either ignored this quote or he finds it meaningless?

Quote
Finally, John VIII affirmed that the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (including Trullo) were accepted by the Roman Church provided that they "were not contrary to previous canons or decrees of the holy pontiffs of this see or to good moral."'

The Council of Trullo was never accepted fully by the Roman Church.
when it accepted the canons of the Ecumenical Council Nicea II.
It has little to do the canons of the west. Does Fr. John Morris realize that there is no latin rite canon law tradition in the Orthodox Church and that without this the Western rite vicariate will never be taken as seriously as it should be???
There wasn't as much when Pope of Rome was still Orthodox.  And what there was is how he got into trouble and heresy.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 01:12:19 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #71 on: December 10, 2013, 03:46:23 AM »

Apparently, Fr. John Morris either ignored this quote or he finds it meaningless?

Quote
Finally, John VIII affirmed that the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (including Trullo) were accepted by the Roman Church provided that they "were not contrary to previous canons or decrees of the holy pontiffs of this see or to good moral."'

The Council of Trullo was never accepted fully by the Roman Church.
It has little to do the canons of the west. Does Fr. John Morris realize that there is no latin rite canon law tradition in the Orthodox Church and that without this the Western rite vicariate will never be taken as seriously as it should be???

As the user Alpo said, the problem is that this does "make sense". We do all live our human frailty and limitations.


I am afraid that I do not understand your point. The Western Rite of the Antiochian Archdiocese follows the same canons that we all do, that is the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Why should the Western Rite follow a different canonical tradition than the rest of the Antiochian Archdiocese, or for that matter the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy? We do not need to create a Church within the Church. The Western Rite parishes are fully integrated within the diocesan structure of the Antiochian Archdiocese. We had a Western Rite Vespers at our Archdiocesan Convention in Houston in July.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #72 on: December 10, 2013, 04:29:37 AM »

So the only reason to advocate for the Western Rite is to help converts transition into "manning up" and "being Orthodox", as another poster put it rather elegantly in another thread? 
Not at all, it is receiving a living tradition. I never said their reception with their rites was merely a stepping stone to what isa calls "the bosphorus upstart"'s liturgy.

I find myself more agreeing than disagreeing with those who are against liturgical archaeology and in favour of encouraging living traditions.  I don't see, for example, why Americans in Florida ought to suddenly adopt the Mozarabic rite because Florida was once Spanish, and that was once the principle rite of Spain (and the Mozarabic Rite still lives).  In my opinion, the Roman rite ought to be just fine for everyone, but maybe also some "Anglican" rite for those coming from that tradition.  Even if that seems like a "reconstruction", the communities which use those rites still exist, albeit outside the Church; they can be learned from people, observed in their "natural habitat", so to speak, and not just from a critical edition of a manuscript from some monastery library or something like that. 
But why? I have asked multiple times why we need to encourage the creation of a Western Rite? What is the purpose? I don't see one (other than for receiving already existing parishes to Orthodox), except for romanticism.

But to say that the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm for the Church is the statement of those who know and/or prefer nothing else.  No one doubts that it is a living tradition or that it has nourished countless saints.  But it's not the only way that God has willed to sanctify men.  If other ways have "fallen off the vine", it has usually been due to liturgical imperialism, and not simply a loss due to schism.
You assume too much about me. I love the traditional Catholic Rite. So no, because I think the Byzantine rite serves just fine as a norm does not mean that I know or prefer nothing else.

I was just pointing out the fact that you demonstrated, with your rude dismissal-repeated again and again-of Divine Liturgies that pre-date the liturgies of the upstart on the Bosphorus, the principle that when someone holds a wrongheaded principle and thereby comes to false conclusions, holding that principle also leads to wrongheaded conclusions elsewhere.

You said that WRO converts should man up and be Orthodox.  Many came to the WRO already Orthodox, manning up.
I don't see how I was rude whatsoever simply because I had an opinion that disagreed with your own. I have been completely cordial. I only dismiss them because I don't see the purposeof reviving them, something nobody has been able to clearly tell me but instead choose to put words in my mouth and assume things about me that are not true.

Indeed, for almost a millenium after Chalcedon, the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians in Alexandria and Antioch shared the same rite.  Until the never-left-Constantinople "Patriarch of Antioch" Balsamon decided to push his prejudices as piety.
And now you seek to do the same thing. The Byzantine Rite is the norm of Alexandria and Antioch now, to push dead rites on these churches would be no different than what Patriarch Balsamon did.

I think that I should remind you that the Byzantine Rite is part of the family of West Syrian Rites. St. John Chyrsostom came to Constantinople from Antioch. Some liturgical historians argue that the Anaphora of St. John Chyrsostom is based on the ancient Anaphora of the Church of Antioch.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #73 on: December 10, 2013, 10:03:11 AM »

This whole thread just screams more Orthodox = Byzantine nonsense. Church history proves this to be not only incorrect, but dangerous.

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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #74 on: December 10, 2013, 01:44:04 PM »

I think that I should remind you that the Byzantine Rite is part of the family of West Syrian Rites. St. John Chyrsostom came to Constantinople from Antioch. Some liturgical historians argue that the Anaphora of St. John Chyrsostom is based on the ancient Anaphora of the Church of Antioch.

While I've often read that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy is derived from our (West Syriac) Liturgy, and while years of on-and-off attendance at Byzantine Eucharists confirms this for me, I've never heard that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy itself was grouped with the West Syriac rite as opposed to being in its own category.  Byzantine and Armenian Liturgies are related to/derived from ours, and yet they have enough differences to be in their own categories.  That's not the case, for example, with the Maronite liturgy, which has unique characteristics but not enough to be a separate rite ("use" is probably better, IMO).   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,607



« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2013, 01:52:32 PM »

This whole thread just screams more Orthodox = Byzantine nonsense. Church history proves this to be not only incorrect, but dangerous.

PP

Just man up and become Orthodox!
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 10, 2013, 02:46:57 PM »

This whole thread just screams more Orthodox = Byzantine nonsense. Church history proves this to be not only incorrect, but dangerous.

PP

Just man up and become Orthodox!
I am Orthodox so Im glad I dont have to do anything. Sleepy today.

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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,105



« Reply #77 on: December 11, 2013, 10:54:14 PM »


I'm not much invested in the Trullo debate; but if I may comment, I find it interesting that your profile says "Try as I may, I can't stop being a Trad. Rom. Catholic !" because I feel like, however I try, I can't start being a Trad. Rom. Catholic. Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #78 on: December 11, 2013, 11:48:52 PM »

I think that I should remind you that the Byzantine Rite is part of the family of West Syrian Rites. St. John Chyrsostom came to Constantinople from Antioch. Some liturgical historians argue that the Anaphora of St. John Chyrsostom is based on the ancient Anaphora of the Church of Antioch.

While I've often read that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy is derived from our (West Syriac) Liturgy, and while years of on-and-off attendance at Byzantine Eucharists confirms this for me, I've never heard that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy itself was grouped with the West Syriac rite as opposed to being in its own category.  Byzantine and Armenian Liturgies are related to/derived from ours, and yet they have enough differences to be in their own categories.  That's not the case, for example, with the Maronite liturgy, which has unique characteristics but not enough to be a separate rite ("use" is probably better, IMO).   

Every history of Christian Liturgy that I have ever read considers the Byzantine Rite a development from the West Syrian Rite.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #79 on: December 11, 2013, 11:56:50 PM »

I think that I should remind you that the Byzantine Rite is part of the family of West Syrian Rites. St. John Chyrsostom came to Constantinople from Antioch. Some liturgical historians argue that the Anaphora of St. John Chyrsostom is based on the ancient Anaphora of the Church of Antioch.

While I've often read that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy is derived from our (West Syriac) Liturgy, and while years of on-and-off attendance at Byzantine Eucharists confirms this for me, I've never heard that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy itself was grouped with the West Syriac rite as opposed to being in its own category.  Byzantine and Armenian Liturgies are related to/derived from ours, and yet they have enough differences to be in their own categories.  That's not the case, for example, with the Maronite liturgy, which has unique characteristics but not enough to be a separate rite ("use" is probably better, IMO).   

Every history of Christian Liturgy that I have ever read considers the Byzantine Rite a development from the West Syrian Rite.

Yes, "a development from", I agree.  But "part of the family of West Syrian Rites"?  Not in any scholarly text on liturgy I've read. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #80 on: December 12, 2013, 02:36:34 AM »

I think that I should remind you that the Byzantine Rite is part of the family of West Syrian Rites. St. John Chyrsostom came to Constantinople from Antioch. Some liturgical historians argue that the Anaphora of St. John Chyrsostom is based on the ancient Anaphora of the Church of Antioch.

While I've often read that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy is derived from our (West Syriac) Liturgy, and while years of on-and-off attendance at Byzantine Eucharists confirms this for me, I've never heard that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy itself was grouped with the West Syriac rite as opposed to being in its own category.  Byzantine and Armenian Liturgies are related to/derived from ours, and yet they have enough differences to be in their own categories.  That's not the case, for example, with the Maronite liturgy, which has unique characteristics but not enough to be a separate rite ("use" is probably better, IMO).   

Every history of Christian Liturgy that I have ever read considers the Byzantine Rite a development from the West Syrian Rite.

Yes, "a development from", I agree.  But "part of the family of West Syrian Rites"?  Not in any scholarly text on liturgy I've read. 

I do not see much difference. If the Byzantine Liturgy developed from the West Syrian Liturgy it is part of the family of West Syrian Liturgies. We are at least cousins.
I do not have my books on the history of Christian Liturgy with me because I am at home suffering from a kidney stone, which God willing will be zapped tomorrow. Believe me you do not want to have a kidney stone. I have never been in such pain.

If Communion is the heart of the Liturgy, the Anaphora is the Brain. There are certain characteristics of an Anaphora that liturgical historians identify as belonging to the West Syrian family of Liturgies. One of them is an emphasis on the word Holy in the Anaphora and the placement of the Epiklesis after the Words of Institution, while the Epiklesis is before them in the Roman family of Liturgies. The order of the various parts of the Byzantine Anaphora follows the traditional order of the West Syrian Liturgy. The original West Syrian Liturgy is the Liturgy of St. James. The Byzantine Liturgy is a development from the Liturgy of St. James. I am quite sure that the Liturgy of the Maronites and the Syriac Churches also are developments and have changed through the centuries. Bouyer's book on the Eucharist finds great similarity between the Anaphora of the Holy Apostles of the Maronite Liturgy and the Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. His argument is that St. John reworked the ancient Liturgy of Antioch as represented by the Maronite Anaphora of the Holy Apostles to produce his Anaphora. I admit that I have a built in bias towards the West Syrian Liturgy being a Priest of the Church of Antioch. When I was in seminary they once served the Liturgy of St. Mark which represents the Alexandrian Liturgy. I used to let the local Coptic community in Shreveport use my Church for their Liturgy and saw a lot of similarity although the Alexandrian Rite is considered a different Rite than the West Syrian Rite.
Actually, the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch has very close relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church. Our new Patriarch, John X, has pledged to work towards reunion with the Syriac Church. Neither us nor they would change their liturgical traditions, but it is very possible that we can restore Communion while retaining our own administrative structures and preserving our traditions. We can let historians argue about what happened in the 5th century and unite on the basis of a common doctrine without agreeing on some historical matters.
Remember the suffering Christians of Syria in your prayers.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 02:45:30 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,207


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #81 on: December 12, 2013, 10:44:08 AM »

I think that I should remind you that the Byzantine Rite is part of the family of West Syrian Rites. St. John Chyrsostom came to Constantinople from Antioch. Some liturgical historians argue that the Anaphora of St. John Chyrsostom is based on the ancient Anaphora of the Church of Antioch.

While I've often read that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy is derived from our (West Syriac) Liturgy, and while years of on-and-off attendance at Byzantine Eucharists confirms this for me, I've never heard that the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgy itself was grouped with the West Syriac rite as opposed to being in its own category.  Byzantine and Armenian Liturgies are related to/derived from ours, and yet they have enough differences to be in their own categories.  That's not the case, for example, with the Maronite liturgy, which has unique characteristics but not enough to be a separate rite ("use" is probably better, IMO).   

Every history of Christian Liturgy that I have ever read considers the Byzantine Rite a development from the West Syrian Rite.

Yes, "a development from", I agree.  But "part of the family of West Syrian Rites"?  Not in any scholarly text on liturgy I've read. 

I do not see much difference. If the Byzantine Liturgy developed from the West Syrian Liturgy it is part of the family of West Syrian Liturgies. We are at least cousins.
I do not have my books on the history of Christian Liturgy with me because I am at home suffering from a kidney stone, which God willing will be zapped tomorrow. Believe me you do not want to have a kidney stone. I have never been in such pain.

If Communion is the heart of the Liturgy, the Anaphora is the Brain. There are certain characteristics of an Anaphora that liturgical historians identify as belonging to the West Syrian family of Liturgies. One of them is an emphasis on the word Holy in the Anaphora and the placement of the Epiklesis after the Words of Institution, while the Epiklesis is before them in the Roman family of Liturgies. The order of the various parts of the Byzantine Anaphora follows the traditional order of the West Syrian Liturgy. The original West Syrian Liturgy is the Liturgy of St. James. The Byzantine Liturgy is a development from the Liturgy of St. James. I am quite sure that the Liturgy of the Maronites and the Syriac Churches also are developments and have changed through the centuries. Bouyer's book on the Eucharist finds great similarity between the Anaphora of the Holy Apostles of the Maronite Liturgy and the Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. His argument is that St. John reworked the ancient Liturgy of Antioch as represented by the Maronite Anaphora of the Holy Apostles to produce his Anaphora. I admit that I have a built in bias towards the West Syrian Liturgy being a Priest of the Church of Antioch. When I was in seminary they once served the Liturgy of St. Mark which represents the Alexandrian Liturgy. I used to let the local Coptic community in Shreveport use my Church for their Liturgy and saw a lot of similarity although the Alexandrian Rite is considered a different Rite than the West Syrian Rite.
Actually, the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch has very close relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church. Our new Patriarch, John X, has pledged to work towards reunion with the Syriac Church. Neither us nor they would change their liturgical traditions, but it is very possible that we can restore Communion while retaining our own administrative structures and preserving our traditions. We can let historians argue about what happened in the 5th century and unite on the basis of a common doctrine without agreeing on some historical matters.
Remember the suffering Christians of Syria in your prayers.

Fr. John W. Morris


Wise words indeed. (Now, I remember Father John, he and I have communicated in the past through another forum on the various ecumenical dialogues. When he mentioned the Lutheran one, it clicked.)

Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #82 on: December 12, 2013, 12:07:47 PM »

I do not see much difference. If the Byzantine Liturgy developed from the West Syrian Liturgy it is part of the family of West Syrian Liturgies. We are at least cousins.
I do not have my books on the history of Christian Liturgy with me because I am at home suffering from a kidney stone, which God willing will be zapped tomorrow. Believe me you do not want to have a kidney stone. I have never been in such pain.

My uncle had kidney stones once, it seemed atrocious.  Prayers for you (and the Christians of Syria)!
« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 12:07:59 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.232 seconds with 66 queries.