Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've been told that many of the more 'eastern' Byzantine Catholics attend liturgy at an Orthodox church instead of a Roman Catholic church if no Eastern Catholic parish is available. 

It got me to thinking what I would do in a similar situation.  If I only had a choice between a Western Orthodox church and an Eastern Catholic church I'd definitely choose to the Orthodox church because I could receive Communion.  (Of course this is hypothetical as there are no places in the US where the only Orthodox parishes are Western Orthodox.)

What would you do? 
 

chris

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
7,253
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
57
From my way of looking at this there is no choice in this matter. I would attend the Orthodox parish, and observe the Western Rite (and probably get thoroughly lost while doing so).
 

Hesychios

Sr. Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Justice, Illinois USA
If I had the options only of attending a Western Orthodox church or a Byzantine Catholic church I guess I would attend the Western rite Orthodox church because I am expected to as an Orthodox Christian. But I don't expect that I would be very satisfied with that decision.

I have to admit that I am curious about these Western rite Orthodox churches, I have always wanted to visit one. I'm pretty sure that the "Mass" there would be an improvement over what I am already familiar with.  ;D

Michael
 

Veniamin

Archon
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
Attend the Western-Rite parish.  I'm sure it would be a lot like when I was Episcopalian, except the Eucharist would be real.
 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'd love to attend a Western Orthodox parish but unfortunately there aren't any close to me. 

I figured most of you would agree with me.  I find it strange that many Eastern Catholics think differently about this.  I've observed a lot of discussions about this on Catholic and Eastern Catholic boards and it almost seems like the ECs who would go to an RC Mass are seen as being somehow less 'eastern.' 

 

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
(Of course this is hypothetical as there are no places in the US where the only Orthodox parishes are Western Orthodox.)

What would you do? 
Tyler, Texas.  Western Rite mission- Holy Apostles.  Nearest Orthodox parish practicing the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox, about two hours away.  :D
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I'd have to ask my Metropolitan, I'm glad I'm not faced with this problem, it would seem like a Choice between bad and worse, and I dont know which is which. I have no inclination as to what my current Metropolitan may say, but my former Metropolitan, His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony of Blessed Memory, might very well have prefered that I attend an Eastern Catholic Parish, or possibly even a Latin Rite Catholic Parish, to one of the Antiochian's Western Rite Parishes; he did, in one of his Encyclicals against the Western Rite forbid his Clergy from Concelebrating with Western Rite Priests, and strongly discouraged the laity from having any commerce with them.

Landon,
But are there any Eastern Rite Catholic Parishes in Tyler, TX?
 

nstanosheck

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,837
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
47
Location
Dallas, TX, United States of America
Website
nstanosheck.blogspot.com
O know a number of ROCOR members, when in Rhode Island would go to the Western Rite Monastery outside ofProvidence, asit was the only ROCOR parish in the state.

Of course, the ROCOR does not use the Anglican Service with some slight changes and call it Western Orthodox, but uses the pre-schism Sarum Rite Divine Liturgy, Hours, Matins and Vespers.
 

Pedro

Archon
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,833
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Greenville, SC
greekischristian said:
...my former Metropolitan, His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony of Blessed Memory, might very well have prefered that I attend an Eastern Catholic Parish, or possibly even a Latin Rite Catholic Parish, to one of the Antiochian's Western Rite Parishes...
WHAT?!  If this were the case, I'm sorry, but there would be some SERIOUS priority problems going on there.  You're telling me that an Orthodox Metropolitan would prefer that someone would be better off going to a parish with heretical beliefs JUST because the liturgy was eastern?  Moreover, that he would even prefer the western expression of said heretical Church over a western-rite parish which holds no heretical beliefs?!

I have never heard something so brazenly outlandish in my life.  Then there's this:

...he did, in one of his Encyclicals against the Western Rite forbid his Clergy from Concelebrating with Western Rite Priests, and strongly discouraged the laity from having any commerce with them.
He is therefore the cause of the beginning of a schism within the Church.  To say that a parish which is under the care of a canonically ordained Orthodox bishop is somehow "unworthy" of recognition as an Orthodox parish is outrageous.  The western-rite parishes are under legit Orthodox bishops, full stop, and are therefore immediately worthy of recognition as such...and are definitely to be preferred as family over ANYTHING in the Roman Catholic community.

greekischristian said:
Landon,
But are there any Eastern Rite Catholic Parishes in Tyler, TX?
As he himself is a western-rite Orthodox Christian, his answer is probably this: Who cares?!  They are NOT in the family, and to say that the western-rite Orthodox parishes are somehow not to be preferred to these other, heretical parishes is incomprehensible.

The hellenic axe-grinding against canonical western Orthodoxy continues in the GOA, I see...  :mad:  :-\ :'(

Νικολάος Διάκονος said:
Of course, the ROCOR does not use the Anglican Service with some slight changes and call it Western Orthodox, but uses the pre-schism Sarum Rite Divine Liturgy, Hours, Matins and Vespers.
True, the AOAA western-rite would be better off using Saurum/York.  But, the Rite of St. Tikhon (which was approved for use by the MP Synod more than once) is what they use, they have the approval of their bishop to do so, and are therefore also a part of the western Orthodox movement.  While their choice of liturgy is not the best, nothing therein even remotely warrants their being ostracized to the point of having RC and EC parishes preferred over them!

This is just like some British Orthodox priests who've told interested converts from Anglicanism to just "stick with the Anglican Church."  The idea of being told to go outside the Orthodox communion for fellowship merely because of rite is not only spitting in the face of one's Orthodox brothers and sisters, but also the bishops of said parishes, with whom they claim to be in communion.
 

Pedro

Archon
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,833
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Greenville, SC
First, here is an article from the Greek Archdiocese of Denver; thankfully (lest we be accused of Greek-bashing again), not all Greek bishops are so tied to rite that they forget about episcopal intercommunion.

Second, the apologia "Lux Occidentalis": click on the link to go to the PDA document, then scroll down to the bottom of page 8, to the heading, "Western Rite Texts: Ancient and Modern."  An excellent dissection of the Rite of St. Tikhon is offered as a rebuttal to the statement that it is "not in direct continuity with the worship of the early Church of the West."
 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pedro said:
I have never heard something so brazenly outlandish in my life.
I don't think it's any more outlandish than other things GiC has written here. 

It'll will be interesting to see what he's like after a few years in Thessaloniki.  I suspect he'll grow up a lot and hope that he'll be much better suited for the priesthood than he is now. 

 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Pedro said:
The hellenic axe-grinding against canonical western Orthodoxy continues in the GOA, I see... :mad: :-\ :'(
Firstly, again, GiC is not an hellene.

Secondly, the only concerns I've heard from liturgists and theologians of the GOA of America is that the Sarum Rite may be based only on fragments of manuscript rather than a complete text of the Liturgy and Office- their concerns are not that it's "western", but that it may not completely be "pre-schism."

Thirdly, "Canonical" according to whom? At the moment, ROCOR is of doubtful canonical status as far as the GOA is concerned until it is reconciled and in full Communion with Moscow. ROCOR's pronouncements of canonicity do not reflect the GOA's position yet. The GOA has every right (and in fact, a duty) to proceed cautiously.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Pedro,
How outlandish of me to refer to the Instructions that my former Metropolitan, of Most Blessed Memory, gave on the matter. Heaven forbid I would have sought the advoce of my Bishop. To quote the Late Metropolitan on the issue,

'We are thus placed in the awkward position of having to accept the "western rite" vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese as belonging to the canonical Orthodox Church while at the same time recognizing that this is a foreign element within the Body of Christ, analogous to the creation of the Unia by the Roman Catholic Church.'

We are in a difficult pastoral posistion of having to deal with Priests and Parishes who, while under the Great and Ancient Patriarchate of Anitoch, have divorced themselves from the Tradition of the said patriarchate. The ideal solution to this problem would be for the Patriarchate of Antioch to condemn this 'foreign element within the Body of Christ' and rectify the problem of having Parishes under her Omophorion not adhear to the Traditional Practices of the Patriarchate. But baring action by the Patriarchate of Antioch, it is necessary for our Blessed Metropolitans to take Actions to Protect the Orthodox Faithful under their Omophorion. Thus, the decrees of the Metropolitan directed HIS Priests not to involve themselves in this radical departure from the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Churches (Strange how people will be up in arms about the removal of a few prayers to shorten a service, but will openly support a complete and utter destruction of the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Church), forbade Priests who did not dress themselves in the Vestments of the Church from Celebrating in HIS Churches (Heaven forbid we require priests to dress like priests, wouldn't it just be great if we could have Clown Liturgies instead?), and sought to protect the Faithful under HIS Omophorion from this departure from Orthodox Tradition.

As I am opposed to the Unia in the Latin Church, consistancy requires me to hold a similar view of the so-called 'western rite,' for me to take a more sympathetic posistion would require that either I accept the intrusion of the Unia as legitimage or embrace the hypocracy of conflicting posistions, neither of which I find acceptable. The easiest solution would be for the so-called 'western rite' parishes to start acting Orthodox, and embrace the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church.

Jennifer,
Fortunately, you are not my Metropolitan; the person I quoted, who was far more competant on the issue, was actually, while he was yet alive, my Metropolitan. And frankly, I do not see how he would have considered my agreeing with his views as somehow demonstrating my unsuitability for the priesthood.
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,555
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
GisC,

How many Western Rite people are you personally friends or acquaintances with, to the extent that you have realized that some people simply cannot get past the Byzantine Rite, but have an Orthodox faith, and their parish en masse converted to Orthodoxy, retained its liturgical rite, and thus brought in hundreds of people into Orthodoxy? It seems you are adept at theoretical argumentation but short on the pastoral implications.  To me, the several thousand Orthodox who are Orthodox because of the WR far outweighs the problem of having "reverse uniatism."

It seems to me uniatism is only wrong insofar as it is forced.  So if people want to be Eastern Rite Catholics or Western Rite Orthodox in 2005, who cares? It's their choice, and we shouldn't worry about them.

Anastasios
 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
GiC, you're unsuitable for the priesthood because of your attitude, not because of your opinion about Western Orthodoxy.  I suspect (and hope) that the reason you weren't ordained upon your graduation from seminary was that the 'powers that be' in the GOA know of your unsuitability for the priesthood.  Regardless, I believe that your sojoun in Thessaloniki will do you much good. 

BTW, I too am glad that I'm not your metropolitan.  I wouldn't want to explain your 'prickly' personality to a parish. 

 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Anastasios said:
So if people want to be Eastern Rite Catholics or Western Rite Orthodox in 2005, who cares? It's their choice, and we shouldn't worry about them.
To me this smacks a bit of "McOrthodoxy" or "Burger King Orthodoxy."
Should the Western Right also be introiduced to Russia, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria etc. in order to give people more choice?
What will it be today? Sarum Rite? Do you want fries with that?

 

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If I ever decided to fully schismate from Catholicism and join the Orthodox Church, I would love a Western rite parish.

It is the faith and tradition of my Irish and English ancestors who used a Mass basically the same as the pre-Vatican II Mass. Rome and the West have always had unique rites separate from the East. As long as they are ancient and have nothing contrary to the Orthodox faith, what would the problem be in having a Western rite liturgy?

Now the Anglican Mass was an innovation, but the pre-Vatican II Mass was not. The reform of Pius V was basically the unification of the Western rites into one Roman rite; it was not an innovation, but sought to reclaim lost traditions.

Here is what Quo Primum said about the Roman Missal: "They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers."
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,555
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
ozgeorge said:
To me this smacks a bit of "McOrthodoxy" or "Burger King Orthodoxy."
Should the Western Right also be introiduced to Russia, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria etc. in order to give people more choice?
What will it be today? Sarum Rite? Do you want fries with that?
LOL

No way, it shouldn't be introduced anywhere.  It is only allowed when a previously-existing group comes into unity with Orthodoxy, just like how in the 19th century the Russian Church allowed the Assyrians coming into union with Orthodoxy to use their liturgical tradition sans references to "St" Nestorius and the like.  In other words, we shouldn't be in the business of setting up new liturgical rites but if a body with an ancient liturgical tradition becomes Orthodox en masse then let the parish retain this usage.

Anastasios
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,124
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
41
George,

Are you saying that if a parish of people place themselves under an Orthodox bishop, they should be made to conform to the liturgical norms of the bishop that they are under, even if their own liturgics are perfectly orthodox? I've been told that the practices of some parishes in this situation (e.g., former Carpatho Russians under Rome) have even more ancient practices than the Church under which they have placed themselves. So by what right do we make them chuck their liturgy and everything they've known for decades as individuals, and centuries as families, and force them to use liturgical practices alien to them?

I think you are seeing this from the wrong side of the issue. It's not about choice, it's about the exact opposite: it's about continuity. I don't think that people should have to make a choice in such situations. There should be no choice allowed. They should keep their liturgical practices, minus any small unorthodox deviations that crept in (e.g., kneeling on Sundays). Forcing someone to change to meet some subjectively perceived Orthodox standard would be the real scandal, not a bunch of Carpatho Russians (or whoever) using the same practices that their families have been using for centuries.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Jennifer said:
GiC, you're unsuitable for the priesthood because of your attitude, not because of your opinion about Western Orthodoxy. I suspect (and hope) that the reason you weren't ordained upon your graduation from seminary was that the 'powers that be' in the GOA know of your unsuitability for the priesthood. Regardless, I believe that your sojoun in Thessaloniki will do you much good.ÂÂ

BTW, I too am glad that I'm not your metropolitan. I wouldn't want to explain your 'prickly' personality to a parish.ÂÂ
Slightly more too it than that, like my graduating with an M.T.S. instead of an M.Div., but I'm sure that you wish to hear the details of my personal life just about as much as I like discussing them...I never claimed to be anything more than an academic (possibly a partial answer to your question Anastasios). And keep in mind, my style of debate is designed to provoke, it's just my style that I developed over the years; if someone is upset they are less likely to think rationally and more likely to make a rhetorical mistake that can be exploited; but as a lawyer, I'm sure you've spent much time studying and practicing this art, as it would probably be even more useful before an impressionably jury or passionate opposing lawyer than in an academic context.

Anastasios said:
GisC,

How many Western Rite people are you personally friends or acquaintances with, to the extent that you have realized that some people simply cannot get past the Byzantine Rite, but have an Orthodox faith, and their parish en masse converted to Orthodoxy, retained its liturgical rite, and thus brought in hundreds of people into Orthodoxy? It seems you are adept at theoretical argumentation but short on the pastoral implications.  To me, the several thousand Orthodox who are Orthodox because of the WR far outweighs the problem of having "reverse uniatism."

It seems to me uniatism is only wrong insofar as it is forced.  So if people want to be Eastern Rite Catholics or Western Rite Orthodox in 2005, who cares? It's their choice, and we shouldn't worry about them.

Anastasios
I do confess that, try as I might, I cannot possibly conceive of a reason for which it would be difficult to 'get past the Byzantine Rite,' it is the Universal Rite of our Church and an inseperable element of our Faith, if one is convinced of the Truth of the Orthodox Faith, why would they not also embrace the Tradition in which this truth was preserved? The Tradition of the west lead to heresy, as so many here are happy to point out, so why would we encourage a Liturgical Rite, which, as we can see from Historical Example, lead to Heresy?

Pastoral implications are exactly what I am taking into consideration. And they were exactly what Metropolitan Anthony took into Consideration when He instructed His Priests on how to deal with this unfortunate phenomena of the introduction of a foreign element into the Orthodox Church.

Concerning the Unia, I find the very existance of these Rites in the Latin Church to be insulting, and while you may disagree, most the leaders of the Orthodox Church have a similar view of t hem; Rome has introduced foreign elements into her communion for no reason beyond proselytizing, the 'Western Rite' is our version of this unfortunate and insulting institution. And as I said before, for reasons of Consistancy, I have little choice by to view the 'Western Rite' as nothing more than 'Orthodox Unia.'
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to to the Sarum Rite, provided we have an assurance that it is a complete pre-schism Liturgy and Office. If the Sarum Rite in use today is merely based on fragments of pre-schism texts with post-schism "gap fillers", I think it should be rejected. As should post schism trappings like "Our Lady of Grace", statues, etc. Otherwise, it's clearly just a "Catholic trap"- the Orthodox equivalent of the Unia. I can imagine that at the televised funeral of Patriarch Alexis (many years), beardless Bishops with mitres will be chanting the Requiem in latin, and the Catholics will be up in arms accusing us of "deception".
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Paradosis said:
Are you saying that if a parish of people place themselves under an Orthodox bishop, they should be made to conform to the liturgical norms of the bishop that they are under, even if their own liturgics are perfectly orthodox?
Absolutely. The Bishop is solely responsible for how the Liturgy is to be celebrated in his diocese. This is why the Bishop signs the Antimension, and can withdraw it.

Paradosis said:
I've been told that the practices of some parishes in this situation (e.g., former Carpatho Russians under Rome) have even more ancient practices than the Church under which they have placed themselves. So by what right do we make them chuck their liturgy and everything they've known for decades as individuals, and centuries as families, and force them to use liturgical practices alien to them?
What Bishop has made them "chuck their liturgy out"? As far as I know, they have retained it.

Paradosis said:
I think you are seeing this from the wrong side of the issue. It's not about choice, it's about the exact opposite: it's about continuity.
There is no continuity in the Sarum Rite. Not only was it a dead liturgy with no living tradition, we only have fragments of the original pre-schism rite.
 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
Slightly more too it than that, like my graduating with an M.T.S. instead of an M.Div., but I'm sure that you wish to hear the details of my personal life just about as much as I like discussing them...I never claimed to be anything more than an academic (possibly a partial answer to your question Anastasios). And keep in mind, my style of debate is designed to provoke, it's just my style that I developed over the years; if someone is upset they are less likely to think rationally and more likely to make a rhetorical mistake that can be exploited; but as a lawyer, I'm sure you've spent much time studying and practicing this art, as it would probably be even more useful before an impressionably jury or passionate opposing lawyer than in an academic context.
It's inappropriate for someone in your position to employ a debating style that is designed to provoke.  First, we are your fellow Christians, not someone to 'exploit' in a debate so you can 'win.'  Second, you're open about your affiliation with the GOA and that you are a graduate of Holy Cross.  When you come here, you represent the GOA, which you do a very poor job of, btw. 

This is an example of your current 'unsuitedness' for the priesthood.  A priest should not employ a particular 'debating style' with his parishioners or other Orthodox Christians.  The faith is not a debating society. 

BTW, this has nothing to do with your opinion of Western Orthodoxy.  Rather it has to do with your way of expressing your opinion of Western Orthodoxy.  Your underlying contempt for those who disagree with you is apparent. 

 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Paradosis said:
I think you are seeing this from the wrong side of the issue. It's not about choice, it's about the exact opposite: it's about continuity. I don't think that people should have to make a choice in such situations. There should be no choice allowed. They should keep their liturgical practices, minus any small unorthodox deviations that crept in (e.g., kneeling on Sundays). Forcing someone to change to meet some subjectively perceived Orthodox standard would be the real scandal, not a bunch of Carpatho Russians (or whoever) using the same practices that their families have been using for centuries.
And if the Entire Church of England or Latin Church were to enter into Communion with Orthodox they would be more than welcome to keep their Liturgical Customs, minus obviously heretical elements such as the filioque or the use of azymes. However, if a small handful of parishes, more likely than not for reasons of political disgust at their current communion, want to enter into the Orthodox Church, they should take upon themselves the Liturgical Customs of the Church towhich they submit themselves. If the inisitance that they use an Orthodox Liturgy is enough to prevent them from Entering the Communion of the Church, then how fully have they become Orthodox? Have they truly become Orthodox in anything more than name alone?
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Jennifer said:
This is an example of your current 'unsuitedness' for the priesthood. A priest should not employ a particular 'debating style' with his parishioners or other Orthodox Christians. The faith is not a debating society.ÂÂ
Last I checked, this is not a Parish, rather it is a forum for debate and discussion, this is an academic context, and I conduct myself accordingly. I dont debate in a parish setting, it serves no point and only causes damage; in an academic setting, however, it is the best and most healthy type of discourse.

Jennifer said:
BTW, this has nothing to do with your opinion of Western Orthodoxy. Rather it has to do with your way of expressing your opinion of Western Orthodoxy. Your underlying contempt for those who disagree with you is apparent.
Actually I am quite tolerant of disagreement, perhaps you could ask SonofAslan about that, despite the fact that he disagrees with nearly every one of my ideas about Hellenism and the Church, and we have debated the issue for endless hours, I'm quite confident that even he'll give that to me. I think you confuse two things with a contempt for those who disagree with me. First of all, while I do have a contempt for the absurd, I do believe that you confuse my stylistic preference for reductio ad absurdum with contempt. Reducing someone's argument to absurdity, inorder that it may be dismissed as absurd, is not a demonstration of contempt for a person, but rather an effective style of debate that both sides should appreciate, allowing everyone to see the argument in a different light.
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,555
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
For the record it is both a place for academic discussion and for community interaction.  But even if it were purely academic, you don't have an excuse to be rude.  I find academics who are deliberately haughty to be quite boring and overlooking of the broader picture.

Anastasios
 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
Last I checked, this is not a Parish, rather it is a forum for debate and discussion, this is an academic context, and I conduct myself accordingly. I dont debate in a parish setting, it serves no point and only causes damage; in an academic setting, however, it is the best and most healthy type of discourse.
Yes, but like it or not, you're not an "ordinary" poster here.  You have 'outed' yourself as a seminarian so you're held to a higher standard.  Furthermore, while this is not a parish setting, it is not an academic setting either.  It has elements of both. 

Actually I am quite tolerant of disagreement, perhaps you could ask SonofAslan about that, despite the fact that he disagrees with nearly every one of my ideas about Hellenism and the Church, and we have debated the issue for endless hours, I'm quite confident that even he'll give that to me. I think you confuse two things with a contempt for those who disagree with me. First of all, while I do have a contempt for the absurd, I do believe that you confuse my stylistic preference for reductio ad absurdum with contempt. Reducing someone's argument to absurdity, inorder that it may be dismissed as absurd, is not a demonstration of contempt for a person, but rather an effective style of debate that both sides should appreciate, allowing everyone to see the argument in a different light.
You have a very offensive way of expressing yourself and I believe it to symptomatic of disdain for others.  If you had respect for people with you, you wouldn't write the way you do here.  I'm reminded of your comment about how people who believe that all women should cover their heads in church would be happier as Muslims.  That was an absurd statement and extremely insulting to all traditional Christians.  And, btw, to clarify, I know the comment was not personally directed at me.  But it was offensive because it demonstrated a disdain for traditional Christians.  I'm also reminded of your assertions that those in the GOA who want a vernacular liturgy hate their ethnicity.  Now you 'rush in' to assume you know why Western Orthodox became Orthodox.  You minimize their reasons for becoming Orthodox to being "political disgust."  You can't even give them the benefit of the doubt.  Then you go on to question their Orthodoxy.  It's very obvious that you have a real contempt for these people. 

 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And keep in mind, my style of debate is designed to provoke, it's just my style that I developed over the years;
Where I come from, that style of debate is called being a jerk, and if someone persisted in it, they would like as not be taken out back by a coupla good old fellas and had their ass quietly kicked. I hope you're not this much of an asshole in real life, cos if you were, you might find yourself in an unpleasant situation one of these days.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Jennifer,
Don't judge what is in GiC's heart too harshly. Both a man and woman's heart is "an ocean of secrets" (cf: Titanic )
I think you and GiC are the ying and yang of OCnet.
With a bit of luck, you may both be single..... ;)
"Presbytera Jennifer" has a nice ring, and God knows someone has to keep GiC in line! :D
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Jennifer said:
I'm reminded of your comment about how people who believe that all women should cover their heads in church would be happier as Muslims. That was an absurd statement and extremely insulting to all traditional Christians. And, btw, to clarify, I know the comment was not personally directed at me. But it was offensive because it demonstrated a disdain for traditional Christians.
That I freely admit included contempt, not so much for the people who believed it (well, perhaps for the Church leaders who insist on it, but not the laity), but rather for the absurdness and legalistic nature of the concept. That I would classify as my 'contempt for the absurd' previously mentioned.

I'm also reminded of your assertions that those in the GOA who want a vernacular liturgy hate their ethnicity.
That was not contempt, I know people like this, some of whom I quite like, but it was a statement from experience and observation (though it should be noted that you're misquoting me, I refered to those who fairly radically opposed the use of their Ethnic Language, and insisted on 'English-Only,' not those who were merely favourable towards such a change).

Now you 'rush in' to assume you know why Western Orthodox became Orthodox. You minimize their reasons for becoming Orthodox to being "political disgust." You can't even give them the benefit of the doubt. Then you go on to question their Orthodoxy. It's very obvious that you have a real contempt for these people.ÂÂ
Actually I believe I asked a quite legitimate question. If someone is unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy if they must accept the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church, can they be said to have truly Converted? Ultimately, how strong is their conviction of the truth of the Orthodox Church?
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Tradition of the west lead to heresy, as so many here are happy to point out, so why would we encourage a Liturgical Rite, which, as we can see from Historical Example, lead to Heresy?
The Byzantine rite alone is far from sufficient to guard against heresy; your patriarchate is living proof of that.

If someone is unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy if they must accept the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church, can they be said to have truly Converted? Ultimately, how strong is their conviction of the truth of the Orthodox Church?
If some are unwilling to accept those who believe in the Orthodox faith fully but still wish to maintain their own ancient and venerable and orthodox traditions, can they be said to be truly Orthodox, or have they made an idol out of a particular rite and culture?
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,124
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
41
This is getting old. Debate for the sake of debate, or for whatever academic reason, is not even Christian.

It is not Scriptural. It is certainly not patristic. Some reading...

St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 27
St. John Chrysostom, Treatise on the Priesthood, 5
St. John Chrysostom, Homily 30 on Acts
Bl. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 4

Bl. Augustine put it well: "To strive about words is not to be careful about the way to overcome error by truth, but to be anxious that your mode of expression should be preferred to that of another. The man who does not strive about words, whether he speak quietly, temperately or vehemently, uses words with no other purpose than to make the truth plain, pleasing, and effective; for not even love itself, which is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling of the law, can be rightly exercised unless the objects of love are true and not false...To speak eloquently, then, and wisely as well, is just to express truths which it is expedient to teach in fit and proper words, words which in the subdued style are adequate, in the temperate, elegant, and in the majestic, forcible. But the man who cannot speak both eloquently and wisely should speak wisely without eloquence, rather than eloquently without wisdom."

To put the last sentence into modern lingo, if you can't articulate truth in a sophisticated manner, then you should speak simply but truthfully; rather than trying to win debates by much talking, while losing the spirit of the truth somewhere along the way.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
yBeayf said:
If some are unwilling to accept those who believe in the Orthodox faith fully but still wish to maintain their own ancient and venerable and orthodox traditions, can they be said to be truly Orthodox, or have they made an idol out of a particular rite and culture?
Or perhaps they simply want to see the Ancient and Venerable Liturgy of the Orthodox be preserved from Foreign Elements derived from the less than venerable liturgies of western heretics. My ancestors were Germans and Scotts-Irish, the vast majority of whom were protestant by the end middle of the 16th century, in short, they were heretics, why would I possibly wish to maintain their liturgical customs? If I wanted to do that I would have remained in the German Reformed Church, instead I became Orthodox and took upon myself the Customs of the Orthodox, rather than trying to force the customs of my Heretical ancestors on the Orthodox.

Paradosis,
I would love to just speak the truth simply, 'The Western Rite intorduces a Liturgical Rite that is foreign to the Body of Christ, and is inconsonant with the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox.' However, this forum, like most forums, require more than a simple statement of truth, it also requires a defence thereof. But in those polemics one can often see arguments in different manners, that he can either become convicted of the truth of the opposistion, or become more convicted of the truth of his argument and let his faith be strengthened, in either case truth is advanced.
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My ancestors were Germans and Scotts-Irish, the vast majority of whom were protestant by the end middle of the 16th century, in short, they were heretics, why would I possibly wish to maintain their liturgical customs?
Fsck if I know. Just because you cannot understand why some people may be attached to a liturgy that is just as venerable and orthodox as the Byzantine rite, doesn't mean that attachment isn't valid and shouldn't be accomodated by the Church.

I would love to just speak the truth simply, 'The Western Rite intorduces a Liturgical Rite that is foreign to the Body of Christ, and is inconsonant with the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox.' However, this forum, like most forums, require more than a simple statement of truth, it also requires a defence thereof.
So please, defend this statement of "truth". With, you know, actual argumentation, not just handwaving and rhetorical wankery.

Postscript: bobby (big bird, jim beam), if you could somehow hack this board so that it automatically modified GiC's writing to adhere to sane capitalization rules, I would love you forever and ever and give you much alcohol.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
yBeayf said:
So please, defend this statement of "truth". With, you know, actual argumentation, not just handwaving and rhetorical wankery.
But if you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have. It is simply that people seem to prefer to criticize my rhetorical style instead of the meat of my argument.
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
But if you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have.
No you haven't. You've simply made an assertion, and when called on it, essentially said you were right because you were right. If you disagree with this characterization and wish to point out where you've made an actual argument in this thread against the validity of the western rites, please do so.

It is simply that people seem to prefer to criticize my rhetorical style instead of the meat of my argument.
Your argument has no substance. You don't even have an argument. You just say "the western rite is foreign to the Church, therefore it's bad" without offering a shred of evidence showing that this is so. This is not a meaty argument; it is a stick-thin, animal-rights-protesting, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, 100% vegan argument.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
yBeayf said:
No you haven't. You've simply made an assertion, and when called on it, essentially said you were right because you were right. If you disagree with this characterization and wish to point out where you've made an actual argument in this thread against the validity of the western rites, please do so.
I have not pretended to argue against the 'validity' of the Western Rites, only against their appropriateness. I have only argued that they are liturgically foreign and inconsonant with the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church, that they are, at best, pastorally problematic, and that they are nothing more than 'Orthodox Unia.' Ah, yes, and I asked the question, if one is unwilling to Convert to Orthodox on account of our Liturgical Traditions, how convicted of the Truth of Orthodoxy can they truly be? Which, while yet unanswered, seems to me to be a very fair and legitimate question that is most relevant to the discussion at hand.
 

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have only argued that they are liturgically foreign and inconsonant with the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church, that they are, at best, pastorally problematic, and that they are nothing more than 'Orthodox Unia.'
They are liturgically foregin to the East: is that a bad thing? The old Roman rite is basically the same as it was in 600 AD unless you can point out some parts that are unacceptable (filioque, of course, but besides that). The West and the East had different liturgies, it was a part of Christianity until the schism.
 
Top