Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
yBeayf said:
It survived without substantive change, as is obvious by even a cursory examination of manuscripts. Unless you think the Last Gospel or the arrangement of psalms in the divine office are faith-altering modifications...

It is correct British English to use "an historical".
Yes, you would be correct, I realized that just as I posted, and you posted before I could modify my post.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
Silouan said:
I'm not opposed to the idea of letting people use ancient western liturgies as an ecomny - I just think the current practice of it needs to be shaped up a little bit.ÂÂ
Nothing to diagree with here.  I've never been to one myself, but don't see what the hubub about bashing it is.  A Saint approved it, current Bishops support it, doesn't matter if I don't really like it, 'nuff said.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
I'm not too terribly fond of those either, and while I think such things as Choirs and Organs should be removed from the Churches, they are not a liturgical abuse on the scale of using a completely foreign rite.
Ahem...choirs and Organs are vastly different and you know it.  Just because you may prefer a couple of Psaltis, doesn't invalidate a choir.  Organs are not people and thus don't fly period. 
 

Friarmoo32

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
greekischristian said:
That the Tridintine Mass is derived from a Pre-Schism Liturgy I have no doubt, that it survived the middle ages without change or evolution, that I seriously doubt and would be interested in evidence to support such a statement. But that was not even what I was referring to in my statement, I was referring to what I believe is called the 'Liturgy of St. Tikhon,' which is composed largely of prayers from the Book of Common Prayer.
OK first of all, I never said that the Tridintine Mass didn't under go change in the Middle Ages, thats common knowledge that it did!  As a matter of fact the whole point of it being codified was to say no more changed could happen..thus many changes occurred up until that time. (And YES there were other reasons too before I get nailed for that)  The majority of it was pre-schism though.

greekischristian said:
No, but I have been to Tridentine High Masses and the Masses of the Anglo-Catholics, and while they may be beautiful services (Especially the Latin Tridentine High Mass), they are not part of the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition, and are Foreign to our Church.
In that case I REALLY don't understand why you talk down the Western Rite by referring to the Vestments as "costumes" if you found it so beautiful.  True, they are not part of the Orthodox Tradition, if you think of it as the Orthodox church came to be in 1054 but I thought the Orthodox Church has been here since the Resurrection of Christ?  So actually the Western Rite IS Orthodox but hasn't been seen for centuries, hence IS apart of Liturgical Tradition I would say.  But of course, you would have to remove all the post-schism stuff, but that does not at all in any way shape or form say that the Western Rite is not Orthodox.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Friarmoo32 said:
In that case I REALLY don't understand why you talk down the Western Rite by referring to the Vestments as "costumes" if you found it so beautiful.
For the same reason I would call a uniate priest's vestments a 'costume,' they may be Holy Vestments of the Priesthood when worn by Orthodox Priests, but when worn by the Unia they are nothing more than constume, inorder that the Liturgy of the Orthodox, with whom they are divorced, may be preformed like the theater.

True, they are not part of the Orthodox Tradition, if you think of it as the Orthodox church came to be in 1054 but I thought the Orthodox Church has been here since the Resurrection of Christ? So actually the Western Rite IS Orthodox but hasn't been seen for centuries, hence IS apart of Liturgical Tradition I would say. But of course, you would have to remove all the post-schism stuff, but that does not at all in any way shape or form say that the Western Rite is not Orthodox.
And there are many ancient Eastern Liturgies that have fallen into disuse (such as the Cathedral Rites that were replaced by the Monastic Rites), and it would be equally inappropriate to try and resurrect them. The fact that we did something at one point in our History does not mean it is acceptable to reinvent it. Take the agape meal for instance, once a standard part of the Liturgical life of the Church, today it is forbidden by canon. Whether or not a 'western rite' once existed in the Church (and the ones that did are Not the same ones the so-called western rite uses today, rather they use latinized or even protestantized versions thereof) is not so much the point as the fact that a 'Western Rite' is not part of the Living Tradition of the Church, it is rather something forced that was artifically resurrected a few decades ago.

Elisha said:
Ahem...choirs and Organs are vastly different and you know it. Just because you may prefer a couple of Psaltis, doesn't invalidate a choir. Organs are not people and thus don't fly period.
The Choir, like the Organ, amongst the Greek Orthodox Church at least, was a foreign concept that was introduced into the Church here in America.
 

josh

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
GiC,

Let's try and remain a bit more civil here. Referring to the Eastern Rite's vestments as "costumes" for theatrical purposes is, in my opinion, unnecessary, and getting pretty close to stepping outside the bounds of common civility which we try to maintain here.

Still a section Mod,
Me.

P.S. I visited the Phanar a couple of weeks ago. Kind of depressing way up on a hill with no one but a couple of tourists and security guards around. Not to mention the Turkish flag flying high atop.
 

chris

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
7,253
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
57
Bogoliubtsy said:
P.S. I visited the Phanar a couple of weeks ago. Kind of depressing way up on a hill with no one but a couple of tourists and security guards around. Not to mention the Turkish flag flying high atop.
Could I have explained to me why this 'observation' of how one of the great figures of the Orthodox church is currently being denigrated by a foreign power is combined with an admonition to avoid taunting?
 

josh

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
I wasn't taunting. I was describing what I saw and how it was really depressing.
 

chris

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
7,253
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
57
Oh, it was my misunderstanding then.

See, we all know many people get on GiC's case regarding his devotion to the 'Oecumenical Patriarch', who of course resides in the Phanar.

Your mention of the Phanar in the way described could have been read as indicating that this place really wasn't as important as GiC makes it out to be.

Especially when combined with a lack of emoticons or other indication that you felt sorrow over the plight of the Patriarch had me wondering just what was going on.

 

josh

Archon
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Serbia
Understood!
I have probably commented negatively here on the EP, or maybe it was just a critique of the modern EP by St. John of San Francisco that I posted. Either way, with the hits that the EP has been known to take here and on some other Orthodox forums, it's no wonder you thought I was being a jerk.  ;)
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
greekischristian said:
For the same reason I would call a uniate priest's vestments a 'costume,' they may be Holy Vestments of the Priesthood when worn by Orthodox Priests, but when worn by the Unia they are nothing more than constume, inorder that the Liturgy of the Orthodox, with whom they are divorced, may be preformed like the theater.
OK, that's it. If "Monophysite" is bad, this is worse. Saying that other people are just pretending to do the liturgy is, to me, at the top of the list of slanders that gets tossed out by Ortho-partisans. Call it false religion if you must, but implying that it is deliberate pretense is malicious. I know that you know better than that. It's about time the moderators starting quashing people who say things like this.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
I'm really getting tired of seeing GiC's words twisted on this forum to mean anything other than what he intended.
I don't agree with some of his views, and have said so.
Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.
And why bring up the race/ethnicity card? GiC certainly didn't. He made a valid point about a foreign concept, and you reply with the concept of "foreigners" in your country.
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.
But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass. This is an astoundingly disrespectful way to speak of the mysteries and the liturgy of the Church. If he doesn't believe that WR liturgies are true liturgies, and that the mysteries are not present in them, then he should have the courage of his convictions to say it, rather than making insulting comments about liturgies of the Church.
 

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
  I did go back and read what GiC said.  He called the vestments that my ORTHODOX priest wears costumes.  :-[  Well GiC, my priest has devoted his life to this wearing of "costumes."  The things I want to say to you right now are so unChristian.  Well, GiC, if it bothers you so much, maybe you should joing the True Orthodox Church?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
yBeayf said:
But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass.
No he didn't. Nowhere did he question whether they were valid Mysteries. This is the kind of word twisting I'm talking about!
What he said was that the Western Rite is a Liturgical reform which surpasses even the Novus Ordo of Vatican II- and should not have taken place. The Novus Ordo was at least based on an existing Liturgy which was in use. That was his point.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Keble said:
OK, that's it. If "Monophysite" is bad, this is worse. Saying that other people are just pretending to do the liturgy is, to me, at the top of the list of slanders that gets tossed out by Ortho-partisans. Call it false religion if you must, but implying that it is deliberate pretense is malicious. I know that you know better than that. It's about time the moderators starting quashing people who say things like this.
How soon people forget the other threads that go on here when convenient. Remember I'm the one who is condemned as the 'Ecumenist' and as a supporter of the 'Ecumenist Patriarch,' I'm probably one of only a small handful of Orthodox here who would argue for the Validity of the Latin Eucharist, and yes, this would Include the Liturgy of the Unia. But with that said, their Liturgy is still Play-Acting, it is pretending to be of a Tradition from which they are Divorced, they are people subject to a Western Patriarch pretending to be part of the Eastern Church. Same goes for the Western Rite, sure the Eucharist is valid, but they're still play-acting, pretending to be part of a Tradition they are divorced from.

"Foreign?" What could be more foreign in America than Greek Orthodoxy? Sheeeeeeesh.
Exactly my point, America and Greek Orthodoxy are Foreign to each other, and thus to avoid foreign influence, the Orthodox Church should avoid American influence.

ozgeorge said:
I'm really getting tired of seeing GiC's words twisted on this forum to mean anything other than what he intended.
I don't agree with some of his views, and have said so.
Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.
And why bring up the race/ethnicity card? GiC certainly didn't. He made a valid point about a foreign concept, and you reply with the concept of "foreigners" in your country.
THANK YOU!

yBeayf said:
But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass. This is an astoundingly disrespectful way to speak of the mysteries and the liturgy of the Church. If he doesn't believe that WR liturgies are true liturgies, and that the mysteries are not present in them, then he should have the courage of his convictions to say it, rather than making insulting comments about liturgies of the Church.
Clown masses are a mockery of tradition, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are invalid; same goes for the Western Rite.
 

Friarmoo32

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
ozgeorge said:
The Novus Ordo was at least based on an existing Liturgy which was in use. That was his point.
Really?  I was unaware of this.  I had heard that the Eucharistic Canons were previous ones in the early church of the West but I was unaware the rest was based on an existing Liturgy.  That's interesting ozgeorge, I had always thought Paul VI practically made it up himself! :D  What Liturgy is the Novus Ordo taken from?
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Friarmoo32 said:
Really? I was unaware of this. I had heard that the Eucharistic Canons were previous ones in the early church of the West but I was unaware the rest was based on an existing Liturgy. That's interesting ozgeorge, I had always thought Paul VI practically made it up himself! :D What Liturgy is the Novus Ordo taken from?
Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
ozgeorge said:
Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.
Uniate churches appear Eastern because they are. To say that Eastern==Orthodox is to beg the question.
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
No he didn't. Nowhere did he question whether they were valid Mysteries. This is the kind of word twisting I'm talking about!
He implied it with this quote:

For the same reason I would call a uniate priest's vestments a 'costume,' they may be Holy Vestments of the Priesthood when worn by Orthodox Priests, but when worn by the Unia they are nothing more than constume, inorder that the Liturgy of the Orthodox, with whom they are divorced, may be preformed like the theater.
I see now that he has clarified that he believes the mysteries do exist in western liturgies, which makes his insulting comments about "costumes" and "play-acting" all the worse. He is talking about Orthodox priests serving at the altar of God at the most holy Divine Liturgy! Even if one thinks it pastorally unwise to continue using the WR, it is still unacceptable to refer to the mysteries as "play acting" and the vesments as "costumes".
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.
Incorrect. Even ignoring the issue of the anaphora, the Novus Ordo liturgy is a radical departure from the Tridentine. The entrance rites were cut down severely, the Kyrie abbreviated, another reading added, the gradual replaced by a responsorial psalm, the prayer before the Gospel cut down (in fact, pretty much all of the priest's silent prayers were eliminated or radically shortened), a litany added after the creed, the offertory prayers completely removed and replaced by two short blessings, the Mysterium Fidei removed from the words of institution and made into a responsorial, the last Gospel removed...

You can see a comparison of the two missals here. It is obvious that much stuff other than the anaphora was removed or changed.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
The website refered to does not give a fair comparison as it omits many silent prayers still taken by the priest, such as the prayer brfore the Gospel.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.
You may find this article about the "development" of the "Eucharistic Prayers" interesting: http://www.adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,272
Reaction score
115
Points
63
Age
41
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.)
For me, there wouldn't be a doubt in my mind. Even if I wasn't allowed to take communion, I'd still go to the Orthodox Church. I think people get too hung up on liturgy, and seem to think that a right liturgy somehow magically transforms a non-Orthodox group into a group that is Orthodox (if only marginally). There are cafeteria Christianity people doing liturgies in their basement that are problably more perfectly executed than what you'd see in your normal parish. They have all the right clothes, they do all the right movements, they say all the right words. But that doesn't make them Eastern Orthodox. Now, I don't mean to compare Eastern Catholics to cafeteria Christians, I'm just bringing it up to show the extremes that one might go to if one buys into the orthodox liturgy = orthodox group mindset. Every person in an Eastern Catholic parish might be more pious than me, might be more liturgically knowledgable than me, might even do everything perfectly and according to traditional custom. But if they are under the Pope of Rome, then they are not Orthodox and I would not attend their parish (as an active, ongoing member).
 

Thomas

Archon
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
69
Location
Temple, Texas
Beloved in the Lord,

Both Metropolitan Philip and Bishop Basil, Antiochian  hierarchs who have the responsibilities fro Western Rite parishes have gone on record noting that a man is ordained an Orthodox Priest and not a western rite or byzantine rite priest. They both make the clear point that a man is called to the PRIESTHOOD by Christ and ordained a PRIEST by the Bishop.  What makes them Orthodox is not their "Rite" but rather the beliefs they hold and their communion with other Orthodox Bishops. On this forum, I frequently read  that we all hope that the Latin/Roman catholic Church will repent of its false doctrine and return to the Orthodox Church Teachings and communion with the Orthodox Christian Church. It seems that the bishops who administer the western rite parishes understand this, is it possible that there are Laity members who forget that it is not "rite" that makes one orthodox but rather beliefs and doctrine---otherwise we could be Eastern Rite Catholics and still be in the Orthodox Church. Let us honor and support the return to Orthodox Beliefs that our Western Rite parishes have embraced and greet them as the prodigal son was greeted---with joy and celebration!

In Christ,
Thomas
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
I don't have time now to really deal with this, but I still find it remarkable that, having gotten the correct answer to the question out in like the first three posts, we now have this rambling "right rite" thread.

Or maybe I should just find it depressingly familiar. The root problem with these sorts of discussions is this: if rites have an objective, intrinsic validity, then the major differences between Western and Eastern rites are immaterial to their validity, because these differences tend not to be found in older rites. If the rite of the Diddache is valid, then we need not trouble ourselves with this nitpicks.

Validity of rite is far more often about the authority of those who approve it-- which isn't wrong, either, but it's also patently not intrinsic.
 

Friarmoo32

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Well the Tridintine Rite Mass and Pauline Rite Mass are COMPLETELY different. The Eucharistic Prayer I is only based off the Traditional Canon, and even then cut down A LOT. As someone else pointed out, all the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone, much of the penitential rites are deleted, it's a different Mass. A what used to be Pontifical Mass (Bishop or higher), is pretty much the same as any other mass...I've seen some where there was absolutely no difference at all. I for a long time wanted to become a priest in the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) which is a Traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity, but I found the priesthood is not for me. So it's so unfortunate that the "Mass" promulgated by Paul VI and the Mass of the Tridintine Rite under Pius IV (or V, not sure) are so different and one you can tell has parts of Ancient Rites while the other...well....
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
The Choir, like the Organ, amongst the Greek Orthodox Church at least, was a foreign concept that was introduced into the Church here in America.
Irrelevant.  Choirs are a different version of a capella, while organs are fundamentally different (canonical violation?).  If "foreign concept" and "introduced...in America" are problems, then you and all other non-ethnic Greeks should leave the GOA...as well as forcing all parishes to only use Greek (even if no one speaks any) and force all remaining ethnic Greeks to learn it. 
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The website refered to does not give a fair comparison as it omits many silent prayers still taken by the priest, such as the prayer brfore the Gospel.
You are, of course, correct. I should have looked at that more closely before I posted it.

Here is the text of the 1970 missal, in (as far as I can tell) full. From the same site, here is the 1962 missal. Unfortunately they're not laid out side by side, but you can still compare the two.
 

Veniamin

Archon
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
I'm sure one of our Serbian brethren will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Slava originally a pagan custom that the Church baptized, replacing all the pagan influences with Orthodox ones?  If so, that sounds just like a "foreign concept" to me, albeit one introduced in Serbia rather than America.  Yet there's no problem with that.  Maybe I missed the council that decided it, but when exactly was the cutoff date for "foreign concepts" to be baptized into Orthodoxy?  And if a pagan celebration can be redeemed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit, why not a liturgy used by heterodox Christians?  Seriously, could someone explain to me why one's okay and the other isn't?  If we're against introducing "foreign concepts," why do we use the Cross so much?  Come on, we all know that was a Roman invention, not something the Church came up with.  That seems like the chief of "foreign concepts" baptized by the Church!

Let's call GiC's argument what it is, another expression of contempt, if not outright hatred, for anything not directly tied to the Greek church, as evidenced by the backhanded insult directed at the Slavic tradition of choirs.  I really want to read the argument for why Greek culture is the only one the Holy Spirit could baptize and why all others aren't really Orthodox.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Friarmoo32 said:
Well the Tridintine Rite Mass and Pauline Rite Mass are COMPLETELY different. The Eucharistic Prayer I is only based off the Traditional Canon, and even then cut down A LOT. As someone else pointed out, all the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone, much of the penitential rites are deleted, it's a different Mass. A what used to be Pontifical Mass (Bishop or higher), is pretty much the same as any other mass...I've seen some where there was absolutely no difference at all. I for a long time wanted to become a priest in the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) which is a Traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity, but I found the priesthood is not for me. So it's so unfortunate that the "Mass" promulgated by Paul VI and the Mass of the Tridintine Rite under Pius IV (or V, not sure) are so different and one you can tell has parts of Ancient Rites while the other...well....
But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.

Elisha said:
Irrelevant. Choirs are a different version of a capella, while organs are fundamentally different (canonical violation?).
I want to say that I remember a patristic canon forbiding the use of devices to amplify the voice during Chanting, but I dont know that I've come accross one against using musical insturments, though I've come accross fathers speaking against their use in Church. I dont know that either Choirs or Organs are uncanonical.

If "foreign concept" and "introduced...in America" are problems, then you and all other non-ethnic Greeks should leave the GOA...as well as forcing all parishes to only use Greek (even if no one speaks any) and force all remaining ethnic Greeks to learn it.
Last I checked I wasn't a concept, though some here may view me as such...lol. But with that said, while I certainly understand the concern of having Converts in the Church, we all come with our baggage, I think you're trying to twist what I'm saying. Nothing inherently wrong with Converts to the Faith, but we should leave our heritage, culture, and other baggage behind and conform ourselves to the Church, rather than expect the Church to conform to us.

Veniamin said:
I'm sure one of our Serbian brethren will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Slava originally a pagan custom that the Church baptized, replacing all the pagan influences with Orthodox ones? If so, that sounds just like a "foreign concept" to me, albeit one introduced in Serbia rather than America.
I am not certain as to the origin of Slava, but it's hardly a practice comprable to radically altering the entire Liturgical Tradition of the Church. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Serbians do use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom instead of the religious ceremonies they used before their people Converting to Orthodoxy? Now something the 'western rite' could do comprable to the Serbian practice of Slava, provided it is of pagan origin, would be to use the Typika of the Orthodox Churches, while still saying the rosary at home as a private devotion, or perhaps naming their Church after St. Patrick or St. Leo the Great or St. Ambrose of Milan, while using the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church...this is comparing apples and apples, instead of apples and oranges like you are trying to.

Yet there's no problem with that. Maybe I missed the council that decided it, but when exactly was the cutoff date for "foreign concepts" to be baptized into Orthodoxy?
Slava is a good example of baptizing an a cultural Element and making it Orthodox, adopting all the customs of the Culture you are converting while destroying all the traditions of the Orthodox is a bad example; I mean that's comprable to having kept all the traditions and rites of the pagans, but when Zeus or Athena was supposed to me mentioned, we could simply cross it out and insert 'Christ' or 'Mary,' keeping all the same rites and practices. This is basically what we did with the western rite, we crossed out the filioque, threw a little yeast into the bread, changed the wording in a couple prayers, and there you go.

Let's call GiC's argument what it is, another expression of contempt, if not outright hatred, for anything not directly tied to the Greek church, as evidenced by the backhanded insult directed at the Slavic tradition of choirs. I really want to read the argument for why Greek culture is the only one the Holy Spirit could baptize and why all others aren't really Orthodox.
LOL, let's turn this debate about the western rite into a Greek vs. Slavic debate, sorry that doesn't work; the Slavic peoples accepted the Liturgical Rites of the Orthodox when the converted and incorporated them into their Culture, a true baptizing of Cultures, that's not what's being suggested with the so-called western rite, but rather what is demanded is a complete abrogation of the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox, so that it may be replaced with heterodox liturgical rites.

And, btw, my comment about Choirs refered to the Greek Churches, the Slavic Churches are free to maintain their Choirs, as they regard them as part of their Liturgical Customs (granted, it's western influence, but oh well)...however, in the Greek Church they are foreign innovations, generally only found in the diaspora, and should be done away with.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
And, btw, my comment about Choirs refered to the Greek Churches, the Slavic Churches are free to maintain their Choirs, as they regard them as part of their Liturgical Customs (granted, it's western influence, but oh well)...however, in the Greek Church they are foreign innovations, generally only found in the diaspora, and should be done away with.
1.  Choirs being "western influenced" - it depends how you define a "choir".  >1 solo chanter?  >1 chanter + a few isoners?  Znammeny is the oldest Russian chant, and you know what, it's original notation is that same as the original Byzantine.  Should we throw out any Byzantine with western notation?  Any type of polyphony constitutes a choir?  Btw, my priest is probably one of the more qualified people in the USA Orthodox world - even though he is in the OCA and 100% Carpatho-Russian, and he says that there is actually no (known) historical proof of an ison existing - it is more recent than most think.

2.  Got news for you buddy - as we've told you before, the diaspora IS the flock of the Church of Constantinople.  You don't have much of local flock.  Whether you like it or not, choirs have become part of your tradition.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Elisha said:
2. Got news for you buddy - as we've told you before, the diaspora IS the flock of the Church of Constantinople. You don't have much of local flock. Whether you like it or not, choirs have become part of your tradition.
The New Territories as well as the Church of Crete also fall under the Oecumenial Throne. I wouldn't say that Choirs (by which everyone knows what I mean, regardless of how they try to redefine it, trying to equate two psaltes to a Choir) have become part of our tradition, they are just a relatively popular perversion of the Tradition of the Great Church, hopefully we can eliminate them, it will take time to eliminate all the episcopalian influences on the Church in America, but it is far from impossible.

P.S. Why would we use Byzantine music with Western notation when it's all readily available in Byzantine notation?
 

SouthSerb99

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
630
Location
New York
Website
www.savekosovo.org
I'm hardly an expert on the subject, so I won't puport to act as one, I'll offer a couple of comments though.

About Slava I've heard the "pagan" past story before and I've even read some literature on it, however, I've discussed it both with my parish priest and Bishop, and both insist it does not have pagan roots.  Not entirely sure to be honest.

As for the issue of Choir... I am a Slavic Serb and my grandfather happened to be one of the founders of the first Serbian Orthodox Church in Canada.  I can tell you that when the Church opened it was sans choir, but the choir came as the parish evolved.

I say this because it is kind of consistent with what GiC is saying.  Not that I necessarily agree that a choir is a bad thing, but I do think (at least as far as this particular parish is concerned), it was something that developed from being in the west.  My father insists they had choirs "back home", although my grandfather disputed this consistently. 
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
The New Territories as well as the Church of Crete also fall under the Oecumenial Throne. I wouldn't say that Choirs (by which everyone knows what I mean, regardless of how they try to redefine it, trying to equate two psaltes to a Choir) have become part of our tradition, they are just a relatively popular perversion of the Tradition of the Great Church, hopefully we can eliminate them, it will take time to eliminate all the episcopalian influences on the Church in America, but it is far from impossible.
Sorry, but this is just utter and complete denial.

greekischristian said:
P.S. Why would we use Byzantine music with Western notation when it's all readily available in Byzantine notation?
Because you can probably count on your hands the number of Psaltis in the "new territories" and "diaspora" who can actually read it.
 

Friarmoo32

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
greekischristian said:
But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.
That is your own personal opinion and my own, as a Catholic, the Eastern and Western Rites are completely differnet but the Pre-Vatican II Mass and Post-Vatican II Mass are NOT 'infinetly close together' by any means.  Even the words of consecration are changed, along with almost everything else.  Also, your statement would only be true if the Orthodox Bishops tore out the Eastern style type of church and made it Western, otherwise there is no liturgical reform in your church.  Catholicism was affected world wide, and there was no choice for anyone who wasn't Pope.  Your talking about the SAME church but different Rites.  Many of us "Latins" know the Eastern Rite and Western Rite are very different, but we also know the Novus Ordo is not anywhere near close to Tridintine Rite.
 
Top