Are Eastern Catholics to look to the Eastern Orthodox for patristic guidance?

[Thepeug]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Taking into account the original decrees of union, the documents of Vatican II, and papal exhortations on the matter (minus Cum Data Fuerit and Ea Semper, of course), it seems pretty clear to me that we are called to be as Orthodox as possible–with a few caveats. Since one of our primary vocations as eastern Catholics is to build bridges both with our Orthodox brethren, we are called to be identical to the Orthodox liturgically, theologically, and spiritually, with two exceptions: 1) We must accept the legitimacy and beauty of Western traditions, and 2) We must accept the real primatial authority of the Pope of Rome. Dogmas such as the IC, the Assumption, and papal infallibility can be appreciated through an eastern lens. To adopt wholesale western theological paradigms is lazy; to reject them because they are not eastern is to un-Catholic.

In my opinion, however, the above applies to public worship only. Who’s to say that an eastern Catholic cannot enjoy the vast spiritual benefits of the Rosary in his private spiritual life? Conversely, a Roman Catholic should certainly be permitted to employ the Jesus Prayer if it furthers his own journey toward theosis (or the Beatific Vision ).

God bless,

Chris

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Taking into account the original decrees of union, the documents of Vatican II, and papal exhortations on the matter (minus Cum Data Fuerit and Ea Semper, of course), it seems pretty clear to me that we are called to be as Orthodox as possible–with a few caveats. Since one of our primary vocations as eastern Catholics is to build bridges both with our Orthodox brethren, we are called to be identical to the Orthodox liturgically, theologically, and spiritually, with two exceptions: 1) We must accept the legitimacy and beauty of Western traditions, and 2) We must accept the real primatial authority of the Pope of Rome. Dogmas such as the IC, the Assumption, and papal infallibility can be appreciated through an eastern lens. To adopt wholesale western theological paradigms is lazy; to reject them because they are not eastern is to un-Catholic.

In my opinion, however, the above applies to public worship only. Who’s to say that an eastern Catholic cannot enjoy the vast spiritual benefits of the Rosary in his private spiritual life? Conversely, a Roman Catholic should certainly be permitted to employ the Jesus Prayer if it furthers his own journey toward theosis (or the Beatific Vision ).

God bless,

Chris

Aptly stated and fair across the board.

 

[Aramis]

Aptly stated and fair across the board.

Agreed.

Awesome way to put it Thepug.

 

[Ghosty]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Taking into account the original decrees of union, the documents of Vatican II, and papal exhortations on the matter (minus Cum Data Fuerit and Ea Semper, of course), it seems pretty clear to me that we are called to be as Orthodox as possible–with a few caveats. Since one of our primary vocations as eastern Catholics is to build bridges both with our Orthodox brethren, we are called to be identical to the Orthodox liturgically, theologically, and spiritually, with two exceptions: 1) We must accept the legitimacy and beauty of Western traditions, and 2) We must accept the real primatial authority of the Pope of Rome. Dogmas such as the IC, the Assumption, and papal infallibility can be appreciated through an eastern lens. To adopt wholesale western theological paradigms is lazy; to reject them because they are not eastern is to un-Catholic.

In my opinion, however, the above applies to public worship only. Who’s to say that an eastern Catholic cannot enjoy the vast spiritual benefits of the Rosary in his private spiritual life? Conversely, a Roman Catholic should certainly be permitted to employ the Jesus Prayer if it furthers his own journey toward theosis (or the Beatific Vision ).

God bless,

Chris

This pretty much sums up my thinking as well.

I was actually thinking of starting a thread similar to this, but without the polling aspect. The reason this issue interests and concerns me might be a bit different than why it concerns others, so I’ll put forward my perspective a bit.

When it comes to being Eastern Catholic, obviously the Eastern Orthodox (for the Byzantines) must be looked to because of the shared patrimony and tradition. This includes post-Schism theologians and councils, such as the Palamite Controversy, because even though it occurred outside of the Catholic Communion it thoroughly shaped the Byzantine Churches that later re-united with Rome. We need to look at this so we can cleanse ourselves of deforming Latinizations, and also so that we can strengthen our own identity ourselves.

What I disagree with, however, is the approach that some in recent times have taken in which modern Orthodox positions are adopted wholesale as being “authentically Eastern”, downplaying the non-Latinized aspects of Eastern Catholic traditions. To take the Melkite Church with which I’m heavily involved, for example, we have a very strong identity of our own and have since the Melkite Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church broke apart. We have a history that has developed along some different lines than the Antiochian Orthodox, and what’s more this hasn’t always been a bad thing or the result of “Latinization”. It’s important to remember that the Antiochian Orthodox Church came under very strong Greek domination during the same period that the Melkite Church was united with Rome (in fact it could be argued that the reason the Melkite Church exists is because of a choice of Roman Communion and influence over Greek Communion and influence). We can’t look at the Antiochian Orthodox Church today and say “they represent the fullness of our tradition, while we don’t”, because they are the result of a different line of development and Church-shaping events. It could just as easily be argued that the Melkite Church represents the direction the Antiochian Church “should have gone”.

Now, when I say this I’m not speaking of Latinizations and other such deformities of the tradition, but the more general things including the decisions of the first and second Vatican Councils. We are what we are, and what we are is NOT the same as the modern Eastern Orthodox; certain realities make this a necessary understanding, and even the attempt at Reunion with the Antiochian Orthodox by the Melkite Church acknowledged that not all these differences were completely settled yet. In my eyes, looking purely to the Eastern Orthodox to determine who we are and what we should be is just as lazy and dangerous as looking to the Latin Church; we may share a much more significant amount of tradition and patrimony with the Eastern Orthodox, but the bottom line is that we are NOT the Eastern Orthodox. Even if we use the term “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”, we must accept that the term makes us something other than Eastern Orthodox, and we should be willing to embrace ourselves and our history for what it is rather than constantly looking elsewhere for what our identity should be.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

To quote Sayedna Cyril, Bishop of the United States Melkites, in his review of Sayedna Zoghby’s book “Are we schismatics?”:

We support the position of His Excellency and we deduce from it that the Greek Orthodox, because of their refusal of communion with Rome, – regardless of the reasons for this refusal – do not represent the Eastern tradition but partially; because the complete Eastern tradition requires absolutely the communion with Rome, although in a special way as it was in the first millennium. On the other hand, the Greek Catholics, by keeping their union with the see of Rome, have kept a fundamental principle of Eastern tradition, especially the Antiochian tradition. However this principle has been exposed in its application to different things which deformed it, so that communion almost became absorption. Therefore, the Greek Catholics also do not represent the Eastern tradition but partially. Consequently, we can affirm that neither the Greek Orthodox nor the Greek Catholic represent fully the Eastern tradition, although both churches have kept it partially.

We must admit that neither side is “perfectly Eastern, perfectly Orthodox”, and must work towards a restoration of our Churches. This means looking at all sides without abandoning the core of who we are, and not forgetting that we have a special and profound place in the history of Apostolic Christianity. Healing won’t come from constantly looking outside (whether to the Latins or to the Eastern Orthodox) to determine who we are and what we should be; that is NOT the way of being “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[kitkatty]

Agreed.

Awesome way to put it Thepug.

Hi Peug, just wanted to add my agreement to that of Ghosty, Simple and Aramis, very well said!

 

[Thepeug]

we must accept that the term makes us something other than Eastern Orthodox, and we should be willing to embrace ourselves and our history for what it is rather than constantly looking elsewhere for what our identity should be.

Thanks, everyone! Considering the intellectual caliber of other posters on this forum, I am truly humbled.

And to the above quote, I must add an emphatic “Amen.” Fr. Thomas Loya often states that the “original sin” of eastern Catholics is an inferiority complex. This entrenched sense of inferiority leaves us constantly looking either to our Roman Catholic or to our Orthodox brethren for an identity, while our own unique life and heritage fall by the wayside. As Ghosty points out, we have more than enough blessings in our own household, treasures with which we can proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and witness to an extraordinarily rich portion of the universal Church.

God bless,

Chris

 

[dvdjs]

I also give kudos to Ghosty and Thepeug for their fine posts here.

However:

Fr. Thomas Loya often states that the “original sin” of eastern Catholics is an inferiority complex. This entrenched sense of inferiority leaves us constantly looking either to our Roman Catholic or to our Orthodox brethren for an identity, while our own unique life and heritage fall by the wayside.

As as BC of over half a century, I find this idea to be utterly alien. I can’t understand why Fr. Loya would often say it; and can’t understand why anyone thinks its worth repeating.

Our history is complex. It has been filled with a variety of conflicting impulses - from social and geopolitics of the old world to the pressures of the immigrant experience. These pressure have led to and some questionable paths. But inferiority complex? Haven’t seen it in my experience, and don’t understand what it might explain.

 

[Thepeug]

As as BC of over half a century, I find this idea to be utterly alien. I can’t understand why Fr. Loya would often say it; and can’t understand why anyone thinks its worth repeating.

Our history is complex. It has been filled with a variety of conflicting impulses - from social and geopolitics of the old world to the pressures of the immigrant experience. These pressure have led to and some questionable paths. But inferiority complex? Haven’t seen it in my experience, and don’t understand what it might explain.

Dvdjs,

First, I apologize for the late response. It’s been a busy weekend!

Anyways, while I can’t speak for Fr. Loya (who is himself a life-long Byzantine), the notion of an “inferiority complex” among eastern Catholics seems helpful, at least to me, because it both illumines the “questionable paths” that we have taken in years past (an illumination which serves to deter us from trodding those same paths again), and it demands that we embrace our unique identity and vocation within the Church, one that is neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholic.

The phenomenon of “Latinization” within the eastern Catholic churches stems, at least in part, from this inferiority complex. While the tendency towards a liturgical mimicking of our Roman Catholic brethren has numerous causes (not the least of which is an understandable desire among eastern Catholics to differentiate themselves from the Orthodox in countries where tensions between the two groups run high), this tendency has also arisen from attempts to prove one’s catholicity, especially when one is led to believe that “Catholic” equals “Roman.”

Such an equation is all too easily made, especially considering Roman Catholics’ ignorance (I do not mean this in a pejorative sense) of their eastern counterparts. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, the abuse suffered by eastern Catholics at the hands of certain Roman clergyman convinced some that the Byzantine way of doing things was somehow inferior to the Roman. Married clergy, especially, were regarded with extreme suspicion (ex: Cum Data Fuerit and Ea Semper). Even today, some ill-informed Latins will label the Melkites or Ruthenians as “schismatics” or “Greek Orthodox.”

Thus, eager to prove that eastern Catholics were indeed Catholics, in too many churches the altar rail replaced the iconostasis, icons were replaced by statues, “First Communion” was introduced. It should be noted that the penchant for Latinization has manifested itself differently in various eastern-rite Churches. The Maronite experience, for instance, is distinct from the Melkite. I am generalizing here and merely offering aspects of the Eastern European experience as an example.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who hold a rather extreme view of what it means to be fully “eastern.” For such individuals, the truly orthodox faith belongs only to, well, the Orthodox: the filioque is heretical, the dogmas of Councils 8-21 can be reduced to mere “theological opinions,” and Aquinas just got it plain wrong. While I have the utmost respect for such individuals, I obviously don’t agree with this perspective.

Please excuse any oversimplifications that I have undoubtedly made. I certainly do not claim to be an authoritative historian or theologian regarding any facet of the universal ecclesia. I simply believe that, while it’s important to look to our Roman Catholic and our Orthodox brethren for guidance, we must neither overlook nor discount ourselves in the process. We are neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholic; rather, we are eastern Catholics, called to live and witness to the beauty of eastern Christianity while proclaiming the fullness of the Catholic faith in humility and love.

God bless,

Chris

 

[dvdjs]

the notion of an “inferiority complex” among eastern Catholics seems helpful, at least to me, because it illumines the “questionable paths”…

The problem is that the viewpoint is a wee bit insulting, perhaps patronizing, and as I suggested above, false. I agree that there have been questionable paths that we want to avoid, but I think it is important to understand the history propoerly so as to avoid over-correction or other, new errors.

The phenomenon of “Latinization” within the eastern Catholic churches stems, at least in part, from this inferiority complex. … this tendency has also arisen from attempts to prove one’s catholicity, especially when one is led to believe that “Catholic” equals “Roman.”

Perhaps a Roman might think this, but I have never, ever heard such an idea, as their own, from Greek Catholics.

Such an equation is all too easily made, especially considering Roman Catholics’ ignorance … of their eastern counterparts. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, the abuse suffered by eastern Catholics at the hands of certain Roman clergyman convinced some that the Byzantine way of doing things was somehow inferior to the Roman. … Thus, eager to prove that eastern Catholics were indeed Catholics, in too many churches the altar rail replaced the iconostasis, icons were replaced by statues…

There is a problem here. You are looking as though our history began in the US. The first question to ask, is how much what you consider to be influenced by our interactions with latin clergy in the US were actually imports from the old country (Zamosc ca. 1725!). Second, while I don’t doubt there was an educational outreach to the latins in the aftermath of all the problems of our early years here, the real impulse came later in the US, and was rooted in the immigrant experience.

Even (especially) apart from church, there was an enormity of things that American born Greek Catholics didn’t retain from their immigrant parents. The American-born wore different clothers, they pursued education and careers in a way not reviously permitted by circumstance, they didn’t make their own sauerkraut, or smoke their own kolbassi and ham, or raise their own chickens.

There was a clear sense of “old-fashioned”, and “old-country”. And a sense that American ways were superior: people didn’t immigrate because the old country was “heaven on earth”. There was an certain objective reality to this perspective; it was not a maladaptive complex. But now, in the usual way, subsequent generations have a more acute sense of what they are missing. Only a rare, admirable few manage to integrate their modern lives with the best of what we used to have, although many more are nostalgic for it.

And all of this happened in our church. And the churches of others. Orthodox are trying to figure out what will be American Orthodox. Some think ROCOR is the gold-standard, but fail to notice that (non-immigrant) growth is highest in the Orthodox Churches with more English, fewer beards, more collars, - ie more American looking - and with more adaptations to the liturgy that accomodate American lifestyles - eg, versper liturgies. To dismiss any of this evolution as symptoms of an inferiority complex misses the point, IMO, and can lead to more questionable paths.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who hold a rather extreme view of what it means to be fully “eastern.” … While I have the utmost respect for such individuals, I obviously don’t agree with this perspective.

I think that these are new querstionable paths that may be adopted by people who lack an organic idea of what it means to be a Greek Catholic. That isn’t a convert/cradle issue in my experience by the way. It is really more about those who learn about church by being part of a community - a church - vs. those who learn - like a ceratin kind of chef - from reading about it in a book (or worse, the internet).

I simply believe that, while it’s important to look to our Roman Catholic and our Orthodox brethren for guidance, we must neither overlook nor discount ourselves in the process. We are … called to live and witness to the beauty of eastern Christianity while proclaiming the fullness of the Catholic faith in humility and love.

I couldn’t agree more with this idea - said very well. And to be clear, it is not to develop some “third way”, but to live our lives informed by and cherishing the beauty of our own particualr way.

Thanks for the post.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

The title of the thread is:

[SIGN]Are Eastern Catholics to look to the Eastern Orthodox for patristic guidance?[/SIGN]

Shouldn’t Eastern Catholics look to the Church Fathers for patristic guidance?

(Only half kidding.):yup: :nope: :yup: :nope: :yup: :nope:

 

[Aramis]

The title of the thread is:

[SIGN]Are Eastern Catholics to look to the Eastern Orthodox for patristic guidance?[/SIGN]

Shouldn’t Eastern Catholics look to the Church Fathers for patristic guidance?

(Only half kidding.)

What? And be accused of antiquinarianism by the Latins?

 

[Diak]

Polls are polls, and anything derived is subject to all of the uncertainties ranging from preconceived notions by the pollsters to target a population to get intended results, lack of appropriate sample population, etc.

I would be more interested if the question could be posed only to Eastern Catholics - what to they think themselves?

 

[lanceg]

How about when most in the Melkite and Armenian churches seek to be Orthodox in communion with Rome, rather than Catholic. As I see it, the original union statements almost beg to be seen as Orthodox in communion with Rome, not Catholics with an Eastern twist. It is to the practices at the time of union that Easterners must go. Look at 16th century Ukrainians during and after union and you will see an almost identical church to the Orthodox. Nowadays, where does one go? Where is “Eastern Catholicism?” Is it the Latinized churches, or the near Orthodox parishes? I don’t think it’s too difficult to understand what Pope John Paul II meant…

I will soon visit the local Armenian Catholic parish and I look forward to their perspective…

In short, yes, we must look to the Orthodox for clarification.

Prayers and Petitions,
Alexius

Amen!

IF someone visits my Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, the only way they should be able to know that they are in a Catholic Church rather than an Eastern Orthodox Church not in union with Rome, is that we pray for the Pope in our litanies, and we have a picture of Benedict XVI in our entry way.

By going back to our authentic traditions, we are not only turning back to the practice we had at the time of Brest and Uzhorod, but we are obeying the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council and several popes, including Pope Leo XIII and John Paul II, have enjoined us to recover our authentic traditions. John Paul II even inserted Saint Gregory Palamas, a post schism Saint, on our calendar, and we commerorate him Second Sunday of Great Lent.

We are truly Orthodox in union with the Holy See of Rome, sharing the same substantial faith with our Roman Rite brethren, but expressing it differently liturgically and even theologically.We should by all means be able to look to our Orthodox brethren for their understanding of the Fathers. The Church Fathers as commonly understood range from Clement of Rome, 1st century, to St. John Damascene 8th century. They are the common patrimony of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

As my friend Gordon says, we Greek Catholics are Orthodox in Worship, Catholic in Love.

 

[Ghosty]

It is really more about those who learn about church by being part of a community - a church - vs. those who learn - like a ceratin kind of chef - from reading about it in a book (or worse, the internet).

This is an interesting point. I know that in my case my idea of what the Melkite Church is, shaped as it was by things I read by others, usually non-Melkites (whether Roman, other Eastern Catholics, or Orthodox) was VASTLY different than what I came to know by experience.

I can’t say that I have the definitive understanding of the Church by any stretch, but I do know that the lived experience versus the idea shaped by reading (especially on-line) is a difference of night and day.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Diak]

John Paul II even inserted Saint Gregory Palamas, a post schism Saint, on our calendar, and we commerorate him Second Sunday of Great Lent.

Actually that happened during the pontificate of Paul VI for some Greek Catholics - the Anthologion published in Rome in the early 70s by Patriarch Josyp already had it restored; the Melkites also added it to their Triodion shortly after. His Grace Bishop +Basil (Losten) mentions the commemoration of St. Gregory on the Second Sunday of the Great Fast in his Paschal Pilgrimage.

 

[Thepeug]

dvdjs,

Again, sorry about the late reply–I just want to thank you for your post, as well. My knowledge of Byzantine Catholicism prior to its American manifestation is virtually non-existent, and your response was enlightening on several points.

God bless,

Chris

 

[Diak]

I wanted to respond to something posted earlier that has been nagging at me a bit:

Some think ROCOR is the gold-standard, but fail to notice that (non-immigrant) growth is highest in the Orthodox Churches with more English, fewer beards, more collars, - ie more American looking - and with more adaptations to the liturgy that accomodate American lifestyles - eg, versper liturgies. To dismiss any of this evolution as symptoms of an inferiority complex misses the point, IMO, and can lead to more questionable paths.

Not quite true. ROCOR has sustained very significant English-language mission growth amongst converts and non-ethnic Russians, and has possibly started more new English-language monastic communities in North America than most Orthodox jurisdictions in the last 10 years. “More beards”, longer services, and a fuller use of the tradition do indeed seem to be catching on with some in North America, and certainly ROCOR has demonstrated good missionary success in recent years – with abundant use of English translations published in Jordanville.

I am intrigued at the idea of “liturgy that accomodate American lifestyles”. Looking at the Typicon, there are the baptismal fasting vigils of Christmas and Theophany and Great and Holy Saturday, as well as Great and Holy Thursday when Vespers is combined with the Divine liturgy of St. Basil.

Only on one sole exception, the Annunciation, is Vespers with the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is called for - and this only on specific days. This exception is specifically due to the fact of the festal occurrance within weekdays of the Great Fast, i.e. a feast on a fasting day, and not because it “accomodates American lifestyles” on a weekend. And this may not even occur annually depending on what day the Annunciation falls.

An important distinction that is often overlooked is that each of the Vesperal Divine liturgies, with the sole exception of the Annunciation during the Great Fast, involve the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil. The best known of these, Christmas, Theophany, and Great and Holy Saturday are “fasting vigils” on a baptismal feast days and which had a Divine Liturgy on the day of the feast itself of Pascha, Christmas and Theophany. Great and Holy Thursday had other liturgical things going on like washing of feet, blessing of chrism, etc. In other words, the Vigil Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil was not intended to replace another divine liturgy or accomodate modern lifestyles.

What is being discussed is an innovation, that is the creation of a new “Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom” outside of its traditionally permitted use; if one takes even a perfunctory look at the Typikon for the Annunciation, if it falls on Saturday or Sunday of the Great Fast this unique Vesperal Liturgy is NOT to be taken.

In other words, if it is not a fasting day, Vespers with Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is not taken for the Annunciation. So in those years such a service does not occur at all.

Even when the Annunciation occurs on Great and Holy Saturday, as last year on the Julian calendar, the texts for the Annunciation are incorporated into the Vesperal Liturgy of St. Basil for Holy Saturday evening, and not Vespers with the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

In reality not so many Orthodox parishes have accepted the “vespergy”; there is quite a controversy even within the jurisdictions that allow it, namely the OCA and Antiochians. For example, Bishop Tikhon’s arguments are a case in point of dissenting views within the OCA (himself American and a former Lutheran) and can be read at holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit3.html

Far from a seeming *fait accompli *of liturgical innovation and widespread acceptance as a legitimate “accomodation”, even within those jurisdictions that allow such a practice there is sometimes serious disagreement. Metropolitan Isaiah of the Greek Archdiocese has spoken quite bluntly about not allowing this practice amongst the Greeks.

I would love to hear from some of our Orthodox posters if they feel this is an appropriate direction for “accomodating American lifestyles”, and if any Orthodox Bishop has actually presided at such a Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom outside of its prescribed use for the Annunciation.

Certainly Fr. Schmemann of blessed memory, who was quite vociferous in his liturgical commentary in many areas, never once promoted such an idea as the innovative development and use of a “Vesperal Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom” outside of its prescribed use on the Annunciation.

I am all for economia; in the *Pastoral Guide *for Ukrainian Catholics in the US, the particular law for the UGCC in the US, it is stated that Vespers, Matins or the Divine Liturgy can meet the “Sunday obligation”. I would rather see the traditional liturgical cycle restored celebrated to the extent possible, as well as respect for the eucharistic nature of the Divine Praises, their relation to the overall Resurrectional cycle, etc., rather than another experiment in liturgical innovation in the name of “accomodation”. Just my observations and opinion.
FDRLB

 

[dvdjs]

I wanted to respond to something posted earlier that has been nagging at me a bit:
…

Not quite true. ROCOR has sustained very significant English-language mission growth amongst converts and non-ethnic Russians, and has possibly started more new English-language monastic communities in North America than most Orthodox jurisdictions in the last 10 years. “More beards”, longer services, and a fuller use of the tradition do indeed seem to be catching on with some in North America, and certainly ROCOR has demonstrated good missionary success in recent years – with abundant use of English translations published in Jordanville.

The Hartford Institute for Religious Research published a detailed study, probably still available on-line, of the growth of various E Orthodox churches in the US over the last decade. My recollection is that they found that the Antiochian church had the greatest growth, with the majority of growth from non-immigrant sources. ROCOR growth was in a lesser category and mainly from immigrants.

I did have the Antiochian church in mind when I wrote the comments that you quoted. And specifically had in mind the use of vesper liturgies - that you discuss in detail - for feastdays other than those prescribed by the typicon. These liturgies are defended by my AO friends - against e.g., the arguments of emeritus Bishop Tikhon - because they make it easier for working folks to get to the liturgy on these feastdays.

Most of what you wrote, however, is not really connected to my remarks. You point out that ROCOR shows some growth in the US. Fine, I made no claim otherwise; but its growth is lesser and mostly immigrant based. You point out that the “vespergy” is not practiced in many jurisdictions, and is controversial. I agree; it is practiced, however, in the fastest growing jurisdiction.

I don’t understand why my remarks - which are quite true - have been nagging at you.

 

[Diak]

I don’t understand why my remarks - which are quite true - have been nagging at you.

Because I am not convinced they are entirely true, nor of the complete validity of the Hartford Foundation’s work, either.

One only needs to look at Jordanville as well as the new monastic communities in West Virgnia and elsewhere (plenty of Internet presence of newer ROCOR missions and parishes) to see that much of the newer ROCOR growth is not at all ethnic, counter to what was posted as “quite true”, but primarily anglophone. Fr. Seraphim Holland’s parish as well as Fr. John Whiteford’s are good cases of point, as well as the shift towards more English services at Jordanville. As I recall the Antiochian growth has tapered off as of late as well.
FDRLB