Are Trads welcome in the East?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adeodatus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cecilianus said:
Heck, we haven’t even introduced such liberal innovations as the ORGAN yet!😉
Click to expand...
Epic win!

I used to appreciate any and all instruments, granting they are played tastefully. Since joining a Byzantine parish, I now share in the belief that we honor God only with our voices as the instruments. So throw that pipe organ out with the guitars and tambourines. 👍
 
40.png
ciero:
Where do you dream this stuff up from?

We Byzantines (yes even the Ruthenians) have no" sacred language". We use the vernacular. What would make Church Slavonic more sacred then the original Greek?

Oh, I would certainly prefer the Liturgy in Greek rather than Slavonic. Greek, Latin, and “Hebrew” are the most appropriate liturgical languages because they were written on Christ’s Cross.
Why was the Liturgy even translated into Church Slavonic from Greek?
Click to expand...
Same reason the Council of Trent mandated the translation of the Tridentine Mass into Classical Chinese. Old Church Slavonic was a dead language when Sts. Cyril and Methodius came along - it was the formal, literary, or classical language, but one more comprehensible to the Slavs than Greek.
There may be some pre Nikonian influence on the Ruthenian church,but you can hardly say that the Ruthenian church is close to the Old Believers. Have you ever seen an Old Believer Liturgy? How is the Ruthenian Church close to the Old believers? The only way that the Ruthenians are “close” to the Old Believers is the Old Believers are a pre Nikonian Church…the Ruthenians have retained a few pre Nikonian uses…thats as close as it gets!
Click to expand...
I was told this by a Byzantine priest. At least one family at the parish makes the sign of the Cross with two fingers; if he’s wrong let them correct him.
And please show me where the Catholics have clung to Church Slavonic where the Orthodox have given it up.
Click to expand...
These statements are UNBELIEVABLE!
Click to expand...
Russians use modern Russian in their liturgies. The Ukrainian parish here used nothing but Slavonic until about ten years ago or so, and all of the Ruthenian parishes I have been to have done part or all of the Liturgy in Slavonic. I’m really not sure what’s so controversial about that statement,

If you need documentary proof, here’s a link. Notice the words “Liturgy is in English and Slavonic”.

stjohnsminneapolis.webs.com/
 
ConstantineTG said:
Epic win!

I used to appreciate any and all instruments, granting they are played tastefully. Since joining a Byzantine parish, I now share in the belief that we honor God only with our voices as the instruments. So throw that pipe organ out with the guitars and tambourines. 👍
Click to expand...
👍 It is nice to have a little bit of pipe organ before a Tridentine Mass, however.
 
ProVobis said:
Good luck in trying to remove that line about the pipe organ in the Vatican II documents.
Click to expand...
Pipe organ? Oh, I thought it was bongo drums and electric guitars - I mean, you are talking about Vatican II, right?:D:D;)
 
Cecilianus said:
Pipe organ? Oh, I thought it was bongo drums and electric guitars - I mean, you are talking about Vatican II, right?:D:D;)
Click to expand...
😃 Relax, it only pertains to the Latin Rite.
From SC;
Click to expand...
  1. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.
Click to expand...
 
Cecilianus said:
Same reason the Council of Trent mandated the translation of the Tridentine Mass into Classical Chinese. Old Church Slavonic was a dead language when Sts. Cyril and Methodius came along - it was the formal, literary, or classical language, but one more comprehensible to the Slavs than Greek.
Click to expand...
I hope I am just misreading this but the alphabet use in Old Church Slavonic was created by Sts. Cyril and Methodius as there was no written alphabet in use when they took the faith to the Slavs (hence their title of Apostles to the Slavs).

Also Sts. Cyril and Methodius predate the Council of Trent by about 8 centuries. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were born in the 9th century (827 and 826) and the Council of Trent was 1545-1563.

edit: I think I see now, you were not saying that the saints and the council were contemporaries, but it stands that Old Church Slavonic was not a dead language when the saints arrived as there was no written form and they had to create an alphabet for it.
 
Cecilianus said:
And the reason for the suppression of many of the Italo-Greek monasteries was the refusal of the monks to learn Greek, even when the local Roman diocese would appoint (and pay for) special tutors for them.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the idea that Italo Greek monasteries were suppressed because they didnt speak Greek? I dont know of ANY Italo Greek monasteries that were suppressed for any reason other then dwindling numbers. I will have to ask Padre Emilianos Abbot of Grottoferatta next time I see him.
 
ByzCath said:
I hope I am just misreading this but the alphabet use in Old Church Slavonic was created by Sts. Cyril and Methodius as there was no written alphabet in use when they took the faith to the Slavs (hence their title of Apostles to the Slavs).

Also Sts. Cyril and Methodius predate the Council of Trent by about 8 centuries. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were born in the 9th century (827 and 826) and the Council of Trent was 1545-1563.

edit: I think I see now, you were not saying that the saints and the council were contemporaries, but it stands that Old Church Slavonic was not a dead language when the saints arrived as there was no written form and they had to create an alphabet for it.
Click to expand...
Sorry - by “literary” I was referring to the oral epic tradition. Otherwise, I would be really impressed with a literary language that didn’t have an alphabet! Slavonic wasn’t the version of the language actually commonly spoken - difference was similar to that of Elizabethan English and modern English.

My point in bringing up the Council of Trent is that Classical Chinese was also a dead, formal language, and that St. Robert Bellarmine had basically the same intentions as Sts. Cyril and Methodius.
 
ciero said:
Where did you get the idea that Italo Greek monasteries were suppressed because they didnt speak Greek? I dont know of ANY Italo Greek monasteries that were suppressed for any reason other then dwindling numbers. I will have to ask Padre Emilianos Abbot of Grottoferatta next time I see him.
Click to expand...
I got it from the book “Italo-Greek Monastic Spirituality” by David Paul Hester, published by both the Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies in Toronto and the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki.
 
Cecilianus said:
I got it from the book “Italo-Greek Monastic Spirituality” by David Paul Hester, published by both the Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies in Toronto and the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki.
Click to expand...
And who suppressed these monasteries? What language were they speaking?
 
Cecilianus said:
The Pope. The monks spoke only Italian; the liturgical language they said the services in was Greek.
Click to expand...
So the Pope suppressed there monasteries because the services were in Greek?..not sure I’m understanding your point. What time frame did this happen in?
 
Cecilianus said:
Oh, I would certainly prefer the Liturgy in Greek rather than Slavonic. Greek, Latin, and “Hebrew” are the most appropriate liturgical languages because they were written on Christ’s Cross.

Same reason the Council of Trent mandated the translation of the Tridentine Mass into Classical Chinese. Old Church Slavonic was a dead language when Sts. Cyril and Methodius came along - it was the formal, literary, or classical language, but one more comprehensible to the Slavs than Greek.

I was told this by a Byzantine priest. At least one family at the parish makes the sign of the Cross with two fingers; if he’s wrong let them correct him.

Russians use modern Russian in their liturgies. The Ukrainian parish here used nothing but Slavonic until about ten years ago or so, and all of the Ruthenian parishes I have been to have done part or all of the Liturgy in Slavonic. I’m really not sure what’s so controversial about that statement,

If you need documentary proof, here’s a link. Notice the words “Liturgy is in English and Slavonic”.

stjohnsminneapolis.webs.com/
Click to expand...
No one uses modern Russian except the Latins in Russia. Not the Russian Orthodox nor Russian Greek Catholics. All use Church Slavonic. (there is no language called “Slavonic”).

Even a very basic understanding of the Old Believers and the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church would debunk your idea of Ruthenians being close to Old Believers. 😃

And your idea that Church Slavonic was chosen because it was a dead language like Trent is laughable!
 
ciero said:
The reality is the Bishops want NOT to be an ethnic church and have tried dropping the word Ruthenian from the name of the church. The question is do they want to be a non ethnic church or just ashamed of who they are? Rome sees things a bit differently and has not allowed them to officially drop the term Ruthenian Greek Catholic. I also dislike how they have tried to monopolize the term “Byzantine Catholic”, to the exclusion of the rest of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.
Click to expand...
I am a 55 yr old cradle member of the BCC from Western PA. I don’t know anything about a monopoly on “Byzantine”. In the old country, we were Greek Catholics, and still are. Here, “Greek” carried a different meaning primarily and was confusing, so the less common word “Byzantine” was introduced. Other Churches seemed very happy to use other identifiers such as “Melkite”, “Ukrainian”, “Russian”, Romanian". I don’t know if these common identifiers are official (Roman) usage or not, or whether they were approved by anyone or just used. If there is evidence that any of the identifiers were controversial or met with serious (ie non-gadfly) protest, I would be interested in some reading material on the subject. I realize that in recent times many of these other churches are showing a tendency to drop these identifiers and also go by “Byzantine” as they also become begin a post-ethnic era. I can imagine that that has led to some confusion and maybe some protest, but am unaware of any and would ask again for some references.

As to “Ruthenian”: I had heard the word “Slavish” early on, and much later words like Rusyn, or “po nashemu”. “Ruthenian” was rather late to common parlance - whatever Rome would have us call ourselves. ( And I am delighted to suggestion that we are ignoring their idea and calling ourselves as we please). But it is not an especially helpful identifier - and still doesn’t provide for “disambiguation” as wiki like to say.

I think that idea of a post-ethnic church, which nevertheless has a respect for its cultural heritage, is a good one. I am very happy to find ethnic diversity in our churches; at the same time, no matter how diverse, I am very happy to see a cultural heritage that is manifest in rite, in music, in food, etc. In some ways - thanks to grass roots efforts and the internet - there is more of an ethnic flavor to our church over the past 15 years, even as it is growing in diversity. I think that is good.
just ashamed of who they are
Click to expand...
I think that we are long, long over that. Probably a generation or more.

Just my $0.02, but otherwise thanks for all the work in keeping facts straight.
 
ciero said:
So the Pope suppressed there monasteries because the services were in Greek?..not sure I’m understanding your point. What time frame did this happen in?
Click to expand...
1400s-1600s. The reason why the Pope suppressed the monasteries was because the monks were refusing to learn the language in which the services were held.
 
dvdjs said:
I am a 55 yr old cradle member of the BCC from Western PA. I don’t know anything about a monopoly on “Byzantine”. In the old country, we were Greek Catholics, and still are. Here, “Greek” carried a different meaning primarily and was confusing, so the less common word “Byzantine” was introduced. Other Churches seemed very happy to use other identifiers such as “Melkite”, “Ukrainian”, “Russian”, Romanian". I don’t know if these common identifiers are official (Roman) usage or not, or whether they were approved by anyone or just used. If there is evidence that any of the identifiers were controversial or met with serious (ie non-gadfly) protest, I would be interested in some reading material on the subject. I realize that in recent times many of these other churches are showing a tendency to drop these identifiers and also go by “Byzantine” as they also become begin a post-ethnic era. I can imagine that that has led to some confusion and maybe some protest, but am unaware of any and would ask again for some references.

As to “Ruthenian”: I had heard the word “Slavish” early on, and much later words like Rusyn, or “po nashemu”. “Ruthenian” was rather late to common parlance - whatever Rome would have us call ourselves. ( And I am delighted to suggestion that we are ignoring their idea and calling ourselves as we please). But it is not an especially helpful identifier - and still doesn’t provide for “disambiguation” as wiki like to say.

I think that idea of a post-ethnic church, which nevertheless has a respect for its cultural heritage, is a good one. I am very happy to find ethnic diversity in our churches; at the same time, no matter how diverse, I am very happy to see a cultural heritage that is manifest in rite, in music, in food, etc. In some ways - thanks to grass roots efforts and the internet - there is more of an ethnic flavor to our church over the past 15 years, even as it is growing in diversity. I think that is good.

I think that we are long, long over that. Probably a generation or more.

Just my $0.02, but otherwise thanks for all the work in keeping facts straight.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard Ukrainians call themselves “Byzantine Catholics”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top