Changes in the Eastern Orthodox Church

[ralphinal]

From liturgy flows doctrine (and vice versa). To understand what a church teaches, I often find it helpful to see how they worship first and foremost; from there you will already garner a lot of information just by mere observance.

And what can you gather from the Latin Rite Mass?

Ah, this would require much dissertation. Since I am not a Liturgist, I would defer these statements to someone who can sufficiently answer them.

Fair enough. Would you say that these are valid things to consider?

 

[Milliardo]

And what can you gather from the Latin Rite Mass?

I would say there is much reverence in the Novus Ordo, and I would dare say there is much more in the Tridentine. Having said that, the sad state of affairs in the Catholic Church shows a gradual de-appreciation of the Mass, to the point that it has become almost mundane to a number of Catholics. I do commend those who still try to give due reverence to the Mass and to Christ Himself in the Mass, but many more seem to have lost this reverence. Whether it is due to the changes made, I cannot exactly tell.

Fair enough. Would you say that these are valid things to consider?

Valid things–you mean the changes and the like, or how development came to the Western liturgy?

 

[MementoMori3283]

Except for the last part, most of them are believed by the Orthodox Church as well.

History 101

See, there are actually more similarities than differences with both Churches. I would rather start from there than go into the differences.

I never said there weren’t.

FONT=comic sans ms]I think Mickey’s point is clear–the early Fathers would recognize Divine Liturgy immediately, especially if they run into the Liturgy of St. James or even St. Basil, though no doubt they would still recognize the Liturgy of St. John Crysostom.

and I believe I was quite clear that they would recognize Christ within the Liturgy. Christ is present in the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo and our seperated brothers in Christ in the Orthodox Church

I have commented on another thread on this board regarding how 4th century Rome celebrated Mass, and it seems much closer to Divine Liturgy than Tridentine or even Novus Ordo. Guess the Orthodox Church then has kept Holy Tradition here much better. So to reply to this–the early Fathers will recognize Christ’s Presence in Divine Liturgy more than in the Novus Ordo, as it is the Liturgy they were familiar with, and would see the Novus Ordo as an innovation of Divine Liturgy (and we need not go into the horrors of clown Masses, “liturgical dance”, and other such abuses which seem to have taken hold in a number of parishes).

So Christ can be more present in one Liturgy than another? Sounds like something along the lines that you don’t receive all of Christ by only eating His Body…

 

[ralphinal]

I would say there is much reverence in the Novus Ordo, and I would dare say there is much more in the Tridentine. Having said that, the sad state of affairs in the Catholic Church shows a gradual de-appreciation of the Mass, to the point that it has become almost mundane to a number of Catholics. I do commend those who still try to give due reverence to the Mass and to Christ Himself in the Mass, but many more seem to have lost this reverence. Whether it is due to the changes made, I cannot exactly tell.

I think it has less to do with the mass and more to do with society, at least in America. We are getting so casual. In general, there is a lack or reverence for anything at all.

I love the mass in the vernacular. I think, however, it was a double edged sword. Now, people see nothing special in teh language so there is nothing special to them in the mass. Couple that with poor catachisis, and there you go. By the way, the poor teaching has nothing to do with the doctrines themselves, but with the attitude from 1960 until recently. Stupid hippies ruined the earth.

Valid things–you mean the changes and the like, or how development came to the Western liturgy?

Yes, how did the changes come. What are the forces of Change? Can liturgical change be good? No the changes themselves, per se.

 

[Milliardo]

History 101

History wouldn’t exactly support Roman supremacy, certainly not when we’re talking of the early Fathers.

and I believe I was quite clear that they would recognize Christ within the Liturgy.

I wouldn’t be exactly sure, since as mentioned, in the first place they wouldn’t even be familiar with the Western liturgies, though they would probably have more affinity with the Tridentine than the Novus Ordo. The first step towards recognizing Christ within the liturgy would, obviously, be recognizing the liturgy in the first place.

So Christ can be more present in one Liturgy than another?

As Catholics themselves would ask Protestants…

 

[MementoMori3283]

From liturgy flows doctrine (and vice versa).

To your logic, “clowns” and “dance” will become doctrine.

Ah, this would require much dissertation. Since I am not a Liturgist, I would defer these statements to someone who can sufficiently answer them.

Liturgy changes because times change. People change. Cultures change. Language changes. Liturgy changes because Christ didn’t return in all His Glory. Christ, at the Last Supper, said, “do this in remembrance of Me.” He didn’t say just like I have done you must do. If that was the case, we would go to Table, say the blessing, and break bread and drink wine. As we came to understand, we would be eating His Body and drinking His Blood, so, therefore, we have devised a proper way to worship God and recognize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Prayers, readings, teaching, petitions, Eucharist, blessings and dismissal to go forth and bring the Gospel to the world.

 

[Milliardo]

I think it has less to do with the mass and more to do with society, at least in America. We are getting so casual. In general, there is a lack or reverence for anything at all.

I would say differently, though I have not experienced the Tridentine firsthand. But then, I have heard how the Tridentine had much more reverence than the Novus Ordo has now. Perhaps from there, people have become more casual in approaching the Mass as much of the reverence associated with it has been gone or devalued, as it is.

I love the mass in the vernacular. I think, however, it was a double edged sword. Now, people see nothing special in teh language so there is nothing special to them in the mass. Couple that with poor catachisis, and there you go. By the way, the poor teaching has nothing to do with the doctrines themselves, but with the attitude from 1960 until recently. Stupid hippies ruined the earth.

Would love to discuss this, but since this would take our topic elsewhere, I would not venture into this.

Yes, how did the changes come. What are the forces of Change? Can liturgical change be good? No the changes themselves, per se.

Can liturgical change be good? If it wanders much from holy Tradition, then at most it couldn’t be good. As for the first two issues, again I feel these would be handled better by a Liturgist.

 

[MementoMori3283]

History wouldn’t exactly support Roman supremacy, certainly not when we’re talking of the early Fathers.

Honestly, you know this from study or hearsay?

I wouldn’t be exactly sure, since as mentioned, in the first place they wouldn’t even be familiar with the Western liturgies, though they would probably have more affinity with the Tridentine than the Novus Ordo. The first step towards recognizing Christ within the liturgy would, obviously, be recognizing the liturgy in the first place.

So, they wouldn’t recognize Jesus in the sign of the Cross? In the opening prayers? In the Holy, Holy, Holy? In the readings from the New Testament and the tie in from the Old? In the reading of the Gospel? In the Our Father? In the sign of peace? In the epiclesis?
Boy, you really have a low opinion of the perception of the Church Fathers

As Catholics themselves would ask Protestants…

weak

 

[Milliardo]

To your logic, “clowns” and “dance” will become doctrine.

No, but going deeper and deeper into innovations, it will certainly deteriorate the Mass only further.

Liturgy changes because times change.

So we should allow for liturgical abuses to happen? After all, these things were done to attract more people, or else to keep abreast with the Evangelical crowd with their bands and all. And if we go into that, then wouldn’t you say that the Catholic Church has to drop its claim of keeping Apostolic Tradition, since holy Tradition does not change.

As we came to understand, we would be eating His Body and drinking His Blood

Interesting then that the Orthodox Church still keeps Tradition again by giving Communion with both bread and wine then…

we have devised a proper way to worship God and recognize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Is innovations and changes then the proper way to worship God?

 

[ralphinal]

I would say differently, though I have not experienced the Tridentine firsthand. But then, I have heard how the Tridentine had much more reverence than the Novus Ordo has now. Perhaps from there, people have become more casual in approaching the Mass as much of the reverence associated with it has been gone or devalued, as it is.

Where are you? In America, if we get any more casual, we will wear pajammas to work. Wait, too late.

Would love to discuss this, but since this would take our topic elsewhere, I would not venture into this.

Drop me a line anytime

Can liturgical change be good? If it wanders much from holy Tradition, then at most it couldn’t be good. As for the first two issues, again I feel these would be handled better by a Liturgist.

Fair enough. I think it would be cool to study that at another time.

 

[Milliardo]

Honestly, you know this from study or hearsay?

Study, not mere hearsay.

So, they wouldn’t recognize Jesus in the sign of the Cross? In the opening prayers? In the Holy, Holy, Holy? In the readings from the New Testament and the tie in from the Old? In the reading of the Gospel? In the Our Father? In the sign of peace? In the epiclesis?
Boy, you really have a low opinion of the perception of the Church Fathers

It would be interesting that the early Fathers have often advocated in keeping holy Tradition as a sign of keeping the Faith. Even if the actions you have described are there, would you say they would recognize it? After all, Anglicans have for the most part kept the outward gestures of the Mass, yet most Catholics aver as well that this wouldn’t exactly be recognizable nor deemed the Mass itself; would then the early Fathers deem the Mass as it is now as somehow Divine Liturgy? Common sense would say, not so.

weak

Not really, since it is practically the same argument Catholics throw at Protestants; to say it is weak would then mean the Catholic argument raised at Protestants would be weak as well.

 

[Milliardo]

Where are you? In America, if we get any more casual, we will wear pajammas to work. Wait, too late.

I’ve seen much.

Drop me a line anytime

Fair enough. I think it would be cool to study that at another time.

Yup, it would. I like how you take the discussion lightly–it makes for easier conversation (though we might wander off topic, which wouldn’t be good…)

 

[ralphinal]

I’ve seen much.

Yup, it would. I like how you take the discussion lightly–it makes for easier conversation (though we might wander off topic, which wouldn’t be good…)

See, I know that the EO Church is on the same road we are, so no reason to get all bent out of shape. The questions are easier to discuss.

By the way, I like the pics. Are you an aname fan?

 

[MementoMori3283]

No, but going deeper and deeper into innovations, it will certainly deteriorate the Mass only further.

Anomalies

So we should allow for liturgical abuses to happen?

It can only be ignorance to think that abuses are allowed. Would you prefer that we publicly beat and ridicule the abusers?

After all, these things were done to attract more people, or else to keep abreast with the Evangelical crowd with their bands and all.

You speak of which you do not comprehend. The Liturgy was changed for the faithful, not to evangelize.

[And if we go into that, then wouldn’t you say that the Catholic Church has to drop its claim of keeping Apostolic Tradition, since holy Tradition does not change.

No, I wouldn’t. Again, a failure to understand Apostolic. Did the Apostles receive Jesus Christ the same way you do?

Interesting then that the Orthodox Church still keeps Tradition again by giving Communion with both bread and wine then…

Why? You don’t believe you receive all of Jesus in His Body?

Is innovations and changes then the proper way to worship God?

Did Jesus bring innovation and change? Why? The deposit of faith, the Truth, has been guarded and protected by the Holy Spirit from the time of Peter, the preeminent of all the See’s.

 

[MementoMori3283]

Study, not mere hearsay.

In time, please provide reference material, as will I.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

They would not know where they were. Nothing would look familiar to them. They would run to the nearest Holy Orthodox Catholic Church where they would recognize the ancient, beautiful and holy Divine Liturgy.

Mickey don’t go confusing medieval Greek with Ancient. Not everything ornate and pre-modern is ancient. Your hypothetical time traveling Christian would look at the sakkos and mitre of a Byzantine bishop and bow thinking it was the Byzantine emperor himself!

Have you ever looked at the Eucharistic rites of the Didache? What about the liturgies of the Assyrians and some of the Syriac rituals?

Loathe as I am to give a hat tip to antiquarianism, the modern Roman rite would easily be recognizeable to the early Christians.

 

[Mickey]

I did. Fruitless
can’t seem to find antything that makes sense

Unfortunate.

 

[Mickey]

the modern Roman rite would easily be recognizeable to the early Christians.

Nah.

 

[MementoMori3283]

In time, please provide reference material, as will I.

I found this insightful.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

Your thoughts?

 

[Mickey]

I found this insightful.

I am glad you found that insightful. I will also suggest that you read Frs Schmemann and Meyendorf’s works in context (and the Church Fathers too).

Having said that, the primacy of Rome is never disputed. Rome was the capital city of Christianity and the pre-eminent Church.

Rome was orthodox and in communion with the other four Patriarchates.

Supremacy and infallibility of the post schism bishops of Rome, as set forth by the odd 1870 doctrine, was never known in the early undivided Church. Rome separated herself from the other four Patriarchates and began the path of doctrinal innovation. Sadly, She had to deal with the protestant reformation about 500 years after the official date of the Great Schism.