I am considering the Orthodox Church

[TheosisM]

From the article I posted:

[Ethno-phyletism is the view that **each ethnic or national group can have its own independent or autocephalous Church,

resulting in multiple and rival hierarchies in the same territory].

This is the real issue with the ethnic ecclesiology of Orthodoxy. Moreover, the Churches mentioned by Theosis M are not seeking independence, i.e. they are in communion with the bishop of Rome, the center/heart of the Universal Church (so irregardless of the churches mentioned the CC is not structured on national/state lines, if it were there would be utter chaos, i.e., Italians seeking their own autonomous/autochephalous Church, Portuguese, Mexicans, Peruvians, Spanish, German, Irish. . . etc.).

The churches mentioned are organized along national lines. Phyletism, as the article states, is irregular and condemned by Orthodoxy.

Also, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the Eastern Catholic churches are “autonomous churches”, using Orthodox terminology. They are not autocephalous.

In the USA, there are bishops for various Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches, in overlapping territories, along with the Roman Catholic bishops.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m not sure what you are trying to ask in the second question, but yes, I would assume that the Eastern Catholic churches believe in the doctrines promulgated by Rome concerning Petrine supremacy, or else they wouldn’t be a part of the Roman communion.

No. Or at least not in my case. One of the reasons I haven’t gone ahead and started the process of becoming a catechumen in the Orthodox Church is that I want to be sure that I am converting to

 

[josie_L]

You were attempting (as a number of Catholic apologists do) to create a dichotomy between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in saying that in Orthodoxy “Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.”, while implying that the converse is true for Catholicism. This ignores the Eastern Catholic churches, all of which are “formed along national lines”, most of which have the nationality in the name itself. You didn’t call your church “Italian Catholic Church” because I assume it was under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church (this is no different than the Russian Orthodox parish in an African country still being called “Russian Orthodox” despite it being made up of African parishoners). Though if you were in certain parts of Italy, it may be under the “Italo-Greek Catholic Church”.

Theosis, I ask that you read the post of the person I was responding to so you can understand why I said what I did, moreover, the real issue with the ethnic ecclesiology of Orthodoxy is this:

[Ethno-phyletism is the view that **each ethnic or national group can have its own independent or autocephalous Church

, resulting in multiple and rival hierarchies in the same territory].

The Churches you mentioned are not seeking independence and/or autocephaly, i.e. they are in communion with the bishop of Rome, the center of the Universal Church, so irregardless of the churches you mentioned the ecclesiology of the CC is not structured on national/state lines seeking independence from the primate, i.e., the bishop of Rome who unites all Catholics irregardless of their nationality.

The “real issue” is that Catholicism has “ethnic” parishes just like Orthodoxy does, and also has “ethnic” sui iuris churches, organized along national lines. As the article states, a Synod has already condemned phyletism, and the jurisdictional situation in the USA is irregular. But then, is the jurisdictional situation of Eastern Catholicism and Roman Catholicism in the USA any different?

Yes, it is different for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Orthodox Churches in the West have nothing to do with Anglicans.

Really?

westernorthodox.com/western-rite.html
The restoration of a corrected, and truly Orthodox, Western Rite to Holy Orthodoxy in the United States was not originated by laity or by ordinary clergy. The vision of the Western Rite as an essential part of the Orthodox Mission in America belonged to Archbishop Tikhon of the American Archdiocese under the Moscow Patriarchate.

** About ninety years ago he examined the existing Anglican Book of Common Prayer and sent it to the Holy Synod of Moscow. That Liturgy, derived from the ancient use of the Orthodox West, and first expressed in English in the edition of 1549 by authority of King Edward the Sixth of England, was corrected and approved by the Holy Synod for Orthodox Church use.**

In the years following, blessed Tikhon was himself elevated to Patriarch of Moscow, martyred by the communists in 1925, since declared a Saint of the Church, and thus known to Orthodox faithful throughout the world as St. Tikhon, Enlightener of America.
While the great majority of Orthodox Christians worship using some form of the Eastern or Byzantine Rite, a growing percentage of Orthodox Christians worship according to the Western Rite. The Rite of Saint Tikhon, used by many Western Rite Churches, is an approved adaptation of the eucharistic liturgy from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

 

[dzheremi]

I respect your answers thank you. I would like it made clear how the Roman Catholic Church protests any other Apostolic Church community, do you know? It is clear why those Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, protest’s the Popes and his authority, can you reveal to me what is it that Catholic Church or the Pope protests against another Apostolic or Reformed “Protestant” Church?

 

[TheosisM]

Theosis, I ask that you read the post of the person I was responding to so you can understand why I said what I did,

I did. Gurney was talking about the situation at the local/parish level. If we focus on that, then there is really no difference between the situation in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. There are ethnic parishes in both churches. The reasoning is the same for both churches. It may be because it is an immigrant parish, or because of the demography of the surrounding area.

Also, the name of the parish is not relevant. As I mentioned, your parish may not have been called Italian Catholic Church since it falls under the Roman Catholic Church (and not the Italo-Greek Catholic Church that it may fall under in some parts of Italy) but then, the Russian Orthodox parish in Nigeria is not called the Nigerian Orthodox Church despite it being made up of Nigerians.

So to me, it doesn’t seem as if your post addressed what Gurney said, because the example of a Nigerian Russian Orthodox parish is the equivalent of your example of your Italian Roman Catholic parish. There are ethnic parishes in Orthodoxy and there are diverse parishes in Orthodoxy (and not just in the OCA). I have attended both types. Phyletism really doesn’t address what Gurney was talking about.

moreover, the real issue with the ethnic ecclesiology of Orthodoxy is this:

The Churches you mentioned are not seeking independence and/or autocephaly, i.e. they are in communion with the bishop of Rome, the center of the Universal Church (so irregardless of the churches you mentioned the ecclesiology of the CC is not structured on national/state lines seeking independence from the primate, i.e., the bishop of Rome who unites all Catholics irregardless of their nationality.

It seems as if you are changing the premise, since originally, you only stated that* “The problem with Orthodoxy is that Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.*”, which is the claim that I was directly responding to. It is clear that the Catholic Church is made up of multiple autonomous churches formed along national lines. Independence from the primate/Bishop of Rome is not relevant to the claim that I was responding to.

Yes, it is different for the reasons I mentioned above.

So it is okay that there are overlapping jurisdictions in Catholicism of the USA? Is this irregular or regular?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Dude you kill me

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I was simply addressing the Scott Hahn charge that Orthodox parishes are too ethnically-dominated and not truly catholic. My point is that one can come here and see Mexicans and Portuguese dominating the entire parish. One can go on the other side of town and it is 99% Mexican, and I mean at the English Mass! You’ll see one or two anglos in the entire crowd, usually spouses of Mexican parishoners. There are parishes back east that are dominated by the polish, etc. So, at a parish level, in some parts (not all by any means) what is the difference between a Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Egyptian Church or a Portuguese-dominated or Mexican-dominated or Polish-dominant Catholic parish? Scott Hahn’s charge, IMO, isn’t a fair one. I’m not picking on the Catholic Church. Just an observation. Anglican parishes in some parts tend to be, naturally, mostly anglo/English background folks predominantly. The Lutheran Church in my town, mostly German in composition. My friends who go there are 100% German. Many are. So, Hahn’s ‘concern’ is a thin one IMHO.

If they are dominated by Portuguese and Mexicans . . . etc. it may because the surrounding community is mostly Portuguese and/or Mexican, for example, I live in a neighborhood that for the longest time was a predominantly Italian enclave, therefore the parish Church was mostly made up of Italians. That being said just because it was mostly Italian, we did not call our Church, the “Italian Catholic Church”. The problem with Orthodoxy is that Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re correct. I concur. Ethnically-dominated parishes abound on both sides. Your speculation I agree with as well. And you’re right that Phyletism was not my point nor does it address my post. God bless you this Lent, Theosis…

I did. Gurney was talking about the situation at the local/parish level. If we focus on that, then there is really no difference between the situation in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. There are ethnic parishes in both churches. The reasoning is the same for both churches. It may be because it is an immigrant parish, or because of the demography of the surrounding area.

Also, the name of the parish is not relevant. As I mentioned, your parish may not have been called Italian Catholic Church since it falls under the Roman Catholic Church (and not the Italo-Greek Catholic Church that it may fall under in some parts of Italy) but then, the Russian Orthodox parish in Nigeria is not called the Nigerian Orthodox Church despite it being made up of Nigerians.

So to me, it doesn’t seem as if your post addressed what Gurney said, because the example of a Nigerian Russian Orthodox parish is the equivalent of your example of your Italian Roman Catholic parish. There are ethnic parishes in Orthodoxy and there are diverse parishes in Orthodoxy (and not just in the OCA). I have attended both types. Phyletism really doesn’t address what Gurney was talking about.

It seems as if you are changing the premise, since originally, you only stated that* “The problem with Orthodoxy is that Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.*”, which is the claim that I was directly responding to. It is clear that the Catholic Church is made up of multiple autonomous churches formed along national lines. Independence from the primate/Bishop of Rome is not relevant to the claim that I was responding to.

So it is okay that there are overlapping jurisdictions in Catholicism of the USA? Is this irregular or regular?

 

[josie_L]

It seems as if you are changing the premise, since originally, you only stated that* “The problem with Orthodoxy is that Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.*”, which is the claim that I was directly responding to. It is clear that the Catholic Church is made up of multiple autonomous churches formed along national lines. Independence from the primate/Bishop of Rome is not relevant to the claim that I was responding to.

No, I am not changing the premise (you are) since I expounded on what I meant by citing the article I quoted which delineated the heresy in question, i.e., the desire for ethnic/national groups withing Orthodoxy to form independent and autocephalous churches (if we had autocephalous groups within the CC they would not be under the universal jurisdiction of Rome which moreover would invalidate our Catholic understanding of ecclesiology). So yes, what I said is relevant to this discussion.

[Ethno-phyletism is the view that each ethnic or national group can have its own independent or **autocephalous

Church, resulting in multiple and rival hierarchies in the same territory].

There are no RIVAL hierarchies in the Catholic Church because all is under the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the same cannot be said of what is going on in Orthodoxy.

to be continued. . . .

 

[TheosisM]

No, I am not changing the premise (you are) since I expounded on what I meant by citing the article I quoted which delineated the heresy in question, i.e., the desire for ethnic/national groups withing Orthodoxy to form independent and autocephalous churches (if we had autocephalous groups within the CC they would not be under the universal jurisdiction of Rome which moreover would invalidate our Catholic understanding of ecclesiology). So yes, what I said is relevant to this discussion.

There are no RIVAL hierarchies in the Catholic Church because all is under the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the same cannot be said of what is going on in Orthodoxy.

to be continued. . . .

It’s quite amusing that you go from what Gurney was talking about to phyletism. That’s the entire point here: You began by responding to Gurney’s post by claiming that the homogeneity in Gurney’s Catholic parish is a result of the surrounding demography, to Orthodoxy organizing churches along national lines, to phyletism. What exactly does phyletism have to do with what is being seen in a parish, since you are implying that this is a reason for the “ethnic parishes” in Orthodoxy, versus the ethnic parishes of Catholicism simply being a product of the surrounding community. In reality, and as Gurney has recently stated "Ethnically-dominated parishes abound on both sides. Your speculation I agree with as well. And you’re right that Phyletism was not my point nor does it address my post." So again, how is phyletism directly addressing Gurney’s post? It isn’t. And as mentioned before, phyletism is condemned by Orthodoxy as a heresy.

Also, I would appreciate a response on the situation of overlapping jurisdictions in USA Catholicism (and presumably elsewhere), and whether this is an okay situation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=dzheremi;6478605]
Where do you get the bolded idea from? I’ve never heard such a thing, and I do not think it’s true.

While I make it an effort not to delve into internal affairs from those not in communion with the Pope, here is a sample from what I mentioned in passing to which you object to being untrue;

holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/news-encyclical.html
His Grace makes clear that while we accept the priests and lay people of these parishes as fully Orthodox** we are to avoid any activity which would tend to imply agreement with the formation of such parishes. The reason for this disagreement is twofold: it is both liturgically unsound and pastorally unwise. “Liturgically unsound because these rites are not in direct continuity with the worship of the early Church in the West, but are primarily the result of 16th century Reformation or Counter Reformation debates; pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny group of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated from the rest of the Church.” **

The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:
"1. ‘Western-rite’ clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese **may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, ‘eastern’ Orthodox vestments. **

"2. Clergy of this Diocese **may not serve or participate in ‘western-rite’ liturgies. **

“3. The participation of our laity in any pan-orthodox liturgical activity specifically with ‘western-rite’ parishes is to be actively discouraged.”
schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html

“The unity of rite in the Orthodox Church is comparatively a late phenomenon and the Church never considered liturgical uniformity a conditio sine qua non of her unity.”

**And then the last question: is it quite correct to define our rite as “Eastern” and therefore “foreign to all the Western Christians have known” to quote the Edict?.., it is “eastern” in exactly the same measure in which the Bible and the Fathers, or rather, the whole Christianity can be termed “Eastern”.

(and here comes the language bit that confuses the heck out of me?)

But have we not proclaimed time and again in all our encounters with our Western brothers that it is this “East” precisely that constitutes the common and the catholic heritage of the Church and can supply us with a common language which has been lost or distorted?** to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox . . .
These considerations, however fragmentary and incomplete,** lead to the following conclusion: I think that in the present situation of the Orthodox Church in America, the Western Rite, “facilitating conversion”, dangerously multiply spiritual adventures of which we had too many in the past, and which can but hinder the real progress of Orthodoxy in the West.**

These “LITURGICAL” conflicts are not my cup of tea, but it does keep me away from ever touching it. I don’t think Orthdoxy and Roman Catholicism schisms cut this deep as do Orthodoxy members between the East and Orthodox West?

While I have voluntarily removed myself from active communion with Rome out of respect for the laws regarding reception of the Eucharist within that communion (i.e., I would not want to receive with the knowledge that I am not in complete assent to the doctrines of the Church), I am still canonically Roman Catholic and would not dare to speak ill of those who are active members of the Roman communion. If I have done that at any point in this thread or any other, I am unaware of it, and I humbly ask for forgiveness from anyone I have offended.

It’s not the personal insults towards active members that I bring up here, it is my Catholic Apostolic faith that gets thrown around with misunderstandings and confusing, false interpretations of my Catholic faith. Stone me for believing what I believe, not for what one misunderstands my belief’s to be. I have not pointed you out singularly on this subject, my comment speaks in generalities.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;6479085]You’re correct. I concur. Ethnically-dominated parishes abound on both sides. Your speculation I agree with as well. And you’re right that Phyletism was not my point nor does it address my post. God bless you this Lent, Theosis…

IF this ethnically domination occurrs on both sides then why does Orthodoxy lay claim to Orthodoxy when it has adopted to the “Universal” Roman Catholic understanding coming from Vatican II?

In other words, Orthodoxy is now allowing english, spanish, porteguese, italian languages etc… into its liturgies, since when did the Orthodox Church from the Apostles introduce such a change from Orthodoxy? Since today I use to be proud of Orthodoxy to hold to its language and liturgy, in fact I would boast of Orthodoxy to my protestant friends about Orthodoxy in keepin with its Apostolic language and culture. Now I see I have been mislead from my historical readings and need to get up to date how Orthodoxy of old is no longer Orthodox because as Western Orthodox is laying claim here that they have allowed all ethnic languages and cultures into their liturgies? What the heck is going on here?

I am more comfortable with the light schisms from Eastern Orthodoxy than Western Orthodoxy to which I have yet to understand when? and where? they are coming from?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

To be fair to Orthodoxy, it was never my understanding that they have a one-language only liturgy? I’ve never heard of the Orthodox forbidding the language of the local people as the language used in liturgy? What Orthodox are proud of, from my reading of them and interraction, is that they have kept the overall liturgy unspoiled. It has no guitar-strumming, Protestant-style music thrown in. It has incense every time, the exact same chanting and singing styles. The ritual is very closely-protected and preserved. They are quite proud of this. And they also have kept purity of doctrine from their point of view. They have kept very solid church polity without the complex mechanisms that Catholic Church has used to maintain order, none of the extensive canon law and legalese to the extent of Rome. To my knowledge the Orthodox are pretty open about liturgical language. That’s obvious from history. The Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians, Serbians, and many other Orthodox have used the native tongues, not the original Greek? So in that respect they are similar to Catholicism. But where they diverge from Catholicism is the changes to the Mass over time. Allowing people to hold hands during the Our Father, communion in the hand, not bowing during the Incarnation reference in the Creed, lax dress at Mass, tons of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist giving blessings to kids when they have no such power (??!!), people leaving early after communion without a blessing, Amazing Grace-type Baptisty songs tainted with Calvinist lingo, informality at times with priests foregoing certain parts or narrating things, no incense, poor wording in many areas, these are the things that personally bug the heck out of me about the post Vatican II Mass and the Orthodox tend to seize on these innovations and careless moments. They don’t put up with this stuff.

My question is how is Orthodoxy no longer Orthodox just because it uses English in a Mass in San Francisco? Is Orthodoxy defined by language or liturgical faithfulness, proper theology, following the bishops, metropolitans, and historical deposit of faith as they see it, and keeping traditions properly observed?

Gabriel_of_12:
IF this ethnically domination occurrs on both sides then why does Orthodoxy lay claim to Orthodoxy when it has adopted to the “Universal” Roman Catholic understanding coming from Vatican II?

In other words, Orthodoxy is now allowing english, spanish, porteguese, italian languages etc… into its liturgies, since when did the Orthodox Church from the Apostles introduce such a change from Orthodoxy? Since today I use to be proud of Orthodoxy to hold to its language and liturgy, in fact I would boast of Orthodoxy to my protestant friends about Orthodoxy in keepin with its Apostolic language and culture. Now I see I have been mislead from my historical readings and need to get up to date how Orthodoxy of old is no longer Orthodox because as Western Orthodox is laying claim here that they have allowed all ethnic languages and cultures into their liturgies? What the heck is going on here?

I am more comfortable with the light schisms from Eastern Orthodoxy than Western Orthodoxy to which I have yet to understand when? and where? they are coming from?

 

[John_Larocque]

Every language is (potentially) a liturgically suitable language. In the early history of the church there were many local variances in both east and west. Many have died out.

It’s one of the accidents of history that two rites had the greatest weight - those used by Old Rome (the predecessor of the Tridentine) and New Rome (St. Basil / St .Chrysostom). Others are still in use, but most are liturgical museum pieces.

One of the oddities of Counter-Reformation Apologetics is the defense of Latin (a language many people people didn’t understand) as being preferable to a liturgy in the vernacular. And yet, in the very beginning , the reason the West went “Latin” in the first place is because people no longer understood Greek, and that Latin was universally understood. Several Latin rites dotted the landscape - the French Gallicanized the rite of Rome and then most of that was pared back to something closer to the original Gregorian rite (the Franciscans have taken claim for preserving some of the earlier texts of the “Rite of St. Peter”).

The Great apostles of the Slavs, Saints Cyril and Methodius, took the liturgies of the day (mostly Greek, and some Latin) and translated them to the vernacular of the Slavic speakers. I read with interest the claim at Antiochian.org (which has some fascinating Western-rite essays) that the Croatian Old Slavonic Tridentine rite, like its East Slavonic counterpart, has links to these apostle saints. In any case, liturgies were never intended to become museum pieces. One should look to the work of these two saints as a guide to how an entire deposit of faith can be “translated” and spread and kept whole, while remaining faithful to what has been handed down, both in liturgy and doctrine.

To their credit, the Orthodox English liturgies do not seem to have been corrupted by the ICEL and “dynamic equivalence” and most of the ecumenist tendencies which have tainted vernacular celebrations of the Roman Rite. (I think some of the more modern GOA translations are awkward or inelegant, but the are still far superior to the ICEL). The recent L.A. educational conference is a fine example of how far things have fallen in just 40 years in the Latin church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree wholeheartedly, John. People on the pro-Latin-only side as if God spoke Latin from on high and it is the only language that contains any piety or love of God in it. You’re right, it was pragmatic as the West was a Latin-speaking entity.

I did want to ask you to elaborate, please, on the last statement about the LA educational conference? What was it? What was it about? I’m in the dark on that one…was it a conference of Catholic educators or…? What statements, decisions, ideas did they yield that you found to be pitiful?

To their credit, the Orthodox English liturgies do not seem to have been corrupted by the ICEL and “dynamic equivalence” and most of the ecumenist tendencies which have tainted vernacular celebrations of the Roman Rite. (I think some of the more modern GOA translations are awkward or inelegant, but the are still far superior to the ICEL). The recent L.A. educational conference is a fine example of how far things have fallen in just 40 years in the Latin church.

 

[John_Larocque]

This video is just unbelievable. It’s the subject of at least one separate thread here.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/03/from-closing-liturgy-of-los-angeles.html

The speakers list caused controversy in some quarters.
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=1736afa6-2dc1-49b4-8011-ff09a5604e2a

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Holy Lord! That video about made me puke!! Looked like some neo-pagan goofery…what in the heck was that!!?

When I left the Anglican church I felt like Catholicism has order, was ONE, and there wasn’t any of this kind of stuff. Over the past couple of years I’ve sadly come to realize I was in the Twilight Zone. This is outrageous!!

This video is just unbelievable. It’s the subject of at least one separate thread here.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/03/from-closing-liturgy-of-los-angeles.html

The speakers list caused controversy in some quarters.
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=1736afa6-2dc1-49b4-8011-ff09a5604e2a

 

[Hesychios]

To be fair to Orthodoxy, it was never my understanding that they have a one-language only liturgy?

You are correct.

Koine Greek was once a common language (although today it is regarded as archaic), and Old Church Slavonic was originally a common language. This was one of the overriding principles of the mission of Ss Cyril and Methodius, to preach and worship in the local language, they spent years in preparation (under the sponsorship of Saint Photios). They could have attempted the mission in Greek, but it is anyone’s guess how effective they would have been. In any case the saintly brothers were so effective that some areas they evangelized (of Slavic Croatia in particular) which were later were converted to the Latin rite continued to use the Slavonic language with the approval of Rome, until after Vatican Council II when they switched to the more modern Serbo-Croatian.

Every Orthodox synod has the right to approve of any language it needs. The Russian church (Moscow Patriarchate) once seriously considered adopting modern Russian (right before the Bolshevik revolution if I recall correctly) but tabled that during the ensuing crises. They still use Old Church Slavonic (I suppose that it has a lot of nostalgic value) but modern Russian is derived from Slavonic, so it is not entirely mystifying to the average worshippers.

Interestingly, ROCOR (notably extremely conservative, and now in union with the MP) uses Slavonic officially, but also uses English in some USA parishes. I can point to one I am familiar with here, near where I come from in Illinois…

Besides parishes and missions in Anglophone countries, ROCOR also has parishes in places like Haiti and Indonesia, and uses the local languages (in whole or part) where possible in the liturgy.

So even ROCOR, which has an apostolate around the world, realizes the need to address the people in a language they can understand.

The important thing is to reach the people.
______________________________________

To all my heartfelt wish for a joyous Pascha! :extrahappy:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Your point is well taken, althought the opposing views that you mention about liturgical cultures entering the liturgy are very western arguments from the examples you have given below, do we need to mention the abuses of the liturgy that many falsely accuse as the norm, let us be careful when we compare abuses in the Liturgy to what is canonical.

Did not the Eastern Orthodox (not the Orthodox from the West) protest against Vatican II for allowing the new world languages into the liturgy? Maybe the difference from our reading and research is from which hemishphere one is coming from; I have posted from the Original Eastern Orthodox not in communion with the Pope. I admit although these new Orthodox in the West who refuse communion with the Pope are very new to my learning here. I realize now why I am puzzled from hearing Orthodox in the West protest the Catholic Church which sounds very western Protestant to me by many of their comments and reasoning in protest to the Catholic Church. Things are beginning to make sense around here. We do not have one Orthodox Church not in communion with the Pope we have TWO different Orthodox Church’s not in communion with the Pope.

QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;6480464]To be fair to Orthodoxy, it was never my understanding that they have a one-language only liturgy? I’ve never heard of the Orthodox forbidding the language of the local people as the language used in liturgy? What Orthodox are proud of, from my reading of them and interraction, is that they have kept the overall liturgy unspoiled. It has no guitar-strumming, Protestant-style music thrown in. It has incense every time, the exact same chanting and singing styles. The ritual is very closely-protected and preserved. They are quite proud of this. And they also have kept purity of doctrine from their point of view. They have kept very solid church polity without the complex mechanisms that Catholic Church has used to maintain order, none of the extensive canon law and legalese to the extent of Rome. To my knowledge the Orthodox are pretty open about liturgical language. That’s obvious from history. The Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians, Serbians, and many other Orthodox have used the native tongues, not the original Greek? So in that respect they are similar to Catholicism. But where they diverge from Catholicism is the changes to the Mass over time. Allowing people to hold hands during the Our Father, communion in the hand, not bowing during the Incarnation reference in the Creed, lax dress at Mass, tons of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist giving blessings to kids when they have no such power (??!!), people leaving early after communion without a blessing, Amazing Grace-type Baptisty songs tainted with Calvinist lingo, informality at times with priests foregoing certain parts or narrating things, no incense, poor wording in many areas, these are the things that personally bug the heck out of me about the post Vatican II Mass and the Orthodox tend to seize on these innovations and careless moments.

Gabriel of 12;
What is being mentioned here, are how abuses in the liturgy are handled, not what the Orthodox Liturgy is in both Latin in the West and Greek in the East by canonical standards. Grant it that the original Eastern Orthodox languages are many and different yet these recieved the Gospel in their original apostolic languages and culture, to which they have remained Orthodox too from their liturgies. The argument is not mine or yours to discuss in regards to their language liturgy and culture, these internal complexities are between the Eastern Orthdox and those Orthodox from the West claiming to an Eastern Orthodoxy.

Personally, I don’t think the canonical Liturgy from both East Orthodox Church’s and Western Latin Church are the ones in question here from the Eastern Orthodox. It is the new founded Orthodox church’s in the West that appear to be in Liturgical abuse according to Eastern Orthodox standards coming from an Anglican liturgy. You appear to be confusing the issue by including both Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox in the West as one Church, when we know they are not by both Liturgy and authority. My summary to this, without an infallible authoritative apostolic Rock, these difficulties will continue to haunt the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. To answer your questions would only be of an opinon from me. One would need to go direct to an Eastern Orthodox to answer your question here not from an Orthodox from the West.

Gurney;
They don’t put up with this stuff.

My question is how is Orthodoxy no longer Orthodox just because it uses English in a Mass in San Francisco? Is Orthodoxy defined by language or liturgical faithfulness, proper theology, following the bishops, metropolitans, and historical deposit of faith as they see it, and keeping traditions properly observed?