Is Eastern Orthodoxy stuck in the past?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God never changes, so why modernize His Church? That would be leading the Church away from it’s roots and making it more worldly which is something we must not do.
 
I don’t really know what you are referring to. My post does not make the most sense and then I’m not clear as to what you are addressing in your response. I was trying to explain that the RCC has it’s own advocates for traditionalism as opposed to modernism influenced by Protestantism. Translating the Liturgy would not be considered untraditional from the East’s point of view. For some reason in the West it was not thought of as a good idea to translate it from the Latin for a long time. I’m sure there are good reasons, but personally, I think it is more in line with the Fathers of the Church to pray in your language if possible.
 
This is blasphemous to consider the Fathers of the Church as not having the same “mind” of Christ and of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
I said no such thing. I am Catholic, after all.

But even if I did say that, I hardly consider it the sin of “blasphemy.”
 
God never changes, so why modernize His Church?
Click to expand...
The Church does not remain the same in the way that God remains the same. You must clarify what you mean. For I don’t think the Church ought to change its fundamental constitution (visible society of apostolic shepherds united in Peter) or its fundamental mission (leading souls to Christ) or changing its dogmas and doctrines as expressed in the creeds, councils, and teachings of the bishops.

But the churches has always changed in other ways.
 
Last edited:
That you like Protestantism’s influence is a reason for the proposed idea of reconciliation that I mentioned. Try actually reading full homilies of Fathers of the Church, Sts. Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Jerome, Augustine and see if their way of thinking, practice, teaching, asceticism, etc. matches the Orthodox or the Protestant Churches.
Click to expand...
I love the church fathers. And I am Catholic because I think the Catholic Church is the fullness of the church, not Protestantism. I think you misunderstand me. I am not attacking tradition, or church fathers, or Orthodoxy, or traditional Catholicism.
 
And I love traditional liturgies, whether Roman or Byzantine or Syriac.
 
If by the “mind of Christ” he means they practiced charity and believed in the dogmas of the Church I would agree with him.

If he means to imply that Christ and the Apostles practiced the Byzantine Rite and used Byzantine devotions I’d say he’s sorely mistaken. The Byzantine Rite did not exist until the 4th century. St. Basil the Great is the Father of the Byzantine Rite, which he formed from uses of the Antiochian Rite which were happening in Cappadocia in the fourth century. And the Byzantine Rite of the fourth century is vastly different (in forms and incidentals, NOT in substance) than that which was practiced in the 1st and 2nd century - which in turn is quite different from that which is practiced today.

It is pure flight of fantasy for someone to believe they are practicing the exact same forms and words in the 21st century Byzantine Rite as the 1st century. The structure and substance of the liturgy is similar, but the details are quite different.
 
Last edited:
You seem to want to have the possibility of coming up with alternative views of things that came from heretics. This is fine I guess, but I would try leaving the RCC alone in doing so.
Click to expand...
??

If you read my previous posts, you will see that I am not attacking church fathers at all. I wouldn’t be Catholic if it weren’t for the church fathers.
 
It is pure flight of fantasy for someone to believe they are practicing the exact same forms and words in the 21st century Byzantine Rite as the 1st century. The structure and substance of the liturgy is similar, but the details are quite different.
Click to expand...
And this is what partly sparked my question. So many people I know who are becoming interested in Orthodoxy (from Protestantism) often first see in Orthodoxy a totally different experience of the faith than they are used to. And this is great!

But then it quickly turns into seeing this difference as an equivalent to being “well, this must be how early/apostolic/true Christianity ought to be in essence.” And so rather than becoming a question of the truth of the historic church grounded in Peter and Rome, regardless of liturgy, it becomes more of an introduction to Orthodoxy through an expression of liturgy.

Again, Orthodox and Eastern liturgy is legitimate and beautiful, but to me at least, its beauty and uniqueness (as observed from the West, where Byzantium is comparably absent) is somehow a suggestion of its intrinsic connection to the Apostles and original church — which is not totally true.

Perhaps one factor in why Protestants easily jump to Orthodoxy but not the Barque of Peter, when the faith and liturgical substance is almost 100% equivalent (in Catholic eyes).
 
Last edited:
I understand what you’re saying and I agree 100%

That’s not just a danger to get into that sort of thinking for converts only - I’ve seen that attitude widespread in EO in cradle Orthodox as well.

A very big issue with Byzantine romanticism and viewing the Byzantine Rite as the only true and holy Rite.

The close minded attitude is a danger for Catholics too though - to see the Roman Rite as the only real expression of Catholic faith and to denigrate other Rites or want to Latinize them. This attitude is equally as wrong.

This is why I suggest all Catholics to familiarize themselves with other Liturgical Rites than the Roman Rite.

In the Catholic Church we have 6 families of Rites, and multiple usages of those Rites in various Churches and geographic areas.

Latin/Western Rites (most notably the Roman Rite OF/EF/Anglican Usages, but also Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan)

Byzantine aka Constantinoplitan or Greek Rite (in either Greek or Slavic usages)

West Syrian aka Antiochian Rite

East Syrian aka Chaldean Rite (in both Chaldean/Assyrian and Indian usages)

Armenian Rite (only used by the Armenian Apostolic Oriental Orthodox and Armenian Catholic Churches)

Alexandrian Rite (divided between Coptic and Ethiopic usage, and Eritrean which is a form of the Ethiopic use)

The Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Roman Rites are the three most ancient Rites. The Byzantine, Chaldean, and Armenian all were developed from the Antiochian Rite and then cross-pollinated and enriched each other in later centuries.

So actually if someone wanted to claim a certain Rite as more ancient and thereby superior, that person would have to be promoting the Antiochian, Alexandrian or Roman Rite. To take up such a position regarding the Byzantine Rite in the face of the objective history of liturgical development in the Church is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
@catholic1seeks

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches (and historically, the state-protestant churches of Europe as well) are closely tied to their national and ethnic origins.

So yes, I would agree with the argument that these congregations are hinged to the past in a negative kind of way. I think this is derived from their schismatic origins, which by default, led to loyalties that were not so much universal, but moreso national & ethnic. This doesn’t reflect every member of that faith tradition, but an overall trend that is extremely difficult to ignore or deny.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I think I got that link because of how I navigated to the page. Editing my post now!
 
The mind of Christ is the mind of Christ. This is God in His energies. If the Fathers had this, it is blasphemous to call it only one “Byzantine theological approach”. What do you even mean about calling their theology Byzantine? Is this some kind of way of saying that it is laced with falsehood from Byzantine philosophy? We say that the Eastern and Western Fathers had the mind of Christ and that their consensus is perfect and The Faith of the Church. I have already clearly stated that liturgies develop and that non-byzantine liturgies were perfectly Holy.
 
There’s nothing wrong with the Byzantine Fathers or Byzantine Rite.

I love both.

The problem is putting the Byzantine Rite on a pedestal and denying that other Rites are equally as holy, equally representative of the Apostolical Faith, and equally part of the Catholic patrimony.

The Byzantine Rite is no holier or better than the Roman Rite which is no holier or better than the Alexandrian Rite. They are various expressions and forms of the Apostolic Church which have grown under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
 
No one is doing so except maybe these Protestants thinking of becoming Orthodox. Once, if they do become Orthodox and learn some things, they will see that it was wrong to put the Byzantine Liturgy on some pedestal where other liturgies were wrong. Cradle Orthodox who may do so, obviously are doing so out of ignorance, much like cradle Catholics do many things out of ignorance. No educated Orthodox Christian thinks that the Byzantine Liturgy is the only acceptable Liturgy, they just might be in favor of it seeing as it is the main Liturgy of the Church that has stuck around. There is great deep meaning in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great which is very similar.
 
Blasphemy: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

The Saints are Sacred things. You seem to have gone back and changed your opinion on the Fathers of the Church from Byzantium, but you possibly mistakenly said that Orthodox have a Byzantine Theological approach and then said that the Apostles were not Byzantine. From this it is only natural to infer that you are saying that the Apostles and this Byzantine Theological Approach, which can mean nothing other than the Fathers from that place and time, have a disconnect. To do so is to say that the Fathers did not have the same mind of Christ but rather influences from “Byzantium” whatever that means. I agree styles and ways of chanting and customs are purely based on the local customs, but “theological approach” I think crosses the line.
 
@pacloc I never meant to disapprove of Byzantine theology or liturgy or spirituality.
No educated Orthodox Christian thinks that the Byzantine Liturgy is the only acceptable Liturgy
Click to expand...
Good! Now I only hope Orthodox can see legitimacy in the Roman rite, the Roman theological tradition, Roman spirituality, and Roman liturgical expressions that have evolved with needs of the ages and different cultures it has encountered, as the Christian faith always has.
Blasphemy: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not attacking any church father, nor am I attacking the Byzantine expression or even Orthodoxy.

@Spyridon has better expressed what I have meant to get across: It’s the uneven centralization on the Byzantine way as equivalent to the “orthodox” or “apostolic” faith that is troubling to me.

And how this relates to the original post/issue: I feel as if there is great impression that many Orthodox (maybe unwillingly) give that the true church is equivalent to the Byzantine Church (or rather, that authentic and apostolic Christianity is shelled within the Byzantine tradition). This is not correct. But to get back to the specific situation I was mentioning earlier, Byzantine liturgy and traditions are beautiful and distinct, and I think this distinction causes many Western Protestants to be awe-struck (as they should be) but then wrongfully conclude “Oh, THIS is apostolic. THIS is the original church. I NEED icons, and all Byzantine embellishments, in order to be in communion with the ORIGINAL church.”
 
Last edited:
pacloc said:
I don’t really know what you are referring to. My post does not make the most sense and then I’m not clear as to what you are addressing in your response. I was trying to explain that the RCC has it’s own advocates for traditionalism as opposed to modernism influenced by Protestantism. Translating the Liturgy would not be considered untraditional from the East’s point of view. For some reason in the West it was not thought of as a good idea to translate it from the Latin for a long time. I’m sure there are good reasons, but personally, I think it is more in line with the Fathers of the Church to pray in your language if possible.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t very clear, either. I meant that Rome, having changed out of Greek, may have been more primed to be open to liturgical evolution generally. That openness to change probably also made the Western Church more vulnerable to innovations that went beyond disciplines that could be altered and into attacks on the Traditions that all Catholic bishops are duty-bound to defend.

Do you think the Orthodox Churches are more likely to hear, “Why should we change?”–blanket defenses of the status quo, even when the matter in question is merely a human tradition that theoretically could change–while the Roman Rite is more likely to hear, “Why shouldn’t we change?” which leaves it more vulnerable to bids for inappropriate changes that the bishops cannot allow?
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Do you think the Orthodox Churches are more likely to hear, “Why should we change?”–blanket defenses of the status quo, even when the matter in question is merely a human tradition that theoretically could change–while the Roman Rite is more likely to hear, “Why shouldn’t we change?” which leaves it more vulnerable to bids for inappropriate changes that the bishops cannot allow?
Click to expand...
This describes the situation almost perfectly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top