C
ciero
Guest
orthodox= right worship
Adoration of the Eucharist is right and proper in the Western church… hardly so in the East.
- Status
Adoration of the Eucharist is right and proper in the Western church… hardly so in the East.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Hardly so in the East if the idea is to develop Eastern churches in the US as something of a theme park.
But what about right worship? Does membership in an Eastern church grant some immunity against Eucharistic heresy? Does the lack of history of such heresies in the East prevent their cropping up among us now that we are in the West.
I had the occasion to be in an OCA church - largely Protestant converts - where, at the end of the liturgy the Priest wanted to show the congregation the new tabernacle that was given to the parish as a gift. The Royal doors were flung open and the Priest stood in the altar chit-chatting about the new tabernacle. He then opened its doors - exposing the reserved gifts - all the talking about this and that. I was a little stunned and not sure of what to do (Decades ago as an altar boy I need to go to my knees and rind the bells - but we wouldn’t want to do that anymore:blush
. I looked around - nobody seemed to take notice. Then my eyes caught a those of young novice monk, equally disturbed. We made a small bow until the show was over. And by the way: when those same gifts are brought forth during the presanctified liturgy the congregants are making full prostrations with theirs eyes lowered to the ground.What is ortho praxis; and what discipline do we need to make it second nature to us?
What do we need to save our souls? Are there elements that were never of interest in Byzantium, or Russia, or Syria, that would be help to advance the salvation of souls living in the US. I think so, and I think that that is why we are - as in fact Rome actually reminds us - aiming for authentic tradition including organic growth. Not a theme park but a living church whose mission is the salvation of the souls entrusted to it.
C
ciero
Guest
In my opinion the Eastern Catholic Churches need to healthy before we can expect organic growth. Is a blatant aping of the Latins organic growth? I don’t think so.Hardly so in the East if the idea is to develop Eastern churches in the US as something of a theme park.
But what about right worship? Does membership in an Eastern church grant some immunity against Eucharistic heresy? Does the lack of history of such heresies in the East prevent their cropping up among us now that we are in the West.
I had the occasion to be in an OCA church - largely Protestant converts - where, at the end of the liturgy the Priest wanted to show the congregation the new tabernacle that was given to the parish as a gift. The Royal doors were flung open and the Priest stood in the altar chit-chatting about the new tabernacle. He then opened its doors - exposing the reserved gifts - all the talking about this and that. I was a little stunned and not sure of what to do (Decades ago as an altar boy I need to go to my knees and rind the bells - but we wouldn’t want to do that anymore:blush
What is ortho praxis; and what discipline do we need to make it second nature to us?
What do we need to save our souls? Are there elements that were never of interest in Byzantium, or Russia, or Syria, that would be help to advance the salvation of souls living in the US. I think so, and I think that that is why we are - as in fact Rome actually reminds us - aiming for authentic tradition including organic growth. Not a theme park but a living church whose mission is the salvation of the souls entrusted to it.
D
dvdjs
Guest
In my opinion the Eastern Catholic Churches need to healthy before we can expect organic growth. Is a blatant aping of the Latins organic growth? I don’t think so.
- I am curious as to your criteria and norms for organic development. If it entirely excludes transfer of information, then it doesn’t have much to do with development in real organic - living - systems.
- Blatant aping? Baloney. I suppose that if we adjusted our calendar to have the feast of Corpus Christi, and paraded on that day with a monstrance and Latin hymns, that would be blatant aping. Of course that is not what have ever done AFAIK. Our service, which, for example was used at the close of odpust, does not replace any standard Eastern devotion, never revealed the Eucharist (even the chalice was veiled) and was very Eastern in its structure - with the elevation paralleling the Divine liturgy - and was certainly Eastern in its chant. We also had the Eucharist on the altar in anticipation of Pascha. In reverence, we walked from the rear of the church to the sepulchre on our knees and bowed “standing” on our knees, and observed strict silence - just as we did when our priest was carrying the gifts from the church to visit the sick. I am not sure who did this apart from us. Who were we aping?
- You have yet to give a cogent argument as to why this bothers you. You are bothered by Eucharistic adoration: but why?
Now explain how on earth you think that Eucharistic devotion might be similarly harmful? As I mentioned, it is far more easy for me to imagine that it could be of great benefit especially insofar as EO in the US is teeming with recent converts from Protestantism.
And then, since you are OK with “daily” liturgy, perhaps we can find out why those who have objected to it on this thread oppose it.
A
Aramis
Guest
It’s a documented part of Maronite Praxis for at least 200 years, and mainstream for at least 100. It’s been done long enough to be custom with force of law.
It’s been part of the Maronite church long enough to be authenically Maronite if the Maronite Synod decides it to be so.
Remember: they were latinizing starting in the 1200’s… they have developed a unique recension of the Syriac rite. It can be argued convincingly that the Maronites have diverged far enough to be a third Syriac rite…
A
Aramis
Guest
No. It means having right belief.
Orthopraxis is having correct liturgical, paraliturgical, and when relevant, personal practices.
A
Alfonsus
Guest
I think Maronite liturgical history is unique.
While we do not wish to Latinize the Maronite, we don’t wish to Byzantinize it either or judge them using Byzantine criteria.
Let the Maronite sort out their house themselves. Their people and hierarchy will sort out what to discard, what to keep, what to adopt.
While we do not wish to Latinize the Maronite, we don’t wish to Byzantinize it either or judge them using Byzantine criteria.
Let the Maronite sort out their house themselves. Their people and hierarchy will sort out what to discard, what to keep, what to adopt.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Actually, Orthodoxy is both, right belief and worship, theoria and praxis where the theoria is indicated by the praxis.
Alexis
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
There are two points that Fr. Michael is making that are both absolutely correct and applicable to all Eastern Catholic Churches.
The first one is Father’s point about the Particularity of each EC Church. Whether it is Fr. Michael or myself or anyone else, as members of a Particular Church, we follow the rubrics and traditions as laid down by the competent authorities of that Church. It is not up to us to pass judgement on them, whether they do or do not adhere to this or that principle of “Easternization” that Rome encourages. Obedience is key not only for monastics, but for laity too.
The second one is Father’s point (quite remarkable and one that I’ve never heard articulated in this way before) about how EC Churches can and will adopt certain Latin practices to make themselves “different” from Churches not in communion with Rome.
And there is enough historical “stuff” to fill several volumes when it comes to the Ukrainian Catholic Church on this score . . .
In fact, depending on the historical context, the “Filioque” was variously regarded in the UGCC as a “foreign imposition in the historic Orthodox Creed” to “our tradition” in the 19th century when Tsarist armies began their “Easternization” agendas in western Ukraine (which led to a “reunion with the Mother Church of Moscow” - although no Ukrainians ever remembered being spirituall birthed by such a “mother”) to the modern era where the Filioque is once again considered something of a Latin tradition to be dropped from the Creed.
Fr. Michael is absolutely correct, and his understanding of the role of the Particular Church is likewise remarkable.
We may or may not like how the Maronite Church does its liturgical business - but ultimately, this is up to the Maronite Patriarch and his Patriarchal Synod.
Bravo to Fr. Michael!
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I, for one, don’t think this is a respectful tone at all. How do you know they “blindly ape” the Latins? How is this Community doing anything blindly?!
So if the Roman Rite has Eucharistic Adoration, this means that it is off limits to anyone else on pain of losing one’s Eastern status and being pilloried on this forum?!
The UGCC has had Eucharistic Adoration which was the mainstay of our New Martyrs and Confessors of the Soviet (and Russian Orthodox) Yoke.
Our Patriarch, the New Hieroconfessor Joseph Slipyj fought all his life for the UGCC patriarchate and for Byzantinization. Yet, he did not consider Eucharistc Adoration to somehow be a “twisting” of the Eastern tradition. Neither did Bl. Leonid Fyodorov, a Russian Catholic Orthodox.
I don’t understand the attitude of some of our Eastern fellows here.
They set themselves up, as my old acquaintances used to, as judges of what is or is not “Eastern” and then pillory those who don’t fulfill their agendas.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
And if we can prove and otherwise show how Eucharistic Adoration is only for “Latins” and is a Latinization, that would be a big help to everyone.
Too bad we don’t have our UGCC EC martyrs posting here to tell their side of the story . . .
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Brother Ciero,
Please don’t take this the wrong way - but whay you’ve said is sheer and utter nonsense.
Take Fr. Michael’s point about EC Churches adopting this or that western practice as a way of differentiating themselves from those not in communion with Rome - the opposite could also be true, meaning that Orthodox Churches could resist such devotions because they want to be as far away from Rome as possible e.g. when the Assumption dogma was proclaimed, Orthodox teachers immediately, in knee-jerk reaction, said that the Orthodox Church NEVER believed in the bodily assumption of Mary (this is discussed in Ware’s book on Orthodoxy).
Either those Orthodox teachers were completely ignorant of their own liturgical heritage, or else they were just being viciously anti-Roman.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
D
dzheremi
Guest
Are the two necessarily separate, in your view? If so, why? I don’t see how this can be the case.
Anyway, I’d like to ask a few questions to everyone here who does not see a problem with the adoption of Latin practices and the theology that goes with them such to the point that they have replaced the traditional practices of the various churches.
A lot of arguments for the adoption or continuation of certain things that were originally strictly Latin but were imported in past eras when the Latin church (or its representative in a given place) was not so enlightened in its theoretical approach to its “other lung” seem to center around a few ideas that I find rather puzzling, myself.
One idea is that if a practice has been established for a long enough time among a given community, then it can rightly be taken as “organic” and hence should not be excised in the name of returning to authentic Oriental or Eastern spirituality (as Pope Benedict has urged you to do). My question regarding this idea is: Is it at least theoretically possible that something can be well-established in a particular place (“organic” in that sense), and yet also wrong, with regard to the authentic (pre-Latin contact) practice and spirituality of the church in question? It seems to me that if Eastern and Oriental Catholics are to be, as is often claimed, “Orthodox in union with Rome”, then their pre-Latin practice and theology ought to trump any number of centuries spent indulging in Latinizations as a result of what the Latin church itself now rightly sees as a harmful relationship between Rome and its non-Roman communicants. I am admittedly not Catholic, but from my point of view this stance by the defenders of Latinization seems to be essentially claiming that an imposition, if successful enough, ceases to be an imposition. I don’t think things work this way in any other facet of life (e.g., “hey guys, remember how slavery became okay once the slaves could no longer remember anything else?”).
The other argument that I have seen in defense of Latinizations is this idea that it is right that there be some degree of give and take among the various members of the Roman communion. After all, everyone is united in communion with Rome, and there should be some distinctive practices related to that, right? Nevermind that this completely clashes with any sort of “Orthodox in union with Rome” stance (since I am willing to accept that good non-Roman Catholics can disagree in this regard), what really worries me about this is: Shouldn’t a proper “give and take” sort of relation involve roughly even amounts of giving and taking? I ask because it seems to me as an outsider (as it likewise seemed to me when I was still under Rome) that Rome does a lot more giving than taking. Granted, a certain degree of this is to be expected given the fact that you guys are in union with Rome because you believe it has the prerogatives it has asserted to make such decisions and declarations as the preeminent See of Christianity, but I don’t know…it still seems wildly out of whack to me. Eastern and Oriental Catholics have accepted/tolerated/promoted any number of Latin practices (rightly or wrongly), and Rome in return has taken…what, exactly? Some people point to Eastern influence on certain sections of the RC Catechism, and I guess I won’t debate that (I no longer own a copy, so I couldn’t even if I wanted to), but it just doesn’t seem commensurate with the massive influence of Rome on the other churches. It seems, forgive me, as though the non-Latin churches are treated as sort of tokens of Catholic diversity or universalism, rather than proper churches in their own right…
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
You mean, in their own “rite!”
I don’t know what Rome has taken from the East, only that it has let go of a lot that used to give Roman Catholics their specific RC identity . . . But that is another discussion.
The main issue of Latinization in the EC Churches is how they see themselves - as a Particular Church or as a branch of the Roman Catholic church?
The Maronites see themselves as a Particular Church, period. I wish the UGCC had their “sense of self.”
And historically what is a “Latinization” came as a result of pressure from the RC environs. At the same time, the Orthodox church itself (in E. Europe) would adopt many Latin forms (St Peter Mohyla’s Catechetical approach, the Passia, the various Western devotions adopted and promoted by Orthodox saints like St Dmitri of Rostov (Immaculate Conception, rosary) St Joasaph of Bilhorod, St John Maximovych of Siberia, St Paul Koniuskevych, St Tikhon of Zadonsk, St Yuri Konissky, etc.). Somehow, these devotions did not hamper that Church’s ability to be itself - although later theologians had more than afew things to say about them.
Again, like my good old Vostochnik friends, we haven’t defined what a “Latinization” is - we are assuming everyone knows Latinization when they see it.
And I just don’t see that. The UGCC has a full range of what some of our Easterners here would readily condemn as Latinizations, yet its resolve to be a fully Particular Church with her own patriarchate has never been greater.
Also, I’ve noticed that our really “Eastern” brethren here know a lot about canon law (especially when they speak with Vico ).
Canon law, especially when created by Latins for Eastern Churches, sends shivers up my spine.
Eucharistic Adoration doesn’t.
Alex
I don’t know what Rome has taken from the East, only that it has let go of a lot that used to give Roman Catholics their specific RC identity . . . But that is another discussion.
The main issue of Latinization in the EC Churches is how they see themselves - as a Particular Church or as a branch of the Roman Catholic church?
The Maronites see themselves as a Particular Church, period. I wish the UGCC had their “sense of self.”
And historically what is a “Latinization” came as a result of pressure from the RC environs. At the same time, the Orthodox church itself (in E. Europe) would adopt many Latin forms (St Peter Mohyla’s Catechetical approach, the Passia, the various Western devotions adopted and promoted by Orthodox saints like St Dmitri of Rostov (Immaculate Conception, rosary) St Joasaph of Bilhorod, St John Maximovych of Siberia, St Paul Koniuskevych, St Tikhon of Zadonsk, St Yuri Konissky, etc.). Somehow, these devotions did not hamper that Church’s ability to be itself - although later theologians had more than afew things to say about them.
Again, like my good old Vostochnik friends, we haven’t defined what a “Latinization” is - we are assuming everyone knows Latinization when they see it.
And I just don’t see that. The UGCC has a full range of what some of our Easterners here would readily condemn as Latinizations, yet its resolve to be a fully Particular Church with her own patriarchate has never been greater.
Also, I’ve noticed that our really “Eastern” brethren here know a lot about canon law (especially when they speak with Vico
).Canon law, especially when created by Latins for Eastern Churches, sends shivers up my spine.
Eucharistic Adoration doesn’t.
Alex
D
dzheremi
Guest
Well I for one am not defining what a Latinization is, or at least not meaning to – I am going about this with the complaints of some of my Eastern and Oriental friends as the basis for my questions. Since I am praying to join the Coptic Church (which, oddly enough, has its own struggle with “Latinizations” and other non-Coptic influences invading it, despite the Coptic Catholics being so few, both inside and outside of Egypt), I have less of a personal stake in declaring this or that particular practice as a Latinization, or a nativized Latin practice, or whatever other characterization. What I find more revealing is what this entire discussion or approach to these issues can say about the nature of the Roman communion, regardless of what particular church you’re in. I actually spent a little bit of time with Byzantine Catholics before deciding to leave Catholicism all together, and it was these types of issues that made it clear to me that I couldn’t be at peace as an Eastern or Oriental Catholic. So naturally, I’m curious as to how you guys manage to do what I couldn’t do, and presumably many others couldn’t do (as the transition from Latin to Eastern to Orthodox seems to be a common enough that I feel a bit strange not having taken that middle step).
That’s fine. I just (rhetorically) wonder why.
Y
yeshua
Guest
Your lack of knowledge regarding this issue gives credence to the good father’s arguments, and you both miss the point. Many elements of the rubrics are given options by Synodal approval, i.e. ad orientem vs. ad populum. You and Fr. Michael are confusing obligation with options. Not only can he and his community practice the apex of our tradition as much as the rubrics will allow, but that they as a community choose not to. Everything I listed is valid and approved by the Synod. Furthermore, Fr. Michael has demonstrated a lack of general knowledge about his tradition, case in point believing that the veil or curtain is somehow only a Syriac exclusive tradition. Monks in our tradition, nay Eastern Christianity, are called to be those spiritual icons, reflecting the obedience we laity should strive to reflect. How is this community living up to that calling by sanctioning the bare minimum of our tradition’s expressions? Focusing on contemplation over tradition? It’s a poor understanding of our church’s history if that is going to be used as an argument.
What the Synod and Patriarch does about keeping our liturgical house in order is another topic; how this community expresses its liturgical self is the topic of this thread.
The self-imposed Latinizations for the sake of distinguishing oneself is a tangential issue, and I’d rather not entertain it in this thread.
A
Aramis
Guest
Yes, the two are VASTLY different. Most who have orthodoxis will also have orthopraxis, but many who have orthopraxis will not have orthodoxis.
Just look at how many people relegate religion to Sundays only. How many Catholics and Orthodox hide their faith “under a bushel-basket”…
I’ve met a couple very orthopraxic priests who were also heretics. (One didn’t believe in the virginity of the Theotokos; the other held to the pelagian heresy.) Pelagius himself was very orthopraxic.
The right-believing will almost always be of the right practice, but the right practice alone isn’t enough to ensure right belief.
And then, rarely, the opposite: the Antichian Orthodox have a couple of breaks with orthopraxy, in their governance and in allowing organs, but are still orthodox
D
dzheremi
Guest
I see now I phrased that poorly. Let me rephrase it in light of your clarification (which I do agree with – Orthodoxy does not necessarily follow Orthopraxy):
Do you believe that Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are correlatable to the degree that where Orthodoxy is, orthopraxy should necessarily follow?
I’ve emphasized “should” because every church is of course filled with fallible, disagreeable humans, so there is some degree of variation which might be present within a given church without necessarily compromising either value to the point where the church is no longer considered “orthodox”. The more I learn of Orthodoxy, I think the reality of these discussions is comparable to discussions on the legal idea of obscenity: People like to pretend that it is a silly idea because no one can seem to agree on exactly what it is. I find this a very unconvincing argument. In real life, while 100% consensus is virtually impossible to find outside of very general positions, what we find is very similar to the various divisions in Christianity: People align themselves together into larger groups based on shared definitions of what should be recognized as obscenity, and then advocate that those outside their group come to see it their way.
So, what about if instead of “Orthodoxy” in general, we shrink it down to a particular church (since that is what the thread is about). Would you recognize that in your own church, those parishes or churches that are the most orthodoxic are also the most orthopraxic? Again, I can’t see how this would not be the case…
Do you believe that Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are correlatable to the degree that where Orthodoxy is, orthopraxy should necessarily follow?
I’ve emphasized “should” because every church is of course filled with fallible, disagreeable humans, so there is some degree of variation which might be present within a given church without necessarily compromising either value to the point where the church is no longer considered “orthodox”. The more I learn of Orthodoxy, I think the reality of these discussions is comparable to discussions on the legal idea of obscenity: People like to pretend that it is a silly idea because no one can seem to agree on exactly what it is. I find this a very unconvincing argument. In real life, while 100% consensus is virtually impossible to find outside of very general positions, what we find is very similar to the various divisions in Christianity: People align themselves together into larger groups based on shared definitions of what should be recognized as obscenity, and then advocate that those outside their group come to see it their way.
So, what about if instead of “Orthodoxy” in general, we shrink it down to a particular church (since that is what the thread is about). Would you recognize that in your own church, those parishes or churches that are the most orthodoxic are also the most orthopraxic? Again, I can’t see how this would not be the case…
- Status