www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Viability of "rites" in a reunited church

I have been considering the viability of continued different rites, medium-term, in the context of a fully reunited church -- ie, unified in faith and jurisdiction. Do you think that various rites and usages (and the theologies that accompany them) are viable, medium-term, in the life of the Church? I have my doubts.

If Orthodoxy, for example, ever comes "under the Pope" (ie, submits
to the papal jurisdiction, which would, in Catholic eyes, be the
final sign of "full communion"), gradually Orthodoxy, as we now know
it, would cease to exist. Now, I know that this is not what Rome
says it intends (and at this point in time it is probably unintended), but ISTM that
the conditions for preserving Byzantine Orthodoxy would have
disappeared. The different approaches between Byzantine Orthodoxy
and Roman Catholicism developed as a result of a geo-cultural divide
that existed and was very real during the first millenium. That geo-
cultural divide is ever less the case in contemporary society --
rather, to the contrary, the western/universalist/secular culture is
becoming the dominant culture throughout much of the globe, and
certainly in the "Orthodox world", as well. Yes, cultural differences will continue, but they will be much more slight than in the past. Under those conditions,
the preservation of a separate Byzantine Orthodox "approach" can
really only be justified if it is a reflection of a different faith,
or at least a different understanding of the faith. In the context
of Orthodoxy coming "under the Pope", this "difference in faith"
would no longer exist -- and hence another reason for continuing the
Byzantine Orthodox "approach" will have disappeared. In a future
megachurch united under the Papal jurisdiction, with an ever-closer
cultural unity and no acknowledged differences of faith, the raison
d'etre of the Byzantine approach would be greatly lessened.

It's true that Rome says that this is not intended, but I doubt that
these intentions will matter much in terms of what actually would
happen. As Fr. Taft (one of Catholicism's premier liturgical
scholars) has written, Byzantine Orthodoxy has not come to terms with
modernity -- whereas the western Church has -- and therefore it would
be natural for Byzantine Orthodoxy to come to terms with modernity,
in the context of a union under the Pope, by following the example of
the western Church. What we perhaps could see would the re-adapting
by the "western" Church of some of the ancient usages that were
common to the entire church (as has already been proposed by some Latin rite heirarchs), combined
with the adaptation by the "eastern" church of many usages and
approaches used in the "western" church that comport with modern
sensibilities and perceived needs. It wouldn't happen overnight, but
eventually the two approaches would substantially merge -- because,
again, there would be no continuing justification for a different
usage between the, by then, largely artificial distinction
between "eastern" church and "western" church. And Byzantine
Orthodoxy would be consigned to the history books, as a past usage
that had long outlived its usefulness and was only perpetuated over
the course of centuries due to the unfortunate, but now healed,
schism.

It seems fairly inevitable that at some future point Orthodoxy will
(at least offically) submit to papal jurisdiction, and come "under
the Pope" in one universal administrative communion. That's happened
in the past, and it will likely happen again. It's likely that the
monks would not go along with any such union, but (in my own opinion,
at least) I do not believe that the remainder of Orthodoxy would
necessarily follow the monks as they did in the 1450s, particularly
if the union is cast in more politically correct verbiage (which will
almost certainly be the case, given the way things work today). More
likely, ISTM, would be the vast majority of Orthodoxy following their
heirarchs into the Union, with a small remnant remaining behind "in
resistance" with the monks and Old Calendar churches. In any case,
in the event of such a union under the Pope, I, for one, would not be
interested in being a member of the "eastern" church of that union,
but would rather revert to being a member of the "western" church,
since that would be the "church in charge". In other words, if there
is no difference in faith, and we confess and believe the same thing,
but simply have a different "rite" (at least for the time being, as I
think that would inevitably change over the course of time as well),
I would much rather be a member of the church that is closer to the
universal center -- ie, I'd rather live in Washington DC than in Des
Moines.

Brendan

[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Brendan,

What an incredibly thought-provoking topic!

As "the world gets smaller', at least the First World and ex-Second World (ex-Soviet bloc), thanks in part to safe, efficient travel and revolutionary new communications media like this, it may come to pass that the rites may naturally merge into fewer ones or even, gulp, one rite.

The trend now definitely is New World Order consolidation, what with the EU and the euro. A secular counterfeit of Catholicity.

But what of Catholicity itself? Which form would it take in the event of a reunion?

In your hypothetical scenario, with the current Catholic setup, backed up by postschism definitions, and regardless of window-dressing changes in terminology, I agree things would turn out as you predict. Byzantine Orthodoxy would cease to exist except for sectarian pockets (but would they really be Byzantine Orthodoxy?). The Roman rite in some form would win out as indeed some RCs both right (Carroll) and left (AmChurch) really want. A posthumous victory writ large (worldwide) for John Ireland.

You know and I know as Orthodox Christians in America that the "other side' believe in their bones they are "the winning team' and are tapping their collective feet waiting for us annoying neurotics to drop all that ethnic old-fashioned stuff (that someone like me would enter an ethnic milieu by adoption is particularly outrageous to them — why join "those losers'?) and "get with the program', be it Tridentine, conservative Novus, happy-clappy charismatism, AmChurch, mainline Protestantism or evangelicalism. (Khomiakov, perhaps a little unfairly regarding conservative RCs — western apostolics — would have seen all these as different positions on the same un-Orthodox team anyway.)

Quotation from newly minted Tridentine convert friend: "Why shouldn't we put the Orthodox out of business? They can join us!' (Not hostile at all to the Byzantine Rite, he meant the Orthodox all should become "Uniates'. And he didn't buy communion/coбopнocть ecclesiology — ultimately all Catholics are Romans, regardless of rite.)

The intermediate stage would involve Orthodoxy being reduced to the circumstances of the present-day Byzantine Catholics, later even reverting to Uniatism before dissolving altogether. Churches to rites to one rite.

Or...

What if Orthodox ecclesiology is somehow saved and a different kind of reunion happened? Given the consolidating impulse active in the world, would Byzantine Orthodoxy remain unchanged? Still, perhaps not.

Nicholas Elko, I understand, wasn't really a liberal theologically, though he was Americocentric and heavy-handed. (AmChurchers don't promote the Rosary; he did.) I could forsee something like his imagined American rite happening worldwide eventually — not by force as he tried to do it in America but very gradually over time, organically, the way all the older traditional rites came into being.

In the interim I agree there would be much mutual borrowing between the rites. Through taking the Eastern (not just Byzantine) rites seriously the Romans would find a template to rediscover traditional elements in their own rite that had been lost in practice (objective character, orientation of the priest, reverent Communion, etc.).

The East, say, for this example, the Byzantines, could adopt some expedient and even intrinsically valuable reforms. Expedient ones might include shortening services. As much as the purists might howl, I wouldn't mind a brief early-morning Liturgy at which I could make my Communion without starving half the day, etc. Intrinsically valuable ones might include Lance Weakland's idea for the Hours, supplanting liturgical rhetoric (canons) with a renewed emphasis on the Bible (kathismata, readings and canticles), as is the case in the Roman office/Liturgy of the Hours and in the Anglican Prayer Book based on same. As well as things already under way in our Churches, such as reviving congregational singing.

the preservation of a separate Byzantine Orthodox "approach" can
really only be justified if it is a reflection of a different faith,
or at least a different understanding of the faith

Unlike hardliners I won't dismiss postschism Catholicism as a completely different faith. We do have different understandings of the one faith, however.

As Fr. Taft (one of Catholicism's premier liturgical scholars) has written, Byzantine Orthodoxy has not come to terms with
modernity -- whereas the western Church has -- and therefore it would
be natural for Byzantine Orthodoxy to come to terms with modernity,
in the context of a union under the Pope, by following the example of
the western Church.

The history of the western Church over the past 30 years is a textbook for Orthodox to study on how NOT to do it. Something that is in fact valuable. The founder of Pepperdine University had a great saying: "Don't make the same mistake ONCE — learn from others.'

Offhand I believe the current number of traditional rites in the apostolic Churches is less than ten. Whether some TRUE multiculturalism takes off and that number doubles, or the trends you track so well, Brendan, result in one rite, either result is fine with me, as long as the products have all the principles and content of the existing traditional rites.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I don't know Brendan, that all sounds very pessimistic... in Lebanon, we see Syriac Catholics and Orthodox, Byzantine Melkite Catholics and Orthodox, Maronites, Latins, etc.

They have been living together for hundreds of years (sometimes in different social positions, sometimes all suffering under the Turks, now all progressing in an emerging democracy...), and have maintained their traditions.

one of the Pope's roles is to strengthen the bretheren and preserve the multiplicity of rites.

If in America we can have charismatics, Black American-style, high church, tridentine, neo-cons, etc., all at home in the Roman Rite, why can't the Byzantines, Copts, etc. all still fit in?

And there will always be those who don't fit the "mainline church" image and will seek refuge in the "lesser" Churches.

Why would you switch back western? Aren't you incultrated in an Eastern mindset fully, Brendan? I for one could not imagine you switching back--you would not be happy.

As long as after union a "Catholic is Catholic" image is not pushed, I think everything will survive.

anastasios

>>>Expedient ones might include shortening services. As much as the purists might howl, I wouldn't mind a brief early-morning Liturgy at which I could make my Communion without starving half the day, etc.

Howwlllll!!!!!!! Serge, no one starves by not eating until 12 o'clock. If they have a medical condition, they should ask for a dispensation from fasting. But don't incringe on our wonderful services and ruin it for the others that like things the way they are. What would you cut out? The Antiphons? The Troparia? I agree that people should not push hours before liturgy, liturgy sung slowly, panakhida afterwards, then maybe a moleben... But a regular old liturgy takes 1.5 hours and is just right. Maybe if it started earlier things would be better? We start litugy at 9 am and are done by 10:30-11:00 am

Also, the second you shorten the services we will be just like N.O. Latins and then boom! Everyone will just become N.O. Latins.

>>>Intrinsically valuable ones might include Lance Weakland's idea for the Hours, supplanting liturgical rhetoric (canons) with a renewed emphasis on the Bible (kathismata, readings and canticles), as is the case in the Roman office/Liturgy of the Hours and in the Anglican Prayer Book based on same.

Kathisma in my opinon are the most boring part of a vespers or matins service. I usually just surf through them. The canons and their rhetoric are what drives the mind to higher contemplation, where our theology is unfolded!

>>>As well as things already under way in our Churches, such as reviving congregational singing.

Now THAT I can agree on!

anastasios

Dear Brendan,

I just wanted to note a few reflections on your deeply thoughtful post.

You are obviously a very spiritual person, as you truly are, and these issues appear to come from the very core of your being. Hopefully, I'm not over-dramatising . . .

My own feeling is that you may be, at times, seeing an "eventual reunion" of Orthodoxy with Rome along "uniate" lines.

That is my own view, I could be wrong, you tell me.

I see such a "reunion" more along the lines of "Rome returning to Orthodoxy" with a more decentralized papacy that, jurisdictionally, will have to agree to stay out of Orthodoxy's hair for true reunion to take place, if it does.

And, following such an event, the Eastern Catholic Churches will simply cease to exist, the majority returning to their Mother Churches, with some opting to jump to Rome.

The problem here, as I see it, arises because, for too long, East and West, Orthodoxy and CAtholicism, have each been associated with a single ritual expression, Byzantine and Latin respectively.

The Eastern Rites of Catholicism and the Western Rites of Orthodoxy don't really change this basic situation.

So, in the event of a reunion, already the stage is set for a "showdown" ala American West "This town ain't big enough for the both of us, y'hear!"

You've indicated where you feel the "safe money" would be in such a situation .

And your question is about why have more than one rite when, in a situation of reunion, there will only be one jurisdiction and one shared faith?

As for modernizing oneself, the Latin Church responded in one particular (no pun intended) manner when it chose to do this.

For all intents and purposes, the jury is still out on the relative success with which the Latin Church has pulled this off. Tension between the liberal and conservative wings over the liturgy and other issues has not been resolved, but appears to be deepening.

And given the Latin Church's history with its characteristic of "changing" period, we don't know what the future holds in store for it in the "Rites" department.

The Latin Church will survive and prosper, to be sure.

I just don't know how this should impact or relate to the Orthodox Eastern Church.

The spirituality of the Latin Church is sufficiently distinct from that of the EO so as to guarantee it its own existence within North America, period.

In the event of a reunion, I honestly believe that the Orthodox Church would flourish rather than diminish.

For one thing, it could stop defining itself in terms of what the West is not. Some areas of the Church could shelve a particular seige mentality with respect to contemporary issues.

The West could finally look at the East and tell everyone, "We're no longer enemies."

If my instincts on this are correct, then I see a great role for Orthodoxy in sharing its mystical spiritual riches with a Western world that is starving for them.

It would share with the West its glorious experience of Theosis, the Resurrection of Christ, the glory of the Theotokos and the Saints, the Deification through the Spirit, the constant praise of the Holy Trinity.

Its patristic spirituality can truly serve not only to revivify the Latin Church, but would also serve to help begin heal the chasm between the Latin Church and its sister offspring, the Protestants, both of which suffer, in their different ways, from a disconnectedness from the wellsprings of the Fathers.

To a West that affirms the death of God, the East proclaims the Resurrection of Christ and a spiritual life based on the constant invocation of His Name and the nurturing with His Mysteries in His Church.

A "submission to Rome" is not in the cards for Orthodoxy. To do so, would be a certain betrayal of its spirituality and history.

Union with Rome can only be authentic on the basis of the Pre-1054 model.

Also, I believe that the matter of ethnic culture is also of significance, but that is a more directly sociological venture that one need not go into here.

Just some thoughts.

Alex

What would you cut out? The Antiphons? The Troparia?

The пaки паки little litanies could go.

I agree that people should not push hours before liturgy

I like it (after all, I do it) but agree it is dispensible. It is a nice Russian custom, but not dogmatic.

, liturgy sung slowly, panakhida afterwards, then maybe a moleben...

Agreed.

But a regular old liturgy takes 1.5 hours and is just right. Maybe if it started earlier things would be better? We start litugy at 9 am and are done by 10:30-11:00 am

Agreed. An early start plus the time max you describe (low end: 90-minute Liturgy) would work.

Also, the second you shorten the services we will be just like N.O. Latins and then boom! Everyone will just become N.O. Latins.

Are you being facetious? If not, cool your jets, 'Stas. The little Ukrainian Catholic church I describe in the now-abandoned "I have a dream...' thread has, at present, one "Mass' a week, Saturday afternoon. It lasts 45 mins max. But it is clearly NOT the Novus Ordo.

http://oldworldrus.com

Thanks, everyone, for comments.

Serge --

"The intermediate stage would involve Orthodoxy being reduced to the circumstances of the present-day Byzantine Catholics, later even reverting to Uniatism before dissolving altogether. Churches to rites to one rite."

I wouldn't even see it as "uniatism", per se, because my guess would be that the "Latin Church" would adopt some usages from the "Eastern Church", and vice versa, so that the result, gradually over the course of time, would be one amalgamated rite for the entire church -- a sort of "universal rite" for a "universal church" in a "universal culture". I don't think that the borrowing would necessarily be all "one way" -- like uniatism was -- but would be two-way (probably lopsided, but still two-way).

"but very gradually over time, organically, the way all the older traditional rites came into being."

Yes, that's what I was thinking of as well.

"Intrinsically valuable ones might include Lance Weakland's idea for the Hours, supplanting liturgical rhetoric (canons) with a renewed emphasis on the Bible (kathismata, readings and canticles), as is the case in the Roman office/Liturgy of the Hours and in the Anglican Prayer Book based on same."

As is also the case in the New Skete usage for the hours.

Dustin --

"in Lebanon, we see Syriac Catholics and Orthodox, Byzantine Melkite Catholics and Orthodox, Maronites, Latins, etc."

Right, but in 100 years we'll probably see very few Christians in Lebanon or anywhere else in the Middle East. My scenario assumes that all of these are united under one jurisdiction *and* that the cultural trends in the world continue towards the evolution of a global culture. It's true that the Middle East largely has opted out of substantial elements of this global culture (as we have learned painfully) ... it's not clear whether that will continue or not, and if it does continue, it's not clear that there will be very many Christians left there in a few generations. My point was that if the cultural differences really begin to subside (and I would agree that the Middle East is probably one of the last places where that will happen), as it seems they are in the process of doing throughout *much* of the "Orthodox world", the reason for having different rites is significantly lessened.

"one of the Pope's roles is to strengthen the bretheren and preserve the multiplicity of rites."

Now, perhaps, but in the event that the emerging global culture takes hold in most of the Christian countries, that could change ... of necessity, really.

"Why would you switch back western? Aren't you incultrated in an Eastern mindset fully, Brendan? I for one could not imagine you switching back--you would not be happy."

Remember the context: in the event of a future reunited megachurch where Rome has jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches, I would not be interested in being in that "lesser church", despite the rhetoric of communion and equality, etc. Some people don't mind living in Des Moines, but I personally don't want to live there. In any case, that isn't going to happen in my lifetime, so I don't worry about it very much.

"As long as after union a "Catholic is Catholic" image is not pushed, I think everything will survive."

Initially perhaps, but over time that is doubtful, in my opinion, given the broader cultural trends.

ALex --

"My own feeling is that you may be, at times, seeing an "eventual reunion" of Orthodoxy with Rome along "uniate" lines."

Actually, I don't see it that way, as I note to Serge above. To me, "uniatism" was a one-way street, whereas I think what would happen in the future would be a two-way sharing (probably lopsided given numbers, influence and the greater degree of convergence of the contemporary "Latin rite" with the emerging global culture).

"with a more decentralized papacy that, jurisdictionally, will have to agree to stay out of Orthodoxy's hair for true reunion to take place, if it does."

I'm really not so sure about that. There would certainly be a segment of Orthodoxy that would buck any union at all. But I'm not convinced that official Orthodoxy won't, at some stage, reach a comfortable formulation of the papal role that retains jurisdiction (it will have to, to pass Latin dogmatic muster), but formulates it in a face-saving way. Orthodoxy has done that before, and in generations, after numerous papal visits and theological conferences and the like, it will probably happen, and it won't be an ecclesiology of communion, either, because that will miss the point of being united under the Pope.

"I just don't know how this should impact or relate to the Orthodox Eastern Church."

Again, as long as there is a significant cultural difference, I agree with you -- because that is one of the two "pillars" that hold up the distinction in rites as they exist today. But if the global cultural trend continues such that the cultural differences between the "Orthodox world" and the "Catholic world" are increasingly lessened over time, that justification, that raison d'etre, would be significantly undermined. That hasn't happened yet -- but my point is that it definitely is possible that something like that will happen.

Brendan

"Intrinsically valuable ones might include Lance Weakland's idea for the Hours, supplanting liturgical rhetoric (canons) with a renewed emphasis on the Bible (kathismata, readings and canticles), as is the case in the Roman office/Liturgy of the Hours and in the Anglican Prayer Book based on same."

As is also the case in the New Skete usage for the hours.

Then, at least in this case, good for New Skete.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Brendan,

One way or two way, your model for this eventual reunion between East and West is very much "uniate" with Orthodoxy taking a secondary place within a universal Church where the Latins predominate.

And you could very well be right in this, I didn't mean to use that word in a desparaging sense, although it is so used today by both Catholics and Orthodox.

You and my sociology professors certainly seem to agree about the future of our society .

But I don't and that could be because I have never really been in the mainstream and don't think in terms of mainstream North American culture.

Also, I just don't see people opting for cosmopolitanism. It is there, to be sure, but what enriches our lives is not the universal, cosmopolitan phenomenon that is always with us, has been for centuries.

Do you really think the Latin Church will continue in its "let's adopt to the modern world" trend?

I don't think that it will. I think the next Popes will be even more conservative and that conservative liturgical forces, such as those represented by Cardinal Ratzinger, will have more to say and more power in Rome.

The Latin Church adapted to modernity within the context of the time. "You can't beat them, join them."

Well, the Protestants haven't rejoined the Latin West, modern society is as inimical as ever toward Christianity, and many have come to realize that the real message of Christ is "not of this world."

In our private lives, we can be who we want to be, ethnic this or that, belonging to this or that Church. And why shouldn't we be? It makes for a more interesting life, does it not?

The global cultural trend is really that we have a double identity these days. We go to work as cosmopolitans and then we live the lives of our cultural, religious and other background in the privacy of our families and homes. And I see more of that in your Grand Republic than in multicultural Canada, as a matter of fact.

I think one of the reasons that Reader Sergius "turns on" (even I make the effort to be contemporary, Brendan) to Orthodoxy is because of its ingenious amalgam of religion and culture, in his case, the Russian spirit.

As for being united under the Pope, I also think that can be significantly changed along the collegial lines you say it won't. I give mainstream Orthodoxy credit to not cave in on this score, even if unity can be achieved elsewhere.

"With the Pope" rather than "Under the Pope" (the old uniate model of which I am a member) or no union at all.

And I do believe that what will save the West is a return to patristics, and a more spiritual, rather than bureaucratic, model of the church.

The Vatican will always be the Vatican, to be sure. But even we uniates don't think about Rome all that much any more. We're becoming feistier and more independent-minded as time goes on. Rome doesn't like that, but it will have to get used to that.

It could very well be, although I have doubts, that the Catholic and Orthodox worlds may come together in such a way so as to make their respective religious cultural differences somewhat obsolete (is that what you meant?).

But the issue of personal and group identity will never go away and so religious rites as part and parcel of an individual identity and the need to feel differenced from the world will continue to promote those distinctions.

So basically I see the survival of the beauty of Eastern Orthodox spiritual culture in the West especially, given the new cultural trends and vacuums being created.

What you say is possible. But it is not likely.

As for liturgical reform, that is another issue and we've talked about that before.

(I don't see the canons as "liturgical rhetoric" - who coined that phrase?).

But here again, people have a need for community and belongingness, in sociological terms (I know you've told me you don't like this, but just wait a minute so I can make a point).

Let me give you a case in point that I am currently working on.

Russian Jewish refugees in Toronto who become religiously observant Jews tend towards Orthodox Judaism than any other version.

The ones I've spoken to and interviewed basically confirm the research done to date on this.

And that is that what they are seeking in religion is what they don't find in mainstream society today, elements that go to build up a strong sense of identity, belongingness to a community.

Traditional morality and religious rituals are important because they heighten one's sense of distinctive identity and sense of integration with an in-group that shares values on a more intimate, personal level.

I would say that people find the same kind of attraction in Orthodox Christianity. I know I did but in the "Orthodox in union with Rome" variety.

I'm currently writing a book about this and relating it to the terrorist attack in New York, believe it or not.

Again, there is a whole slew of social forces coming into play on this interesting topic of yours.

But I am confident you can rest assured that in the event of a reunited Catholic and Orthodox world, when it comes to the "pull" of attractiveness and an answer to the problems of western society, Orthodoxy will not only win out, it will prosper as never before.

(Smile, will you, it's not so bad . . .).

I'm off for interviews for some new jobs tomorrow.

Could I ask you, Servant of Christ, to pray for me?

Thank you!

Alex

Brendan,

What you say is possible, and might happen. I personally don't think it will. I think globalism is a fad just like everything else that comes and goes.

If the Assyrian Church of the East can survive the Mongols, I think they can survive globalism. Maybe they'll only survive with 10,000 people, but they'll survive.

As far as Christians diminishing in the Middle East--what about Syria, where Christians can freely build churches, and it seems they are expanding?

anastasios

Dustin,

You state:
"Kathisma in my opinon are the most boring part of a vespers or matins service. I usually just surf through them. The canons and their rhetoric are what drives the mind to higher contemplation, where our theology is unfolded!"

The Psalms are boring!? I agree saying the same three at every service can be boring, which is why I sought a method of rotating them that remians faithful to our tradition. The canticles themselves do a better job then the canons which replaced them. The canons and other liturgical prose can be repetitive and boring also. What could be theologically edifying and uplifting is lost in endless repetition and over extended services. Sometimes less is more.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Lance, the legitimate liturgical reformer whose approach resembles the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement, wrote:

The Psalms are boring!? I agree saying the same three at every service can be boring, which is why I sought a method of rotating them that remians faithful to our tradition. The canticles themselves do a better job then the canons which replaced them. The canons and other liturgical prose can be repetitive and boring also. What could be theologically edifying and uplifting is lost in endless repetition and over extended services. Sometimes less is more.

From someone who has been accused of insensitivity to people and instead worshipping historical and cultural forms, AMEN!

http://oldworldrus.com

Lance,

I suppose I could have phrased that a little better.

Comparatively speaking, I find *chanting* psalms in services boring. It's just my opinion. Of course I love the psalms--they're God's word. But they don't express our theology like canons do, which change for the season, day, tone, etc. The chants employed for canons are complex and exciting (for me) to chant. Psalms are chanted in a plain, recitando type melody that after a few verses gets somewhat boring for me.

Just my opinion.

In Christ,

anastasios

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Anastacios---it is that chanting that I love it enables me to mystically get into the psalm without some one artificially forcing upon me a meaning . The monophonal chanting lets us listen to the words without the forced interpretation we so commonly find when one simply reads the psalm with verbal interpretation. My understanding of the psalms has increased greatly when they are chanted monophonally rather than read interpretively---I feel my understanding of the pslam therfore comes from the Holy Spirit and not man.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

My $0.02...

In a united Church, mere rites will not be viable.

However, sui juris Churches would!

*QUICK NOTE: I say "Eastern Catholics" here because those are the Eastern Christians in communion with Rome now. Change the terminology as you need to recast my statements for a future reunited Church.

If Rome is ever to effect reunion, it has to utterly resist the temptation to make Latin Catholicism the default setting (yeah, I'm a computer programmer, so what? :p ).

Rome will also have to realize that unnecessary meddling in the disciplines of the Eastern Churches will just forestall reunion, and once reunion would be achieved, could tear it asunder quickly (don't pick at the stitches!).

Orthodoxy sees the Latinizations that have taken place in the Eastern Catholic Churches and then say, "I want no part of that!" -- and I can hardly blame them.

However, in the event of reunion, the sheer strength of numbers would help mitigate Latinizing tendencies.

Somehow, there is going to have to be a consensus among the bishops, Catholic and Orthodox, that preserves both Papal Supremacy (yes, Supremacy, not just Primacy, or Rome won't accept it) and Patriarchal/Major Archiepiscopal/Metropolitan autonomy. I think it can be achieved, and the key is to reduce the role of the Roman Curia vis-a-vis the Eastern Catholic Churches (i.e., a prerequisite).

If there is going to be a Congregation for the Eastern Churches, it should be staffed ENTIRELY by Eastern Catholics. No other dicastery should be able "pull rank" on it - i.e. it answers to the Pope, and NO ONE ELSE.

Ideally (by my reckoning, at least), there should not be such a Congregation anyway, at least in its present form. I can understand the Pope wanting a dicastery to assist him with the Eastern Churches, however. Let's do this: each sui juris Church sends one representative. The Pope appoints, from that body, its Prefect, who is made a Cardinal, if not already one (in order to be a peer among the other dicastery Prefects).

The Easterns are also going to want to ensure that future Popes will not be antagonistic toward them. I still stand by my proposal to elect Popes using a bicameral system - one assembly of Cardinals, one assembly of the leaders of the Eastern Churches. The candidate must get 2/3 + 1 vote of each chamber. I know this got panned when I proposed it here months ago, but I still think it would be the best system to prevent the election of a Pope inimical to Eastern Church interests.

Another topic: One bishop per region. This will never, ever be viable again as long as rapid transportation exists and/or mass movement occurs. It's just too easy for Latin bishops to co-opt Eastern parishes (it sounds like the Orthodox are doing this too, with Western Orthodoxy). Having your own bishop from your own sui juris Church is a far better guarantee of ritual integrity than the questionable goodwill of a "strange" bishop. Sad, but true.

I hope that the general (there are always exceptions) trend of increasing respecting for the traditions, rites, and theology of the Eastern Churches continues in the Latin Church.

Last point: In the event of reunion, North America will have to be given its own Byzantine Rite Patriarchate or Major Archeparchy (postulate: the Byzantine Churches in North America will be united). I can't see the Ruthenian Church in America being willing to re-attach itself to an old-world Patriarchate, especially since it, among all the Byzantine Churches in North America, fosters a non-ethnic identity.

I have found a home in Orthodoxy in union with Rome. Maybe not perfect, but I'm doing all right. God willing, it will only get better.

PS: A prayer for Alex: May St. Joseph, Patron Saint of Workers, intercede for you, that He who entrusted His Only Son to his care may grant you gainful work so you may meet your needs.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: NDHoosier ]