www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall It's "Open Season" I guess

In light of the other postings I have read here in the Town Hall section, I felt I should at least clarify my own position.

I am the person referred to in Serge's open letter, and I, with some regret, concur with the observations noted by Serge there. In my own perception, at least, there has been a significant change here since the server crash. To some extent, that seems to have been a result in a change in personnel (ie, some regulars electing not to return), but in another sense there is quite a difference in tone noticeable, and a particular repeated affirmation of a sectarian narrowness that has never been the case in this Forum before.

This is a regrettable development, in my opinion, but perhaps it was ultimately inevitable in a forum of this type. I might pop in from time to time in the future, but will otherwise no longer be present here going forward. I do not personally harbor ill-will towards anyone here, and I wish you all well.

In Christ,

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Sorry to hear you say that and you, as well as Serge, are sorely missed here!

I wouldn't mind if you could, at some point, explain what you mean by "sectarian?"

I've had some of our Orthodox friends here call me a few choice names. And I've deserved it. At other times, I didn't think I did.

Since there seems to be agreement here about my tendencies toward relativism (which I dismiss, but for the sake of argument . . .), I seem to get a sense of greater sectarianism from some Orthodox posters, rather than Catholic ones.

I know you won't agree. But we both come to this Forum with the view that our respective Churches, however close and yet not united, are what constitutes the true Church. And it is difficult to be "objective" about that at even the best of times.

Also, I sometimes get the impression that posters, Catholic and Orthodox, don't always differentiate between what is Church teaching (and therefore to be held absolutely) and what is their own particular viewpoint (which isn't).

And sometimes when our viewpoint gets slammed (don't I know it?) then some of us may jump to the conclusion that the offense is intended not for us, but for the Church we belong to.

Apart from this Forum, I've disagreed with Orthodox friends about this or that. And I know enough about Orthodoxy, maybe even you will grant, to know the difference between church doctrine and personal view. And yet, the reaction I've often received was, "Alex,you are getting to be Anti-Orthodox."

Are you repeating this same charge by saying "sectarian narrowness" rather than "I don't agree with what you are saying to me?"

Are you honestly being sincere, or, forgive me, condescending, by saying this is "inevitable on a forum like this?"

Like what? Like an Eastern Catholic Forum, where we try to keep our cool even with posters who are out to show us the error of our uniate ways, both Western and Eastern?

Your comment re: New Skete to me was, as I recall, "remember where they came from."

I took that to mean, if I didn't misunderstand you, that they were former Catholics.

If that is the correct understanding of your statement, well, then, heck, so were you, friend in Christ, and you were a Catholic a lot longer than you've been Orthodox. And so have many, many members of the OCA.

I agree with most of what you say.

But we here don't have the market cornered on condescension and "sectarian narrowness."

And if pointing that out sincerely and with some concern is unecumenical, don't you Orthodox constantly maintain, in any ecumenical gathering, that the truth must not be sacrificed?

I too agree.

God bless you,

Alex

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

I concur with Brendan and Serge to some extent. For anyone who does not know, I am a Greek Catholic, not Orthodox.

My complaint is this: Serge and others were told that they could not criticize the Novus Ordo because they are not Catholic. Yet Fr. Robert Taft, SJ, is the world-renowned expert of Byzantine liturgy. I submit that if a Jesuit can be an expert on Byzantine Liturgy--which includes the Orthodox, then Serge or others can post a reflection/criticism of Latin Catholic practices. I know the analogy is not perfect, but I think it works.

Do I agree with Serge's idea of "Amchurch"? Not systematically. But I see these trends in the Church. And other Roman Catholic writers are the ones that came up with that phrase--not Serge.

This used to be a forum where Byzantines, whether Orthodox or Catholic, could come together and discuss things concerning our common patrimony. Occasional discussions of Latin and Oriental practices would come up from time to time. But people were not censored, threads were not closed, etc.

This is happening too much. This forum is beginning to lose its influence.

anastasios

PS for the record, I did tell Serge that I didn't think he should have called Steve a troll.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: anastasios ]

Anastasios,

Its influence on whom?

Most of the people posting here are practically talking to themselves, or at best are preaching to the choir. The number of Byzantine Catholics who read, or are even aware of this forum, is probably rather small. And the percentage of Byzantine Catholics who even care about its existence is almost negligible. That's OK, but if the people who post here are hoping to influence the practices, attitudes, or polity of our Churches, I'm afraid they are in for a big disappointment. The forum has a lot of other valuable things going for it, but influence, I'd guess, is not one of them. Never has been.

Dustin,

Thank you for your comments.

Could you please tell me who has told Serge (or anyone else, for that matter) that he could not criticize the Novus Ordo?

As the administrator of The Byzantine Forum I am in frequent communication with the moderators. No one representing The Byzantine Forum has asked anyone – including Serge – not to discuss the Novus Ordo or any specific topic. Serge and several others (2 RC and 2 BC) have been asked by me to strive to express their opinions on all topics in a manner more charitable than has sometimes occurred or, if that was not possible, to avoid those specific discussions.

Several threads have indeed been closed because they denigrated to name calling and two were deleted because participants made accusations against specific named individuals but there has been no censorship of ideas. I hope that my addressing behavior that is void of Christian charity is not being interpreted as censorship!

Please let me know so that I may investigate.

I will say that I have detected a noticeable difference in posting style of many of the participants. It is somehow sharper and less tolerant of diverging opinions.

The ironic thing is that Forum readership is at an all time high. The Byzantine Forum is averaging almost 2,000 unique readers a day.

Thanks!
Administrator

...

oops

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Anastasios mentions Fr. Taft. Here is a clip from an earlier post of mine commenting on an article of Tafts' regarding the liturgical "defects of the West."


clip ----------------------------------

But the West was not the only Church with abuses. The East has its own too. Fr. Robert Taft, SJ wrote once that the “Eastern liturgy today reflects some of the very abuses the Fathers railed against.” Yet he does offer some comments of his own of Western liturgies in his paper, “The Contribution of Eastern Liturgy to the Understanding of Christian Worship.” (1996)

First, he mentions how the Eastern Liturgies are able to hold two realities in dynamic tension, namely Christ as Pantokrator and Christ as the Lover of Mankind.

Taft writes, “The West tends toward Christological schizophrenia, a sort of post-modern Nestorianism. Its piety ricochets between an excessive familiarity and an excessive now-Chalcedonianism, between Christology from above and Christologv from below. That is just a roundabout way of saying that Western piety tends to be historicizing, and its familiarity with the human Jesus leaves the Godman receding back into the divinity.”

Second, Fr. Taft states that Western Christology “disturbs the Trinitarian structure of Christian piety” even though he admits that most Christians believe in the Trinity. This is reflected in what he calls a community's “faith-consciousness” as expressed in liturgy.

Again, he writes, “Nevertheless, Eastern prayer is explicitly and consciously Trinitarian in ways that Western liturgical prayer is not. I am not talking about phrases, the repetition of Trinitarian formulae like doxologies, but about the "Liturgie profonde," which in the East simply cannot be regularly prayed without the attentive worshipper becoming imbued with a piety that remains Trinitarian through and through. That, in my view, is simply not true of the West, where the Holy Spirit, though professed, is just not a consciously operative factor in a radically Christological liturgical piety”

Third, Taft points out that the “Eastern Liturgy retains a sense of absolute and awesome holiness … of God, who is to be worshipped for that reason alone” without asking Him for anything. This is considered "foreign' to the West.

Taft writes, “Such "liturgical indifference" (referring to a previously quoted Collect from the Assyro-Chaldeans in Taft's paper) is refreshing in the face of the incessant Western mania to thematize and instrumentalize liturgy for its own ends, so that one can "get something out of it." Like the reply of Hillary when asked why he climbed Mt. Everest - "Because it's there," he answered -the Christian East prays to God simply because He is. One constantly hears in the West that people do not go to church because "they don't get anything out of it any more." What one "gets out of it," let me repeat what I have said on other occasions, IS THE INESTIMABLE PRIVELEGE OF GLORIFYING ALMIGHTY GOD (emphasis mine). For the Christian East, the Church's liturgy is not something we appropriate to our needs by reducing it to the level of our own banality. Rather, it is the Church's ideal of prayer to which we must rise. We are not the measure of the liturgy; the Church's liturgy is the yardstick that measures us.”

Did the West go from a liturgy of sentimentalism and individualism to one of banality? If so, is there a cure?

Fourth, Taft offers some clich�-bashers:

Western cliche: Liturgy should avoid repetitions.
Eastern basher: Repetition is of the essence of ritual behavior.

Western clich�: Liturgy should offer variety.
Eastern basher: Too much variety is the enemy of popular participation.

Western clich�: Liturgy should be creative.
Eastern basher: Indeed, but whose creativity?

“Most contemporary Western liturgical creativity is just one more cover for a neo-clericalism. The liturgical "creators" do not mean the creativity of the People of God, but of the celebrant and of the liturgical-establishment professionals.”

Fifth, Fr. Taft states that the West furnished an ever-aggressive narrowing of vision with its attitude toward the East. The one example he gives is about the Armenian and Byzantine practice of “praying FOR (emphasis mine) Mary and the saints indifferently.” The Latins couldn't grasp that Mary needed to be prayed FOR as opposed to only being prayed TO. He comments, “the Armenians had preserved the ancient tradition, and that the Latins were SIMPLY WRONG (emphasis mine).” Now, didn't Mary refer to her son as “My Lord and my Savior?”

He accuses the Latins of departing from the “common tradition” and elevating their departure into a norm, and then “use it to challenge those who had simply continued to believe as they always had.” This reminds me of the Latins including the Filioque into the Liturgical Creed AGAINST the Pope without care of the common tradition; kinda like the State of Ohio changing the U.S. Constitution on its own without the other 49 states.

Sixth, he give his words on “the tradition.”

“Any view of "the tradition" has to take account of the whole tradition, not just its currently accepted "official" expression. I think the way liturgical theology is presently done too often violates this principle, marshalling what agrees with preconceived conclusions and ignoring everything else. That just will not do, and that is a message both Western and Eastern students of liturgy need to hear. Problems in the history of the theological tradition are resolved not by references to the Council of Trent or to flights of fancy concerning sobornost ' and eucharistic ecclesiology, salted with a couple of commonplaces from some patristic anthology of long overworked proof-texts, but by the careful, close reading of all the sources, and attempting to fit all the tesserae into the mosaic. If nothing visible on earth is so divine and heavenly as liturgy, especially Eastern liturgy, nothing is so down to earth as the hard daily grind of digging out and painstakingly analyzing line by line all its textual sources.”

Seventh, an example and commentary on the West's habit of ignoring their Popes:

“As for Catholics with their "high theology" of magisterium, perhaps it is time to review the solemn magisterial statements condemning communion by intinction as tantamount to blasphemy. No less a pope than St. Leo I the Great (440-61) called the Manichean practice of receiving only under the species of bread a "sacrilegia simulatio." Pope St. Gelasius I (492-6) branded the same practice among Catholics in Calabria a "great sacrilege," and decreed: "Let them receive the sacrament entirely or abstain from it entirely." From that time on, local councils, theologians and popes, one after another, roundly condemn in the most solemn tones any practice except communion under both species -and that separately, not by intinction - right up until Pope Paschal II ( 1099- 1118) and the Council of London in 1175. Then they just decided to forget about it.”

Final Note: Before you get all flustered, Taft concludes saying, “What I have done is like playing with loaded dice: I have highlighted some virtues of the East by contrasting them with some defects of the West. I assure you I could continue the discourse IN THE OTHER DIRECTION …”

clip ---------------------------


Whether you agree with one of the leading liturgical scholars in the Eastern Catholic Church or not, how was his commentary any different than those who come to the Eastern Churches (Orthodox or Catholic) from the West? Taft, I feel, best articulates the common line heard from those who cross the Bosphorus, whether in a Catholic or Orthodox canoe.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

To avoid the sectarian narrowness Brendan refers to, may I please make a suggestion for consideration. Namely that those matters in which the Orthodox and Catholic communions have reached a common understanding of, need no longer be considered points of disagreement among those coming to this ecumencial forum. Continued discussion might be helpful, but not revisiting what our respective leadership has already resolved.

If some feels this leaves new participants ill informed, I understand this might not work.

K.

Kurt,

Good idea, acutally can I say GREAT IDEA!

What we need is a type of FAQ that can clue new users in, and that us older users can use to point people to and to use for our own reference when necessary.

David

Joe's excerpt of Fr. Taft's writings provides an excellent example of how this type of critical discussion should be undertaken. Fr. Taft presents his opinions and supporting evidence in a style that is not judgmental of any particular individual or even of a particular Church and it is one which is worthy of imitation (the particular topic itself is worthy of a new discussion but is off topic for this thread). The difference in the style of writing between the excerpt of Fr. Taft's writings posted above and some of the posts on this Forum in recent months is obvious.

Kurt's suggestion is an acceptable one but it should be noted that there is not yet a common consensus within Orthodoxy on many of the points that Catholics sometime considered resolved.

--

Note to Kurt: Please read your e-mails or new private messages (click on “my profile” and respond).

Brenden,

I think your comment about "sectarian narrowness" may be too nuanced to be clearly understood. The Administrator knows the two participants who have been exceedingly and unnecessarily provacative. I'm willing to wait and see how the issues surrounding those person's participation is handled. That, and really nothing else, will determine my future participation.

In that we may agree, I'm not sure.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Friends,

Just a note to say I've conversed with Brendan privately and I find his explanations for "sectarian narrowness" and some other points he makes in his original post here to be entirely to my satisfaction.

I withdraw and apologise for anything I said here that would cast a negative light on anything Brendan said.

Alex