www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy What happened to Pravoslavnyj?

------

IMHO, The "gift" is the Ruthenian recension and our Carpatho-Rusyn spirituality. Let's take it out of the attic and see what it's made of!

It is indeed a gift and a treasure. The opportunity for kenotic thinking about how to restore it - that too is a gift that should not be missed.

And nepsis!

And prelest?????

I agree. The Reformation Liturgy is wounding many good people in the places it is used. Advancing the people�s salvation is obviously not on the radar of our bishops. Liberal reform agendas seem to be the order of the day.

You know, I could support "Pastoral Sensitivity" to the word Orthodox if my pastor would be able to use
"Pastoral Sensitivity" to the New Liturgy. I cannot comprehend why my Parish will have to give up the "Red Book" that we celebrate each Sunday for something less, while a whole state dictates the use of the word Orthodox to the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh.

JMHO. Cathy

JD: You do have a reasonable point mixed in here. There is no doubt that there are good people wounded by some of the changes in the liturgy. How to respond to that is a good topic for discussion. But your leaping from there to the rest of your remark gets in the way.

You may not like the decisions made by the bishops. I suspect that they do not particulary like having to make difficult choices to which some will inevitably take offence. But that it their job - an awesome responsibility before God.
Others may have strong feelings about these decisions, but ultimately the decisions are not theirs to make; it is not for them to assess and balance of authentic traditions, organic tradition, and pastoral sensitivity.

Litany: If you truly wish input into the process, rather than just to vent, then begin by assuming good faith of those involved. Otherwise expect to be tuned out. And, of course, be on guard against confusing vigilance against the evil one with some liberal ideas about lay oversight of episcopal decision making.

Cathy: I agree with this idea to a large extent.

I think it was JMT who noted that the Archeparchial officials felt it important in this day of high mobility and rediasporization that it was important to have a better uniformity of practice from parish to parish. One problem in re-attracting people after a move is the potentially huge difference in liturgiucal practice that they might find in the BCC in their new home area as compared to their old one. There have been posts on the forum about this very problem. So I think that there must be some effort to hold much in common in our celebrations (apart from parishes enjoying FDD's radical economy.)

On the other hand, as compared to major aspects as the general text, or the audible anaphora, the extention of the office of the antiphons to three verses - or the whole psalms - I don't see an issue. There have been posts to suggest from those who know more that the extended practice would be accomodated. IIRC, there has been no authoritative statement on any mandates.

In this context, the argument that "priests are people" gives the prize away. It is not the faithful who are upset by the term "Orthodox"; this is a clergy problem. So far, that is, alas, accurate.

But the response is not difficult - the Church has a right to expect better from her ordained clergy than this nonsense. The clergy are supposed to know full well what the term "Orthodox" means and that the Church does not and cannot repudiate this term. The clergy are supposed to pay attention to such people (there's that word again) as Pope John Paul II who repeatedly used that word - he particularly liked saying that "we must be Orthodox in Faith and Catholic in love".

Meanwhile, it is precisely the obdurate, obscurantist clergy who are most likely to use the argument that "the people" would not be able to accept (whatever the obdurate, obscurantist clergy don't want). One sees this time and again.

Back to the original tautology - yes, dear hearts, priests and deacons are people. Being a priest myself, I realize that. Now kindly stop being fatuous.

Fr. Serge

From Fr. Serge:
Can we agree that the latter remark represents a personal attack?
But alas ...

As the moderator and administrator of this section, the term fatuous does apply. If one would step back and stop reading with emotion, one would clearly be able to see such. For those that are unsure of the meaning of the term, below is the from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Let's stop trying to read into things, and let us post in the manner expected.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

What is the current usage and the proposed usage? Do neither use Orthodox or does one of them?

My thanks to Father Anthony.

By way of illustration, to write that "Humphrey uttered a feline snarl" would not give Humphrey four paws and a tail!

Fr. Serge

Excellent illustration, Fr. Serge. Of course, it is a different matter altogether to write "Humphrey is a snarling feline" - even though that would still not give Humphrey four paws and a tail.

Similarly, there is a difference between writing that someone is making a fatuous remark, versus writing that someone is being fatuous.

In any case, I am glad that you conceded the point that priests are people.

The last sentence of djs' post is:

1. Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish. See synonyms at foolish. 2. Delusive; unreal: fatuous hopes.

He has proven Father Serge correct!