|
1 members (Hutsul),
457
guests, and
94
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,526
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6 |
Originally posted by Pseudo-Athanasius:
Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics. Sometimes even moderate Orthodox want nothing to do with us, and barely tolerate our presence. Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband. Why, then, should we be faithful to our Eastern heritage? I find the answer in that all-important second principle: we have the right to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of our people. We should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. We should be faithful because it is good and true and beautiful and the expression of our spiritual health. Rome has often seen us as a tool, but we have a dignity in ourselves, we are nobody�s tool. This means, on a practical level, we can act for our own welfare in liturgical matters. Don�t worry, it will neither hurt not harm ecumenism. In fact, it might be the best possible course of action, because at least then the Orthodox will see we have a dignity in our faith, that we are a Church that can make Christian decisions. We also have the advantage of . My conclusion is that the most Orthodox thing we can do is act for our own spiritual welfare. However, what it seems to me is that there are some who want to take away our independence and enslave it to a vacuous and ineffective ecumenical program. By not allowing for our own dignity, they make us the ultimate �uniates,� a self-proclaimed tool to try to win over the Orthodox. Here's the link to Fr. David\'s page. [ davidpetras.com] [/QUOTE] How is this "faithful" to your traditions? Where is the "excellent scholarship on liturgical matters, which can be used for our advantage" made manifest. If one of my students translated Slavonic like these supposed scholars, I would have made him re do it! Are you saying that defiling the Holy Liturgy is good and proper because it allows you to be a "big boy" and make your own decisions? Part of being mature is to accept that not all decisions one makes will be good ones. It appears to me that you have thrown off the yoke of latinization and are attempting to replace it with the yoke of Episcopalianism. Well, like you said, you are making your own decisions. May God look over you. Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Alexandr,
May I be so bold as to suggest that you read my book about this attempt to recast the Divine Liturgy?
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6 |
Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
Dear Alexandr,
May I be so bold as to suggest that you read my book about this attempt to recast the Divine Liturgy?
Fr. Serge Blagoslovie Batyshka, I intend to Father. What I am seeing here brings to mind immediately the Nikonian reforms of the 17th century. This simple little change caused inumerable martyrdoms, schism, and the final result being the loss of the Patriarchate and formaion of the Synod. Is this the example the BC heirarchy wants to follow? We need to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them. Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 21
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 21 |
Originally posted by Steve Petach,
Java Joe
While I am not an apologist for the revised Divine Liturgy, could you please elaborate on what specifically you find is "awful" about this music?
Steve Steve, You have been a big apologist for the Revised Divine Liturgy. Your posts have attacked anyone who disagrees with Petras, Thompson and Company. Could you finally please elaborate on what specifically you find is better about this music? Please do a line by line comparison. Java Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
ATTENTION ALEKSANDR!
The Blessing of the Lord! I just sent you a private message; would you be so kind as to confirm receipt of it? Thanks.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070 |
How about asking realistic questions, not rhetorical ones? How about a moratorium on flaming and venting, and taking out frustrations on posters just because you disagree with their position? That would be really helpful to a greater understanding of what is happening with regard to the liturgy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Dear Alexandr, The passage I quoted most definitely does not express my opinion. But perhaps the "you" wasn't directed at me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1
Cantor Member
|
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by Java Joe: Originally posted by Steve Petach,
[b]Java Joe
While I am not an apologist for the revised Divine Liturgy, could you please elaborate on what specifically you find is "awful" about this music?
Steve
You have been a big apologist for the Revised Divine Liturgy. Your posts have attacked anyone who disagrees with Petras, Thompson and Company.
Could you finally please elaborate on what specifically you find is better about this music? Please do a line by line comparison.
Java Joe [/b]I will answer in time. I have to be at Liturgy this morning, afterward I will respond. In the meantime, since I asked initially would you not dodge the question I asked and elaborate on the "awful" part? Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 21
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 21 |
No, Steve.
You are the one who says that what we have been using since the 1960s is unacceptable.
Defend your position.
What is so bad with the current settings of the Divine Liturgy?
Java Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070 |
Be reasonable, Java Joe. If you won't post before Steve, will you at least agree to post your reasons for retaining the old version after Steve posts his position? What is of interest is your reasons for keeping the old version, not necessarily your critique or reply to the position of Steve or others who post here. Speak up, man. Being intransigent will not win you converts to your position, especially if they have no real idea why you feel the way you do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 115
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 115 |
Originally posted by Jim:
How about asking realistic questions, not rhetorical ones? How about a moratorium on flaming and venting, and taking out frustrations on posters just because you disagree with their position? That would be really helpful to a greater understanding of what is happening with regard to the liturgy. How about realistic answers instead of rhetorical ones. And let me be clear, I don't mean you Jim. I'll explain. I just talked to someone who was at the Cantor's Institute a couple of weeks ago and they said that the liturgy linked to in the beginning of this thread was used that weekend at the 8:00am(plus or minus and hour) Liturgy the weekend of cantor school. So when Professor Thompson says that this is not going to be the released liturgy, well no kidding, it is clearly text for a non-Sunday. But why the Philadelphia lawyer answer? Why the rhetoric. Why not just what this is and when it was last used Professor Thompson? Or is my source wrong? Father David could clear up these questions as well. It is interesting that people will call out the people asking questions, but won't quesiton those with the answers. mc
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 21
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 21 |
Originally posted by Jim:
Be reasonable, Java Joe. If you won't post before Steve, will you at least agree to post your reasons for retaining the old version after Steve posts his position? What is of interest is your reasons for keeping the old version, not necessarily your critique or reply to the position of Steve or others who post here. Speak up, man. Being intransigent will not win you converts to your position, especially if they have no real idea why you feel the way you do. Jim, I am being reasonable. The current standard has been in use since the 1960s. Forty years of use in 100% of our parishes is a very good reason for not changing the standard. What are your reasons for throwing away this standard? Why are the current settings so bad that we cannot continue to use them? What are your reasons for abandoning the old version? Why must we undergo a painful change to the new version? Speak up, man! Java Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070 |
Note: www.byzcath.org is an UNOFFICIAL site of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic Church. When in doubt, check with your pastor or bishop. Well, being mindful of the above, I'd have to say that Michael Cerularius is absolutely correct. There is no one under any obligation to post authoritatively on the Forum, however. That means the answers people want may or may not occur here, no matter how adamant people seem to be. Java Joe wants answers from me. I am not involved on the committees etc. that are making the decisions. What difference will my answers make? Forty years of use in 100% of our parishes is a very good reason for not changing the standard. How so? Even though I am not on the committees, I don't follow this logic. What are your reasons for throwing away this standard? My reasons for using the revised liturgy if and when it is promulgated have everything to do with cooperating with hierarchical authority. I am not the decision maker on its adoption. Why are the current settings so bad that we cannot continue to use them? I wonder if this question is being asked by those within the IELC or IEMC. Instead, there is an honest effort being made to restore things that have been lost. But there is lots of disagreement here for now about that. What are your reasons for abandoning the old version? There is a language barrier when a question cannot be accurately answered. The word "abandoning" doesn't work for me. However, it may works for lots of others. Why must we undergo a painful change to the new version? How painful change is depends on the person, their willingness to cope with it. Introduction of a revised liturgy needn't be painful. That will be up to those worshipping. Again, the Forum is unofficial, so authoritative positions may or may not be forthcoming here, whether posters want them or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
{quote]I post, so that you may understand, the words of our own Fr. David Petras, who says that we Ruthenians may act on our own because, well, the Orthodox don't like us.[/quote]
It seems to me that sort of statement would speak to a kind of mentality of victimization. Do some Orthodox maintain a historic antipathy to Greek Catholics? Yes, some do. Could that be an excuse for any internal changes among Greek Catholics, whether good or bad? I don't see how.
The fact is however many Orthodox Christians are not hostile to Greek Catholics, and realize they share much with them (such as Metropolitan Nicholas who very recently extended a hand of friendship). The statement that "the Orthodox don't like us" to me doesn't hold water.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
Dear SP,
Should we also consider Archbishop Joseph Raya of blessed memory a "deviant"?
Byzantine Daily Worship, Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, p. 351:
Deacon: "Give the blessing, father."
|
|
|
|
|
