www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is it a sin to oppose the Liturgy? (From Stephanie)

Stephanie recently posted to another thread that she was told by a priest that it is a sin to oppose the revised liturgy. Comments?

My own comment: I am curious if he meant to theologically or scholastically oppose it or to physically do so. I can't imagine that it is sinful to disagree with the translation of anthropos (as many well-learned and moderate men do) as "us all." I can't imagine it is sinful to voice that opinion or to even try to reverse that revision through moral and proper channels. I can imagine some people allowing their disagreement to be the impetus for their sinful actions, but the problem there is not the opposition but how they act because of it. What am I not seeing?

I would guess that maybe more is going on under the surface.
First I want to clarify that I am not judging anyone in here!
I would however like to make a few observations about some people who oppose the new liturgy after Vatican II.

Many times people set themselves up over and against the Church.
So I can see how that can be sinful. On the other hand people who follow the liberal path do the exact same thing.

We may not like various changes in the liturgy but we still have to accept the judgement of the Church.
Stephanos I

Father Stephanos, this, of course, brings up the question, "What is the Church?" Is it opposing the Church to oppose a decision of one's church that one believes will severely damage the faith? I don't know the answer. God bless.

Joe

I presume this was concerning the Latin Church. So I would say the Church is the Pope of Rome and the Magisterium and all that are in communion with Him.
Just a thought.
What I was getting at was, "The Church" is not just what "I" think it is or should be. It is a koinonia or communio of people not a "personlistic" I have my faith in Jesus despite what every one else has, which we see as the understanding of many fundamentalist and evangelical christians.
Stephanos I

Father,

I don't know which person you were presuming to speak of the Latin church, but Stephanie was speaking of the Byz Cath revision, Joe was Melkite and is now Orthodox, and I am the messenger. I don't think anyone here was referring to the Latin church.

I had posted this originally in the Revised Liturgy board but it was determined to be more appropriate here.

[quote=Wondering]Stephanie recently posted to another thread that she was told by a priest that it is a sin to oppose the revised liturgy. Comments?

I am equally astounded brother!

It is certainly not sinful to oppose the prudential judgments of a bishop, or a group of bishops.

Was it also a sin to oppose the Latiniaks when the icon screens came down or our married seminarians were refused ordination?

I wonder if Stephanie's priest's last name is Ireland? LOL!!

Alexandr

Is it a sin to oppose the Liturgy?
Only a good examination of conscience illumined by the Holy Spirit can answer that question. One must know the complete context. Is criticism done with malice or pride, or is it with a sincere heart done in charity?
Has unjust criticism shaken anyone's faith? If it has then it is a very serious sin. It appears to me that the faith of some HAVE been shaken and much of it due to untrue or blemished statements. We appear to have many "experts" who have not seen the text or the rubrics but seem to know all the answers. Now that the Divine Liturgy has been promulgated, let's have a "truce" until the texts become public.

No one but the "just Judge" can answer Stephanie's question. question.

Fr. Deacon Paul

Fr. Deacon Paul:
"Now that the Divine Liturgy has been promulgated, let's have a "truce" until the texts become public."

I basically agree with the deacon's comment. We really can't do anything until we get a good first-hand look of the priest's texts. The Metropolitan promised that the priests would receive them by the end of January 2007. We have to wait so see the actual texts. Then we will have the accurate info on hand. We need to get the final approved posted on this website.

Disrespect for our hierarchs would be sinful. However, it would also be sinful to neglect doing something if we thing there is something seriously wrong with the revision.

Public opposition and disruption of the implementation would be scandalous. But it is not disrepectful to appeal to sources beyond our own metropolia. There is now no recourse at all within the metropolia for those who conscientiously oppose this revision. Appeal has to be made to the See of Rome with which we are in full communion.

Dear Friends,

Christ is Baptized!

Don't see how it can be a sin to oppose or else try to get another Liturgy.

The UGCC sets an example to all Eastern Catholics in this regard!

Traditional UGCCers oppose:

Naming our Primate anything other than "Patriarch"

Using "eternal ages" rather than "ages of ages"

Using two antiphons while insisting that the second one still be referred to as the "Third Antiphon"

Kneeling.

Kneeling on kneelers attached to pews.

But the Byzantine Catholic Church has its own issues that many UGCCers really shouldn't be commenting on.

For example, under a thread concerning "liturgical innovations" someone here began to discuss the English style in the liturgy.

For someone like me, "English liturgy" is already an innovation!

And it goes downhill from there!

Most of our lives as UGCCers has been spent opposing Rome and a number of our bishops and religious orders on the patriarchate, married priests, appointment of bishops etc.

As long as it is done respectfully and without angry negativity, such opposition is the privilege of the People of God.

In the times of the persecution of the Orthodox Church under Soviet Russia, there was a bishop who signed the Sergianist agreement with the state.

As he stood to give the blessing at the end of the Liturgy, the women in the Church came up, one by one, but instead of receiving his blessing, they each spit on his shoes to show their displeasure with his action.

When an underground Russian bishop heard of this, he is said to have exclaimed, "Women did that? Thank God for our women! Or else who would defend our Church?"

(FYI, I'm NOT advocating doing the same to any of our bishops! :))

Alex

If you have not seen the Revised Divine Liturgy then how do you know that the criticism is unjust?

Father Serge Keleher wrote a whole book on the problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy! You might consider reading it. I bought my copy and received it a few weeks ago. Worth the price.

Don't mean to sound disrespectful but I think you might just be accusing people unjustly. Just because you haven't looked into the problems doesn't mean that no one else has either.

Granted, there IS merit to SOME of the criticism. The unjust criticism of which I was referring is the harsh condemnations. If the present criticism and condemnation was the rule of the day a thousand years ago, Sts Cyril and Methodius would never have been allowed to bring the Slavonic Liturgy to our people. The language of the Constantinopolitan Church was Greek and the traditional thought was that Greek was mandatory. It was the Pope who supported the Slavonic translation and gave His blessing, to the chagrin of some of the Byzantines.

I'm not fond of so-called "inclusive" language. When I asked Archbishop Judson of blessed memory about why it was being used (around 1997)he said that we must change because the language is changing.
The wild innuendo of total feminist language is not justified and is misleading to a casual viewer who just drops in.
There are a lot of people who looking at the forum but don't participate. As they read of the purported "errors" and "scandal" accusations they must leave shaken, wondering what is becoming of our Church. It is to these souls to which there is unknown damage. We will not know this damage until our judgment.


I have not seen the final text but over the years I have been exposed to at least parts of the revised texts, so your comment about my not knowing of the changes is incorrect.

Fr Deacon Paul