www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Use of the word 'orthodox' during Divine Liturgy in the Greek Catholic Church

I am delighted to hear this. But why be surprised. You have complained about many things. Some of them - like Slavonic language liturgy (as much as I enjoy it) - can only be considered personal taste; their effect on legacy is very unclear.

I have zero interest in cafeterias.

IMO - purely personal - the most appealing argument for returning to as much of our tradition as we can, and as fast as we can, in every way that we can, is that it is such a sumptious tradition. We have available to us liturgical banqueting of enormous splendor.

And I always prefer rich banquets over cafeteria food, or fast-food, or just slim pickin's. As Auntie Mame might have said, our liturgical life is a banquet and most poor @#$%^&*s are starving.

At the same time I recognize that not everyone is up for foie gras and Sauternes, or breakfasts on lobster omelet with caviar. Some may lack the culinary skill, or the money, or have been for so long eating BigMacs that they need some time and patient encouragement before they can appreciate such riches. And some may be a little old and don't have the health and vitality for it. And some may in fact be a little ashamed by, what is ultimately, their poverty.

If you care about our future and our legacy, then do what you can to give to people whatever it is that you have that makes them want to join with you. Do what you can to help to make this banquet irresistable. But don't be divisive with an insistence on specific ingredients, and preparations, timetables, and central planning which, at a given moment, could possibly do more harm than good. And enjoy the opportunities that you have not only to make things as splendid as you can for others, but also to forsake things that you would like for the sake of others.

That is the pastoral sensitivity component of JPIIs liturgical instructions, which seem to be left out by those who clamor for a controlling, man-for-the-law approach to practice.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that's the most Westernized and Latinized opinion I've seen yet.

It's also exactly what got us into this mess of declining numbers. i.e. "oh we can't have liturgy for more than an hour so take stuff out and more people will come" And instead the opposite happened.

You're also really stuck on this concept that I came up with all these rules while shoveling my driveway during a Northeast Ohio blizzard the other day and that I am being divisive by questioning issues like why the Royal Doors are not opened and closed at the correct time, why the curtain is not hung behind the royal doors, why communion rails have been or still are in some of our churches, why confessionals are in some of our churches, why kneelers are in most of our churches, why married clergy is precluded in some of our Eparchies,etc.

But deep down inside I think that you realize that these things have no place in our church and that it is absurd that they remain. Because you know as well as I do that when you let this democracy-like atmosphere prevail that you end up with what we have now, declining numbers and inconcistentcies from parish to parish. Also, it puts us on the slippery slope of allowing other abnormalities into our parishes.

If more people would be attracted to our churches by guitar liturgies would you be in favor of those?

Yes, that is correct. But what good is a signature if it's not enforced.

True enough, but if we don't have the correct Liturgical offerings available, then how are parishioners to know what they like or don't like. For my personal tastes, I love Presanctified. If one were held at midnight I would go...it's that special to me. If it weren't offered, how would I have known. The same for Vespers. Anyone who isn't moved by Psalm 103....well, how are we to know if we don't experience them?

Regarding rubrics, I agree with Michael Cerularius. A rubric is a direction, not a suggestion. What are they there for if we don't pay attention to them? I purchased my own Liturgicon and was amazed by what I read is supposed to be happening in the Divine Liturgy.

If this is the case, why should we pay attention to the new and improved revisionist's Liturgy? I guess that gives us traditionalists permission to ignore the inclusive language. Do you see where this is heading?

IMHO, there needs to be a smidge more obedience going on where Liturgics are concerned.

Then let's celbrate the fact that so much is readily available. Much, much more than not so long ago.


Depends on the Rubric, I would think. I don't know for sure, but just recalling Schmeemann's letter to his bishop, ISTM, that there are many things that are not "directions" in the way you think. In any case, I sticking, on good authority, with the idea that the Sabbath is for man, and not the other way around.

Actually this is one thing that the adminsitrator has advocated - that while we may have a typical usage promulgted by the Archbishop, that the fuller usage remains as an option.

I'm not a big fan of the labels, btw, and don't understand people who are. Do you really want participate in developing factions within your church?

As long as that is obedience to God, and to the tradition of the Church, I agree!

The crisis comes when bishops appoint only "inclusive language" liberals, revisionists, and "re-inventors" of the Liturgy to commissions and committees. How can we obey these "creative liturgists", when there is no one there to speak for the integrity of the services, as they have been authoritatively given to us?

We also owe obedience to the lawful authority, our bishop. But if the bishop teaches error then we needn't obey him.

Clearly a revised, corrupted, inconsistent abbreviated, amended, neutered and de-sexed, feministic and inclusively equal, selectively edited and rubrically re-organized liturgy, qualifies as an 'error'!

Nick

No, and if new innovations, interpretations, Latinizations, etc. were to stopped being introduced there would be less factionalization going on.

No, I'm afraid the factions were already there, us traditionalists just never spoke our mind. We quitely gritted our teeth. But, as with many of us, unfortunately it appears that push is coming to shove. I think the Revisionist's Liturgy caused many of us to rethink what sitting quiet would cost our church. Trust me, people who I talk with and feel the way I do are worried about the decline of our church -- and what we will leave our children.

If it were about my own personal agenda, I'd be "sawing logs" right about now. Instead, I'm praying that the light we see at the end of the tunnel isn't a freight train.

I hate factions. But.... if everyone else is rushing over the cliff, do we join them for 'unity's sake'?

The liberals and revisionists who have the ear of the bishops, and who have been appointed to committees, think we should all roll over and play dead, for the sake of 'unity' too! Mitred Archpriests can appeal to our sense of loyalty and duty if they need to! I won't rush over that cliff. It is the path of destruction, and we need to stop the stampede.

The Liturgy should unite us! Introducing revisions, alterations, innovations, "creative re-structuring" inconsistent innacurate and just poor translations is a problem. Why do we need ugly terminology, re-organized invented and completely fictitious rubrics, abbreviated and latinized versions? The burden is on them to say why they are doing this! It is the revision that will divide, and introduce factionism.

Is there no one on that committee for the revision of the Byzantine Liturgy, with the brains to see what is going on here?

Some say it is dead in the water, and permanently on hold, stalled on the bishop's desk, etc. etc. Until I hear that it is rejected officially and finally, it still scares me. Too much is at stake.

Nick

I don't think that there is such a thing as a faction that has a monopoly on caring about our church. The question is how to get people to work together and agree to strategy to meet these ends. Resorting to labeling - as much fun as it may seem - IMO doesn't help. Serious people that you might like to influence and work with will tune out when this starts.

Labels or not, you can't tune-out the truth.

Whatever on earth that means.

The revisionists have already rejected and tuned out any other ideas, eliminated opposition, and continue to label it "disloyal".

They worked hard, and they believed in what they were doing. They deserve recognition for their extraordinary effort. But their ideas are spent and discredited. Their scholarship is dated and flawed.

An incredible amount of time and money has been spent on this project. So, there is still a lot of pressure to allow their work to be published and for a revised, edited and altered Liturgy to become an "official" text for our Church.

It would be a disaster.

Nick

MC:
You don't get it at all, do you. I'll pass on asking what exactly what your ideas of East and West are. But you just entirely miss the point.

I am not encouraging laxity in any way at all. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that, yes, we have a lot of work to do. Let's try to be effective in reaching our goal.

I would suggest that one important rule is to treat others who just may be a rung of two behind you on the ladder as though you were a teacher who could help them in their assent, and to avoid treating them with no patience or even resentment for their lagging behind you. That rule MC, might even work out to your advantage, because the many folks above you might also take the time to help you.

You ought to think a little more deeply on this Nick.

No, I get it to a 't'.

Only extremism can reverse the sinking ship we are on.

Modernism, revisionism, chopped liturgies and all that mess has been tried and failed. Nicholas said it best earlier when he wrote that leadership rooted in our traditions is needed now more than ever. That means laying down the law and getting clergy in line out there who think they are bishop of their own church and pick and choose what the liturgy should be, whether Vespers and Matins occurs, etc. This shouldn't take thirty years either, it should have happened yesterday. If that means losing some people to gain even more in the future than so be it. What do you think Father Loya is talking about when he says 'Razing the Byzantine Church and rebuilding it'?

mc