www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Greek Catholic Latinizations.

Fr. Deacon John,

I am so honored!

I had to add this one to your list:

Revelation 3:16
"So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

Leave it to the author of the Apocalypse of John to be so graphic!


BTW, looking forward to your Akathist Hymn study.


Joe

[ 03-28-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Anastasios:

>We don't object to being identified with our sister Church, the Roman patriarchate. But
>the Pope is NOT our patriarch,

But Rome is more than just a 'sister church'. Since when does a sister have so much authority over another sister? Why are you waiting for your sister to announce and approve the next Hierach of your church? Since when does a sister have the authority to pick the husband of another sister? The litmus test for whether Rome is your sister or not, would be for you to attempt to install a bishop without Romes permission, it isn't done and hasn't been done for over 400 years. Until it is done, your claim to be a 'sister church' to Rome baseless.
Your reply is not based on the reality of the administrative structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Unless you can show me where that administrative structure has changed, then even though the Pope may not be your Patriarch he still remains as the highest recognized authority within your church as 'Vicar of Christ on Earth' and 'Universal Bishop'. As such, he may not be your Patriarch but he is recognized as a higher authority than your Patriarch.

>you "Russian-Rite Greek Orthodox, under Bartholomew the spiritual head of the world's Orthodox Christians"!

The Ecumenical Patriarch is fighting for his very survival as long as he continues to stay in Istanbul. It is because of this awareness most of us just shrug when we read the reports in the western media where he is billed as 'The spiritual leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians'. Because we realize why it is not corrected by the Phanar. It is designed to exaggerate his importance to try and ensure his protection from a violent and hostile Moselm goverment who anxiously awaits his demise.
Your comment is based on a false assumption which is that he is the Orthodox version of the Pope. He is not, nor has he ever been. The head of any other automonous or autocephalous Orthodox Church does not have to be submitted to the EP for final approval before he can be consecrated. The EP only has authority over those bishops and jurisdictions that are under his direct authority.
When push comes to shove...He can call a pan-Orthodox council and preside over it in a presidential manner, but on any decisions made he has only one vote the same as the rest of the Orthodox Bishops present. He can be the spokesperson for worldwide Orthodoxy but cannot issue any statement regarding the faith without the approval of the other Orthodox churches. He cannot unilaterally add, subtract, or change any dogma pertaining to the faith on his own. Now compare that to the authority the Roman pope has.

>Reminds me of the people who left for the Russian Metropolia from us when St. Alexis
>Toth told them, "of course you're still Catholic." (obviously meaning the with Rome
>variety).

I don't know of one person, including my grandparents, who left for the Metropolia (OCA) under St Alexis leadership who were under the impression that they could leave and remain 'Roman Catholic' at the same time. They left because they didn't want to be Roman Catholics of an Eastern Rite. St Alexis was correct in telling them that by retruning to their mother church they would not be givng up their catholicity. Even his Holiness in Rome recognizes the 'catholicity' of the Orthodox Catholic faith.

Now, since this is your Holy Thursday and the near end of the second of Lent for me, I am going to open up another subject entitled "Good Friday and the Tomb" which I hope you will add to the discussion.

OrthoMan

Again, I meant no offense by my question as some have implied. I only wanted to ask why some Byzantines got all offensive about Latinizations. True, one can say that they are not part of Orthodox tradition in general. But the Greek Catholic Church professes to be in union with the Pope and the rest of the Catholic Church. Therefore you have got to expect that the things which Catholics have always promoted, such as Rosaries, stations, alter rails, and statues were going to rub off on anyone in contact with the Holy See. Also it must be noted that numerous people are in oposition to trying to make Byzantines Orthodox because they do not want to be the latter.
Again, by asking these questions I mean no disrespect for the Greek Catholic Rite and its faithful adherants who have suffered much over the centuries from just about everybody.
Robert K.

It's a cultural thing.

When folks come in contact with others, they have the potential to accept their customs because they think that these changes will enhance their spiritual life.

At the same time, it is also the prerogative of the community to recognize un-acceptable changes and to revert to what is their true heritage.

It's clear: human beings are fickle and subject to constant change. So it is with any cultural backgrounds, whether Byzantine Catholic, Roman Catholic or Orthodox (of whatever flavor!!).

Blessings!!

>>>Why are you waiting for your sister to announce and approve the next Hierach of your church? Since when does a sister have the authority to pick the husband of another sister?

Because when we only have 125,000 people, a shortage of priests, and 2 of our sees are vacant, we need some familial help selecting a Metropolitan.


>>>Your comment is based on a false assumption which is that he is the Orthodox version of the Pope. He is not, nor has he ever been.

BOB! For God's sake, I know that! That's the whole reason I put it in quotes and used it fusiciously--to show you that calling us Roman Catholics makes as much sense as calling you Russian-Rite Greek Orthodox under the Phanar!!!!!!!! I am amazed that you think I am that ignorant of the facts! Don't you think with the types of posts that I post that I already knew that???!!!

>>>The head of any other automonous or autocephalous Orthodox Church does not have to be submitted to the EP for final approval before he can be consecrated.

Already knew that...

>>>The EP only has authority over those bishops and jurisdictions that are under his direct authority.
When push comes to shove...He can call a pan-Orthodox council and preside over it in a presidential manner, but on any decisions made he has only one vote the same as the rest of the Orthodox Bishops present.

Already knew that...

>>>He can be the spokesperson for worldwide Orthodoxy but cannot issue any statement regarding the faith without the approval of the other Orthodox churches. He cannot unilaterally add, subtract, or change any dogma pertaining to the faith on his own. Now compare that to the authority the Roman pope has.

Yeppers. I agree that one bishop shouldn't be able to define doctrine. But even the RC's don't teach the Pope can add and subtract (and don't bring up the Immaculate conception because most of the world's RC bishops agreed on that).

anastasios

Anastasios:

Paschal Greetings!

>>Your comment is based on a false assumption which is that he is the Orthodox version of the Pope. He is not, nor has he ever been.

Your Reply: BOB! For God's sake, I know that! That's the whole reason I put it in quotes and used it fusiciously--to show you that calling us Roman Catholics makes as much sense as calling you Russian-Rite Greek Orthodox under the Phanar!!!!!!!!

>>The head of any other automonous or autocephalous Orthodox Church does not have
to be submitted to the EP for final approval before he can be consecrated.

Your reply: Already knew that...

>>>The EP only has authority over those bishops and jurisdictions that are under his
direct authority. When push comes to shove...He can call a pan-Orthodox council and preside over it in a presidential manner, but on any decisions made he has only one vote the same as the rest of the Orthodox Bishops present.

Your reply: Already knew that...

-------------------

Well, if you already knew all that, then why are you trying to fit a square block into a round hole?

Because the point I'm trying to make, but you don't seem to comprehend is -

Administratively, the structures of both churches is completely different. If you take those administrative structures as they are understood today, you cannot come to the same conclusions. because ultimately all those
who are 'in communion with the Pope' are also either directly or indirectly under his authority. While all those who are 'in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch do not fall under his direct or indirect authority. That's a big difference Anastasios.
The problem I'm trying to point out to you is that you are using a western (RC) concept of Church administration to reply to me. And, like I've already stated, it's like trying to fit a square block in a round hole.
Calling me a [Russian-Rite Greek Orthodox under the Phanar] would only make sense if we looked at the EP in the same way your church looks at the Pope. We don't. What I have read from Roman Catholics of all Rites in here and elsewhere, is that the Pope of Rome wears three hats - (1) Patriarch of the West; (2) Bishop of Rome; (3) And UNIVERSAL BISHOP & VICAR OF CHRIST ON EARTH. You also claim, that as a Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholic, you are only required to recognize the third hat he wears -that of Universal Bishop' who, as such, has authority over the entire earthly Church. It is that recognized authority that ties you into the 'Church of Rome' in a way that no autocephalous or automonous Church outside those reporting directly to the Phanar is tied to the Ecumenical Patriarch. We Orthodox Catholics do not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch in the same way you do the Pope.

> I agree that one bishop shouldn't be able to >define doctrine. But even the RC's
>don't teach the Pope can add and subtract

So, what happened to his 'infallibility' regarding FAITH and morals?

OrthoMan

Dear OrthoMan:

>>>Paschal Greetings!

Thank you, and I have prayed that the Lord will strengthen you during your Great lent.

>>>Well, if you already knew all that, then why are you trying to fit a square block into a round hole?

Because the point I'm trying to make, but you don't seem to comprehend is -

Administratively, the structures of both churches is completely different. If you take those administrative structures as they are understood today, you cannot come to the same conclusions. because ultimately all those
who are 'in communion with the Pope' are also either directly or indirectly under his authority. While all those who are 'in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch do not fall under his direct or indirect authority. That's a big difference Anastasios.

Right, I can see where you are going with that. Yet the "authority" that Rome has over the Eastern Churches today is a lot less than in the past. My point was only that we Eastern Catholics do not equate the Church with the Pope in the way the RC's do; hence, we are not Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics. The Pope is as much our Patriarch as your EP is yours--whether the Pope exceeds his jurisdiction (which I believe he does at times) is not the point. Also, calling us Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics is like calling you a Russian Rite Greek Orthodox or some other strange, made up term: my point is you should call us what we call ourselves.

>>>The problem I'm trying to point out to you is that you are using a western (RC) concept of Church administration to reply to me. And, like I've already stated, it's like trying to fit a square block in a round hole.

As an aside I do believe in communion ecclesiology as expressed in "Primacy of Peter" by John Meyendorff and "Eucharist, Bishop, Church" and "Being and Communion" by Metr. John Zizioulas. Why I stay Byzantine Catholic is unrelated to that issue.

>>>Calling me a [Russian-Rite Greek Orthodox under the Phanar] would only make sense if we looked at the EP in the same way your church looks at the Pope.

No, it doesn't, because my point is that Russian-Rite Greek Orthodox is as silly a concept as Byzantine Rite Roman Catholic. It's not that I don't understand your point; I just don't agree with it.

>>>We don't. What I have read from Roman Catholics of all Rites in here and elsewhere, is that the Pope of Rome wears three hats - (1) Patriarch of the West; (2) Bishop of Rome; (3) And UNIVERSAL BISHOP & VICAR OF CHRIST ON EARTH. You also claim, that as a Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholic, you are only required to recognize the third hat he wears -that of Universal Bishop' who, as such, has authority over the entire earthly Church. It is that recognized authority that ties you into the 'Church of Rome' in a way that no autocephalous or automonous Church outside those reporting directly to the Phanar is tied to the Ecumenical Patriarch. We Orthodox Catholics do not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch in the same way you do the Pope.

Right, but that does not ipso facto make us Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics, my friend. I agree the Pope has too much power. My point is please call us what we call ourselves, and what is taught in authoritative documents like Ut Unum Sint and Orientale Lumen and the Vatican II documents.

>>>So, what happened to his 'infallibility' regarding FAITH and morals?

Infallibility is a negative doctrine. It only means the Holy Spirit will keep the Pope from screwing up doctrine. It allows him to further define a question that is disputed--BUT NOT MAKE UP OR SUBTRACT doctrine.

In Christ,

anastasios

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: anastasios ]

>The Pope is as much our Patriarch as your EP is yours----

The Pope is more than your Patriarch. The very fact that you are 'In Communion' with him implies that you accept him as the highest Christian authority on earth. This makes him higher than your Patriarch and therefore, your Patriarch is also under his authority.
It also makes you part of the Church that he has absolute authority over.

On the other hand, can you show me where any Orthodox Catholics not under his direct authority are required to accept the Ecumenical Patriarch as anything other than the 'Patriarch of Constantinople' and 'first amongst EQUALS' within Orthodox Catholicity? You keep comparing apples with oranges to come up with your repies.
As I have stated, your concept of the Ecumenical Patriarch is based on a western Roman Catholic concept. Otherwise, you would not be replying to me as you do. Can you name me one autocephalous Orthodox Church or one autonomous Orthodox Church (that received its automony from any of those autocephalous Orthodox Churches) that would be waiting for the EP to announce the newest Hierach of their church as you are? The new Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem was not chosen by the EP nor did he have to be approved or accepted by the EP before he was consecrated. The new OCA Bishop of Alaska was not appointed or approved by the EP before consecration. Nor was there a Patriarchal Nuncio from Constantinople there to install him. They are but two of many examples I can give to state how erroneous your reply is.
If your concept of the EP was correct then there would be no autocephalous churches within Orthodoxy except the Church of Constantinople. Your replies indicate that, contrary to what you claim, you do not fully understand Orthodox administrative structure. Once again, here is the Orthodox definition of autocephally -

Literally, the term in Greek means "having one's own head". Churches that are self governing ARE NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER CHURCH. THEY ELECT THEIR OWN PRESIDING BISHOP, frequently with the rank of Patriarch, WITHOUT OUTSIDE PERMISSION OR SANCTION.

[>my point is you should call us what we call ourselves.

<snipe>

>It's not that I don't understand your point; I just don't agree with it.]

Nor do I agree with the points you present to me. So, based on that, why should I call you what you think you are or want to be? Should I also call every Episcopalian an 'Anglo Catholic' and accept them as Catholics because that's what they call themselves and think they are? Should I call or refer to the local 'Liberal Catholic' and 'Independent Catholic' churches listed in the local yellow pages as Roman Catholic because that's what they call themselves or think they are?
If you want to refer to me as a Russian Rite Greek Orthodox its Ok by me. I certainly do not have the same adverse reaction with that as you do with being labeled a 'Roman Catholic'.

From what I gather, you want to be part of the Roman Catholic Church structure without being identified as either a Roman Catholic or having to adhere to the dogma and rules of the Roman Catholic church. You also want to be identified as an Orthodox Christian without being part of the Orthodox Church. And, I am assuming you certainly don't want to be identified as a Protestant. Sorry, but it all makes no sense to me.

>Infallibility is a negative doctrine. It only means the Holy Spirit will keep the Pope from >screwing up doctrine. It allows him to further define a question that is disputed--BUT >NOT MAKE UP OR SUBTRACT doctrine.

That seems to contradict the way the RCC see's infallibility. From the Roman Catholic New Avent Encyclopedia -

Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals".

No where did I read where the Pope when speaking 'ex cathedra' is restricted to defining doctrine in question and cannot add or subtract from doctrine. No where did I read that he is not the final authority on any change, addition, or deletion. or that any of his 'ex cathedra' prouncements must be approved by the college of Cardinals or any othe RC Synod before they are accepted as dogma of the RCC.

OrthoMan

I think that we have to be more aware of the terms involved. The quote (I'll have to check the Latin --since it is the ONLY official text) seems to refer to "definition/define". My understanding is that this is a function that entails explication and not making "new propositions".

It seems that unless something is explicitly permitted, then it is not permitted. (Sounds very German, eh?) As opposed to "everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited".

Guess it depends on the mindset. There are Papists who would choose the latter mindset and defend it to the death. There are others who are more like lawyers and examine the text to see what it permitted (and even then they argue over interpretation).

What I think our Orthodox brethren oftentimes miss (probably because their RC interlocuters are also misinformed), is that the so-called infallibility consists not in making a new proposition that is not the "sensus fidelium", but rather the ability to provide an exegesis of the proposition to clarify it.

Shockingly enough, we are not dealing with "truth" here, despite what some folks might think. What is true is true, and no Papal proclamation has any relevance to that. (Remember Galileo?) Same as if the Pope were to declare that Dallas won the 2002 Superbowl. It's just totally outside the box.

But, as with other bishops who have the responsiblity to provide guidance, if some bishop were to determine that an apparition was a fake, then that perspective would hold true in his diocese. When a synod declares something analogous, then that's it. And when the Pope declares something, he does so for the universal church -- in conformity with the synod's consensus - not just 'out of the blue'.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism are much more harmonious than some would propose, both in belief and in canonical structures. I pray that we continue to build upon the commonalities, work at understanding where the divergences exist, determine whether the divergences are 'of consequence' or not, and keep on keepin' on.

Christ is Risen!!

OrthoMan:

Why do you keep trying to pretend that I don't understand Orthodox ecclesiology??

How many times do I have to repeat myself: I fully understand that the Ecumenical Patriarch has no direct jurisdiction over another autocephelous Orthodox Church. This is Orthodoxy 101 and I frankly know a lot more than Orthodoxy 101--especially after having read "Primacy of Peter" by John Meyendorff, and "Eucharist Bishop Church" and "Being and Communion" by John Zizioulas.

Now--the problem seems to lie in my analogy. If my analogy is worthless and not consistent, then fine. But don't keep telling me I don't understand Orthodox ecclesiology and that I am basing everything on "western church models." It just really is ticking me off that you think I am so ignorant that I think the EP is an Orthodox pope. I know that. I know he does not have any say over other autocephelous Churches (theoretically).

Here's an aside, however: practically speaking, the EP over time *has* interfered in other autocephelous Churches, despite your claim that he does not. For instance, after the Byzantine reconquest of Antioch, the Patriarch of Antioch was chosen by Constantinople's Holy Synod. When the Patriarch of Antioch became a Catholic in 1724, Constantinople sent the new Patriarch. Constantinople appointed the Metropolitan of Kiew, which was supposedly an autocephelous church. Same thing with the Archbishop of Bulgaria. In modern times, the Patriarch of Constantinople appoints the head of the Finnish Church--yes, I know he is not autochephelous but rather autonomous--and my point is, you said in your post "over whom he does not have direct jurisdiction." The problem is: who decides over whom he has jurisdiction?

My point is also this: the Pope does not routinely interfere in Patriarchal Churches like the Melkites. Sometimes he does (and this is to me an overstepping of boundaries). We Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics would not be considered "autocephelous" if we were Orthodox: we would be autonomous but our head would still be appointed by another Orthodox mother patriarchate. So in a way you are the one comparing apples and oranges, because our Orthodox counterpart, the Carpatho-Rusyn diocese of Johnstown, is not autocephelous.

I'll retire the analogy though since it makes you think I don't know jack about Orthodox ecclesiology. But I have one more point: you claim that I want to call myself Orthodox without being Orthodox, and not call myself RC when I am RC. OrthoMan, I stated above that I do not stay Catholic for ecclesiological reasons--because I believe firmly in eucharistic ecclesiology and believe firmly that all bishops are Peter. I have some very personal reasons for staying Catholic, despite the fact that I have been accepted into St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological School. So please in the future, no matter how much you disagree with me, openly make statements about what I want or don't want or who I think I am when it comes to being Orthodox or Catholic.

In Christ,

anastasios

OrthoMan:

One more point: yes, you should call Episcopalians who so desire "AngloCatholics", you should call Liberal Catholics Catholics, you should call us Byzantine Catholics and not Uniates or Byzantine-Rite RC's. Why? Not for any theological reason, but rather because it is POLITE and COURTEOUS. You wouldn't go up to a black person and say, "you're a negro, becauase that's what webster's dictionary says the technical term for you race is!" would you?

In Christ,

anastasios

Anastasios:

Greetings in the name of the Lord!

It seems like you and I keep going around in circles and will continue to do so as long as we continue to post on this topic. I still stand by everything I have posted regarding how your statements which, to me, seem to indicate you are mixing two different administrative structures to come to your conclusions.
I agree that, at times, the EP has OVERSTEPPED HIS BONDS, by interferring with the governance of other Orthodox Churches and still continues to do so. But, the difference is that when he does it he is violating the canons that his church upholds. Where as, when the Pope does it, he is well within his rights and the canons of his church, to do so. That's a big difference Anastasios. His church teaches him that it is within his rights to do so when he sees fit regarding all the sui juris churches within his spehere as 'Universal Bishop'.
Your posts indicate that you, personally, do not ascribe any type of SUPREMACY to the Pope. (Ref. your comment that all Bishops are successors to Peter). As an Orthodox I agree with that. But if you do in fact see him that way then you are disagreeing with the teachings of your own church which sees him as the 'Universal Bishop' who is head of the entire christian church. And, as such, has authority over the entire christian church.
There was a time that during the Ottoman occupation that the EP was assigned responsibility for all the Orthodox that were under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire by the sultan. Hence, the unfortunate interference of other Patriarchates with that empire. The result of with led to the Melkite schism. But that was a temporary political edict to a church under captivity and was never accepted by Orthodoxy as a whole. It ceased to exist after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Regarding the title of Anglo Catholic etc. I would highly recommend a new book out called 'Whatever Happened To The Truth' which can be obtained from Light-N-Life Publications. That book will enable you to understand where I am coming from.

My purpose here is not to upset you but to dialogue with you. My replies to you are based on what and how I interrupt what you write. They are not designed to accuse you of anything. But they are my perception of you based on what you write - be they right, wrong, or indifferent. I'm amazed that you take it so personally. My opinion of what you write doesn't make it any more correct than your opinion of what I write regarding you. They are just opinions, nothing more.

I wish you well at St Vlad's. When will you be starting? If it is this year than maybe we can meet in person this coming fall during 'Education Day'. My parish usually has a bus that goes up for the day. I always look forward to it. It is one of the highlights of the year for me.

OrthoMan

Dear Friends,

Just my two cents' worth . . .

I think we can all agree, (or should ) that the model of union between Rome and Eastern Catholics is not the best or not without its ecclesiological problems.

Both RC's and Orthodox have gone ahead and said so, without us.

Our Eastern Catholic relationship to Rome is what we ourselves make it out to be.

That depends, therefore, a lot on the courage and initiative of our individual Primates and bishops.

But the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Church have become fairly good examples of what such a relationship could be, and there is room for improvement as always.

In Orthodoxy, (Orthoman, I love how you can read the Psalter for three hours at a time!), there are various ecclesial modalities at play in different jurisdictions, as Brendan and Reader Sergius (of living memory) have said.

In fact, the ideas of "immediate jurisdiction" the term "Pope" etc. came not from Rome, but from the Coptic, Pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox Church of Alexandria (another of my favourite Brendanisms - Happy Easter, Big Guy! )

Rome simply adopted these. The Moscow Patriarchate is also run on more bureaucratic, jurisdictional terms than other Orthodox jurisdictions.

So it is really difficult to speak of "Orthodox ecclesiology" as a uniform kind of thing as one would speak of Roman ecclesiology. But it isn't impossible.

That having been said, I wanted to return to the original point by Robert K. about Latinizations.

I agree with our Greek Catholic, Dr. John, about the cultural process involved here.

In fact, we can see many Latinizations in the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well.

St Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain actually introduced a number of western devotional texts into the spiritual life of Orthodoxy in his lifetime.

One of these is a revamped version of St Ignatius Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises" by him that is popular among Athonite monks today!

There was some Greek murmuring once the true author of this work was discovered, by Nicodemos weathered that storm.

The "Unseen Warfare" is, in fact, an Orthodox revision (twice revised, as a matter of fact) of a Roman Catholic spiritual text.

The Passiyi and the Akathist to the Passion were Orthodox responses to the Stations of the Cross.

The Rosary is still popular among Russian Orthodox monastics who have appropriated it entirely and say that it was first revealed to Orthodoxy in the 8th century before St Dominic . . .

We Eastern Catholics tend to want to be more Orthodox than the Orthodox without realizing how much of the West they already have.

We need to be sensitive to our liturgical models and frameworks, to be sure.

In addition, I believe a standard for judging something "unnecessary" should be when we already have what a popular western devotion presents for veneration.

Why then reinvent the Byzantine wheel?

Privately, we can pray as we like.

St Dmitry of Rostov and the other Orthodox Saints of the Baroque period had their favourite devotions, including the Immaculate Conception, the Tale of the Five Prayers (on the Joys and Sorrows of Our Lady), the Wounded Side of Christ and the Way of the Cross (St Tikhon of Zadonsk).

St John of Kronstadt loved and made his own the Western Catholic reference to the Mother of God as "the Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse (Nevista) of the Holy Spirit."

I believe that the Russian Orthodox and Catholics set a good liturgical example in all this for us all.

Call me biased . . .

Alex

[In Orthodoxy, (Orthoman, I love how you can read the Psalter for three hours at a time!),]

Thanks for the compliment but it is not warranted. When we do tomb watch we usually do it in pairs. Which means each person reads for a half hour on and a half hour off. Total of 1 1/2 hrs for the entire period of tomb watch.
There are even families that come with the kids so each has some time to read while they are there. it's a good teaching experience for the kids and great interpersonal family interaction. We even have our teenagers volunteer. There are three tennage brothers who are fine examples that today's youth are not all bad. They have learned to ring the bells, serve in the Sanctuary, and come to church on their own. This past winter they came after a Saturday night snow storm at 5 O'Clock in the morning to shovel the snow around the church and rectory, drove back home to shower and were right back to ring the belss and serve with Father during the Liturgy. And they did it on their own without mom and dads suggestion. They usually take the midnight to 3 A.M. watch and each do a hour reading. I follow them with my reading partner.
We have some wonderful kids in our parish.

Bob

OrthoMan:

Yes, unfortunately i do sometimes take things personally. Really, the reason I became agitated is becuase I try to be one of those super-fair types who is scholarly and reserved (of course sometimes I have biased opinions). So when i am accused of not understanding something that i worked hard to figure out, I can take it personally. But I do value your hardline point of view and find it to be consistent and honest.

I would enjoy meeting you in person when I come to St. Vladimir's this fall.

In Christ,

anastasios (you'll have to ask for Dustin though as that's my secular and non-internet name)