www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Church Attendance

OK, send him on down.

I think we need the 'modeling' of this type of behavior. Unfortunately, not many folks are of the "schmoozing" type who can talk to almost anybody and make them feel welcome. That's apparently what Nestor has, and that is apparently what is lacking.

As for the ethnic stuff, I generally agree, but I am cautioned by the VP of the Greek Ladies Philoptochos Society here in N. Va., who told me that the ladies prepare post-liturgy breakfasts from time to time, but that the folks go charging out the church door with their kids and are later seen at the trough at McDonalds rather than in the parish social hall. She found that quite depressing, but perhaps nowadays with more "blended" families, the ethnic thing doesn't quite have the staying power that it once did. If this is true, then we are in deep mahunga.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

I think that you fail to fully differentiate between customs that are mutable and more important traditions.

Whether the liturgy is in Latin? Whether there is a last gospel? Whether St. Michael's prayer is said at the end of the liturgy? Whether people wear fiddlebacks? All changeable. No harm done. "Local customs vary."

Priests facing the people? Loss of minor orders? Scrapping ecclessiastical chant? Big deal. Theologically important. As a smart PhD type, you know that Liturgy facing the people has a different theological meaning than facing east. If it didn't, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE POINT IN CHANGING IT?

As far as equating Byzantine traditionalism with enduring persecution: that is really an insult to Byzantines becuase it suggests that if they were free, they would have been able to experiment with all manner of free inquiry and expression; that they reacted to a primordial urge to "preserve", but that if they were free, they most certainly wouldn't have kept those old stuffy ways.

You should read or reread Fr. Alexander Schmemann. He is cradle like you, but most certainly has VERY different assumptions and beliefs than you. The old "we Byzantines think this way" phrase that you often espouse is something I have never experienced in an Orthodox Church. And I don't just go around proclaiming who I am--I listen to what the people have to say. I'm not discrediting your POV, but only suggesting you stop pronouncing the "cradle Byzantine POV" as many others do not share your assumptions.

Liturgical diversity is wonderful--but as long as it is in the bounds of what was passed down to us by our ancestors. Accretions or decretions that are in line with that tradition--fine. But wholesale revision based on the fads of the age are harmful and in the end, meaningless. We are the Body of Christ, who is in union with all those "dead people" that went before us. We are one outside of time. Let's not get caught up in trendy fadism, and stick with what matters.

In Christ,

anastasios

We are the Body of Christ, who is in union with all those "dead people" that went before us.

Reminds me of the definition of "Tradition" that I learned from my professor in a class on the history of early and medieval Christianity; he got it from someone else, but I forget who it was:

"Tradition" is letting the cemetery have a vote.

Dear Catholicos,

Nothing wrong with that definition!

As you know, "Coemeteria" means "sleeping places" and this is the word that Christians used to describe the places where they buried their dead to indicate that, as Christ said, they weren't dead but "asleep."

The pagan Romans thoroughly ridiculed this Christian word and the theology behind it.

But where are they now?

Alex

Anastasios notes above:

"Priests facing the people? Loss of minor orders? Scrapping ecclessiastical chant? Big deal. Theologically important. As a smart PhD type, you know that Liturgy facing the people has a different theological meaning than facing east. If it didn't, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE POINT IN CHANGING IT?"

Absolutely true in terms of the changes; but the reality is, over the course of the centuries, the Eastern folks have made changes, and lots of them. Originally we DID face the people, but then it got changed, apparently as a result of our equating the 'altar' and "Christ's presence" as an analogue of the emperor's court and our desire to show equal deference to Christ as we did to the Emperor. The changes were made for various reasons; but the reality is: we did make changes and are not as immutable as some would have us believe.

"As far as equating Byzantine traditionalism with enduring persecution: that is really an insult to Byzantines becuase it suggests that if they were free, they would have been able to experiment with all manner of free inquiry and expression; that they reacted to a primordial urge to "preserve", but that if they were free, they most certainly wouldn't have kept those old stuffy ways."

But we DID make changes, whether we were 'free' under a Christian emperor, or under persecution (this is the sort of stuff that keeps Fr. Taft and others in business!!). It's not an insult to the ancestors. They did it to serve the Christian community to the best of their abilities.

As above: "Accretions or decretions that are in line with that tradition--fine. But wholesale revision based on the fads of the age are harmful and in the end, meaningless. We are the Body of Christ, who is in union with all those "dead people" that went before us. We are one outside of time. Let's not get caught up in trendy fadism, and stick with what matters."

I agree in general with this. However, it's not the 'fadism' of the age nor their 'meaninglessness', but rather the realities that faced our peoples. I'm sure that in the teens and twenties (and especially after the depression began), when people were able to find lithograph paper icons, they used them in the home (I have a lot of them from my family's past history) and even in the church iconostas. And even when we got the 'urethane' covered ones that have a little more class, I'm sure that some folks went crazy about the fact that the icons weren't egg-tempera or even oil-based paintings. But, the reality was: we couldn't afford them or find an iconographer we could pay to make them. So, we made do. So, what is better: a paper icon or no icon at all? The same is also true for silk-flowers purchased by the churches to enhance the sanctuary when real flowers just were too expensive to replenish every time we needed flowers.

While it's clear that we have very distinct traditions based upon our histories, the fact remains that a lot of our ancestors were dirt-poor and made changes based upon what was available to them. And they WERE changes, and sometimes of a substantial nature. (Liturgies got shortened when our 'host' parishes only could provide XX amount of time for us to hold our services.)

I appreciate your conservatism. And, in general, I tend to be rather conservative myself especially in financial and liturgical issues. BUT, I am also a realist. And I know that the community has got to be its own reality unto itself and NOT beholden to traditions that can sap the community of its spiritual, psychological, physical and financial resources. But I get nervous when I am told that we "have to be traditional" because it is essential to our very existence. And my response is: No. We have to survive as purveyors of the Gospel. THAT is our mandate. And we have to be convinced that our spiritual pathway is not only valid, but also a potential route for salvation for the unchurched. It's not the form; it's the substance. And our victory is to bring people to a Christlike life through our spirituality, not through an unquestioning adherence to a specific format. The American format is going to be different than the format that worked for our grandparents and great-grandparents. And they would be the first to kick their grandkids in the butt for being anachronistic and irrelevant in today's world.

While it may make some newcomers to the community uncomfortable to realize that we too are mutable, the fact remains that as living beings and living communities, we have got to keep moving on lest we become mere museum pieces. (Even in the old countries, they are still moving along!!).

To suggest that we just cannot make changes, even of a substantial nature, because we shouldn't or (even worse: "can't") do so, is to hog-tie the community. And this, it seems to me, kind of leaves the Holy Spirit in the unemployment line.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

You are correct.Children bringing their "homemade" Icons into Church is just re-enforcing Eastern Tradition.It is totally different from what I'm talking about. Despite all the "innovations" in the RC I find in the BC everyone is more relaxed with their children and their behavior.BTW the "paper plate" incident was done at the old geezer Mass not the one everyone brings the youngsters to. I told the Priest why go through all this trouble with banners & etc?Lets just have Mass in the Kindergarten room.

Nicky's Baba

Dear Dr. John and Nicky's Baba,

I've always found the example of St Elias' parish in Brampton, Ontario to be both wonderful and effective.

They give their kids free rein to walk around the church during services.

I've seen this in ROCOR parishes as well.

Some children walk around kissing ALL the icons, making the Sign of the Cross etc.

One happy fellow standing next to me beamed as he said, "See that! Those are OUR children! Our children, I tell you!"

Alex

>>>Absolutely true in terms of the changes; but the reality is, over the course of the centuries, the Eastern folks have made changes, and lots of them. Originally we DID face the people, but then it got changed, apparently as a result of our equating the 'altar' and "Christ's presence" as an analogue of the emperor's court and our desire to show equal deference to Christ as we did to the Emperor.

I do not believe that that is correct, Dr. John. At a Jewish passover banquet, the host would NOT face the people. When Jesus celebrated the Last Supper, all were facing one direction. Would you please be so kind as to tell from whence you derive that information, as I would sincerely like to see what your source has to say?

>>The changes were made for various reasons; but the reality is: we did make changes and are not as immutable as some would have us believe.

Exactly! Like I said: distinguish between mutable and immutable characteristics.

>>>I agree in general with this. However, it's not the 'fadism' of the age nor their 'meaninglessness', but rather the realities that faced our peoples. I'm sure that in the teens and twenties (and especially after the depression began), when people were able to find lithograph paper icons, they used them in the home (I have a lot of them from my family's past history) and even in the church iconostas. And even when we got the 'urethane' covered ones that have a little more class, I'm sure that some folks went crazy about the fact that the icons weren't egg-tempera or even oil-based paintings. But, the reality was: we couldn't afford them or find an iconographer we could pay to make them. So, we made do. So, what is better: a paper icon or no icon at all? The same is also true for silk-flowers purchased by the churches to enhance the sanctuary when real flowers just were too expensive to replenish every time we needed flowers.

Dr. John, I believe you are fighting a straw man. I do not have any problem with silk flowers, paper icons, etc. Why are you pretending that I am against ALL changes, when I have repeatedly said, "as long as changes are in line with the principles handed down to us..." If we hacked out the icon screen, had the priest serve in a business suit, and chucked incense, then I would be upset. If we change the style of chant, the material for an icon, or change the times or natures of services, SO WHAT??? I agree that every generation has leway, and that they did make changes: BUT no one ever made so many drastic changes to PRINCIPLES like the Latins did. Their change was not organic but articifical and imposed.

>>>While it's clear that we have very distinct traditions based upon our histories, the fact remains that a lot of our ancestors were dirt-poor and made changes based upon what was available to them. And they WERE changes, and sometimes of a substantial nature. (Liturgies got shortened when our 'host' parishes only could provide XX amount of time for us to hold our services.)

That is not a different principle, Dr. John. That is organic developement. If they had decided to have liturgies with the priest wearing street clothes or with the priest sitting down with the people in the middle of a Liturgy (I have seen this), THAT would be a bad change, in my opinion.

>>>I appreciate your conservatism. And, in general, I tend to be rather conservative myself especially in financial and liturgical issues. BUT, I am also a realist.

Dr John--I am a major realist. Ask my fiancee. I have more friends that are liberal, anti-Catholics than I do have Catholic friends. I am pragmatic with them. I don't go into my Ruthenian parish and howl at the people that don't do XY and Z. I don't stand up when I am a guest at Roman Liturgies and call the priest a heretic--pragmatically speaking, since I know I don't like the way they do Roman masses here where I live (nor does my fiancee), we just usually DON'T Go! how pragmatic! And if someone from the "other" camp needed help, I'd put on my jeans and dig in!

>>>And I know that the community has got to be its own reality unto itself and NOT beholden to traditions that can sap the community of its spiritual, psychological, physical and financial resources.

I wonder what you would define those as? And I think that the changes in the Latin church did sap the community of their spiritual, psychological, and physical resources (not financial, though). We have been luckier.

>>>But I get nervous when I am told that we "have to be traditional" because it is essential to our very existence. And my response is: No. We have to survive as purveyors of the Gospel. THAT is our mandate. And we have to be convinced that our spiritual pathway is not only valid, but also a potential route for salvation for the unchurched. It's not the form; it's the substance. And our victory is to bring people to a Christlike life through our spirituality, not through an unquestioning adherence to a specific format.

Dr John: you like to end all your major posts this way. As dear Serge once said: not all trads fit your pattern. I am NOT the same as all those other trads, and I don't usually identify myself as traditionalist or conservative anyway. I am a moderate. I believe in women deacons, married priests and bishops, etc... So please don't try and give me the same spiel you give the Latin tridentines that come here.

>>>The American format is going to be different than the format that worked for our grandparents and great-grandparents. And they would be the first to kick their grandkids in the butt for being anachronistic and irrelevant in today's world.

Right, but the Byzantine culture was adopted by the Arabs without much change. The Assyrians adopted somewhat to the Chinese. We will adopt somewhat in this culture, too. But please don't assume that we need to chuck our basic principles to "fit in". Like the time you suggested that priests wear jeans, a tshirt, and a small cross; that drastic change is the type that is just not necessary to accomodate to our culture.

>>>While it may make some newcomers to the community uncomfortable to realize that we too are mutable, the fact remains that as living beings and living communities, we have got to keep moving on lest we become mere museum pieces. (Even in the old countries, they are still moving along!!).

You are so right--no stagnancy! And also, let's not fit into fads like "less fasting" that hit us in the 1970's. Such changes are the ones that I feel are spiritually trying to "fit into the times" and are dangerous.

I hope that your reference to "newcomers" was not a veiled reference to me in any way, Dr. J. I am a relative newcomer: 4 years ago I joined our church from the Protestants. But I don't feel uncomfortable because I help out at the parish and get along with everyone!

>>>To suggest that we just cannot make changes, even of a substantial nature, because we shouldn't or (even worse: "can't") do so, is to hog-tie the community.

Not really. It is keeping SUBSTANTIAL things the same that preserved our identity, and will do so in the future. SUBSTANTIAL changes are what breaks up the community.

>>>And this, it seems to me, kind of leaves the Holy Spirit in the unemployment line.

The Holy spirit works IN tradition, not AGAINST it. Organic changes are fine, Dr. John.

In Christ,

anastasios

Thanks for the studied response, Anastasios. I think I understand what you are talking about. The only thing that still puzzles me is your idea of "substantial" change and how one can distinguish between that and changes of lesser consequence.

For example, the paper icon issue is not really of lesser consequence for a lot of Orthodox Christians. If the icon is not written in the traditional way, then it's not an icon and is not worthy of veneration or display. For many other Eastern folks, one made do with the paper lithographs.

The reference to 'newcomers' was not about you at all but rather to the 'cultural visitors' who find us just a 'charming Church' that should be kept around, just like a Hummel statue, for its artistic value. These are the folks who probably would like to dress us up in costumes for Sunday services to add a little 'flavor' to the celebration. What's next? Dancing peasants in Raleigh or Washington? (This perspective really annoys me no end.)

I will find the reference to the Byzantine Museum in Athens, hopefully with a URL. There is a four-sided altar railing that surrounded a marble slab surmounted on four legs. There are 'wear marks' on the priest/celebrant side of the altar (sweaty palms perhaps), but these marks were facing the main body of the church building where they were excavated. The materials were unearthed somewhere in Pontus/Asia Minor.

Blessings!

Dr. John;

About the paper icon thing; I was under the impression that the issue is really a Greek practice vs. a Slavic practice. The Greeks believe that an icon is only an icon when the prescribed discipline is followed, the prayers, the fasting, the strict rules, etc. The Slavs, however, believe that the icon becomes so in its intent, i.e. when it is meant to represent someone or some event. This has to do with that "sharing with its prototype" idea. Therefore, in the Slavic usage, an icon drawn by a kindergartner is as legitimate as any other icon because it participates in the life of its prototype. Actually both aspects of the tradition are necessary for its survival. That's what is so great about the Byzantine tradition.

Now,in regard to the original intent of this thread, I reject the premise. God's Church cannot be measured in numbers. After all, aren't we all redeemed because of the faith of just one human being (by the way, isn't the Annunciation coming up some time soon?). The Byzantine church cannot be separated into Catholic and Orthodox, Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Russian, Greek, etc., nor can it be separated into the American Byzantine Church, Canadian Church, the Russian Church, the Greek Church, etc.

We cannot afford an us vs. them mentality. We must assume an us AND them approach. For example, especially as Byzantine Catholics, we can appreciate this nonsense that is going on in Russia. We understand the Russian side, the fear of the strong arm from the West. We understand, the meaning of a patriarchate and its territorial significance. We understand the Catholic side, the universality of the Church, and the freedom to worship in the manner one sees fit. Just like our tradition regarding the paper icons, we Byzantine Catholics embrace both parts of the tradition. We live the paradox. Our lives are like a "Fiddler on a Roof" (sorry, I got carried away there for a second.)

One of my favorite teachings from Vatican II is the idea that the truth subsists in the Catholic Church. Well, I believe that the truth subsists in the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches as well. That is enough for me. Our responsibility, is to cherish our inheritance, to preserve it, to pass it on. It is ultimately the Holy Spirit's responsibility to transform the world. If She decides to do so as a mosaic of Churches or as one universal Church, it does not diminish my appreciation for what She has given me.

John

I agree with you 100% Petrus. It is indeed the Church that is the most important. And for me, all the administrative (read: political) stuff is really the major roadblock.

Apropos the icons, the Greeks too (at least in this country) do the kids-coloring thing. It DOES make the kids understand the reality. As for the lithographs, many have done it. But if one is truly following the 'tradition', then the oil/tempera icon is the norm. We can use the 'lesser' manifestations when we need to. Again, better a 'cheap' icon than no icon at all.

Blessings!

>>>Thanks for the studied response, Anastasios. I think I understand what you are talking about. The only thing that still puzzles me is your idea of "substantial" change and how one can distinguish between that and changes of lesser consequence.

I like it when two people who disagree with one another a lot can discuss things civilly. Thank you.

I don't think that my "substantial vs. minor" argument is a seamless garment; surely it has some holes in it. But basically, through the Church's experience, some things have been given more weight than others. For instance, the iconoclasts were called heretics and were challenged by our ancestors; but good people can disagree on whether bishops should be mandatorily celibate. Both icons and monastic bishops are "traditions", and both are very important to the Church. Take out the icons, and people are going to be ticked. Ordain a married man a bishop, and while SOME will be ticked, the reaction will be much smaller. One thing is a permanent, substantial principle, the other is a custom, albeit strongly-imbeded, that can be changed.

I think we should never change "substantial" things becuase they are essential to our Christian community. No ripping out those icons (or statues in the west, Fr. Bill). When the Latins ripped out the statues from many parish churches, it caused great pain to many. But when Episcopalian Fr. Jim became a married RC priest, that was, while a change, good for the community.

>>>For example, the paper icon issue is not really of lesser consequence for a lot of Orthodox Christians. If the icon is not written in the traditional way, then it's not an icon and is not worthy of veneration or display. For many other Eastern folks, one made do with the paper lithographs.

I understand your POV, Dr. John, but I think that educated people (not implying anyone is uneducated) are taught to discern these things. As substantial thing is something that has weight in more than one culture. A priest facing the people has a different theological motive in ALL cultures, whereas paper icons were an issue in one time and place.

>>>The reference to 'newcomers' was not about you at all but rather to the 'cultural visitors' who find us just a 'charming Church' that should be kept around, just like a Hummel statue, for its artistic value.

LOL! I'm glad you weren't referencing me. I appreciate it. I fully admit that at 4 years Byzantine, I am "new". But I try to keep my sometimes traditional, sometimes radical POV's quiet so that I don't offend. We have new visitors every week, and some are exactly as you mention.

>>>These are the folks who probably would like to dress us up in costumes for Sunday services to add a little 'flavor' to the celebration. What's next? Dancing peasants in Raleigh or Washington? (This perspective really annoys me no end.)

We had a guy show up to our Church once dressed as a Lemko for St. Nicholas day. Granted, he was cradle, BUT usually went Roman. Being a Lemko was his way of "keeping the tradition." Too bad he distracted a lot of people during the Liturgy! ha ha (hey buddy if you're reading this, I did like the costume, though!) Another example would be the Russian Orthodox priest who speaks English with a Russian accent--even though he is an American convert! Yikes!


>>>I will find the reference to the Byzantine Museum in Athens, hopefully with a URL. There is a four-sided altar railing that surrounded a marble slab surmounted on four legs. There are 'wear marks' on the priest/celebrant side of the altar (sweaty palms perhaps), but these marks were facing the main body of the church building where they were excavated. The materials were unearthed somewhere in Pontus/Asia Minor.

Interesting.

In Christ,

anastasios

Lemko Ukrainian or Lemko Russian?

(Notice how I have a way of getting to the really important question.)

Emminghaus, the great Catholic liturgists, says that the practice of eastward direction became normative during the 400s, as far as the contruction of churches on an east-west axis with the aspe to the east. He notes this also became the practice east of Jerusalem, contrary to the Jewish practice. However, the practice of the priest's direction came after this and gradully. This growing practice also lost the tradition of the bishop's chair and the presbyters benches surrounding him, which also had great symbolism and is being restored now in the Latin Church.

He says the reasons for facing east "disappeared from the popular consciousness in the Middle Ages and in modern times" and that the practice of the priest facing east was never consistently or universally practiced. Exceptions always existed though seemingly random exceptions rather than differences due to any ritual tradition, theologial understanding or regional custom.

His conclusion seems to be that the eastward construction of the church building is the older, more universal and more theologically meaningful tradition, while the priests direction was a less universal, less theological tradition that developed as an extention of the first, not a tradition in its own right.

He seems to make a case that the priest's position has some basis in tradition or custom, but is not a "biggie" (to use a technical theological term)and given Latins and some Byznatines long ago abandoned the first principle of church construction, it is a practice that has long lost the meaning once behind it.

Among us Orthodox, my observation has been that we do strickly keep to the principle of church construction. However, as to the priest's position, I do note that a concelebrated Liturgies, the priest circle the altar rather than all face the east.

Axios

[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Another example would be the Russian Orthodox priest who speaks English with a Russian accent--even though he is an American convert! Yikes!


Do you know this priest name? Im just curious, he sounds like my kind of priest.