CHRISTOS VOSKRES!

Hi Gang.....

Well, I REALLY don't know how to say this so, I guess I'll just let fly and see what you all have to say.

I literally told a man and his family to get out of our church on Sunday.

They were SSPX'ers and we first "noticed" them when the wife and daughter entered wearing those 1960's white lace chapel veils. They genuflected and then knelt in prayer. During the concecreation, they knelt also. The family didn't receive Holy Communion and very "up-set" with the singing of Christos Voskres and other hymns "po-nasemu".

After Liturgy as they were leaving, I asked if it was their first time in a Byzantine Church and the man said yes and wondered how long we had been "schismatics".

He was "up-set" with the fact that we didn't use the "filioque" during the Creed. We then proceeded to "discuss" this.

He then started with the use of OCS and not kneeling and some other things. I reminded him that he was in a Byzantine church and that we had "taking" back our traditions and customs as we were ordered to do by John Paul II and the 2nd Vatican Council.

Well, he went off like a rocket about how the Devil organized the 2nd Vatican Council and how John Paul II was the Devil...

Yes, I did loose it.

If I could have gotten my hands on an ikon I would have clocked him with it and would have tried to chase the demons out of him.

I looked him square in the eye and told he needed to leave that he did not belong there and to not come back.

I've told our priest and our deacon candidate about the family and to "be on the look-out" for them.

Now for my question.....

Was I right or wrong??

your thoughts please....

Paska Krasna nas vitajet...

mark

Did Father put you in charge of pastoral ministry in your parish church? I believe you should have referred them to the priest who IS pastorally responsible BEFORE, not AFTER you chased them away.

Yes, it was obvious that they had their own agendas, but you only met them at their level. Jesus was always confronted with the Sscribes and Pharisees with questions to trip him up. He took their agenda-driven questions to a new level they weren't quite ready for. The terms and the argument were not determined by his adversaries.

In the future, it would be healthy to simply listen to their frustrations no matter how escewed they are from the facts. There may be deep hidden anger resulting from poor pastoral care and/or experiences in their own church community. Their behavior in church only confirms that they are still packing their prejudices and ignorance. I know Protestants and Jews who are better examples of considerate guests and actually ask questions, unlike Tridentines and/or Latinized Greek Catholics.

Letting them speak to Father Pastor first would have given him an opportunity to convey to them why their past bad experiences of their church do not equate with their current and new experiences of your church. Such an encounter may help difuse their volatile sensitivity and preconceived notions. We get such folks now and then and some do learn. Some disappear before liturgy is over. We never yell at them or chase them away.

Joe

Joe,

While I agree with your conclusion about pastoral responsibility I think you were a bit hard on Mark. Part of reclaiming our heritage is reclaiming our lay heritage of responsibility. Mark was right to challenge the fellow but then should have taken him to Father and not thrown him out. This follows the pattern Jesus established as recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Marko,

We all lose our tempers - even, yes, I do too

There are Ukie Catholics who, if they heard your congregation omit the "Filioque," might have reacted as those SSPXers did . . .

Old Church Slavonic? We have our nationalists who opposed its continued use for years!

They didn't like the Pope?

We have those too!

When Father was saying the Litiya once, he mentioned "St Josaphat of Polotsk."

A babushia next to me blurted out, "We honour that . . . .?!"

I do think you were hard on them, not because they didn't deserve it, but because they just don't know any better.

Even if they had bad experiences etc., their "Unam Sanctam" mindset would see us as "schismatics."

Taras Shevchenko's poetry uses "schismatic" to define "Ukrainian" from the point of view of Catholics.

The Uniate bishop Borecky in the 17th century wrote to his Orthodox counterpart, Saint George Konissky, to say that "when they are in heated conversation, the Poles call us (Uniates) 'schismatics' just as they call you that."

So when this family referred to you as such, they were following an historically-conditioned knee-jerk response.

And they will believe what they want to believe.

The most that you could have done differently, I suppose, is take them to see your priest.

He may have simply said his peace and bade them a good day.

But who knows?

For next time, Big Guy!

Alex

Mark, I'll give ya points for greeting strangers...

From a purely human standpoint, I completely understand your actions & reactions. It isn't pleasant to have strangers barge into the house & insult your family's interior decorating.

It probably would have been better to let Father decide whether or not these folks were welcome - assuming this gentleman would be willing to speak to a "schismatic" priest...

(Darn that busted human nature...on all sides)

Sharon

XPUCTOC BOCKPEC!

Dear Mark:

While none of us likes to lose our temper, I, for one, think you did the right thing by setting them straight.

Really, folks, would people like that sit around and wait for the priest to come out and set them right? Anyway, the "ksionz" probably has better things to do on Pascha than deal with a bunch of a******s (other than uppity choir conductors, of course ).

Mark - I, for one, wish I had your gumption.

Yours,

kl

Dan,

I agree. It was not his responsibility to throw newcomers out of the church. It is one thing to give witness and be available and willing to answer questions (or point people in the right direction to those who do), but assuming the decision to throw someone out without first appealing the problem to the pastor is not very good. Sometimes, visitors call the pastor first before making their first visit and their experience is nothing what they imagined. I know well about reclaiming heritage and all. I've met many newcomers to the parish and answered questions, and I have also introduced them to the spiritual father of the community, namely the pastor.

Though I never contemplated wacking someone with an icon in anger. Do you think that would have been a bit "hard" on someone? (no pun intended)

God bless!
Joe

Dear Professor Dan,

Cantor Joseph hard on someone?

Can we even contemplate something like that?

(I think having Cantor Joseph around the parish would whip us all into shape!)

Alex

Why wait for the priest to wack visitors with an icon if one can do it by oneself?

Dear J Thur:

Of course, hitting someone over the head with an icon is not a good idea (not to mention using a sacred thing for a not-so-sacred purpose). I don't see how you could have gotten that from my post. In short, violence - bad. Telling these people that they were wrong and aksing them to leave before they tried to ruin anyone else's Pascha - good.

While we're on the subject, though - from the books of Chicago Ukrainian church history comes the story of a pastor hitting a parish counsel member over the head with a wooden wall cross during a meeting. Granted, it was not in church, but if you want a precedent - there it is! :p

Yours,

kl

Mark --

Well, I have my own story for you. From time to time, if Fr. Mike has made a particularly succinct and EXCELLENT POINT during his homily, I will say "AMEN!!" rather loudly.

(I can't help it!!! It's that "Amen Nerve" that all Protestants have. Mine hasn't withered and died off yet!!)

The funny thing is that it got a couple of folks a tad upset (it ISN'T "our way") but Fr. just loved it!! He thought it was great to have someone validate what he was saying.

I guess we all have our idiosyncysies, right?

Brother Ed -- convert from the "Amen corner" of the Body of Christ.

PS If yer priest didn't "take ya to the woodshed" over the incident, I'd put it behind me and just be ready for the next set of SSPXer's who walk through the doors. Maybe next time will be different.

(I looked him square in the eye and told he needed to leave that he did not belong there and to not come back.)

That might have been a little harsh, but its probably not the first time they've heard it.

It was good of you to reach out to strangers in your church. I have to wonder why they were there on Pascha? No home parish? Too confrontational elsewhere?
The problem is theirs from the sounds of it and you just got caught up in it. It is hard to just bid them peace and walk away without wanting to wring their necks for breaking your gestalt, but maybe they will be back and you'll have another chance at them!

This is part of a post Alex posted on another thread. It seems to fit here, so I stole it and moved it.

"St Nicholas gave a good account of himself at the First Ecumenical Council when he gave the heretic Arius a "shot to the chops." He could be a patron of boxers.

Pope St Pius X knocked out a parishioner with a single blow for swearing out loud after Sunday Mass."

Altar Boy,

"I will say "AMEN!!" rather loudly."

I do the same thing. No one has ever reprimanded me. I suppose I'm too old and can intimidate them. But Father loves it. So I keep it up. I have no plans to change.

Dan Lauffer

We should always be kind and loving towards other people. The Gospel demands it. That said, when folks come to the Church, it should be with humility and the soul of a pilgrim to seek the graces that a new parish can provide. These folks were probably just fulfilling their "Sunday obligation" and decided to see just what them thar' furriners were up to.

The Gospel tells the Disciples that if they enter a town and are poorly received, that they should leave and shake the dirt from their sandals. In this case, the shoe was on the other foot (no pun intended!) and it is the people of the church, including Brother Mark, who were to shake these dust-bunnies from the congregation.

Apart from using a heavy wooden icon upside the head, which I agree would be in bad taste, I would have suggested that the language that they heard was actually Latin in a dialect form (they probably wouldn't have known the difference) and would have been a great cause of confusion since they are probably quite intent on restoration of Latin! You know, after that shooting incident at the Albanian church outside Detroit, perhaps we could spread the rumor that all Easterns pack heat -- even in church. Might give 'em second thoughts!

But I guess the best thing would be to say: "You're nuts and disrespectful to boot. Please go away and only return when you've learned some manners."

Christ is Risen!!

Dear kl, there is also a story of a parish council actually chasing a now former bishop of the Eparchy of Chicago to his car and he had to flee at a fairly high rate of speed...

Dear Mark, I can completely understand your frustration but we have to always remember we are icons of Christ. It is hard to have patience, but I have found that giving these rigidists some definite canonical prescriptions such as Orientale Dignitas of Leo XIII since they don't ascknowledge anything post John XXIII sometimes helps. But sometimes getting in their face is inevitable if they continue to arrogantly push the issue when they have absolutely no theological, spiritual or liturgical footing.

I taught in an SSPX school for several years (many years ago now) and had a very difficult time with treatment from some of them. I still can't believe they hired me. It is unfortunate but some of these people I have found thrive on controversy and confrontation.

But, the ol' St. Nicholas trick of clocking Arius did get his attention.

Christos Voskrese!

Just an observation,

Medved, You seem like a very violent person and, as I recall, have expressed much disdain in the past over what you term "sspx'ers.

I am sure that there were much more pastoral ways to handle people like this then chasing them out of the Church with an Ikon.

Many Traditional Catholic's like to feel a kind of sympathy with Greek Catholics because the latter Churche's tend to be on the more traditional side as opposed to those of the present Roman rite.

But people like you, who are already pre disposed in hatred for the Latin Trads seem to take great delight in ridiculing them and chasing them out of your parishes because of your increasing fear.

Do you somehow feel that this one family worshiping in your parish will somehow spread their "latinism" around and perhaps "infect" other parishioners with it? I understand that for Eastern Catholics, it has been an uphilll climb to restore Eastern traditions to their Churche's. But such displays of crude violence and emotionalism toards newcomers (No, I am not trying to justify their actions either) Is very unbecoming of one who should know better.

I can only wonder what actions you have commited against those already existing members of the parish who were from the "old school" and supported Latinization's (Yes, believe it or not, I have actually heard of Byzantine Catholics who either did not mind or actually supported the use of Latinizations in their churches).

Sensitivity, sensitivity...

Robert

Forum members who know Mark, know that he is a kind person. These people have caused trouble in their own churches, and now they want to come and start trouble in our churches during the holy season o.f Pascha? Mark, I would have done the same. These people need to be confronted, sometimes in a stern manner . Thanks for standing up to these trouble makers!!

X.B.! B.B.!

Ung-Certez

I re-read the initial post and what really got me was: "Well, he went off like a rocket about how the Devil organized the 2nd Vatican Council and how John Paul II was the Devil..."

Apart from being incredibly rude, it would seem to me that these folks are no longer Catholic. While Catholics (and Orthodox, and other Christians) can disagree, even vehemently, to make statements like that only validates the perception that they have actually left the Catholic Church and are now their own little sect of 'protest-ants' no matter how "Catholic" they believe themselves to be.

John-Paul is the Devil?!?!

Christ is Risen!

Post deleted by author since it only distracted.

Joe Thur

"The doors, the doors!"

Maybe we should bring back the tradition of shutting the doors? Maybe new members and/or catechumens should be escorted out of the liturgy/temple? Maybe our 'open-ended' invitations for allowing just anybody to attend (even those who aren't ready for it) is our own darn fault? It is also reflected in our culture of baring all before commitment and understanding.

Many want to "see" the Mass. Our temples are even designed to expose the mysteries. I think we can channel our respect for the mysteries by linking action, words, and architecture in the liturgy. Nobody would think of keeping the master bedroom door open while the parents enjoy the marital privelege if children are around, yet we think nothing of making an theatrical production open to all of the sacred mystery of the Divine Liturgy. Call our style of worship 'liturgical pornography.'

When we permit visitors to attend the liturgy freely and then witness their departure half way through the service (maybe they figured out that our form of worship didn't fit their expectations), then we allow the lack of respect we so abhor. Liturgy becomes not a moment of Heaven on Earth, of Communion/Partaking of the Divine Nature via the Mysteries, but a "Peep Show." Nothing is sacred and everything is on display.

Bring back the rite of dismissing the catechumens. Bring back the rite of keeping non-members or penitents in the narthex. Bring back the curtain and the iconostasis. If we can't bring these back then we just have to accept the actions and reactions of all 'imbedded' visitors, whethere hostile or not.

The fact that people can waddle in and enjoy something without commitment and/or support is like the prevelant notion of: Why buy the cow if one gets the milk free? When 'privelege' cometh before 'commitment' we have problems - in all manners of life. Should insurance companies freely pay claims if one didn't have a policy beforehand? Should educational institutions freely grant degrees to those who never showed up for one class? Why should that which we hold so sacred and meaningful be held to lower standards of commitment? There are laws that regulate and protect companies and customers doing business. There are WRITTEN contractual agreements stipulating every little quirk of those agreements. Yet. YET! Our temples, though made out of wood and/or concret and/or steel, are treated like glass buildings where one doesn't even have to purchase a ticket to watch the show.

Maybe the early rites of the church (now long lost) were there for a reason? It began when the Apostles were together behind locked doors.

If our temple is designed with all this theology in mind, but we invite everybody in with no thought or considerations anyway, then it is no wonder why we have episodes mentioned in the first post. We invite folks in with one hand, then slap them on the wrist with the other hand when they don't like what they see. We failed miserably here. Does anyone recommend intercourse between two strangers on the first date? There is always a learning process/curve for newbies. We even have Pre-Cana classes just in case things fall through the cracks. A period of time must be spent to demonstrate commitment and stability before having any marriage blessed before the community. Would anyone think it odd have a family reunion at their home and allow total strangers to enter their domain, have them look around in your home checking out the turf, and then simply leave? Why is it so different in our churches? Are we so hard up for new members that we have an 'Open House' policy everyday for whoever blows in on the whim?

I remember when my wife and I attended our Pre-Cana conference over 11 years ago. The question posed to us was this: Who will take care of a sick child? We remembered hearing one couple really debating this issue quite passionately (the guy thought that it was naturally her responsibility since she was the woman). Don't know how far they got in their mutual understanding. But can you imagine if the topic was never discussed BEFORE they got married, then they had a child that was born sickly? Can we not consider proper catechesis in liturgy too?

The couple who blew in and began declaring heretics everywhere is like the couple who wasn't ready for the proper commitment and responsibility that comes with marriage. Worshipping at church is NOT a private affair no matter how we immunize ourselves.

Consider this: No couple can simply invite themselves into the church to get married. Even our rite of marriage has them greeted AT THE DOOR and led in. Consider the Initiation mysteries of Baptism and Chrismation. The one being baptized is also greeted AT THE DOOR (with sponsors) and led in. Same for ordination, folks. Nobody, even those opting for the sacred mysteries of Initiation, Marriage, and Holy Orders has a RIGHT to access.

There is always instruction, a time period, acceptance, an invitation, and an actual physical greeting AT THE DOOR.

Our current problem is a 'set up' of our own doing. When the priestly prayers went silent, we needed longer melodies and hymns to keep the people busy/pre-occupied; liturgical symbolism triumphed over the natural and mutual relationship between rite and word. When we relaxed our rules with an open-door policy we allowed anybody to blow in without catechesis, which, BTW, IS our responsibility, but not one when we wish to chase them away. When we dismissed the diaconate as a 'ministry unto itself,' we lost all touch with those safeguards of worship - the cry "The doors, the doors!" became as meaningless as "Catechumens, depart!" Should we have expected better?

Let me reflect further on the doors: In the early church, Byzantine Christians waited OUTSIDE the temple and were led in AFTER the bishop, hence why they deposited their gifts in a separate annex/room (skeuophylakion) unlike the Western Christians who deposited their gifts inside while remaining for their bishop. Our current liturgical practices and customs (and naturally the slavish inorganic tradition of having our bishops enter the temple last) are sometimes far removed from the tight relationship of liturgical action and meaning. Today, we plop ourselves down on comfy pews (if padded!) and wait for the bishop to enter the temple LAST (so unlike us!). In the case of the bishop processing last, the bishop fails to lead. Ho hum!

What does this mean? The DOOR of the temple is where it stops for some and where it begins for others. This DOOR is akin to the door of our homes and the door of our master bedrooms. It serves as a means to regulate: to INVITE or to DISMISS.

Maybe we should restore one more tradition long lost if we DO consider our worship important?

"The doors, the doors!"

Joe Thur

Dear Joe,

What you say does make sense. What you call for is a major overhaul in the way we see our Liturgy (and how that is reflected). I have heard of some Orthodox parishes and Monasteries where the uninitiate are not permitted to cross the Royal Doors (the older sense, between the Narthex and the Nave), but can view the Liturgy from outside the community, i.e. the spacious Narthex. Perhaps we can go one step further, and restore the order of the Doorkeeper, the prototype bouncer. Does this mean that we ought to be insular? By no means. This was the way of the Church for centuries, and in those days, there were more catecumens that we can shake a stick or, or imagine.

Adam K

Dear J Thur:

I certainly would have been tempted to join those throwing something at the pro-celibacy activists.

Yours,

kl

Ah, Medved, you have displayed a little of the temper of your namesake critter.

I, for one, am glad you could not - at that moment - get your hands on a holy image with which to clock these poor, lost folk.

Were you wrong to be angry? I don't know - but I don't think so. I guess it might have been best to gently direct them towards a priest or deacon. (These folk seem to need some direction.) But hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.

Peace and all good, Medved!

Well, Jesus got angry, too, and He sure thought it was justified.

Remember how He overturned the tables of the moneychangers. He must have been physically very strong. He was angry and my guess is his words at that time were not spoken in a whisper.

Just my observation.

We have our share of visitors who wander into our Episcopal parish expecting a "standard brand" protestant service who are quite surprised and confused by such things as sanctus bells, kneeling for the consecration, people crossing themselves, bowing to the cross etc... This is where a "tract rack" with literature come sin handy...most churches have a "Welcome to the ______ Church" pamphlet to hand soemone w/ questions. I doubt if this would hav ehelped you since this guy seemed bent on being a cross of thorns. Can't you just hear him telling his friends about it? "And when he couldn't answer my questions he tossed me out of his church..."

I'd observe that Jesus got angry and He KNEW it was justified. The rest of us have not got His divine level of insight.

As a recovering SSPX seminarian, I thought I should weigh in on this topic. Firstly, I should say that I left the SSPX on EXCELLENT terms, without making a scene or throwing manifestoes in their face. I do believe that they are 80% right in most of what they say. For example, much of the problems with the Church today come through ambiguous clauses of Vatican II documents that the liberals have used to their advantage. Every liturgical, spiritual, and doctrinal obscenity that we all lament has some basis, no matter how flimsy, in some Vatican II document. Does this mean that the Council is "evil"? Of course not, there were many good things that came out of it. But it did not do its job as being the "Second Pentecost". The Tridentine Catholic triumphalistic Latin tradition of our grandfathers may have been flawed, and even seriously so. But a Tradition cannot be made by a Vatican Commission, no matter how "inspired".What the Latin Church is going through is a profound crisis of identity. And I think its only solution can be in its past.
I would also like to say that I know living breathing saints in the SSPX, although like their ROCOR and Old Calendarist counterparts in Orthodoxy, their main sin is pride and blindness towards their neighbor.
For this reason, they can potentially have a fit when they find out that we don't kneel at "the Consecration". Or that we have rightfully thrown out the Filioque from the Creed in our Liturgy. The problem is that they are not ready for diversity in worship, spirituality or doctrine, because they feel so defensive about their Tradition being attacked. Let us remember that their are liberal elements in the Latin Church who want to remove kneeling during the Consecration in the Mass, as well as many other changes that would be contrary to Catholic Tradition as it has developed in the West. In this sense, one should be very patient with them. They feel very attacked, and it is our Christian duty to make them feel welcome and try to explain to them that we too revere the "Blessed Sacrament", the Virgin, among other things. Maybe if they see us being meek and loving as Christ was when He was on the earth, maybe they won't see us as so "modernist" after all. Maybe these SSPX'ers would come out of their secret bunker caves/chapels and say, "Maybe their is a place for us in this official Church."
I spent two years in an SSPX seminary in South America thinking everyday about the small Byzantine Catholic Church I had attended right up to entering seminary. (Of which, by the way, I am now a parishioner.) Their kindness, hospitality, and commitment to Eastern Christian tradition led me to finally realize that there is where I really belonged and I left seminary to return to that little church, with flaws and all. Please do not turn the Lefebvrists away. If you are ever going to err, as my spiritual director in seminary said to me, err on the side of kindness.

Yours in Christ,
Arturo

Excellent insight, Arturo - thanks for sharing it. There is an excellent book entitled *What Went Wrong with Vatican II.* I think it's a great read and - fear not, loyal Catholics - it is totally in the mainstream tree. I get the feeling that it is as Arturo says - liberal elements hijacked elements of the Council's work and really introduced serious confusion.

There are some devout Roman Catholics who prefer the post-Vatican II church - my older brother and his family fall into that category. (He is actually old enough to remember the old Latin Mass - but I came along after the vernacular was adopted and, until fairly recently, I had never even seen a woman with a veil on her head in a Roman Catholic church - except of course, statues of the Blessed Mother, St. Veronica and various other female saints.)

At any rate, I asked my brother, who is quite conservative, about his preference for the post-Vatican II Mass. Basically, he feels much more involved in the celebration. His wife converted to Roman Catholicism a couple years ago - again, the post-Vatican II Mass appealed to her, as did - of course -the basic tenets of the faith. His kids are in college. His son is Eucharistic minister, his daughter is studying theology in hopes of becoming a professor and she has already sponsored one of her friends in RCIA. Really mainstream Catholics who live the good parts of what came out of Vatican II - i.e., they live as participants in the community of believers. They have a daily prayer life. They are charitable and kind folks.

Like me, he was raised with Roman and Orthodox traditions. He attended services under both since we had parents who grew up in those traditions. But whereas I was drawn more to the Eastern, "old" ways of worship, he was drawn to Western, "new" ways.

My guess is that the SSPXers that Medved encountered are probably very much in a searching mode and perhaps are a little frustrated. Although an unpleasant experience for him, perhaps they did learn something about the variety of Catholics worship.

Dear Arturo
I liked all of your last post, but I especially liked what your spiritual director said "Err on the side of kindness". It warms the heart to hear that.

denise

My only concern with the plight of the non-reformed Roman Catholics is this: why are Eastern Christians being drawn into the melee? There seems to be some sort of parallel being drawn that equates our Liturgy with conservative liturgy in the Roman Church.

It's not. We Easterns do what we do. We change it when we need to (or, sometimes when we are kinda-sorta pressured to do so -from inside our Church or outside it). We celebrate in the vernacular by and large. We have substantial participation in the Liturgy by the people, and don't abrogate that role to altar boys who cant Latin phrases (usually poorly) that they don't understand in response to the priest's Latin exclamations, also oftentimes poorly understood.

While I am more than supportive of ANYONE who comes through our parish doors, and I think it is our Christian obligation to welcome them and give them succor (love that word!!), I also realize that there are some who are not "seeking", but rather rebelling. And with them, I'm not sure that I have the patience that is obligatory for the true "seekers", especially the non-churched for whom I'd do almost anything.

Above all is the principle of Christian Charity. I would hope that among our Roman brethren that there would be both acceptance of those who think differently, but also an appreciation on the part of the 'different thinkers' that a large number of others think in a different way and that they should not be denigrated or chastised for their views and practices.

The ultimate goal is evangelization, as Brother Lauffer has constantly promoted. He is right. We need to bring the pagans and the heathen and the 'crazies' to an understanding of Christ's message of love of God and love of one's neighbor. Latin has nothing to do with it. It is the Gospel. Nothing more, nothing less.

Succor the refugees for a time, but then bid them 'adieu' and bring them back to their own community. Unless we Easterns do this, we are endangering our communities to succumb to the vicissitudes of the Latin Church, and we serve NO ONE, least of all our own people in trying to be kind to them.

As Easterns, we have the obligation to recover our own legitimate traditions and to re-introduce them to our people through catechesis and education. We CAN'T try to integrate the disaffected Latins into this process without doing violence to our own people. And that is NOT acceptable, EVER!

Christos Anesti! Christos Voskrese! Al-Masiah cham! (etc., etc. etc......)

Christ is Risen!!

It's funny how this topic has opened wide after a month of quiet. There have been some excellent postings here.

I remember the Latin Tridentine mass fairly well from my childhood and I have a attended a few locally around Chicago over the years, both SSPX and indult. I do however appreciate the "novus" Ordo too!

I must confess however that if I had encountered that family the way Medved describes it, I do not think I could have controlled myself. Forgive me for saying this but it enrages me to even think about it. Maybe I need some remedial something or counseling but I would have wanted to #&*%# that ^@*^@$&*( all the way to %&*#@*!!!!!!

Yes, that's right. I think he did all right.

There, I'm glad I got that off my chest. Now I need to do a major examination of conscience.

Michael

Extreme conservatism and liberlism can always hinder a church. I am an Orthodox who knows Latin rather well and find a beauty in the few Latin masses I have visited. I can see the traditionalist shock with new new order of the chuch.

I have visited a Roman Catholic church that was built after Vatican II. One would think they were in a Protestant church. There were no stained glass windows, statues, icons, or even a crucifix. Just a large wooden cross in the front of the church. I was also surprised to see guitar playing in the mass. It seems to me that one of the outcomes of Vatican II was to leave behind traditions in some churches. As an Orthodox, I find this a puzzling thing about the Roman Church. This is not to say that all churches are doing this, but is surprising to see such a departure from tradition.

I have encountered this more than once, Yes it is irritating. I agree they do tend to err on the side of confrontation and contraversy. The family probably went out to breakfast and high fived each other after the event. Trad. Catholics are attracted to the Byzantine catholic church because of it's traditional "look" and "feel". The next time an sspx'er and family walks in to your church. (There will be a next time) go out of your way to introduce yourself and kindly explain the traditions of the Eastern Church. If they are adamant about "having a latin mass". Go to this website and print out your state. Direct them to a local latin parish. This worked like a charm for me.


http://www.latinmass.org/states/

I have encountered this more than once, Yes it is irritating. I agree they do tend to err on the side of confrontation and contraversy. The family probably went out to breakfast and high fived each other after the event. Trad. Catholics are attracted to the Byzantine catholic church because of it's traditional "look" and "feel". The next time an sspx'er and family walks in to your church. (There will be a next time) go out of your way to introduce yourself and kindly explain the traditions of the Eastern Church. If they are adamant about "having a latin mass". Go to this website and print out your state. Direct them to a local latin parish. This worked like a charm for me.


http://www.latinmass.org/states/

Who was it that said, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" I've always felt that when in Kiev, or Antioch, or Wittenburg for that matter, you should do as they do.

Could you have handled it better? Sure. But how many of us would want to hear we were in Communion with the Devil? Considering you wanted to hit him, and didn't shows you were at least wrestling with your human nature.

PS: There are some rather bare Roman Churches out there. But I have been to some pretty bare Eastern Churches as well. So much of this has to do with the parish community. When I hear people complain about how bare the parish is, I ask them how the fundraiser for the icons is going? When I go to my mother's girlhood parish, every icon has a grandfather, uncle, or cousin behind it...and a lot of money and effort for poor, honest farm folk.

Neil

Neil:

I've got to agree with you. As a professional who works in every kind or type of church, the most Christian approach that I have ever had modeled to me was by one early mentor who told me that we should try to enter the mind of those we serve and become like them out of respect for them as we served them. So when I go into an Orthodox, Ruthenian, or Ukrainian parish, I venerate icons, use the sign of the cross as it is done there, and generally try to let those I serve know that I respect them and the way they show reverence for the sacred space that they have fashioned for the glory of God. The same goes for Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, or whatever. That doesn't mean denying anything that I am and it does not mean that I am patronizing anyone. It means that on a very human level I am trying to show them respect by the way I carry myself in their home. I believe that it is similar to being a good guest in someone's home when one is invited to dinner: I don't insist that my hostess take back her stuffed pork chops on Friday just because I am fasting. I try to be one of the group wherever I go.

Dr. John:

Have to agree with you, too. The Byzantine experience is not the same as the conservative Latin experience. But please have patience with people like this. I came on the experience of the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Catholic Churches with an attitude of "tell me about yourself and fill me in on how and why you do everything you do." There is a reason behind everything and the assumption that the same movement in a different culture means the same thing is pretty parochial, I think you'd admit.

Unfortunately, there are those who have gone back to some early sources in the Latin Church that see the whole oriental experience as a Greek/Russian/Egyptian/Syrian/etc. translation of an earlier form of the Latin spiritual experience--somehow that these people just "haven't caught up yet." I have a book written almost 100 years ago that leaves one with that kind of impression (sadly).

But I'd have to agree with you, too, by repeating something wrote in an earlier post on another thread: don't let anything or anyone disturb your peace or destroy your focus on Christ. Better to ask those folks to leave. And I'm about evenly split on whether to let one's anger have free rein or hold one's temper as one asks them to hit the road.

Sadly, I still firmly believe that anyone's approach to Christ that includes hatred of another is not from Christ. Hate your neighbor is not something I find in my Bible or catechism. In fact, they both say to love even one's enemy . . .

Mark:

May God continue to be with you. We've got to bear with one another on the one hand and then St. Paul reminds us somewhere else not to spend time arguing with those whose only purpose is to stir up contention. I've got to believe that some of these folks are in a grieving mode where they are lashing out in anger against the whole world and everyone and everything in it. Makes me sad to think that people can become so withdrawn that they cannot do anything but make every situation they enter part of their tremendous pain and isolation. But I still think that it sounds like the grief reaction that I deal with each day with families I serve.

Hang in there, brother.

BOB