www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Reclaiming the Ancient Traditions

No. Once you receive the Sacramental Mystery of Holy Orders, you cannot receive the Sacramental Mystery of Matrimony.

However, it is the tradition in the Eastern Churches to ordain a married man to the priesthood. The marriage must take place before ordination.

Joe Prokopchak
"Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."

It is amazing to see how much baggage we have collected down through the centuries and how difficult it is to decide which is essential and what is not. When someone decides to clean his or her baggage, oftentimes what is thought to be garbage is a treasure to another. For an outsider [like myself], the discussion on whether the priest should have a beard or not, for example, is so trivial and humorous but at the same time, very educative. It does remind me once again how creative God really is...for making each person unique and each tribe different...and how insensitive we sometimes become especially to those who differ from us.

I have always thought that the language problem is unique to the Latin Church. I always had the impression that the Eastern Church was more receptive to the culture and language of the people to whom the gospel has been preached. Didn't St. Cyril and Methodius championed this cause? Has anyone ever thought of the significance of the miracle of Pentecost: when the apostles started to speak in different tongues and the people who were present in Jerusalem at that time understood what they were proclaiming and praying about? Or am I just overextending the meaning of the event and that there is definitely a language that is fit for worship and the rest (English is number one in the list) are to be considered vulgar?

In any case, the insights here are very instructional...Thanks for your ideas.

Oh by the way, I forgot to mention...

I have a smooth face and probably won't be able to grow a beard...if ever I apply to transfer to any of the Eastern churches, does that disqualify me as a priest of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. *wink*

Oh well, the kingdom of God is not for everyone after all. *sigh*

O thou who art Beardless, the presbyter Mark,

�Tis a shame that thou shalt not entereth heaven since thou wast cursed to live in a sinful existence without facial hair. How the Lord didst condemn thee before thy birth is but a strange mystery.

I remember attending a lecture in the late 1970's given by, I think, Fr. Thomas Hopko. In his talk he lamented that "in Orthodoxy you can choose the century in which you want to live." He was referring to those who confuse the Gospel with ethnic and other non-essential traditions. There is nothing wrong with individuals seeking to preserve their ethnic and other ancestral traditions. This is normal and right. But we must be careful not to confuse these customs with our main task as Church: to proclaim the Gospel to America and to invite every individual in America to embrace the Byzantine way of life. In reclaiming our Byzantine heritage (theology, doctrine, spirituality and liturgy) we must reclaim the heritage which comes from Jesus Christ, not baba's cookbook.

Slava Isusu Christu! Slava na viki!

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I have said it before, and I shall say it again: I am not trying to 'force' Church Slavonic into the church, I just feel that there should be a place for it, as well as Arabic, Greek, etc. in the church. I feel that we should definitely use English in our churches to a great extent here in America, but that we shouldn't forget the cultural heritage and practices of the people that brought this holy faith to America for us modern Byzantines to have now. As far as the beard issue, if you can't grow one, no big deal, but if you can, I feel you should. Pray for me. Theodosy, servant of God.

Theodosy sez that if you can grow a beard, you should. Hmmm.... does that hold for women, too?

Father Mark, you make entirely too much sense. Stop it immediately. Just because some trivial bunch of tourists claim to have heard some sort of "good news" each in their own language way back when on Pentecost, and just because those radical meddlers Cyril & Methodius didn't give a hoot about the obvious superiority of Greek over some local barbarian tongue is NO REASON for us modern enlightened types to loosen our deathgrip on Old Church Slavonic. So what if very few people understand it. So what if the catechetical value of the liturgy is lost. It's Our Heritage.

Guys, if we are to honor the culture of our religious forbears, why stop with Slavonic? You want real authenticity? How 'bout Greek.
Better yet, let's go ALL the way. After all, the Lord spoke Aramaic......

Shalom, y'all


Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

That is an interesting point about Christ having spoken Aramaic. Do you know that most of the Maronite Catholics now use Aramaic only for the Consecration and a couple of other parts of the service? It's true. Qurbono is now celebrated mainly in Arabic, English, French, or Spanish, depending on what country the congregation's ancestors immigrated to. (Forgive me for ending a sentence with a preposition, but the alternative construction was simply hideous!) The question seems to be whether to continue to use a language that in modern times is spoken by very few people (at least as a first or second language). I think that was part of the reasoning behind the Romans abandoning Latin. No one understood the language well enough to really know what was happening. (My own belief is if you cannot carry on a conversation in a language you probably can't understand all the nuances and idioms that make up true comprehension.) If I recall correctly, during Vatican 2 the Melkite patriarch insisted that the vernacular was acceptable for celebration of the Divine Liturgy, Mass, Qurbono, etc. My 2 pennies worth is that Churches can offer one service in the "mother tongue" and another in the vernacular - but that's just my opinion.

ICXC NIKA

[This message has been edited by Entomos (edited 12-20-1999).]

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!
Slava Isusu Christu! Slava na viki!

Entomos, this idea of having one service in the vernacular, and one in the 'mother' tongue of the particular church
(OCS for Ukrainian, Russian, Ruthenian, etc.; Arabic/Greek for Melkites; Aramaic/Arabic for Chaldeans, Maronites, etc.) is one that I have been trying to introduce to the list members for some time now. Thank you for your ideas on this issue, one (as I'm sure you've noticed) that has been hotly debated between Sharon and myself and others.

Also, I warmly wish all of you a blessed Nativity and a good New Year. In case I don't get to post another message until next week or so, I shall end with the traditional Ruthenian greetings on the Feast of the Nativity:
Christos Razdajetsja! Slavite Jeho!
Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

>>>Entomos, this idea of having one service in the vernacular, and one in the 'mother' tongue of the particular church
(OCS for Ukrainian, Russian, Ruthenian, etc.; Arabic/Greek for Melkites; Aramaic/Arabic for Chaldeans, Maronites, etc.) is one
that I have been trying to introduce to the list members for some time now. Thank you for your ideas on this issue, one (as
I'm sure you've noticed) that has been hotly debated between Sharon and myself and others.<<<

One church, one altar, one liturgy, one Eucharist--that's the canonical rule in the Eastern Churches, which should be violated only for good cause--such as size limitations.

The Eucharist is the activity of the entire community, and a sign of the unity of the Church, conceived as a Eucharistic community in a particular place. To ensure that unity, there should only be one Eucharistic liturgy in any given day, unless logistics make it impossible. And that liturgy should be in the dominant language of that community--whether this is English, or Spanish, or even one of the "mother tongues". The people can and should learn fixed parts of the liturgy in the lingua sacra, but there is no requirement for the entire liturgy to be sung in that tongue, unless that is also the language of the congregation (which, in this country, is increasingly rare).

To multiply liturgies in order to accommodate those who wish to celebrate in the old tongue is not a valid reason. It would have the most unfortunate effect of dividing the congregation into factions--the Slavonics and the English, for instance--and destroy the essential unity which the Eucharist is meant to foster.

I write this as someone who can and has sung the Divine Liturgy in Slavonic, and who actually prefers to do so, but who also realizes that the unwavering Tradition of the Eastern Churches is that the people be taught and worship in their own language.

Please remember that the Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV went through considerable difficulties to ensure that his people in this country could worship in English, at a time when the use of vernacular was a scandal to the Latins. That they now worship in the vernacular is something that they learned from us.

I see your point, StuartK, and I agree that having Liturgies at different times in different languages will divide the congregation. I have noticed this at Roman Churches, for instance, when they have a Mass in English and another in Spanish - they end up with essentially two congregations using a single Church. I still think that folks who are attached to the "mother tongue' in some way should be given a chance to worship in that language, though. Perhaps once per month there could be a special Liturgy in the language of the "old country".

I know I've taken an ambiguous position. That's why I only charge 2 cents for my opinions! Maybe in this case I ought to offer them for half price.

ICXC NIKA

[This message has been edited by Entomos (edited 12-21-1999).]

>>>I see your point, StuartK, and I agree that having Liturgies at different times in different languages will divide the congregation. I have noticed this at Roman Churches, for instance, when they have a Mass in English and another in Spanish -they end up with essentially two congregations using a single Church. I still think that folks who are attached to the "mother tongue' in some way should be given a chance to worship in that language, though. Perhaps once per month there could be a special Liturgy in the language of the "old country".<<<

Your point on the Roman Church is well taken. I would go farther and say that the practice of having multiple masses on Sunday has created separate congregations within each parish. I also believe that most Roman parishes are simply too large to be true communities, and that they should be broken up to the point that the pastor actually knows his flock, and that the entire community can be accommodated at a single liturgy.

Regarding the use of Slavonic, Greek or Arabic in our own liturgies, I in no way denigrate it, nor do I think that we should be "English-only". The congregation should be taught to sing the fixed parts of the liturgy in the old language, and each week, one or more parts can be sung in that tongue. The use of Slavonic, Greek or Arabic creates a sense of continuity with our past, and links us to the other Churches in our community outside of North America. People who have no past, have no future. I like the idea of one liturgy per month in the old language, especially in parishes that have a high percentage of first- or second-generation immigrants.

The only problem with breaking up large parishes is that there aren't enough priests to assign to the existing Churches. I know that in several Roman diocese bishops have closed or combined Churches simply because they don't have enough priests to staff the parishes. In some of the older areas of the Northeastern US, too, the population is decreasing and the remaining people are old and on fixed incomes - not the kind of folks who can support a priest or parish.

ICXC NIKA

For what it's worth, in our mixed-background Melkite parish we have mixed-language liturgies that are mostly around 90% English, with the remaining responses in Arabic or Greek. On major Feast Days, the amount of Arabic creeps toward 15%, as there is a dual reading of the Epistle in Arabic and English. It is not really an issue, as the responses sung in the other languages are well-known to the congregation (the same every week) -- but they can be off-putting to inquirers or visitors.

Some of the local Orthodox parishes have separate liturgies in English and Slavonic (OCA parishes). What happens is it divides the community into ethnics and converts -- it makes for two parishes, as Stuart points out. I think it's a bad idea. The Eucharist is the action by which the community becomes the Church in one particular place -- it is the central act by which the community becomes what it is. When we divide the community, this is irretrievably lost.

Stuart is right on the money when it comes to the Roman parishes. The Roman church is in a bind right now. On the one hand, they have a serious vocation problem, such that there are not enough priests to staff the parishes they have adequately. On the other, the resulting huge (I mean huge -- the one down the street has 15,000 parishioners!) parishes mean that there is absolutely *no* sense of community at all. Rather, with the parish spread among the seven liturgies every weekend, you're lucky to recognize the same faces around you from week to week, much less develop a relationship with the priests.

As a result of these practical problems, the Roman Church has tried to foster community in other ways -- by tinkering with the liturgy to make it 'warmer' or more 'community-oriented', and by introducing small faith communities and the like. But ultimately the manifestation of the community must be in the liturgy -- not by making it warm and fuzzy but by making it manifest the unity of the entire community by having everyone there at once. When it isn't like that, the meaning of liturgy in people's lives becomes impoverished -- it becomes much more of a personal thing (me and God, me and the Eucharist) than an ekklesia thing (the community becoming the Body of Christ). That is the ideal, and the current situation, due to practical impossibility, is far from the ideal.

The Roman parishes should be smaller -- but they do not have the priests for that. They realize that there is a problem and they are surely doing the best that they can. But until the current vocational crisis is solved in the Roman Church, there doesn't look like there is any easy way out of this for the Roman Church, at least.

O

>>>Some of the local Orthodox parishes have separate liturgies in English and Slavonic (OCA parishes). What happens is it
divides the community into ethnics and converts -- it makes for two parishes, as Stuart points out. I think it's a bad idea. The
Eucharist is the action by which the community becomes the Church in one particular place -- it is the central act by which the
community becomes what it is. When we divide the community, this is irretrievably lost.<<<

This happened to the Romanian Orthodox community in Northern VA. Originally it was concentrated in Holy Cross Orthodox Church at Bailey's Crossroads, but as the number of non-Romanian speakers rose, the congregation split, forming St. Mary's Orthodox Church. The Romanian community thus became two separate parishes, one speaking English, the other Romanian, and, for the most part, neither speaks to the other.

>>>Stuart is right on the money when it comes to the Roman parishes. The Roman church is in a bind right now. On the one
hand, they have a serious vocation problem, such that there are not enough priests to staff the parishes they have
adequately. On the other, the resulting huge (I mean huge -- the one down the street has 15,000 parishioners!) parishes
mean that there is absolutely *no* sense of community at all. Rather, with the parish spread among the seven liturgies every
weekend, you're lucky to recognize the same faces around you from week to week, much less develop a relationship with the
priests. <<<

A chicken-and-egg problem, I think. There is a shortage of vocations, but one reason for the shortage is the daunting task of running mega-parishes. If the parishes were smaller, the priests would be able to foster potential vocations better. But they can't make the parishes smaller because of a lack of vocations--a vicious cycle, something like a death spiral in flying: the more you try to fix the problem, the worse it gets.

>>>As a result of these practical problems, the Roman Church has tried to foster community in other ways -- by tinkering with the
liturgy to make it 'warmer' or more 'community-oriented', and by introducing small faith communities and the like. But
ultimately the manifestation of the community must be in the liturgy -- not by making it warm and fuzzy but by making it
manifest the unity of the entire community by having everyone there at once. When it isn't like that, the meaning of liturgy in
people's lives becomes impoverished -- it becomes much more of a personal thing (me and God, me and the Eucharist) than
an ekklesia thing (the community becoming the Body of Christ). That is the ideal, and the current situation, due to practical
impossibility, is far from the ideal.<<<<

True again, but the resulting liturgical approach seems to undermine the formation of vocations, thereby exacerbating the underlying problem. Christianity is a faith based on relationships, on community. It only works on a human, not an industrial scale. Eastern parishes work well, in part because they are small. Eastern dioceses tended (in the old country) to be small, so the bishop knows the priests and people, and they know him. Greece, for instance, has 90 dioceses for 9 million (nominally) Orthodox Christians. There are single Roman dioceses larger than they whole Church of Greece.

The problem, though, is not as intractable as it may seem. The Roman Church is not particularly manpower-efficient. There are a lot of priests locked up in non-pastoral positions that could be filled by laymen (a neat reversal of the trend by which laymen end up filling pastoral ministries). There are a lot of priests teaching at universities who ought to be sent to parishes. Chancery offices are too large, and could be staffed by volunteers and lay workers. The 100 or so married Roman priests could be allowed to serve in pastoral positions (though if they prove good at it, it would undermine all objections to having married Eastern priests, so I don't think that one will happen soon). In this manner, I think that it should be possible to break up a lot of parishes, so that none are bigger than 2000 or so people (still too big, in my opinion). Then, I think you will see a deepening of spiritual experience, and a concomitant rise in priestly vocations.

Sharon,

"Guys, if we are to honor the culture of our religious forbears, why stop with Slavonic? You want real authenticity? How 'bout Greek."

At tonight's Christmas Liturgy, we did throw in some Greek! Along with "Lord have mercy," we sang "Hospodi promiluj" and "Kyrie eleison"! It was beautiful.

Christ is born! Glorify Him!