www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Changing Rites

A) Do you even understand what is meant by "changing the music?" Go sing something in Slavonic and then that same thing immediately in English (like in Vespers). It sometimes doesn't "fit" the English. Not changing the music, making it fit.
B) Sultan.. It would behoove you to understand the Orthodox Church is not protestant.
C) Perhaps one must point out that legalism is not an indicator of an eastern praxis. Severe penalties, is church now ran like the IRS?

I wasn't implying that the Orthodox were. Far from it. What I indicated was that the Orthodox do not all share the same attitude regarding the catholicity and apostolic nature of Catholicism. Re-christmation is a sign of this fact. As for rules, schism is defined as breaking communion with the Roman pontiff. Four Chinese bishops were excommunicated this week for having usurped the right of the pope to appoint bishops. Any rupture within the Catholic communion is severely censured by canon law and no, it doesn't matter if you come from a long line of Byz Catholics: if you go into Orthodoxy, then you are in schism. Whether anyone should leave for Orthodoxy is a separate issue from how the Catholic Church views and defines schism. I'm sympathetic to people who make such a choice and I would be hard pressed to argue one way or the other, although I will say the grass is always greener on the other side. I think you pick your fight; some of us are pretty weak and we can handle having our personal aspirations for holiness and intimacy with God crushed by being made into some peon for a social cause like illegal immigration. Confession lines are small or non-existent in RC parishes now because it's all about social sin. You don't sin, society co-opts you into sinning.

Few people seem to understand that the problem with injecting feminist language into the Divine Liturgy is not an issue of aesthetics or even theology proper. It goes to the very core of the post-Conciliar mindset, the one that has left behind a barren vineyard. The Catholic Church became obsessed with social sin and social causes after the mid-1960s; this has caused serious problems for those people who ask for the right to worship God without having the act enfolded into some left wing cause or pop psychology babble about feeling good. It's ironic that the feminist movement has been led by women with diabolical intentions toward authentic Christian belief ever since the 19th century. In the late 1960s, they began agitating for the right to be a sexual degenerate and they added to this the right to kill off children for the sake of other goods. They got Roe in 1973; ERA came later. What does this tell you about their priorities?

As for Orthodoxy, you'd have to be willingly naive to think that it's immune from Western currents. You can wander over to OC.net and see that the same arguments for priestesses are advanced by some of its members as what you'll hear from your typical Catholic priest. These of course are fewer than what you'd find at the average Catholic parish, but the seeds are there. The other Eastern rites in Catholicism will eventually capitulate to the demands for a liturgy that is consonant with feminism. A few people made the decision to completely reinvent the Catholic Mass after Vatican II and the same thing is playing out among the Ruthenians. Why do the Melkites think they'll escape the Eye of Sauron?

If you'd like a look at what some famous Catholics had to contend with in the wake of the liturgical changes, read Pier Paul Read's bio of Sir Alec Guinness. Guinness and other Catholics were positively despondent over the banality of the Novus Ordo; have the Ruthenians learned? No. Will the Orthodox figure it out? Probably not, but it will take them alot longer to get there and I'm hopeful that their own experiences living under secular regimes will help them weather the storm. Kallistos Ware is open to at least discussing the issue of women's ordination and the longer Orthodoxy exists in Western society, the more influenced it becomes by the memes found therein. The one thing that gives the Orthodox great resilience (apart from their own rich spiritual and liturgical traditions) is that they allow married priests. In my time as an RC, I've met some good priests. One was a virile Jesuit who had fought at Iwo Jima. But Greeley is right; the RC priesthood is turning into a gay profession and and this is going to continue to drive fathers and single men from the RC communion into hedonism or alternative religions. RC continues to turn into a woman's religion. Our priesthood in the RC is heavily endeared to feminism and, if you read Rose's book, you'll see that homosexuals and feminists are never found far apart within the chanceries and seminaries of the RC Church. The Orthodox clergy are much stronger in this department; they've no gay subculture running their parishes and seminaries because many of them are married. They're still functioning correctly on a natural level.

Think I'm exaggerating? The stories of the lavendar mafia are everywhere, from Weakland to McCarrick to Todd Brown to Bernardine... past and present, the hierarchy of the RC has been heavily infiltrated by gays. It's *impossible* to live a disordered sexual life and *not* become an exponent of modernist innovation in other areas like liturgy. (Authentic liturgical reform is wholly different.) I'm not bashing the RC priesthood; as I said, I've known and admired priests who were manly and virile. In my experience, manly priests support traditional liturgy; the only priests I've heard argue for inclusivity in language were dissenters and libs. One can argue correctly that I'm injecting anecdotal evidence, but it's evidence that gets repeated quite a bit all over the U.S. by other Catholics I know.

Sultan,
I have to ask this, I cannot help it.

Why do you think the Popes have done nothing about these problems, are they incapable? Or is something else at work here?

How did a system so rigidly controlled from the center for hundreds of years generate the type of bishops that have brought you the church you have today? Didn't the Popes name all of the bishops in the western church? Don't they have the power to intervene as necessary?

What went wrong?

+T+
Michael

Rude, offensive and knowing it all, next we're going to hear how the South will rise again.

Dear Orthodox Pyrohy,

I think that Sultan of Suede's post is fine.

He has experiences and opinions, and like all of us, is simply passionate about them.

You said:

We can agree or disagree, but that is what a forum is about-the exchange of opinions... just like in the men's cafes of the old countries and just like in public fora of ancient times (fortunately women are no longer excluded!)

We need not insult each other. I need not remind everyone that doing so is against the rules of this forum.

In the Risen Christ,
Alice, Moderator

I don't know the answer the for certain, but I think a recent example might show how papal supremacy is a paper tiger. In December of last year (if memory serves), the Vatican released a statement saying that men who had strong predilections to gay culture or homosexual acts could not be admitted to the priesthood. There was a moratorium of three years given in which candidates were expected to live lives befitting their calling. Here's what happened: most of the rectors at seminaries who spoke publicly said they'd ignore it. Last week, the bloggers at Rorate Caeli noted an item in the Acta Sedis Apostolicae that said it was impermissible for a rector to invade the privacy of a person with invasive questions about very personal matters. In other words, the pope had given an official pronouncement which effectively undercut his earlier demand that only unambiguously straight men be allowed into orders. If a rector cannot ask questions about one's attractions and habits, then there's no way to know whether a priestly candidate conforms to the standards set forth by the December pronouncement. In other words, the Vatican has once again neutered its own statements and the lavender mafia will continue to flourish. Even rectors who want to keep gays out of the seminary cannot under the ASA declaration I mentioned. More spilled papal ink that has no effect whatsoever in improving the situation in the Church. Papal supremacy had absolutely no effect whatsoever in keeping girls from serving in the altar and not surprisingly, the girls are asking why it is they can't be priestesses if they can be altar girls (PBS's Frontline has a documentary in which this point is raised; it was available on their web site at one time). The pope is mostly a figurehead now anyway. Millions of people mourned the passing of the mediagenic JP II, but it's doubtful whether the majority of them observed and believed in the magisterium's statements on birth control that he had reaffirmed in encyclicals like Veritatis Splendor. JP II made 'em feel good, but he ended up being a grandfatherly figure with no authority. I think the constant changes in liturgical rubrics has influenced people into thinking that there are no absolute standards for behavior anymore. One week, you're supposed to kneel after communion, the next, you stand. Bishops love changing around rubrics and this has a PALPABLE and DEMONSTRABLE effect on how people view truth. I was told by a theology professor, a priest, that the static conception of God held by the older theological schools is being replaced by a "dynamic" theology. This manifests in a liturgy that is always changing and results in the people get tired of it and start sleeping in on Sundays. Guinness observed a great number of his own Catholics do this during the 1960s after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. Mass exodus so to speak. English churches emptied and the few who remained behind like him and his wife suffered quietly. Where have the popes been? Good question. I don't know, but I do know they love to dangle the carrot of a universal indult in front of the traditionalist crowds. We've heard rumors of an indult for years and it's no surprise that the recent rumors failed to materialize during the last Holy Week. Whether right or wrong, I wasn't surprised to hear that Rome had approved the proposed changes to the Ruthenian liturgy and can only wonder how anyone thinks the pope is defending the apostolic faith by allowing a handful of people in the rescension the right to impose a language that is steeped in secular ideologies like feminism. As others here have said, there was no popular groundswell from the laity for the introduction of inclusive language. I have to worry about how I use pronouns in papers I write and in my work in corporate America; I resent being told I know have to do the same in worship because it upsets a movement whose greatest claim to fame is abortion rights. It's particularly ironic that so many RC theologians gush about the contributions of feminist theology against "patriarchy." It's no surprise that Benedict dropped the "Patriarch of the West" from his list of titles. We wonder when the ancient patriarchies of the patristic period will be downgraded to something else. Personage-archies? It's not so absurd right?

What have I learned from all the foregoing and other things besides? I believe centralized authority has not panned out for the Catholics and that the fruits of this doctrine can be observed in how the Church lives now. I'm not blaming everything on the papacy, but in the past, right believing Christians didn't have to worry about being undercut by the Vatican at every turn. It's caused me to reconsider whether I'm even Catholic since I find I don't really share the beliefs or attitudes of them anyway. My beliefs are tied up in magisterial documents and traditions which are dead letters to RC. I converted from Baptistry about 12 years ago and ever since then, I've never felt at home with Catholicism. It's fine to read books and devotionals from the old days and feel a connection to apostolic tradition, but the faith of books is a dead faith. It has to be lived now and we have to hold ourselves to the highest standards in our life's work of growing closer to Christ. For many, this is a task made depressing by being forced into political movements and causes foisted onto us by a clergy that cares nothing for personal holiness. There are still good parish priests who fight the good fight everyday, but then there are others like myself who spend time wondering whether we're even Catholic. My own hesitancy about becoming Catholic centered on the question of whether the Church is still catholic. It's a question I put to my Jesuit friend years ago and it's a doubt I still have to this day, just stronger. I had hoped to find a Byzantine ghetto where I could do my own thing; we're always being told that the CC is a big tent after all. No reason why charismatics and Latin traditionalists can live together with those who are drawn to authentic Eastern spirituality. The prpoosed changes to the DL though have caused me to question whether anyone can live like this in the CC since the pattern is always towards greater centralization and the destruction of the organic. Bad ideas spread and there's no controlling where and when they'll make it into your parish.

It is perfectly fine to be insulted, but say how you feel and you get a post..... I guess I'll just start throwing out my worthless opinion from a soapbox on high, without quotes, resources and references then too.

Thy and thou are traditionally very personal and intimate forms of address, without the propriatary condescension of the familiar. People who disparage them generally do not know what they are talking aboutm, and are just going with some kind of popular flow.

There is nothing wrong with thy and thou and many things right as a matter of historical fact.

Eli

Conspiracy theories aside, I'll just address one comment made earlier - +Kallistos Ware is not for and never has been supportive of women's ordination to the priesthood. He has spoken openly about the re-integration of the female deaconess, which are not the same as deacons.

Why is it you failed to mention that?


It is easy to be self-interpreting and all-knowing in Baptist theology - everyone is equal, everyone's theory is authoritative, everyone is a Biblical scholar... This is not so in Catholicism nor in Orthodoxy.
It seems as though you are trying to find a place to fit your already held theology and mindset - something Protestants and other evangelicals do everyday. Why else would you mention the "dangling of the Traditionalist carrot"? It isn't the Vatican dangling the carrot, it's one Traditionalist group propping it up to everyone else and claiming it came from the Vatican, the next week another group does the same - They started believing their own myths and fairy tales.

This is the kind of nastiness I've received from all-too many Catholics. I grew sick and tired a long time ago of being blasted for toeing the line on preserving tradition and at this point, I'm more than happy to cut bait. I wish you all well and hope you find a place in either communion where you can flourish spiritually.

It sounds as though you never were 'baited' to begin with, just going through the motions. I am almost certain that when you delve into the trad camps, you will not be satisfied - at least not for long.

I don't know why you would call my response 'nastiness', yet when you've written in like manner you called it 'directness' - why is it you can write that way, yet do not like when others respond in kind?

After reading over these posts yet again, I cannot say where it happened, but the whole thread disintegrated to the point that everyone is insulted, so I am closing it.

Alice,
Moderator