www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Articles on prayers being taken silently or aloud

Dear Administrator and Cantor Joseph,

Frankly, I find this whole conversation you are having to be rather beneath any kind of Christian standards - period.

The two of you should be somewhat ashamed of yourselves for carrying on in a way that is more reminiscent of emotional guerrilla warfare than sincere and open discussion in a spirit of love and respect.

It's not my place, I'm nobody here.

But enough is enough, for crying out loud!

Yes, I can be childish and offensive - but I can also admit to it and apologise once in a while (and submit to lectures etc.)

Administrator, Sir, you are disloyal to no one (I have been disloyal to you and I have grievously offended you in a way that I will always regret).

Cantor Joseph, you are one heck of a guy. But enough with all the heck already!

Alex

I don't mean this at all. It was the criterion you stated many, many posts ago. I am glad we can now consider this matter closed as well as you admitting that our bishops can change Liturgicons in additions to liturgical instructions without Orthodox consensus. Phew! This certainly was a long haul. :p

God bless,
Joe Thur

Well, Alex. Mr. Administrator finally came clean and now approves that our bishops ARE permitted not only to issue "liturgical instructions," and are ALSO able to "change liturgicons." ... and that he has no intention of working against anyone ... and that we don't have to wait until the Orthodox reach a universal consensus if we do. I consider this whole discussion closed.

Joe

Mr. Thur,

There is no logic in what you have written.

I have stated many times that I believe that a consensus of the entire Byzantine Church regarding praxis should be one of the criteria for the implementation of any major change to the liturgical tradition. And changes in praxis that are unique to the liturgical recension but not alien from the larger Byzantine liturgical tradition should be made at the recension level. There is nothing new here and I have stated this earlier in this thread as well on numerous occasions in these discussions. You have done nothing but belabor the obvious.

Your other comments are both factually incorrect and misleading. I have spoken at great length regarding the right of a bishop to issue a liturgical instruction and that a bishop has responsibility to issue instructions that are in accordance with the liturgical tradition (although I prefer that such instruction should be issued at the highest level wherever possible (recension, Particular Church, Metropolia, etc.)). Can our bishops change the liturgy? They have done it so of course they can! Do they have the authority to unilaterally revise the liturgy? No, I do not believe they do and believe that time will prove them to have been wrong. In Greece last year a local bishop published a liturgicon using a modern version of Greek (the use of the vernacular is, of course, well within the Byzantine liturgical tradition). He was forced by the Synod of Bishops to withdraw the translation because it was not approved by the appropriate authorities. He was told he did not have the authority to publish a liturgicon. In our situation I do not know how or why Rome has allowed the publishing of several different liturgicons, each differing from one another slightly and all of which are a departure from the tradition. And I understand that some of the revisions done by Byzantine Catholic Churches in Europe are are also a major departure from our tradition but somehow managed to be approved. But I digress. In your comments you have again really only belabored the obvious but summarized your efforts in an incorrect and misleading manner. You really don�t need to continue belaboring the obvious, especially when you are getting it wrong! There is nothing for me to �come clean from�. Anyone who wishes to know what I believe can simply read my posts!

Since you have not responded to my repeated requests for you to define exactly what you meant in your hypothetical accusations that I might �work against [my] bishop� if he where to hypothetically do something he really did five years ago may I understand your words that you are now satisfied that I have �no intention of working against anyone� to be a full and complete withdrawal of your hypothetical accusations and an apology for ever having made them?

Admin

Boys, boys!

I'm with Alex on this one. Once again what could have been an interesting discussion seems to have degenerated into veiled mud-slinging between two very good men.

Once again I shall essay to add a kopek's worth of thought here. First, some things to keep in mind: I'm a Latin deacon with bi-ritual faculties. When I received this assignement I went back to school (I'm very nearly a professional student, so this is not an issue) and completed my doctorate in sacred theology at an Orthodox (non-canonical) school. I have served a Melkite parish for nearly five years now.

I say this, not to brag, but to make sure that my comments are placed in the appropriate context of one who has "head knowledge" but has not grown up in the Eastern traditions.

We Melkites are proud of our attempt to be the "voice of the Orthodox" in the two Vatican Councils. We do see ourselves as the bridge between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. At the same time, we are not unaware of the growing chasm that seems to be occurring vis-a-vis the liturgical praxis of the Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholic Churches. While the Melkites and the Antiochians remain fairly close, we do not see this in some of the other Churches.

As each Church moves away from the historical praxis the chasm widens and reunion moves further away. Vatican II was wise to call us to restore our Liturgy to the heritage that we share in common with the Orthodox. This is, in fact, a necessary step that can lead to reunion.

On the other hand, if we continue to move further from that heritage then we make reunion more difficult. The bridge that we Eastern Catholics are supposed to form will break down if we do not retain a common liturgical praxis (with the obvious difference that we commemorate the Pope of Rome).

AS our liturgical reforms lead us further from the Orthodox praxis we will, in fact, be establishing new traditions that are not Orthodox.

I wonder if that's a good thing...

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear Fr. Deacon Ed,

This may be worthy of another thread, but may I ask: Do the Orthodox really care if we restore our heritage in common with them?

Joe

Joe,

Do the Orthodox care? Probably not. But, with all due respect, I don't think that's the issue. We care, or we should. Since the reestablishment of communion among our Churches is, or should be, of some importance, we need to avoid doing that which would introduce roadblocks.

Now, does that mean we stiffle our own wishes and plans? In some cases, yes, it does. If we can show a historical basis for our changes then I don't think there's any reason for concern, even if the Orthodox do not do what we do. One such example is the use of deacons -- we are very much in favor of them while the Orthodox simply take them or leave them depending on the situation.

But if we were to suggest that the priest face the people a la the Latins, then I think that this needs to be addressed. Of course, as a Melkite I have no problem with Liturgy in the vernacular (we use Arabic and English in the United States, and in one case Spanish as well). We don't have the attachment to Old Church Slavonic or to Latin that some Churches do.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Please discuss revised liturgy here.