www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Calling all Melkites

Like I said, the terms don't personally bother, but I've heard of Eastern Catholics that are offended by the terms, whether used in a statement or by a single individual. I'm not jumpin' on Rum at all, so Mr. Rum please don't take it that way.

ChristTeen287

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Remie:

>>>1) Time. The union of the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch with Rome, occured almost three centuries after the unions of the Byzantine-Ukrainian communities in Europe.<<<

1724-1598=126 years

>>>2) The Melkites were always surrounded by an Eastern Christian environment (and muslim of course) where the latins had lost the liturgical influence they used to have before.<<<

I suggest reading Cyril Korolevsky's History of the Melkite Patriarchate before going any farther down this false path.

Dear Dr. John,

While I think Stuart may have come on a little too strong to you, I wonder sometimes how you can be an Apostolic Christian yet exhibit such disdain for hierarchy, rule books like the typikon, conformity, etc.

>>>I resent deeply the implication that what the community does currently is no good and that there is some standard of purity out there that we should be striving for.

For 19 centuries, people did what their ancestors did. We passed on the same faith, the same rituals, the same praxis. Things varied organically and developed, yes; but no one said things the way you do: what I mean is that you make a false dichotomy between "us now" and "the past" as if faithfully adhering to the past is dull, or incompatible with "what we're doing now." I have never been to a Greek Orthodox parish where people talk about "practicing the faith the way it's best for US" (as if each person or community is supposed to mold the liturgy in a self-serving, anti-communitarian spirit).

Each community is free to express the Gospel in its own way. But there are standards that we should and are supposed to follow: the typikon, our bishop, etc. If every parish was allowed to do its own "thing" there would be confusion. Besides, we are all part of one Church, not a collection of congregationalist fellowships. We are an episcopal church!

Using organs and choirs doing non-Byzantine hymns hurts your own Greek heritage, which is why I am surprised that you say it's all okay becuase it's what the community is doing. I know several Greeks who came here recently and are shocked at the poor quality of Byzantine music. It's a real slap in the face to them and to your ancestors' memory the way the Byzantine chant and praxis has been abandoned in the GOA. Thank God people are bringing it back.


>>>We got where we are for good reasons: historical, cultural, and financial. And any changes that we make now should also be made for good reasons. Sure, a number of Greeks have money and they give (very) freely to the Church. So, there're sound systems and electronic organs and modern architecture. And there's even some English being heard during the Divine Liturgy.

You appear to be mixing apples and oranges. English in Divine Liturgy = good. Organs = bad, and NOT becuase people have money, but because in 1938, the Cathedral lost its cantor and put in an organ "temporarily" to keep the pitch. Greek men for the most part are simply not interested in learning their chant or the traditions of their Church, which is sad.

>>>And it's all different from what finds in the "old country". And the same is true for the other Eastern communities. (The Ukrainians come immediately to mind.)

Of course the ethos is different, but that has nothing to do with organs and kneelers and western icons. And I hope you don't tell me that all that matters is love and the Gospel. While that's certainly all that matters to get to Heaven, while we're here we developed some nice traditions of music and icons that should be preserved. It helps us and it honors our forefathers.

>>>And if the community decides it's going to install electronic bells or central heating or dimmers on the lights, then it is the community's decision - for their benefit. And just because it doesn't conform to someone or other's 'purity standard', well.... too bad.

It's not one person's standard. There are bishops, typikons, and traditions that were developed for a reason. To claim they don't matter is to dishonor our tradition and our ancestors.

>>>Once that person has been around for a while and has eaten a lot of food and drunk a lot of beverage and has washed floors and windows, painted walls, sold Christmas trees, cooked for the picnic, repaired plumbing and taken care of folks who needed some assistance, then the individual becomes an integral part of a community -- and then, and only then -- will it become clear that it is the community that is important and not some synthesized abstract ideal. And it's the community of people who get to choose what they want -- for better or for worse.

Which is why it's sad that the community was NOT consulted when organs were added and we lost Byzantine Chant and people stopped going to confession, etc.

>>>If someone's looking for changeless orthopraxis, then start a monastery, a museum or go join ROCOR. The rest of us are movin' on.

Orthopraxis is by nature changeless. Anything else would be Protestantism. Each community can have its ethos, but don't confuse the two. Orthopraxis does not mean primarily food and festivals, hanging out with the babas, etc. It means working with your fellow man and woman to seek out God in our everyday life, by fasting, prayer, helping out others, etc. The Church has given us models, models which the previous 19 centuries' peoples had no problem following without having to articifically look for ways to change everything.

In Christ,

anastasios

[ 09-08-2002: Message edited by: anastasios ]

Dear Tasos,

How are the studies coming along, Big Guy?

And you still have time to post here?

My experiences within the Ukie community are that every parish seems to have its own typicon and tradition. And every parish says that its way is not only the best, but the true way etc.

As for me, not having the benefit of attending St Vladimir's Seminary like some people, , I just don't know.

But what I do know, for what it's worth, is that every parish of ours seems to find a way of liturgizing that works best for the people who are its members.

It bothers me, but I have to admit it!

Ukies from Poland are different from Ukies who arrive from Ukraine. Then we have Ukrainians who are descended from three immigrations to Canada. Throw in a good dose of Irish who have discovered their Byzantine-Ukrainian roots and voila!

The Greeks have it too easy!

Good luck in your studies and remember to stay in communion with Rome . . .

Alex

Dear Dr.John,

As someone who once read extensively about pietism, I felt an immediate kinship with you after reading Stuart's comment.

We Ukies (and we'll adopt you anytime) have parishes up here where the priests and the people "let it happen" based on what people think should happen in the liturgy and elsewhere.

We have several parishes that are constantly searching for Byzantine purity based on pre-determined models. The people have gotten used to being told, every once and so often, that this or that is not in keeping with "our tradition" so stop doing that, from now on.

I for one like to keep the whole dynamic of which you speak so eloquently open - as I think you would agree.

My in-laws' parish is a smorgasbord of people from different cultural and Church backgrounds. I think that if you and Stuart attended their services, you would both walk away feeling that our liturgical heritage has been violated . . .

But it works for the people there and they attract others from the Ukrainian and mainstream communities who start out liking their food, but wind up attending the Liturgy.

In the end, perhaps what truly matters is how we can adapt our heritage to open Christ to those in our immediate community.

I'm sorry about your disagreement with Stuart - these things hurt me, especially since I get involved in similar things with others here.

May God bless you and Stuart!

Alex

Dear Alex,

I worshipped our God with the Melkites this weekend. My pastor was out of town and it was a toss up between the Armenian Apostolic and the Melkite Church. We were late to the Armenian so you know which one we went to.

It was wonderful (as always) to experience the Divine Liturgy with the Melkites in my native tongue. There are many similarites between the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and our Divine Liturgy of St. Athanasius. So, I look at it as reinforcing my children's faith and their understanding and familiarity of the "Holy Sacrifice" (as we refer to it in Armenian).

An added bonus was the fact that Bishop Nicholas presided at the Divine Liturgy. I share your admiration for the Melkites. Do we have any on this forum?

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

Dear William,

Yes we do and Brendan the Theologian is a Melkite Emeritus!

Davidb attends a Melkite parish in the role of Ruthenian Ambassador.

In addition to having many Eastern Catholic Churches of all traditions in Toronto, our Ukrainian Catholic Churches have often played host to Coptic, Armenian, Chaldean and Melkite communities as their new churches were being built.

For the longest time, our Basilian Chapel was used by the Chaldeans for their Qurbana.

The priest was very ecumenical and often invited Assyrian priests to concelebrate with him.

He bent over backwards to be hospitable to them, to say there is no real difference between us etc. and even to speak kindly of Nestorius!

He helped unite many Assyrians into communion with Rome.

And he would drive our Basilian Fathers "bananas" whenever he told them that Nestorius was a "Basilian too . . ."

May the prayers of the Greek Doctors protect us always!

Alex

Here I go again, picking nits , but I would say that I am a Byzantine Catholic Ambassador. Once again, I belong to the Byzantine Catholic Church.

To be specific, I am a second generation American and I highly doubt that my grandfather, or his father, would call themselves Ruthenian.... I have no clue as to what a Ruthenian is.

I will speak with my father to see what his father called himself nationally. I do know that he was from the Carpathian mountians. My father also has said that his is either from Hungary or Yougoslavia. I need to find out more.

But once again, I doubt he would call himself Ruthenian.


Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear Davidb,

And I thought "Byzantine" here implied "Ruthenian," at least that was what I was told (and in no uncertain terms!!).

"Ruthenian" is historically the Latin version for "Rusyn" or a citizen of Rus'.

The Popes always referred to the Christians of the Kyivan tradition as "Ruthenians" in their writings.

Ultimately, "Rus'" includes the four East Slavic groups, including the Carpatho-Rusyns.

It was the Ukrainian scholars and advisors to Peter the Great who convinced him to adopt "Rus'" and this Tsar ordered his ambassadors to ask their host countries to refer to them not as emissaries from "Muscovy" but from "Rus'".

Let me know what you find out about your background!

Alex