Rush to Embrace

Chapter discussions and book or film reviews of Orthodox Christian and secular books that you have read and found helpful. All Forum Rules apply.
User avatar
ania
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue 15 April 2003 4:21 pm
Contact:

Post by ania »

Geez, to compare Fr. Alexis Young to the Church Fathers... :o
What is the world coming too...
Ania

Justin Martyr
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat 17 May 2003 3:49 am

hmm

Post by Justin Martyr »

Fr. Young is also a big supporter of western rite orthodoxy....seems like an odd contrast

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Re: hmm

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Justin Martyr wrote:

Fr. Young is also a big supporter of western rite orthodoxy....seems like an odd contrast

Well there are traditionalists in support of it. Up until 1054 there was a Western Rite of Orthodoxy. :D

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

I have to confess I am not very familiar with "western rite orthodoxy".

But it seems clear enough to me that the church was relatively homogeneous liturgically, after all, it was not even until the 5th century that Holy Scripture was translated from Greek into Latin. The south half of Italy up until even the 800's was all Hellenic and controlled by the Roman army, not Charlemagne. There is a fair amount of other evidence to suggest that Rome had the same "rite" as the East for centuries.

Therefore my suspicion would rest on the idea that a "western rite" developed along with the arrival of the Franks, the development of papism, and other obvious trends. And since the Church fathers always most clearly worked for uniformity and order in the Church, I would guess that a "western rite" was tolerated and not so much embraced.

I have to also say that I am somewhat repulsed by a concept of "rites" that conceptualizes Orthodox worship into "styles" to suit peoples taste. Exactly what is wrong with all Orthodox worshipping the same way, which, amazingly enough, is what we have despite all the squabbling?!

What Westerners have to get out of their heads is the idea that Orthodoxy is Eastern. It is only Eastern in the sense of the direction we pray and the fact that they have largely embraced heresy whereas countries in the East embraced the Truth. It could be as much French, or German, or American as it is Russian, Serbian, or Greek. The Orthodox have embraced what they have been given, they did not seek to change everything around. Could you imagine if the Russians adapted Orthodoxy to their former worship style instead of shedding every form of their old corrupt ways? There is absolutley NOTHING ethnic about Orthodoxy -- or can someone give me a list of why Greek Orthodoxy is ethnically different from Russian Orthodoxy?! So why must Westerners think they (can) have to change ANYTHING? Are they converting to Orthodoxy or are they seeking to convert Orthodoxy to themselves, kind of like just putting on another new flavor of the day?

You see, in the history of the Church and even today as with our synod, many times catechumans have to study and be trained for three years or more - they would have to leave the liturgy at the words "catechumans depart" and would be waiting by the entrance to the Church like modern kids stand outside a Rock concert trying to hear. It was a tremenous humbling and opening of ones heart to become Orthodox. So what are we doing to re-orientate the hearts and minds of Westerners when we give them all of the appreances that nothing has changed?

Now I know what the argument is, "we are trying to attract converts". Well, in my mind that is the same as shortening the services so that more people come.

I know not very many will agree with me, but that's just how I feel. Surprised? :)

Logos
Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue 17 December 2002 11:31 am

Post by Logos »

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:

What Westerners have to get out of their heads is the idea that Orthodoxy is Eastern. It is only Eastern in the sense of the direction we pray and the fact that they have largely embraced heresy whereas countries in the East embraced the Truth. It could be as much French, or German, or American as it is Russian, Serbian, or Greek. The Orthodox have embraced what they have been given, they did not seek to change everything around. Could you imagine if the Russians adapted Orthodoxy to their former worship style instead of shedding every form of their old corrupt ways? There is absolutley NOTHING ethnic about Orthodoxy -- or can someone give me a list of why Greek Orthodoxy is ethnically different from Russian Orthodoxy?! So why must Westerners think they (can) have to change ANYTHING? Are they converting to Orthodoxy or are they seeking to convert Orthodoxy to themselves, kind of like just putting on another new flavor of the day?

I agree with you. I think there are some Orthodox trying to convert Orthodoxy to themselves.

Post Reply