Yet Another Western Rite Argument

[Revnitel]

Therefore I resubmit topical discussion with ad hominem aside:

Well, the very fact you have to use a modernist argument of "straight jackets" and call for "liturgical openess" to push the Western Rite is open admission that it is Renovationism.

Rubrics in the sense of liturgical actions, those left to us by ancient sacramentaries, some more complete than others, and they detail a ritual very much like an Eastern Rite and not much like a post Reformation Western Rite. Most people of Western Rite heritage wouldn't even recognize pre Schism Western Rites as Western. Just take them to the AWRV. You know it. So the cynicism is over the top. I wrote that the pre Schism WRs are not much different than the Eastern Rite when celebrated properly, not that they were textually the same. You seem to agree. So what is the point of your experiment of grafting a dead shoot on to a living tree? How was the living Eastern Rite not enough for you?

Finally, TRADITION is a LIVING ORGANISM in the LIFE of the HOLY SPIRIT of TRUTH AND PIETY handed down. The WR didn't get to us this way. Therefore, it does not arise out of that Tradition, but out of an innovation of men. We still haven't found out what is wrong with the Eastern Rite which the Holy Spirit did provide you in the Tradition. How is it not enough for you and your synod? It seems to be enough for the Church as over a millenium has shown. How is it Orthodox liturgical practice isn't enough that you have to have novelties and innovations in its place?

[Revnitel]

Was the Orthodox Church incomplete for over a millenium when there was no Western Rite? Is the rite we have a straight jacket or a means of piety? Or do we need a WR/certain type of openess to lead us to a liturgical renewal ala Vatican II?! I choose Orthodoxy, Orthodox worship, no innovations, no contrived archaeological recreations, but living Traditional Orthodox Faith, and that is the difference between my position and that of WR advocates. I leave Vatican II to papist heretics and liturgical reforms to Renovationist heretics.

[Hieromonk Enoch]

nolo contendere

[Matthew]

Father Enoch (Augustine) is not wanting to discuss it anymore because you are quite wrongfully saying that simply because someone has a love for the old Western Orthodox Rites, this somehow proves that he believes that the present Rites in use in Orthodoxy are deficient. This is a false "logical conclusion." It is a presumptuous "sequitur" on your part. It is like saying that because many Western Christian converts to Orthodoxy prefer to attend Russian Churches which use pleasant polyphonic music (a Western injection to Russian Liturgical form that previously used znammenniy which is much more akin to Byzantine chant) they must then be saying that the Greek and Syrian Churches that use Byzantine chant that are not anywhere near as emotionally pleasing to Western European people but find them boring are saying that the Byzantine music is deficient, and do not communicate or inspire the depth of worship and adoration of God that the Russian Churches do by their cultural adoption of Western post-schism musical forms. In fact, no such claim is in fact validly indicated. In short, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Revnitel]

This kind of stream of consciousness NC-modernist thought keeps on being offered here. 1). The Western Rites do not emerge out of the Tradition. 2). They have to essentially be refounded and restored to be reintroduced into Orthodoxy as a liturgical innovation. 3). The Eastern Rite is the living Traditional Rite of the Church 4). It is the rite being passed down by living local churches THEREFORE it follows that a). a person insists on something other than the living rite of the Orthodox Church when they choose to engage in the Renovationist folly of the WR with the implication being the Eastern Rites aren't sufficient, that there needs to be something "more". That is a Renovationist argument, for it is founded on the notion of the insufficiency of Orthodoxy worship as it lives and its necessity of being augmented by a manmade liturgical innovation.

That is not a Traditionalist position. It is not Orthodox. It is the position of innovators. Renovationism.

And Fr. Enoch wrote in Latin, "No contest", which means the points brought forward are nothing which he disputes and that he accepts the presentation as it stands.

Comparing the Russian Eastern Rite living local church with its living music to Byzantine chant Eastern churches does not at all hold as a comparison of people who come to Orthodoxy and seek to introduce into it dead or heretical liturgical forms. Russian church music is part of the living tradition of Orthodoxy. The WR is not, is dead, and as it is carried it in most places follows heretical post Reformation forms. Where it doesn't it has no living forbearer, no Traditional mode of transmission, making its introduction an unnecessary innovation. You keep on trying to justify innovation and liturgical renovationism. That is not an Orthodox Traditionalist position.

[Matthew]

Father Enoch did not concede to your argument. You do not know what the latin means.

Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin for "I do not wish to contend." It is also referred to as a plea of no contest. In criminal trials in certain U.S. jurisdictions, it is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty. A no-contest plea, while not technically a guilty plea, has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea, and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain.[1] In many jurisdictions a plea of nolo contendere is not a right, and carries various restrictions on its use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere

He indicates simply that he no longer wishes to discuss the matter with you, and I have said this is because of your aggressive manner, and inability to show appreciation for other people's ideas. Rather, than wrongly accusing and consigning someone to the fires of "renovationism" etc, you should try to see that not everything is as you imagine it to be.

It amuses me that you you who equate the confession of the Sergianists (collaborators with the murderers of the Catacomb confessors) with the confession of the Russian New-Martyrs, also make a charge against someone for not being Traditional or True Orthodox but rather a Renovationist simply because it was pointed out that you that you are trying to force a false conclusion down your brother's throat.

Finally, your entire tone and manner of discourse is not that of brother with brother. But rather your manner of going about things is only what I witness New Calendarist Orthodox do when a TOC believer says very traditional things about ecumenism or prayer with heretics on SCOBA or World orthodox Forums. The tone is definitely that you are trying to pick a fight with your TOC brothers and sisters here. You have no gentleness with the people you should love and show concern for. Rather I feel like you are using your SUV of words to run us all, in our little vehicles, into a ditch unless we capitulate on every point that you make. You have completely ignored and not acknowledged even one of the numerous times I agreed with things you have said and sought only to balance that with some points you made that I agreed with but felt were put in terms too absolute to be truly correct since they did not take all the complexities that exist into full account.

I think you ought to show a more guarded and appreciative tone in the manner of your dealings with your brothers and sisters on this site--even if you do have a PhD from some college somewhere and have venerable grey-hair, which is indeed to be accorded respect. Please do not be so quick to judge us as heretics and renovationists. You are dealing with simple layfolk for the most part who have no formal training in these areas, which is why I have repeatedly stated to you that the subjects we are discussing together are really beyond, at least, my competence and really ought only to be decided by those who have been graced with the Episcopal rank. For this reason alone (I suppose you have never received the grace of Episcopal ordination since you have thus far not claimed such), you ought to come down from your verbally high position and sit with us at a common table and share the light God has given you with us in a more conciliar fashion. We would all be much more amenable to what you have to say if you were to be more gentle with us. Telling us your Orthodox name would be a nice beginning, as all of us have been forthcoming in the manner of friends, brothers, and sisters, in telling you ours.

God bless you,
Symeon

[Hieromonk Enoch]

Actually, I was referring to the legal concept of nolo contendere. That is, you get a parking ticket or some other legal charge brought against you. You then go to court, and, don't want to plead guilty because you believe you are innocent; however, if you plead innocent, it will consume your time in something you don't have the money or resources for. Therefore, you plead nolo contendere, in which you just accept the punishment, but, never admit the guilt.

It is like a chess match where you don't want to spend more time playing, so, you concede. Or equivalent to formally conceding an argument, while not conceding the point. At least, that's what was common practice in various debate societies and projects I've been involved in.