- They will not ordain women ever. Even if it is possibly permissible to ordain women to the diaconate in some way, they almost certainly aren't going to do it. They have, at least, definitively stated that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood.
- Liberalism is a sin. They provide coherent critiques of modernism which the rest of us can only piggy-back onto. True, they may have spawned that demon child, but they're certainly the only ones capable of killing it.
- Cassian's thoughts on chastity and exomologesis/exagoreusis were far more influential in the West than the East, to the East's detriment [in our defence, however, much of what he says on the latter subject may be from Eastern influence and has precedent in the East which did have a considerable flowering and remains influential]. His discussion of chastity is far more helpful than anything else I've seen, though some [especially of the female persuasion] might be put off by his lengthy discussions of nocturnal emissions which come along with every talk on chastity. "Helpful" intentionally used because of the therapeutic intent of his works.
- St. Augustine is rightly venerated as being friggin' intense.
- Solesmes-style Benedictine monasticism doesn't seem like pretense, despite the existence of the counterpart "POD" to Orthodox "uberfromm". I mean, it seems possible.
- Eastern Rite Catholicism can often seem acceptable, while Western Rite Orthodoxy just doesn't fly [must be the latent Anglicanism of it all]. A real Tridentine Mass vs. an Orthodox version will fail to be comparable in a way which a real Divine Liturgy vs. a Catholic Eastern Rite version might not.
- They make good art.
- They make good beer.
- If you know anything about history, you know most of the stupid things said about them are false.
- They're not [at least the good ones aren't] Protestants.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
things which Catholicism gets right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Just give the WRO time. With enough people and time, they will get good at it. You know, I could just as easily say that Christ the Savior does not do the Eastern Rite well when we have no choir director...but then we are just talking about aesthetics.
So, in your criticism of WRO, are you speaking of the aesthetics or the technical aspects of it?
It's the same sort of way Anglo-Catholics fail to be Catholic even when they do liturgy better aesthetically. Though I will admit that the Orthodox Western Rites based on Anglican services could very well out-Anglican the Anglicans. These are very subjective and curmudgeonly comments, more mean-spirited than productive.
Aesthetics aside, the problem with the Western Rite is that it smells suspicious. And by that I mean that it smells like a way to cheapen the liturgy so people don't have to pray the "repetitious" litanies or get their feet sore on Sunday. It strikes me as an imprudent move to start promoting the Western Rite in a time when more and more branches of Christianity are trying to "soften" their worship and reduce it to the level of "accessible" (which basically means banal and retarded in contemporary culture).
Just like deaconesses, it may be canonically ok, but certainly nothing we should be messing with right now.
eh, western stuff gets knees sore on sunday, if not feet, though you have more experience of the traditional latin mass [ie, some] than i do [ie, none], so i'm open to correction.
If the Western Rite were all about not having to pray repetitious litanies and stand for hours, than that criticism would be valid. But it goes beyond that toward reclaiming a cultural expression of Orthodoxy that was lost for 1,000 years. Albeit, it is an experiment, but one that I think could possibly have very beneficial effects, far from deaconesses. The mission of the Western Rite is definitely not to "soften" Orthodox worship, anymore than praying the Liturgy of John Chrysostom in English instead of Greek would be considered "softening." The Western Rite is an expression of the same Orthodox faith in a different cultural "language" that developed from the beginning in the West.
When I think of "softening" I think about Orthodox jurisdictions who omit this or that for the sake of time, use organs, or stop doing Orthros altogether...oops, I've said too much.
I think most should reserve their criticisms of WRO until they have actually been to a Mass and experienced it in the context of a worshiping community.
To be sure, many criticisms of the WR may be valid, and should be heard. But, in my opinion, they should be informed criticisms born out of experience. The Western Rite is still an experiment and may not survive. But it may in fact be a tool of the Holy Spirit to evangelize the West. Until it does fail, I will trust Patriarch Ignatius, Metr. Philip, and Ss. Innocent, Herman, and Raphael on this one.
On a broader note to comment on your post:
I think it is good to try to think positively about other branches of Christianity. We hear so much criticism, not only of the non-Orthodox, but of our own. I think it is good to try to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit where vestiges of Orthodoxy do in fact remain even among the heterodox. So, I enjoyed reading your comments.
Thank you, my good man.
SS. Herman and Raphael? St. Tikhon, sure. Speaking of St. Raphael, my own real concern about the Western Rite is the Anglicanness of it currently given St. Raphael's concerns about the good ol' ECUSA ca. 1910. Claims about the closeness and affinity of Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are balderdash and St. Raphael rightly recognized that. The redeeming feature of the Anglican liturgy is that it can sometimes by archaeological reconstruction be brought back to its Roman Catholic roots and from there have contact with us Orthodox. The redeeming feature of Episcopalian congregations converting en masse to Orthodoxy is that they may abandon their satanic delusions, but given that many already believe they are close to Orthodoxy already [aforementioned affinities and closenesses, trust me, one can find quite a lot of reference to these things in the propaganda] and don't have any need of change, keeping an Anglican rite may only encourage them in their ways.
This is only a concern, I don't think it holds true at all times in practice, and the evidences of this are given by the fact that for many such parishes converting the period of catechesis is long and difficult and many people are lost along the way, as well as that the new Western Rite they are using is well-nigh as foreign as the Byzantine they eschew. The problem would, say, be greater if there were a tridentine western rite and attendees of traditional latin masses in the catholic church were to convert, which is ironic because i think the traditional latin mass ought to be the model of an orthodox western rite if there is to be one rather than the liturgies of those english.
But so of course our Western Rite quite trivially outdoes the Anglicans even if it were aesthetically horrible. The concern is whether a Western Rite based on Catholic masses could outdo the Catholics or at least rival, and I have grave doubts.
more like 1912.
There is a Liturgy of St. Gregory that is the Tridentine Mass with the same modifications. Some parishes such as St. Mark's Denver do Latin masses on feast days and such.
Of course the question I have is, what exactly is "Anglicization"? Is it intrinsically tied to the liturgy? My opinion is that it is not the liturgy but their ecclesiology that got them in the mess they are in now. Without proper authority, they quickly ran into more and more heresy.
How can anyone criticize these Western Rite parishes of "Anglicization" based on the fact that they use a liturgy that is essentially a recension of the Sarum Rite? In my mind, Anglicization would be holding liberal morals and no regard for true episcopal or biblical authority.
I don't believe I've used that term.
I don't generally like to comment on the last 50-80 years of Anglican history. I think it's irrelevant to this sort of discussion anyway. If I were to use the phrase "Anglicized", it would really mean "Protestantized". They're Protestants and the only way they're ever anything else is by looking back beyond their Protestant history to their ancient Roman Catholic past.
Anyways: an Episcopalian converting to Catholicism is quite clear about what must change and what the historical conflicts between the two are. While there are parties in the Episcopal Church that claim they are able to believe things that have more of an affinity to either Orthodox or Catholic [not both at once, of course], nonetheless, they remain quite clear about what must change when they become Catholic [hey, they'd probably be more orthodox than the average parishioner when they do]. However, the party which plays up their likenesses to Orthodoxy may not be so clear about what must change when they become Orthodox and retaining a Western Rite with the familiar liturgy may only exacerbate the problem. I don't believe I have to dredge the web to turn up all sorts of literature about all the warm spiritual points of contact between Orthodoxy and Episcopalianism and how we're all just the same [a disproportionate amount of said literature is produced compared to how many people have even heard of Orthodoxy].
But this has little to do with Catholics getting a traditional Latin mass right and Orthodox not doing so even if the same [or slightly altered] words are prayed. It would seem a sort of play-acting, even if it is indeed still the liturgy.
Good post, really. When I converted from protestantism I considered going Eastern Rite. I have Russian icons in my house also, freaks some out.
My icons are Greek. We have a local Greek Orthodox Church, and its yearly festival is awesome. Best souvlaki EVER: The church ladies sear it first, so it's crispy-brown at the ends and incredibly juicy inside. Yum. Next Greek Festival is this May 13. I can't wait. It's the same weekend as the Celtic Festival, so we'll have to do a lot of coordinating.
Anyway, at the Greek Festival, they have an agora, as well as a bookstore, where they sell lovely icons, Ukrainian peasant blouses, and little tracts explaining to us Catholics why we're so heterodox.
Love the icons. :)
Post a Comment