In Houston, the Antiochian (Arabic) church has an English speaking mission. Shalom in Yeshua ha Moshiach Michael Joe Thannisch firstname.lastname@example.org ... From:Message 1 of 37 , Jul 31, 2001View SourceIn Houston, the Antiochian (Arabic) church has an English speaking mission.
Shalom in Yeshua ha Moshiach
Michael Joe Thannisch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Cowling" <dcowling@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Converts to Orthodoxy
> on 7/31/01 7:35 PM, Thomas R. Jackson at thomas@... wrote:
> >> Fascinating demographic phenomenon. Are non-ethnic converts going to
> >> Greeks more than the Russians?
> > I don't have any hard demographic data, but my informal observations
> > suggest that Russians (I will include the OCA with "Russians") and
> > Antiochians seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of this movement.
> > seem to remain Greek, and be a little more "settled." Recently a new
> > Archbishop tried imposing a number of "conservative" liturgical reforms
> > met a great deal of resentment and resistance, though, as usual, there
> > a great deal more to the story than that.
> > Scott Knitter pondered on a relationship between Orthodox and Catholic
> > "Conservative" movements. Again, only my own observations, but there
> > seem to be at least some cross fertilization going on. Some
> > "tradtitionalist" Catholics have been part of the recent migration to
> > Orthodoxy, while others have drifted over to Eastern Catholic Churches.
> > am sure that this has at least some influence on some of the voices
> > in Orthodoxy regarding Catholicism, at least in the US.
> > thomas
> I know that the Greeks have established non-ethnic parishes with an
> liturgy. Have any of the other Orthodox started similar parishes?
> Doug Cowling
> Director of Music & Liturgical Arts
> Church of the Messiah
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
In a message dated 8/3/2001 5:51:16 AM Central Daylight Time, email@example.com ... For the sake of accuracy: while Luther was the primary author of *TheMessage 37 of 37 , Aug 3, 2001View SourceIn a message dated 8/3/2001 5:51:16 AM Central Daylight Time, jonwest@...
>For the sake of accuracy: while Luther was the primary author of *The
> Pastor Senn, you were the first one to bring to my attention in 1999, that
> Martin Luther did not object to the office of the papacy as divinely
> instituted. This was when "The Gift of Authority " was first released.
Smalcald Articles,* it was not he, but Phillip Melanchthon, who signed them
with the codicil, "However, concerning the pope I hold that, if he would
allow the Gospel, we, too, may concede to him that superiority over the
bishops which he possesses by human right, making this concession for the
sake of peace and general unity among the Christians who are now under him
and who may be in the future." Since this was allowed to stand in The Book
of Concord, I would argue that Lutherans can accept the pope as the universal
bishop on the basis of the human (i.e. historical) traditions accruing to the
see of Rome and the prestige of his office, not because God instituted the
papacy. We might also officially disavow Luther's view that the pope bears
the marks of Antichrist, leaving intact the confessional position that any
office in the church that would hinder the preaching of the gospel is to be
regarded as antichrist.
The point of my post was to indicate the possibilities for transcending the
impasse on the papal office that can be explored in dialogue, some of which
have been proffered by the present pontiff. There was no need for a long
disquisition on all the instances of variety in the ritual practices of the
Roman Church since Vatican II. "Enforcer of uniformity" has been a role
played by the Vatican, with the pope at its head, since the Council of Trent.
There are not a few Roman Catholics who see signs of reaction to the more
liberal policies post-Vatican II, including (since this is a liturgy list)
the recent document on translation, "Liturgicam authenticam," with its
reminder that the Latin text remains the official archetype and its subtext:
don't think you can get by with something in the name of translation. So,
for example, "Et cum spiritu tuo" is the archetype; "And also with you" won't
do as a translation. Peoplke like Horace Allen took this as a not-so-veiled
slam at the work of ecumenical consultations on language in the liturgy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]