DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**amberamuletuk** · 12-27-2007, 11:13 PM

The reason why agreeing at a dinner conversation is easy to do is because it is the polite thing to do at such settings, people are relaxed etc. However, I know they would see any liturgical changes as not polite because it differs from the traditions they are used experiencing for many years.
In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

I'm not sure I understand the difference between liturgical changes and relaxed-ecumenical conversations at the dinner table. If one can start accepting things at the dinner table, just to be polite, how much longer before one stops noticing that the things one is accepting has become quite heretical? What better way to introduce liturgical changes than starting slow, at the dinner table, insiduously making simple remarks that won't be contradicted out of politeness?

I may be wrong. But, I feel, around the dinner table, everyone is equal. No one is serving liturgy anymore. And if my priest starts saying things that are contrary to what he teaches during liturgy, I think, I have every right to question him and disagree with him, and ask for a proper explaination. I'm not just going to be polite and swallow everything anyone says, just because they're older and wiser and have been orthodox longer than I have, etc etc. If I hear something that doens't sit well with my conscience, what is wrong with asking for a proper explaination? I didn't enter orthodoxy without questioning everything that was taught, and I didn't stop questioning till I was convinced in my intellect, and till God convinced me in my heart. Why should I become dumb now and stop seeking to understand?

In Christ,
Mary.

12-27-2007, 11:13 PM	#23
amberamuletuk Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 363 Senior Member	The reason why agreeing at a dinner conversation is easy to do is because it is the polite thing to do at such settings, people are relaxed etc. However, I know they would see any liturgical changes as not polite because it differs from the traditions they are used experiencing for many years. In Christ, Matthew Panchisin Dear Matthew, I'm not sure I understand the difference between liturgical changes and relaxed-ecumenical conversations at the dinner table. If one can start accepting things at the dinner table, just to be polite, how much longer before one stops noticing that the things one is accepting has become quite heretical? What better way to introduce liturgical changes than starting slow, at the dinner table, insiduously making simple remarks that won't be contradicted out of politeness? I may be wrong. But, I feel, around the dinner table, everyone is equal. No one is serving liturgy anymore. And if my priest starts saying things that are contrary to what he teaches during liturgy, I think, I have every right to question him and disagree with him, and ask for a proper explaination. I'm not just going to be polite and swallow everything anyone says, just because they're older and wiser and have been orthodox longer than I have, etc etc. If I hear something that doens't sit well with my conscience, what is wrong with asking for a proper explaination? I didn't enter orthodoxy without questioning everything that was taught, and I didn't stop questioning till I was convinced in my intellect, and till God convinced me in my heart. Why should I become dumb now and stop seeking to understand? In Christ, Mary.
	Quote