In Response to Emmanuel on the “New Liturgical Movement” website

Honestly, I wouldn’t waste a post putting up a comment I put on a Roman Catholic website responding to Bishop Enoch’s article on NFTU, but when I was suddenly marked as spam I thought I must have hit a nerve, so:

EDIT: Apologies for this lateness! I didn’t realize this was written a month ago, or I would have responded sooner, as you are discussing the website we run.

Dear Emmanuel,

As the creator and long-time editor of NFTU (16 years now!) I feel I have to make a few comments where I feel you are in error.

1) NFTU discusses both True Orthodox groups and the various follies of ecumenists –like yourself it would seem, as you are willing to throw an Orthodox cleric under the bus in the service of the Pope– in the news, such as the most recent “open communion declaration” of Nathaniel of Chicago. (I would have had more to say on recent actions of the New Calendar Greek Archbishop for the United States, but he blocked me on Twitter.) We don’t actually “cater to” any specific group, and put up news as requested. Further, comparing our monastery to MHFM is laughable; MHFM is a priestless group, whereas the small monastery where now-Bishop Enoch is houses a Metropolitan who oversees about 50 parishes and thousands of souls across four continents. And the overwhelming majority are Western Rite.

2) Most of Bp Enoch’s articles, like this one, are composed of Patristic citations. I simply advise the reader to ignore your ad hominem on the Bishop’s writing ability and answer the Fathers in question. Of course, like the author above, you can’t, which is why he falls back on no less a betrayer of Orthodoxy than Bessarion to make his point.

3) The greatness or not of Androutsos aside, no one is arguing that transubstantiation and transmutation do not have identical effects, but how we get there is the issue, and what has caused upset to the author above.

4) Here you in fact finally agree that what Bishop Enoch writes is standard Orthodox teaching, but reveal where you and he diverge: he understands Western liturgy from a pre-schismatic perspective (primarily because he actually uses one) and you defer to the theologians of the Pope, unaware of what probably drove them to respond to “an obscure schismatic hieromonk” in New Jersey: that the oft-supported claims of Papal traditionalists to “the Mass of All Ages” is a sham, a lie.

5) Besides being wrong on the Presanctified Rite (St Gregory imported the practice of the Presanctified, but the Eastern Presanctified rite is in fact Eastern in origin, the Western Missa Sicca being similar in principle) you seem to not understand that before the schism there were common borrowings throughout the Orthodox world (in fact, many festal texts across Eastern and Western uses are identical) and that the pre-1962 rite is a massive reduction of the old Western liturgy. Thus your desire to ecumenist (I’m making this a verb intentionally, wouldn’t want to get grammar-checked) has led to poor liturgical understanding on your part.

6) Both authors are discussing Western sources. The difference is that Bishop Enoch is discussing Western Orthodox Church Fathers– fathers that the author here would claim as his Patrimony– and you’ve listed a standard list of Eastern writers in response. Might I suggest you read some more of St Mark as well? I encourage you to be a little more St Mark and a little less Bessarion.

In Christ,
Deacon Joseph Suaiden