• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Anglicans complaining about WRO

ROCORWRVUK

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
Points
8
Location
United Kingdom
https://www.virtueonline.org/rocor-rewrites-history-convert-anglicans

This article just seems like histrionics on the part of the author. Whether or not one agrees with Vladimir Moss' position, it is still a legitimate opinion to have. Likewise, does it matter if England ceased being Orthodox in 1054, 1066, or some other date? It was still Orthodox to begin and people need to know about that heritage.

An Anglican appeal to "he's a schismatic" is really quite something. The Church of England has given them an establishment mentality. The previous incumbent of this account told me that when he was arranging for the WR mission to use a medieval Anglican church for Vespers when Bishop Jerome was in England, the vicar's question to him was "are you canonical?" As if it really matters if you're not in communion with either of them.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
May none of us ever stray from the Rock that is the Holy Church of Henry VIII's Divorce.
 

Rubricnigel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
244
Location
USA
Volnutt said:
May none of us ever stray from the Rock that is the Holy Church of Henry VIII's Divorce.
LoL, seriously i just did..

Side not, whats your new avatar of?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Rubricnigel said:
Volnutt said:
May none of us ever stray from the Rock that is the Holy Church of Henry VIII's Divorce.
LoL, seriously i just did..

Side not, whats your new avatar of?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rongorongo
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
The Vladimir Moss mythology deserves scorn but so does the idea of 1054 being this magical point where a light switch was hit and suddenly everything in the West was worthless.
 

Justin Kolodziej

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
I made the grievous error of not only reading but posting a comment entirely unrelated to the article  :p

But their idea of "Orthodox Anglicism" seems indistinguishable from Lutheranism if not Calvinism. Or whoever came up with all those false "sola"s.

As far as the actual article goes, I found the book they referenced, but it quotes people without referencing the original sources. As Abraham Lincoln once said: "I'm not sure that cuts the mustard."  ;) The topic deserves a much more scholarly treatment and I suspect that, from the existence of copies of Anglo-Saxon Gospels that weren't destroyed by Normans, he is exaggerating somewhat.

I guess if you think "Reverse the Norman Conquest! Join Western Rite Orthodoxy (ROCOR)" is the best possible evangelization tactic for the British Iles, be my guest. I suspect it isn't though.
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
762
Reaction score
66
Points
28
IMO the Western Rite suffers from the same sore thumb in Eastern Orthodoxy that Eastern Rite Catholicism suffers in the Western Church. I have always found the Orthodox to be quite accurate on their versions of history, but I always had a particular problem with the "Western Rite Orthodox" version of history. Therefore, as well noted in the article, where is the documentation of the, "lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest?" Additionally, the claims the Western Rite (today) is the Church of their ancestors is shutdown by the clear fact the Western Rite today, while celebrating traditionally Western liturgical and other theological developments, "adheres to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine." It is clear ultimately, insertions such as the epiklesis in the liturgy, the fasting rules, and many other eastern rules co-mingled with western liturgical and theological developments, ultimately shows the Eastern School of doctrine rules in the Western Rite. In the end, it seems to me the East has been as advantageous to put their bent and influence on the western rite as the West has been to put their bent and influence on what they think should be the correct forms in the Eastern Rite.

Therefore, if one really wants to examine some of the difference between eastern and western theology as far as reunion goes, perhaps it is not best to compare eastern and western theology side by side. Instead compare the changes the West has forced on the eastern rites with the changes the east has forced on the western Rites to get an accurate idea of what each side feels about the theological issues separating them.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
177
Points
63
noahzarc1 said:
IMO the Western Rite suffers from the same sore thumb in Eastern Orthodoxy that Eastern Rite Catholicism suffers in the Western Church. I have always found the Orthodox to be quite accurate on their versions of history, but I always had a particular problem with the "Western Rite Orthodox" version of history. Therefore, as well noted in the article, where is the documentation of the, "lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest?" Additionally, the claims the Western Rite (today) is the Church of their ancestors is shutdown by the clear fact the Western Rite today, while celebrating traditionally Western liturgical and other theological developments, "adheres to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine." It is clear ultimately, insertions such as the epiklesis in the liturgy, the fasting rules, and many other eastern rules co-mingled with western liturgical and theological developments, ultimately shows the Eastern School of doctrine rules in the Western Rite. In the end, it seems to me the East has been as advantageous to put their bent and influence on the western rite as the West has been to put their bent and influence on what they think should be the correct forms in the Eastern Rite.

Therefore, if one really wants to examine some of the difference between eastern and western theology as far as reunion goes, perhaps it is not best to compare eastern and western theology side by side. Instead compare the changes the West has forced on the eastern rites with the changes the east has forced on the western Rites to get an accurate idea of what each side feels about the theological issues separating them.
I have hesitated to post on the subject of Western Rite because I notice many here are favorable towards it, but I can't help be confused as well.  The Western Rite is not the liturgical heritage of Russia or Antioch, so how could it possibly be seen as a true organic development? 
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
762
Reaction score
66
Points
28
PorphyriosK said:
noahzarc1 said:
IMO the Western Rite suffers from the same sore thumb in Eastern Orthodoxy that Eastern Rite Catholicism suffers in the Western Church. I have always found the Orthodox to be quite accurate on their versions of history, but I always had a particular problem with the "Western Rite Orthodox" version of history. Therefore, as well noted in the article, where is the documentation of the, "lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest?" Additionally, the claims the Western Rite (today) is the Church of their ancestors is shutdown by the clear fact the Western Rite today, while celebrating traditionally Western liturgical and other theological developments, "adheres to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine." It is clear ultimately, insertions such as the epiklesis in the liturgy, the fasting rules, and many other eastern rules co-mingled with western liturgical and theological developments, ultimately shows the Eastern School of doctrine rules in the Western Rite. In the end, it seems to me the East has been as advantageous to put their bent and influence on the western rite as the West has been to put their bent and influence on what they think should be the correct forms in the Eastern Rite.

Therefore, if one really wants to examine some of the difference between eastern and western theology as far as reunion goes, perhaps it is not best to compare eastern and western theology side by side. Instead compare the changes the West has forced on the eastern rites with the changes the east has forced on the western Rites to get an accurate idea of what each side feels about the theological issues separating them.
I have hesitated to post on the subject of Western Rite because I notice many here are favorable towards it, but I can't help be confused as well.  The Western Rite is not the liturgical heritage of Russia or Antioch, so how could it possibly be seen as a true organic development?
Another issue for me is that the "restoration of the Western rites to Eastern Orthodoxy" ultimately might mean that the Eastern "restoration" is happening because those sees do not consider Rome to be the actual successors to the Western Rite and its development? Where does this leave the Bishop of Rome and all the west? This is a similar issue Rome faces with their "restoration of the Eastern rites back to Catholicism." They create the same quandary. Where does Rome's restoration leave the Eastern Bishops and patriarchates? Rome does not consider the eastern patriarchs to be the actual successors to the eastern rites and their development and spread. To me it seems both sides are doing a great disservice to the other's liturgical developments by recapturing them and reinserting their own theological positions into to each's traditions.

This is why for me, the longer I attended the Western Rite, the more I felt if I was going to do that I should just go back to Rome. In fact I felt more western rite attending a Tridentine mass held by a Novus Ordo priest than I did by attending a Western Rite liturgy held by an Orthodox priest. Similarly, this is why I came to the conclusion that spending most of my time attending an Eastern Rite church (Ukrainian) was not the answer to my love for Orthodoxy and why should it not just be so that was where I wanted to and was called to be? I believe God is faithful, and perhaps while we lament and criticize, the moves on the part of these faithful remnants in each other's traditions does get the wheels of reunion moving again? So this is why I no longer criticize, but some of the glaring inconsistencies are evident too.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
177
Points
63
noahzarc1 said:
PorphyriosK said:
noahzarc1 said:
IMO the Western Rite suffers from the same sore thumb in Eastern Orthodoxy that Eastern Rite Catholicism suffers in the Western Church. I have always found the Orthodox to be quite accurate on their versions of history, but I always had a particular problem with the "Western Rite Orthodox" version of history. Therefore, as well noted in the article, where is the documentation of the, "lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest?" Additionally, the claims the Western Rite (today) is the Church of their ancestors is shutdown by the clear fact the Western Rite today, while celebrating traditionally Western liturgical and other theological developments, "adheres to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine." It is clear ultimately, insertions such as the epiklesis in the liturgy, the fasting rules, and many other eastern rules co-mingled with western liturgical and theological developments, ultimately shows the Eastern School of doctrine rules in the Western Rite. In the end, it seems to me the East has been as advantageous to put their bent and influence on the western rite as the West has been to put their bent and influence on what they think should be the correct forms in the Eastern Rite.

Therefore, if one really wants to examine some of the difference between eastern and western theology as far as reunion goes, perhaps it is not best to compare eastern and western theology side by side. Instead compare the changes the West has forced on the eastern rites with the changes the east has forced on the western Rites to get an accurate idea of what each side feels about the theological issues separating them.
I have hesitated to post on the subject of Western Rite because I notice many here are favorable towards it, but I can't help be confused as well.  The Western Rite is not the liturgical heritage of Russia or Antioch, so how could it possibly be seen as a true organic development?
Another issue for me is that the "restoration of the Western rites to Eastern Orthodoxy" ultimately might mean that the Eastern "restoration" is happening because those sees do not consider Rome to be the actual successors to the Western Rite and its development? Where does this leave the Bishop of Rome and all the west? This is a similar issue Rome faces with their "restoration of the Eastern rites back to Catholicism." They create the same quandary. Where does Rome's restoration leave the Eastern Bishops and patriarchates? Rome does not consider the eastern patriarchs to be the actual successors to the eastern rites and their development and spread. To me it seems both sides are doing a great disservice to the other's liturgical developments by recapturing them and reinserting their own theological positions into to each's traditions.

This is why for me, the longer I attended the Western Rite, the more I felt if I was going to do that I should just go back to Rome. In fact I felt more western rite attending a Tridentine mass held by a Novus Ordo priest than I did by attending a Western Rite liturgy held by an Orthodox priest. Similarly, this is why I came to the conclusion that spending most of my time attending an Eastern Rite church (Ukrainian) was not the answer to my love for Orthodoxy and why should it not just be so that was where I wanted to and was called to be? I believe God is faithful, and perhaps while we lament and criticize, the moves on the part of these faithful remnants in each other's traditions does get the wheels of reunion moving again? So this is why I no longer criticize, but some of the glaring inconsistencies are evident too.
Yes, if people find a true spiritual home in Western Rite Orthodoxy, then may God be with them by all means.  I didn't mean to sound critical.  I do find it a bit confusing given reasons you pointed out, but I get confused about a lot of things generally.  :)
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
762
Reaction score
66
Points
28
PorphyriosK said:
Yes, if people find a true spiritual home in Western Rite Orthodoxy, then may God be with them by all means.  I didn't mean to sound critical.  I do find it a bit confusing given reasons you pointed out, but I get confused about a lot of things generally.  :)
Please don't think I thought you were being critical. My comments were pointed at myself. I just try to not to be critical about, as you said, one's personal walk and what God may call them to. At the same time, if there are glaring inconsistencies I try not to ignore them but instead try to balance and weigh them to see if there is an answer to what is happening.

God be with you this Pascha and Great fast and lenten season.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Justin Kolodziej said:
I made the grievous error of not only reading but posting a comment entirely unrelated to the article  :p

But their idea of "Orthodox Anglicism" seems indistinguishable from Lutheranism if not Calvinism. Or whoever came up with all those false "sola"s.

As far as the actual article goes, I found the book they referenced, but it quotes people without referencing the original sources. As Abraham Lincoln once said: "I'm not sure that cuts the mustard."  ;) The topic deserves a much more scholarly treatment and I suspect that, from the existence of copies of Anglo-Saxon Gospels that weren't destroyed by Normans, he is exaggerating somewhat.

I guess if you think "Reverse the Norman Conquest! Join Western Rite Orthodoxy (ROCOR)" is the best possible evangelization tactic for the British Iles, be my guest. I suspect it isn't though.
Indeed, the Article belongs in People Saying Stupid Things about Western Rite Orthodoxy.  It is unfortunate that standfirm is gone, so Virtue Online is one of the few news sites left for traditional Anglicans.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
177
Points
63
noahzarc1 said:
PorphyriosK said:
Yes, if people find a true spiritual home in Western Rite Orthodoxy, then may God be with them by all means.  I didn't mean to sound critical.  I do find it a bit confusing given reasons you pointed out, but I get confused about a lot of things generally.  :)
Please don't think I thought you were being critical. My comments were pointed at myself. I just try to not to be critical about, as you said, one's personal walk and what God may call them to. At the same time, if there are glaring inconsistencies I try not to ignore them but instead try to balance and weigh them to see if there is an answer to what is happening.

God be with you this Pascha and Great fast and lenten season.
You too brother.  Don't worry, I understand.
 

Justin Kolodziej

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
PorphyriosK said:
noahzarc1 said:
IMO the Western Rite suffers from the same sore thumb in Eastern Orthodoxy that Eastern Rite Catholicism suffers in the Western Church. I have always found the Orthodox to be quite accurate on their versions of history, but I always had a particular problem with the "Western Rite Orthodox" version of history. Therefore, as well noted in the article, where is the documentation of the, "lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest?" Additionally, the claims the Western Rite (today) is the Church of their ancestors is shutdown by the clear fact the Western Rite today, while celebrating traditionally Western liturgical and other theological developments, "adheres to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine." It is clear ultimately, insertions such as the epiklesis in the liturgy, the fasting rules, and many other eastern rules co-mingled with western liturgical and theological developments, ultimately shows the Eastern School of doctrine rules in the Western Rite. In the end, it seems to me the East has been as advantageous to put their bent and influence on the western rite as the West has been to put their bent and influence on what they think should be the correct forms in the Eastern Rite.

Therefore, if one really wants to examine some of the difference between eastern and western theology as far as reunion goes, perhaps it is not best to compare eastern and western theology side by side. Instead compare the changes the West has forced on the eastern rites with the changes the east has forced on the western Rites to get an accurate idea of what each side feels about the theological issues separating them.
I have hesitated to post on the subject of Western Rite because I notice many here are favorable towards it, but I can't help be confused as well.  The Western Rite is not the liturgical heritage of Russia or Antioch, so how could it possibly be seen as a true organic development?
No, but it is the liturgical heritage of Western Europe and the Americas, while the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom is not.

I'm all for Anglicans (or at least Anglo-Catholics without ideas contradicting the Confession of Dositheus) and Roman Catholics in communion with Antioch or Moscow. The real question is, how to achieve that? Do we conduct more ecumenical dialogues that may never bear the desired fruit (for us) of Rome or Canterbury professing Orthodoxy? Or accept parishes tired of their own hierarchy's shenanigans, while requiring modifications to their rites that the pre-Schism Church never would have required of them, and furthermore risk being accused of hypocrisy when we'll scream bloody murder about the Eastern Catholics? Antioch and ROCOR are choosing the latter, while those at Crete endorsed the former. Only time (measured in centuries) will tell which bears fruit.

Finally, I'll note there seems to be no movement at all towards any such thing as Oriental-Rite Eastern Orthodoxy. You may get someone from ROCOR using the Liturgy of St. Mark once in a blue moon at most, but it's equally tragic that officially those rites don't exist in Eastern Orthodoxy either. Then again, if Fr. Peter's perspective is widely shared among the EO and OO, restoration of communion could be relatively imminent and such an effort would be redundant.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
177
Points
63
Justin Kolodziej said:
PorphyriosK said:
noahzarc1 said:
IMO the Western Rite suffers from the same sore thumb in Eastern Orthodoxy that Eastern Rite Catholicism suffers in the Western Church. I have always found the Orthodox to be quite accurate on their versions of history, but I always had a particular problem with the "Western Rite Orthodox" version of history. Therefore, as well noted in the article, where is the documentation of the, "lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest?" Additionally, the claims the Western Rite (today) is the Church of their ancestors is shutdown by the clear fact the Western Rite today, while celebrating traditionally Western liturgical and other theological developments, "adheres to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine." It is clear ultimately, insertions such as the epiklesis in the liturgy, the fasting rules, and many other eastern rules co-mingled with western liturgical and theological developments, ultimately shows the Eastern School of doctrine rules in the Western Rite. In the end, it seems to me the East has been as advantageous to put their bent and influence on the western rite as the West has been to put their bent and influence on what they think should be the correct forms in the Eastern Rite.

Therefore, if one really wants to examine some of the difference between eastern and western theology as far as reunion goes, perhaps it is not best to compare eastern and western theology side by side. Instead compare the changes the West has forced on the eastern rites with the changes the east has forced on the western Rites to get an accurate idea of what each side feels about the theological issues separating them.
I have hesitated to post on the subject of Western Rite because I notice many here are favorable towards it, but I can't help be confused as well.  The Western Rite is not the liturgical heritage of Russia or Antioch, so how could it possibly be seen as a true organic development?
No, but it is the liturgical heritage of Western Europe and the Americas, while the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom is not.

I'm all for Anglicans (or at least Anglo-Catholics without ideas contradicting the Confession of Dositheus) and Roman Catholics in communion with Antioch or Moscow. The real question is, how to achieve that? Do we conduct more ecumenical dialogues that may never bear the desired fruit (for us) of Rome or Canterbury professing Orthodoxy? Or accept parishes tired of their own hierarchy's shenanigans, while requiring modifications to their rites that the pre-Schism Church never would have required of them, and furthermore risk being accused of hypocrisy when we'll scream bloody murder about the Eastern Catholics? Antioch and ROCOR are choosing the latter, while those at Crete endorsed the former. Only time (measured in centuries) will tell which bears fruit.

Finally, I'll note there seems to be no movement at all towards any such thing as Oriental-Rite Eastern Orthodoxy. You may get someone from ROCOR using the Liturgy of St. Mark once in a blue moon at most, but it's equally tragic that officially those rites don't exist in Eastern Orthodoxy either. Then again, if Fr. Peter's perspective is widely shared among the EO and OO, restoration of communion could be relatively imminent and such an effort would be redundant.
Good analysis, thank you.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Justin Kolodziej said:
PorphyriosK said:
noahzarc1 said:
IMO the Western Rite suffers from the same sore thumb in Eastern Orthodoxy that Eastern Rite Catholicism suffers in the Western Church. I have always found the Orthodox to be quite accurate on their versions of history, but I always had a particular problem with the "Western Rite Orthodox" version of history. Therefore, as well noted in the article, where is the documentation of the, "lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest?" Additionally, the claims the Western Rite (today) is the Church of their ancestors is shutdown by the clear fact the Western Rite today, while celebrating traditionally Western liturgical and other theological developments, "adheres to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine." It is clear ultimately, insertions such as the epiklesis in the liturgy, the fasting rules, and many other eastern rules co-mingled with western liturgical and theological developments, ultimately shows the Eastern School of doctrine rules in the Western Rite. In the end, it seems to me the East has been as advantageous to put their bent and influence on the western rite as the West has been to put their bent and influence on what they think should be the correct forms in the Eastern Rite.

Therefore, if one really wants to examine some of the difference between eastern and western theology as far as reunion goes, perhaps it is not best to compare eastern and western theology side by side. Instead compare the changes the West has forced on the eastern rites with the changes the east has forced on the western Rites to get an accurate idea of what each side feels about the theological issues separating them.
I have hesitated to post on the subject of Western Rite because I notice many here are favorable towards it, but I can't help be confused as well.  The Western Rite is not the liturgical heritage of Russia or Antioch, so how could it possibly be seen as a true organic development?
No, but it is the liturgical heritage of Western Europe and the Americas, while the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom is not.
This might come as a shocker for those who knew me someone who was more in favor of this, and who was emotionally attached to the Tridentine Mass.

But I'll be completely honest - is it, though?

I mean, the idea of putting different "Rites" in concrete categories, while useful, seems to me as though they were primordial rather than developments from one, more simplistic source.

One has to look at the liturgical praxis in Spain (Mozarabic), France (Gallic), and Engand / Ireland (Celtic, Saxon, and Sarum), as well as the different developments in these rites over time. Even though Rome tried to exert liturgical dominance over these regions several times - both pre-schism and post-schism - they all invariably deviated "after the law was put down" based on cultural custom, with different variations centuries apart from each other, up until the Council of Trent, where there was a uniformity imposed on Western Europe. This uniformity ended after Vatican II, where what the Roman Rite is seems arbitrary and subjective nowadays.

But even looking at the praxis of the Roman Rite itself - that is, the Tridentine Mass and it's previous history - so many significant developments happened in the Rite itself. Sure, there are some pre-schism practices in the Roman Rite today that are absolutely in continuity - the wearing of the palladium, the procession into the Church when Mass starts, etc. But even the basics of architecture really changed over time; the square altar with parallel columns of rows was an innovation of the Gothic period, and even that is different from the architecture of a Tridentine Mass Church, as in the Gothic period there would typically there would be an area between the altar and the laity, where the choir would chant.

When looking at the Pre-Schism liturgy, the art was much different, there was no polyphonic chant, vestments were much more plain and were generally served in white, we don't know how Gregorian chant sounded, there was no communion with one kind, loaves of leavened bread seemed to have been used -  based on the Ordo Romanus Primum and Fr. Jungmann, there was no raising of the consecrated host and wine as the "high point of the Mass," etc.


With all this being said, I have no problem with there being a Western Rite - because despite it's development in schism, I think that it (the Tridentine Mass / Trad Anglo-Catholic Mass) still follows Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) philosophy in terms of praxis, so if used, all that would be required is a scrubbing of heterodox devotions and theology. I wouldn't mind it for it as a tool for those who are culturally more attached to these traditional Western forms, and even though much has changed, as I've said, there is still a continuity from the days of old. Let's be honest; the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril and the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom are much, much different from what each of the respective Saints would have actually practiced, despite there obviously being continuity in much the same way as the Tridentine Mass has continuity with the Rite of the Roman Church specifically.

But I've grown to be very skeptical of the claims of "this is our Western heritage." Sure, the Tridentine Mass was in mass use for hundreds of years throughout Western Europe, but I mean - in the case of England, what is the more "proper" heritage? The Tridentine Mass, the Iconoclastic Protestant services, the Anglo-Catholic Mass? And what about the United States? Yeah, there are a lot of Catholic immigrants in the United States, but what about the Protestant services, which make up more of the religious population in America than Catholics? And what about Russian Orthodoxy in Alaska and the North American Saints, including St. Juvenaly, who was martyred in a region that is located in the United States?

I don't think that being Byzantine Rite or some Oriental Rite means a rejection of Western European history, especially pre-schism (whether that's 1054 or 451), or a rejection of the history of the nation's culture, or a rejection of the religious faithful in that population.

Most importantly, I don't think it means that the previous religious history can't positively help the Byzantine or Oriental Rites develop. Just look up some Orthodox Churches in England and Ireland; often times, the various jurisdictions (again, both Eastern and Oriental) buy old Church properties and "Orthodoxize" it; and what ends up happening is that the cultures clash leading to a different aesthetic appearance of the "Rite."

Saint Mark's Coptic Church, London, England






Holy Apostles Peter and Paul Russian Orthodox Church, Dublin, Ireland (pictures and 3D view)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Holy+Apostles+Peter+and+Paul,+Patriarchal+Metochion,+Russian+Orthodox+Church/@53.323984,-6.280467,3a,75y,60.46h,88.16t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNu0jlW9r4NOG9alBXDOw-UjGYDCcXjO9I3m9RA!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNu0jlW9r4NOG9alBXDOw-UjGYDCcXjO9I3m9RA%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-2.9338646-ya352.5-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670c1036650d49:0x56c6888a50fe5714!8m2!3d53.323984!4d-6.280467
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Mor Ephrem said:
What have you read on this topic?
Fr. Jungmann, E.G. Cuthbert F. Atchley, and Oswald J. Reichel.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Ordo Romanus Primus, of which Cuthbert was the Editor (he gives significant commentary to the development of the Roman Mass and a visual description of the Missal itself according to the Rubrics)
The Mass of the Roman Rite: its origins and development, by Jungmann
English Liturgical Vestments in the 13th Century, by Oswald J. Reichel
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
I welcome any and all corrections if I made a mistake on anything, or if somehow I thought the sources were less partisan and subjective than I thought they were, I welcome better sources.

I question why I've suddenly been met with the Inquisition.

 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
I should also state that I've read a plethora of articles on the Roman Rite in it's history online, mainly from Traditional Catholic and pro-liturgical sources.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Justin Kolodziej said:
PorphyriosK said:
noahzarc1 said:
IMO the Western Rite suffers from the same sore thumb in Eastern Orthodoxy that Eastern Rite Catholicism suffers in the Western Church. I have always found the Orthodox to be quite accurate on their versions of history, but I always had a particular problem with the "Western Rite Orthodox" version of history. Therefore, as well noted in the article, where is the documentation of the, "lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest?" Additionally, the claims the Western Rite (today) is the Church of their ancestors is shutdown by the clear fact the Western Rite today, while celebrating traditionally Western liturgical and other theological developments, "adheres to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine." It is clear ultimately, insertions such as the epiklesis in the liturgy, the fasting rules, and many other eastern rules co-mingled with western liturgical and theological developments, ultimately shows the Eastern School of doctrine rules in the Western Rite. In the end, it seems to me the East has been as advantageous to put their bent and influence on the western rite as the West has been to put their bent and influence on what they think should be the correct forms in the Eastern Rite.

Therefore, if one really wants to examine some of the difference between eastern and western theology as far as reunion goes, perhaps it is not best to compare eastern and western theology side by side. Instead compare the changes the West has forced on the eastern rites with the changes the east has forced on the western Rites to get an accurate idea of what each side feels about the theological issues separating them.
I have hesitated to post on the subject of Western Rite because I notice many here are favorable towards it, but I can't help be confused as well.  The Western Rite is not the liturgical heritage of Russia or Antioch, so how could it possibly be seen as a true organic development?
No, but it is the liturgical heritage of Western Europe and the Americas, while the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom is not.

I'm all for Anglicans (or at least Anglo-Catholics without ideas contradicting the Confession of Dositheus) and Roman Catholics in communion with Antioch or Moscow. The real question is, how to achieve that? Do we conduct more ecumenical dialogues that may never bear the desired fruit (for us) of Rome or Canterbury professing Orthodoxy? Or accept parishes tired of their own hierarchy's shenanigans, while requiring modifications to their rites that the pre-Schism Church never would have required of them, and furthermore risk being accused of hypocrisy when we'll scream bloody murder about the Eastern Catholics? Antioch and ROCOR are choosing the latter, while those at Crete endorsed the former. Only time (measured in centuries) will tell which bears fruit.
Thank you for this interesting post!

I don’t recall any agreement at Crete that the participating churches would countenance the reception of Western Rite parishes, and I have heard of some Romanian Orthodox involvement in the Western Rite.  I also don’t recall any agreement at Crete not to engage in evangelism.  Lastly, I don’t recall any agreement at Crete with any substantive context to it at all. Could you be more specific on this point?  Also I would note the OCA has opened a Western Rite parish in Canada, and I have heard of some small scale Western Rite involvement on the part of the Romanian church (there was also IIRC a period of failed intercommunion between them and a French Orthodox Church using a Gallican-Rite liturgy; I think Justinian of Narnia has some knowledge on that group, which is descended from Archbishop Jules Ferrette, not to be confused with Archbishop Rene Vilatte, but who was ordained by the Syriac Orthodox for similiar purposes; Ferette’s work has born more fruit in the form of St. George’s Mission (which represents the legitimate, canonical continuation of the British Orthodox Church; the BOC-Coptic schism was more of a purification of the mission from useless persons not suited to be Orthodox clergy).

Finally, I'll note there seems to be no movement at all towards any such thing as Oriental-Rite Eastern Orthodoxy. You may get someone from ROCOR using the Liturgy of St. Mark once in a blue moon at most, but it's equally tragic that officially those rites don't exist in Eastern Orthodoxy either. Then again, if Fr. Peter's perspective is widely shared among the EO and OO, restoration of communion could be relatively imminent and such an effort would be redundant.
The only Oriental Rite Eastern Orthodox church that I think would be legitimate and positive would be a Maronite Rite Vicarate in the Antiochian Orthodox Church, since the Maronites resent the Syriac Orthodox, Antioch has good relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church and access to “technical support” concerning how the West Syriac Rite works (and since 1969, the Maronite Rite has been heavily de-Latinized and transformed into a watered down version of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic liturgy), and there seem to be some Maronites like Sharbel who are at the breaking point in terms of liturgical abuses in the Maronite Rite, in the diaspora.  I see such a church existing primarily in the diaspora rather than in Lebanon, where the Maronite Rite is well-celebrated.  Or perhaps the OCA, since it is now open to a Western Rite parish, might be an even better host for a Maronite Orthodox Church.

Ecumenical reconciliation with the OO would be threatened however by the formation of other Oriental Rite EO churches, or vice versa.

The Divine Liturgy of St. Mark by the way exists with modernized rubrics (from the 1890s) in a Byzantine Rite form, and in my opinion, of the three infrequently used liturgies (the others being those of St. Peter and St. James), the Liturgy of St. Mark would be the easiest to introduce into a parish environment without causing disruption.  The Synaxis differs from that of ByzBAS (the EO St. Basil) and CHR) (the EO St. John Chrysostom liturgy) only in the contents of the prayers of the Three Antiphons, which the congregation does not normally hear, and the Anaphora likewise differs primarily in terms of silent prayers (the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter features a synaxis completely identical to ByzBAS and CHR.

The Coptic Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, and the Syriac Anaphora of St. Cyril, feature anaphoras related to the Greek St. Mark liturgy, but the synaxis is different and particular to each rite.  Indeed, the Coptic synaxis is now standardized whether one is celebrating the liturgies of St. Cyril, St. Gregory Nazianzus, or Coptic St. Basil (E-Bas, quite different from ByzBAS, also interestingly the basis for the greatly watered down Eucharistic Prayer IV, Eucharistic Prayer D, and Great Thanksgiving F in the Novus Ordo Missae, the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, and the 1993 PCUSA Book of Common Worship).  And as much as ByzBAS and Eg-BAS are different, so too would be the experience of the liturgy of St. Mark vs. St. Cyril (despite the anaphoras being slightly more similiar).

You might enjoy The Eucharistic Liturgies, Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers, and Issues in Eucharistic Praying, East and West, edited by Maxwell Johnson and Paul Bradshaw.

 

Justin Kolodziej

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Alpha60 said:
I don’t recall any agreement at Crete that the participating churches would countenance the reception of Western Rite parishes, and I have heard of some Romanian Orthodox involvement in the Western Rite.  I also don’t recall any agreement at Crete not to engage in evangelism.  Lastly, I don’t recall any agreement at Crete with any substantive context to it at all. Could you be more specific on this point?  Also I would note the OCA has opened a Western Rite parish in Canada, and I have heard of some small scale Western Rite involvement on the part of the Romanian church (there was also IIRC a period of failed intercommunion between them and a French Orthodox Church using a Gallican-Rite liturgy; I think Justinian of Narnia has some knowledge on that group, which is descended from Archbishop Jules Ferrette, not to be confused with Archbishop Rene Vilatte, but who was ordained by the Syriac Orthodox for similiar purposes; Ferette’s work has born more fruit in the form of St. George’s Mission (which represents the legitimate, canonical continuation of the British Orthodox Church; the BOC-Coptic schism was more of a purification of the mission from useless persons not suited to be Orthodox clergy).
This is the paragraph from Crete I think rejects Western Rite:
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World said:
23. The Orthodox Church has a common awareness of the necessity for conducting inter-Christian theological dialogue. It therefore believes that this dialogue should always be accompanied by witness to the world through acts expressing mutual understanding and love, which express the "ineffable joy" of the Gospel (1 Pt 1:8 ), eschewing every act of proselytism, uniatism, or other provocative act of inter-confessional competition. In this spirit, the Orthodox Church deems it important for all Christians, inspired by common fundamental principles of the Gospel, to attempt to offer with eagerness and solidarity a response to the thorny problems of the contemporary world, based on the prototype of the new man in Christ. 
Could be reading more into it than is actually there, though.

GOARCH's negativity towards Western Rite is well known as well, to the point an Archbishop issued edicts against cooperation with them.
Ecumenical reconciliation with the OO would be threatened however by the formation of other Oriental Rite EO churches, or vice versa.
One could argue the same for Western Rite and Rome/Canterbury.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World said:
23. The Orthodox Church has a common awareness of the necessity for conducting inter-Christian theological dialogue. It therefore believes that this dialogue should always be accompanied by witness to the world through acts expressing mutual understanding and love, which express the "ineffable joy" of the Gospel (1 Pt 1:8 ), eschewing every act of proselytism, uniatism, or other provocative act of inter-confessional competition. In this spirit, the Orthodox Church deems it important for all Christians, inspired by common fundamental principles of the Gospel, to attempt to offer with eagerness and solidarity a response to the thorny problems of the contemporary world, based on the prototype of the new man in Christ. 
Gross. I didn't see that before in Crete.

I mean, what other ambiguously defined ideologies does the Church need to condemn? Why doesn't the Church condemn sexism? Why doesn't the Church condemn bigotry? Why doesn't the Church condemn Islamophobia? Why doesn't the Church condemn homophobia? Why doesn't the Church condemn Fascism? Why doesn't the Church condemn physical violence towards children?

It's almost as if there are alternative motivations to make Eastern Orthodox Christianity young, hippin', and stylin' with the intellectual cool kids, dawg.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Eamonomae said:
Mor Ephrem said:
What have you read on this topic?
Fr. Jungmann, E.G. Cuthbert F. Atchley, and Oswald J. Reichel.
Two books of particular relevance regarding your post are The Liturgy in Medieval England, edited by Richard W. Pfaff, and The Genius of the Roman Rite, edited by Uwe Michael Lang. 

Also of relevance is the Oxford History of Christian Worship, the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer,  Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, and Liturgies of the Western Church.

These books should give you an introduction to the scholarship concerning the development of the liturgy in England, and concerning the Western Rite in general.  There is also a great deal of Eastern Rite material in the Oxford History of Christian Worship.  The three books by Bradshaw and Johnson are also well worth acquiring, and two of them touch on Western Rite history.

Also, one other book, in the public domain, which directly transsects the late medieval period of English worship, is The History of the Dominican Liturgy 1215-1945, by William Bonniwell, OP, which you can download here: (warning, this is a massive PDF, but it is worth it, particularly to learn about the differences between the Gallican and old Roman liturgies, and somewhat adverse impact the Council of Trent had on the Dominican Liturgy, which is reflective of the influence it had on Western Rite liturgies as a whole): https://media.musicasacra.com/dominican/Texts/bonniwell-history.pdf

These works will give you a sense as to how things have changed over time.  Robert Taft SJ does a similiar job for the Byzantine Rite in his famous book; I also really like his book on The Divine Office, which provides a history of services such as Vespers, Matins, and the hours, and a description of these in each of the ancient and modern liturgical rites.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Alpha60 said:
Eamonomae said:
Mor Ephrem said:
What have you read on this topic?
Fr. Jungmann, E.G. Cuthbert F. Atchley, and Oswald J. Reichel.
Two books of particular relevance regarding your post are The Liturgy in Medieval England, edited by Richard W. Pfaff, and The Genius of the Roman Rite, edited by Uwe Michael Lang. 

Also of relevance is the Oxford History of Christian Worship, the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer,  Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, and Liturgies of the Western Church.

These books should give you an introduction to the scholarship concerning the development of the liturgy in England, and concerning the Western Rite in general.  There is also a great deal of Eastern Rite material in the Oxford History of Christian Worship.  The three books by Bradshaw and Johnson are also well worth acquiring, and two of them touch on Western Rite history.

Also, one other book, in the public domain, which directly transsects the late medieval period of English worship, is The History of the Dominican Liturgy 1215-1945, by William Bonniwell, OP, which you can download here: (warning, this is a massive PDF, but it is worth it, particularly to learn about the differences between the Gallican and old Roman liturgies, and somewhat adverse impact the Council of Trent had on the Dominican Liturgy, which is reflective of the influence it had on Western Rite liturgies as a whole): https://media.musicasacra.com/dominican/Texts/bonniwell-history.pdf

These works will give you a sense as to how things have changed over time.  Robert Taft SJ does a similiar job for the Byzantine Rite in his famous book; I also really like his book on The Divine Office, which provides a history of services such as Vespers, Matins, and the hours, and a description of these in each of the ancient and modern liturgical rites.
Thanks.

And if I am wrong on anything, I appreciate correction. What I posted is what I got out of these books in particular. The only thing is that I sometimes used the paradigm of a "pre-schism rite" - I mean, the usage of candles and the vestments of the Priest seem to vary drastically even from the 400s to the 800s in the Roman Mass.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Eamonomae said:
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World said:
23. The Orthodox Church has a common awareness of the necessity for conducting inter-Christian theological dialogue. It therefore believes that this dialogue should always be accompanied by witness to the world through acts expressing mutual understanding and love, which express the "ineffable joy" of the Gospel (1 Pt 1:8 ), eschewing every act of proselytism, uniatism, or other provocative act of inter-confessional competition. In this spirit, the Orthodox Church deems it important for all Christians, inspired by common fundamental principles of the Gospel, to attempt to offer with eagerness and solidarity a response to the thorny problems of the contemporary world, based on the prototype of the new man in Christ. 
Gross. I didn't see that before in Crete.

I mean, what other ambiguously defined ideologies does the Church need to condemn? Why doesn't the Church condemn sexism? Why doesn't the Church condemn bigotry? Why doesn't the Church condemn Islamophobia? Why doesn't the Church condemn homophobia? Why doesn't the Church condemn Fascism? Why doesn't the Church condemn physical violence towards children?

It's almost as if there are alternative motivations to make Eastern Orthodox Christianity young, hippin', and stylin' with the cool kids, dawg.
Well its a good thing that most of the world’s Orthodox Christians boycotted or were denied participation in the Council of Crete and are not bound by its decisions.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Alpha60 said:
Eamonomae said:
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World said:
23. The Orthodox Church has a common awareness of the necessity for conducting inter-Christian theological dialogue. It therefore believes that this dialogue should always be accompanied by witness to the world through acts expressing mutual understanding and love, which express the "ineffable joy" of the Gospel (1 Pt 1:8 ), eschewing every act of proselytism, uniatism, or other provocative act of inter-confessional competition. In this spirit, the Orthodox Church deems it important for all Christians, inspired by common fundamental principles of the Gospel, to attempt to offer with eagerness and solidarity a response to the thorny problems of the contemporary world, based on the prototype of the new man in Christ. 
Gross. I didn't see that before in Crete.

I mean, what other ambiguously defined ideologies does the Church need to condemn? Why doesn't the Church condemn sexism? Why doesn't the Church condemn bigotry? Why doesn't the Church condemn Islamophobia? Why doesn't the Church condemn homophobia? Why doesn't the Church condemn Fascism? Why doesn't the Church condemn physical violence towards children?

It's almost as if there are alternative motivations to make Eastern Orthodox Christianity young, hippin', and stylin' with the cool kids, dawg.
Well its a good thing that most of the world’s Orthodox Christians boycotted or were denied participation in the Council of Crete and are not bound by its decisions.
Ahmiin.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Eamonomae said:
Alpha60 said:
Eamonomae said:
Mor Ephrem said:
What have you read on this topic?
Fr. Jungmann, E.G. Cuthbert F. Atchley, and Oswald J. Reichel.
Two books of particular relevance regarding your post are The Liturgy in Medieval England, edited by Richard W. Pfaff, and The Genius of the Roman Rite, edited by Uwe Michael Lang. 

Also of relevance is the Oxford History of Christian Worship, the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer,  Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, and Liturgies of the Western Church.

These books should give you an introduction to the scholarship concerning the development of the liturgy in England, and concerning the Western Rite in general.  There is also a great deal of Eastern Rite material in the Oxford History of Christian Worship.  The three books by Bradshaw and Johnson are also well worth acquiring, and two of them touch on Western Rite history.

Also, one other book, in the public domain, which directly transsects the late medieval period of English worship, is The History of the Dominican Liturgy 1215-1945, by William Bonniwell, OP, which you can download here: (warning, this is a massive PDF, but it is worth it, particularly to learn about the differences between the Gallican and old Roman liturgies, and somewhat adverse impact the Council of Trent had on the Dominican Liturgy, which is reflective of the influence it had on Western Rite liturgies as a whole): https://media.musicasacra.com/dominican/Texts/bonniwell-history.pdf

These works will give you a sense as to how things have changed over time.  Robert Taft SJ does a similiar job for the Byzantine Rite in his famous book; I also really like his book on The Divine Office, which provides a history of services such as Vespers, Matins, and the hours, and a description of these in each of the ancient and modern liturgical rites.
Thanks.

And if I am wrong on anything, I appreciate correction. This is what I got out of these books in particular.
I think a broader reading of the subject would be extremely enjoyable for you based on your interest in it.  Also its good to deep dive beyond highly subject matter specific books such as the book on vestments you cited, hough such books can be useful once one starts to grasp the big picture.  One of my favorite deep dives is the book The Eucharistic Epiclesis, by John H. McKenna CM (which also provides a lot of historical information on the eucharistic liturgy in general).
 

Justin Kolodziej

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Alpha60 said:
Eamonomae said:
Alpha60 said:
Eamonomae said:
Mor Ephrem said:
What have you read on this topic?
Fr. Jungmann, E.G. Cuthbert F. Atchley, and Oswald J. Reichel.
Two books of particular relevance regarding your post are The Liturgy in Medieval England, edited by Richard W. Pfaff, and The Genius of the Roman Rite, edited by Uwe Michael Lang. 

Also of relevance is the Oxford History of Christian Worship, the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer,  Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, and Liturgies of the Western Church.

These books should give you an introduction to the scholarship concerning the development of the liturgy in England, and concerning the Western Rite in general.  There is also a great deal of Eastern Rite material in the Oxford History of Christian Worship.  The three books by Bradshaw and Johnson are also well worth acquiring, and two of them touch on Western Rite history.

Also, one other book, in the public domain, which directly transsects the late medieval period of English worship, is The History of the Dominican Liturgy 1215-1945, by William Bonniwell, OP, which you can download here: (warning, this is a massive PDF, but it is worth it, particularly to learn about the differences between the Gallican and old Roman liturgies, and somewhat adverse impact the Council of Trent had on the Dominican Liturgy, which is reflective of the influence it had on Western Rite liturgies as a whole): https://media.musicasacra.com/dominican/Texts/bonniwell-history.pdf

These works will give you a sense as to how things have changed over time.  Robert Taft SJ does a similiar job for the Byzantine Rite in his famous book; I also really like his book on The Divine Office, which provides a history of services such as Vespers, Matins, and the hours, and a description of these in each of the ancient and modern liturgical rites.
Thanks.

And if I am wrong on anything, I appreciate correction. This is what I got out of these books in particular.
I think a broader reading of the subject would be extremely enjoyable for you based on your interest in it.  Also its good to deep dive beyond highly subject matter specific books such as the book on vestments you cited, hough such books can be useful once one starts to grasp the big picture.  One of my favorite deep dives is the book The Eucharistic Epiclesis, by John H. McKenna CM (which also provides a lot of historical information on the eucharistic liturgy in general).
I misplaced my copy of The History and the Future of the Roman Liturgy by Denis Crouan S.T.M. It had interesting insights into variations in the Roman Mass before and after Trent, and how the current situation came about.
 

noahzarc1

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
762
Reaction score
66
Points
28
Alpha60 said:
The only Oriental Rite Eastern Orthodox church that I think would be legitimate and positive would be a Maronite Rite Vicarate in the Antiochian Orthodox Church, since the Maronites resent the Syriac Orthodox, Antioch has good relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church and access to “technical support” concerning how the West Syriac Rite works (and since 1969, the Maronite Rite has been heavily de-Latinized and transformed into a watered down version of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic liturgy), and there seem to be some Maronites like Sharbel who are at the breaking point in terms of liturgical abuses in the Maronite Rite, in the diaspora.  I see such a church existing primarily in the diaspora rather than in Lebanon, where the Maronite Rite is well-celebrated.  Or perhaps the OCA, since it is now open to a Western Rite parish, might be an even better host for a Maronite Orthodox Church.

Ecumenical reconciliation with the OO would be threatened however by the formation of other Oriental Rite EO churches, or vice versa.

The Divine Liturgy of St. Mark by the way exists with modernized rubrics (from the 1890s) in a Byzantine Rite form, and in my opinion, of the three infrequently used liturgies (the others being those of St. Peter and St. James), the Liturgy of St. Mark would be the easiest to introduce into a parish environment without causing disruption.  The Synaxis differs from that of ByzBAS (the EO St. Basil) and CHR) (the EO St. John Chrysostom liturgy) only in the contents of the prayers of the Three Antiphons, which the congregation does not normally hear, and the Anaphora likewise differs primarily in terms of silent prayers (the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter features a synaxis completely identical to ByzBAS and CHR.

The Coptic Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, and the Syriac Anaphora of St. Cyril, feature anaphoras related to the Greek St. Mark liturgy, but the synaxis is different and particular to each rite.  Indeed, the Coptic synaxis is now standardized whether one is celebrating the liturgies of St. Cyril, St. Gregory Nazianzus, or Coptic St. Basil (E-Bas, quite different from ByzBAS, also interestingly the basis for the greatly watered down Eucharistic Prayer IV, Eucharistic Prayer D, and Great Thanksgiving F in the Novus Ordo Missae, the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, and the 1993 PCUSA Book of Common Worship).  And as much as ByzBAS and Eg-BAS are different, so too would be the experience of the liturgy of St. Mark vs. St. Cyril (despite the anaphoras being slightly more similiar).

You might enjoy The Eucharistic Liturgies, Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers, and Issues in Eucharistic Praying, East and West, edited by Maxwell Johnson and Paul Bradshaw.
Thanks for the resources, I will definitely want to check those out. My understanding to this point was that the bulk of Saint Cyril's Liturgy is from the one that Saint Mark used (in Greek) in the first century. It was memorized by the Bishops and priests of the Coptic Church until it was translated into the Coptic Language by Saint Cyril I. I appreciate the expanded explanation too. Your explanation helps.
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
8,663
Reaction score
103
Points
63
Age
23
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
lol, the guy doesn't even bother to assess the claims that he paints as so ridicule...

Moss has a good point on the invasion of the British Isles, but yeah, 1054 wasn't as a big deal as some make it sound like... Just like the EO-OO split took ages to be kinda clear cut way after Ephesus.

A case of late Orthodoxy in the West that I've literally never seen anyone make, however, is that of Sardinia. Maybe because there aren't a lot of nerdy Sardinian Orthodox historians out there, but they literally only convered to Catholicism decades after the Great Schism, keeping a form of Byzantine Orthodoxy until then, of which I didn't manage to discover much research done apart from obscure Italian historians.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
RaphaCam said:
lol, the guy doesn't even bother to assess the claims that he paints as so ridicule...

Moss has a good point on the invasion of the British Isles, but yeah, 1054 wasn't as a big deal as some make it sound like... Just like the EO-OO split took ages to be kinda clear cut way after Ephesus.

A case of late Orthodoxy in the West that I've literally never seen anyone make, however, is that of Sardinia. Maybe because there aren't a lot of nerdy Sardinian Orthodox historians out there, but they literally only convered to Catholicism decades after the Great Schism, keeping a form of Byzantine Orthodoxy until then, of which I didn't manage to discover much research done apart from obscure Italian historians.
Interesting, but logical in light of the survival from antiquity of the Byzantine Rite in Southern Sicilly.

That said, one would assume the peculiar devotion of the islanders to St. Jerome’s opponent, Lucifer of Cagliari, was a local affair (although given the fondness of the Cappadocians for Origen, one could envisage an alternative scenario having developed in which the Orthodox denied the sainthood of St. Jerome and instead venerated St. Lucifer, as he is known to the Sardinians).

The patron saint of Sardinia is the Holy Spirit; I wonder if that was the case in Orthodox times, and if so, how the filioque controversy played out with Latinization.

By the way, lest anyone who has not read an Orthodox commentary on the Book of Daniel or who considers Milton the authoritative source of information on the adversary, the bishop Lucifer of Cagliari was not the devil, and the word Lucifer was not yet commonly understood as referring to the devil.  Also on the basis of piety we can assert it was not St. Jerome’s intent that such a misunderstanding occur.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
Western Rite Orthodox is the extension of the Main Antiochian Dioceses.
 

ROCORWRVUK

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
88
Reaction score
3
Points
8
Location
United Kingdom
Great comment from a reader on Byzantine, Texas:

This article, from an Anglican blog, is deeply dishonest on several counts. Firstly, in the years after 1054, there were not two denominations, Orthodox and Catholic, in the modern sense. There was a dispute between two patriarchs, but there was absolutely no notion that the entire church had split into two different entities. Except at the Episcopal level, there was still intercommunion, and, in most countries, it remained this way for centuries. Only after the fall of Constantinople and the rejection of the Council of Florence did the Eastern Christians start thinking of themselves as an entirely separate body from the Latin church. Only then was communion broken at the level of laity, and only then do you see Greek Orthodox parishes, under their own bishops, opening in Italy, for instance.

So in the 11th century, it is quite impossible that the Ecumenical Patriarch could have remarked that England was part of 'his church' or that the Pope could have remarked that England was outside 'his church'. There was still only one church, as far as they understood it at the time, and there was no reason that any other nation would immediately pick sides in the dispute between the two primates.

Thus the question of whether England was still Orthodox until the Conquest cannot be a question of canonical reality at the time. It can only be a question of whether the Orthodox Church of nowadays chooses to consider England at that time to have belonged to the true faith. It is purely an opinion, and given the facts-on-the-ground of those years, it is a very reasonable opinion.

The only practical implications of the question would be liturgical commemoration of saints or holy events that happened in England during those 12 years. And it so happens that the appearance of the Virgin in Walsingham occurred in 1061. There is an Orthodox chapel in Walsingham commemorating this apparition. Orthodox worship at the site has been going on continuously for over a hundred years, and pilgrimage groups led by bishops of every Orthodox jurisdiction go there. So it is clear to me that there already exists a liturgical reality that the Orthodox Church considers the Walsingham apparition to be her own, and by extension, that England at the time participated in the True Faith.

This idea, that England was Orthodox for those 12 years, has been around a great many years, and is promoted in a great many corners of Orthodoxy. The suggestions, in this article, that it is an invention of ROCOR, that it is a tool for recruiting converts, that it is a secret belief of the Western Rite - all this is nonsense, and frankly it is libelous to ROCOR.
 

melkite

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
40
Location
Maryland
Justin Kolodziej said:
I'm all for Anglicans (or at least Anglo-Catholics without ideas contradicting the Confession of Dositheus) and Roman Catholics in communion with Antioch or Moscow. The real question is, how to achieve that? Do we conduct more ecumenical dialogues that may never bear the desired fruit (for us) of Rome or Canterbury professing Orthodoxy? Or accept parishes tired of their own hierarchy's shenanigans, while requiring modifications to their rites that the pre-Schism Church never would have required of them, and furthermore risk being accused of hypocrisy when we'll scream bloody murder about the Eastern Catholics? Antioch and ROCOR are choosing the latter, while those at Crete endorsed the former. Only time (measured in centuries) will tell which bears fruit.
Sorry to sidetrack, but why are you all still screaming bloody murder about Eastern Catholics?  I get not being happy about the circumstances that brought our churches about separate from Orthodoxy, but now that we're here, why do so many Orthodox still harp about our existence?  Many of us find a true spiritual home there that neither exists for us in the Latin church nor in the Eastern Orthodox church.  I've never seen the ECs (at least in my lifetime) as an attempt at poaching the Orthodox away (it's been almost entirely unsuccessful if that were the real reason for our existence).  So what still bothers EOs about us?
 

IreneOlinyk

High Elder
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
897
Reaction score
4
Points
18
melkite said:
Justin Kolodziej said:
Sorry to sidetrack, but why are you all still screaming bloody murder about Eastern Catholics?  I get not being happy about the circumstances that brought our churches about separate from Orthodoxy, but now that we're here, why do so many Orthodox still harp about our existence?  Many of us find a true spiritual home there that neither exists for us in the Latin church nor in the Eastern Orthodox church.  I've never seen the ECs (at least in my lifetime) as an attempt at poaching the Orthodox away (it's been almost entirely unsuccessful if that were the real reason for our existence).  So what still bothers EOs about us?
Were you born before 1991?  The fall of communism?  What about the missions of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Eastern Ukraine?  This is not Galicia which has a history of that church after the area was incorporated into the Catholic Austrian Empire in the early 18th century.  I am talking about the part of  Eastern Ukraine which was always historically Orthodox.
 
Top