Anglicans complaining about WRO

[Volnutt]

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.

+1

 

[melkite]

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.

Yes, born in 1980.  Were these Eastern Ukrainian parishes established to convert the Orthodox, or were they established to serve Catholics that had moved East from the Western part of the country?

When I hear Orthodox complain about the existence of Eastern Catholicism, they don't complain about the existence of churches in Eastern Ukraine, but wherever in the world we are.  Eastern Catholics are as offensive to them in Pittsburgh as they are in Kharkiv.

 

[Volnutt]

I think it's just confusion at the weird half-way house nature of EC. "Orthodox in Communion with the Pope" is hard not to see as anything but an oxymoron in a way that I'm not sure can really be said about the WR, especially given the seeming second-class citizen nature of ECs in terms of Catholicism as a whole.

I agree though that outrage over it is a step too far and kind of concern troll-ish.

 

[platypus]

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?

Now that the Roman Church has ditched the traditional Mass, and high Anglicanism barely exists, it may be up to the Orthodox to preserve traditional western liturgy. The western rite was developed in the Roman Church, yes, but we've also got to remember that the western rite was developed in the Orthodox Church. I'm not sure that the current Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate successor of the western rite any more than the LCMS or the Southern Baptist Convention is.

If we don't build build western-style churches with communion rails, stained glass windows, and high altars, who will? If we don't use gregorian chant, or fast/abstain in the western manner, who will? Not the Anglicans, not the Protestants, probably not the Catholics again. Should we let all of these things just go away?

I've only seen beautiful western liturgy via youtube (it was a trad Anglican group), but when I saw it something clicked. I grew up in a more traditional parish that used the Novus Ordo, but really tried. Seeing the a video of a Sarum mass, I thought this is what it was supposed to be like.

On the other hand, I can see the legitimacy of your criticisms, and there are also many things that seem problematic about the western rite. It seems less-than-desirable to try and piece together a rite from pre-schism manuscripts -or worse, borrow a rite that's undergone centuries of heterodox development. The whole time the Byzantine rite was being lived out and developed, and trying to add a bunch of feast days all at once to the western calender to catch it up doesn't seem quite right. Is it realistic or desirable to try to turn a rite back on after a several century pause? Especially since it means even more calendar confusion. I don't know.

Further complicating the problem is the lasting heritage that traditional western liturgy has had on the culture. If you join the byzantine rite, all of a sudden Valentine's day is in July, when you've always celebrated it in February, etc.

I just know that old RC and Anglican churches are the most beautiful buildings I've ever seen, and I'd love to hear some western chant and see the consecration.

I don't have any problem with the Byzantine rite, and I'll do whatever rite I have to be Orthodox. But, man, it would be really cool if the great schism hadn't happened.

 

[PorphyriosK]

I'm not sure that the current Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate successor of the western rite any more than the LCMS or the Southern Baptist Convention is.

Southern Baptists a more legitimate Western rite than Latin Mass Catholicism??  Sorry brother, but that's just ridiculous.

I don't have any problem with the Byzantine rite, and I'll do whatever rite I have to be Orthodox. But, man, it would be really cool if the great schism hadn't happened.

Not going to argue with that.  I feel the schism in my soul.

 

[Volnutt]

-or worse, borrow a rite that's undergone centuries of heterodox development. The whole time the Byzantine rite was being lived out and developed,

I think you're assuming a complete lack of spiritual validity in Catholic and Protestant communities that isn't necessarily so. They were/are heterodox Christians, not Neopagans. I thought the mission of the Western Rite was to take what is still of God about those communities while jettisoning the bad (which is why the core of their liturgies are "Orthodox-ized" versions of the BCP and the Tridentine Missal).

 

[Iconodule]

On the other hand, I can see the legitimacy of your criticisms, and there are also many things that seem problematic about the western rite. It seems less-than-desirable to try and piece together a rite from pre-schism manuscripts -or worse, borrow a rite that's undergone centuries of heterodox development.

The rites as they are now (in Latin rite Catholicism and Anglicanism) have not changed that radically from their pre-schism traditions. The Latin rites tended to be more conservative than the Byzantine ones, at least in the basic structural elements of the liturgy. There doesn't seem to be much need for guesswork or revision, especially if we don't assume that after 1054 everything was suddenly graceless and bad in the West.

 

[platypus]

I'm not sure that the current Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate successor of the western rite any more than the LCMS or the Southern Baptist Convention is.

Southern Baptists a more legitimate Western rite than Latin Mass Catholicism??  Sorry brother, but that's just ridiculous.

Yes, that would be. When I said current Roman Catholic Church, I wasn't referring to the Latin mass. I know it's authorized for use again, but the Novus Ordo remains the norm. And I don't think the Novus Ordo is really a legitimate successor to the western rite; more of a replacement of it.

On the other hand, I can see the legitimacy of your criticisms, and there are also many things that seem problematic about the western rite. It seems less-than-desirable to try and piece together a rite from pre-schism manuscripts -or worse, borrow a rite that's undergone centuries of heterodox development.

The rites as they are now (in Latin rite Catholicism and Anglicanism) have not changed that radically from their pre-schism traditions. The Latin rites tended to be more conservative than the Byzantine ones, at least in the basic structural elements of the liturgy. There doesn't seem to be much need for guesswork or revision, especially if we don't assume that after 1054 everything was suddenly graceless and bad in the West.

That's good to know. My thoughts were more on the calendar than the mass itself; the Anglicans and Catholics kept adding feast days that the Western Rite Orthodox had to scrap and replace with Orthodox feast days. I realize that's only a problem if we allow it to be a problem though.

-or worse, borrow a rite that's undergone centuries of heterodox development. The whole time the Byzantine rite was being lived out and developed,

I think you're assuming a complete lack of spiritual validity in Catholic and Protestant communities that isn't necessarily so. They were/are heterodox Christians, not Neopagans. I thought the mission of the Western Rite was to take what is still of God about those communities while jettisoning the bad (which is why the core of their liturgies are "Orthodox-ized" versions of the BCP and the Tridentine Missal).

I don't mean to assume a lack of spirituality inside Catholicism and Protestantism; please forgive me if that's how I came across.

 

[noahzarc1]

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?

Now that the Roman Church has ditched the traditional Mass, and high Anglicanism barely exists, it may be up to the Orthodox to preserve traditional western liturgy. The western rite was developed in the Roman Church, yes, but we've also got to remember that the western rite was developed in the Orthodox Church. I'm not sure that the current Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate successor of the western rite any more than the LCMS or the Southern Baptist Convention is.

If we don't build build western-style churches with communion rails, stained glass windows, and high altars, who will? If we don't use gregorian chant, or fast/abstain in the western manner, who will? Not the Anglicans, not the Protestants, probably not the Catholics again. Should we let all of these things just go away?

Rome would argue they brought back the Tridentine Mass. I'm not a liturgics expert. I've attended the Tridentine Mass conducted by a Novus Ordo Priest and a Traditionalist Independent Chapel and I did not notice a difference in the two masses. Then I attended the Western Rite in an Eastern Orthodox and the only thing that stood out for me was the insertion of the Epiklesis. I mean on the first morning, it was just so out of place. I never said it was incorrect, but having familiarized myself with the Tridentine Mass and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Eastern Epiklesis in the Tridentine Mass just seems out of place. Even the Orthodox priest told me (we've had several conversations about it) that he didn't agree with it's insertion or the need for it. So these are interesting developments in our day.

I've only seen beautiful western liturgy via youtube (it was a trad Anglican group), but when I saw it something clicked. I grew up in a more traditional parish that used the Novus Ordo, but really tried. Seeing the a video of a Sarum mass, I thought this is what it was supposed to be like.

These are all good points. The point I was making is that if one looks at what Rome has inflicted on her Eastern Rites, she has done so with the same attitude. While Pope after Pope has written about "preserving" the venerable Eastern Rites, many have struggled to maintain the Rites they had unhindered prior to communion. Yes, the shell and many of the guts are there, but there have also been incremental changes that I don't think you would find they would have allowed if they remained Eastern Orthodox. Yes, what developed in the east developed when the church as a whole was Orthodox. Then you have the developments post-schism, which in reality for me I seem to think even leading up to Trent weren't that drastic. Rome's biggest departures started with Vatican I and continued on until the revolution of Vatican II. I'm not saying the Western Rite should not be restored, I am more suspicious of the "Anglican Branch theory." 

On the other hand, I can see the legitimacy of your criticisms, and there are also many things that seem problematic about the western rite. It seems less-than-desirable to try and piece together a rite from pre-schism manuscripts -or worse, borrow a rite that's undergone centuries of heterodox development.

The whole time the Byzantine rite was being lived out and developed, and trying to add a bunch of feast days all at once to the western calender to catch it up doesn't seem quite right. Is it realistic or desirable to try to turn a rite back on after a several century pause? Especially since it means even more calendar confusion. I don't know.

Further complicating the problem is the lasting heritage that traditional western liturgy has had on the culture. If you join the byzantine rite, all of a sudden Valentine's day is in July, when you've always celebrated it in February, etc.

I just know that old RC and Anglican churches are the most beautiful buildings I've ever seen, and I'd love to hear some western chant and see the consecration.

I don't have any problem with the Byzantine rite, and I'll do whatever rite I have to be Orthodox. But, man, it would be really cool if the great schism hadn't happened.

The only struggle I've had in Orthodoxy is the differences of Christmas Day and Easter. Again, never said it was wrong. However, I just wish they did not have to be celebrated on different days because I grew up and lived my whole life celebrating them on the Western Calendar. Then there is the dichotomy of whether to tolerate the points of contention I had with Western Theology just to have the same calendar or follow the Eastern Theology I agree with and live through the differences in calendar? I'm at an age I can tolerate the differences in calendar rather than the compromise of theology.

 

[Eamonomae]

These are all good points. The point I was making is that if one looks at what Rome has inflicted on her Eastern Rites, she has done so with the same attitude. While Pope after Pope has written about "preserving" the venerable Eastern Rites, many have struggled to maintain the Rites they had unhindered prior to communion. Yes, the shell and many of the guts are there, but there have also been incremental changes that I don't think you would find they would have allowed if they remained Eastern Orthodox. Yes, what developed in the east developed when the church as a whole was Orthodox. Then you have the developments post-schism, which in reality for me I seem to think even leading up to Trent weren't that drastic. Rome's biggest departures started with Vatican I and continued on until the revolution of Vatican II. I'm not saying the Western Rite should not be restored, I am more suspicious of the "Anglican Branch theory." 

Hmm... but again, this assumes that Rites are static things that don't develop, if you categorize them as "Rites" following Rome's categorization scheme.

It's not as if the Eastern Orthodox Church has done a good job at preserving the Georgian Rite, the Antiochian Rite, the Alexandrian Rite, and the Russian Rite, with all of them gradually being changed to accommodate with Constantinople as the gold standard. The mandatory changes to the Russian Rite led to a nasty schism which still lasts to this day.

I think some development, when there tends to be a single Church as a main source for liturgical resources, is inevitable. I think unnecessary forced changes did happen - in my opinion, immorally - and were unfortunate that they did (in the case of the Eastern Rites, forcing the Filioque to be used and commemorating the Pope instead of the Patriarch; in the case of the Old Believers, forcing Constantinople praxis to replace older Russian praxis), but I mean, say you were a Ukrainian Catholic Bishop - how do you know that all the Eastern Orthodox liturgies and icons are completely orthodox in praxis, following Eastern Catholic theology? Inevitably, when such questions arise, about this icon or this prayer practice or this part of the liturgy, there will be a greater fidelity to Rome as a source of orthodox praxis - which only leads to gradual change.

And despite the Latinized developments, it's not as if the Latinized Ukrainian Catholic rites lost their identity as uniquely Ukrainian. You can still see pictures of the Latinized Ukrainian Rites via the Priestly Society of St. Josaphat.

 

[noahzarc1]

Hmm... but again, this assumes that Rites are static things that don't develop, if you categorize them as "Rites" following Rome's categorization scheme.

I'm not arguing for static rites. I said I did not disagree with the insertion of the epiklesis for example. It was that such insertion was highly noticeable when I first attending a Western Rite Mass, as compared to the Tridentine Masses I attended when I was Roman Catholic.

It's not as if the Eastern Orthodox Church has done a good job at preserving the Georgian Rite, the Antiochian Rite, the Alexandrian Rite, and the Russian Rite, with all of them gradually being changed to accommodate with Constantinople as the gold standard. The mandatory changes to the Russian Rite led to a nasty schism which still lasts to this day.

It has not been my experience in the Coptic Church that they have looked to Constantinople as the gold standard for any of their liturgical celebrations/developments. I will have to ask about that, but I do not get that sense.

I think some development, when there tends to be a single Church as a main source for liturgical resources, is inevitable. I think unnecessary forced changes did happen - in my opinion, immorally - and were unfortunate that they did (in the case of the Eastern Rites, forcing the Filioque to be used and commemorating the Pope instead of the Patriarch; in the case of the Old Believers, forcing Constantinople praxis to replace older Russian praxis), but I mean, say you were a Ukrainian Catholic Bishop - how do you know that all the Eastern Orthodox liturgies and icons are completely orthodox in praxis, following Eastern Catholic theology? Inevitably, when such questions arise, about this icon or this prayer practice or this part of the liturgy, there will be a greater fidelity to Rome as a source of orthodox praxis - which only leads to gradual change.

In my experience many Ukrainians did not have a "greater fidelity to Rome." In my experience they had a greater fidelity to Orthodoxy and they didn't spend too much time lamenting governance by Rome. But I cannot speak for Ukrainian Catholics as a whole. I can only speak for the experience I had and the Ukrainians and Ukrainian born Americans I spoke with about these issues. However, I did have a Ukrainian priest tell me once they did not worry about the Pope so much as those that surround the Pope. He termed the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith as, "The congregation for the doctrinal destruction of the Eastern Rites." Those are his words, not mine. One can judge for themselves what he meant by such an assertion (and believe me, he was in a better position to know.)

And despite the Latinized developments, it's not as if the Latinized Ukrainian Catholic rites lost their identity as uniquely Ukrainian. You can still see pictures of the Latinized Ukrainian Rites via the Priestly Society of St. Josaphat.

I think my previous comments about the most aversely affected "latinized" eastern rite was the Ruthenians.

 

[Volnutt]

It has not been my experience in the Coptic Church that they have looked to Constantinople as the gold standard for any of their liturgical celebrations/developments. I will have to ask about that, but I do not get that sense.

They don't at all. He's talking about EOs.

 

[Diego]

I have always thought that Western Rite Orthodoxy and Eastern Rite Catholicism are both a bit humourous. If you want to be Eastern Rite, that kind of goes along w/ accepting Eastern Faith and Practice. The same is true of the Western Rites.

 

[kijabeboy03]

And yet it's not true at all, as witnessed by literally millions of devoted Eastern Catholics with no interest in leaving Rome and dozens of Western Orthodox parishes happy to be under their respective Orthodox Churches...

I have always thought that Western Rite Orthodoxy and Eastern Rite Catholicism are both a bit humourous. If you want to be Eastern Rite, that kind of goes along w/ accepting Eastern Faith and Practice. The same is true of the Western Rites.

 

[juliogb]

If we don't build build western-style churches with communion rails, stained glass windows, and high altars, who will? If we don't use gregorian chant, or fast/abstain in the western manner, who will? Not the Anglicans, not the Protestants, probably not the Catholics again. Should we let all of these things just go away?

There is a catholic group (that has some weird cultish vibe) founded in Brazil in 2001, named Heralds of the Gospel, that managed to build impressive neogothic/romanesque basilicas all over Brazil in less than 20 years, all of them very beautiful and probably very expensive.

 

[Diego]

Those churches are beautiful, I shall give them credit there!

 

[Diego]

And yet it's not true at all, as witnessed by literally millions of devoted Eastern Catholics with no interest in leaving Rome and dozens of Western Orthodox parishes happy to be under their respective Orthodox Churches...

I have always thought that Western Rite Orthodoxy and Eastern Rite Catholicism are both a bit humourous. If you want to be Eastern Rite, that kind of goes along w/ accepting Eastern Faith and Practice. The same is true of the Western Rites.

My best friend of all time is a Ruthenian Rite Catholic. I am an Evangelical Lutheran. We were both raised Roman Rite Catholics. We obviously don't agree on a lot of things. He has a right to his opinion, and I to mine. Its really not that big an issue.

 

[rakovsky]

I was on an Anglican forum and started a thread basically just laying out what the WR was, and not directly advocating for it, but the moderators took it down because they interpreted it as advocating for the Western Rite. It's like they are scared about Anglicans thinking too much about the WR in case their members might start to join it.

 

[platypus]

It’s understandable, because we:
1. Look very inviting to Anglican continuers since we are not yet suffering from the more modern theological travails that the Anglican Communion is suffering from.
2. Can’t be trusted to preserve the BCP that they love so dearly.