LivenotoneviL said:
Justin Kolodziej said:
There are some explanations on how the Corpus Christi feast, with processions and exposition of the Holy Gifts, can be considered Orthodox over
on Orthodox West. It may exist more in the Antiochian Western Rite than the ROCOR one though.
As far as I know, the ROCOR Church doesn't have the Corpus Christi feast on it's calendar.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/144b2c_2e60d4a979384f8990a325e447bff7d5.pdf
while in Antioch, Corpus Christi is an official feast.
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.stgregoryoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-Calendar-condensed.pdf
Didn't I already bring this up as a point of concern before with no response that shared my concern?
I don’t see that as a valid concern. ROCOR has a more extreme approach to the Western Rite; previously they had tolerated Corpus Christi a bit under HG Jerome Shaw, but then an unfortunate incident occurred where he ordained multiple clergy on that day contrary to the wishes of his brethren in the Holy Synod, and he and Archpriest Anthony Bondi were required to retire, but not deposed, the Holy Synod further vowing to more closely integrate the two rites. There was a concern the ROCOR Western Rite would go away, but that hasn’t happened, there has been some growth, and the community seems very happy being directly under the omophorion of Metropolitan Hilarion the First Hierarch of ROCOR, who is by all accounts a loving man.
Even before that, many in the ROCOR WRV favoured what I would call a “reversionary approach” that sought to turn the clock back to the pre-schism period in the West, liturgically; some mocked people of this desire for “liturgical archaeology,” but a lot of the work done, such as the book Orthodox Prayers of Old England by Fr. Aidan Keller, I personally liked a great deal.
The AWRV is much closer to modern day Catholic and Anglican practice; their St. Andrew’s Service Book is much closer to being a corrected hybrid of a 1928 BCP and an English translation of the Roman Missal (like the English Missal, which was directly that, and which was used by some Anglo Catholics following its publication in 1915, of the ultra high church variety, some of whom separated from the Episcopal Church and then later, in the late 1940s, joined the Antiochian Church, leading to the foundation of the AWRV).
In the ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholics, neither the feast of Corpus Christi nor the use of unleavened bread have been hot-button issues. The bones of contention have been lined with the tough and unpleasant meat of the filioque, Papal supremacy, particularly the Vatican I declaration, the status of the Eastern Catholic churches, the existence of which, not unjustifiably, unnerves, threatens and annoys some Orthodox jurisdictions, and related issues.
Also the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is Oriental Orthodox, has always used unleavend bread and straight wine, most likely before the West adopted these practices, and the Orthodoxy of this church is
unquestioned within the OO community.
My view is that, in light of the current ecumenical movement which is leading the EO and OO towards a restoration of full communion, and which has already produced situations of limited inter-communion, the Armenian use of unleavened bread should serve as
complete justification for the use of unleavened bread by the EO WRV if those parishes desire it; the controversy over leavening in the bread was, like the facial hair controversy, a ridiculous polemical exchange (and nowadays there are traditional Latin mass community Catholics with beards; in fact, the traditionalist monastery of St. Benedict in Norcia just received a vocation, when a novice with a beautiful beard that would not look out of place on an Old Rite Russian Orthodox priest, professed his final vows). These polemical controversies arose in the period following the initial filioque schism and the actions of St. Photius the Great, and the subsequent Roman volte-face, when tensions between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics eventually caused the break in communion, but before the Filioque controversy, the Romans had clean shaven clergy, and there were no objections to this AFAIK.
I recently read of an early Roman pontitical (a bishop’s Euchologion) which in fact had a ceremony for solemnly shaving the beard of someone being consecrated to monasticism or receiving Holy Orders.