Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
Ah, yes, and I asked the question, if one is unwilling to Convert to Orthodox on account of our Liturgical Traditions, how convicted of the Truth of Orthodoxy can they truly be? Which, while yet unanswered, seems to me to be a very fair and legitimate question that is most relevant to the discussion at hand.
Well, many of us knew we wanted to be Orthodox before we even knew about the WR.  But I guess they are no more convicted of Truth than those that convert to Orthodox because of the exoticness of the eastern liturgies- and we know that happens far more often, don't we.
And to get back to something you were talking about earlyer, I want to know the difference between Anglicans in mass converting and keeping their western liturgies and a few parishes converting and keeping their western liturgy.  What is the difference?  I honestly don't see it.  It's like you're saying, "as long as X amount of people are on board it's OK."
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
SeanMc said:
They are liturgically foregin to the East
No, the Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
Where was it maintained as a living tradition after the Schism?
And where is there even a complete pre-schism manuscript of the Sarum Rite missal and beviary?
Don't turn this into East vs. West.
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.
 

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
What about the Ambrosian rite? We (scholars at least) have full manuscripts of this rite and it's quite similar to the Roman rite at that (mind you, there are some minor Romanizations after the Council of Trent).

Back to the Roman rite: it is basically the same as the Roman rite of Gelasius. The reforms of the Council of Trent removed the additions that came in from the Middle Ages, especially the additions from Gallic and Spanish rites.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Landon77 said:
Well, many of us knew we wanted to be Orthodox before we even knew about the WR. But I guess they are no more convicted of Truth than those that convert to Orthodox because of the exoticness of the eastern liturgies- and we know that happens far more often, don't we.
I actually dont know anyone who converted to Orthodoxy because of the 'exoticness of the eastern liturgies,' I'm sure there are some out there, but it would be far from the most common reason for conversion.

And to get back to something you were talking about earlyer, I want to know the difference between Anglicans in mass converting and keeping their western liturgies and a few parishes converting and keeping their western liturgy. What is the difference? I honestly don't see it. It's like you're saying, "as long as X amount of people are on board it's OK."
It really doesn't have anything to do with the number of People. If the Bishop of Rome (or Archbishop of Canterbury) became Orthodox and only 20 people followed him, I would be more than happy to let him keep his Liturgical Customs, minus the heretical parts (kneeling on Sundays, azymes, filioque, etc.), of course. But if a million Latin laity decided to convert to Orthodoxy I'd probably insist on them adopting the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. The difference between the two cases is that in the first an ancient Episcopal See is Converting back to Orthodoxy, and retains all the Rights and privlidges of an autonomous Church, which includes the maintaining of that Church's ancient Liturgical Customs; infact, I would probably disapprove if such a Church tried to establish an Eastern Rite, they are a Western Church, there is no place for an Eastern Rite, let the Eastern Rite be celebrated by the Eastern Churches. The second case is a million individuals, rather than One Church or Ancient Episcopal See converting, these individuals may have become accustom to the Mass of the Latins (or Anglicans), but they are no longer under that Bishop/Patriarch, they are under an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch, and hence should conform to the Liturgical norms of that Patriarch, just as they conformed to the Liturgical norms of their Previous Bishop when they were Latins/Anglicans.

ozgeorge said:
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.
Very true and to the point.

SeanMc said:
What about the Ambrosian rite? We (scholars at least) have full manuscripts of this rite and it's quite similar to the Roman rite at that (mind you, there are some minor Romanizations after the Council of Trent).
Not exactly living tradition though, is it?

Back to the Roman rite: it is basically the same as the Roman rite of Gelasius. The reforms of the Council of Trent removed the additions that came in from the Middle Ages, especially the additions from Gallic and Spanish rites.
The Tridentine may be a living Tradition to the Latins, but is not Living amongst the Orthodox Churches, it is the Liturgical practice of a Church that has been separated from us for nearly a thousand years, for we as Orthodox to use this Liturgy would not be a continuing of a Living Tradition, but an artifical resurrection of a long dead liturgical custom, and when it was alive, over a thousand years ago, it was foreign to us even then.
 

choirfiend

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
903
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Pennsylvania
greekischristian said:
I do confess that, try as I might, I cannot possibly conceive of a reason for which it would be difficult to 'get past the Byzantine Rite,' it is the Universal Rite of our Church and an inseperable element of our Faith, if one is convinced of the Truth of the Orthodox Faith, why would they not also embrace the Tradition in which this truth was preserved? The Tradition of the west lead to heresy, as so many here are happy to point out, so why would we encourage a Liturgical Rite, which, as we can see from Historical Example, lead to Heresy?
So, now you're disregarding the first 1000 years of western Christianity and retroactively concluding that the liturgy that was served there in 400 AD and later was somehow not REALLY Orthodox? We didn't have an Universal Rite in the entire church--we had several during most times. That because of later developments, their service was not REALLY Orthodox, despite the fact that there was no disunity between the East and West at this time? That the exact wording of their worship (not espousing anything heretical) somehow contributed to heresy? Why didnt the Divine Liturgy stave off all those heresies that we had to deal with, then? The argument is ludicrous.

I'm not a fan of Western Rite, and I think those parishes that are will eventually become more eastern over time, but your arguments dont make any sense and just again and again lead back to some greek worship prejudicial approach.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
Anastasios said:
For the record it is both a place for academic discussion and for community interaction.  But even if it were purely academic, you don't have an excuse to be rude.  I find academics who are deliberately haughty to be quite boring and overlooking of the broader picture.

Anastasios
Ditto.
 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
When you come here, you represent the GOA, which you do a very poor job of, btw.
Please keep in mind, Jennifer, that I am also in the GOA and have a blessing to study Theology from my Metropolitan (ironicly the same one as GiC) and I more or less agree with you and much of what has been said. ÂÂ

Regarding the western rite I think there is a lot of room for discussion on the topic.  I am not a big fan of the concept for a few reasons.  The biggest is that you need living links to the fathers in Orthodoxy, you can't simply reconstruct something that was dead for 1000 years and expect it to be the same.  Also it creates liturgical disunity where there is already enough within the church between calendars and overlapping jurisdictions.  Still the western rite had the blessing of St. John Maximovitch, so I wouldn't completely write it off either.  Personally I think the same purpose (of reaching out to those from Western nations that desire Orthodoxy) could be served just as well by an emphasis on pre-schism western saints and other such things within the existing Byzantine rite.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
It really doesn't have anything to do with the number of People. If the Bishop of Rome (or Archbishop of Canterbury) became Orthodox and only 20 people followed him, I would be more than happy to let him keep his Liturgical Customs, minus the heretical parts (kneeling on Sundays, azymes, filioque, etc.), of course.
That doesn't make any sense.  Since they are "heretics" (to be blunt and uncharitable), we don't recognize the Abp of Canterbury or Pope of Rome as Bishops anyways.

Whether any of us like it or not, the Western Rite has been "living" (even if as an infant or on "life support" so to speak) for several decades now and is continuing to live.  Some type of new Tradition has been revived and it may just be here to stay.
 
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Oz
The point is that majority of the Church has not formulated her oppinion. I would not be inclined to run and parade myself as member of either party, because once the Church speaks out, I might be in the party that is wrong, and for reasons of egoism, that can bring upon the schismatic nature.

Either way, I see good points and bad in both of the arguments, wisdom will be in using all the good ones and managing the bad.

After all, may it be done for the glory of God and salvation of the souls.

 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Not exactly living tradition though, is it?
The Ambrosian rite is celebrated to this day in parishes of Milan and the surrounding areas.
 

Jennifer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
Actually I believe I asked a quite legitimate question. If someone is unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy if they must accept the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church, can they be said to have truly Converted? Ultimately, how strong is their conviction of the truth of the Orthodox Church?
But (sorry to burst your bubble) it's not your place to question the strength of their conviction. That is between them and the bishops who bought them into the Church.

 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If someone is unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy if they must accept the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church, can they be said to have truly Converted?
The western rites are also part of the liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
choirfiend said:
So, now you're disregarding the first 1000 years of western Christianity and retroactively concluding that the liturgy that was served there in 400 AD and later was somehow not REALLY Orthodox?
If we haven't practiced something for a thousand years, how can we really consider it to be part of the LIVING Tradition of our Church? The point is that the so-called 'Western Rite' is not part of our Living Tradition, is Foreign to the Orthodox Church (even the rites that pretend to be pre-schism, as has already been said in this thread, are not based on academic reconstructions of the Liturgies with obvious post-schism latinizations), and historically lead to no good, but rather the evils of Heresy and Schism, and not simply a small break from the Church for a few years, but rather a Sustained Schism/Heresy, which has been propagated for nearly a millenium, the Western Liturgy is an inseperable element of this; just as the Eastern Liturgy is an inseperable element of the Orthodox Church.

Elisha said:
That doesn't make any sense. Since they are "heretics" (to be blunt and uncharitable), we don't recognize the Abp of Canterbury or Pope of Rome as Bishops anyways.

Whether any of us like it or not, the Western Rite has been "living" (even if as an infant or on "life support" so to speak) for several decades now and is continuing to live. Some type of new Tradition has been revived and it may just be here to stay.
But we have made it clear that if they do convert to Orthodoxy we will recognize their Episcopal Sees, and accordingly will recognize the Ancient Rights of these Sees. Granted it is an act of Economy, but no doubt would be, if the opportunity presented itself, a prudent one. Furthermore, a hand full of converts engaging in practices inconsonant with the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox Church hardly constitutes a living Tradition. And Even IF it did, you are ignoring the 900+ years where this tradition was non-existant in the Orthodox Church. Try as some might, the Western Rite and their Liturgy is not, and will never be, a part of the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition and will continue to be nothing more than a foreign element artificially maintained amongst a small segment of the population.

sin_vladimirov said:
The point is that majority of the Church has not formulated her oppinion. I would not be inclined to run and parade myself as member of either party, because once the Church speaks out, I might be in the party that is wrong, and for reasons of egoism, that can bring upon the schismatic nature.

Either way, I see good points and bad in both of the arguments, wisdom will be in using all the good ones and managing the bad.

After all, may it be done for the glory of God and salvation of the souls.
A majority of the Church does not even know this phenomena exists, never mind formally decreeing on it. However, with that said, I would quite enjoy to see this issue formally brought up in an endimousa synod, as I feel fairly confident of what side the Synod would come down on. The Oecumenical Patriarchate and others closer to here for reasons of ecumenism, the Russians and other Slavic Churches on account of the current vision of the West as a threat.

Jennifer said:
But (sorry to burst your bubble) it's not your place to question the strength of their conviction. That is between them and the bishops who bought them into the Church.
But it is my place, as well as the place of all the faithful of this Metropolis, to consider the points our former Metropolitan made on the Issue, inorder that the faithful of the Greek Orthodox Church may be Protected from this Phenomena; and in assessing the level of threat to the Church from this phenomena, this is a more than valid question. So while I am not these people spiritual father, and hence not to be concerned with their conviction for their own sake, it is certainly understandable that I would be concerned about it from the perspective of desiring to see the well-being of the Church as a whole maintained. Thus, while it may be inappropriate for me to ask about the personal conviction of Western Rite Parishioners John and Jane from All Saints of the West Antiochian Orthodox Church; it is far from inappropriate for me to inquire as to whether or not this method of proselytism is benificial to the Orthodox Church, and the potential conviction and devotion to the Church of potential converts is certainly a variable that should be taken into account in such an analysis.

yBeayf said:
The western rites are also part of the liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church.
Even if they were part of some tradition a thousand years ago, they are not part of the Living Tradition of the Church, and thus it is inappropriate for them to be used in our Liturgical Celebrations, just as it is inappropriate for us to resurrect some ancient eastern rite liturgy which has fallen into disuse for our current liturgical devotion.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
yBeayf said:
The Ambrosian rite is celebrated to this day in parishes of Milan and the surrounding areas.
.......together with the changes made to the Ambrosian Breviary and Missal introduced by St. Charles Borromeo, who, as a Tridentine Bishop, sought to bring it closer to the Roman Rite.

There is no Living Tradition of a pre-schism Western Liturgy....anywhere..
 

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If we haven't practiced something for a thousand years, how can we really consider it to be part of the LIVING Tradition of our Church?
Which Father mandated that liturgy must be a "living tradition"? (<-----not just rhetorical question)

Is there some kind of time limit on what is considered to be a part of tradition? Take the Liturgy of St. James. It's mostly out of use except for a few days of the year (well, I read that it is used regularly by an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox Church, but EO and OO are out of communion with each other).

Can something that's used a few days a year really be considered a living tradition?

What we delve into is a mess of illogical relativism.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
SeanMc said:
Which Father mandated that liturgy must be a "living tradition"? (<-----not just rhetorical question)

Is there some kind of time limit on what is considered to be a part of tradition? Take the Liturgy of St. James. It's mostly out of use except for a few days of the year (well, I read that it is used regularly by an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox Church, but EO and OO are out of communion with each other).

Can something that's used a few days a year really be considered a living tradition?

What we delve into is a mess of illogical relativism.
It is a liturgy that has been maintained specifically in the Liturgical Conscienceness of the Church of Jerusalem. Yes, it may only be used a couple times a year, but it is used consistantly every year...our Holy Week services are only used once a year, but are used consistantly. These are Liturgical Traditions that we have maintained over the Centuries, unlike the Western Rite. The Western Rite is nothing more than radical liturgical reform, an academic curiosity that has no place in the Liturgical Devotion of the Church, it is a change on a scale that dwarfs what the Latins did in Vatican II. In the end it's simply not part of the Orthodox Church, it is a foreign, namely protestant, element within the Church, we have a Perfectly Good Liturgical Tradition there is no need to corrupt and pervert it with protestant and latin influence. If we allow a 'western rite' the next logical step is the Clown and Guitar 'Liturgy,' you're right, who needs living tradition, as long as it's fun.
 

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Again, what Father talked about the necessity of a "living [liturgical] tradition"?

If we allow a 'western rite' the next logical step is the Clown and Guitar 'Liturgy,' you're right, who needs living tradition, as long as it's fun.
What is the purpose of the liturgy?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
SeanMc said:
Which Father mandated that liturgy must be a "living tradition"? (<-----not just rhetorical question)
The answer is: "All of 'em."

L: Traditio and Gr: Paradosis both literally mean "handing down" from one generation to the next.
St. Vincent of Lerins remarks (as do many other Fathers) that the first thing the heretic will say to affirm his position is: "It is written....."
'When anyone asks one of these heretics who presents arguments: Where
are the proofs of your teacing that I should leave behind the
world-wide and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He will jump in
before you have finished with the question: "It is written" He follows
up immediately with thousands of texts and examples...'
  Commonit 1,26

For this reason St. Vincent says that the Traditional Teaching of the Church is that which is held "always and everywhere and by all".
 

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
For this reason St. Vincent says that the Traditional Teaching of the Church is that which is held "always and everywhere and by all".
I would think that you are taking that quotation out of context, for the Apostolic faith is held "always and everywhere and by all," but the liturgical traditions aren't.

The above quotation talks about faith (Sacred Tradition), not liturgy.
 

Friarmoo32

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
greekischristian said:
If we allow a 'western rite' the next logical step is the Clown and Guitar 'Liturgy,' you're right, who needs living tradition, as long as it's fun.
With all due respect I find that to be a poorly thought out idea.  You cannot deny that the Western Rite was apart of the Christian church in the first 11 centuries.  Now, what the Roman Catholic Church did with it is unapplicable because that does not say anything about the Orthodox Church right?  I can definetly see where you would be concerned and all, but one thing you may be forgetting, Catholicism is without the fullness of truth so wouldnt that mean that complete 'protection' by the Holy Spirit would not be there?  What I'm saying is that Western Rite Orthodoxy should not be confused with Western Rite Catholicism.  So if the Orthodox Church found that returning the Western Rite to be suitable, then what concern could there be right?  Clown and Guitar "Liturgy" has no real place when thinking about the Western Rite, only if you are referring to Catholicism.  It's pretty obvious that the Orthodox church would never allow that disgusting thing to go on.  So even if you don't prefer the Western Rite Liturgy, you can't say that the same thing can happen in the Orthodox Church that happened in the Catholic Church...not by a long shot!  Just a thought.


Ian.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Friarmoo32 said:
With all due respect I find that to be a poorly thought out idea.  You cannot deny that the Western Rite was apart of the Christian church in the first 11 centuries.
There seems to be this artificial approach to Church History, everything that was done for the first 1054 years in the West was Orthodox, then all of a sudden they became heretics. Thus everythign before 1054=good and everything (well considering some 'western rite' parishes use a modified version of the BCP, not Everything) after=bad. It doesnt work that way, and you can not just pick up where everyone left off in 1054, if one wants to look for a genuinely Orthodox western pre-schism liturgy, why dont they go back to say the 6th Century west? Hey, we even have a 6th Century Western Liturgy in the Living Tradition of the Church, it's called the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, why not use that for their 'western liturgy'?

Furthermore, The liturgy is part of the daily life and expression of the people of that time, the fullness of its meaning can only exist in the culture of that time. Simply throw it into a modern context trying to be 'historically accurate' it becomes meaningless, it is not a viable liturgical experience; this is because it is not a Living Tradition, it is a dead academic curiosity that has been resurrected for the sake of nostalgia.

And finally, while the West did have a rite that was distinct from that of the East, I fear it was not any of the so-called western rites that the so named parishes use today, they all have at least some medieval latin influence, for the manuscripts we have from that era are simply not complete. Not only are these Liturgies not part of our Living Tradition, they're not even part of some Historical Tradition, they may have elements from that, but so does the clown mass.

It's pretty obvious that the Orthodox church would never allow that disgusting thing to go on.
If it wasn't for the fact that some jurisdictions tolerate it, I would never have dreamed that the Orthodox Church would allow something as absurd as a 'Divine Liturgy' with priests dressed in the costumes of the latins and the prayers taken almost entirely from a protestant prayer book...but it does happen, I really fail see how the clown mass is either that different or that far off; but what the heck, compared to a so-called 'Divine Liturty' where most the Prayers are taken from the BCP, perhaps a clown mass would be an improvement.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
GiC,

According to your theory on living tradition you should not be insulted by Byzantine Catholics as the Church of Rome has always had Byzantine Christians in its jurisdiction, the Italo-Greeks and Grottaferrata Monastery, just as Constantinople once had Latin Chrisitans within its jurisdiction, as well as Amalfion on Mt. Athos.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey, we even have a 6th Century Western Liturgy in the Living Tradition of the Church, it's called the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, why not use that for their 'western liturgy'?
The Liturgy of the Presanctified is not a western liturgy, and you know it. It's Byzantine, through and through.

Furthermore, The liturgy is part of the daily life and expression of the people of that time, the fullness of its meaning can only exist in the culture of that time.
It's still part of the daily life and expression of plenty of people in our time.

And finally, while the West did have a rite that was distinct from that of the East, I fear it was not any of the so-called western rites that the so named parishes use today, they all have at least some medieval latin influence, for the manuscripts we have from that era are simply not complete.
Good for them. We should not be digging through old manuscripts, but practicing the western liturgies handed down to us, after they have been cleansed of any unorthodox elements.

priests dressed in the costumes of the latins
I will thank you not to refer to the sacred vestments of the western church, worn by Orthodox priests, as "costumes".

I really fail see how the clown mass is either that different or that far off;
If you really fail to see how the clown mass is that far off from a western liturgy, I have to wonder about your intelligence, and how you ever managed to complete seminary. A relative in high places, perhaps? Surely it could not be because of the sharpness of your intellect.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
...an academic curiosity...
Sorry, but until you demonstrate otherwise, YOU are only an academic curiousity.

If this Western Rite stuff keeps on surviving, you will have no choice but to recognize it, as it will become a Living Tradition.  (To quote the Russian from Rocky IV) If it dies, it dies.  But if these parishes keep on surviving, another Living Tradition have we will. 
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Deacon Lance said:
According to your theory on living tradition you should not be insulted by Byzantine Catholics as the Church of Rome has always had Byzantine Christians in its jurisdiction, the Italo-Greeks and Grottaferrata Monastery, just as Constantinople once had Latin Chrisitans within its jurisdiction, as well as Amalfion on Mt. Athos.
That was just one of my arguments that the Western Rite is Foreign to the Orthodox Church and our Tradition, another, equally valid concern, is that it is nothing more than shameless proselytism and simply uncalled for, for reasons of civility. This applies both to the 'Western Rite' of the Orthodox and the 'Eastern Rite' of the Latins. Both are a mockery and an insult and neither should exist.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
GiC,
What really bothers me about your arguments is how you fail to given those Western Rite parishes any benefit of the doubt - as if it is not possible and they are all in some kind of prelest.  How arrogant and uncharitable!  Most of us arguing against you even agree that they would prefer the usual St. John/Basil Rites, but we aren't so stubborn that we don't consider the possibility.  It is as if you doubt the work of the Holy Spirit here.  Whatever happened to Baptizing other peoples/cultures?  Maybe this could be a case, even if it takes time to make it fully Orthodox/restore the rite.
 

Augustine

High Elder
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
565
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.beyondnihilism.blogspot.com
I think more than debating the matter, it would be better to see what happens (with time) with Western Rite parishes under Orthodox hierarchs.  If it flies, it won't need to be argued - if it doesn't, it'll go away on it's own.  I think all that is really needed, is for the phyletists and cultural-romanticists to just have the patience/open-mindedness to let people who are obviously of good will to make a go of it.  That much, IMHO isn't going to cost them anything.  It's not as if such persons don't tolerate any number of "alien" or "innovative" things in their midst (where do I begin?) - as far as "alien" things go, I would figure this is pretty tame, and of much better pedigree.

 

Friarmoo32

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
GreekisChristian, your prejudice against the Western Rite astounds me.  From what I have read you are studying to be a priest no?  I thought a priest was supposed to support his church.  Have you ever even been to a Western Rite Mass?  BTW, the prayers from a "Protestant" handbook idea is not even true.  A lot of the prayers are taken from what is called the Tridintine Rite but you should know as someone who is studying for the priesthood that the Tridintine Mass was only CODIFIED after the schism, but was in use before the schism.  I also don't think that the church was absolutely perfect before 1054, either.  My point with that was only to say that if the Western Rite was apart of the original Christian chuch and Orthodoxy claims to be the original Christian church, then I don't see why you should have such a huge problem with Orthodoxy allowing it.  I do have one question.  I respectfully ask this, but have you ever attended a Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy?  Just a thought becuase if you haven't then I wouldn't understand how you could refer to the Sacred Vestments as "Costumes" (very disrespectful and unbecomming from a future priest) or say it's basically a Protestant service.
 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
I tend to disgree with the expressed statement that if the western rite, survives as it is now then it becomes a living tradition.  Idiorrythmia survived for a very long time on the Holy Mountain, but it was never considered traditional.  The filioque existed for hundreds of years before the church once and for all expelled it.  So the Church has a level of tolerance for the sake of economy, hoping to to correct a mistake with love before excomunication.  That being said, I am NOT saying that is the case with western rite, only that prolonged existence does not always equal traditional. 

Some of the problems associated with the western rite are the modern practice of it - I have seem western rite supporters that are ardent defenders of the rosary or other post schism and un- Orthodox devotions.  Also there seems to be a non standardness to the western rite in practice, with different tyica in use creating a definite dis-unity.  Perhaps with some cleaning up and codification the western rite will thrive (and I hope this is the case), but only time will tell. 
 

James

Archon
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
69
Location
Ventura, California
Some people are just plain arrogant...be they rooted in the East or West...the Lord is the sole Judge...from my observations and experience, the W.O. worship in the Spirit and Truth and will survive...GIC, it is His call not yours...thank you.

St. John Maximovitch, please intercede and enlighten the people who are clueless and in the dark...


james
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have seem western rite supporters that are ardent defenders of the rosary or other post schism and un- Orthodox devotions.
Does the fact that the origin of a practice postdates the schism mean that it is ipso facto unOrthodox?

there seems to be a non standardness to the western rite in practice, with different tyica in use creating a definite dis-unity.
There also seems to be a non-standardness to the Byzantine rite in practice, with different typika in use creating a definite disunity.
 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Does the fact that the origin of a practice postdates the schism mean that it is ipso facto unOrthodox?
No, that is why I said post schism AND un-Orthodox.  The rosary is about using the imagination during prayer, which the fathers never supported - thus my objection to it.  But the issue is deeper than simply the rosary - IME many of the Western rite Orthodox that I have come into contact with are not willing to let go of that which is post schism, i.e "St" Francis of Assisi etc.  So I think the concerns of some on the issue are valid.  Granted such things are not limited to the WR - some wacky groups like the OCA New Skete do the same thing.

There also seems to be a non-standardness to the Byzantine rite in practice, with different typika in use creating a definite disunity.
The byzantine rite disunity is realatively minor.  In the western rite some parishes use an adaptation of the BCP, other of the Sarum Rite, others from some Tridentinish. 
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The rosary is about using the imagination during prayer, which the fathers never supported - thus my objection to it.
The rosary is about saying a fixed set of prayers. The meditation on the mysteries were a later accretion, and there are plenty of people (my mother is one) who don't visualize them, but simply say the prayers.

The byzantine rite disunity is realatively minor.  In the western rite some parishes use an adaptation of the BCP, other of the Sarum Rite, others from some Tridentinish.
And if you compared these three rites, you would see that the differences between them are not much greater than those between a Greek, Antiochian, Russian, and Carpatho-Rusyn Divine Liturgy.
 

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
I don't use my imagination while saying the rosary.  The rosary came about because most of the populas was illitarate and so couldn't read the pslams.  That is why there are fifteen decades, with ten "Hail Marys" in each decade.  It isn't that different than the prayer beads ER monks use.  And I've never met a WR person that venerates St. Francis.
 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
The vast majority of those who say the rosary use the mysteries.  And even taking away the mysteries from the rosaries there are still the other atachments to heretical/schismatic things in the WR.

I'm not opposed to the idea of letting people use ancient western liturgies as an ecomny - I just think the current practice of it needs to be shaped up a little bit. 
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And even taking away the mysteries from the rosaries there are still the other atachments to heretical/schismatic things in the WR.
Like what?

And a "thing" cannot be schismatic, only people can be schismatic.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Friarmoo32 said:
A lot of the prayers are taken from what is called the Tridintine Rite but you should know as someone who is studying for the priesthood that the Tridintine Mass was only CODIFIED after the schism, but was in use before the schism.
That the Tridintine Mass is derived from a Pre-Schism Liturgy I have no doubt, that it survived the middle ages without change or evolution, that I seriously doubt and would be interested in evidence to support such a statement. But that was not even what I was refering to in my statement, I was refering to what I believe is called the 'Liturgy of St. Tikhon,' which is composed largely of prayers from the Book of Common Prayer.

My point with that was only to say that if the Western Rite was apart of the original Christian chuch and Orthodoxy claims to be the original Christian church, then I don't see why you should have such a huge problem with Orthodoxy allowing it.
Because it's a historical curiosity to the Church, not part of our Living Liturgical Tradition.

I do have one question. I respectfully ask this, but have you ever attended a Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy? Just a thought becuase if you haven't then I wouldn't understand how you could refer to the Sacred Vestments as "Costumes" (very disrespectful and unbecomming from a future priest) or say it's basically a Protestant service.
No, but I have been to Tridentine High Masses and the Masses of the Anglo-Catholics, and while they may be beautiful services (Especially the Latin Tridentine High Mass), they are not part of the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition, and are Foreign to our Church.
 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Because it's a historical curiosity to the Church, not part of our Living Liturgical Tradition.
For all your love and pomp towards semi-archaic English it should be "it's an historical" not "a historical"


Also GiC, the GOA has introduced its fair share of foriegn elements into the Church, so this is argument you may wish to make with caution...
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Silouan said:
For all your love and pomp towards semi-archaic English it should be "it's an historical" not "a historical"
Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that 'an' was only used before an unvoiced 'h,' thus while we have 'an honourable,' we would have 'a house' or 'a historical.'

With that said, whether or not the 'h' in 'historical' is voiced would be dependent on dialect. Using an BBC English dialect, you're probably correct, it would be unvoiced, and hence 'an historical' using a western American dialect 'a historical' would be more correct.

Also GiC, the GOA has introduced its fair share of foriegn elements into the Church, so this is argument you may wish to make with caution...
I'm not too terribly fond of those either, and while I think such things as Choirs and Organs should be removed from the Churches, they are not a liturgical abuse on the scale of using a completely foreign rite.
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That the Tridintine Mass is derived from a Pre-Schism Liturgy I have no doubt, that it survived the middle ages without change or evolution, that I seriously doubt and would be interested in evidence to support such a statement.
It survived without substantive change, as is obvious by even a cursory examination of manuscripts. Unless you think the Last Gospel or the arrangement of psalms in the divine office are faith-altering modifications...

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that 'an' was only used before an unvoiced 'h,' thus while we have 'an honourable,' we would have 'a house' or 'a historical.'
It is correct British English to use "an historical".
 
Top