Is Western Rite Most Appropriate For Western Converts - Sensitive Subject

Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I would be very interested to know what people here think is the most appropriate rite for Westerners. Should they go to the Byzantine rite used by most of the Orthodox world or should they instead attend the Western liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy?

Is there anything wrong with a Westerner going for the Byzantine style?

Some have mentioned the example of how the Russians, Serbs, Albanians and others took Byzantine rite when they converted. Yet this has been attributed to the fact that all of these are eastern peoples and were geographically in the sphere of the Byzantine world. Would it be the same for Western people?
 

Arachne

Toumarches
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
12,003
Reaction score
20
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Camulodunum
A lot depends on each convert's background, as well as the baggage they bring along. Were they raised Catholic, Protestant (umbrella term, but whatever), atheist/irreligious, or in some other religion altogether? Did the religious atmosphere at home jive with that around them? Do they want to retain any elements of their previous affiliation or do they want a clean break? And so on.

In short, I don't believe there is a single correct answer, and I would certainly oppose any attempt at imposing uniformity.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
 

IoanC

Archon
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
0
Points
0
To be honest, I don't even know what a rite or style is in Orthodoxy. What I mean is that I believe Orthodoxy is concerned with the absolute form or truth, first and foremost, and things that have to do with appearance would come second; they are equally important, but they don't have the decisive role.
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
Exactly.

When I attended my first Divine Liturgy, I felt at home and was able to participate, even though large portions were in Greek. I recognized the shape or structure of the Liturgy from growing up in a liturgical church.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
I'd go a bit further. There is no "East" and "West". There are various kinds of Eastern and Western countries. I'm not an American so I don't knot whether the divide is getting irrelevant in America or not but it's still relevant around here.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If the cultural issue is not so big then what is the main argument of those who want Western Rite? Do they say that because the West had its own Orthodox tradition prior to the schism that it is worth reviving and therefore there is no need to import from the outside?

What is the main argument for Western rite?
 

Agabus

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
6,324
Reaction score
3
Points
0
This question operates on the assumption that a "rite" means anything to a convert.

The argument I think has some traction is that some groups are closer to Orthodoxy than others and shouldn't necessarily have to forfeit their patrimony that is in line with Orthodoxy when converting since the Church presumably transcends culture — hence you see the parishes from the Anglican continuum coming to Orthodoxy and adopting an Orthodox liturgy that is very familiar to them.

The exercise in resurrecting incomplete, long-disused liturgies from the seventh century has less traction or viability in my mind.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,149
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Arachne said:
A lot depends on each convert's background, as well as the baggage they bring along. Were they raised Catholic, Protestant (umbrella term, but whatever), atheist/irreligious, or in some other religion altogether? Did the religious atmosphere at home jive with that around them? Do they want to retain any elements of their previous affiliation or do they want a clean break? And so on.

In short, I don't believe there is a single correct answer, and I would certainly oppose any attempt at imposing uniformity.
Basically, this.  Another practical consideration is the availability of churches of one or the other rite.  Not only would it not be wrong for a Westerner to embrace the Byzantine rite, but he may have no choice in the matter if that's all he has access to in the local church scene. 
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
Agabus said:
This question operates on the assumption that a "rite" means anything to a convert.
Good point.  And for the average American convert - coming in solo or with his or her immediate family - I don't think it does.  As long as they can get enough English in the Liturgy - whether that means the Byzantine or Coptic rite or whatever - they find their footing quickly enough and that (Eastern) liturgy soon becomes their own.  For every one American convert searching for a Western rite, I'd wager there are hundreds more who are simply searching for Orthodox worship in the English language.

Agabus said:
The argument I think has some traction is that some groups are closer to Orthodoxy than others and shouldn't necessarily have to forfeit their patrimony that is in line with Orthodoxy when converting since the Church presumably transcends culture — hence you see the parishes from the Anglican continuum coming to Orthodoxy and adopting an Orthodox liturgy that is very familiar to them.
I agree.  The experience of groups (parishes or entire vagante churches) being received into Orthodoxy is radically different from that of individuals or families, and while I'm sure there are some folks who've sought out the Western Rite in the latter category, I think that it is much more prevalent in the former.

Agabus said:
The exercise in resurrecting incomplete, long-disused liturgies from the seventh century has less traction or viability in my mind.
Sadly, I must agree.  Though I bemoan the grievous loss inflicted upon Oriental Orthodoxy when the Nubian Orthodox Church and liturgy were destroyed, when an acquaintance of mine - an intelligent but...eccentric (yeah, that's the word) academic who flirted with Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodoxy and eventually went vagante - said he was thinking about "reconstructing and resurrecting" that rite, I could only gawk at him as if he had two heads.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Antonious Nikolas said:
For every one American convert searching for a Western rite, I'd wager there are hundreds more who are simply searching for Orthodox worship in the English language.
And it'll stay that way as long as WRO is treated as an exception and concession for those who are unable to man up and become Orthodox.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
IMO, the Orthodox Church needs to become more visible in Texas. While you have clusters of parishes in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there are hardly any here in Texas.
 

Agabus

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
6,324
Reaction score
3
Points
0
WPM said:
IMO, the Orthodox Church needs to become more visible in Texas. While you have clusters of parishes in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there are hardly any here in Texas.
Oddly enough, Texas has the most Antiochian WRO parishes of any region in the U.S.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
WPM said:
IMO, the Orthodox Church needs to become more visible in Texas. While you have clusters of parishes in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there are hardly any here in Texas.
Step 1: Find more coal in Texas.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Agabus said:
WPM said:
IMO, the Orthodox Church needs to become more visible in Texas. While you have clusters of parishes in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there are hardly any here in Texas.
Oddly enough, Texas has the most Antiochian WRO parishes of any region in the U.S.
Well, maybe about 3 or 4 but ofc it takes transportation and gas.
 

Regnare

High Elder
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
523
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Well, how many WRO parishes are churches that converted as a unit, and how many are missions? There would probably be more WRO churches if the Antiochians and Russians made a higher percentage of their missions Western Rite.
I don't know anything about the rate of parish-founding in those churches, though, so I'm talking out of my hat a bit.
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
Alpo said:
I'd go a bit further. There is no "East" and "West". There are various kinds of Eastern and Western countries. I'm not an American so I don't knot whether the divide is getting irrelevant in America or not but it's still relevant around here.
Yeah, but your country is officially Lutheran and Orthodox at the same time. So how big of a difference is it, really? Do Finnish Lutherans view Finnish Orthodoxy as something exotic or foreign; too "Eastern"?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
WPM said:
IMO, the Orthodox Church needs to become more visible in Texas. While you have clusters of parishes in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there are hardly any here in Texas.
Oddly enough, the Orthodox presence predates any Orthodox parish in Pennsylvania or New Jersey.  The Galveston parish is among the oldest on the continent outside of Alaska, and the (Orthodox?) descendants of Philip Ludwell III, the first Orthodox in the New World (even before Alaska) are buried there.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2013/08/27/photos-from-nicholas-chapmans-ludwell-research-trip-in-texas/

The Orthodox George Fisher served in the Mexican administration in Galveston, and went on to help found the Cathedral in San Francisco in the 1860s.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Lots of great answers here. Within the Antiochian Archdiocese, only whole, stable parishes can become Western Rite, and they have to be vetted first for said stability. Not just anyone who wants to join can do so.

And the best answer, IMHO, which has been given already, is that the Western Rite is intended mostly for those parishes whose patrimony and native tradition are close enough to Orthodoxy that the move is relatively smooth and much can be retained. This is why Antioch's Western Rite is based upon the received tradition of the West rather than concocting something from the past, venerable as it may be. On the other hand, much in the received tradition was already ancient, so we aren't talking about a whole lot that had to be adjusted, so to speak.

Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy, regardless of cultural trappings, important as they can be. Rite really shouldn't matter. But there is some deep truth to the fact that some Christians are better suited to work our their salvation within a Western context of Orthodoxy, rather than an Eastern. Thank God our hierarchs and saints had the wisdom to recognize this.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine.


Melkites

iconostasis
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alpo said:
Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
I'd go a bit further. There is no "East" and "West". There are various kinds of Eastern and Western countries. I'm not an American so I don't knot whether the divide is getting irrelevant in America or not but it's still relevant around here.
It was looking at a Gothic church in Finland where the cohesion of the Western tradition hit me.
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Iconodule said:
WPM said:
IMO, the Orthodox Church needs to become more visible in Texas. While you have clusters of parishes in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there are hardly any here in Texas.
Step 1: Find more coal in Texas.
I guess oil just isn't as compatible with the Orthodox phronema  :laugh:

Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
Indeed. I've moved around a lot of different states quite a bit in the short time I've been Orthodox. The one time I've been close enough to a WR parish to actually attend, it would have been in another language anyway.

To address the OP, there is no over-arching "Western" to whom a robust Western Rite would appeal. Outside of the RCC, most Americans who bother going to church enough to have a church tradition are going to be Evangelicals, for whom any rite would be alien. It doesn't matter for an Evangelical if their prayer book has prayers from the BCP, Breviary, or one of the Byzantine/Russian collections- the very act of praying out of a prayer book is going to be a strange experience. It doesn't matter for an Evangelical if the chanting is done in Gregorian, Anglican plain-style, Byzantine, Georgian, Obikhod, etc- the very fact that there is no piano, no tunes past 1700 or so, and no "Worship/music leader/minister" taking over front-and-center from the clergy during pre-specified "this is singing time" is a new experience.

Even many converting to Orthodoxy from a more liturgical Protestant or even Roman Catholic tradition are doing so after the previous tradition having been a stepping stone out of Evangelicalism. When the liturgical tradition itself was a form of adjustment, and the language of the liturgy is not "in the blood" due to having been raised in that tradition, I think any culture shock from the mere liturgy of St John Chrysostom will not be all that great (attending a parish where English is not used, however, will definitely have an affect).

For these people, it makes more sense having a better translation of the Eastern Rite into English. And this is where I think the Anglican rite and it's Orthodox derivatives can help out. I think anyone attempting an English translation of the Eastern Rites should be required to first spend no less than five years using nothing but the Anglican prayers for morning and evening prayers (and for priests/bishops who wish to translate, using the Anglican Missal). More, during this time I think in addition to regular Scriptural and spiritual reading, these translators should be required to read only Shakespeare, Spencer, Milton, Tennyson, Eliot, and a host of other English/American poetry. After five years is spent immersed in this poetic tradition, and at least a little bit of the poetic mindset is absorbed, then and only then should translation be attempted. I think the same (that is, five years immersed in the local poetic tradition) should go for anyone attempting to translate the Byzantine Liturgy into the native tongue.

That said, I think a case could be made for having more Western rite parishes and more support for new Western Rite missions and such. Not for "Westerners" in general, but as an outreach for Westerners coming from more liturgical backgrounds, who might have become attached to the language of Cranmer or the Roman Rite. This is more of a "niche" here in America, and is shrinking into a "niche" in the European countries where atheism is becoming dominant, but a greater emphasis on Western Rite might make more sense in Europe than in the States.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
No. I converted from Roman Catholicism (Latin Rite), and didn't give a second thought to liturgical continuity or whatever you'd call it. It was only when I broadened my horizons beyond "You can either be Western or Byzantine" (which is essentially how many RCs see things) that Orthodoxy even began to make sense to me as a thing in the first place. If you were to try to get me to come to a "Western Rite" anything just because I'm not Coptic, I would pelt you into unconsciousness with cans of fava beans and feel nothing for you. Nothing.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Iconodule said:
WPM said:
IMO, the Orthodox Church needs to become more visible in Texas. While you have clusters of parishes in places like Pennsylvania and New Jersey there are hardly any here in Texas.
Step 1: Find more coal in Texas.
Hey there....just across the border here in New York's southern tier, most of the Eastern Christian families are descendants of 'refugees' who had sense enough to have left the mines. My grandfather spent about a year working the mines in Nesquehoning, PA and said the heck with that and moved to Jersey!
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Alpo said:
Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
I'd go a bit further. There is no "East" and "West". There are various kinds of Eastern and Western countries. I'm not an American so I don't knot whether the divide is getting irrelevant in America or not but it's still relevant around here.
It was looking at a Gothic church in Finland where the cohesion of the Western tradition hit me.
St. John's church in Helsinki?

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alpo said:
ialmisry said:
Alpo said:
Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
I'd go a bit further. There is no "East" and "West". There are various kinds of Eastern and Western countries. I'm not an American so I don't knot whether the divide is getting irrelevant in America or not but it's still relevant around here.
It was looking at a Gothic church in Finland where the cohesion of the Western tradition hit me.
St. John's church in Helsinki?

No, Turku Cathedral

There was also a Gothic Crucifix in the National Museum, which reminded me of one I had just seen in Warsaw.
 

Regnare

High Elder
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
523
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
My attitude to the WR is that even if, for most converts, it would be no less alien than the Eastern Rites, it would be a shame to let it slip away into history when it could be recovered by the Orthodox Church fairly easily.
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
Alpo said:
Antonious Nikolas said:
For every one American convert searching for a Western rite, I'd wager there are hundreds more who are simply searching for Orthodox worship in the English language.
And it'll stay that way as long as WRO is treated as an exception and concession for those who are unable to man up and become Orthodox.
I understand your frustration, and I certainly don't regard the Western Rite as a "concession for those who are unable to man up and become Orthodox" (one of the most wonderful and learned priests I know is WRO), but I think that in North America at least, what I've mentioned above has more to do with the fact that for most potential converts, rite - if it enters into the equation at all - is tertiary to (a) the Orthodox Faith and (b) the use of English as the primary liturgical language.  Many North Americans come from non-liturgical backgrounds (as FormerReformer has mentioned) and others aren't really conscious of themselves as being "Western" in any specific religious or cultural sense.  Still others, who do come from liturgical backgrounds, would feel offended and patronized if relegated to a specific rite because they were not of Eastern extraction (see dzheremi's unnecessarily violent, fava-bean flinging post!).  What percentage of the Orthodox churches in Finland would you say are Western Rite?  And what liturgy do they use?  Which Western tradition is it derived from?
 

scamandrius

Merarches
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
9,377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Omaha
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
I would be very interested to know what people here think is the most appropriate rite for Westerners. Should they go to the Byzantine rite used by most of the Orthodox world or should they instead attend the Western liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy?

Is there anything wrong with a Westerner going for the Byzantine style?

Some have mentioned the example of how the Russians, Serbs, Albanians and others took Byzantine rite when they converted. Yet this has been attributed to the fact that all of these are eastern peoples and were geographically in the sphere of the Byzantine world. Would it be the same for Western people?
Most converts from a western christian confession go into the Eastern Rite anyway.  What's the point in shuffling them automatically into a WR parish?  Is it to say  to them "You're not Orthodox enough."  That's how many Eastern Rite laity and clergy view the western rite:  as something Orthodox-lite.  What's next?  If your family is of German origin, should you find the nearest parish which has the greatest amount of people of German descent?  Or if you're Italian?  All this needless talk is predicated on two things:  1)  WEstern converts are too stupid to worship in the eastern rite  2)  we need categories for everything (just like those Protestants we're trying not to be like)
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
0
Points
0
We're Byzantines. No WRO around here. I'm probably one of the few Finns who are aware that WRO exists.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
I would be very interested to know what people here think is the most appropriate rite for Westerners. Should they go to the Byzantine rite used by most of the Orthodox world or should they instead attend the Western liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy?

Is there anything wrong with a Westerner going for the Byzantine style?

Some have mentioned the example of how the Russians, Serbs, Albanians and others took Byzantine rite when they converted. Yet this has been attributed to the fact that all of these are eastern peoples and were geographically in the sphere of the Byzantine world. Would it be the same for Western people?
Why would I have wanted to join the Western Rite over the Byzantine Rite when I converted, anyway? Growing up an Evangelical Protestant as I did, both rites were equally foreign to me.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
scamandrius said:
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
I would be very interested to know what people here think is the most appropriate rite for Westerners. Should they go to the Byzantine rite used by most of the Orthodox world or should they instead attend the Western liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy?

Is there anything wrong with a Westerner going for the Byzantine style?

Some have mentioned the example of how the Russians, Serbs, Albanians and others took Byzantine rite when they converted. Yet this has been attributed to the fact that all of these are eastern peoples and were geographically in the sphere of the Byzantine world. Would it be the same for Western people?
Most converts from a western christian confession go into the Eastern Rite anyway.  What's the point in shuffling them automatically into a WR parish?  Is it to say  to them "You're not Orthodox enough."  That's how many Eastern Rite laity and clergy view the western rite:  as something Orthodox-lite.  What's next?  If your family is of German origin, should you find the nearest parish which has the greatest amount of people of German descent?  Or if you're Italian?  All this needless talk is predicated on two things:  1)  WEstern converts are too stupid to worship in the eastern rite  2)  we need categories for everything (just like those Protestants we're trying not to be like)
I worshiped as a Lutheran in the Middle East, so I know the situation in the opposite direction.

"go into the Eastern Rite anyway."  Few have any choice.

I know that Romanian Pentacostals and Baptists worship separately from their American brethren, because of cultural differences.
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
68
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
PeterTheAleut said:
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
I would be very interested to know what people here think is the most appropriate rite for Westerners. Should they go to the Byzantine rite used by most of the Orthodox world or should they instead attend the Western liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy?

Is there anything wrong with a Westerner going for the Byzantine style?

Some have mentioned the example of how the Russians, Serbs, Albanians and others took Byzantine rite when they converted. Yet this has been attributed to the fact that all of these are eastern peoples and were geographically in the sphere of the Byzantine world. Would it be the same for Western people?
Why would I have wanted to join the Western Rite over the Byzantine Rite when I converted, anyway? Growing up an Evangelical Protestant as I did, both rites were equally foreign to me.
My response as well. And let me add that Western Rite may appear a little "too (Roman) Catholic" for Evangelicals and others who may have that bias.
 

James2

High Elder
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Sleeper said:
Within the Antiochian Archdiocese, only whole, stable parishes can become Western Rite.
Not always.  Our parish (St. Gregory the Great in DC) was started from scratch (before I joined).  The pastor-to-be was a former Episcopal priest who had converted to Orthodoxy and gathered together a group of interested Orthodox laity and potential converts in the DC area in association with SS Peter and Paul parish in Bethesda.  They worshiped and met together for some time, and then he was ordained, the converts were chrismated, and the mission got started.  Later we moved out on our own and attained parish status.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
genesisone said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
I would be very interested to know what people here think is the most appropriate rite for Westerners. Should they go to the Byzantine rite used by most of the Orthodox world or should they instead attend the Western liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy?

Is there anything wrong with a Westerner going for the Byzantine style?

Some have mentioned the example of how the Russians, Serbs, Albanians and others took Byzantine rite when they converted. Yet this has been attributed to the fact that all of these are eastern peoples and were geographically in the sphere of the Byzantine world. Would it be the same for Western people?
Why would I have wanted to join the Western Rite over the Byzantine Rite when I converted, anyway? Growing up an Evangelical Protestant as I did, both rites were equally foreign to me.
My response as well. And let me add that Western Rite may appear a little "too (Roman) Catholic" for Evangelicals and others who may have that bias.
which of course confirms the raison d'etre of WRO.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
ialmisry said:
scamandrius said:
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
I would be very interested to know what people here think is the most appropriate rite for Westerners. Should they go to the Byzantine rite used by most of the Orthodox world or should they instead attend the Western liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy?

Is there anything wrong with a Westerner going for the Byzantine style?

Some have mentioned the example of how the Russians, Serbs, Albanians and others took Byzantine rite when they converted. Yet this has been attributed to the fact that all of these are eastern peoples and were geographically in the sphere of the Byzantine world. Would it be the same for Western people?
Most converts from a western christian confession go into the Eastern Rite anyway.  What's the point in shuffling them automatically into a WR parish?  Is it to say  to them "You're not Orthodox enough."  That's how many Eastern Rite laity and clergy view the western rite:  as something Orthodox-lite.  What's next?  If your family is of German origin, should you find the nearest parish which has the greatest amount of people of German descent?  Or if you're Italian?  All this needless talk is predicated on two things:  1)  WEstern converts are too stupid to worship in the eastern rite  2)  we need categories for everything (just like those Protestants we're trying not to be like)
I worshiped as a Lutheran in the Middle East, so I know the situation in the opposite direction.

"go into the Eastern Rite anyway."  Few have any choice.

I know that Romanian Pentacostals and Baptists worship separately from their American brethren, because of cultural differences.
Heck, up in these parts, the Russians and Ukrainians accomplished the impossible: they have a 'Russian Ukrainian Baptist Church' - (kind of like the 'dogs and cats living together' line from Ghostbusters....) I mention them, but I will not link their website.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Studying_Orthodoxy said:
If the cultural issue is not so big then what is the main argument of those who want Western Rite? Do they say that because the West had its own Orthodox tradition prior to the schism that it is worth reviving and therefore there is no need to import from the outside?

What is the main argument for Western rite?
Those who have gone Western Rite say that they appreciate the Anglican or Roman Rite and do not feel at home in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

However, at my first Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I immediately felt at home as the Divine Liturgy was very sacred, absolutely beautiful, inspiring, and most importantly, so heavenly. As we stood in attentiveness and awe, we felt lifted up into Heaven itself, and indeed, during the Liturgy, if one has eyes to see, one is surrounded by all the angels, saints, and martyrs, as those witnesses surround us. My husband and I were in tears of joy.

On the contrary, at the Western Rite, where we are told to stand, sit, and kneel at different times, it felt too ritualized, and all these rubrics (when to stand, sit, or kneel) were a serious hindrance to our being attentive to the moment and to our worship of God as some older person clacked their teeth when we did not kneel fast enough.
 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
Or care about a WR parish.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
GabrieltheCelt said:
Iconodule said:
The East/ West divide is exaggerated and is getting more irrelevant every day. Westerners going to Eastern liturgy is just fine. WR is such a tiny niche anyway that most Westerners don't even have an opportunity to visit a WR parish.
Or care about a WR parish.
When I visited a Western Rite parish, the priest told us that the WR used to be viewed as a temporary phase of becoming Orthodox.  Once a catechumen was instructed and received into Orthodoxy, they were expected to "grow up" and gradually work their way into the Eastern Orthodox parishes, and it used to be that the Antiochians would accept WR parishes into the ER parishes.

Now, however, once a new group of converts have expressed an interest in starting a WR parish, they are expected to commit to the WR and stay there. When that happens, seasoned WR parishioners would move or would gradually find their way into an ER parish. What ultimately happens, is that there is a continual flow of people from the WR into the ER. However, with the establishment of the Oblates of St. Benedict, more people have found a home in WR Orthodoxy.
 
Top