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

Rooted communities?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
While it's no secret I don't agree with Orthodoxy so I don't agree with its Western Rite(s), I would be impressed if there were centuries/generations-old communities of Western Rite Orthodox in Western lands such as France and Germany, maybe concentrated in regions such as Bavaria (the way Ukrainian Catholics are concentrated in Galicia), that were truly Western Rite with few if any byzantinizations, the equivalent of the Melkites for example. A beautiful Gregorian-chant Mass every Sunday, Benedictine abbeys (the most Orthodox kind of Western monasticism), local saints and devotions, etc.

I see in WR something obviously recently set up for converts and heavily byzantinized (crossing oneself right to left, "Khouria" and "Matushka" [I thought you didn't have to turn Russian etc. if you did this, per the famous quotation from John of Shanghai and San Francisco], "the Liturgy of St. Gregory" instead of "the Roman Rite Mass," etc.; I think even the icons are a byzantinization).
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
The young fogey said:
I see in WR something obviously recently set up for converts and heavily byzantinized (crossing oneself right to left, "Khouria" and "Matushka" [I thought you didn't have to turn Russian etc. if you did this, per the famous quotation from John of Shanghai and San Francisco], "the Liturgy of St. Gregory" instead of "the Roman Rite Mass," etc.; I think even the icons are a byzantinization).
[list type=decimal]
[*]Romans crossed themselves from right to left at least until the 13th century.
[*]There were several distinct liturgies in the Roman Church, regrettably reduced to the one from the city of Rome by the Council of Trent.  If anything, by referring to it as the liturgy of St. Gregory, it leaves the door open to revitalize other Western liturgies, especially the liturgy of St. Ambrose.
[*]The Byzantine style was also the style of Rome and it only began to change with the Gothic style of the 12th century.  It's easy to notice this in museums.
[/list]
However, I still prefer the Eastern over the Western liturgies, which use a language when addressing the Lord that is more familial and less legal.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
2
Points
0
The young fogey said:
"Khouria" and "Matushka"
Why an earth this would be any kind of issue? True Westerners speak only Latin?
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Interestingly, all of the other Eastern churches except the Byzantine Rite ones cross themselves left to right.

Why not just say "Mass in the Ambrosian Rite," etc., like Catholics do, instead of the byzantinized "Divine Liturgy of St. Ambrose," etc.?

Romanesque and early Byzantine had some resemblance, sure, but I'm not buying the byzantinocentrism; it's like the Roman Rite chauvinism we Catholics are accused of (and some of our churchmen were guilty of, such as Archbishop John Ireland and the clergy who pushed Cum Data Fuerit, the ban on married Eastern Catholic priests in America).

Alpo said:
The young fogey said:
"Khouria" and "Matushka"
Why an earth this would be any kind of issue? True Westerners speak only Latin?
Apologists for WR say you don't have to adopt a foreign culture to be Orthodox but many of the WR do just that; this is an example. Latin is the language of Western Catholicism, but Western Catholicism isn't about Latin. I'd be fine with official vernacular versions of the traditional Roman Rite but I understand Latin's place in this rite (a template because a dead language's meanings don't change, and an international language).
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
2
Points
0
The young fogey said:
Apologists for WR say you don't have to adopt a foreign culture to be Orthodox but many of the WR do just that; this is an example.
They don't have to but it's not particularly dangerous if they do. Me eating hamburgers doesn't make me American. People don't live in a vacuum.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Alpo said:
The young fogey said:
Apologists for WR say you don't have to adopt a foreign culture to be Orthodox but many of the WR do just that; this is an example.
They don't have to but it's not particularly dangerous if they do. Me eating hamburgers doesn't make me American. People don't live in a vacuum.
Like it's not heretical in Catholicism for Ukrainian Catholics to have statues and rosaries in church but it's rude to the Byzantine Rite and the Catholic Church doesn't encourage that. (At my Ukrainian part-time parish I do no latinizations, nor does my icon corner have any. I have Western Catholic things of course as a Roman Riter but I keep them separate.) My impression is ROCOR pushes russification (the jurisdiction was always meant as a refuge for Russians*) and there's social pressure for the Antiochian WR to byzantinize.

*Fine with me... if you're in the universal church under Rome.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
I think it's fair to say that Byzantine chauvinism is a real problem and there is a certain lack of commitment to propagating western rite among our bishops who have allowed it. The requirement of leavened bread and the Byzantine epiclesis, among other things, are pretty good indicators that those in charge of WR don't regard the ancient Latin church as equally orthodox, however much they might say that. And then of course when very large Latin-tradition communities joined the Church, in the Philippines and Guatemala, the WR doesn't seem to be even considered an option- they are promptly Byzantinized. I wish the promise of WR were taken more seriously.

That said I don't buy into the narrative that people of a given culture need their own ritual style or that there are such massive differences between eastern and western rites. And these differences become less meaningful as people from all cultures continue to blend and reconfigure with one another.  So long as the gospel is completely conveyed one rite is as good as another.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Sharbel said:
The young fogey said:
I see in WR something obviously recently set up for converts and heavily byzantinized (crossing oneself right to left, "Khouria" and "Matushka" [I thought you didn't have to turn Russian etc. if you did this, per the famous quotation from John of Shanghai and San Francisco], "the Liturgy of St. Gregory" instead of "the Roman Rite Mass," etc.; I think even the icons are a byzantinization).
[list type=decimal]
[*]Romans crossed themselves from right to left at least until the 13th century.
[*]There were several distinct liturgies in the Roman Church, regrettably reduced to the one from the city of Rome by the Council of Trent.  If anything, by referring to it as the liturgy of St. Gregory, it leaves the door open to revitalize other Western liturgies, especially the liturgy of St. Ambrose.
[*]The Byzantine style was also the style of Rome and it only began to change with the Gothic style of the 12th century.  It's easy to notice this in museums.
[/list]
However, I still prefer the Eastern over the Western liturgies, which use a language when addressing the Lord that is more familial and less legal.
Factcheck: the Ambrosian Rite is alive and well, and virtually all churches in Milan and several in the surrounding area use it instead of the Roman Rite.  One church preserves the Ambrosian Rite in its pre-1969 form, although the impact of the Novus Ordo on the Ambrosian Rite seems, at the Duomo at least, to have been less destructive than elsewhere.  Google the Rira del Nuova for a spectacular Ambrosian service held on the Feast of the Elevation of the Holy Cross (Sep 14).

The Mozarabic Rite also survives in two parishes and in a chapel of the Toledo Cathedral, where it is served daily.  IIRC Pope John Paul II on two occasions, with assistance from the canons of the Toledo Cathedral, served the Mozarabic mass at St. Peter's in Rome.

The Dominican Rite liturgy, which is also different from the standard Roman Rite, thought to be closer to the old Gallican Rite, or a simplification of it, is celebrated in a few places around the world, most notably at some Dominican chapels in and around the Bay Area in California.

The Portuguese Rite of Braga is endangered but not extinct.

The Carmelite liturgy, which also differs from the normal Tridentine Rite, was recently revived at a traditional Carmelite monastery in Wyoming.

The Rite of Lyons is alas recently extinct; it alone fell out of use comppetely as a result of the Novus Ordo,

The Sarum Rite and the Rite of York have been reconstructed to varying extents by Anglo Catholics.  Also the Spanish-speaking Anglicans in Spain and Mexico used rhe Mozarabic Rite as the basis for their Book of Common Prayer.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Iconodule said:
I think it's fair to say that Byzantine chauvinism is a real problem and there is a certain lack of commitment to propagating western rite among our bishops who have allowed it. The requirement of leavened bread and the Byzantine epiclesis, among other things, are pretty good indicators that those in charge of WR don't regard the ancient Latin church as equally orthodox, however much they might say that. And then of course when very large Latin-tradition communities joined the Church, in the Philippines and Guatemala, the WR doesn't seem to be even considered an option- they are promptly Byzantinized. I wish the promise of WR were taken more seriously.

That said I don't buy into the narrative that people of a given culture need their own ritual style or that there are such massive differences between eastern and western rites. And these differences become less meaningful as people from all cultures continue to blend and reconfigure with one another.  So long as the gospel is completely conveyed one rite is as good as another.
+1
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Thank you, Iconodule.

I like the Antiochian version of WR better because of course it seems less hostile to Catholicism; it's like 1950s American Anglo-Catholicism (basically pre-Vatican II Catholicism in English but theologically nonpapal, believing in something it thought was Anglicanism) under new management. The WR priest I used to know was just like that.

Alpha60: There have been Catholic re-enactments of Sarum too.
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,706
Reaction score
227
Points
63
Age
29
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
Sharbel said:
The young fogey said:
I see in WR something obviously recently set up for converts and heavily byzantinized (crossing oneself right to left, "Khouria" and "Matushka" [I thought you didn't have to turn Russian etc. if you did this, per the famous quotation from John of Shanghai and San Francisco], "the Liturgy of St. Gregory" instead of "the Roman Rite Mass," etc.; I think even the icons are a byzantinization).
[list type=decimal]
[*]Romans crossed themselves from right to left at least until the 13th century.
[*]There were several distinct liturgies in the Roman Church, regrettably reduced to the one from the city of Rome by the Council of Trent.  If anything, by referring to it as the liturgy of St. Gregory, it leaves the door open to revitalize other Western liturgies, especially the liturgy of St. Ambrose.
[*]The Byzantine style was also the style of Rome and it only began to change with the Gothic style of the 12th century.  It's easy to notice this in museums.
[/list]
However, I still prefer the Eastern over the Western liturgies, which use a language when addressing the Lord that is more familial and less legal.
+1 for all, all.
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The young fogey said:
A beautiful Gregorian-chant Mass every Sunday, Benedictine abbeys (the most Orthodox kind of Western monasticism), local saints and devotions, etc.
Germany does have a WRO Benedictine monastery. It only goes back to 1980, though. https://www.benediktinerkloster-eisbergen.com

The young fogey said:
"Khouria" and "Matushka"
Please suggest a Latin word for a priest's wife.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
The young fogey said:
Romanesque and early Byzantine had some resemblance, sure, but I'm not buying the byzantinocentrism...
I had in mind the pictorial style, not so much the architectural one.  And, though not identical, the one trait that changed remarkably in Western sacred art is that the representations have progressively become more markedly sentimentalist, especially from the Renaissance on.


I wish that I could link to three Italian paintings in my local art museum depicting the Mother of God.  If memory serves, one, from the 11th century could be mistaken for a Byzantine icon if one squints.  Another, from the 14th century shed any trait of the Byzantine style, though retaining many characteristics of an icon, except for the smiling Madonna.  Finally, the one from the 17th century is a departure from both unabashedly displays sentimentality as its main trait.  In a way, Western sacred art used to invite silent prayer, but later was content with merely provoking pious feelings, perhaps indicating a change of function of sacred art in the West.  Then again, I'm no art expert.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Alpha60 said:
Factcheck...
Most, if not all, of recent revitalization, methinks. Trent even abolished (as in burning liturgical books and all) the liturgy of St. James in the Maronite Church in favor of the Roman liturgy (so much for communion with Rome since the 4th century)!  After VII, it took Pope PVI to insist that the bishop of Milan, his previous see, would not do away with the Ambrosian liturgy completely.
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
Gorazd said:
The young fogey said:
"Khouria" and "Matushka"
Please suggest a Latin word for a priest's wife.
+1

To start using one out of the blue - when such hasn't been the living tradition in any Western community - wouldn't be indicative of any authentically Western or "rooted" community.  It would smack of LARPing.  Some guy in Cleveland tipping his hat and saying, "Salvete, Mater".  Give me a break.  It makes you want to give Amatorus a purple nurple.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Western usage in English: "Mrs. Smith/Ann, the priest's wife."

There might be a Latin term for it but why use it except in Vatican documents?
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
The young fogey said:
Western usage in English: "Mrs. Smith/Ann, the priest's wife."
I like the idea of giving the priest's wife a distinctive title in deference to the sacrifices she's making for the community by making her husband's ministry possible.  She's not just another lady in the parish.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
And Byzantine Rite cultures having that is fine.

So what if Western usage doesn't?

Back to "if you become Orthodox, you don't have to adopt another culture," right?
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
The young fogey said:
And Byzantine Rite cultures having that is fine.

So what if Western usage doesn't?

Back to "if you become Orthodox, you don't have to adopt another culture," right?
I don't think it's necessarily born of a desire to be Byzantine.  The Coptic and other non-Byzantine cultures have it as well.  I'm sure you'll object that they're also "Eastern" (which, if you do, would be a very expansive use of the term), but if Western Christians practicing Orthodoxy want to honor their priest's wives, I don't think this necessarily means they want to "adopt another culture".  It seems to me the most natural and respectful thing in the world.  I don't know if the historical record bears this out or not, but isn't it possible that such a tradition simply died out in the West with the married priesthood?
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Yes, they're all Eastern, which partly explains the recent rapprochement among these groups, who once saw each other as being as much outside the church and its enemy as they do Catholicism.

It seems to me the most natural and respectful thing in the world.
Shouldn't this be up to the Westerners themselves, with no pressure from russifiers et al.?
 

Arachne

Matriarch
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
12,468
Reaction score
245
Points
63
Age
48
Location
Camulodunum
The young fogey said:
So what if Western usage doesn't?
Languages borrow from one another all the time. Why is the particular loan such a big deal to you?
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
36
The young fogey said:
Western usage in English: "Mrs. Smith/Ann, the priest's wife."
Presbyter and presbyteress?
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Languages borrow from one another all the time. Why is the particular loan such a big deal to you?
I know. I love languages. Because obviously these people think they have to russify or arabize to be Orthodox, and they're susceptible to that, being converts in the falling-in-love stage of the relationship: "Woo hoo! We're Orthodox! We're Orthodox!" And having known ROCOR for a while, my guess is they encourage that russification. (I know Russian but not fluently, and much of my Byzantine practice is Russian. I'm not knocking the Russians, just Byzantine chauvinism.)

Presbyter and presbyteress?
Serviceable but contrived in English.
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
The young fogey said:
Yes, they're all Eastern, which partly explains the recent rapprochement among these groups, who once saw each other as being as much outside the church and its enemy as they do Catholicism.
I think it has more to do with the fact that we actually share the same theology and spirituality, which neither of us share with Rome, but that is peripheral to the issue we're discussing.

The young fogey said:
It seems to me the most natural and respectful thing in the world.
Shouldn't this be up to the Westerners themselves, with no pressure from russifiers et al.?
Who says "russifiers" pressured them into it?  Presumably, Westerners have minds of their own, right?

Arachne said:
The young fogey said:
So what if Western usage doesn't?
Languages borrow from one another all the time. Why is the particular loan such a big deal to you?
+1

The young fogey said:
Languages borrow from one another all the time. Why is the particular loan such a big deal to you?
I know. I love languages. Because obviously these people think they have to russify or arabize to be Orthodox, and they're susceptible to that, being converts in the falling-in-love stage of the relationship: "Woo hoo! We're Orthodox! We're Orthodox!" And having known ROCOR for a while, my guess is they encourage that russification. (I know Russian but not fluently, and much of my Byzantine practice is Russian. I'm not knocking the Russians, just Byzantine chauvinism.)
I think that's presumptuous of you.  The fact of the matter is that Orthodoxy unfortunately fell away in the West and that these people entered it via the Eastern traditions in which it was preserved.  If they pick up a loanword or two in the process, that doesn't mean they aren't as authentically Western as you are.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
See, I can imagine an Orthodoxy that's not byzantinized, basically Catholicism with a few things cut out, a lot like High Anglicanism. It seems that most of the Orthodox can't or don't want to.

So all of the Eastern churches have the same theology? The late Metropolitan Philaret, first hierarch of ROCOR, wouldn't let Copts have services at Jordanville.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Sharbel said:
Alpha60 said:
Factcheck...
Most, if not all, of recent revitalization, methinks. Trent even abolished (as in burning liturgical books and all) the liturgy of St. James in the Maronite Church in favor of the Roman liturgy (so much for communion with Rome since the 4th century)!  After VII, it took Pope PVI to insist that the bishop of Milan, his previous see, would not do away with the Ambrosian liturgy completely.
This is simply untrue re: Milan.  While it is true some Popes tried to eliminate it, none succeeded, and its continued existence was assured via St. Carlos Borromeo.  Actually shortly after his death, an effort was made to expand the Ambrosian Rite deep into southern Switzerland, but this enraged the locals, who said "We are either Romans, or Lutherans."

The only Latin liturgical rite which did not survive Vatican II was that of Lyons.

Now, regarding Trent, Trent officially proscribed only those liturgical rites which had been existence for less than 200 years.  The old English liturgical rites of Sarum, York and Durham were at that time already extinct, due to Anglicanism, although they would be revived from surviving service books in the same Anglican church in the 19th century.  The Tridentine canon was intended to suppress a proliferation of monastic and urban usages and prevent local bishops and abbots from tinkering with the liturgy. 

I think it was in general a mistake, but the greater mistake on the part of Rome was ordaining bishops
and abbots who could not be trusted with liturgical prudence.  Thus, no Roman monasteries are able to legitimately experiment with liturgical uses that would represent a "reform of the reform" at least not without special permission of the Congregation of Divine Worship.*

The extreme Latinization of the Maronite Rite was a sepaeate process, and was part of an overall pattern of Latinizing the Eastern Catholic liturgies which only came to a stop in the late 19th century, and which only began to be reversed on a meaningful scale post-Vatican II.

*I could be wrong on this point, but my understanding is the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship is part of the Roman patriarchate, specific to it, and does not (any longer) exercise jurisdiction over the Sui Juris Eastern Catholic churches, who now have true autonomy with regards to their liturgical usages.  The exception would be the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church in Sicilly, which is not Sui Juris, but integrated into the local diocesan structure.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
The young fogey said:
See, I can imagine an Orthodoxy that's not byzantinized, basically Catholicism with a few things cut out, a lot like High Anglicanism. It seems that most of the Orthodox can't or don't want to.

So all of the Eastern churches have the same theology? The late Metropolitan Philaret, first hierarch of ROCOR, wouldn't let Copts have services at Jordanville.
There is a disrinction between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.  Furthermore, Metropolitan Philaret was opposed to ecumenism and the New Calendar, and during his tenure ROCOR was basically an Old Calendarist jurisdiction, not in communion with the canonical EO churches.  It was only in 2007 that ROCOR re-entered this communion by becoming an autonomous Metropolis of the Russian Orthodox Church, which infuriated some members and caused a few parishes to storm out in separate groups, for example, ROCA-A under Metropolitan Agafangel, who I have met.  A loving man.  However, I think it would have been better had these groups remained in ROCOR.  None of the dire predictions of Muscovitization, Rennovation and Sergianism made by the Old Calendarists have come to pass, and ROCOR is one of the most conservative and liturgically the most talented of the EO churches.

I suggest you read The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia to get an introduction to the lay of the land in Eastern Orthodoxy, and then for an overview of all of the Eastern churches and the differences in communion, try the Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity.  The relevant chapters in the Oxford Handbook of Christian Worship are also very good, and useful.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Alpha60 said:
There is a distinction between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.
I know. I was responding to Antonious Nikolas, who wrote that "we actually share the same theology and spirituality."
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
The young fogey said:
See, I can imagine an Orthodoxy that's not byzantinized, basically Catholicism with a few things cut out, a lot like High Anglicanism. It seems that most of the Orthodox can't or don't want to.
Comgratulations, you just described the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate.  Read the services here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131227033713/http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgics.html

The ROCOR Western Rite is more likely to feature Russidications, in part due to the Holy Synod of ROCOR expressing a desire to integrate the Western Rite parishes more fully into the liturgical life of the Russian church, in response to the disobedience of Bishop Jerome Shaw, and Monk Anthony Bondi, who were retired and suppressed, respectively.  HG Jerome conducted a mass ordination in defiance of instructions not to.

Before that incident, the ROCOR Western Rite was, and I believe still is, driven by a desire to recreate the worship of the Western church using ancienr manuscripts and manuscript fragments of service books, and with the assumption of some level of compatibility with the Byzantine Rite which it was believed Rome had suppressed. 

On the other hand, the Antiochian WRV simply modified the Western uses to make them compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy.  Thus, they have two liturgies: a modified BCP Communion Service, called the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, because St. Tikhon of Moscow headed a committee of the prewar Russian Orthodox Church which evaluated the Book of Common Prayer with a view to determining whether it could be used in Orthodox worship, and that committee produced a list of several required changes, which the Antiochian WRV implemented.  The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory is a minor modification of the Tridentine mass, sung in the vernacular follloeomg the Anglo Catholic tradition set out by The English Missal, et cetera, and with minor changes like the insertion of a more explicit epiclesis.

The Antiochian WRV is the larger of the two, considerably larger than the ROCOR Western Rite, and was a breakaway Anglo Catholic association of priests and parishes which were received into the Antiochian Orthodox Church, if memory serves, in the late 1940s, during the reign of His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony Bashir.  St. Rafael Hawaheeny, who was the Antiochian ruling bishop in America in the 1910s, himself was part of a group seeking unity with the Episcopal Church, but he pulled out when he discovered the large number of low church parishes which continued to insist on a literal adherence to the Protestant aspects of the Book of Common Prayer; in his letter in the subject he expresses a feeling of having been somewhat deceived, in that the recomciliation committee of which he was a part downplayed the existence of the low church, evangelical wing of the Episcopal Church.

 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
The young fogey said:
Alpha60 said:
There is a distinction between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.
I know. I was responding to Antonious Nikolas, who wrote that "we actually share the same theology and spirituality."
And on this point AN was entirely correct.  Metropolitan Philaret was in error; during his tenure, ROCOR was militantly opposed to ecumenism (see the Sorrowful Epistles) and not in communion with the canonical EO churches.

Also, interestingly enough, I have heard there is a ROCOR parish in Alberta, or somewhere in Western Canada, which shares its building with the local Coptic community.  My local Syriac Orthodox parish shares a building with the OCA.  And this pattern is not uncommon.  In the Middle East, Syriac Orthodox and Antiochians have been able to commune in each others churches on a limited basis since 1991, and a similiar degree of limited intercommunion exists between the Coptic and Greek Popes of Alexandria.

Only a tiny minority of EOs object to reunification with the OOs, second rate scholars like Nicholas Marinides and  bishops of extreme opinion, like Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.  Reunification is happening, whereas in the case of Orthodox-Catholic relations, it might not happen.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Comgratulations, you just described the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.
Almost. They are basically 1950s American Anglo-Catholicism under new management except for the byzantinizations. It's not just under new management; it too is under some pressure to adopt another culture. So they end up with clerical beards, "Khouria," icons all over the walls, censers swung the Byzantine way, and crossing themselves right to left.

ROCOR's guiding principles for WR seem to be "make them Russian" and "if they're not Russian yet, okay, as long as it's not Catholic." They have an Anglican Book of Common Prayer-based service that's not like the AWRV's 1950s Catholic-like Anglican missal.

Alpha60, so who in Orthodoxy decides who is right, you, bishops such as the late Metropolitan Philaret, someone else, or nobody? Seems there's no consensus among the Orthodox regarding the Oriental Orthodox.
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The young fogey said:
clerical beards
They still ordain unbearded men. See http://antiochian.org/newly-ordained-western-rite-priest
Even in the Eastern Rite, Antioch, along with Romania, seems to be the jurisdiction most open to unbearded clergy.

And btw, beards are just fashionable nowadays. I even see a lot of RC NOM priests wearing beards recently.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
It's obviously an affectation, a byzantinization. I know many American Orthodox have had clean-shaven priests, fairly common before the 1970s. You had the Slavic ex-Catholics in what's now the OCA and in ACROD, and the Greeks did it too; I've met older ones. I think Archbishop Tikhon circa 1900 gave priests in America permission to trim beards if, as happened, they needed secular jobs for enough money.
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
The young fogey said:
See, I can imagine an Orthodoxy that's not byzantinized, basically Catholicism with a few things cut out, a lot like High Anglicanism. It seems that most of the Orthodox can't or don't want to.
Why would you want to?  Aren't you a convinced Roman Catholic?  I am fine with the Western Rite, but as I understand it, those EO who aren't don't object to it on the basis of cultural bigotry, as you seem to think, but because of the fact that Orthodoxy died out in the West and that the Church survived exclusively in a variety of Eastern cultural contexts.  You may not like that perspective, but then again, you think the Catholic Church is the Church, so...

The young fogey said:
So all of the Eastern churches have the same theology? The late Metropolitan Philaret, first hierarch of ROCOR, wouldn't let Copts have services at Jordanville.
Don't be a jerk.  You're the one who mentioned "the recent rapprochement" out of the blue - when it really has nothing to do with what we were discussing - and attributed it (partly) to some nebulous shared Eastern culture.  If you think Russians feel culturally closer to Indians and Ethiopians than they do Italians, you're probably high.  If you doubt that the EO and OO share the same theology, you can investigate the various documents produced by various dialogues between the two families.  I don't think what you're hinting at here, that the EO and the RC should be the ones having the rapprochement but that cultural bigotry is holding it up - meanwhile, the EO are happy to hug it out with their fellow Easterners who are actually further removed from them theologically than the Catholics are - has any merit whatsoever.
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The young fogey said:
I think Archbishop Tikhon circa 1900 gave priests in America permission to trim beards if, as happened, they needed secular jobs for enough money.
You realise that there is a difference between trimming and shaving? I suppose most priests have trimmed beards nowadays. But cleanshaven "ees outrage". Anyway, I consider beards to be natural and I would encourage every man to wear one, except for those where there is a an urgent necessity not to wear one, let's say firefighters who need to wear special facial masks for work etc.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
Antonious Nikolas said:
The young fogey said:
See, I can imagine an Orthodoxy that's not byzantinized, basically Catholicism with a few things cut out, a lot like High Anglicanism. It seems that most of the Orthodox can't or don't want to.
Why would you want to?  Aren't you a convinced Roman Catholic?
Because I am willing to learn from other churches on anything other than doctrine and because I think I have an imagination.

But cleanshaven "ees outrage".
But Gorazd, lots of American Orthodox priests have done it. Philadelphia had Fr. John Bohush, for example, whom I think went from career Air Force to pastor of an OCA parish for decades.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
The young fogey said:
Alpo said:
The young fogey said:
Apologists for WR say you don't have to adopt a foreign culture to be Orthodox but many of the WR do just that; this is an example.
They don't have to but it's not particularly dangerous if they do. Me eating hamburgers doesn't make me American. People don't live in a vacuum.
Like it's not heretical in Catholicism for Ukrainian Catholics to have statues and rosaries in church but it's rude to the Byzantine Rite and the Catholic Church doesn't encourage that. (At my Ukrainian part-time parish I do no latinizations, nor does my icon corner have any. I have Western Catholic things of course as a Roman Riter but I keep them separate.) My impression is ROCOR pushes russification (the jurisdiction was always meant as a refuge for Russians*) and there's social pressure for the Antiochian WR to byzantinize.

*Fine with me... if you're in the universal church under Rome.
the Vatican is not universal, just a large parochial community.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
The Vatican is not universal, just a large parochial community.
This church doesn't seem provincial to me. My archdiocese has a Korean-language national parish. I drove by it today.
 

AntoniousNikolas

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
7,237
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
East Coast, USA
The young fogey said:
Because I am willing to learn from other churches on anything other than doctrine
Are the names one calls the priest's wife a matter of doctrine?

The young fogey said:
and because I think I have an imagination.
I see we're approaching this from totally different angles then.  For me, this is about a living community, the souls who are a part of the Orthodox Western Rite movement.  For you, it's all academic, so much forum discussion, theorizing, imagining, and bloviating.  I guess this is why I don't mind the living people in Western Rite communities using Eastern loanwords - since they entered Orthodoxy via the only place it actually survived - the East - whereas you're hung up on your theoretical Western Rite practitioners maintaining absolute cultural purity with no hint of Eastern influence, however benign, whatsoever.
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The young fogey said:
But Gorazd, lots of American Orthodox priests have done it. Philadelphia had Fr. John Bohush, for example, whom I think went from career Air Force to pastor of an OCA parish for decades.
I am not here to judge anyone. Also, I am not related to the USA in any way.
However, I do think wearing a beard is natural, and the Church Fathers are quite clear on the topic. Not just for clergy, but for anyone. So I do think wearing a beard is a good idea. And in Western Rite people do it, I understand they are basically returning to an older tradition.

I wonder when and why Rome introduced cleanshaving?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top