Western Rite Justification

[Bizzlebin]

Let me start out first by saying that I am greatly in favor of having a Western Rite in Orthodoxy. I speak Latin, have an intense devotion to some pre-Schism western Saints, and so forth. However, I am seeing some inconsistencies, and I am not sure if all them have been addressed before. Basically, I am looking for pre-Schism justification of these practices:

-Cleaning the Chalice after each communicant

-Kneeling on Sundays

Further, I am having trouble understanding their practice of communion. They justify it with a small number of eastern fathers, yet the western fathers all teach a different method!

I also recall something about an Anglican liturgy being used, could someone expand more on it's origins?

And lastly, when were pews introduced into the West? I cannot seem to find the date.

Thanks!

EDIT: And I forgot to ask, when was the left to right crossing first started?

 

[Bizzlebin]

Almost 20 days and no responses? Someone has to know

 

[BrotherAidan]

personally, I miss kneeling and I was protestant, not Catholic (but we did kneel some)

It is entirely a cultural matter. In the east one shows respect for the king by standing. In the west one did so by kneeling. If the Christian faith was introduced to a culture in which one showed respect by stooping, or by standing on one leg and patting one's head for that matter, would you make them stand or let them do the cultural expression in the liturgy?

I think wiping the cup is a concesson to modern sensibilities about germs and has no thelogical/liturgical significance. But if it makes Mrs. Jones and her kids more comfortable about receiving the eucharist after gross old Mr. Smith just partook, then by all means, wipe the cup.

Crossing left to right was barbarian peasants mirroring the motion of the priest making the sign of the cross. In the east there were centuries of tradition passed down in a stable empire with much culture. In the west there were constant waves of new people groups invading, then being evangelized and civilized. So as priest do you get them to accept the basics of the Christian faith, attend liturgy, receive the eucharist with a modicum of understanding, not settle every dispute with a mortal blood fight, get them to stop raping and pillaging, or teach them to cross properly?

St. Tikhon adapted the Anglican liturgy corrected to make it Orthodox. He essentially thought that western Christians should be western rite and immigrants eastern rite.

Pews I don't know about. I don't think Calvin's church in Geneva had them. They were probably introduced by the Puritans or something along that line.

I think it gets too easy to out-think ourselves and mistake cultural expressions for unchangeable holy tradition.

 

[Bizzlebin]

It is entirely a cultural matter. In the east one shows respect for the king by standing. In the west one did so by kneeling. If the Christian faith was introduced to a culture in which one showed respect by stooping, or by standing on one leg and patting one's head for that matter, would you make them stand or let them do the cultural expression in the liturgy?

I'm not sure I buy that one. Seeing as it is not only something that the western bishops approved, but was made a canon there must be a little more than that.

 

[BrotherAidan]

Well hey, at least I replied!

But seriously, canons can be updated, fine-tuned, if not out-right changed by later canons, correct?
So, even there there is room for cultural expression over time.

 

[Bizzlebin]

Well hey, at least I replied!

But seriously, canons can be updated, fine-tuned, if not out-right changed by later canons, correct?

So, even there there is room for cultural expression over time.

True

I can't recall a canon ever changing, maybe someone could correct me if I am wrong. There are cases of economia, yes, and then those who think the canons don't apply to them and outright reject them, but I don't remember any changes.

In fact, many canons explicitly make references to superceding the customs of certain areas, hence the canons trump culture.

 

[choirfiend]

But canons were created in specific situations, times, places, etc. They may not have ever been applicable in a place that didn't have a problem related to the canon, and the application of said canon is for the bishop, not the layperson, to worry about.

 

[Psalti Boy]

You refer to pre schism times.  The church was originally Orthodox.  So are you saying that we have changed things and that is what you miss?

 

[Bizzlebin]

But canons were created in specific situations, times, places, etc. They may not have ever been applicable in a place that didn't have a problem related to the canon, and the application of said canon is for the bishop, not the layperson, to worry about.

Which Ecumenical Council ever changed a canon? Or "re-applied" them differently?

 

[Bizzlebin]

You refer to pre schism times.  The church was originally Orthodox.  So are you saying that we have changed things and that is what you miss?

That is what I am trying to figure out. The western part of the Church was generally Orthodox in earlier pre-schism times, without a doubt. The only question is whether the Western Rite is that pre-schism Orthodoxy, or something else...

 

[Beayf]

I think wiping the cup is a concesson to modern sensibilities about germs and has no thelogical/liturgical significance.

This ensures that no Blood drips down the outside of the chalice, and that none remains on the lip of the chalice to be smeared on the face of the next communicant. When ER clergy take communion in the altar, they wipe down the chalice after drinking from it as well.

Crossing left to right was barbarian peasants mirroring the motion of the priest making the sign of the cross.

I'd bet our Coptic posters here would have something to say about that.

Pews I don't know about. I don't think Calvin's church in Geneva had them. They were probably introduced by the Puritans or something along that line.

Old Believers have benches. Pews are merely a logical expansion of choir stalls for the benefit of the faithful. The fuss that is made over them is amazing.

 

[Bizzlebin]

Old Believers have benches. Pews are merely a logical expansion of choir stalls for the benefit of the faithful. The fuss that is made over them is amazing.

Only problem is that Western Rite is supposed to be modelled after the pre-schism western Church, not Russia.

 

[Landon77]

Only problem is that Western Rite is supposed to be modelled after the pre-schism western Church, not Russia.

No, it isn't.  The Antiochian's WRV doesn't not strive to revive what isn't beneficial to the Orthodox Christians.

 

[Bizzlebin]

No, it isn't.  The Antiochian's WRV doesn't not strive to revive what isn't beneficial to the Orthodox Christians.

First, how can it decide what is and wasn't beneficial out of Holy Tradition?

But my main question is, why do they call it Western Rite if it isn't about Western Orthodoxy? And if it isn't about Western Orthodoxy, what is it about?

 

[Pedro]

First, how can it decide what is and wasn't beneficial out of Holy Tradition?

They didn't.  The bishops that allowed them to enter into the Orthodox Church took their existing liturgies and fixed what was broken, allowing what was still in harmony with the universal teachings of the Church (the vast, vast majority of the rites, in other words) to remain as it was  What's interesting to me is that, in the three years I've lived near (and visited often) the WR parish here in town is that, even though the way it worships is unmistakeably western, it is neither Roman Catholic nor Anglican/Episcopalian; it is something altogether different: unique, western expressions within the Church of Her belief.

But my main question is, why do they call it Western Rite if it isn't about Western Orthodoxy? And if it isn't about Western Orthodoxy, what is it about?

I think you mistake contemporary Western Orthodox for "all the stuff they did in the West, pre-1054."  The former is not meant to be the latter, and the latter is not meant to be what we refer to when we talk about "western Orthodoxy."  The Western Rite in the AOAA and the ROCOR is about Western Orthodoxy, precisely!  But that is to say, it is about confessing Christians, who are participants in living liturgical traditions, being grafted into the True Church and bringing their expressions with them; organic change that has as its cause the Holy Spirit within Orthodoxy will then follow (and, indeed, is following, ime) so that WRO parishes "come into their own" and profess their own distinctive experience of Orthodoxy together with the rest of Christ's Church.

 

[Bizzlebin]

They didn't.  The bishops that allowed them to enter into the Orthodox Church took their existing liturgies and fixed what was broken, allowing what was still in harmony with the universal teachings of the Church (the vast, vast majority of the rites, in other words) to remain as it was  What's interesting to me is that, in the three years I've lived near (and visited often) the WR parish here in town is that, even though the way it worships is unmistakeably western, it is neither Roman Catholic nor Anglican/Episcopalian; it is something altogether different: unique, western expressions within the Church of Her belief.

I think you mistake contemporary Western Orthodox for "all the stuff they did in the West, pre-1054."  The former is not meant to be the latter, and the latter is not meant to be what we refer to when we talk about "western Orthodoxy."  The Western Rite in the AOAA and the ROCOR is about Western Orthodoxy, precisely!  But that is to say, it is about confessing Christians, who are participants in living liturgical traditions, being grafted into the True Church and bringing their expressions with them; organic change that has as its cause the Holy Spirit within Orthodoxy will then follow (and, indeed, is following, ime) so that WRO parishes "come into their own" and profess their own distinctive experience of Orthodoxy together with the rest of Christ's Church.

Ok, I guess I can understand this, but is there any canonical statement on the matter? I mean, you could worship standing on your head and bring that into the Orthodox Church, with what your saying. It seems there must be some sort of limit.

I can see this to some degree as well. However, how does salvaging a heretical system take them back to the fathers, as in, where is there spiritual connection to Orthodoxy? It seems as if it is creating a "forced union" so to speak, something unnatural. Also, I was taught that Orthodoxy was following the faith of the fathers, in the sense of letting go of our own ideas (which are often heretical or downright silly) about God and worship, not bringing one's own faith and then adding a touch of the fathers into the mix. It seems man-centered, backwards.

And I am most concerned about the canonical violations, especially those dealing with the Eucharist, if someone could address them. These violations carry the penalty of excommunication, and yet they seem to be proclaimed and practiced regularly!

Finally, why didn't Western Rite actually try to build upon the real western Church and it's customs?

 

[Landon77]

Do you supose that when the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox are re-united in communion that one will be forced to give up their whole liturgy in favore of another's?  I think not!  Neither would the Catholic Church be expected to become Byzantine to join us in communion.  Should Russians be using Greek chant styles?  How much change in the liturgy is OK before we've gone too far? Do we need canons specifing how long it should take to say the Our Father before it is considered dragging or too fast? The Western liturgies may look so odd to you because they are not as developed.  For example, they don't use lanterns, they use tourches.  I started in the WR because it was the only one near by, but I've come to love it.  And despite what many may believe, I've had no trouble adjusting to the ER liturgy (I moved).
And it isn't as if the WR was taken out of thin air.  It was St. Tikhon who first asked the Moscow Synod to examine the Anglican liturgy because he had come to love it.  (I forget the circumstances, but he spent time worshiping with the local Episcopalians- they weren't so liberal back then).

 

[Bizzlebin]

Do you supose that when the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox are re-united in communion that one will be forced to give up their whole liturgy in favore of another's?  I think not! Neither would the Catholic Church be expected to become Byzantine to join us in communion.  Should Russians be using Greek chant styles?  How much change in the liturgy is OK before we've gone too far? Do we need canons specifing how long it should take to say the Our Father before it is considered dragging or too fast? The Western liturgies may look so odd to you because they are not as developed.  For example, they don't use lanterns, they use tourches.  I started in the WR because it was the only one near by, but I've come to love it.  And despite what many may believe, I've had no trouble adjusting to the ER liturgy (I moved).

And it isn't as if the WR was taken out of thin air.  It was St. Tikhon who first asked the Moscow Synod to examine the Anglican liturgy because he had come to love it.  (I forget the circumstances, but he spent time worshiping with the local Episcopalians- they weren't so liberal back then).

I am not talking about the level of development here. Nor am I talking about the language, using different styles of chant, or even different pre-schism liturgies. Rather, I am wondering why these things in the WR did not come from Orthodoxy, but rather heretics. Even in the case of certain Orthodox things, it seems that the reason for including them had nothing to do with Orthodoxy, either, but is was coincidence. So it's not just a question of the usage, but also of the reasoning behind the usage.

Well, I am not sure sure someone who worships with non-Orthodox, again something excommunicatable (I see a pattern) by even loose Orthodox standards, is a proper judge of these things. This is quite honestly beginning to remind me of Uniatism. We all know how perilous the situation is with "eastern rite" churches under the Pope, even by their own admission, why are we starting up our own version of the same thing we protest?

 

[Landon77]

They did come from Orthodoxy.  If you live near Denver, you should visit one of the WR parishes there.  Right in that area there are three.

 

[BrotherAidan]

All apologies to Non-chalcedonian Orthodox brothers and sisters. If the Western Church practice of crossing left-to-right was in a continuum with and extension of the Coptic practice (or vice-versa) then by all means I stand corrected.

I was lead to beleive the Western Church once crossed like the East, but it got corrupted.

But if it is the original, ancient practice in the West, then right on!

Do Coptic Christians place two fingers on their thumb and two on their palm; or thumb and index finger touching and three fingers on the palm; or open-handed?

 

[BrotherAidan]

Could we at least refer to non-Orthodox as heterodox (a term I still really don't care for) or, better yet, as non-Orthodox Christians and refrain from calling them heretics.

 

[Aristibule]

It all depends on the Western tradition - those of us following the English uses do stand for most of the service, and cross the same direction as the Byzantines; both attested in the directives of our ancient Bishops, and as preserved until quite recently as the local tradition in Britain. And, thus the difficulty I find with the critics of the Western rite - they usually focus on one usage. The Byzantine tradition has quite a few variations by locality - so does the Western rite.

 

[Bizzlebin]

They did come from Orthodoxy.  If you live near Denver, you should visit one of the WR parishes there.  Right in that area there are three.

That's not what all the other responses said. Crossing from Coptics, pews from Old Believers (not all that these are wrong to have, but look where they found the inspiration, of all places!), communing from Catholics, liturgy from Anglicans, expressional relativism from the world, and who knows what I missed. If you notice, not ONE thing on that list is from the Orthodox Church! lol, this is frustrating!

I live about 40 minutes from Parker, which is a SE suburb of Denver.

 

[Bizzlebin]

Could we at least refer to non-Orthodox as heterodox (a term I still really don't care for) or, better yet, as non-Orthodox Christians and refrain from calling them heretics.

Heretic is the proper term, let us not beat around the bush. That doesn't imply we shouldn't love them or anything, that is just the word the Church has always used, that is written into her Ecumenical Councils, and will always use.

I think there is a distinction, too. Heterodox may not know they are following false teaching, while heretics often do, and won't change. So, generally all non-Orthodox are heterodox, and many heterodox are heretics.

 

[Bizzlebin]

It all depends on the Western tradition - those of us following the English uses do stand for most of the service, and cross the same direction as the Byzantines; both attested in the directives of our ancient Bishops, and as preserved until quite recently as the local tradition in Britain. And, thus the difficulty I find with the critics of the Western rite - they usually focus on one usage. The Byzantine tradition has quite a few variations by locality - so does the Western rite.

Could you tell me more about the differences? I just know what I have heard here and a few other places. My biggest question would be, does the English use follow the traditional practice of communion?

 

[Pravoslavbob]

And lastly, when were pews introduced into the West? I cannot seem to find the date.

They are a very late addition: the high middle ages, to be exact. 

 

[Beayf]

Crossing from Coptics, pews from Old Believers (not all that these are wrong to have, but look where they found the inspiration, of all places!), communing from Catholics, liturgy from Anglicans, expressional relativism from the world, and who knows what I missed. If you notice, not ONE thing on that list is from the Orthodox Church! lol, this is frustrating!

My points about the crossing and the pews were that analogical practices exist in other rites, not that those rites were the origin of the WR practices. And everything on that list (except "expressional relativism" -- not sure what you're on about re that) is from the Orthodox Church, as those who follow these practices in the context of the Orthodox WR are in fact Orthodox!

It is to the Antiochian and ROCOR bishops' credit that, despite all the ignorance and calumnies about and against the WR, have stuck to their guns and said "these clergy and people are really really Orthodox, and really really aren't going to go away just because you don't like it".

 

[Aristibule]

Could you tell me more about the differences? I just know what I have heard here and a few other places. My biggest question would be, does the English use follow the traditional practice of communion?

That would take some time - what are the motives for asking? And, what do you mean by 'traditional practice of communion'? There are and have been wide variations in the Church over time and place.

The practice varies, but the mode for receiving in the English Use is the same as that in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy of St. James. That is, the chrismated hands of the prepared Orthodox Christian are made into a throne - where the Body of Christ is received and immediately consumed. Then the Blood of Christ is given from the chalice (no implement of gold or silver intervening, in accordance with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church - except for children and the infirm). During all, the white linen houseling cloth is held beneath the chin of members. A variant is after the old Antiochian custom (still some Syrians and Melkites follow) where intinction is given by the priest's own hand. (Note: analogues - the reason why? Because it is the way they've *always* done it.) The fact being, that the preservation of the ancient Byzantine mode in the liturgy of St. James is the same as that preserved in the English uses (thus, the ancient Western mode as well.)

...(except "expressional relativism" -- not sure what you're on about re that)...

It is to the Antiochian and ROCOR bishops' credit that, despite all the ignorance and calumnies about and against the WR, have stuck to their guns and said "these clergy and people are really really Orthodox, and really really aren't going to go away just because you don't like it".

"Expressional relativism" - I think he means cultural relativism, expressional relativism would be a neologism - either way, it is a Post-Modernist terminology and so, means what? Which Church Father warned against 'expressional relativism'? In which case - there isn't any. The facts of tradition handed down, the integrity of rites for those reconciled to the Church, and the fact that differing rites have *always* been allowed (and in fact, stem not only from the differing ways various Apostles prayed all within one tradition - but also inculturation) is expressed by the Church's history. The Western rite is not a development, but a fact of the liturgical history (and Tradition) of the Church - a tradition that is actually *older* than the Byzantine tradition (and, also verifiable by texts older than any existing Byzantine text.) If there is any 'relativism' - it is that of treating all of the Apostles as Apostles, and consistently treating Church Fathers as Church Fathers. (Why do Slavs have Byzantine rite in a Slavic language? For the same reason Slavs have a Roman rite in a Slavic language ... Ss. Cyril & Methodius.)

As for the bishops - it isn't as if they've suffered for 'sticking to their guns' - the opposition is really not all that large, nor representative of Orthodoxy. WRO has saints on its side ... those against the WRITE - what sanctity can they claim?

 

[Bizzlebin]

My points about the crossing and the pews were that analogical practices exist in other rites, not that those rites were the origin of the WR practices. And everything on that list (except "expressional relativism" -- not sure what you're on about re that) is from the Orthodox Church, as those who follow these practices in the context of the Orthodox WR are in fact Orthodox!

It is to the Antiochian and ROCOR bishops' credit that, despite all the ignorance and calumnies about and against the WR, have stuck to their guns and said "these clergy and people are really really Orthodox, and really really aren't going to go away just because you don't like it".

Ok, if they were just examples, that's fine. But that still doesn't answer where they came from. That info would be greatly appraciated.

I am not going to say there isn't a great deal of WR, even in myself, but I don't think that makes everything a misunderstanding.

 

[Bizzlebin]

"Expressional relativism" - I think he means cultural relativism, expressional relativism would be a neologism - either way, it is a Post-Modernist terminology and so, means what? Which Church Father warned against 'expressional relativism'? In which case - there isn't any. The facts of tradition handed down, the integrity of rites for those reconciled to the Church, and the fact that differing rites have *always* been allowed (and in fact, stem not only from the differing ways various Apostles prayed all within one tradition - but also inculturation) is expressed by the Church's history. The Western rite is not a development, but a fact of the liturgical history (and Tradition) of the Church - a tradition that is actually *older* than the Byzantine tradition (and, also verifiable by texts older than any existing Byzantine text.) If there is any 'relativism' - it is that of treating all of the Apostles as Apostles, and consistently treating Church Fathers as Church Fathers. (Why do Slavs have Byzantine rite in a Slavic language? For the same reason Slavs have a Roman rite in a Slavic language ... Ss. Cyril & Methodius.)

As for the bishops - it isn't as if they've suffered for 'sticking to their guns' - the opposition is really not all that large, nor representative of Orthodoxy. WRO has saints on its side ... those against the WRITE - what sanctity can they claim?

I am not talking about different rites within Orthodoxy, but refurbishing heretical systems. Has this ever been done before modern WRO? And by expressional relativism I mean the basic worship of Orthodoxy, not cultural expressions of that worship. Anglicanism and Catholicism are not purely cultural things, they are things of different faiths. As I said before, I am all for integrating parts of western culture, but what seems to be happening is not the integration of western culture, but western religion!

Also, is the canon about not kneeling on Sundays violated in the English use? (20th Canon of Nicea)

 

[Pedro]

That's not what all the other responses said. Crossing from Coptics, pews from Old Believers (not all that these are wrong to have, but look where they found the inspiration, of all places!), communing from Catholics, liturgy from Anglicans, expressional relativism from the world, and who knows what I missed. If you notice, not ONE thing on that list is from the Orthodox Church! lol, this is frustrating!

Wooooah, there, man.  You're making the same mistake that people make when they say that since we use incense and kiss images, and the pagan Greeks did the same things, they must have been the influence on us that caused us to do that.  The WRO didn't "take" the manner of crossing from the Copts; the two traditions happened to develop in the same way, in spite of the fact that they were geographically split by the Byzantines and couldn't influence each other.  Same thing with pews; it was just something that the West decided to do, and it happened to be the same thing that another group, in a totally different part of the world, decided to do, as well.

As for "communing from Catholics," well, there's never been one way of doing that in the entire history of the Church, or rather, there wasn't until the Byzantine usage was imposed on the entire EO communion in the East and Rome left.  Until that point, there was no natural, organic agreement on just how we were going to do that.  So for us to say that there is one clear "Orthodox" way to do this is to misunderstand the role the Byzantine liturgics and rubrics play in our Church.

Regarding liturgy, well, it's already been pointed out that there's more than one WR liturgy--there's the adapted version of the Anglican liturgy (the Rite of St. Tikhon) and the adapted version of the Liturgy of St. Gregory (originally Roman).

Expressional relativism did NOT come from "the world."  MORAL relativism, yes, but this is hardly what we're talking about.  This is merely an acknowledgement that, for the first millenium of Orthodox Church history (and even beyond!) there existed a plethora of liturgical expressions.  Britain, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Constantinople, Alexandria, India, Armenia, Asia--all of these places (some of which, yes, did leave the Eastern Orthodox communion) had radically, dramatically different expressions of the one "skeleton" liturgical tradition that was handed down the Church by the apostles.  Expressional diversity is in no way a hinderance to doctrinal unity.

Now you asked "why these things in the WR did not come from Orthodoxy, but rather heretics."  They may, indeed, have come from those with heretical beliefs.  But look at their origin, man.  They were in communion with us at one time.  How did they worship when they and we shared a common cup?  Is the way they worshipped then comprable to how they worship now?  I say, yes!  Very much so!  So the Church sees that most of the liturgical practices within the WR communities are there because of the history those heterodox communions once had while in the Church Universal.  The Church, then, can "baptize" the current, similar rites as being acceptable to Orthodoxy, and they then become a part (albeit, a new part that needs some getting used to) of our tradition.

One last thing.  You said that "This is quite honestly beginning to remind me of Uniatism. We all know how perilous the situation is with "eastern rite" churches under the Pope, even by their own admission, why are we starting up our own version of the same thing we protest?"  We are NOT trying to do a "reverse uniatism."  We do NOT tell folks that they are "just Episcopalians/Catholics in communion with Constantinople."  We make it clear that they are Orthodox, that their spiritual identity is now tied in with THIS communion and not their old one, and we do NOT actively seek out congregations to "come over."  All movement to the WR at this point has been of the communities' own volition.  We are up front with those who become WR; they know exactly what they're doing...whereas many Uniate situations were done "under the table," without the people knowing what exactly was going on.  Two different worlds.

 

[Bizzlebin]

Wooooah, there, man.  You're making the same mistake that people make when they say that since we use incense and kiss images, and the pagan Greeks did the same things, they must have been the influence on us that caused us to do that.  The WRO didn't "take" the manner of crossing from the Copts; the two traditions happened to develop in the same way, in spite of the fact that they were geographically split by the Byzantines and couldn't influence each other.  Same thing with pews; it was just something that the West decided to do, and it happened to be the same thing that another group, in a totally different part of the world, decided to do, as well.

As for "communing from Catholics," well, there's never been one way of doing that in the entire history of the Church, or rather, there wasn't until the Byzantine usage was imposed on the entire EO communion in the East and Rome left.  Until that point, there was no natural, organic agreement on just how we were going to do that.  So for us to say that there is one clear "Orthodox" way to do this is to misunderstand the role the Byzantine liturgics and rubrics play in our Church.

Regarding liturgy, well, it's already been pointed out that there's more than one WR liturgy--there's the adapted version of the Anglican liturgy (the Rite of St. Tikhon) and the adapted version of the Liturgy of St. Gregory (originally Roman).

Expressional relativism did NOT come from "the world."  MORAL relativism, yes, but this is hardly what we're talking about.  This is merely an acknowledgement that, for the first millenium of Orthodox Church history (and even beyond!) there existed a plethora of liturgical expressions.  Britain, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Constantinople, Alexandria, India, Armenia, Asia--all of these places (some of which, yes, did leave the Eastern Orthodox communion) had radically, dramatically different expressions of the one "skeleton" liturgical tradition that was handed down the Church by the apostles.  Expressional diversity is in no way a hinderance to doctrinal unity.

Now you asked "why these things in the WR did not come from Orthodoxy, but rather heretics."  They may, indeed, have come from those with heretical beliefs.  But look at their origin, man.  They were in communion with us at one time.  How did they worship when they and we shared a common cup?  Is the way they worshipped then comprable to how they worship now?  I say, yes!  Very much so!  So the Church sees that most of the liturgical practices within the WR communities are there because of the history those heterodox communions once had while in the Church Universal.  The Church, then, can "baptize" the current, similar rites as being acceptable to Orthodoxy, and they then become a part (albeit, a new part that needs some getting used to) of our tradition.

One last thing.  You said that "This is quite honestly beginning to remind me of Uniatism. We all know how perilous the situation is with "eastern rite" churches under the Pope, even by their own admission, why are we starting up our own version of the same thing we protest?"  We are NOT trying to do a "reverse uniatism."  We do NOT tell folks that they are "just Episcopalians/Catholics in communion with Constantinople."  We make it clear that they are Orthodox, that their spiritual identity is now tied in with THIS communion and not their old one, and we do NOT actively seek out congregations to "come over."  All movement to the WR at this point has been of the communities' own volition.  We are up front with those who become WR; they know exactly what they're doing...whereas many Uniate situations were done "under the table," without the people knowing what exactly was going on.  Two different worlds.

Yeah, about the origins, that was made unclear, sorry for the misunderstanding. But that still leaves the question of where the practices actually did come from.

It is true there were different ways at the start, but are you saying the Ecumenical Council which established the method of communing is invalid? I am confused here.

Yeah, I know there are different liturgies. I am all for the pre-schism ones, but I still wonder why someone would want to bring something non-Orthodox in, even if it is now "baptized" as you put it. It seems like that man-centeredness that we are always so careful speak out against, and avoid.

Yes, again I totally understand that there are different liturgical expressions, and I am all for that. However my concern is, do these new expressions even fit in that "skeleton" or are we trying to add a rib onto a foot?

This is the arguement I have been making all along: the Western Rite should be how the western churches worshipped when they were in communion with us. However a lot of these things seem to be practices developed and taken from them when they weren't in communion with us, hence all of my concern.

Well, I know it sounds clear in word that they are now Orthodox, but is it? Say an Anglican comes to Orthodoxy, they get to use their own Liturgy with a few changes. Is it really going to feel to them as if they are in a new faith, the True Faith, or if they just "changed bishops?"

 

[Aristibule]

I am not talking about different rites within Orthodoxy, but refurbishing heretical systems. Has this ever been done before modern WRO?

It hasn't been done - our present WRO (note, not 'modern') is not a refurbishment of heretical systems.

As I said before, I am all for integrating parts of western culture, but what seems to be happening is not the integration of western culture, but western religion!

By your personal judgment? And based upon what evidence? The Novatian's clergy who repented were restored in their rank and use according to Canon 8 of the 1st Council of Nicea. Canon 19 of the 1st Council of Nicea says the Paulianists were to be rebaptized, and their clergy reordained. The Arabic version of the Council has canons 31 and 32 on bringing back those from Arianism and like heresies, and more importantly - those who keep Orthodox dogma. Canon VII of the same reserves re-baptism only for those who departed from Trinitarian theology - the rest are chrismated. The various Canons of Ephesus demand clergy deposed and removed from their rank for Nestorianism.

It depends then, on the extent of the heresy. As for Anglicanism - there never has been, is not now, and never will be a single thing as 'Anglicanism'. Anglicans have always run a gamut of practices and opinions forced together by their civil government (including those who had agreement with the Orthodox Church.) As we can see by the above canons, how one was received depended very much on how much error. And, it should be noted - the Old Catholics and Anglo-Catholics who have returned to the Church are not representative of the more extreme errors one has found in Protestantism or the West (rather, they represent the closest stream to Orthodoxy kept in the West.) Roman Catholics? It varies (and has varied) as well - the two heresies (of dual procession implied by the filioque, and of papal universal jurisdiction) have never attained to uniformity in Roman Catholicism. The filioque *has* been historically understood by many (and some Anglicans as well) as the Orthodox view of single origin in the Father, with procession from the Father *through* the Son (sending the Holy Spirit.) Even the view of the Pope being subject to Ecumenical Councils has been championed in the past in the Roman Church (some even now, calling for Conciliarity.) Hence, why so many of us Westerners when first presented with the Orthodox dogma, could say "But that is what I've always believed!"

The Uniates were restored as well, with their own uses - as the ACROD and OCA. The whole Church of Georgia is a restored Church (once they were Monophysite). Many other ancient groups were restored to the communion - without the lack of charity to leave them without their own places of worship, their own clergy, etc.

Technically, of course, we are doing something wrong with the WRO - there have not been Bishops consecrated for that use (though, there had been once - the Bishop of Washington was Western Rite.) ÂÂ

Also, is the canon about not kneeling on Sundays violated in the English use? (20th Canon of Nicea)

I'll answer that if you'll answer about whether your use uses a spoon for communion, in violation of the Canons (seriously, I'm not saying that rhetorically). And also, whether the Canons are there for the judgment of brethren, and whether the Greeks and Antiochians are Heterodox for their kneeling on Sundays. Beams and splinters: everyone check your eyes. In any case, the attitude of kneeling is likely not the correct translation of that canon, but rather prostrations (kneeling, a standing upon the knees, not being the subject of that canon, but rather the face to the floor prostration.)

By Apostolic Canon 35, Constantinople I Canon II,  Chalcedon Canons 18 and 28, all of the Byzantine jurisdictions in the West are in violations of Canons. So where does that put us all?

This is the arguement I have been making all along: the Western Rite should be how the western churches worshipped when they were in communion with us. However a lot of these things seem to be practices developed and taken from them when they weren't in communion with us, hence all of my concern.

That is called liturgical archaeology - a 'Catch 22' (if its good for the goose, its good for the gander - why not pre-Schism Byzantine?), and has not been the Orthodox approach. Practices are not judged whether they might have guilt by association, or whether they belong to a 'Golden Age of Liturgy' but whether they express the Orthodox Faith and are helpful liturgically.

Well, I know it sounds clear in word that they are now Orthodox, but is it? Say an Anglican comes to Orthodoxy, they get to use their own Liturgy with a few changes. Is it really going to feel to them as if they are in a new faith, the True Faith, or if they just "changed bishops?"

Some wonder that about many converts to Byzantine rite - are they converted to the Faith ... or to an Exotic culture, or a counter-cultural statement against 'the Establishment', etc.

As for the liturgy ... 'few changes' really does not even begin to describe the difference between Anglican and WRO liturgy. They are not equivalent, and there is so much more to the latter.

 

[Bizzlebin]

It hasn't been done - our present WRO (note, not 'modern') is not a refurbishment of heretical systems.

By your personal judgment? And based upon what evidence? The Novatian's clergy who repented were restored in their rank and use according to Canon 8 of the 1st Council of Nicea. Canon 19 of the 1st Council of Nicea says the Paulianists were to be rebaptized, and their clergy reordained. The Arabic version of the Council has canons 31 and 32 on bringing back those from Arianism and like heresies, and more importantly - those who keep Orthodox dogma. Canon VII of the same reserves re-baptism only for those who departed from Trinitarian theology - the rest are chrismated. The various Canons of Ephesus demand clergy deposed and removed from their rank for Nestorianism.

It depends then, on the extent of the heresy. As for Anglicanism - there never has been, is not now, and never will be a single thing as 'Anglicanism'. Anglicans have always run a gamut of practices and opinions forced together by their civil government (including those who had agreement with the Orthodox Church.) As we can see by the above canons, how one was received depended very much on how much error. And, it should be noted - the Old Catholics and Anglo-Catholics who have returned to the Church are not representative of the more extreme errors one has found in Protestantism or the West (rather, they represent the closest stream to Orthodoxy kept in the West.) Roman Catholics? It varies (and has varied) as well - the two heresies (of dual procession implied by the filioque, and of papal universal jurisdiction) have never attained to uniformity in Roman Catholicism. The filioque *has* been historically understood by many (and some Anglicans as well) as the Orthodox view of single origin in the Father, with procession from the Father *through* the Son (sending the Holy Spirit.) Even the view of the Pope being subject to Ecumenical Councils has been championed in the past in the Roman Church (some even now, calling for Conciliarity.) Hence, why so many of us Westerners when first presented with the Orthodox dogma, could say "But that is what I've always believed!"

The Uniates were restored as well, with their own uses - as the ACROD and OCA. The whole Church of Georgia is a restored Church (once they were Monophysite). Many other ancient groups were restored to the communion - without the lack of charity to leave them without their own places of worship, their own clergy, etc.

Technically, of course, we are doing something wrong with the WRO - there have not been Bishops consecrated for that use (though, there had been once - the Bishop of Washington was Western Rite.) 

I'll answer that if you'll answer about whether your use uses a spoon for communion, in violation of the Canons (seriously, I'm not saying that rhetorically). And also, whether the Canons are there for the judgment of brethren, and whether the Greeks and Antiochians are Heterodox for their kneeling on Sundays. Beams and splinters: everyone check your eyes. In any case, the attitude of kneeling is likely not the correct translation of that canon, but rather prostrations (kneeling, a standing upon the knees, not being the subject of that canon, but rather the face to the floor prostration.)

By Apostolic Canon 35, Constantinople I Canon II,  Chalcedon Canons 18 and 28, all of the Byzantine jurisdictions in the West are in violations of Canons. So where does that put us all?

That is called liturgical archaeology - a 'Catch 22' (if its good for the goose, its good for the gander - why not pre-Schism Byzantine?), and has not been the Orthodox approach. Practices are not judged whether they might have guilt by association, or whether they belong to a 'Golden Age of Liturgy' but whether they express the Orthodox Faith and are helpful liturgically.

Some wonder that about many converts to Byzantine rite - are they converted to the Faith ... or to an Exotic culture, or a counter-cultural statement against 'the Establishment', etc.

As for the liturgy ... 'few changes' really does not even begin to describe the difference between Anglican and WRO liturgy. They are not equivalent, and there is so much more to the latter.

If they were not heretical they would not have needed change, would they?

With all the points you've made with regards to accepting people back into the Church, it was just that, accepting people who had left the Church, back into the Church. This doesn't show that they were allowed to bring in their styles of worship, only that they were allowed back in once they renounced their heresies. I am also all for bringing in non-Orthodox clergy who come to the faith as well, but they must change their faith (and faith and worship are inseperable) not just their bishop.

I never said there weren't a lot of people who disregard the canons. As you pointed out, the GOAA is in direct violation of a multitude of canons, such as for having an eastern bishop govern in a western diocese (in fact, see the news section, Constantinople is doing it again). We all make mistakes, it happens. Rather, it is continued and willful disobedience without any hint of change that makes the problem. (And actually, there is no canon that speaks against using a spoon. Rather, there is one that proscribes excommunication if the layman should put the Body in His own mouth.)

Yes, I understand that not every Liturgy from pre-schism times is totally right, either. But the point is at least we can do something that was done by the fathers, and not try to introduce something that has never been part of Orthodoxy.

So much more? I thought you said it was never refurbished 

 

[Aristibule]

If they were not heretical they would not have needed change, would they?

Depends on what you mean - those items that were added, which were heretical, are removed - nothing heretical is retained.

With all the points you've made with regards to accepting people back into the Church, it was just that, accepting people who had left the Church, back into the Church. This doesn't show that they were allowed to bring in their styles of worship, only that they were allowed back in once they renounced their heresies. I am also all for bringing in non-Orthodox clergy who come to the faith as well, but they must change their faith (and faith and worship are inseperable) not just their bishop.

Yes - and RCC, Anglicans, etc. - were/are people who had left the Church, and so some come back in. As for the styles of worship - what evidence do you have of Byzantinization of any of those groups?

 Rather, it is continued and willful disobedience without any hint of change that makes the problem. (And actually, there is no canon that speaks against using a spoon...

Actually, there is - a canon that proscribes the use of gold or silver implements (spoon, tube, whatever) to commune the faithful.

Yes, I understand that not every Liturgy from pre-schism times is totally right, either. But the point is at least we can do something that was done by the fathers, and not try to introduce something that has never been part of Orthodoxy.

So much more? I thought you said it was never refurbishedÂÂ

And again - all the WRO liturgies in use *have* been part of Orthodoxy - they had some deletions and additions in between, and those same are corrected. The Gregorian rite with very few changes is the same as that before the Schism. The English rite is the same, in English, after the local English uses. The Gallican, yet again - pre-schism use (as well as the infrequent use of Mozarabic and Ambrosian, which has been done.) And, lastly - the St. Tikhon's - which is basically the form of the Roman rite with some additions from the Liturgy of St. James, the liturgy of St. Clement and other primitive Eastern and Western liturgies, and at a later time some items restored to the liturgy and ceremonial that the Reformation robbed.

RE: Refurbishment - you said 'heretical systems' ... a system implies ethos, theology, praxis... none of which apply to WRO. It isn't a 'heretical system', heresy is not something that taints a whole - it is very specific in its error, and in what those errors bring about. Correct the heresy itself, and the rest is corrected (as the Canons of the Council illustrate.) Again, the logical fallacy of guilt by association is not only wrong for logic, it is just as much a fallacy when applied to Church life (and betrays a certain amount of superstition and influence from non-Orthodox thought.)

PS I should also point out that your understanding of *what* the WRO liturgies are is probably deficient. The liturgical text and ceremony, and accompanying traditions are not something the majority of Anglicans would recognize ... it is not the BCP as some critics wrongly assume (what the BCP is, its role in the development of WRO liturgy, and how much of the BCP is actually used we can discuss in later posts.)

And again - beams and motes.

 

[Bizzlebin]

Depends on what you mean - those items that were added, which were heretical, are removed - nothing heretical is retained.

Yes - and RCC, Anglicans, etc. - were/are people who had left the Church, and so some come back in. As for the styles of worship - what evidence do you have of Byzantinization of any of those groups?

Actually, there is - a canon that proscribes the use of gold or silver implements (spoon, tube, whatever) to commune the faithful.

And again - all the WRO liturgies in use *have* been part of Orthodoxy - they had some deletions and additions in between, and those same are corrected. The Gregorian rite with very few changes is the same as that before the Schism. The English rite is the same, in English, after the local English uses. The Gallican, yet again - pre-schism use (as well as the infrequent use of Mozarabic and Ambrosian, which has been done.) And, lastly - the St. Tikhon's - which is basically the form of the Roman rite with some additions from the Liturgy of St. James, the liturgy of St. Clement and other primitive Eastern and Western liturgies, and at a later time some items restored to the liturgy and ceremonial that the Reformation robbed.

RE: Refurbishment - you said 'heretical systems' ... a system implies ethos, theology, praxis... none of which apply to WRO. It isn't a 'heretical system', heresy is not something that taints a whole - it is very specific in its error, and in what those errors bring about. Correct the heresy itself, and the rest is corrected (as the Canons of the Council illustrate.) Again, the logical fallacy of guilt by association is not only wrong for logic, it is just as much a fallacy when applied to Church life (and betrays a certain amount of superstition and influence from non-Orthodox thought.)

PS I should also point out that your understanding of *what* the WRO liturgies are is probably deficient. The liturgical text and ceremony, and accompanying traditions are not something the majority of Anglicans would recognize ... it is not the BCP as some critics wrongly assume (what the BCP is, its role in the development of WRO liturgy, and how much of the BCP is actually used we can discuss in later posts.)

And again - beams and motes.

About the liturgies (from the beginning and end of your reply), I understand now. However, why not simply get older texts of the same liturgy and not to go through all that trouble?

I don't think I've spoken much on Byzantinization, as that is only one form of liturgical style. However, even in these cases, the form a Catholic or Anglican currently uses is not the same form they would use if they joined even the WR. Hence, the style may not be Byzantine, but they cannot be heterodox either.

The canon you are thinking of prevents the faithful from bringing their own chalice, actually. In the very same Council another canon was made in which one could be excommunicated for giving themselves the Body. Surely there is not a contradiction between these two.

 

[Beayf]

The canon you are thinking of prevents the faithful from bringing their own chalice, actually.

Not if you're only interpreting the canon literally, and not looking at the reason the canon was put into place. A lot like your criticism of the WR for kneeling on Sundays, actually.

 

[EkhristosAnesti]

I'd bet our Coptic posters here would have something to say about that.

Allow me:

Almost every motion of Orthodox worship practised in the Coptic Orthodox Church is directed from left to right: when the priest opens the altar curtain, when the priest swings the censor, during processions, and as has been noted, when we make the sign of the cross. The symbolic significance of this relates to the understanding of Christ transferring His faithful from the left, which represents sin, darkness, and death, to the right, which represents righteousness, light, and life.

There is no indication that Coptic Orthodox practise has ever been any other way.

 

[Aristibule]

Not if you're only interpreting the canon literally, and not looking at the reason the canon was put into place. A lot like your criticism of the WR for kneeling on Sundays, actually.

Which is a very good point to make.

However, why not simply get older texts of the same liturgy and not to go through all that trouble?

That's a nice theoretical question that betrays an unfamiliarity with what has already been done - but, if one is familiar with the various Western liturgical texts, and what we have now, and the history - then it is understood that the 'older texts' have been gone to for the past 500+ years for liturgical correction already. The framers of the 1549 BCP, the Tridentine liturgy, the 19th c. Sarum texts, the Non-Juror liturgy, and the various Anglo-Catholic liturgical uses were going back to the older texts. So, much of that work is already done, at least for those of us who use liturgical English in worship (things aren't so advanced for Italian, French, Spanish, etc.) WRO is over 150 years as a restoration of our liturgical life in the West ... (so, any opposition to it is an opposition to some part of Orthodoxy) ... which means we've had 150 years experience in 'going back to the texts'.