Western-rite Orthodoxy

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
cleveland said:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More ecclesiological soup!?!?!?!
To keep with the food analogy, I think it would be more like straining the soup than adding to it.  +Bishop Basil of Wichita has a leadership role in the WR Vicariate (+Most Reverend Bishop Basil, Archepiscopal Vicar).  As much as we love him, there will come a day when he will not be in that role.  Now, his authority in the WR Vicariate reaches over all bishoprics.  Now, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not quite sure what an Archepiscopal Vicar is, but it sounds pretty close to bishop.
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Are there any WR priests that aren't married?  Where would the bishops come from?
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,830
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Landon77 said:
To keep with the food analogy, I think it would be more like straining the soup than adding to it.  +Bishop Basil of Wichita has a leadership role in the WR Vicariate (+Most Reverend Bishop Basil, Archepiscopal Vicar).  As much as we love him, there will come a day when he will not be in that role.  Now, his authority in the WR Vicariate reaches over all bishoprics.  Now, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not quite sure what an Archepiscopal Vicar is, but it sounds pretty close to bishop. 
It does continue the ecclesiological mess.  If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess.  (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
cleveland said:
It does continue the ecclesiological mess.  If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess.  (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)
I'm assuming you mean situations like the Albanian, Romanian, etc. episcopoi in the OCA.  Have to agree there...rather nonesensical.  My sister goes to a Romanian OCA parish in Falls Church, VA...and I think she says there are only a few Romanians left.  Why doesn't that parish just go under the local OCA bishop? (rhetorical)
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
In the Catholic terminology an episcopal vicar is a priest/auxillary bishop with responsibility for a certain geographic, ethnic, or ritual group and I assume the same is true for the Orthodox.

I see no reason why in the future the Antiochians could/would not ordain a celibate/widower/monk Western Rite priest (are there any?) as vicar for the Western Rite just as ROCOR has a vicar bishops for the Old Rite.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Evgraph Kovalevsky was consecrated Bishop Jean-Nectaire de Saint-Denis by ROCOR.

10 parishes of this group are seeking to come under the Omophor of the Serbian Patriarchate.
 

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
I honestly don't mean to muddy the water.  :-\

Local bishops still have say in what goes on in the WR parishes in their diocese.  I'm not sure what the balance is that has been struck.  It may be that +Bishop Basil is more of a mentor.

I know of at least one celibate priest in the vicariate, but I think he's pretty... aged.  He used to be a Catholic monk.
 

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
Deacon Lance said:
Evgraph Kovalevsky was consecrated Bishop Jean-Nectaire de Saint-Denis by ROCOR.

10 parishes of this group are seeking to come under the Omophor of the Serbian Patriarchate.
Just this morning I was looking to see if there were any new developments.  Do you know if they've came out with any statements since the first one?
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
BoredMeeting said:
Then Orthodox Western Liturgies aren't inappropriate either. Thanks for clearing that up.
The rest of the Ancient Patriarchates do not, however.
Thump that chest with pride (and eyes firmly shut).
I never said Western-rite Orthodoxy is inappropriate. I'm happy to see it.

The rest of the ancient patriarchates have fallen out of communion with Rome. Of course they don't see Rome that way, though they used to.

There was no pride in my statement that the pope represents more than the Latin church but the Catholic Church as a whole---it was a statement in support of the Eastern traditions, which are not inferior in any way.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Rdr. Seraphim,

Pascha 05 the Serbian Patriarch sent then a letter that told them to join local Orthodox parishes until a decision was made about accepting the Western Rtie parishes as a group and he was making no promises that the would, but he would not rule it out either. 

I had heard one group, I don't know if it was this group or that under Bishop Germain, had made contacts with the Coptic Patriarchate encouraged by their acceptance of the British Orthodox Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
If the article is what I believe it was intended to be, an apologetic for the western rite, I must say that it feel well short. If it set out to be a brief historical overview of the western-rite services, then it was at least partially successful. The author's addressing of His Eminence, of Blessed Memory, was respectful, if only marginally so. But a few other things unrelated to the argument stood out and concerned me. First, his claim that St. John Chrysostom was an 'Arab Christian,' perhaps I am in error, but I fear this was the first time I have heard such a claim, does someone have some reference to suggest that St. John Chrysostom was indeed an Arab, or is this just poor scholarship? Secondly, I am quite disturbed by the profound disrespect this 'Priest' showed towards Patriarch Theodore VI of Antioch, the Great Canonist Balsamon.
And I am also bothered that a layman such as yourself gives this 'Priest' who wrote the article.

greekischristian said:
Now onto the content. It would seem as though the goal of the majority of the essay is to demonstrate that the western rite really was the historical liturgy of the west, in response to His Eminence's claim that it was not. This very approach was something of a strawman argument, because nearly the entire essay was devoted to this issue, which wasn't even the primary objection of His Eminence. But with that said, the essay failed to prove its point. What is needed to prove this point is not a narrative on the history of the rite (quietly ignoring any post schism evolution or development of the liturgy), but rather a side by side comparison of the text of the liturgy as it is used today and the a critical text of the liturgy as it was pre-schism. The author would then need to examanine and explain the variations (if any, though I presume there are many, liturgies dont remain static). Towards the end of this section of the essay the author did compare similarities, but frankly I can (and have in papers at Holy Cross) find more similarities than were mentioned between the Tridentine Mass and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, that hardly means the two are interchangeable. Though I am not a liturgist and cannot speak with certainty about the ancient liturgies, what is telling is that the author found it necessary to compare similarities rather than differences between the liturgy now used and the ancient liturgy.
From your response above, it almost seems to me that you didn't even read the article...or perhaps just skimmed over it and not actually read it.  Without actually making a side by side comparison, which would probably be the subject of an entire thesis spanning perhaps ten times the length of the article, I thought the author did a great job of explaining how there really ISN'T much difference between the WO Rite of St. Gregory vs the more than 1000 yr old traditional text.

greekischristian said:
Clearly there has been substantial evolution in the liturgies over the last 1000 years, evolution that took place completely outside the Orthodox Church. And while, in reference to the Anglican liturgies used, the author went to great lengths to demonstrate that the liturgy was not protestantized, he did little to demonstrate that it was not influenced my medieval Latin theology, some of which must have occured for the liturgy to even be compared to protestant theology (which was done in the essay itself).
Clearly to you, but it doesn't seem like these issues really are as much as influence as you presume.  What was that about not being a Liturgist?

greekischristian said:
Furthermore, the author clearly admited evolutions and developments to the Roman rite during the time of Charlemagne and at the direction of the same. While the schism may not yet have formally occured by this time in history, clear cultural and theological division were starting to form, not the least of which was the iconoclastic tendency of Charlemagne and the Germanic peoples at this time. Therefore this Carolingian influence should also be looked upon with concern, with the theological and cultural developments of this era being considered in the context of the Council of Frankfort and related social influences. None of these difficulities or concerns are even suggested in the very incomplete essay presented.
Not that I think Karl der Grosse deserves to be venerated as a saint, but I was told that he is considered one by the Church of Rome.  Wait, wasn't this over 200 years pre-Schism?  Oh wait, even though the Schism hadn't happened yet, I guess that all Christians in "the West" for 300+ years pre-Schism must have been heretics according to you.  Wasn't Pope Leo III, who actually crowned Karl der Grosse "Emperor of the Romans" actually a defender of Icons while the "God ordained" Emperor in the East Leo III the Isaurian the main cuprit in the Iconoclastics heresy?  Sounds like Pot meet Kettle to me.  Almost sounds like you could make a legitimate case for Charlemagne to be the true Roman Emperor as a divine Conqueror.  But this is all moot, since there has been no Empire for half a millenia or more.  The "Ecumenical" Patriarch is Ecumenical in not much more than a nominal sense.  God Bless him and rescue him for the T**kish captivity, but the Empire is itself a museum piece.

greekischristian said:
The final page of the essay, which finally purports to address one of the substantial issues in the discussion, is perhaps the most disturbing element of the paper. On top of the poor scholarship and disrespectiful style, the argument is a non-sequitur. He gives a few examples of various liturgies that developed locally and organically in different geographical regions, tells us how evil we are for advancing liturgical unity (as though this 'Priest' has an appreciation of 13th Century imperial politics that even approaches that of Balsamon), and then insists that because of this we should embrace a museum piece as an organic Orthodox Liturgy (well, not exactly a museum piece, an organic western liturgy that developed for a thousand years completely outside of the Orthodox Church and any sphere of influence she might have had in the context of cultural and theological discussions and developments that are completely foreign to the Orthodox Church; though the author would have us believe that it is simply a museum piece).
Museum piece or not the western liturgy looks to be more legit than you think.  What was that again, YOU are not a liturgist? 
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Elisha said:
And I am also bothered that a layman such as yourself gives this 'Priest' who wrote the article.
What comes around goes around, one who is so dismissive of and disrespectful towards the Great Balsamon deserves no more respect. Of course, if it makes you feel any better, it was simply stylistic imitation to make a point, obviously the point got acorss.

From your response above, it almost seems to me that you didn't even read the article...or perhaps just skimmed over it and not actually read it.  Without actually making a side by side comparison, which would probably be the subject of an entire thesis spanning perhaps ten times the length of the article, I thought the author did a great job of explaining how there really ISN'T much difference between the WO Rite of St. Gregory vs the more than 1000 yr old traditional text.
Oh, I read it, and saw the gaping holes that made it obvious he was only citing that which supported his position. If the liturgies were as similar as the author would have us to believe such a comparison as I recommended would be a fairly simple project indeed. Surely the differences between the current text and the ancient text are so few that they can be counted on one hand, all of which are probably copying errors. I have a sneaking suspicion that the texts arn't identical, which is essentially necessary for him to prove his position that they are completely free of post-schism development. And every 'minor' change is worthy of serious concern, look at the huge difference the introduction of the one word 'filioque' made in the creed. Of course, this is only dealing with the liturgy of St. Gregory; what of the more widely used liturgy of St. Tikhon? That is where his scholarship became particularly bad, for good reason I would guess.

Clearly to you, but it doesn't seem like these issues really are as much as influence as you presume.  What was that about not being a Liturgist?
Very true, but from the article it is quite clear that neither is the author.

Not that I think Karl der Grosse deserves to be venerated as a saint, but I was told that he is considered one by the Church of Rome.  Wait, wasn't this over 200 years pre-Schism?  Oh wait, even though the Schism hadn't happened yet, I guess that all Christians in "the West" for 300+ years pre-Schism must have been heretics according to you...
Ah, yes, I am sure that everyone in the west was perfectly Orthodox in 1053 and all of a sudden became heretics in 1054...a mass deconversion, if you will (actually it was 1014, but who's counting?). Amazingly enough, this seems to be the attitude of many advocates of the western rite. The fact of the matter is that the theological divergence began much earlier: Germany was always plagued by the early influence of the Arians on their conversion, the disputes between Augustine and Cassian occured in the early fifth century, by the early seventh century most the west would entertain the double procession of the Holy Spirit, etc. Concerning the Carolingians specifically, while the dogma of Frankfort may have been overturned by Rome the related cultural influences were not. Even to this day it can be seen that the architecture of German Churches is designed to minimize the veneration of statues or icons. Any liturgical or theological developments from this time period should be looked upon with suspect.
 

James2

High Elder
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
cleveland said:
It does continue the ecclesiological mess.  If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess.  (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)
It's not messy at all.  Now that the AOA has dioceses, the diocesan bishop is the bishop for all parishes in his diocese, whether Eastern or Western.  Bishop Basil does have some responsibility for the Western rite, but he does not act as the diocesan bishop of Western rite parishes, except of course in his own diocese.  But as far as I know, even Bishop Basil does not use western vestments and celebrate according to either the rite of St. Gregory or St. Tikhon.  Typically when a bishop is present at a Western-rite liturgy, the mass is celebrated by a priest in the presence of the bishop.  As Western Orthodoxy matures, I hope that our bishops will become bi-ritual so that they can celebrate pontifical mass according to the Western rite.

James
 

Timos

High Elder
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
856
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
33
Location
Toronto, Canada
Greekischristian, actually the Filioqe was taken out of the WR liturgy during the Creed. I know of some married and some celibate WR clergymen. I've heard that bishops could possibly come from the Christmister WR monastery in Long Island as the ROCOR eventually heal the rift with the MP.
 

Thomas

Archon
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
69
Location
Temple, Texas
Actually in the last grouping of Archmandrites up for the Bishops List to be considered by the Antiochian Synod, there was at least one western rite archimandrite from Texas on the list of those eligible for election.

THOMAS
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Timos said:
Greekischristian, actually the Filioqe was taken out of the WR liturgy during the Creed.
That's not exactly the point I was making...the offending term may have been removed, but the thousand plus years of development in a culture that believed the theology the offending term entailed to be perfectly orthodox has yet to be removed, nor can it be.
 

Veniamin

Archon
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
greekischristian said:
That's not exactly the point I was making...the offending term may have been removed, but the thousand plus years of development in a culture that believed the theology the offending term entailed to be perfectly orthodox has yet to be removed, nor can it be.
So, in other words, Westerners can't be converted.  At all.  Ever.  End of story.

Yup, apparently only Greeks can be Christians.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Veniamin said:
So, in other words, Westerners can't be converted.  At all.  Ever.  End of story.

Yup, apparently only Greeks can be Christians.
They can always embrace Greek culture. ;)
 

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
Thomas said:
Actually in the last grouping of Archmandrites up for the Bishops List to be considered by the Antiochian Synod, there was at least one western rite archimandrite from Texas on the list of those eligible for election.

THOMAS
Fr. Dan of Our Lady of Walsingham?
 

Landon77

Elder
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
TN
greekischristian said:
They can always embrace Greek culture. ;)
Well, at least you care enough to have looked into the WR, right?  It is better than indifference.
 
Top