• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

WR Orthodox, a Rite or More?

dcointin

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I would like to hear everyones thoughts on the nature of Western Rite Orthodoxy.  My own parish priest seems to view the WR as a liturgical rite alone.  The teaching, preaching, catechesis, etc. is all drawn from standard (i.e. eastern) sources.  We also encorporate some Byzantine elements into the liturgy and prayers as well.  It seems to me however that the WR should embrace all of our western patrimony as far as is possible.  I suppose I see the analogy for us more in the example of the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Has there been any clarification on this subject?  Are we a liturgical rite alone or more than that?
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,254
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Could you explain what you mean?

At your parish, for example, is there special veneration for the Western Orthodox saints? Do they study their way of life and writings?
 

lovesupreme

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox
I believe the OP is asking if the Western Rite can be regarded as Eastern Orthodoxy with Western decoration, or as a strictly Western expression of Orthodoxy, independent of (but, of course, not forsaking) the East. Of course, being that Christianity is, in my view, an "Eastern" religion, one would be hard pressed to adopt a strictly Western approach to Orthodoxy.
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Faith
Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
dcointin said:
My own parish priest seems to view the WR as a liturgical rite alone.
IMO a good approach. WRO should draw from Eastern sources and ERO should draw from Western sources. The teaching of Church is neither Western nor Eastern but Catholic. I like how bishop Jerome put it:

Bishop Jerome of Manhattan said:
In other words, to be Orthodox means to be in union with the whole Orthodox Church, and to accept all of its heritage.
 

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
32
Faith
Deist
Jurisdiction
N/A
lovesupreme said:
I believe the OP is asking if the Western Rite can be regarded as Eastern Orthodoxy with Western decoration, or as a strictly Western expression of Orthodoxy, independent of (but, of course, not forsaking) the East.
I think the OP is asking something other than that, rather if the WR is to embrace Latin (Western) patrimony in its entirety. Similar to their thread on Western devotions/sacramentals.
 

dcointin

Jr. Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Nephi said:
lovesupreme said:
I believe the OP is asking if the Western Rite can be regarded as Eastern Orthodoxy with Western decoration, or as a strictly Western expression of Orthodoxy, independent of (but, of course, not forsaking) the East.
I think the OP is asking something other than that, rather if the WR is to embrace Latin (Western) patrimony in its entirety. Similar to their thread on Western devotions/sacramentals.
Yes, that's exactly right.  I realize that it is impossible to make firm divisions between eastern and western Christianity, nor would it be desireable to do so, since the Church is catholic.  I do think however that embracing traditional western devotions, theological terminology, prayers, etc. is a good thing for us in the Western Rite.  My impression is increasingly that we are eastern in every way but our liturgy, and even that with Byzantine influences.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
17
Points
0
Age
40
Faith
Ethiopian Jew
Western style as compared to the Eastern Liturgy.
 

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
32
Faith
Deist
Jurisdiction
N/A
dcointin said:
My impression is increasingly that we are eastern in every way but our liturgy, and even that with Byzantine influences.
This is where it needs to be taken carefully, so as to really analyze the theological assumptions being made and their harmony with universal pre/post-schism patrimony (throughout the Church, not just Latin or Byzantine). If they are in fact harmonious, then great. If not, then it's not just a case of Byzantine (or otherwise) elitism, but a real statement of the particular aspect's Orthodoxy. When it's not considered carefully, or rejected across-the-board like those types mentioned in the Sacramentals thread, then it can often amount to Byzantine (or otherwise) elitism.

My point is this: not accepting everything the West has done is not the same thing as Byzantine (or otherwise) elitism or being anti-Western. There can be real criticisms with practices, etc. that developed that aren't just rooted in "ew, but it's Western."
 

Alpo

Merarches
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Faith
Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
dcointin said:
My impression is increasingly that we are eastern Orthodox in every way
Fixed. No buts or reservations needed.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
467
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
newseminaryproject.org
Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.
 

phronesis

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Washington, D.C.
Christopher McAvoy said:
Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.
What on earth are you talking about? I mean no offense, but I'm not sure you know what "rite" means. For one, it is distinct from canons. And there is no such thing as "byzantine orthodoxy." There is only Orthodoxy. The faith. Singular. And we in the Western Rite firmly hold to it. And while I can only speak of life in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, it is more than just the Western liturgy. Our whole devotional life is rooted in the ancient, Orthodox, Western practice. Our liturgy is Western, but so are our fasting rule, Kalendar, and devotional traditions. Your experience seems to be an anomaly. That, or it is rooted in your confusion about what constitutes a rite.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
Christopher McAvoy said:
Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.
What you're looking for is a time machine. You're right that the WR is not very credible as an expression of the pre-schism Orthodox West, and nothing will be. 1000 years of being dead has that sort of effect. That said, I also find SCA antics very laughable but some people appear satisfied with them.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,981
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
Christopher McAvoy said:
Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.
What you're looking for is a time machine. You're right that the WR is not very credible as an expression of the pre-schism Orthodox West, and nothing will be. 1000 years of being dead has that sort of effect. That said, I also find SCR antics very laughable but some people appear satisfied with them.
SCR?

So, you don't believe in the resurrection?
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
Christopher McAvoy said:
Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.
What you're looking for is a time machine. You're right that the WR is not very credible as an expression of the pre-schism Orthodox West, and nothing will be. 1000 years of being dead has that sort of effect. That said, I also find SCR antics very laughable but some people appear satisfied with them.
SCR?

So, you don't believe in the resurrection?
Sorry, SCA.

Christ resurrected, and at the end of time, the rest of us will follow. None of that has anything to do with playing medieval dress-up.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,981
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
dcointin said:
Nephi said:
lovesupreme said:
I believe the OP is asking if the Western Rite can be regarded as Eastern Orthodoxy with Western decoration, or as a strictly Western expression of Orthodoxy, independent of (but, of course, not forsaking) the East.
I think the OP is asking something other than that, rather if the WR is to embrace Latin (Western) patrimony in its entirety. Similar to their thread on Western devotions/sacramentals.
Yes, that's exactly right.  I realize that it is impossible to make firm divisions between eastern and western Christianity, nor would it be desireable to do so, since the Church is catholic.  I do think however that embracing traditional western devotions, theological terminology, prayers, etc. is a good thing for us in the Western Rite.  My impression is increasingly that we are eastern in every way but our liturgy, and even that with Byzantine influences.
Depends on what devotions, theological terminology, prayers, etc.  The Angelus, for instance, is fine.  Novena's to the "Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Miraculous Medal," no.

How Western is the Kyrie when it was adopted from the East and kept in Greek?  Such examples can be multiplied.  In fact, the boast of Abp. St. Gregory of his own primacy over Constantinople comes from a letter to complaints of the Latin Sicilians that Rome imitated everything from Constantinople.  It's not new.

Conversely, the Nativity Fast comes in imitation of the Gallican Church.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,981
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
Christopher McAvoy said:
Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.
What you're looking for is a time machine. You're right that the WR is not very credible as an expression of the pre-schism Orthodox West, and nothing will be. 1000 years of being dead has that sort of effect. That said, I also find SCR antics very laughable but some people appear satisfied with them.
SCR?

So, you don't believe in the resurrection?
Sorry, SCA.
SCA?
Iconodule said:
Christ resurrected, and at the end of time, the rest of us will follow. None of that has anything to do with playing medieval dress-up.
You mean, like this?:
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
Christopher McAvoy said:
Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.
What you're looking for is a time machine. You're right that the WR is not very credible as an expression of the pre-schism Orthodox West, and nothing will be. 1000 years of being dead has that sort of effect. That said, I also find SCR antics very laughable but some people appear satisfied with them.
SCR?

So, you don't believe in the resurrection?
Sorry, SCA.
SCA?
Iconodule said:
Christ resurrected, and at the end of time, the rest of us will follow. None of that has anything to do with playing medieval dress-up.
You mean, like this?:
No archaeology was needed in the making of this image (well, except for the painstaking recreation of the cathedral down to the ugly frescoes). This is just a recent expression of a tradition that has been in continuous and unbroken, if not unchanging, use.
 

phronesis

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Washington, D.C.
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
Christopher McAvoy said:
Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.
What you're looking for is a time machine. You're right that the WR is not very credible as an expression of the pre-schism Orthodox West, and nothing will be. 1000 years of being dead has that sort of effect. That said, I also find SCR antics very laughable but some people appear satisfied with them.
SCR?

So, you don't believe in the resurrection?
Sorry, SCA.
SCA?
Iconodule said:
Christ resurrected, and at the end of time, the rest of us will follow. None of that has anything to do with playing medieval dress-up.
You mean, like this?:
No archaeology was needed in the making of this image (well, except for the painstaking recreation of the cathedral down to the ugly frescoes). This is just a recent expression of a tradition that has been in continuous and unbroken, if not unchanging, use.
Assuming, for the purposes of discussion, that the "archaeology" charge frequently leveled at the WR is accurate: So what? I mean, honestly, so what? What does that even mean? And how is it a bad thing?

I think the implied slander is that the WR was dead and thus can have no life in the modern era. I'd contest both parts of that. The Western Church undoubtedly veered into heresy, but it's only shown up in her liturgy fairly recently. It truly doesn't take much to correct. But even assuming the Western Rite was dead, due to the schism and heresy of the See of Rome, again so what? Revivifying what was dead is precisely what the Church does in the first place! The Church baptizes culture; it doesn't discard it wholesale. And that is what the Antiochians and Russians have done with Western liturgics and piety: they have given them new life. Glory to God! This is exactly what the Church has done with Jewish worship and and Greek philosophy; and it has all been to the glory of God and the edification of the faithful. But will you now deride the life-giving mercy of the Body of Christ out mere spite for 'the West'? How shameful. How sad. How unhopeful.

The truth is, the Western Rite is a preeminent example of the true catholicity of the Orthodox Faith. Thanks be to God and our bishops for this witness.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,981
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
No archaeology was needed in the making of this image (well, except for the painstaking recreation of the cathedral down to the ugly frescoes). This is just a recent expression of a tradition that has been in continuous and unbroken, if not unchanging, use.
So King Josiah should have left the idols alone.


And the EP should have stayed out of Constantinople since 1204. And Antioch out of Antioch, and Jerusalem out of Jerusalem.


And, of course, that guy in the middle up there shouldn't be, his office being abolished and all in 1721.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
phronesis said:
I think the implied slander is that the WR was dead and thus can have no life in the modern era.
Well, maybe it can have life. Maybe it can work. Mr. McAvoy here, previously quite the WR enthusiast, seems pessimistic on that count. But maybe it can. Even so, why is it necessary?

The Church baptizes culture; it doesn't discard it wholesale.
Sure, the Church baptizes culture; that's not the same as exhuming it.

This is exactly what the Church has done with Jewish worship and and Greek philosophy; and it has all been to the glory of God and the edification of the faithful.
And Jewish worship and Greek philosophy were very much alive when they were adopted by the Church.

But will you now deride the life-giving mercy of the Body of Christ out mere spite for 'the West'?
I have no spite for 'the West.' I do have a fair amount of skepticism for attempts to recreate 'the West' of 1000 years ago.

The truth is, the Western Rite is a preeminent example of the true catholicity of the Orthodox Faith.
Maybe. If it really does help bring people to the Church who wouldn't come otherwise, it's alright with me. Sometimes it looks more like an expression of phyletism than Catholicity. Prime example is Mr. McAvoy here who left not only WR, but Orthodoxy altogether because WR wasn't working the way he wanted. That means being "Western" is more important to him than being Orthodox.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
No archaeology was needed in the making of this image (well, except for the painstaking recreation of the cathedral down to the ugly frescoes). This is just a recent expression of a tradition that has been in continuous and unbroken, if not unchanging, use.
So King Josiah should have left the idols alone.


And the EP should have stayed out of Constantinople since 1204. And Antioch out of Antioch, and Jerusalem out of Jerusalem.


And, of course, that guy in the middle up there shouldn't be, his office being abolished and all in 1721.
When the EP was kicked out of Constantinople, did the entire church of Constantinople, including its rites, cease to exist?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,981
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
When the EP was kicked out of Constantinople, did the entire church of Constantinople, including its rites, cease to exist?
Not any more than when he submitted to the Vatican.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
27
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Johnstown
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
When the EP was kicked out of Constantinople, did the entire church of Constantinople, including its rites, cease to exist?
Not any more than when he submitted to the Vatican.
Indeed. The movements and errors of one particular bishop or his see are not comparable to the 1000 year disappearance of an entire branch of the Church.
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,254
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
The prayers, rites, and saints of the Orthodox West belong to the Orthodox Church. They are for our sanctification.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
U.S.
I'm a little late to this topic, but wanted to share my thoughts.

As far as the Antiochian Western Rite is concerned, we still abide by the succinct definition given by our first Vicar General, Fr. Paul Schneirla:

“Western Orthodoxy is the rediscovery of the Orthodoxy which withered in the west, and its revitalization, not through the transferral of eastern Patristic thought and devotional attitudes, but by the patient searching out, assembly and coordination of the supratemporal factors which created and characterized pre-schismatic occidental Christianity in its essence, and the careful selection of valid survivals in contemporary western thought and culture. These supratemporal factors entail not just a rediscovery of liturgical practices but an appreciation of western Patristic thought, incipient devotional attitudes, practices and spirituality as they have evolved over the course of centuries.”

I believe that is exactly what the OP said they were looking for. Antioch's approach has been to reintegrate the Western tradition with Orthodoxy, preserving that which remains consonant with our faith, and purging anything that does not. It's really quite simple. It ensures the rite remains authentically Western and it ensures our Orthodoxy. It was never about recreating the past.

This vision is articulated quite clearly in our most recent Ordo, published by the Vicariate. There is an entire section titled "Fidelity to the Rite" which states:

"Western Rite clergy are not to use the dress, vestments, rites, forms, or customs of the Byzantine Rite clergy at any time. Temporary exceptions are granted for us for specific services when serving with or for Byzantine clergy in a Byzantine service. An exception to the prohibition of Eastern customs shall be made for the cult of icons. In the use of icons in the church, home, and among the faithful, preference should be given to those of our Lord, the Theotokos (the Blessed Virgin Mary), major Catholic Saints and great feasts rather than to those of local Eastern Saints."

So, yes, when the guidelines provided for us are followed closely, the Western Rite is more than merely the liturgy, but is the entire traditional Western catholic way of life, purged and set within the living tradition of the undivided Church once again. Our calendar, vestments, music, chant, prayers, devotions, customs, gestures, fasting rules, are all thoroughly, wholly, and authentically Western.

That being said, if Orthodoxy is the Church, and I am a convert to that Church in a Western Rite parish, then I shouldn’t feel uneasy about being formed by the literature and theological teachings of modern Orthodox saints, fathers, and writers, even if they are Greek speakers or Russian speakers who worship according to the Constantinopolitan Rite. At some point we just have to move on and simply be Orthodox. Sometimes we're so self-conscious :)
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
In the use of icons in the church, home, and among the faithful, preference should be given to those of our Lord, the Theotokos (the Blessed Virgin Mary), major Catholic Saints and great feasts rather than to those of local Eastern Saints."
IOW, "All saints are equal, but some are more equal than others by virtue of their provenance". Frankly, I find this idea very, very disturbing, to put it mildly.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
352
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
LBK said:
IOW, "All saints are equal, but some are more equal than others by virtue of their provenance". Frankly, I find this idea very, very disturbing, to put it mildly.
No more disturbing than a Russian church that may have an icon of St John of Kronstadt but not an icon of St Nektarios of Aegina. 
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
U.S.
LBK said:
In the use of icons in the church, home, and among the faithful, preference should be given to those of our Lord, the Theotokos (the Blessed Virgin Mary), major Catholic Saints and great feasts rather than to those of local Eastern Saints."
IOW, "All saints are equal, but some are more equal than others by virtue of their provenance". Frankly, I find this idea very, very disturbing, to put it mildly.
I'm guessing you won't like these other subpoints then, either:

"Icons of Western Saints and themes based on good Romanesque models are encouraged. Statues shall conform to pre-schismatic usage in general."
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
IOW, "All saints are equal, but some are more equal than others by virtue of their provenance". Frankly, I find this idea very, very disturbing, to put it mildly.
No more disturbing than a Russian church that may have an icon of St John of Kronstadt but not an icon of St Nektarios of Aegina. 
Or St. Patrick...

Why is it so surprising that our Western Orthodox forbears are looked upon with affection by Western Rite Christians? And why is it surprising that this is encouraged by adorning our churches and homes with their holy images?
 

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
32
Faith
Deist
Jurisdiction
N/A
Sleeper said:
"Icons of Western Saints and themes based on good Romanesque models are encouraged. Statues shall conform to pre-schismatic usage in general."
IMO, Romanesque icons are great, but I haven't seen any modern ones. Not sure if "usage" means how they're used or designed, but is there a thread where you've explained the differences between pre and post schism usage?
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
467
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
newseminaryproject.org
That means being "Western" is more important to him than being Orthodox.
Likewise I can that also being "Eastern" is more important to most of the hierarchy than being Orthodox.
If we're wrong to have attachments to cultural expressions, than we're both equally wrong. The Ordination of multiple men to the priesthood within a single Mass is a legitimate ancient Western custom, yet it is disrepected and made now viewed as heterodox, but it is not. WHo is going to tell me that this was not the custom in the ancient Latin rite? It is Orthodox.

I think there is enough hypocrisy to go around here, I'll be pleased to share it with others.
I'm not proud of the history of prejudice, latinization (and lately protestantization) within the Roman Catholic Church either.
I continue to respect the Orthodox Church, but I recognize it has limitations amongst the people within it. I was naive about what those limitations actually are.

The man who helped give momentum to the ROCOR WR in 2010 and spur much of it's growth has also left it a few days ago, Anthony Bondi. Theres not only one disillusioned person out there.


Feast of All Saints, Sunday, November 17, 2013, Christ the King ROCOR WR Orthodox Church, Tullytown, PA:
"Fr." Anthony Bondi, Metropolitan Jonah (retired), Very Rev. Bishop Jerome (retired),  It is a potent picture of an interesting time and an interesting place. Well intentioned men, flawed as we are all are doing the best they can, rightly and wrongly, divided by politics.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
352
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Christopher McAvoy said:
That means being "Western" is more important to him than being Orthodox.
Likewise I can that also being "Eastern" is more important to most of the hierarchy than being Orthodox.
The Ordination of multiple men to the priesthood within a single Mass is a legitimate ancient Western custom, yet it is disrepected and made now viewed as heterodox, but it is not. It is Orthodox.

I think there is enough hypocrisy to go around here, I'll be pleased to share it with others.
If you have a list of legitimate Western customs, canons, etc. that you feel are disregarded or viewed as heterodox within Eastern Orthodoxy, or if you would compile such a list, I for one would be interested in reading it.  At least some of those things, I'm sure, would also affect us (OO): for example, none of our Churches prohibits multiple men from being ordained to the same rank within a single Liturgy (in fact, it is often done, even for the ordination of bishops).   
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
467
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
newseminaryproject.org
Mor Ephrem said:
Christopher McAvoy said:
That means being "Western" is more important to him than being Orthodox.
Likewise I can that also being "Eastern" is more important to most of the hierarchy than being Orthodox.
The Ordination of multiple men to the priesthood within a single Mass is a legitimate ancient Western custom, yet it is disrepected and made now viewed as heterodox, but it is not. It is Orthodox.

I think there is enough hypocrisy to go around here, I'll be pleased to share it with others.
If you have a list of legitimate Western customs, canons, etc. that you feel are disregarded or viewed as heterodox within Eastern Orthodoxy, or if you would compile such a list, I for one would be interested in reading it.  At least some of those things, I'm sure, would also affect us (OO): for example, none of our Churches prohibits multiple men from being ordained to the same rank within a single Liturgy (in fact, it is often done, even for the ordination of bishops).   
Dr. Jack Turner is the one who researched this, he'd make a list faster than I could.
His articles are invaluable, though not without flaws (I dont agree with all of them, but generally most of it.)
Though I could make such a list, I currently lack the motivation, and am persueing other ways of spending my time.
Such a list would surely be of value to the official dialogues between RC, EO, OO churches.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
IOW, "All saints are equal, but some are more equal than others by virtue of their provenance". Frankly, I find this idea very, very disturbing, to put it mildly.
No more disturbing than a Russian church that may have an icon of St John of Kronstadt but not an icon of St Nektarios of Aegina. 
In the past, where people lived in relative isolation and cultural homogeneity, an emphasis on local saints was quite understandable. In many parts of the world, this is no longer the case. Indeed, the knowledge of the existence of saints, eastern and western, from traditionally Orthodox cultures and otherwise, has exploded in recent years. The St Herman's Calendar, produced by an American monastery of Serbian tradition, has incorporated the listing of increasing numbers of Orthodox saints from the pre-schism west for many years now. Fr Andrew Phillips in the UK has an extensive repository of material on the lives and hymnography of western saints. New churches and missions are being dedicated to western saints, including where I live. Yet in none of these situations has there been a sense of "we need to emphasize the western saints over the local eastern ones".

That is my objection to the above statement. Veneration of saints, at a liturgical and private level, should be both/and, not either/or. The latter is veering towards western phyletism, which is just as objectionable to the "eastern" variety.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,981
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
ialmisry said:
Iconodule said:
When the EP was kicked out of Constantinople, did the entire church of Constantinople, including its rites, cease to exist?
Not any more than when he submitted to the Vatican.
Indeed. The movements and errors of one particular bishop or his see are not comparable to the 1000 year disappearance of an entire branch of the Church.
Oh?  Where did they go?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,981
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
LBK said:
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
IOW, "All saints are equal, but some are more equal than others by virtue of their provenance". Frankly, I find this idea very, very disturbing, to put it mildly.
No more disturbing than a Russian church that may have an icon of St John of Kronstadt but not an icon of St Nektarios of Aegina. 
In the past, where people lived in relative isolation and cultural homogeneity, an emphasis on local saints was quite understandable. In many parts of the world, this is no longer the case. Indeed, the knowledge of the existence of saints, eastern and western, from traditionally Orthodox cultures and otherwise, has exploded in recent years. The St Herman's Calendar, produced by an American monastery of Serbian tradition, has incorporated the listing of increasing numbers of Orthodox saints from the pre-schism west for many years now. Fr Andrew Phillips in the UK has an extensive repository of material on the lives and hymnography of western saints. New churches and missions are being dedicated to western saints, including where I live. Yet in none of these situations has there been a sense of "we need to emphasize the western saints over the local eastern ones".

That is my objection to the above statement. Veneration of saints, at a liturgical and private level, should be both/and, not either/or. The latter is veering towards western phyletism, which is just as objectionable to the "eastern" variety.
They should venerate good Western saint like St. Anthony, St. George, St. Nicholas....
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
352
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
LBK said:
Yet in none of these situations has there been a sense of "we need to emphasize the western saints over the local eastern ones".

That is my objection to the above statement. Veneration of saints, at a liturgical and private level, should be both/and, not either/or. The latter is veering towards western phyletism, which is just as objectionable to the "eastern" variety.
Phyletism is one of those bogeymen that gets pulled out from under the bed when it's useful to do so, but I really don't see its relevance here.  

It's no big deal for "Eastern Rite" Eastern Orthodoxy to incorporate Western saints into the calendar, have icons and services created for them, dedicate churches to their memory, etc.  It's not going to make things less Eastern because there is more stability in those communities.  If those things led to even the serious suggestion that Western liturgics or customs should be incorporated into normal practice, those things would be de-emphasised fairly quickly.  

On the other hand, WRO, really a minority within a minority and without as much of the stability of "Big Brother", needs to gain that stability which "regular" EO take for granted in part by hunkering down and resisting influences that, at this point in their history and development, will simply result in a "rite" that is neither here nor there.

LBK said:
In the past, where people lived in relative isolation and cultural homogeneity, an emphasis on local saints was quite understandable. In many parts of the world, this is no longer the case.
     

It is still very much the case.  Among EO in America, I think the Antiochians are probably the most "catholic" in terms of the saints they commemorate.  Everyone else seems to line up more or less according to the "relative isolation and cultural homogeneity" that would be less out of place in 15th century Rus than in 21st century New York.  I still remember going to an OCA parish on 6 October some years ago and learning with surprise that the commemoration of the glorification of St Innocent trumped the feast of the Apostle Thomas.  How does a non-primary feast of a Bishop trump the primary feast of an Apostle?  That's just as phyletistic as anything above.  And I have other examples.    
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
I still remember going to an OCA parish on 6 October some years ago and learning with surprise that the commemoration of the glorification of St Innocent trumped the feast of the Apostle Thomas.  How does a non-primary feast of a Bishop trump the primary feast of an Apostle?
When that saint is the patron of the parish. In such cases, both saints are commemorated simultaneously, or the feast of the Apostle is translated to the day before or day after. A patronal feast, even of a lesser-ranked saint in rubrical terms, means the rank of feast is a full vigil with litia and polyeleos, and, if feasible, a Lesser Blessing of Water on the following morning before the DL.

(Whether that OCA church was dedicated to St Innocent, I don't know, of course.  :) )
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
352
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Aww, LBK!  It was a rhetorical question (I knew the rubric), but  :-* all the same. 

FYI: the church was not dedicated to St Innocent. 
 
Top