• 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?

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Mor Ephrem said:
Aww, LBK!  It was a rhetorical question (I knew the rubric), but  :-* all the same. 
Sorry!  ;D There should be a "rhetorical question" smiley somewhere.  ;)

Mor Ephrem said:
FYI: the church was not dedicated to St Innocent. 
Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.
 

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:
Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.
I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints. 
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.
I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints. 
Unfortunately, ISTM this emphasis still pushes the equation too far towards "either/or", rather than "both/and".

 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
467
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
newseminaryproject.org
I'm happy that this forum has become a productive place to have these important discussions.
All the users who participated in this conversation have made interesting comments.

The ideas I had for the western rite orthodoxy, I believe are ahead of their time, perhaps less impractical presently.
Many of the ideas you all express in this section of the forum are probably ahead of their time.

I do not think that the western influence in the Orthodox Church is going to disappear or dimish. As it gradually increases, to the extent that it still exists the "western rite" community will continue to gain some interest, and especially if there is a unified jurisdiction, past mistakes will probably be corrected. I always strive to have more of the virtue of patience.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
LBK said:
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.
I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints.  
Unfortunately, ISTM this emphasis still pushes the equation too far towards "either/or", rather than "both/and".
Further to the above:

The "neglect" of the active commemoration of many western saints for centuries was as much to do with honest ignorance brought on by geographic separation and other such practical factors. Yet, in recent years, the non-WRO Church has made surprisingly good progress in redressing this, and through natural and reasonable effort, "organic", if you will. Communication is now unimaginably far-reaching than in past eras, and instantaneous, and so there is far more scope for the Church to broaden its pool of saints, and for Orthodox believers, cleric and layman alike, to be better informed of not only the existence of these "forgotten" saints, but also of their lives and contributions to the life of the Church.

By contrast, the WRO directive comes across as forced and artificial.
 

Shlomlokh

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Roanoke, VA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Bulgarian/GOA
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. 
My parish is dedicated to St. Innocent of Alaska and we have icons of St. John and St. Nektarios. ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
 

Shlomlokh

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Roanoke, VA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Bulgarian/GOA
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.
Hokum. Pure hokum.

In Christ,
Andrew
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
43
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
Faith
Greek Orthodox (former WR)
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
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
I dont know what parish you attended, but a real WR parish will celebrate pre-schism western feasts (which we do), pre-schism western saints (which we do), and pre-schism fasting rules for the West (again, which we do). Sounds to me that parish you spent time in were Orthodox LARP'ers trying to be Roman Catholics.
Without the fullness of the actual western rite
We have it.
the complete rite
We have it.
canons et
We share the same canons...we're not Eastern Catholics after all.
there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy
The Church disagrees with you.
Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite by the byzantine = Orthodox crowd is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.
There ya go.
A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make
Since Orthodoxy does not equal Byzantine this is completely accurate.
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
Time and Time again what? Your sentence makes no sense. What theology expressed? We have the same exact theology. I hate to tell you, but a HUGE amount of Orthodox theology came from a *gasp* western source. Your sentence above shows me you know exactly nothing of the western rite, but are using Ortho-sounding filler words to make yourself sound far more knowledgeable than you actually are about this topic.

As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite
Ah, so those who agree with you are educated, and those who don't arent? Well, lets go through the list of the uneducated who have ruled on the Orthodoxy of the Western Rite, shall we? St. Tikhon, the Holy Synod of Russia, Metropolitan Phillip, the Ecumenical Patriarch (the last 2), Patriarch Ignatius IV of blessed memory, Patriarch of Antioch John, the Holy Synod of Antioch, the Holy Synod of ROCOR (yes, they no longer are actively pursuing the WR, but they have always stipulated, and still do, that the WR is indeed totally Orthodox). On top of that, every single Orthodox parish in the world will receive Western Rite Orthdox..including Mt. Athos. So, yeah they're all very uneducated concerning this supposed Latin Rite.

Facts are facts, the Church has universally accepted the Western Rite, but you haven't. Therefore, you're right and they're all simply uneducated concerning 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
Not at all. We use the western tradition and expression of the Orthodox faith. If Rome returned to Orthodoxy, do you REALLY think they'll use the Byzantine liturgy? Keep dreaming.

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever
The Western Rite is growing all the time, champ.

I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community
It exists already, but you just choose to disagree with the Church who says not only is it a viable rite,  but completely in every way Orthodox.

And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with
If the Roman Catholic or Orthodox scholars you mentioned are experts in wine or computer science maybe, not so if they were scholars in Church history, liturgics, etc.

PP
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
U.S.
LBK said:
LBK said:
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.
I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints.  
Unfortunately, ISTM this emphasis still pushes the equation too far towards "either/or", rather than "both/and".
Further to the above:

The "neglect" of the active commemoration of many western saints for centuries was as much to do with honest ignorance brought on by geographic separation and other such practical factors. Yet, in recent years, the non-WRO Church has made surprisingly good progress in redressing this, and through natural and reasonable effort, "organic", if you will. Communication is now unimaginably far-reaching than in past eras, and instantaneous, and so there is far more scope for the Church to broaden its pool of saints, and for Orthodox believers, cleric and layman alike, to be better informed of not only the existence of these "forgotten" saints, but also of their lives and contributions to the life of the Church.

By contrast, the WRO directive comes across as forced and artificial.
If "preference should be given" sounds "forced" then I really don't know what to tell you. It's the same thing with feasts. Why would we celebrate the feast of a "local" Eastern saint, over a local Western one? Wouldn't that just seem odd? It's not like we don't venerate those saints, we are just encouraged to develop a deeper devotion to those of our "own" organic history. If we don't do this consciously and intentionally, it would be very easy for it to wither away altogether, I'm afraid. Lines have to be drawn sometimes, for purely practical reasons. 

I really do think you're making a big deal out of nothing.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,665
Reaction score
26
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
The directive is not only speaking of liturgical commemoration, but of personal, private devotion, including which saints should be preferred in one's choice of domestic iconography. You're trying to tell me this isn't forced or artificial?

EDIT: For those who came in late, this is the directive referred to:

Sleeper said:
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."
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
43
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
Faith
Greek Orthodox (former WR)
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
LBK said:
The directive is not only speaking of liturgical commemoration, but of personal, private devotion, including which saints should be preferred in one's choice of domestic iconography. You're trying to tell me this isn't forced or artificial?
In all fairness, I gotta say, if it is forced, then I wouldn't want that either. LBK, even though it doesn't seem to be forcing folks into it, I can also say that I totally see why some folks would think it was forced.

PP
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
U.S.
LBK said:
The directive is not only speaking of liturgical commemoration, but of personal, private devotion, including which saints should be preferred in one's choice of domestic iconography. You're trying to tell me this isn't forced or artificial?
Right, I wasn't speaking of merely liturgics. And yes, I'm trying to tell you this isn't forced or artificial. It's conscious and intentional for the purpose of preserving aspects of our Western heritage that, quite honestly, were it not for WR parishes/people, would likely disappear altogether. This is also why directives were given even as to the style of the images (Romanesque).

Expand it further; would you find it troublesome if there were explicit directives that "preference should be given" to pray the Divine Office according to the Benedictine Rule, rather than that of eastern monastics? Did you know that fasting rules are also exclusive of Byzantine ones? Even in our private lives? Or that we are strictly forbidden by our Metropolitan to pray the Hail Mary in the Byzantine manner, rather than the Ave Maria?

That we should "prefer" all things Western over Eastern should simply be a given. The only reason it was made explicit in regards to icons is because the "cult of icons" is the one exception to this rule, for us.

The directive says nothing about veneration of the many holy fathers, mothers, and saints of the "East" which we do, frequently and also quite intentionally. But merely the images that we choose to adorn our churches and homes.

I don't expect you to agree with this, but don't turn it into something that it isn't. The directive is not a commentary about Eastern saints or Eastern styles of iconography.
 

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:
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.
I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints. 
Unfortunately, ISTM this emphasis still pushes the equation too far towards "either/or", rather than "both/and".
LBK,

There is no rule that the East can only venerate Eastern saints and the West Western saints.  The saints belong to the Catholic Church (in the ialmisry sense: as opposed to Vatican City :)).  But that doesn't mean that each of the local Orthodox Churches celebrates all the saints from everywhere except in a very general sense. 

The calendar is only so big, and the calendars of local Churches reflect the saints which they hold in especial esteem, because the whole phenomenon of recognition of saints is proper to the local Church.  No one handed down a calendar from above: local Churches kept feasts for certain saints and events, and some of these gradually spread to the entire Church (e.g., Christmas, SS Peter and Paul) while others remained local.  It doesn't mean the saints aren't saints, but it does mean that the calendar of a local Church reflects the devotion of its people and is not simply some magisterial proclamation of who is and who is not a saint. 

That doesn't scandalise us when it comes to the East.  It doesn't scandalise anyone that the Typikon of the Church of Greece makes no mention of commemorating St Herman of Alaska in any way whatsoever on 13 December, while in America he might be more popular than SS Eustratios, Auxentios, Eugene, Mardarios, and Orestes of Sebaste.  And forget about St Herman, since his relation to America is special: the OCA calendar includes a handful of Slavic saints on the same date, which the Greeks omit entirely.  No one is bothered by that.  Why is it a problem if the WRO want to replicate the same in accordance with their own tradition? 

It's difficult for me to see how the real problem is not an uneasiness regarding Western Orthodoxy, rather than a perceived deficiency in the piety due to the saints.           
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,981
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
Mor Ephrem said:
LBK said:
Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.
I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints. 
Unfortunately, ISTM this emphasis still pushes the equation too far towards "either/or", rather than "both/and".
LBK,

There is no rule that the East can only venerate Eastern saints and the West Western saints.  The saints belong to the Catholic Church (in the ialmisry sense: as opposed to Vatican City :)).  But that doesn't mean that each of the local Orthodox Churches celebrates all the saints from everywhere except in a very general sense. 

The calendar is only so big, and the calendars of local Churches reflect the saints which they hold in especial esteem, because the whole phenomenon of recognition of saints is proper to the local Church.  No one handed down a calendar from above: local Churches kept feasts for certain saints and events, and some of these gradually spread to the entire Church (e.g., Christmas, SS Peter and Paul) while others remained local.  It doesn't mean the saints aren't saints, but it does mean that the calendar of a local Church reflects the devotion of its people and is not simply some magisterial proclamation of who is and who is not a saint. 

That doesn't scandalise us when it comes to the East.  It doesn't scandalise anyone that the Typikon of the Church of Greece makes no mention of commemorating St Herman of Alaska in any way whatsoever on 13 December, while in America he might be more popular than SS Eustratios, Auxentios, Eugene, Mardarios, and Orestes of Sebaste.  And forget about St Herman, since his relation to America is special: the OCA calendar includes a handful of Slavic saints on the same date, which the Greeks omit entirely.  No one is bothered by that.  Why is it a problem if the WRO want to replicate the same in accordance with their own tradition? 

It's difficult for me to see how the real problem is not an uneasiness regarding Western Orthodoxy, rather than a perceived deficiency in the piety due to the saints.           
I just came across my bulletin from when I went to Holy Trinity Cathedral in Chicago, announcing that in Moscow that day St. John Kochurov was being glorified, and that the cathedral had sent a delegation, including the priest, who was the successor of St. John, the priest who had pastored the Cathedral while it was being built.  The Russians had come earlier to see if their was a local cult (there was) but the glorification was still left to Moscow as his "local Church."
 

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
32
Faith
Deist
Jurisdiction
N/A
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).   
I know others elsewhere (CAF? I can't remember) have pointed out EO churches doing multiple ordinations (Antiochian, etc.), including video footage. Even if those were violating the standards of the Byzantine-EO tradition or whatever, it still just comes across as polemical more than anything when it's applied to other churches.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
370
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Mor Ephrem said:
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).   
Unleavened bread for the Eucharist, Baptism by affusion, Icons not in conformity with Byzantine canons are three that seem to come up alot.
 

phronesis

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Washington, D.C.
primuspilus said:
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
I dont know what parish you attended, but a real WR parish will celebrate pre-schism western feasts (which we do), pre-schism western saints (which we do), and pre-schism fasting rules for the West (again, which we do). Sounds to me that parish you spent time in were Orthodox LARP'ers trying to be Roman Catholics.
Without the fullness of the actual western rite
We have it.
the complete rite
We have it.
canons et
We share the same canons...we're not Eastern Catholics after all.
there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy
The Church disagrees with you.
Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite by the byzantine = Orthodox crowd is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.
There ya go.
A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make
Since Orthodoxy does not equal Byzantine this is completely accurate.
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
Time and Time again what? Your sentence makes no sense. What theology expressed? We have the same exact theology. I hate to tell you, but a HUGE amount of Orthodox theology came from a *gasp* western source. Your sentence above shows me you know exactly nothing of the western rite, but are using Ortho-sounding filler words to make yourself sound far more knowledgeable than you actually are about this topic.

As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite
Ah, so those who agree with you are educated, and those who don't arent? Well, lets go through the list of the uneducated who have ruled on the Orthodoxy of the Western Rite, shall we? St. Tikhon, the Holy Synod of Russia, Metropolitan Phillip, the Ecumenical Patriarch (the last 2), Patriarch Ignatius IV of blessed memory, Patriarch of Antioch John, the Holy Synod of Antioch, the Holy Synod of ROCOR (yes, they no longer are actively pursuing the WR, but they have always stipulated, and still do, that the WR is indeed totally Orthodox). On top of that, every single Orthodox parish in the world will receive Western Rite Orthdox..including Mt. Athos. So, yeah they're all very uneducated concerning this supposed Latin Rite.

Facts are facts, the Church has universally accepted the Western Rite, but you haven't. Therefore, you're right and they're all simply uneducated concerning 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
Not at all. We use the western tradition and expression of the Orthodox faith. If Rome returned to Orthodoxy, do you REALLY think they'll use the Byzantine liturgy? Keep dreaming.

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever
The Western Rite is growing all the time, champ.

I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community
It exists already, but you just choose to disagree with the Church who says not only is it a viable rite,  but completely in every way Orthodox.

And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with
If the Roman Catholic or Orthodox scholars you mentioned are experts in wine or computer science maybe, not so if they were scholars in Church history, liturgics, etc.

PP
*slow clap*

Well done, sir. +1
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
467
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
newseminaryproject.org
Phronesis and primuspilus,

Until the those who use the western liturgy within the Orthodox Church also abide by the canons found in:

The Collectio Anselmo dedicata (9th c. Italy)
The Libri duo de synodalibus causis (ca. 906, by Regino of Prüm)
The Decretum by Burchard of Worms (ca. 1020)

They are not truly practicing the western rite, but a primarily a western liturgy with a handful of familiar western customs thrown in to appease ignorant lay people who have little exposure beyond the weekly Sunday morning Mass and possibly Sunday Vespers.

 

phronesis

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Washington, D.C.
Christopher McAvoy said:
Phronesis and primuspilus,

Until the those who use the western liturgy within the Orthodox Church also abide by the canons found in:

The Collectio Anselmo dedicata (9th c. Italy)
The Libri duo de synodalibus causis (ca. 906, by Regino of Prüm)
The Decretum by Burchard of Worms (ca. 1020)

They are not truly practicing the western rite, but a primarily a western liturgy with a handful of familiar western customs thrown in to appease ignorant lay people who have little exposure beyond the weekly Sunday morning Mass and possibly Sunday Vespers.
Again, I don't think you understand what the word, "rite," means.

rite
rīt
noun
noun: rite; plural noun: rites
1.
a religious or other solemn ceremony or act.
"the rite of communion"
synonyms: ceremony, ritual, ceremonial; More
a body of customary observances characteristic of a church or a part of it.
"the Byzantine rite"
synonyms: ceremony, ritual, ceremonial; More
a social custom, practice, or conventional act.
"the family Christmas rite"
synonyms: ceremony, ritual, ceremonial; More
 

phronesis

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Washington, D.C.
Observing the Western Rite =/= Doing everything as the Western Church did pre-schism.

We're not trying to recreate the Roman See as it was in 1054. We are restoring the ancient Western liturgical and devotional traditions to the life of the Holy Catholic Orthodox Church, in conformity with the theology thereof.

If you were expecting something different, I'm not surprised that you're disappointed. The Western Rite is not a haven for those who don't really want to become Orthodox. It is The Church.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
467
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
newseminaryproject.org
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

A quote from the beginning of the definition of a rite in the catholic encyclopedia of A.D. 1912 :

"A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows. Sacraments, the Divine Office, and sacramentals (in a wide sense) make up the rite of any Christian religious body."

If one does not follow the pre-1054 western rite, nor the post-1054 western rite, one follows, in fact, no western rite, but simply a particular component of a rite. I hold the historic ORTHODOX teaching that a using particular liturgy by itself does not equate to using the entire western rite.
 

phronesis

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Washington, D.C.
Christopher McAvoy said:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

A quote from the beginning of the definition of a rite in the catholic encyclopedia of A.D. 1912 :

"A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows. Sacraments, the Divine Office, and sacramentals (in a wide sense) make up the rite of any Christian religious body."

If one does not follow the pre-1054 western rite, nor the post-1054 western rite, one follows, in fact, no western rite, but simply a particular component of a rite. I hold the historic ORTHODOX teaching that a using particular liturgy by itself does not equate to using the entire western rite.
This is why you're so confusing, because the Antiochian Western Rite does exactly this.
 

Shlomlokh

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Roanoke, VA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Bulgarian/GOA
Christopher McAvoy said:
Phronesis and primuspilus,

Until the those who use the western liturgy within the Orthodox Church also abide by the canons found in:

The Collectio Anselmo dedicata (9th c. Italy)
The Libri duo de synodalibus causis (ca. 906, by Regino of Prüm)
The Decretum by Burchard of Worms (ca. 1020)

They are not truly practicing the western rite, but a primarily a western liturgy with a handful of familiar western customs thrown in to appease ignorant lay people who have little exposure beyond the weekly Sunday morning Mass and possibly Sunday Vespers.
Which holy synod of bishops do you sit on again? Until then, you are the arbiter of your own ecclesiastical fantasy. I know "prelest" is not a "western" word, but perhaps you should look it up and meditate on it. Please, brother, reconsider your schism from Holy Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
43
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
Faith
Greek Orthodox (former WR)
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
If one does not follow the pre-1054 western rite, nor the post-1054 western rite, one follows, in fact, no western rite, but simply a particular component of a rite. I hold the historic ORTHODOX teaching that a using particular liturgy by itself does not equate to using the entire western rite.
I find this statement completely hilarious, especially since in the defense of your Byzantine only approach, in the preceding paragraph to make your nonsensical point, you use a Roman Catholic definition of something.

Also, I'd like to further note that in this statement:

A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows
You just gave my parish's schedule sans the days we do them in.

I would also note that there are PLENTY of ER churches that do none of these things, but they seem to evade your sagely critique.

Finally, you bring up the year 1054 alot. That is a nice round figure for the schism, but it is in no means historically accurate. The schism could go anywhere from 800 through the 15th Century when the Pope started naming and recognizing titular Latin Patriarchs of Antioch.

Until the those who use the western liturgy within the Orthodox Church also abide by the canons found in:

The Collectio Anselmo dedicata (9th c. Italy)
The Libri duo de synodalibus causis (ca. 906, by Regino of Prüm)
The Decretum by Burchard of Worms (ca. 1020)

They are not truly practicing the western rite, but a primarily a western liturgy with a handful of familiar western customs thrown in to appease ignorant lay people who have little exposure beyond the weekly Sunday morning Mass and possibly Sunday Vespers.
Since you have no clue about the aforementioned western customs, your statement is nonsense. Again, more Ortho-sounding fillers to make yourself far more knowledgeable than your wiki searches would make you out to be.

The end of this discussion is simple. The Church has decreed that the Western Rite is completely viable, and NOBODY can deny us the Eucharist without being in schism. Everything else doesn't matter. You are in direct opposition to what the Church has decreed multiple times (Im still waiting on a response from you concerning those poor uneducated sops I listed before...you know, the one including synods, saints, and Patriarchs).
If you think that the Church is wrong, then maybe you need to stop listing canons for us and start reading them yourself.

PP
 

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:
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.
Nope, there's a very plain difference: whatever cultural attachments the hierarchs may be guilty of, they're still in the Church, and you're in... Charismatic crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic land? You are lost and confused. Come back to the Church.
 

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
Iconodule 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.
If we're wrong to have attachments to cultural expressions, than we're both equally wrong.
Nope, there's a very plain difference: whatever cultural attachments the hierarchs may be guilty of, they're still in the Church, and you're in... Charismatic crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic land? You are lost and confused. Come back to the Church.
This. WRO is important but when it comes to salvation the most important "thing" is Christ and His Church.
 

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
32
Faith
Deist
Jurisdiction
N/A
Alpo said:
Iconodule 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.
If we're wrong to have attachments to cultural expressions, than we're both equally wrong.
Nope, there's a very plain difference: whatever cultural attachments the hierarchs may be guilty of, they're still in the Church, and you're in... Charismatic crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic land? You are lost and confused. Come back to the Church.
This. WRO is important but when it comes to salvation the most important "thing" is Christ and His Church.
+1 to both of you.

There are people that, with no Eastern background, go to densely ethnic and xenophobic parishes that speak little to no English. And why would they do that if the highest priority is preserving one's [cultural/religious/ethnic] heritage?
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
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. 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.
A very important question.

From my understanding (which I am open to correction), the Western Rite was conceived as a way for Western Christian Communities to retain many of their customs and at the same time,  come into Orthodoxy.

I am trying to understand how the Western Rite is NOT a form of Liturgical Anthropology and Reconstructionism....and at the same time, how can you shield the WR from its critics who state that it has had "Byzantinizations" imposed upon it and is not an organic expression of Western Spirituality.

It reminds me a lot of the Tractarian Movement within Anglicanism.  The so called "Anglo-Catholics" were tolerated with the Communion at large, and were technically in Communion with everybody else.  But there was a fairly big disconnect.

In the end,  they were a Liturgical flight of fancy,  and ended up ghettoized.  How does the WR differ?
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
370
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Alpo said:
WRO is important but when it comes to salvation the most important "thing" is Christ and His Church.
This is a false dichotomy.  There is no generic Orthodox or Catholic.  One can only be Orthodox or Catholic by following one of the Ritual Traditions present in that Church. 
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
467
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
newseminaryproject.org
Deacon Lance,

The Roman Catholic Church in the past more frequently emphasized that those who leave the faith have a higher chance of going to hell.
I think that Alpo is entitled to that point of view. It is a legitimate point of view that I have a higher chance of going to hell if I leave the "true faith". I accept this fact. I agree with Alpo and would say it myself.

I think for myself, my contingency on whether the Orthodox Church was the true faith hinged on how well it accepted the principal of catholicity and inculturation. I guess once it failed to pass this test from my own perspective , the rest of my confidence in it was lost.

Irregardless of others views, my own view has always been that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are profoundly similar. Similar to the extent that for me to accepting one as true and the other as false rests upon a few subtle details. I've always felt that the debates over papal authority and filioque for instance were largely political rather than absolute "black and white" divisions.
In a sense they are black and white, but it is also for me seen as an abstract concept far removed from the everyday life of prayer and a parish community.

I would hate to say that I am a moral relativist... I don't know what I am. I may be tied to the tradition of the church in most ways,  but for hierarchy and advanced theology...not as strongly...  From my perspective my life will be far easier if I accept the mainstream traditional roman catholicism and become obedient to whatever the Roman Catholic Church historically teaches through it's councils. From this point forward thats my goal. I am blessed that the very beautiful sung latin mass and RC "anglican use" ordinariate masses and communities are exist close enough to where I live.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
370
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Christopher McAvoy said:
Deacon Lance,

The Roman Catholic Church in the past more frequently emphasized that those who leave the faith have a higher chance of going to hell.
I think that Alpo is entitled to that point of view. It is a legitimate point of view that I have a higher chance of going to hell if I leave the "true faith". I accept this fact. I agree with Alpo and would say it myself.

I think for myself, my contingency on whether the Orthodox Church was the true faith hinged on how well it accepted the principal of catholicity and inculturation. I guess once it failed to pass this test from my own perspective , the rest of my confidence in it was lost.

Irregardless of others views, my own view has always been that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are profoundly similar. Similar to the extent that for me to accepting one as true and the other as false rests upon a few subtle details. I've always felt that the debates over papal authority and filioque for instance were largely political rather than absolute "black and white" divisions.
In a sense they are black and white, but it is also for me seen as an abstract concept far removed from the everyday life of prayer and a parish community.

I would hate to say that I am a moral relativist... I don't know what I am. I may be tied to the tradition of the church in most ways,  but for hierarchy and advanced theology...not as strongly...  From my perspective my life will be far easier if I accept the mainstream traditional roman catholicism and become obedient to whatever the Roman Catholic Church historically teaches through it's councils. From this point forward thats my goal. I am blessed that the very beautiful sung latin mass and RC "anglican use" ordinariate masses and communities are exist close enough to where I live.
Christopher,

That was not the point I was addressing.  Rather I was refering to the fact that some seem to think there is a base-line Orthodoxy or Catholicism to which Roman, Byzantine, Syriac, etc are tacked on.  One can only be Catholic or Orthodox by being Roman, or Byzantine, or Syriac or any of the others.  It is like saying male/female isn't important I am just human.  No, one is only human while also being either male or female.
 

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
Christopher McAvoy said:
I don't know what I am. I may be tied to the tradition of the church in most ways,  but for hierarchy and advanced theology...not as strongly...
This doesn't sound like mainstream traditional Roman Catholicism. Actually the exact opposite.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Misplaced Book 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. 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.
A very important question.

From my understanding (which I am open to correction), the Western Rite was conceived as a way for Western Christian Communities to retain many of their customs and at the same time,  come into Orthodoxy.
This is correct.

I am trying to understand how the Western Rite is NOT a form of Liturgical Anthropology and Reconstructionism
It is neither of these things (at least within Antioch) because it was the living traditions of the communities that were merely resumed and reintegrated with Orthodox tradition. It was not a retreat to the past nor was anything concocted artificially according to the whims of a few individuals.

....and at the same time, how can you shield the WR from its critics who state that it has had "Byzantinizations" imposed upon it and is not an organic expression of Western Spirituality.
The onus is on those claiming something has been Byzantinized. Can an epiclesis really be considered one? Are icons? Two pre-Communion prayers from the Byzantine liturgy?

It is also important to bear in mind the spirit in which any of these sorts of adjustments are made. There are great reasons for all of them.

It reminds me a lot of the Tractarian Movement within Anglicanism.  The so called "Anglo-Catholics" were tolerated with the Communion at large, and were technically in Communion with everybody else.  But there was a fairly big disconnect.

In the end,  they were a Liturgical flight of fancy,  and ended up ghettoized.   How does the WR differ?
The biggest difference is that this Western liturgical tradition is now under the care of the undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Surely that makes an immeasurable difference? And experience has shown that WR parishes are remarkably involved in pan-Orthodox initiatives at the local level and are very much integrated into the wider Orthodox presence in their respective communities.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
Sleeper said:
It is neither of these things (at least within Antioch) because it was the living traditions of the communities that were merely resumed and reintegrated with Orthodox tradition. It was not a retreat to the past nor was anything concocted artificially according to the whims of a few individuals.
That leaves open the question of how compatible the Tradition is.  In the case of Anglicanism you have rupture upon rupture in it's history.  Sure there are some Traditions which may have their roots in the "Orthodox West" but they have been smothered by centuries of innovation.  Reintegration would not be possible without some form of "modification" and if that is the case,  how is that not a reconstruction?

Sleeper said:
The onus is on those claiming something has been Byzantinized. Can an epiclesis really be considered one? Are icons? Two pre-Communion prayers from the Byzantine liturgy?

It is also important to bear in mind the spirit in which any of these sorts of adjustments are made. There are great reasons for all of them.
  The fact that those things were part of the "original Liturgy" is irrelevant to the larger question.  To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all.  It is the same spirit that some flavors of Protestantism evoke when they attempt to "bring back First Century practices."  What is the difference?  Things were part of the Tradition then but they no longer are.

I understand the spirit of receiving the WR.  It is an act of Economy, and I have no doubt that it has nourished many of the souls who entered into the agreement.  Nor will I speak ill of Our Bishops who have set up these arrangements.


Sleeper said:
The biggest difference is that this Western liturgical tradition is now under the care of the undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Surely that makes an immeasurable difference? And experience has shown that WR parishes are remarkably involved in pan-Orthodox initiatives at the local level and are very much integrated into the wider Orthodox presence in their respective communities.

Again, I have no doubt that many souls have benefited. 

Don't misunderstand,  I am not hostile to the WR.    I have mixed feelings about them and am in doubt as to it's long term viability.  How can they grow or be "promoted" without being painted as reverse Uniatism?  Trying to resurrect Western Orthodoxy in pockets and piecemeal just seems to be a self defeating thing, which will no doubt cause friction in the long term.
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
43
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
Faith
Greek Orthodox (former WR)
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
In the case of Anglicanism you have rupture upon rupture in it's history
Ruptures can be healed.

Sure there are some Traditions which may have their roots in the "Orthodox West" but they have been smothered by centuries of innovation
Which can be corrected. Just look at Iconoclasm.

To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all
So when/if Rome returns, they better learn the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? What about the Hagia Sophia? Its been 600 years. So we should stop praying for it to come back to Christian hands? How long is too long for something to be "organic"? Further, the Western rite was not dead for 1,000 years. More like 500 when you account for the fact that there was a Western ruling monastery on Mt. Athos.

Again, I have no doubt that many souls have benefited.
Based on what findings?

How can they grow or be "promoted" without being painted as reverse Uniatism?
Because anyone who has read more than 5 minutes into Uniatism knows the WR is nowhere close to it. Unless said person wants to use it as an argument and remain blissfully ignorant (yes, Im looking at you Met. Kallistos).

Trying to resurrect Western Orthodoxy in pockets and piecemeal just seems to be a self defeating thing, which will no doubt cause friction in the long term
No, its defeating because people still hold to the Byzantine = Orthodox nonsense.

PP
 

phronesis

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Washington, D.C.
I really can't believe we keep hearing this "liturgical archaeology/anthropology" nonsense.

Several posters here have repeatedly explained why these charges don't stick, but there's a bigger issue:

SO WHAT?!?!

I mean, really. People throw around the liturgical archaeology label like it's some kind of trump card. But seriously, so what if it is? Why is it a bad thing? Which part of the WR are you saying is incompatible with the life of the Orthodox Church and faith? Which of the synods, saints, and patriarchs who've affirmed the WR do you believe were in error? I've yet to see one person actually explain what they mean by "liturgical archaeology/anthropology," let alone why that's a bad thing.

As I've pointed out before, the Church believes both in giving new life and resurrection; it seems quite appropriate to put those beliefs into action w/r/t a venerable and ancient rite whose practice had been forced to persist outside the Church.

Look, I get why people get nervous when it comes to liturgical innovation - and that is a healthy response. We shouldn't just be digging up any old assemblage of prayers and saying they're OK to use just because they're old. But that's not what's happening here. Here you have an entire devotional and liturgical rite that was faithfully lived out within the Orthodox faith from the earliest centuries of the church up through the schism. Thereafter, it persisted but only under the watch of a See that was in error. What the WR restores is this ancient rite, free from any later modifications that took place when the rite was no longer in use among the sees not in error. Is this really archaeology? We're just picking up where we left off. But even if it is, so what?

There is only one valid reason to oppose the WR and that is because you believe it is incompatible with the Orthodox faith. But to make that argument, you're going to need to excommunicate a lot of saints and every bishop before the schism.
 

James2

High Elder
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
753
Reaction score
1
Points
18
phronesis said:
Look, I get why people get nervous when it comes to liturgical innovation - and that is a healthy response. We shouldn't just be digging up any old assemblage of prayers and saying they're OK to use just because they're old. But that's not what's happening here. Here you have an entire devotional and liturgical rite that was faithfully lived out within the Orthodox faith from the earliest centuries of the church up through the schism. Thereafter, it persisted but only under the watch of a See that was in error. What the WR restores is this ancient rite, free from any later modifications that took place when the rite was no longer in use among the sees not in error. Is this really archaeology? We're just picking up where we left off. But even if it is, so what?
Generally true, although there are a couple of pre-schism references to "merits" of saints which were excised from the Antiochian liturgy of St. Gregory.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
370
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Misplaced Book said:
The fact that those things were part of the "original Liturgy" is irrelevant to the larger question.   To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all.   It is the same spirit that some flavors of Protestantism evoke when they attempt to "bring back First Century practices."   What is the difference?  Things were part of the Tradition then but they no longer are.
They haven't been dead for a thousand years.  They have been in use, by Churches the Orthodox may consider heretical and schismatic, but they have been in use.  Don't the Orthodox always proclaim we don't know where the Spirit isn't? Did the Western Church lose every grace of the Spirit, every bit of holiness?  I don't think the hiearchy of the Orthodox Church thinks so.

edit for typos
 

phronesis

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Washington, D.C.
Deacon Lance said:
Misplaced Book said:
The fact that those things were part of the "original Liturgy" is irrelevant to the larger question.   To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all.   It is the same spirit that some flavors of Protestantism evoke when they attempt to "bring back First Century practices."   What is the difference?  Things were part of the Tradition then but they no longer are.
They haven't been dead for a thousand years.  They have been in use, by Churches the Orthodox may consider heretical and schismatic, but they have been in use.  Don't they Orthodox always proclaim we don't know where the Spirit isn't? Did the Wetsern Church lose every grace of the Spirit, every bit of holiness?  I don't think the hiearchy of the Orthodox Church thinks so.
+1

Precisely.
 
Top