OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 02:43:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Western-rite Orthodoxy  (Read 44814 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #90 on: December 20, 2006, 05:58:32 PM »

Even if you don't consider the Pope more than Patriarch of Rome, the Roman See has had Byzantine members subject to it uninterrupted since before the schism, the Patrirach of Constantinople would have had the same if it had not let the Latin Monastery of Amalfion on Mt Athos fade into oblivion.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #91 on: December 20, 2006, 06:39:42 PM »

Even if you don't consider the Pope more than Patriarch of Rome, the Roman See has had Byzantine members subject to it uninterrupted since before the schism, the Patrirach of Constantinople would have had the same if it had not let the Latin Monastery of Amalfion on Mt Athos fade into oblivion.

Yes, Rome had eastern-rite parishes, and Constantinople had western-rite parishes; parishes while under the ecclesiastical authority of their local bishop, were part of the organic liturgical and spiritual community of the other See. Thus, while they would be ruled by, obedient to, and commemorate their local Bishop, the Bishop who shared their rite would offer liturgical and spiritual guidance. This worked fine when Old and New Rome were in communion, just as is the case with non-Greek monasteries on Mt. Athos. However, when communion was broken and this liturgical and spiritual connection to the patriarchates of other rites was lost, these foreign-rite churches could no longer be sustained in a healthy manner. Thus, Constantinople wisely closed these parishes and monasteries or required them to use the rite of the Patriarchate. Unfortunately Rome failed to see this and this failure led to a deepening of the schism and some of the worst moments in the history of our two Churches.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,347


« Reply #92 on: December 20, 2006, 06:51:50 PM »

GiC,
Care to read the link I provided and comment?  Thanks.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #93 on: December 20, 2006, 11:26:48 PM »

I'm wondering what some of you anti-Western Rite people (GiC first of all, of course) think of this article.  Please, take the arguement of the article and not the disagreement with his Eminence of Blessed Memory, Metropolitan Athony of SF.

I thought it gave good food for thought at the very least:
http://www.westernorthodox.com/Lux-Occidentalis

If the article is what I believe it was intended to be, an apologetic for the western rite, I must say that it feel well short. If it set out to be a brief historical overview of the western-rite services, then it was at least partially successful. The author's addressing of His Eminence, of Blessed Memory, was respectful, if only marginally so. But a few other things unrelated to the argument stood out and concerned me. First, his claim that St. John Chrysostom was an 'Arab Christian,' perhaps I am in error, but I fear this was the first time I have heard such a claim, does someone have some reference to suggest that St. John Chrysostom was indeed an Arab, or is this just poor scholarship? Secondly, I am quite disturbed by the profound disrespect this 'Priest' showed towards Patriarch Theodore VI of Antioch, the Great Canonist Balsamon.

Now onto the content. It would seem as though the goal of the majority of the essay is to demonstrate that the western rite really was the historical liturgy of the west, in response to His Eminence's claim that it was not. This very approach was something of a strawman argument, because nearly the entire essay was devoted to this issue, which wasn't even the primary objection of His Eminence. But with that said, the essay failed to prove its point. What is needed to prove this point is not a narrative on the history of the rite (quietly ignoring any post schism evolution or development of the liturgy), but rather a side by side comparison of the text of the liturgy as it is used today and the a critical text of the liturgy as it was pre-schism. The author would then need to examanine and explain the variations (if any, though I presume there are many, liturgies dont remain static). Towards the end of this section of the essay the author did compare similarities, but frankly I can (and have in papers at Holy Cross) find more similarities than were mentioned between the Tridentine Mass and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, that hardly means the two are interchangeable. Though I am not a liturgist and cannot speak with certainty about the ancient liturgies, what is telling is that the author found it necessary to compare similarities rather than differences between the liturgy now used and the ancient liturgy.

Clearly there has been substantial evolution in the liturgies over the last 1000 years, evolution that took place completely outside the Orthodox Church. And while, in reference to the Anglican liturgies used, the author went to great lengths to demonstrate that the liturgy was not protestantized, he did little to demonstrate that it was not influenced my medieval Latin theology, some of which must have occured for the liturgy to even be compared to protestant theology (which was done in the essay itself).

Furthermore, the author clearly admited evolutions and developments to the Roman rite during the time of Charlemagne and at the direction of the same. While the schism may not yet have formally occured by this time in history, clear cultural and theological division were starting to form, not the least of which was the iconoclastic tendency of Charlemagne and the Germanic peoples at this time. Therefore this Carolingian influence should also be looked upon with concern, with the theological and cultural developments of this era being considered in the context of the Council of Frankfort and related social influences. None of these difficulities or concerns are even suggested in the very incomplete essay presented.

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

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #94 on: December 21, 2006, 01:38:07 AM »

Ahem, but we Orthodox are the REAL Catholics, thank you very much.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #95 on: December 21, 2006, 01:54:20 AM »

Pound that chest with pride.  Tongue
Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 720



« Reply #96 on: December 21, 2006, 11:41:49 AM »

Of course it isn't inappropriate.

Then Orthodox Western Liturgies aren't inappropriate either. Thanks for clearing that up.
We consider the Bishop of Rome more than patriarch of the Latin church.

The rest of the Ancient Patriarchates do not, however.
C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C is the word, not Latin. I'm glad more Latins recognize that of late.

Thump that chest with pride (and eyes firmly shut).
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 674



« Reply #97 on: December 21, 2006, 12:59:18 PM »

But would it not also be artificial for you to be under an Eastern Patriarch using a western liturgy, being completely divorced from the entire liturgical tradition of your Bishop? The western liturgies have a place, under the western Bishops, be they of Rome or Canterbury; and just as it is most inappropraite for Rome to have churches with eastern liturgies, so is it inappropriate for the Orthodox to have western liturgies.

At least the Eastern Catholic churches do have their own bishops, and, in some cases, patriarchs, but then they have been around a lot longer than we Western Rite Orthodox.  I suspect that in due time we will have Western Rite Orthodox bishops.  Meanwhile we are strongly encouraged and supported by our Antiochian bishops, and at least one GOA bishop.

James
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #98 on: December 21, 2006, 01:10:13 PM »

I suspect that in due time we will have Western Rite Orthodox bishops.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More ecclesiological soup!?!?!?!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,076



« Reply #99 on: December 21, 2006, 01:10:41 PM »

Interesting words from + Metropolitan Anthony Bashir

Quote
It has been our Orthodox failure that we long spent our energies fruitlessly protesting your Uniate program rather than in imitating it, for we too claim to be the one, true Christ of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Within the last quarter of a century the Orthodox Church has tardily corrected this policy, and today there are Orthodox faithful in Europe and America who follow the Roman Latin rite. In my own diocese I have four parishes and a mission that use the latin rite in the vernacular, and I am proud that we have led the way in this movement in the United States. In the last issue of Unitas magazine I read with pleasure the positive appraisal of Western Rite Orthodoxy by a Father Kelleher of the Franciscans of the Atonement.

http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2006/12/thoughts-on-orthodox-roman-relations.html
Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #100 on: December 21, 2006, 02:57:53 PM »

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More ecclesiological soup!?!?!?!

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

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,076



« Reply #101 on: December 21, 2006, 03:00:16 PM »

Are there any WR priests that aren't married?  Where would the bishops come from?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #102 on: December 21, 2006, 03:16:37 PM »

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

It does continue the ecclesiological mess.  If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess.  (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,347


« Reply #103 on: December 21, 2006, 03:29:12 PM »

It does continue the ecclesiological mess.  If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess.  (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)

I'm assuming you mean situations like the Albanian, Romanian, etc. episcopoi in the OCA.  Have to agree there...rather nonesensical.  My sister goes to a Romanian OCA parish in Falls Church, VA...and I think she says there are only a few Romanians left.  Why doesn't that parish just go under the local OCA bishop? (rhetorical)
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #104 on: December 21, 2006, 03:39:11 PM »

In the Catholic terminology an episcopal vicar is a priest/auxillary bishop with responsibility for a certain geographic, ethnic, or ritual group and I assume the same is true for the Orthodox.

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

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #105 on: December 21, 2006, 03:54:51 PM »

Evgraph Kovalevsky was consecrated Bishop Jean-Nectaire de Saint-Denis by ROCOR.

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

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #106 on: December 21, 2006, 03:55:29 PM »

I honestly don't mean to muddy the water.  Undecided

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

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

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #107 on: December 21, 2006, 03:58:03 PM »

Evgraph Kovalevsky was consecrated Bishop Jean-Nectaire de Saint-Denis by ROCOR.

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

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #108 on: December 21, 2006, 04:12:14 PM »


Then Orthodox Western Liturgies aren't inappropriate either. Thanks for clearing that up.
The rest of the Ancient Patriarchates do not, however.
Thump that chest with pride (and eyes firmly shut).

I never said Western-rite Orthodoxy is inappropriate. I'm happy to see it.

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #109 on: December 21, 2006, 05:27:57 PM »

Rdr. Seraphim,

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

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

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,347


« Reply #110 on: December 21, 2006, 09:17:37 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #111 on: December 21, 2006, 10:24:59 PM »

And I am also bothered that a layman such as yourself gives this 'Priest' who wrote the article.

What comes around goes around, one who is so dismissive of and disrespectful towards the Great Balsamon deserves no more respect. Of course, if it makes you feel any better, it was simply stylistic imitation to make a point, obviously the point got acorss.

Quote
From your response above, it almost seems to me that you didn't even read the article...or perhaps just skimmed over it and not actually read it.  Without actually making a side by side comparison, which would probably be the subject of an entire thesis spanning perhaps ten times the length of the article, I thought the author did a great job of explaining how there really ISN'T much difference between the WO Rite of St. Gregory vs the more than 1000 yr old traditional text.

Oh, I read it, and saw the gaping holes that made it obvious he was only citing that which supported his position. If the liturgies were as similar as the author would have us to believe such a comparison as I recommended would be a fairly simple project indeed. Surely the differences between the current text and the ancient text are so few that they can be counted on one hand, all of which are probably copying errors. I have a sneaking suspicion that the texts arn't identical, which is essentially necessary for him to prove his position that they are completely free of post-schism development. And every 'minor' change is worthy of serious concern, look at the huge difference the introduction of the one word 'filioque' made in the creed. Of course, this is only dealing with the liturgy of St. Gregory; what of the more widely used liturgy of St. Tikhon? That is where his scholarship became particularly bad, for good reason I would guess.

Quote
Clearly to you, but it doesn't seem like these issues really are as much as influence as you presume.  What was that about not being a Liturgist?

Very true, but from the article it is quite clear that neither is the author.

Quote
Not that I think Karl der Grosse deserves to be venerated as a saint, but I was told that he is considered one by the Church of Rome.  Wait, wasn't this over 200 years pre-Schism?  Oh wait, even though the Schism hadn't happened yet, I guess that all Christians in "the West" for 300+ years pre-Schism must have been heretics according to you...

Ah, yes, I am sure that everyone in the west was perfectly Orthodox in 1053 and all of a sudden became heretics in 1054...a mass deconversion, if you will (actually it was 1014, but who's counting?). Amazingly enough, this seems to be the attitude of many advocates of the western rite. The fact of the matter is that the theological divergence began much earlier: Germany was always plagued by the early influence of the Arians on their conversion, the disputes between Augustine and Cassian occured in the early fifth century, by the early seventh century most the west would entertain the double procession of the Holy Spirit, etc. Concerning the Carolingians specifically, while the dogma of Frankfort may have been overturned by Rome the related cultural influences were not. Even to this day it can be seen that the architecture of German Churches is designed to minimize the veneration of statues or icons. Any liturgical or theological developments from this time period should be looked upon with suspect.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 674



« Reply #112 on: December 22, 2006, 12:27:19 PM »

It does continue the ecclesiological mess.  If you have individual parishes that are WR and don't answer to their local bishop, but rather to a "WR Vicar" then it does contribute to the mess.  (THis is exactly why I'm weary of the rhetoric of administrative unity that comes from the OCA and AOA when they say that we are in "ecclesiological heresy" when they, in fact, have situations that are worse within their own diocese!)

It's not messy at all.  Now that the AOA has dioceses, the diocesan bishop is the bishop for all parishes in his diocese, whether Eastern or Western.  Bishop Basil does have some responsibility for the Western rite, but he does not act as the diocesan bishop of Western rite parishes, except of course in his own diocese.  But as far as I know, even Bishop Basil does not use western vestments and celebrate according to either the rite of St. Gregory or St. Tikhon.  Typically when a bishop is present at a Western-rite liturgy, the mass is celebrated by a priest in the presence of the bishop.  As Western Orthodoxy matures, I hope that our bishops will become bi-ritual so that they can celebrate pontifical mass according to the Western rite.

James
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #113 on: December 22, 2006, 02:15:37 PM »

Greekischristian, actually the Filioqe was taken out of the WR liturgy during the Creed. I know of some married and some celibate WR clergymen. I've heard that bishops could possibly come from the Christmister WR monastery in Long Island as the ROCOR eventually heal the rift with the MP.
Logged
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,711



« Reply #114 on: December 22, 2006, 05:43:54 PM »

Actually in the last grouping of Archmandrites up for the Bishops List to be considered by the Antiochian Synod, there was at least one western rite archimandrite from Texas on the list of those eligible for election.

THOMAS
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #115 on: December 22, 2006, 05:49:48 PM »

Greekischristian, actually the Filioqe was taken out of the WR liturgy during the Creed.

That's not exactly the point I was making...the offending term may have been removed, but the thousand plus years of development in a culture that believed the theology the offending term entailed to be perfectly orthodox has yet to be removed, nor can it be.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #116 on: December 22, 2006, 06:02:13 PM »

That's not exactly the point I was making...the offending term may have been removed, but the thousand plus years of development in a culture that believed the theology the offending term entailed to be perfectly orthodox has yet to be removed, nor can it be.

So, in other words, Westerners can't be converted.  At all.  Ever.  End of story.

Yup, apparently only Greeks can be Christians.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #117 on: December 22, 2006, 06:04:19 PM »

So, in other words, Westerners can't be converted.  At all.  Ever.  End of story.

Yup, apparently only Greeks can be Christians.

They can always embrace Greek culture. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #118 on: December 22, 2006, 06:45:54 PM »

Actually in the last grouping of Archmandrites up for the Bishops List to be considered by the Antiochian Synod, there was at least one western rite archimandrite from Texas on the list of those eligible for election.

THOMAS
Fr. Dan of Our Lady of Walsingham?
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #119 on: December 22, 2006, 06:47:32 PM »

They can always embrace Greek culture. Wink
Well, at least you care enough to have looked into the WR, right?  It is better than indifference.
Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #120 on: December 22, 2006, 07:07:38 PM »

It's not messy at all.  Now that the AOA has dioceses, the diocesan bishop is the bishop for all parishes in his diocese, whether Eastern or Western.  Bishop Basil does have some responsibility for the Western rite, but he does not act as the diocesan bishop of Western rite parishes, except of course in his own diocese.  But as far as I know, even Bishop Basil does not use western vestments and celebrate according to either the rite of St. Gregory or St. Tikhon.  Typically when a bishop is present at a Western-rite liturgy, the mass is celebrated by a priest in the presence of the bishop.  As Western Orthodoxy matures, I hope that our bishops will become bi-ritual so that they can celebrate pontifical mass according to the Western rite. 

That's better than what I thought was going on.  Thanks.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 720



« Reply #121 on: December 25, 2006, 01:39:21 AM »

The rest of the ancient patriarchates have fallen out of communion with Rome. Of course they don't see Rome that way, though they used to.
Once Rome became steeped in error, remaining in communion with her was counter productive for the Orthodox.
Logged
Starlight
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Posts: 1,537


« Reply #122 on: December 26, 2006, 12:14:12 AM »

In the Catholic terminology an episcopal vicar is a priest/auxillary bishop with responsibility for a certain geographic, ethnic, or ritual group and I assume the same is true for the Orthodox.

I see no reason why in the future the Antiochians could/would not ordain a celibate/widower/monk Western Rite priest (are there any?) as vicar for the Western Rite just as ROCOR has a vicar bishops for the Old Rite.
Actually in the last grouping of Archmandrites up for the Bishops List to be considered by the Antiochian Synod, there was at least one western rite archimandrite from Texas on the list of those eligible for election.

THOMAS
Absolutely! Thomas, thank you for information. Or, only in the case if AOA does not have enough of those (if the aforementioned Archimandrite would get the office of the Bishop at another diocese, for example, or more then one would be needed) former Roman Catholic priests, who became Orthodox can handle this task.
Once Rome became steeped in error, remaining in communion with her was counter productive for the Orthodox.
.
Exactly!
Also, I am compltely in favor of James2's idea of bi-ritual services by Hierarchs. May I just ask, so when the ordination for the Western Rite takes place, in that case do Hierarchs also serve according to the Eastern Rite?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2006, 12:15:08 AM by Starlight » Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #123 on: December 26, 2006, 02:52:34 AM »

Also, I am compltely in favor of James2's idea of bi-ritual services by Hierarchs. May I just ask, so when the ordination for the Western Rite takes place, in that case do Hierarchs also serve according to the Eastern Rite?

In the Antiochian Archdiocese all the ordinations to deacons and priest are done in "Eastern" practice. All of the western rite clergy are ordained in eastern vestments during an eastern liturgy. I have seen minor orders being ordained in western services where the bishops wear his eastern epitrichilion and omophorion and says the eastern prayers for the office.

Logged

Joseph
Starlight
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Posts: 1,537


« Reply #124 on: December 26, 2006, 09:30:21 PM »

Arimethea,
Thank you very much for information. I appreciate that.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #125 on: December 28, 2006, 11:18:51 AM »

GIC on the Liturgies of SS. Tikhon and Gregory:

"Furthermore, not only are their roots museum pieces to us, but their existance within the Orthodox Church is a foreign imposition."

Actually not true of the Liturgy of St. Gregory, at least the Anaphora.  Manuscripts were found on Mt. Athos that contained the Roman Canon (without Byzantine Epiclesis clumsily and unnecessarily added) inserted in the framework of the Litrugy of St. John Chrysostom.  This same Liturgy with Roman Canon was used by Russian Old Rite Orthodox in Turkey under the EP through the 1960s on the Feast of St. Peter and Paul.  When they immigrated to America, the Turkish authorities confiscated their liturgical books as historical artifacts.

My own guess is that SS. Cyril and Methodius themselves brought the Roman Canon back to the Slav mission with them becasue of the patronage they received from the Pope and this is how the Old Rite came to use it.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #126 on: January 05, 2007, 01:16:21 PM »

GIC on the Liturgies of SS. Tikhon and Gregory:

"Furthermore, not only are their roots museum pieces to us, but their existance within the Orthodox Church is a foreign imposition."

Actually not true of the Liturgy of St. Gregory, at least the Anaphora.  Manuscripts were found on Mt. Athos that contained the Roman Canon (without Byzantine Epiclesis clumsily and unnecessarily added) inserted in the framework of the Litrugy of St. John Chrysostom.  This same Liturgy with Roman Canon was used by Russian Old Rite Orthodox in Turkey under the EP through the 1960s on the Feast of St. Peter and Paul.  When they immigrated to America, the Turkish authorities confiscated their liturgical books as historical artifacts.

My own guess is that SS. Cyril and Methodius themselves brought the Roman Canon back to the Slav mission with them becasue of the patronage they received from the Pope and this is how the Old Rite came to use it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Liturgy of Saint Peter http://www.odox.net/Liturgy1-Peter.htm
« Last Edit: January 05, 2007, 02:49:56 PM by sdcheung » Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #127 on: January 10, 2007, 06:14:58 PM »

Again, what a waste of a thread. The arguments against the Western Rite are still based upon a straw-man of what WRO is imagined to be, rather than what it is. We Western Orthodox can't be anything else but Orthodox - not Roman Catholics, not Anglican Protestants, etc. We don't have to be 'Greek' either. Our rite isn't up for debate or negotiation either - no more than the continued existence of Greeks, Russians, Serbs, etc.

If one really wants to know about the Western Rite of Orthodoxy - again and again, actually go to the WRO parishes, missions, monasteries. Ask the questions of the WRO rather than playing yet another game of 'the blind men and the elephant'.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #128 on: January 10, 2007, 06:56:55 PM »

If one really wants to know about the Western Rite of Orthodoxy - again and again, actually go to the WRO parishes, missions, monasteries. Ask the questions of the WRO rather than playing yet another game of 'the blind men and the elephant'.

This would be the ideal situation but there are many people who are on here who are no where close to a parish the practices the Western Rite so they come here looking for information. As with many aspects of the internet there are many self appointed experts many different subject that they know nothing about. For the most part this thread has been a good conversation of questions and answers. There are a number of people who are participating in this thread that have experience with the Western Rite so I would characterize the discussion as "blind men and the elephant." If there is specific mis-information or bad arguments please point them out so everyone can benefit.
Logged

Joseph
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #129 on: January 11, 2007, 12:54:27 AM »

Aristibule
Good for you!
Stand strong for your rite and your Orthodoxy.
But go gentle on the rest of us; there just are not enough WR parishes to do what you suggest - "come and see"
I think if we all could, there would be alot more favorable attitude.
Personally I wish a WR parish existed near me (closer than over 200 miles from Pittsburgh - in Wash. DC, or Delaware.
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #130 on: January 11, 2007, 02:25:03 AM »

Theres one thats starting up as a mission in my area and I'm sort of prticipating in it. I dont exactly know how this will all play out culturally. I mean people from the Greek parish would definitely wonder why we would go anywhere other than a Greek parish...and dont bother explaining Antiochian to them, I'd have to conjour up something like "Einia kala kai orthodoxon, apo tin Antiochia" ...."Aaah, einai stin  Mikra Asia poli konta Kostantinoupoli!" would probably be the response. Regardless of what others think, it shouldn't matter what durisdiction a parish you go to ever is, as long as its canonically Orthodox. Is being bi-ritual as a lay person or priest possible?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2007, 02:25:46 AM by Timos » Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #131 on: January 11, 2007, 07:24:10 AM »

Brother Aidan - Washington DC? St. Gregory the Great Orthodox Christian Church, 1443 Euclid St., NW, Washington, DC. That is the same parish that produces the Western Rite Orthodox hymnal, St. Ambrose's Hymnal. http://www.stgregoryoc.org is the website.

Timos - bi-ritual is pretty common for layfolk in areas without WRO parishes. Many of our Benedictine Oblates of Christminster also attend, serve, or sing in Byzantine rite parishes. Western rite clergy concelebrate at Byzantine liturgies, and even Byzantine bishops preside over Western rite liturgies (I plan at being at just such a Pontifical Divine Liturgy this year, God willing.)
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #132 on: January 11, 2007, 12:48:37 PM »

I was looking at some of the photos posted on their site of their new chapel and it doesn't really look like an WR setting. It looks more like an Eastern bishops private residential chapel or something. Why do WR people feel the need to be 'Byzantinized' or Easternized to be accepted? Actually, seeing that would turn me off from the WR rather than interest me. It seems rather confusing to have Eastern icons, eastern cross and fans, and western liturgy and chant. Why can't all these things be western but still orthodox??

Logged
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #133 on: January 11, 2007, 02:11:15 PM »

I was looking at some of the photos posted on their site of their new chapel and it doesn't really look like an WR setting. It looks more like an Eastern bishops private residential chapel or something. Why do WR people feel the need to be 'Byzantinized' or Easternized to be accepted? Actually, seeing that would turn me off from the WR rather than interest me. It seems rather confusing to have Eastern icons, eastern cross and fans, and western liturgy and chant. Why can't all these things be western but still orthodox??

  I've seen that too.  My guess is that those may be gifts from the local Antiochian parish/cathedral.  It is perfectly OK to have icons as a reredos.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2007, 02:12:38 PM by Landon77 » Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #134 on: January 11, 2007, 04:19:50 PM »

WR people don't feel the need to be Byzantinized. Icons are just as Western (especially in the English tradition - ref "The Church of Our Fathers" Vol. 1-4  1849-1854 by Dr. Daniel Rock.) They are part of the universal deposit of the faith. The Ordo for the AWRV prescribes 'Romanesque' style, which is really Byzantine art in the West. Western liturgy uses fans as well - though those are probably a gift - very hard to find Western style liturgical fans, or good processional crosses anymore (anytime since the 1950s really.) Paleo-Christian style Byzantine processional crosses and fans are close enough except in detail to some of the oldest English examples still in use. With St. Gregory the Great, most likely the issue is money - the WRO isn't all that wealthy yet. That parish only got its permanent location this past year (spending about a decade in borrowed locations.)

Landon is especially right about the use of icons on a reredos - a style especially favored by Benedictines (a Benedictine altar having a reredos of paneled icons.)

I don't mind going through and handling some past misunderstandings in this thread as well - particularly about Sarum use (which we use in ROCA, along with Benedictine and English liturgy). Particularly in the flawed idea that Sarum is 'museum piece' (a fiction invented by the 'cottas and lace' Romanizing party of the Anglo-Catholic movement as an attempt at apologetic by ridicule for their own dependence on contemporary Italian fashion.) The Sarum use is a continuation of the way Western liturgy was done as expressed in the Stowe Missal, the Drummond Missal, the Sarum proper (Early and Late), which continued through the English old Catholic secular clergy and in modified form as the Jesuits use for England, Scotland, and Ireland. The first books printed again for English old Catholics at the Emancipation were Sarum - the 19th c. Irish influx into the Catholic Church there brought about changes in traditions and customs which the English old Catholics resisted (traditions and customs which the Franciscans had brought to Ireland only in the preceding century - the Irish tradition was also Sarum formerly.) The nascent Oxford movement picked up the Sarum use which was naturally the first ancestor of their Prayer Book, and missals published for the Anglo-Catholics in the 1860s - 1880s were Sarum use (first in Latin, then in English.) The use experienced a rebirth in some places across the globe, though Western Rite Orthodox are not the only ones who use Sarum. There are also some Continuing Anglicans, Old Catholics in Europe, and the occasional Roman Catholic who still use Sarum, though the Orthodox Sarum holds to certain older forms on the few changes to the right which relate to the Filioque or certain Crusader-era emphases.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Tags: Rood screen Western Rite ROCOR roman catholic Anglican Church Episcopalian Church Protestant Christianity Americanization Antiochian AOCA 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.144 seconds with 74 queries.