In 1054, however, the final and complete break between Rome and Constantinople took place, and was sealed by a fearful anathema. From that moment it became imperative for all members of the Roman Patriarchate to separate from their cursed head on earth if they were to remain members of the Body of Christ Whose Blessed Head was in heaven.
Here's why, like calling the Anglo-Saxon Roman Rite bishops of the time 'Orthodox', this (written by a English ROCOR priest - I've read the book) is stupid. Last week the Russian Church commemorated the moving of St Nicholas' bones to Bari, Italy and the Greek Church didn't - because it happened after
(duh-duh-DUMMMMM) 1054. The Russian Church obviously didn't feel compelled to flee the 'evil' Pope of Rome just ’cos the Greeks had a row with him.
Revisionist propaganda. Nothing more.
some people are mystified and drawn in by Byzantine practices. But many, and at one time including myself, are turned off by Byzantine Practices (I'm an American durnit not a Greek, Russian, Serb, etc.). Also we fail to realize the drawing point of Orthodoxy when we focus on the rite and ritual as important though they be. The main drawing point for Orthodoxy (and I'm sure Nik would agree) was TRUTH, not some rite or ritual.
You seem to have become an instant authority on a church you've only been to one weekend in your whole young life.
We get it - you don't really like Eastern Orthodoxy
. You seem determined to convert to prove something to somebody in spite of not really liking the rite or culture. (Reminds me of those poor kids on the TV program 'Fear Factor' eating worms.)
Don't become another spite convert who chucks it after a year or two.
Brigid, OTOH, is not a spite convert but a healthy one who sees EOxy as part of a whole with one's own past and doesn't feel compelled to hate one's heritage. (The holiest people I know are exactly like B. in that regard.) I say there's a difference because healthy people 'fall in love' with the other rite, see the obvious parallels and make a relatively painless one-on-one switch of practices, etc.
Where you're coming from, Joe, I wouldn't even recommend you make a canonical switch to Byzantine Catholicism, let alone convert to a church your heart obviously isn't in.
Why does "Western" = "easily adaptable to America" and "Eastern" = "For Greeks, Russians, Serbs, etc."? What does ethnicity have to do with liturgical rite? A hundred years ago you might not have become a Roman Catholic because they were "German" or "Irish" or "Italian."
I have to ask what "unhistorical" means and why it matters at all.
Historically, those using Prayer Book Anglo-Catholic services, the English Missal and the Tridentine Mass are offshoots of Roman Catholicism (the Pope) and never were under the Byzantine patriarchs. Just like the ancestors of the Byzantine Catholics were under those patriarchs and never directly 'under the Pope', even preschism, unlike the present-day BCs, who really are an appendage of the Roman Catholic Church, all protests to the contrary notwithstanding. (As a friend once put it, on the official level they're RCs trying to sound and act Orthodox.) Such arrangements as exist today with 'Uniates' of either flavor strike me as false.
Does it matter, Keble? I can't articulate why but yes, it does, even though the people in question are orthodox.
My guess is even the nonexpert can see the unsteady historical foundation of such things - the relative rootlessness - and so they don't get much of a following.
I won't get into objective right and wrong here, but practically speaking, and this makes historical sense, if one wants to be Western, apostolic and traditional, be a Roman Catholic and fight it out there. Anglo-Catholics can either fight it out in their natural home, the Pope's Church, or make the best of it in the Continuing Churches.
If one is in love with the Byzantine Way, be Orthodox. (Coptic Way = be a Copt, etc.)
Please. England by this date had been Roman Catholic for hundreds of years. This isn't about religion; it's about politics.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
No. England had been Catholic for hundreds of years.
There was no Roman Catholic Church (as separate from the Orthodox Church) before the Great Schism.
Regarding re-enacting extinct rites and uses: not a bad thing in itself, Keble, certainly not evil. As for 'validity', to use a word peculiar to the West, in my view it would depend on whether a priest from a real apostolic church was doing it under the authority (omophor in Orthodox-speak) of his bishop. My point is one can't reasonably expect such lab-experiment rites, with no living tradition in the memory of a people, to get any real following.