OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 01:11:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anyone familiar with the Western Rite?  (Read 4736 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GretchenX
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


OrthodoxChristianity.net


« on: September 23, 2003, 12:54:43 PM »

hey there,

I converted to Holy Orthodoxy (Antioch) somewhere around 10 years ago, and about a year ago, my mother and father converted to the Western Rite church (my parents were old prayerbook Episcopal, I was a much longer story).

I went to their church for their Chrismations, and totally got freaked out by how strange it was - it seemed more Anglican than Orthodox to me.  It might be more of a cultural thing (piano playing, western music, western hymns), but it just seemed totally out of bounds - has anyone had any good experiences with the Western Rite?

Gretchen
Logged

NULL
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2003, 10:03:09 PM »

It seemed familiar because the Anglicans came from the Western Rite or Catholic Church. King Henry the 8th forced the Church in England to break away from Rome because the Pope wouldn't allow him to divorce his wife. The Church in England then became known as teh Anglican or Episcopal Church.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2003, 09:25:35 PM »

Somehow, Orthodox in the United States have been very enthusiastic about the Anglican Church without knowing that this Church clearly lost the Apostolic Succession when they changed the valid ordination rites, and their orders became all invalid (unlike Latin or Monophisite, Anglican bishops or priests are nothing but laymen in clerical garments). The Common Prayer Book, even when not explicitly heretical, was conceived by Bishop Cranmer, an hetherodox Protestant who denied the Real Presence. There's no question about it, Protestantism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Even when it was corrected, it will still have the spirit of Protestantism and would encourage the false ecumenism of the Anglicans and the infiltration os strange doctrines.
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2003, 10:33:23 PM »

Tikhon,

I practically knew nothing about Western Orthodoxy until I clicked on your link. Thanks!

Do you (or anyone else) know why some Orthodox are opposing it? Is it also correct to refer to these churches as Roman Orthodox?
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2003, 10:57:02 PM »

Sorry for the unprecise last post. I didn0t say theye were Anglicans and not Orthodox, actualy they're Orthodox in faith and members of canonical Church of course. There's just a problem of rites:

Some WR use a corrected version of the Book of Common Prayer corrected with Russian texts and prayers from paul VI's mass were incorporated to connect the texts. Others use a English version of John XXIII Missal which already contained many changes. Both are the mixture of western and eastern elements, traditional and modern (communion given to infants, communion in the hand and under both species which was alien to the Western tradition), they're both a blend of many things and the Anglican element prevails.

Now that vagante groups offer these western liturgies this would help to cause more confussion.
Logged
Edwin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2003, 11:51:42 PM »

:Somehow, Orthodox in the United States have been very enthusiastic about the Anglican Church without knowing that this Church clearly lost the Apostolic Succession:

According to the Vatican. Since when did Orthodox uncritically accept papal pronouncements? Orthodox patriarchs and metropolitans have come to a different conclusion, namely that if at some point Anglicanism was united to Orthodoxy, there would be no reason why Anglican orders could not be recognized. As I understand the Orthodox position, it's meaningless to talk about "Apostolic Succession" in a group clearly not in union with the Orthodox Church.

: The Common Prayer Book, even when not explicitly heretical, was conceived by Bishop Cranmer, an hetherodox Protestant who denied the Real Presence.:

No, it was revised by Cranmer on the basis of earlier rites, and the Prayer Books used by Anglicans in the U.S. today derive from the Scottish BCP, which was not composed by Cranmer and has a much more Orthodox Eucharistic Prayer than is found in Cranmer.  This is true of both the 1928 version and the much revised 1979 version, which owes far more to the liturgies of the early Church than to Cranmer.

:There's no question about it, Protestantism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Even when it was corrected, it will still have the spirit of Protestantism:

What on earth is that supposed to mean? If it still had a heterodox spirit, then how could it have been corrected? You are talking nonsense.

IN Christ,

Edwin
Logged

NULL
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2003, 08:19:23 AM »

modern (communion given to infants, communion in the hand and under both species which was alien to the Western tradition), they're both a blend of many things and the Anglican element prevails.

Now that vagante groups offer these western liturgies this would help to cause more confussion.

Communion under both species is not a novelty. It was certainly the Irish/Celtic practice, and I don't have my books available here at work or else I'd expect to have found it much more wider as a practice.

Also the fact that vagante groups use a particular liturgy seems unimportant. Some use St John Chrysostom, as do the Byzantine Rite Catholics - should the EO stop using it just because some might be confused?

I consider myself Western Orthodox rather than Western Rite - my Church uses St James - but I have a sympathy with the Western Rite movement. The extinction of other Eastern rites among the Byzantines seems to me to have been an analogue to the extinction of most other Western rites among the West Romans. Neither seems to be an Orthodox approach to diversity but rather an imperial assertion of uniformity.

I am concerned with some aspects of the WR movement but also with some aspects of the anti-WR efforts among the EO which seem predicated on the same false premise that unity of faith demands uniformity of practice.

This is one area where I believe the OO preserve a more Orthodox perspective. Unity of faith with diversity of rites - as it was among the EO for the first 1400 years or so, and Rome until, when? 800 odd?

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2003, 02:54:16 PM »

Orthodox patriarchs and metropolitans have come to a different conclusion, namely that if at some point Anglicanism was united to Orthodoxy, there would be no reason why Anglican orders could not be recognized.

Gay priests, non sacrificial liturgies, women priests... ?
Logged
Edwin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2003, 04:01:13 PM »

Women priests are indeed an issue--the decisions I referred to date from a time before we started ordaining women. But they were not the issue originally cited--the claim was that Anglican orders have been "invalid" since the Reformation.

As for gay priests, if you think that there aren't Orthodox priests who commit all sorts of sexual immorality, you're very naive. NO church is without such things. Anglicanism as a worldwide community has made it very clear that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture. We are facing a crisis on this issue, but it is no worse (probably a lot less severe) than the crisis the whole Church faced in the fourth century.

Non-sacrificial liturgies? You have a very superficial knowledge of Anglican liturgy, especially the Scottish/American branch. We don't deny sacrifice, we have just backed away from some late medieval Western interpretations of it. True, many Anglicans have gone further, but the liturgies themselves do not.

IN Christ,

Edwin
Logged

NULL
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2003, 04:22:35 PM »

Orthodox patriarchs and metropolitans have come to a different conclusion, namely that if at some point Anglicanism was united to Orthodoxy, there would be no reason why Anglican orders could not be recognized.

Gay priests, non sacrificial liturgies, women priests... ?

It hasn't happened yet, nor does it appear to be that close.  You're prematurely speculating.  Relax.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2003, 05:55:48 PM »

Snoopy,

It was Pat. Meletios of Constantinople that started the Anglican fervor when he first declared the Anglicans--if they corporately reunified--could be considered to have orders.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2003, 06:19:04 PM »

Snoopy,

It was Pat. Meletios of Constantinople that started the Anglican fervor when he first declared the Anglicans--if they corporately reunified--could be considered to have orders.

anastasios

When was that (Pat. Mel)?
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2003, 08:43:14 PM »

A piano at an ex-Anglican Western Rite Orthodox church? You were there so I'll take your word for it but I'm surprised. Sounds very Low Church Evangelical and ISTM such become Byzantine Rite if they dox.

Quote
It is something that has been a very real part of Orthodoxy in North America for the last 100 years.

The idea is 100 years old, but the Antiochians started doing it in the 1950s.

Quote
Gay priests, non sacrificial liturgies, women priests... ?

Any Orthodox acceptance of Anglican orders would hang on the Anglicans giving all that up and entering Orthodoxy as a group.

Page on the topic.

</surface>
« Last Edit: October 03, 2003, 09:47:05 AM by Serge » Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2003, 08:04:23 AM »

A piano at an ex-Anglican Western Rite Orthodox church? You were there so I'll take your word for it but I'm surprised. Sounds very Low Church Evangelical and ISTM such become Byzantine Rite if they dox.

Well, the WR parish that is co-joined with the Antiochian parish Bethesda here uses an old Army-surplus pump organ, but such things are rare. I imagine they use a piano because a piano is what they can get.


Quote
Quote
Gay priests, non sacrificial liturgies, women priests... ?

Any Orthodox acceptance of Anglican orders would hang on the Anglicans giving all that up and entering Orthodoxy as a group.

I don't see the latter happening, under any circumstances. What Orthodox church is going to acknowledge yet another large jurisdiction in the USA?
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,544


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2003, 09:54:32 AM »

Any Orthodox acceptance of Anglican orders would hang on the Anglicans giving all that up and entering Orthodoxy as a group.

I don't see the latter happening, under any circumstances. What Orthodox church is going to acknowledge yet another large jurisdiction in the USA?


Is this really the reason why it won't happen under any circumstances?  Or is it at least in part because the Anglicans as a group would not want to join the Orthodox Church?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2003, 04:11:12 PM »

Any Orthodox acceptance of Anglican orders would hang on the Anglicans giving all that up and entering Orthodoxy as a group.

I don't see the latter happening, under any circumstances. What Orthodox church is going to acknowledge yet another large jurisdiction in the USA?


Is this really the reason why it won't happen under any circumstances?  Or is it at least in part because the Anglicans as a group would not want to join the Orthodox Church?

Well, bearing in mind that it would presuppose a division in Anglicanism anyway, what would be the reaction in the American Orthodox bodies if (say) the Antiochians said that they would recognize a group of Episcopal bishops as an Orthodox, autonomous jurisdiction? And what would the EP say if SCOBA invited this body to participate?

The problem is not that the Anglicans would not want to join the Orthodox church. Part of the problem would certainly be what changes would be dictated to the Anglican bishops as conditions for such "membership", because it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Orthodox body(s) would make impossible demands. But even then I think the American Orthodox political situation would prevent any such "membership".

The thing is that absorbing individual priests and congregations doesn't present the same threat. They can be hidden inside the polity of existing churches, avoiding having to deal seriously with the American polity issues.
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2003, 09:22:06 PM »

Okay, let's say this. I am "Father Pete" from the Episcopalian Church, I was ordained by Bishop Jennifer three years ago, and then it happens that the Episcopal Church gets an agreement with a certain Orthodox Diocese and I decide to join it. What would the Orthodox Bishop do with me? Even If my Church gave up all its heresies and fired their women priests and Bishops, I would still be a man ordanied by a girl bishop, so I doubt that any applicatyion of ekonomia is possible in these cases. (Although this won't happen of course).

Now, if the Anglicans separated from the Roman Church, belong to the western "branch", and all their origin is insttrinsecaly related to the problems between England and the Vatican, and the kings, and issues that are alien to the Orthodox Church, isn't that Rome's problem to fix its own schisms? Why not trying to bring the Anglicans and other Protestant Churches to the faith through Eastern Orthodoxy and its liturgy which has proved to be a very good method of Evangelization?
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2003, 08:00:18 AM »

Okay, let's say this. I am "Father Pete" from the Episcopalian Church, I was ordained by Bishop Jennifer three years ago, and then it happens that the Episcopal Church gets an agreement with a certain Orthodox Diocese and I decide to join it. What would the Orthodox Bishop do with me? Even If my Church gave up all its heresies and fired their women priests and Bishops, I would still be a man ordanied by a girl bishop, so I doubt that any applicatyion of ekonomia is possible in these cases. (Although this won't happen of course).

Well, I would imagine that such a person, in the process of this decision, would also decide that they hadn't been properly ordained.....

« Last Edit: October 04, 2003, 08:04:45 AM by Keble » Logged
GretchenX
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


OrthodoxChristianity.net


« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2003, 10:54:04 PM »

"Okay, let's say this. I am "Father Pete" from the Episcopalian Church, I was ordained by Bishop Jennifer three years ago, and then it happens that the Episcopal Church gets an agreement with a certain Orthodox Diocese and I decide to join it. What would the Orthodox Bishop do with me? Even If my Church gave up all its heresies and fired their women priests and Bishops, I would still be a man ordanied by a girl bishop, so I doubt that any applicatyion of ekonomia is possible in these cases. (Although this won't happen of course)."

IIRC, Episcopal priests still have to take some classes from an Orthodox seminary, but I don't believe that they get ordained in the regular fashion.

I admit, part of my discomfort with the Western Church is because it's not Eastern in flavor.  That's simply a matter of preference on my end, and if it's my bad, so be it.  But also, why try to fix something that's fundamentally broken, if you have a whole, healthy Church already that doesn't need fixing?  

I mean, is it just me, or does it seem zenophobic to un-protestant-ize the Anglican Church when you can just walk into an existing Orthodox church that's been using the same Liturgies that it used hundreds of years ago that don't need to be corrected?

Gretchen
Logged

NULL
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2003, 03:27:43 PM »

and why not just restore the legitimate preschism usage of England (the Sarum Ritual) which was never flawed form an Orthodox point of view.  It has a descending and ascending Epiclesis and was never put on the Gregorian Calander.  

It seems to me an exercise in futility and an exercise bordering on heresy for any group or committee to sit down and artificially construct a Liturgy.  

However, the west will not be converted unless people stop trying to force them to be Eastern.  St. John the wonderworker of ShangHai and San Fransisco accepted the Western Rite and even promoted it.  

All I am saying is that there are a good many people for whom EOxy is very beutiful and moving, but is also very foreign in fact too foreign to ever be considered.  

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
venite
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2003, 10:28:14 PM »

Mexican made some incorrect statements about the Antiochian Western Rite Mass texts.

First, the revised Anglo-Cathoic Liturgy is NOT "corrected" with Russian texts or prayers from the Novus Ordo of Paul VI.  There are two Byzantine prayers before Communion, added by the Patriarch of Antioch in the 1990's.  This is the extent of Byzantinization, both textually and ceremonially.  There is no Russianization in the least.  Secondly, there are NO, I repeat, NO Novus Ordo prayers in the text at all.

Secondly, the Roman Mass we use was not taken from the Missal of 1962 (John XXIII).  The Mass was approved on the basis of an earlier approval by the Russian Holy Synod in connection with Dr. J.J. Overbeck (late XIX c.), and the Antiochians approved the text of the Roman Mass in 1958.  Our official English text was translated by a group of scholars, including Fr. A. Schmemann, in 1958, and the text of the Propers is according to the English Missal (AKA "Knott Missal" or Missale Anglicanum), 1958 edition.

Thus I have no idea what Mexican bases himself on when he writes that the Antiochian Western Rite is a "mixture of western and eastern elements."  The examples he gives are not pertinent - infant communion is an ancient practice of the undivided Church; as is communion in the hand (practiced actually rarely in our Vicariate), and communion under both species (which only becomes alien to the Western tradition in the late Middle Ages).  If the Anglican element prevails, it is a decidedly Anglo-Catholic one, in the tradition of such fervent advocates of the Orthodox Church as Neale, and naturally due to the fact that many of our parishes, clergy and people come from the Anglo-Catholic tradition.  This is a healthy ethnic ethos, such as may be found in any Orthodox church, and has nothing to do with dogmatic issues.

Sbdn. Benjamin Andersen
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2003, 01:47:54 PM »

The "eastern" elements in the Western rite liturgies of the Antiochian Archdiocese are:

1)  The Creed without the filioque (but with the "God of God" from the original Creed of Nicea 1).

2)  The epiklesis strengthened (St. Tikhon) or added (St. Gregory).

3)  The pre-communion prayer "I believe, O Lord, and I confess . . .".

4)  The use of "prayers of saints" in lieu of "merits of saints".

Everything else is from the Tridentine Mass or the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (BCP).  Of course, this includes elements common to eastern and western liturgies, such as the Sanctus and Benedictus qui venit.

As for services other than the Divine Liturgy, there are different forms of the Daily Office based on the BCP and the old Roman Breviary.  At our mission we also employ Byzantine forms for such rites as Chrismation.

We use the St. Ambrose Hymnal, which includes a broad range of hymns from East and West, from ancient and modern times.  Pre-schism hymns are denoted by a cross next to the hymn number.  Given the rich development of western hymnody in the post-schism centuries, we feel blessed to be able to sing beautiful hymns written/composed by Catholics or Protestants, as long as they are compatible with the Orthodox faith, as so many are (or can be with minor modifications).

Let us bear in mind that liturgies are the products of centuries of development, including borrowings and adaptations from other rites.  The line between "eastern" and "western" liturgies is not so hard and fast.

James
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2003, 02:07:53 PM »

Quote
2)  The epiklesis strengthened (St. Tikhon) or added (St. Gregory).

That sounds so arrogant - like latinizing Eastern rites, but worse because the Gregorian canon is probably older than the two Byzantine anaphor+ª. The fact that it hasn't got an explicit epiklesis is a sign that it's older.
Logged

James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2003, 03:26:19 PM »

Quote
2)  The epiklesis strengthened (St. Tikhon) or added (St. Gregory).

That sounds so arrogant - like latinizing Eastern rites, but worse because the Gregorian canon is probably older than the two Byzantine anaphor+ª. The fact that it hasn't got an explicit epiklesis is a sign that it's older.

Serge,

It wasn't my intention to sound arrogant.  I was just making a statement of fact.  If you are suggesting that it was unnecessary to interpolate the epiklesis into the Roman canon, I would tend to agree, although I am no liturgical scholar.  Nonetheless, our bishops decided that it should be there, so we use it.

James
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2003, 05:45:50 PM »

Quote
It wasn't my intention to sound arrogant.  I was just making a statement of fact.  If you are suggesting that it was unnecessary to interpolate the epiklesis into the Roman canon, I would tend to agree, although I am no liturgical scholar.  Nonetheless, our bishops decided that it should be there, so we use it.

I wasn't saying you were arrogant, James2, but that it was arrogant of those powers that be to do that to the Roman Canon.
Logged

Boswell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Bi, poly, trans and ex-Orthodox


« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2003, 06:04:50 PM »

Especially arrogant when a Byzantine saint, St. Nicholas Cabislas (sp?) thought the Roman Rite had a descending epiclesis, or something like that.

Boswell
Logged
Boswell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Bi, poly, trans and ex-Orthodox


« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2003, 06:08:35 PM »

As far as a pre-communion prayer goes, the Tridenine Mass has the "Domine non sum dignus.." (I think that's what it is).
Not the same as what Orthodox normally use, but what's the big deal about that? That seems a little too picky and chauvinistic from the Byzantine side.

Boswell
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2003, 08:53:07 PM »

As far as a pre-communion prayer goes, the Tridenine Mass has the "Domine non sum dignus.." (I think that's what it is).
Not the same as what Orthodox normally use, but what's the big deal about that? That seems a little too picky and chauvinistic from the Byzantine side.

Boswell

The Western Orthodox mass has the "Domine non sum dignus" and the "I believe, O Lord, and I confess", in the grand tradition of Orthodox repetitiveness.  Why not have both?  The Tridentine rite itself is loaded with this type of thing from the days when prayers from the Gallican rite were added to those of the Roman rite (about 1000 years ago).  This is particularly evident in special liturgies such as Palm Sunday and Candlemas, where there are several sequential prayers to bless the palms and candles.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.094 seconds with 54 queries.