OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 04:05:21 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why isn't Western Rite Orthodoxy thriving?  (Read 37997 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #225 on: May 25, 2014, 11:15:15 PM »

Why is WRO only "half of western tradition"?

Might have something to do with the amount of byzantinization found in the AWRV, some of which is self-imposed.

For example:

Lots of icons but few statues; stations of the cross on the walls only during Lent; signing of the cross from right to left; thuribles with bells; eastern fasting practices; the interpolation of an epiclesis in the canon; leavened bread for communion; mandatory communion in both kinds; standing to receive communion; chrismation of infants; chrismation by priests; communion of infants; omission of the Filioque from creeds and hymns; omission of references to merits of saints; rarely having benediction; and affected use of Arabic, Greek, and Slavic terminology.  Some of these things are efforts to return to pre-schism western practices, but they are quite discontinuous with traditional RC and AC customs.  I also find it odd that Western-rite clergy wear Byzantine vestments at joint Orthodox services.  By way of contrast, I've been to several Roman Catholic masses where the participating Eastern Catholic clergy wore their own rites' vestments.  Of course, Eastern Catholic churches also have their own bishops, whereas the AWRV is run by Byzantine clergy who treat it as a kind of hobby.  Back in my Anglican days, when the bishop would come to the parish, he would have no clue about our Anglo-Catholic liturgy.  Sadly, that's also true in the AWRV - the bishops are much more supportive, but they don't know the liturgy and therefore participate in a very limited way.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2014, 11:19:34 PM by James2 » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,208



« Reply #226 on: May 26, 2014, 12:16:15 AM »

^How would the bishops participate? I've read Latin Catholic literature strictly discouraging concelebration because it "blurs" the individuality of the priesthood in consecration or something.

And of that list, chrismation and communion of infants are especially good things, regardless of whether they're in continuity or not. The rest, with the possible exception of the removal of the filioque from the liturgy, probably are unfortunate impositions.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #227 on: May 26, 2014, 12:26:56 AM »

^How would the bishops participate? I've read Latin Catholic literature strictly discouraging concelebration because it "blurs" the individuality of the priesthood in consecration or something.

And of that list, chrismation and communion of infants are especially good things, regardless of whether they're in continuity or not. The rest, with the possible exception of the removal of the filioque from the liturgy, probably are unfortunate impositions.

Ideally the bishop would be the celebrant.  But it is also customary in the West for a priest to celebrate mass in the presence of a bishop, in which case the bishop performs certain liturgical functions and vests in cope and mitre.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #228 on: May 26, 2014, 07:22:32 AM »

Why is WRO only "half of western tradition"?

Might have something to do with the amount of byzantinization found in the AWRV, some of which is self-imposed.

For example:

Lots of icons but few statues; stations of the cross on the walls only during Lent; signing of the cross from right to left; thuribles with bells; eastern fasting practices; the interpolation of an epiclesis in the canon; leavened bread for communion; mandatory communion in both kinds; standing to receive communion; chrismation of infants; chrismation by priests; communion of infants; omission of the Filioque from creeds and hymns; omission of references to merits of saints; rarely having benediction; and affected use of Arabic, Greek, and Slavic terminology.  Some of these things are efforts to return to pre-schism western practices, but they are quite discontinuous with traditional RC and AC customs.  I also find it odd that Western-rite clergy wear Byzantine vestments at joint Orthodox services.  By way of contrast, I've been to several Roman Catholic masses where the participating Eastern Catholic clergy wore their own rites' vestments.  Of course, Eastern Catholic churches also have their own bishops, whereas the AWRV is run by Byzantine clergy who treat it as a kind of hobby.  Back in my Anglican days, when the bishop would come to the parish, he would have no clue about our Anglo-Catholic liturgy.  Sadly, that's also true in the AWRV - the bishops are much more supportive, but they don't know the liturgy and therefore participate in a very limited way.

Those are good points, certainly; but lest they become overemphasized, I want to point out that those Byzantinizations were generally done the honest way (so to speak) -- unlike what happened to Greek Catholics: latinizations coming in after the Unions as a kind of "bait and switch".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #229 on: May 26, 2014, 08:50:15 AM »

Why is WRO only "half of western tradition"?

Might have something to do with the amount of byzantinization found in the AWRV, some of which is self-imposed.

For example:

Lots of icons but few statues; stations of the cross on the walls only during Lent; signing of the cross from right to left; thuribles with bells; eastern fasting practices; the interpolation of an epiclesis in the canon; leavened bread for communion; mandatory communion in both kinds; standing to receive communion; chrismation of infants; chrismation by priests; communion of infants; omission of the Filioque from creeds and hymns; omission of references to merits of saints; rarely having benediction; and affected use of Arabic, Greek, and Slavic terminology.  Some of these things are efforts to return to pre-schism western practices, but they are quite discontinuous with traditional RC and AC customs.  I also find it odd that Western-rite clergy wear Byzantine vestments at joint Orthodox services.  By way of contrast, I've been to several Roman Catholic masses where the participating Eastern Catholic clergy wore their own rites' vestments.  Of course, Eastern Catholic churches also have their own bishops, whereas the AWRV is run by Byzantine clergy who treat it as a kind of hobby.  Back in my Anglican days, when the bishop would come to the parish, he would have no clue about our Anglo-Catholic liturgy.  Sadly, that's also true in the AWRV - the bishops are much more supportive, but they don't know the liturgy and therefore participate in a very limited way.


Thanks for your thoughts.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 08:50:31 AM by Sleeper » Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #230 on: May 26, 2014, 09:29:32 AM »

Why is WRO only "half of western tradition"?

Might have something to do with the amount of byzantinization found in the AWRV, some of which is self-imposed.

For example:

Lots of icons but few statues; stations of the cross on the walls only during Lent; signing of the cross from right to left; thuribles with bells; eastern fasting practices; the interpolation of an epiclesis in the canon; leavened bread for communion; mandatory communion in both kinds; standing to receive communion; chrismation of infants; chrismation by priests; communion of infants; omission of the Filioque from creeds and hymns; omission of references to merits of saints; rarely having benediction; and affected use of Arabic, Greek, and Slavic terminology.  Some of these things are efforts to return to pre-schism western practices, but they are quite discontinuous with traditional RC and AC customs.  I also find it odd that Western-rite clergy wear Byzantine vestments at joint Orthodox services.  By way of contrast, I've been to several Roman Catholic masses where the participating Eastern Catholic clergy wore their own rites' vestments.  Of course, Eastern Catholic churches also have their own bishops, whereas the AWRV is run by Byzantine clergy who treat it as a kind of hobby.  Back in my Anglican days, when the bishop would come to the parish, he would have no clue about our Anglo-Catholic liturgy.  Sadly, that's also true in the AWRV - the bishops are much more supportive, but they don't know the liturgy and therefore participate in a very limited way.

Those are good points, certainly; but lest they become overemphasized, I want to point out that those Byzantinizations were generally done the honest way (so to speak) -- unlike what happened to Greek Catholics: latinizations coming in after the Unions as a kind of "bait and switch".
That is simply not true.  Other than suppression of the married priesthood in the diaspora, Latinizations were self-imposed at least among Greek Catholics.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,206


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #231 on: May 26, 2014, 10:24:39 AM »

Why is WRO only "half of western tradition"?

Might have something to do with the amount of byzantinization found in the AWRV, some of which is self-imposed.

For example:

Lots of icons but few statues; stations of the cross on the walls only during Lent; signing of the cross from right to left; thuribles with bells; eastern fasting practices; the interpolation of an epiclesis in the canon; leavened bread for communion; mandatory communion in both kinds; standing to receive communion; chrismation of infants; chrismation by priests; communion of infants; omission of the Filioque from creeds and hymns; omission of references to merits of saints; rarely having benediction; and affected use of Arabic, Greek, and Slavic terminology.  Some of these things are efforts to return to pre-schism western practices, but they are quite discontinuous with traditional RC and AC customs.  I also find it odd that Western-rite clergy wear Byzantine vestments at joint Orthodox services.  By way of contrast, I've been to several Roman Catholic masses where the participating Eastern Catholic clergy wore their own rites' vestments.  Of course, Eastern Catholic churches also have their own bishops, whereas the AWRV is run by Byzantine clergy who treat it as a kind of hobby.  Back in my Anglican days, when the bishop would come to the parish, he would have no clue about our Anglo-Catholic liturgy.  Sadly, that's also true in the AWRV - the bishops are much more supportive, but they don't know the liturgy and therefore participate in a very limited way.

Those are good points, certainly; but lest they become overemphasized, I want to point out that those Byzantinizations were generally done the honest way (so to speak) -- unlike what happened to Greek Catholics: latinizations coming in after the Unions as a kind of "bait and switch".

Truth be told, I was taught that for all the "imposed" Latinizations on the east Slav Greek Catholics, just as many were self adopted in a desire to (borrowing a 1980s  phrase) "be like Mike."  Following Vatican 2, the abolition of the same were often fiercely resisted at first in many parishes.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 10:25:46 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #232 on: May 26, 2014, 11:15:46 AM »

That is simply not true.  Other than suppression of the married priesthood in the diaspora, Latinizations were self-imposed at least among Greek Catholics.

Well, that definitely goes against what I've heard from GCs over the last dozen years ... but perhaps you're right.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,208



« Reply #233 on: May 26, 2014, 01:49:58 PM »

That is simply not true.  Other than suppression of the married priesthood in the diaspora, Latinizations were self-imposed at least among Greek Catholics.

Overall I'm not entirely sure how useful the distinction between "imposed" and "self-imposed" is, given that the latter is rarely (never?) done without overt influence or accompanied complications. For example, the Maronite Synod of 1736 had a Latin presence, even having a Papal legate convoke the very synod itself, but could be considered a "self-imposition." However, calling it that only seems to serve to distract from the very real issue of how Rome has historically related to, and heavily influenced, her sister churches.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Jay_Orthodox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox in the Anglo-Catholic tradition (Western rite Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Catholic Church (Western rite)
Posts: 17


Blessed Catherine, Patroness of Philosophers


« Reply #234 on: May 26, 2014, 07:00:47 PM »

The vast majority of my Christian life has been spent as either a Confessional High Church Lutheran or a Prayer Book Anglo-Catholic, and therefore, Orthodoxy in the Eastern tradition, as venerable as it is, is simply an unnatural expression of my faith. I am a European at heart, I love Bach, Elgar, Mozart, Britten, and Schubert, and the Book of Common Prayer in its purest form elevates my soul to the heights of heaven. Therefore, Orthodox in the Western tradition is for me, but the modern Western Rite isn't something I am in love with.

I have two major qualms. The first one is the liturgies themselves. I would prefer something akin to the Nonjuror Liturgy of 1718 for the celebration of the Mass. It intergrates perfectly the Liturgy of Constantinople, the Book of Common Prayer, and elements of the Tridentine Mass. It flows, and it maintains that majestic language that we find in the Prayer Book. I do not like that the epiclesis and the surrounding text is placed oddly in the middle of the Canon. I like the epiclesis, it is necessary, but in some type of context.

I have a strong distate for the large amount of Byzantisations, as an early commentator said. I believe that Orthodox Catholics in the Western tradition need their own bishops and that Mother Church should be more keen on helping the liturgies to rival the highest Anglo-Catholic church in London. Most Anglo-Catholic parishes are small and funded by parishoners solely, and yet their liturgies rival Rome's, if not surpass it. I do not think, therefore, we Orthodox in the Western tradition should be struggling to maintain our unique liturgical tradition and uses.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #235 on: May 26, 2014, 07:19:37 PM »

That is simply not true.  Other than suppression of the married priesthood in the diaspora, Latinizations were self-imposed at least among Greek Catholics.

Overall I'm not entirely sure how useful the distinction between "imposed" and "self-imposed" is, given that the latter is rarely (never?) done without overt influence or accompanied complications. For example, the Maronite Synod of 1736 had a Latin presence, even having a Papal legate convoke the very synod itself, but could be considered a "self-imposition." However, calling it that only seems to serve to distract from the very real issue of how Rome has historically related to, and heavily influenced, her sister churches.
I think the truth is always useful.  It is simply untrue to say Rome imposed Latinizations on Eastern Catholics in most cases.  The imposed ones were few.  Some were indeed encouraged, but that is a different thing than imposition.  The minority is always going to feel some sort of need to conform to the majority.  It is for the leaders of the minority to resist this and promote integrity of tradition.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,208



« Reply #236 on: May 26, 2014, 09:03:28 PM »

I think the truth is always useful.  It is simply untrue to say Rome imposed Latinizations on Eastern Catholics in most cases.  The imposed ones were few.  Some were indeed encouraged, but that is a different thing than imposition.  The minority is always going to feel some sort of need to conform to the majority.  It is for the leaders of the minority to resist this and promote integrity of tradition.

I was not saying that "Rome imposed Latinizations on Eastern Catholics in most cases."

But I don't think it's helpful, or accurate, to put the blame on the "leaders of the minority" as a mere "self-imposition," as it's too often implied, even if Rome never directly externally imposed or mandated it.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Jay_Orthodox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox in the Anglo-Catholic tradition (Western rite Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Catholic Church (Western rite)
Posts: 17


Blessed Catherine, Patroness of Philosophers


« Reply #237 on: May 27, 2014, 04:55:48 PM »

But I don't think it's helpful, or accurate, to put the blame on the "leaders of the minority" as a mere "self-imposition," as it's too often implied, even if Rome never directly externally imposed or mandated it.

Out of curiousity, why?
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,208



« Reply #238 on: May 27, 2014, 05:14:03 PM »

But I don't think it's helpful, or accurate, to put the blame on the "leaders of the minority" as a mere "self-imposition," as it's too often implied, even if Rome never directly externally imposed or mandated it.

Out of curiousity, why?

Because for every "self-imposition," there's a context or history of varying influence from the dominant group that gave way to it. To relegate all blame to the minority leaders is simply unfair, and it takes their decision completely in isolation. It also whitewashes the behavior of the dominant group that has encouraged or exerted their superiority in any number of ways, even if it fell short of official mandate.

Hypothetically speaking, if my Church kept telling a minority group repeatedly over centuries how much better and bigger and more important it is and the way it does things etc., it's not somehow only, or even primarily, the minority group's fault if they eventually cave on those issues with a "self-imposition."
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #239 on: May 27, 2014, 07:54:02 PM »

But I don't think it's helpful, or accurate, to put the blame on the "leaders of the minority" as a mere "self-imposition," as it's too often implied, even if Rome never directly externally imposed or mandated it.

Out of curiousity, why?

Because for every "self-imposition," there's a context or history of varying influence from the dominant group that gave way to it. To relegate all blame to the minority leaders is simply unfair, and it takes their decision completely in isolation. It also whitewashes the behavior of the dominant group that has encouraged or exerted their superiority in any number of ways, even if it fell short of official mandate.

Hypothetically speaking, if my Church kept telling a minority group repeatedly over centuries how much better and bigger and more important it is and the way it does things etc., it's not somehow only, or even primarily, the minority group's fault if they eventually cave on those issues with a "self-imposition."
I would concede your point if it were not the fact that many of the Latinizations were self imposed or adopted rather quickly after union, this was especially true of those from the Oriental Orthodox.  The Maronites probably best fit your scenario. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,108


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #240 on: May 27, 2014, 11:00:46 PM »

But I don't think it's helpful, or accurate, to put the blame on the "leaders of the minority" as a mere "self-imposition," as it's too often implied, even if Rome never directly externally imposed or mandated it.

Out of curiousity, why?

Because for every "self-imposition," there's a context or history of varying influence from the dominant group that gave way to it. To relegate all blame to the minority leaders is simply unfair, and it takes their decision completely in isolation. It also whitewashes the behavior of the dominant group that has encouraged or exerted their superiority in any number of ways, even if it fell short of official mandate.

Hypothetically speaking, if my Church kept telling a minority group repeatedly over centuries how much better and bigger and more important it is and the way it does things etc., it's not somehow only, or even primarily, the minority group's fault if they eventually cave on those issues with a "self-imposition."
I would concede your point if it were not the fact that many of the Latinizations were self imposed or adopted rather quickly after union, this was especially true of those from the Oriental Orthodox.  The Maronites probably best fit your scenario. 

If I'm not mistaken, the Syro-Malabar Church, to a great extent, had Latinisations "imposed" on it through its history, whether by Rome or by the Portuguese or both, even if there were also self-imposed Latinisations.  The purging of those, and even the question of whether they should be purged or accepted, is controversial even among their own flock.

The Syro-Malankara Church, on the other hand, seems to have adopted those Latinisations which it did purely on its own initiative and even against Rome's expressed desires.  I'm not so sure I'm willing to give Rome the blame for that one since that history, to my knowledge, is a bit more complex.     
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #241 on: May 27, 2014, 11:16:42 PM »

But I don't think it's helpful, or accurate, to put the blame on the "leaders of the minority" as a mere "self-imposition," as it's too often implied, even if Rome never directly externally imposed or mandated it.

Out of curiousity, why?

Because for every "self-imposition," there's a context or history of varying influence from the dominant group that gave way to it. To relegate all blame to the minority leaders is simply unfair, and it takes their decision completely in isolation. It also whitewashes the behavior of the dominant group that has encouraged or exerted their superiority in any number of ways, even if it fell short of official mandate.

Hypothetically speaking, if my Church kept telling a minority group repeatedly over centuries how much better and bigger and more important it is and the way it does things etc., it's not somehow only, or even primarily, the minority group's fault if they eventually cave on those issues with a "self-imposition."
I would concede your point if it were not the fact that many of the Latinizations were self imposed or adopted rather quickly after union, this was especially true of those from the Oriental Orthodox.  The Maronites probably best fit your scenario. 

If I'm not mistaken, the Syro-Malabar Church, to a great extent, had Latinisations "imposed" on it through its history, whether by Rome or by the Portuguese or both, even if there were also self-imposed Latinisations.  The purging of those, and even the question of whether they should be purged or accepted, is controversial even among their own flock.

The Syro-Malankara Church, on the other hand, seems to have adopted those Latinisations which it did purely on its own initiative and even against Rome's expressed desires.  I'm not so sure I'm willing to give Rome the blame for that one since that history, to my knowledge, is a bit more complex.     
I wasn't counting the Syro-Malabars with the Orientals (perhaps I should) but yes they were quite forcefully Latinized by the Portuguese and then continued with it themselves.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
KostaC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago & the Diocese of Washington (Orthodox Church in America)
Posts: 184



« Reply #242 on: May 28, 2014, 01:37:43 AM »

I am a European at heart, I love Bach, Elgar, Mozart, Britten, and Schubert, and the Book of Common Prayer

So are we.

Therefore, Orthodox in the Western tradition is for me, but the modern Western Rite isn't something I am in love with.

Then why are you Orthodox?
Logged

«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,580


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #243 on: May 28, 2014, 01:54:49 AM »

Therefore, Orthodox in the Western tradition is for me, but the modern Western Rite isn't something I am in love with.

I am not really in love with the Western Rite either. I was really turned off by the Novus Ordo in Roman Catholicism, and the Western Rite that has adopted the Roman Rite (1962) is not much better as it tends to be a low mass instead of a Pontifical one.

Anyway, the two Masses I attended at a Western Rite Antiochian parish were not something I would like to discuss. I will put it bluntly: I was not impressed, and after the second Mass, I never went back.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 01:56:21 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,483


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #244 on: May 28, 2014, 01:55:16 AM »

I am a European at heart, I love Bach, Elgar, Mozart, Britten, and Schubert, and the Book of Common Prayer

So are we.

Therefore, Orthodox in the Western tradition is for me, but the modern Western Rite isn't something I am in love with.

Then why are you Orthodox?

I don't think he is. There are a number of groups which have "orthodox" in their name, but are part of the Anglican or Episcopalian church.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,303


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #245 on: May 28, 2014, 07:40:03 AM »

Quote
I am not really in love with the Western Rite either. I was really turned off by the Novus Ordo in Roman Catholicism, and the Western Rite that has adopted the Roman Rite (1962) is not much better as it tends to be a low mass instead of a Pontifical one
Its actually not correct to paint the Western Rite with one-mass paintbrush. We don't use the Roman Rite at all. It really depends on the priest and his background.

Mine was an Anglican bishop, and the parish was all continuing Anglican before converting. Hence, we use the BCP and the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. There's really nothing Novus Ordo'ish at all with us.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #246 on: May 28, 2014, 09:45:46 AM »

It's funny how differently people can experience things. I've been to some superb Byzantine liturgies in beautiful settings, and every time I grow more thankful for the austerity, simplicity, and dignity of the classic Western Rite (of which the Gregorian and Tikhonian rites are wonderful examples).

Give me a Low Mass any day of the week.
Logged
Jay_Orthodox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox in the Anglo-Catholic tradition (Western rite Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Catholic Church (Western rite)
Posts: 17


Blessed Catherine, Patroness of Philosophers


« Reply #247 on: May 28, 2014, 08:21:26 PM »

I don't think he is. There are a number of groups which have "orthodox" in their name, but are part of the Anglican or Episcopalian church.

I am an Orthodox Catholic, actually. I use the term Orthodox in the Anglo-Catholic tradition because I don't like the term Western Orthodox. If you've noticed, I say Orthodox in the Western tradition, never Western Orthodox for stylistic reasons. I am a former Prayer Book Anglo-Catholic and I have a devotion to Western music and liturgy, however. I believe everything the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches, I don't express it through the Rite of Constantinople though.
Logged
Chrismated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 67


« Reply #248 on: May 31, 2014, 08:57:43 AM »

I know that in ROCOR, there are several WR Liturgies that are approved for usage in their WR Churches. The Ambrosian, which is used almost exclusively in the Diocese of Milan in Italy, by aprox. 50 RC Churches is a beautiful Liturgy that is very Christ honoring and meaningful, and is used by a ROCOR Mission in Indiana. Also, the Galican Rite is used in at least one ROCOR Church that I am aware of, in Des Moines Iowa. It seems that those who have converted from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy use mainly the Liturgy which they have named after St. Tikon, anthough he never wrote a Liturgy, or actually approved of any WR Liturgy as some eroneously claim that he did. The entire text of the Russian Orthodox response to the Anglicans attempt to have their BCP approved by the ROC, is available for anyone to read online, if you are willing to take the time to look it up and read it. There is no approval anywhere, but many recommended changes, and criticisms. The Rite named after St. Tikon, is basically the BCP, with minor tweaks so it can be called Orthodox. I have no personal problem with it's usage, since it does "get the job done", but it is, however, misrepresented as being of St. Tikon. In my personal experience, it is lacking when compared to the Ambrosian or Galican Rites, and definitely lacking when compared to the ER, used by the Antiochians, for instance. If someone wishes to use the BCP (tweaked for orthodoxy), fine, but stubbornly holding to it, just to cling to ones "Anglican heritage" is not really a good reason do do so. I still have a hard time calling Anglicans Orthodox, although there are some who definitely are. One God, One Church, One Liturgy, maybe someday.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #249 on: May 31, 2014, 10:12:38 AM »

I know that in ROCOR, there are several WR Liturgies that are approved for usage in their WR Churches. The Ambrosian, which is used almost exclusively in the Diocese of Milan in Italy, by aprox. 50 RC Churches is a beautiful Liturgy that is very Christ honoring and meaningful, and is used by a ROCOR Mission in Indiana. Also, the Galican Rite is used in at least one ROCOR Church that I am aware of, in Des Moines Iowa. It seems that those who have converted from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy use mainly the Liturgy which they have named after St. Tikon, anthough he never wrote a Liturgy, or actually approved of any WR Liturgy as some eroneously claim that he did. The entire text of the Russian Orthodox response to the Anglicans attempt to have their BCP approved by the ROC, is available for anyone to read online, if you are willing to take the time to look it up and read it. There is no approval anywhere, but many recommended changes, and criticisms. The Rite named after St. Tikon, is basically the BCP, with minor tweaks so it can be called Orthodox. I have no personal problem with it's usage, since it does "get the job done", but it is, however, misrepresented as being of St. Tikon. In my personal experience, it is lacking when compared to the Ambrosian or Galican Rites, and definitely lacking when compared to the ER, used by the Antiochians, for instance. If someone wishes to use the BCP (tweaked for orthodoxy), fine, but stubbornly holding to it, just to cling to ones "Anglican heritage" is not really a good reason do do so. I still have a hard time calling Anglicans Orthodox, although there are some who definitely are. One God, One Church, One Liturgy, maybe someday.

Do you mean orthodox?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,226



« Reply #250 on: May 31, 2014, 12:37:08 PM »

I know that in ROCOR, there are several WR Liturgies that are approved for usage in their WR Churches. The Ambrosian, which is used almost exclusively in the Diocese of Milan in Italy, by aprox. 50 RC Churches is a beautiful Liturgy that is very Christ honoring and meaningful, and is used by a ROCOR Mission in Indiana. Also, the Galican Rite is used in at least one ROCOR Church that I am aware of, in Des Moines Iowa. It seems that those who have converted from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy use mainly the Liturgy which they have named after St. Tikon, anthough he never wrote a Liturgy, or actually approved of any WR Liturgy as some eroneously claim that he did. The entire text of the Russian Orthodox response to the Anglicans attempt to have their BCP approved by the ROC, is available for anyone to read online, if you are willing to take the time to look it up and read it. There is no approval anywhere, but many recommended changes, and criticisms. The Rite named after St. Tikon, is basically the BCP, with minor tweaks so it can be called Orthodox. I have no personal problem with it's usage, since it does "get the job done", but it is, however, misrepresented as being of St. Tikon. In my personal experience, it is lacking when compared to the Ambrosian or Galican Rites, and definitely lacking when compared to the ER, used by the Antiochians, for instance. If someone wishes to use the BCP (tweaked for orthodoxy), fine, but stubbornly holding to it, just to cling to ones "Anglican heritage" is not really a good reason do do so. I still have a hard time calling Anglicans Orthodox, although there are some who definitely are. One God, One Church, One Liturgy, maybe someday.

Do you mean orthodox?
Is there really a need for the distinction?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #251 on: May 31, 2014, 12:54:01 PM »

I know that in ROCOR, there are several WR Liturgies that are approved for usage in their WR Churches. The Ambrosian, which is used almost exclusively in the Diocese of Milan in Italy, by aprox. 50 RC Churches is a beautiful Liturgy that is very Christ honoring and meaningful, and is used by a ROCOR Mission in Indiana. Also, the Galican Rite is used in at least one ROCOR Church that I am aware of, in Des Moines Iowa. It seems that those who have converted from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy use mainly the Liturgy which they have named after St. Tikon, anthough he never wrote a Liturgy, or actually approved of any WR Liturgy as some eroneously claim that he did. The entire text of the Russian Orthodox response to the Anglicans attempt to have their BCP approved by the ROC, is available for anyone to read online, if you are willing to take the time to look it up and read it. There is no approval anywhere, but many recommended changes, and criticisms. The Rite named after St. Tikon, is basically the BCP, with minor tweaks so it can be called Orthodox. I have no personal problem with it's usage, since it does "get the job done", but it is, however, misrepresented as being of St. Tikon. In my personal experience, it is lacking when compared to the Ambrosian or Galican Rites, and definitely lacking when compared to the ER, used by the Antiochians, for instance. If someone wishes to use the BCP (tweaked for orthodoxy), fine, but stubbornly holding to it, just to cling to ones "Anglican heritage" is not really a good reason do do so. I still have a hard time calling Anglicans Orthodox, although there are some who definitely are. One God, One Church, One Liturgy, maybe someday.

Liturgy is a living, organic thing. Always best to make needed adjustments to the received tradition than to go picking and choosing at will.

Also, "one church one liturgy" has never been the norm, nor should it ever be.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #252 on: May 31, 2014, 01:42:19 PM »

Also, "one church one liturgy" has never been the norm, nor should it ever be.

If you mean never in Orthodoxy, then alright. In Eastern Catholicism it is a norm, or pretty close to being one (Etritrea being the obvious exception.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #253 on: May 31, 2014, 02:08:33 PM »

Also, "one church one liturgy" has never been the norm, nor should it ever be.

If you mean never in Orthodoxy, then alright. In Eastern Catholicism it is a norm, or pretty close to being one (Etritrea being the obvious exception.)

I mean church history in general, especially the first 700 years or so. Throughout the councils, when the undivided church was at its most intimate, it was most diverse in its liturgical expression.

Organic, intensely local liturgy is the natural state of the Church.
Logged
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,407


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #254 on: May 31, 2014, 02:35:29 PM »

Also, "one church one liturgy" has never been the norm, nor should it ever be.

If you mean never in Orthodoxy, then alright. In Eastern Catholicism it is a norm, or pretty close to being one (Etritrea being the obvious exception.)

I mean church history in general, especially the first 700 years or so. Throughout the councils, when the undivided church was at its most intimate, it was most diverse in its liturgical expression.

Organic, intensely local liturgy is the natural state of the Church.
Not that I disagree, but many choose to throw out the "organic" part and are all for reintroducing the native liturgies to Antioch and Alexandria. The problem is, these people who so fiercely criticize the imposition of the Constantinopolitan tradition on these churches are advocating the same thing themselves. These old liturgies are no less foreign to the natives today than the Constantinopolitan tradition was all those years ago.

Further, I'm not sure we can even apply the same principle of "intensely local liturgy" being the natural state of the Church to modern times. People were much more localized then, and generations of Hierarchs throughout Church history have encouraged a standardized liturgical practice. I don't think it fitting to demonize them for it. I don't think we should be so confident in asserting that '"one church one liturgy" has never been the norm, nor should it ever be.' Who are we to make such stout declarations? What is inherently evil about unified liturgy?

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with your base premise, but I feel we need to be more measured in our statements about such topics.
Logged

Ελέησον με, ο Θεός, κατά το μέγα έλεος σου και κατά το πλήθος των οικτιρμών σου εξάλειψον το ανόμημα μου.

Αναστάς ο Ιησούς από του τάφου, καθώς προείπεν, έδωκεν ημίν την αιώνιον ζωήν και το μέγα έλεος.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #255 on: May 31, 2014, 02:45:08 PM »

I'm not demonizing anyone, I hope it didn't come across that way. My larger point though, is that the Church catholic is inherently and ontologically local, regardless of today's globalization. Mystically speaking, the people gathered around their bishop is the fullness of the Church in time and space.

It may be logistically easier to enforce a uniform liturgy, and such a thing has been useful in certain circumstances, but to insist upon it is in a very real sense a violation of how each local church is supposed to be.
Logged
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,407


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #256 on: May 31, 2014, 03:06:58 PM »

I'm not demonizing anyone, I hope it didn't come across that way. My larger point though, is that the Church catholic is inherently and ontologically local, regardless of today's globalization. Mystically speaking, the people gathered around their bishop is the fullness of the Church in time and space.

It may be logistically easier to enforce a uniform liturgy, and such a thing has been useful in certain circumstances, but to insist upon it is in a very real sense a violation of how each local church is supposed to be.
This I can agree with entirely.
Logged

Ελέησον με, ο Θεός, κατά το μέγα έλεος σου και κατά το πλήθος των οικτιρμών σου εξάλειψον το ανόμημα μου.

Αναστάς ο Ιησούς από του τάφου, καθώς προείπεν, έδωκεν ημίν την αιώνιον ζωήν και το μέγα έλεος.
Chrismated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 67


« Reply #257 on: May 31, 2014, 05:09:57 PM »

Hello Brothers (and Sisters),
I guess I should have stated my meaning better. When I say "One God, One Church, One Liturgy", it is obviously the "One Liturgy" part that is debatable. One God, certainly is not, and One Church certainly is not. My comment was meant in the sense of "wouldn't it be nice" rather than in a mandatory sense. Sorry for the lack of clarity and explanation on my part. I doubt that the Apostles would have celebrated a dozen different Liturgies. Men, being men, and cultures being cultures, and communication being much less than today, it is natural that the various Liturgies came about. I simply think, it would be nice, and a good thing, if we all celebrated the same Liturgy, just like we all cite the same Apostles Creed, and Nicene Creed, and Ten Commandments, and (most of us) honor the same Ecumenical Councils, etc. If the Liturgy you are celebrating "gets the job done" in a Christ honoring and glorifying manner, then go for it. One God, One Church, definitely. One Liturgy?....."It would be nice".
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,208



« Reply #258 on: May 31, 2014, 11:47:18 PM »

My larger point though, is that the Church catholic is inherently and ontologically local, regardless of today's globalization. Mystically speaking, the people gathered around their bishop is the fullness of the Church in time and space.

It may be logistically easier to enforce a uniform liturgy, and such a thing has been useful in certain circumstances, but to insist upon it is in a very real sense a violation of how each local church is supposed to be.

+1kk

Very well said. I think any notion that pushes the Church as a universally uniform monolith is appalling at best and offensive at worst. And any attempt to impose a given liturgy upon the universal Church generally amounts to little more than a misguided sense of tribal superiority - after all, which liturgy gets universally imposed?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #259 on: June 01, 2014, 05:29:11 AM »

Hello Brothers (and Sisters),
I guess I should have stated my meaning better. When I say "One God, One Church, One Liturgy", it is obviously the "One Liturgy" part that is debatable. One God, certainly is not, and One Church certainly is not. My comment was meant in the sense of "wouldn't it be nice" rather than in a mandatory sense. Sorry for the lack of clarity and explanation on my part. I doubt that the Apostles would have celebrated a dozen different Liturgies. Men, being men, and cultures being cultures, and communication being much less than today, it is natural that the various Liturgies came about. I simply think, it would be nice, and a good thing, if we all celebrated the same Liturgy, just like we all cite the same Apostles Creed, and Nicene Creed, and Ten Commandments, and (most of us) honor the same Ecumenical Councils, etc. If the Liturgy you are celebrating "gets the job done" in a Christ honoring and glorifying manner, then go for it. One God, One Church, definitely. One Liturgy?....."It would be nice".

And hence my statement that I find a bit of anti-western (or maybe I should say anti-Western-Rite) bias in Orthodoxy.  Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,303


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #260 on: June 02, 2014, 08:04:23 AM »

Hello Brothers (and Sisters),
I guess I should have stated my meaning better. When I say "One God, One Church, One Liturgy", it is obviously the "One Liturgy" part that is debatable. One God, certainly is not, and One Church certainly is not. My comment was meant in the sense of "wouldn't it be nice" rather than in a mandatory sense. Sorry for the lack of clarity and explanation on my part. I doubt that the Apostles would have celebrated a dozen different Liturgies. Men, being men, and cultures being cultures, and communication being much less than today, it is natural that the various Liturgies came about. I simply think, it would be nice, and a good thing, if we all celebrated the same Liturgy, just like we all cite the same Apostles Creed, and Nicene Creed, and Ten Commandments, and (most of us) honor the same Ecumenical Councils, etc. If the Liturgy you are celebrating "gets the job done" in a Christ honoring and glorifying manner, then go for it. One God, One Church, definitely. One Liturgy?....."It would be nice".

And hence my statement that I find a bit of anti-western (or maybe I should say anti-Western-Rite) bias in Orthodoxy.  Smiley
Found mostly in cradle Greeks (in my personal experience...however abroad Im not sure) and converts I might add. Funny thing is, the One Liturgy thing goes against Church history in a pretty obvious way.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Ekdikos
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 330



« Reply #261 on: July 23, 2014, 09:01:01 AM »

Why is WRO only "half of western tradition"?

Might have something to do with the amount of byzantinization found in the AWRV, some of which is self-imposed.

For example:

Lots of icons but few statues; stations of the cross on the walls only during Lent; signing of the cross from right to left; thuribles with bells; eastern fasting practices; the interpolation of an epiclesis in the canon; leavened bread for communion; mandatory communion in both kinds; standing to receive communion; chrismation of infants; chrismation by priests; communion of infants; omission of the Filioque from creeds and hymns; omission of references to merits of saints; rarely having benediction; and affected use of Arabic, Greek, and Slavic terminology.  Some of these things are efforts to return to pre-schism western practices, but they are quite discontinuous with traditional RC and AC customs.  I also find it odd that Western-rite clergy wear Byzantine vestments at joint Orthodox services.  By way of contrast, I've been to several Roman Catholic masses where the participating Eastern Catholic clergy wore their own rites' vestments.  Of course, Eastern Catholic churches also have their own bishops, whereas the AWRV is run by Byzantine clergy who treat it as a kind of hobby.  Back in my Anglican days, when the bishop would come to the parish, he would have no clue about our Anglo-Catholic liturgy.  Sadly, that's also true in the AWRV - the bishops are much more supportive, but they don't know the liturgy and therefore participate in a very limited way.

Whats point of being Orthodox if you retain errors of  Scholastic Theology?

I mean, retaining of Filioque, confirmation spearated by Baptism, communion only under one kind, no infant Communion?
Its not Byzantination, since other Rites, besides Byzantine have paralel pracices to Byzantine, and Orthodox Church is considering spearation of Chrismation from Baptism, not giving Communion to infants, and similar "traditions" to be Theological errors, not valid Litugrigcal variations. And Filioque, lol, why would we allow anyone who want to be in communion with us to use it Liturgicaly? Its one of major theological differences. If you use Filioque at Divine Service, you cant be in Communion with Orthodox Church. 
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 09:10:14 AM by Ekdikos » Logged

James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #262 on: July 23, 2014, 09:31:26 AM »

Why is WRO only "half of western tradition"?

Might have something to do with the amount of byzantinization found in the AWRV, some of which is self-imposed.

For example:

Lots of icons but few statues; stations of the cross on the walls only during Lent; signing of the cross from right to left; thuribles with bells; eastern fasting practices; the interpolation of an epiclesis in the canon; leavened bread for communion; mandatory communion in both kinds; standing to receive communion; chrismation of infants; chrismation by priests; communion of infants; omission of the Filioque from creeds and hymns; omission of references to merits of saints; rarely having benediction; and affected use of Arabic, Greek, and Slavic terminology.  Some of these things are efforts to return to pre-schism western practices, but they are quite discontinuous with traditional RC and AC customs.  I also find it odd that Western-rite clergy wear Byzantine vestments at joint Orthodox services.  By way of contrast, I've been to several Roman Catholic masses where the participating Eastern Catholic clergy wore their own rites' vestments.  Of course, Eastern Catholic churches also have their own bishops, whereas the AWRV is run by Byzantine clergy who treat it as a kind of hobby.  Back in my Anglican days, when the bishop would come to the parish, he would have no clue about our Anglo-Catholic liturgy.  Sadly, that's also true in the AWRV - the bishops are much more supportive, but they don't know the liturgy and therefore participate in a very limited way.

Whats point of being Orthodox if you retain errors of  Scholastic Theology?

I mean, retaining of Filioque, confirmation spearated by Baptism, communion only under one kind, no infant Communion?
Its not Byzantination, since other Rites, besides Byzantine have paralel pracices to Byzantine, and Orthodox Church is considering spearation of Chrismation from Baptism, not giving Communion to infants, and similar "traditions" to be Theological errors, not valid Litugrigcal variations. And Filioque, lol, why would we allow anyone who want to be in communion with us to use it Liturgicaly? Its one of major theological differences. If you use Filioque at Divine Service, you cant be in Communion with Orthodox Church. 


Not so.  The western church used the Filioque for centuries prior to the schism.  Orthodoxy has become too rigid.
Logged
Ekdikos
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 330



« Reply #263 on: July 23, 2014, 09:45:44 AM »


Not so.  The western church used the Filioque for centuries prior to the schism.  Orthodoxy has become too rigid.
That does not make Filioque theologicaly correct. Most of people in East were not aware of it. Anyway, my point, Orthodox Church, from begining was against liturgical use of Filioque, and Popes followed this suit until 1014. Even Saint Maximos the Confessor, who understood Filioque oikonomimicaly, and not Theologicaly, was not for Liturgical use of it.
Rigid or not rigid, we dont see it as topic which could be discussed. Once question of Filioque was raised, it cant be ignored, either it is wrong or true. There is no middle option.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 09:47:08 AM by Ekdikos » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #264 on: July 23, 2014, 10:46:42 AM »

Why is WRO only "half of western tradition"?

Might have something to do with the amount of byzantinization found in the AWRV, some of which is self-imposed.

For example:

Lots of icons but few statues; stations of the cross on the walls only during Lent; signing of the cross from right to left; thuribles with bells; eastern fasting practices; the interpolation of an epiclesis in the canon; leavened bread for communion; mandatory communion in both kinds; standing to receive communion; chrismation of infants; chrismation by priests; communion of infants; omission of the Filioque from creeds and hymns; omission of references to merits of saints; rarely having benediction; and affected use of Arabic, Greek, and Slavic terminology.  Some of these things are efforts to return to pre-schism western practices, but they are quite discontinuous with traditional RC and AC customs.  I also find it odd that Western-rite clergy wear Byzantine vestments at joint Orthodox services.  By way of contrast, I've been to several Roman Catholic masses where the participating Eastern Catholic clergy wore their own rites' vestments.  Of course, Eastern Catholic churches also have their own bishops, whereas the AWRV is run by Byzantine clergy who treat it as a kind of hobby.  Back in my Anglican days, when the bishop would come to the parish, he would have no clue about our Anglo-Catholic liturgy.  Sadly, that's also true in the AWRV - the bishops are much more supportive, but they don't know the liturgy and therefore participate in a very limited way.

Whats point of being Orthodox if you retain errors of  Scholastic Theology?

I mean, retaining of Filioque, confirmation spearated by Baptism, communion only under one kind, no infant Communion?
Its not Byzantination, since other Rites, besides Byzantine have paralel pracices to Byzantine, and Orthodox Church is considering spearation of Chrismation from Baptism, not giving Communion to infants, and similar "traditions" to be Theological errors, not valid Litugrigcal variations. And Filioque, lol, why would we allow anyone who want to be in communion with us to use it Liturgicaly? Its one of major theological differences. If you use Filioque at Divine Service, you cant be in Communion with Orthodox Church. 

I don't speak for James2 of course -- and I definitely would not have included "omission of the Filioque" in a list of byzantinizations -- but I would point out that, if you read the list, many of them are in fact real byzantinizations.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Ekdikos
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 330



« Reply #265 on: July 23, 2014, 10:58:38 AM »

I don't speak for James2 of course -- and I definitely would not have included "omission of the Filioque" in a list of byzantinizations -- but I would point out that, if you read the list, many of them are in fact real byzantinizations.

I would certainly agree for direction of corssing, fasting practices, what kind of censor is to be used...  even interpolation of epiclesis. Saint Nycholas Kabasylla had no probem with Roman Canon of Mass. I need to check, but I dont thin in Liturgy of Saint Peter, Orthodox Latin Monks at Mount Athos, intervened in text of Canon. Professor Nikolay Uspensky, did not think this is dogmatic, but purely issue of liturgical practice.

But my point was:
1) I think everybody understand why Filioque is no-no.
2) Its highly questionable separation of Chrysmation from Baptism, Chrysmation by bishops only, communion under one kind and similar practices are pre-Schism. Unless you think Orthodox Churhc and RCC were in Union in 12th and 13th century...


Also, about unleavened bread... I dont think Orthodox Church can interpret this as local tradition of West. Its criticized as based on wrong theology.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 11:16:29 AM by Ekdikos » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #266 on: July 23, 2014, 11:30:38 PM »

Thumbsup

As I said, I would not have included "omission of the Filioque" in a list of byzantinizations ... But I think I can see where that comes from, since we always call the Filioque a Latinization.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,303


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #267 on: July 26, 2014, 08:30:38 PM »

Quote
I don't speak for James2 of course -- and I definitely would not have included "omission of the Filioque" in a list of byzantinizations -- but I would point out that, if you read the list, many of them are in fact real byzantinizations
Sure there are Byzantinizations, of which I have no problem with them. They're Orthodox, but not western Orthodox. Small price to pay methinks.

Quote
Not so.  The western church used the Filioque for centuries prior to the schism.  Orthodoxy has become too rigid.
You'd be about 1/2 right if there was an actual official date of schism between the two churches, of which there is not. 1054 is a comfy date, but all together not entirely accurate. Even if there were such a date, it doesnt mean the Church approved of Rome's innovations. Case in point, the EP and Moscow currently.

Quote
1) I think everybody understand why Filioque is no-no.
Evidently not.
Quote
2) Its highly questionable separation of Chrysmation from Baptism, Chrysmation by bishops only, communion under one kind and similar practices are pre-Schism. Unless you think Orthodox Churhc and RCC were in Union in 12th and 13th century...
Antioch was.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Ekdikos
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 330



« Reply #268 on: July 26, 2014, 08:46:54 PM »

You'd be about 1/2 right if there was an actual official date of schism between the two churches, of which there is not. 1054 is a comfy date, but all together not entirely accurate. Even if there were such a date, it doesnt mean the Church approved of Rome's innovations. Case in point, the EP and Moscow currently.
Well to be honest, its not that simple. From 381till 1054 there was several schisms between two Capital sees. And Rome embraced Liturgical recitation of Filioque 1014. Thats much on his point.

Quote
Evidently not.
Well if people dont get that Filioque and Papal Primacy are questions of all questions...

Quote
Antioch was.
You mean when Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, was writting how Latins should be rebaptised, he was in Communion with Pope?

 My intention was just to fix historical inacuracies. :-) Antioch did not follow Constantinople to Schism, but when Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was expelled, there was no issue about if there is Shism.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 08:50:52 PM by Ekdikos » Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,303


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #269 on: July 26, 2014, 09:04:02 PM »

Quote
Well to be honest, its not that simple. From 381till 1054 there was several schisms between two Capital sees
Since Christianity is not defined by it's "capital see" (at least before Rome took it upon itself to try and redefine Christianity) its pretty much a moot point. Antioch and Alexandria both communed faithful under the Pope of Rome well after 1054.

Quote
Well if people dont get that Filioque and Papal Primacy are questions of all questions...
Oh it is, but not everyone believes that. Like Mr. "Orthodoxy is too rigid" above.

Quote
You mean when Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, was writting how Latins should be rebaptised, he was in Communion with Pope?
If he refused to commune with the Pope, thats one thing. However, Antioch was still in communion with Rome officially decades after the "schism".

Quote
Antioch did not follow Constantinople to Schism
Neither did Constantinople, so again, moot point.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Tags: Western Rite 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  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 0.167 seconds with 73 queries.