Topic: Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite?

[yochanan]

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism? 

[Anastasios]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I don't have a problem with the Western Rite per se, in the cases of say an entire Church converting en masse, but I believe that when it is used specifically for missionary purposes (setting up new Western Rite missions for new converts) it is not a good idea. I for one grew up Lutheran and spent some time in the Roman Catholic Church; I had no desire to continue with the Western Rite.  I wanted the Eastern liturgy only.

Just my opinion.

[Pravoslavbob]

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism? 

Actually, with the situation the way it is now in the Phillipines (with sometimes unclear deliniations between Roman Catholic, Orthodox, vagante Catholic and Orthodox etc.), in some ways I don't think this would make things any easier, but simply serve to muddy the waters even more.  So I don't see how adopting the Western rite would serve to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism, but that rather the opposite might happen.  If one considers the question simply on the level of how convenient it is for people to switch, "easy" is not a synonym for "better."  However, if an entire parish (or larger group) wishes to convert to Orthodoxy and wants to adopt the Western rite, then yes, I believe the Church should accomodate this.  

[ialmisry]

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism).

No, pre-schism.

We talked about the WRO in the Phillipines off and on here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.0.html

Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country?

On that thread it seemed to come down to a difference of opinion between the Greeks and the Antiocheans.  The Greek Archdiocese has many bishops here who are fiercely hostile to WRO.

Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism? 

this isn't just a problem of WRO: the rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were suppressed, and perhaps Georgia.  The Vatican unfortunately wasn't the only see to enforce uniformity when it wasn't necessary, just ethnocentric.

[yochanan]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I don't have a problem with the Western Rite per se, in the cases of say an entire Church converting en masse, but I believe that when it is used specifically for missionary purposes (setting up new Western Rite missions for new converts) it is not a good idea. I for one grew up Lutheran and spent some time in the Roman Catholic Church; I had no desire to continue with the Western Rite.  I wanted the Eastern liturgy only.

Just my opinion.

Father Bless,
I am a great fan of Gregorian chants and, owing to the 'western ears' of Filipinos, it would be hard for us to learn the Byzantine tonal system. But if Americans are able to adapt, why can't we? The only thing that bothers me is that it sounds eerie singing the English version of Byzantine Chants (it makes me shiver). Well, DL's not about sounds after all anyway. (And I believe Tagalog would sound good with it.)

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism). Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country? Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism? 

Actually, with the situation the way it is now in the Phillipines (with sometimes unclear deliniations between Roman Catholic, Orthodox, vagante Catholic and Orthodox etc.), in some ways I don't think this would make things any easier, but simply serve to muddy the waters even more.  So I don't see how adopting the Western rite would serve to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism, but that rather the opposite might happen.  If one considers the question simply on the level of how convenient it is for people to switch, "easy" is not a synonym for "better."  However, if an entire parish (or larger group) wishes to convert to Orthodoxy and wants to adopt the Western rite, then yes, I believe the Church should accomodate this. 

Oops.. I actually meant that the Bishops were using (right now) the Eastern Rite to set Orthodoxy apart. And that this is actually the reason why they are not using Western Rite.

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? I personally believe it would be easier. Like in the Philippines, we Filipinos are more used to Western Rite music and Gregorian Chant (yeah, I know its post-schism).

No, pre-schism.

We talked about the WRO in the Phillipines off and on here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15199.0.html

Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country?

On that thread it seemed to come down to a difference of opinion between the Greeks and the Antiocheans.  The Greek Archdiocese has many bishops here who are fiercely hostile to WRO.

Maybe perhaps to set Orthodoxy apart from Catholicism? 

this isn't just a problem of WRO: the rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were suppressed, and perhaps Georgia.  The Vatican unfortunately wasn't the only see to enforce uniformity when it wasn't necessary, just ethnocentric.

Gregorian is pre-schism? 

Why are they hostile?

Yeah, I noticed that. Are the rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem substantially different from the Greek? I thought all Eastern Rites were the same (well, except for language)

[ialmisry]

Gregorian is pre-schism? 

In 785 Charlemagne asked, and received, liturgical books with the Gregorian chant, which he proceeded to spread (with the help of his sword) all over Europe.

Why are they hostile?

It is not from Constantinople.

Yeah, I noticed that. Are the rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem substantially different from the Greek? I thought all Eastern Rites were the same (well, except for language)

No, the language was even the same.

[Anastasios]

Let's keep this discussion on topic, which is about the Western Rites in the modern Orthodox Church. Let's not deviate into an EP thread here. Some of the history is pertinent, but the supression of other rites deserves its own thread.

Thanks,

Fr Anastasios

[ialmisry]

Back on the Ranch (did I leave?)....

Yes, Westerners should use the Western Rite.  The experience of going to a Western Rite (say, the Roman or Anglican) in an Eastern Culture (I did so in Egypt and Jerusalem) should convince anyone of that.

[Iconodule]

I don't have a problem with the Western Rite per se, in the cases of say an entire Church converting en masse, but I believe that when it is used specifically for missionary purposes (setting up new Western Rite missions for new converts) it is not a good idea.

I agree here. If established Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran parishes want to convert and adopt this rite, and the Orthodox bishops concede to this, that is one thing. It is another to have a variety of rites on the basis of ethnicity or culture.

[Iconodule]

Back on the Ranch (did I leave?)....

Yes, Westerners should use the Western Rite.  The experience of going to a Western Rite (say, the Roman or Anglican) in an Eastern Culture (I did so in Egypt and Jerusalem) should convince anyone of that.

Why?

I and many others are perfectly happy going to an Eastern rite in a Western culture.

[ialmisry]

I don't have a problem with the Western Rite per se, in the cases of say an entire Church converting en masse, but I believe that when it is used specifically for missionary purposes (setting up new Western Rite missions for new converts) it is not a good idea.

I agree here. If established Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran parishes want to convert and adopt this rite, and the Orthodox bishops concede to this, that is one thing. It is another to have a variety of rites on the basis of ethnicity or culture.

I've been to a WRO parish which had a large number of Easterners who had been Westernized, having come to America.  Better the WRO then they go to the Episcopalians.

[ialmisry]

Back on the Ranch (did I leave?)....

Yes, Westerners should use the Western Rite.  The experience of going to a Western Rite (say, the Roman or Anglican) in an Eastern Culture (I did so in Egypt and Jerusalem) should convince anyone of that.

Why?

I and many others are perfectly happy going to an Eastern rite in a Western culture.

Many are not.

But to your point: why are you all perfectly happy?

I remember a priest I know, who was dogmatically against the WRO, and how universal the Constantinople rite was (I'm not sure if he knew of any other Eastern rite)....The Church, he insisted is supposed to be different from the world: he was one for all the rubrics and not letting one litany drop, but had no use for pomp outside the Church door, even not going to his college graduation, for instance.  Problem is, is that that is not a Church-World distinction but a East-West distinction, which anyone who sees Eastern cultures operating outside the Church can attest.

When I brought this up, some scurried to find photos of eleborate Western Churches, but I saw no plain Eastern ones.

So a comparison of Western and Eastern secular ceremonial shows a difference which is reflected in the Western and Eastern rites, and other matters: the West has tried to keep the Scripture in the standard from of the contemporary vernacular ever since the Vulgate (indeed the Itala).  The East has been quite comfortable with diaglossia, at one time even contemplating Atticising the Koine of Scripture (as is done in the Church writings).  I am just curious that defenders of the Eastern rite in the West sound like the defenders of the Latin mass.  Uncomfortably close.

[wynd]

Many are not.

But to your point: why are you all perfectly happy?

I remember a priest I know, who was dogmatically against the WRO, and how universal the Constantinople rite was (I'm not sure if he knew of any other Eastern rite)....The Church, he insisted is supposed to be different from the world: he was one for all the rubrics and not letting one litany drop, but had no use for pomp outside the Church door, even not going to his college graduation, for instance.  Problem is, is that that is not a Church-World distinction but a East-West distinction, which anyone who sees Eastern cultures operating outside the Church can attest.

When I brought this up, some scurried to find photos of eleborate Western Churches, but I saw no plain Eastern ones.

So a comparison of Western and Eastern secular ceremonial shows a difference which is reflected in the Western and Eastern rites, and other matters: the West has tried to keep the Scripture in the standard from of the contemporary vernacular ever since the Vulgate (indeed the Itala).  The East has been quite comfortable with diaglossia, at one time even contemplating Atticising the Koine of Scripture (as is done in the Church writings).  I am just curious that defenders of the Eastern rite in the West sound like the defenders of the Latin mass.  Uncomfortably close.

I don't see what the big deal is. He said he's perfectly happy, what's wrong with that? I myself came from the RCC and much prefer the Eastern Orthodox way over the RC offering. Liturgical variety doesn't interest me -- I'd be happy attending the DL of St. John for the rest of my life. Note that I'm not saying my way has to be the way for everyone, but I feel that a simple "Western country = Western rite" can only lead to problems.

[augustin717]

I've only seen a WR mass or whatever on the internet so my experience is limited; however, I would have never guessed that was an Orthodox service, unless they had stated so. Especially with all those Anglican/Lutheran hymns.

[Iconodule]

I remember a priest I know, who was dogmatically against the WRO, and how universal the Constantinople rite was (I'm not sure if he knew of any other Eastern rite)....The Church, he insisted is supposed to be different from the world: he was one for all the rubrics and not letting one litany drop, but had no use for pomp outside the Church door, even not going to his college graduation, for instance.  Problem is, is that that is not a Church-World distinction but a East-West distinction, which anyone who sees Eastern cultures operating outside the Church can attest.

What does this personal anecdote prove? Secularism and liberalism have reduced public pomp worldwide; it's hardly a Western phenomenon anymore. 

When I brought this up, some scurried to find photos of eleborate Western Churches, but I saw no plain Eastern ones.

What's your point? That Westerners don't like fancy ceremony and elaborate decor? Ever heard of rococo and baroque?

So a comparison of Western and Eastern secular ceremonial shows a difference which is reflected in the Western and Eastern rites, and other matters: the West has tried to keep the Scripture in the standard from of the contemporary vernacular ever since the Vulgate (indeed the Itala).  The East has been quite comfortable with diaglossia, at one time even contemplating Atticising the Koine of Scripture (as is done in the Church writings). 

So what? Have the Eastern rite in English then- most of the parishes around me certainly do. 

I am just curious that defenders of the Eastern rite in the West sound like the defenders of the Latin mass.  Uncomfortably close.

You sound uncomfortably close to my college literature professor who soaked up class time by indulging in obscure and irrelevant tangents.

[arimethea]

Back on the Ranch (did I leave?)....

Yes, Westerners should use the Western Rite.  The experience of going to a Western Rite (say, the Roman or Anglican) in an Eastern Culture (I did so in Egypt and Jerusalem) should convince anyone of that.

The reality is that America while located in the West is not very "Western" nor are its people. America is in fact a true blend of Eastern and Western thought. We have a very Eastern sense of work ethic and cultural appreciation but have historical connection and some shared philosophical thought with Western Civilization.

In fact the Western Rite is completely foreign to most "Western" Christians who come from post enlightenment non-liturgical Protestant faiths. It is because it is identified as Western Rite that it turns those who are searching for a Church that has its origins in the Eastern context away from it. 

[lubeltri]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I don't have a problem with the Western Rite per se, in the cases of say an entire Church converting en masse, but I believe that when it is used specifically for missionary purposes (setting up new Western Rite missions for new converts) it is not a good idea. I for one grew up Lutheran and spent some time in the Roman Catholic Church; I had no desire to continue with the Western Rite.  I wanted the Eastern liturgy only.

Just my opinion.

Would I also guess, Father, that as a traditionalist you are somewhat leery of the kind of archaeologizing and manufactured liturgy that the Orthodox "Western rites" represent?

[Robb]

Why do we assume that all Western Christians at one time were exposed to a form of Liturgy along the lines of the current Western rites that are accepted within Orthodoxy?  Most of these Western rites and liturgies seems to be heavily Anglicized and geared to an Anglo-Saxon or Anglophile audience.  From what I've seen, there tends to be a lot of Anglo/English sentiment that runs through your average Western rite Orthodox parish.  This might be fine if one is from an English/Anglican backround, but most people attached to "Western" or West European culture are not. 

For instance, why would someone who is Polish or Polish American who wants to convert to Orthodoxy have any interest in attending of the present Western rite parishes which, for the most part, use liturgical books based on ancient British and Celtic Church liturgies?  Why would someone like myself, who is primarily Italian American want to partake in such Anglicized ritual unless I was an Anglophile?  I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to accept what passes for Western rite Orthodoxy simply because some Church hierarchy thought that this was an expression of my culture.

[Michał]

Could predominant Catholic countries use Western Rite? . . . Why don't the Bishops try to revive it in our country?

As far as I know, in the Philippines there are five WR missions under Antioch and hopefully there will be many more under the ROCOR soon.

[ialmisry]

Many are not.

But to your point: why are you all perfectly happy?

I remember a priest I know, who was dogmatically against the WRO, and how universal the Constantinople rite was (I'm not sure if he knew of any other Eastern rite)....The Church, he insisted is supposed to be different from the world: he was one for all the rubrics and not letting one litany drop, but had no use for pomp outside the Church door, even not going to his college graduation, for instance.  Problem is, is that that is not a Church-World distinction but a East-West distinction, which anyone who sees Eastern cultures operating outside the Church can attest.

When I brought this up, some scurried to find photos of eleborate Western Churches, but I saw no plain Eastern ones.

So a comparison of Western and Eastern secular ceremonial shows a difference which is reflected in the Western and Eastern rites, and other matters: the West has tried to keep the Scripture in the standard from of the contemporary vernacular ever since the Vulgate (indeed the Itala).  The East has been quite comfortable with diaglossia, at one time even contemplating Atticising the Koine of Scripture (as is done in the Church writings).  I am just curious that defenders of the Eastern rite in the West sound like the defenders of the Latin mass.  Uncomfortably close.

I don't see what the big deal is. He said he's perfectly happy, what's wrong with that? I myself came from the RCC and much prefer the Eastern Orthodox way over the RC offering. Liturgical variety doesn't interest me -- I'd be happy attending the DL of St. John for the rest of my life. Note that I'm not saying my way has to be the way for everyone, but I feel that a simple "Western country = Western rite" can only lead to problems.

When the OCA Cathedral here switched to English (or rather, started using English), one gentleman sighed that "Oh, Vladiko, when you hear the old Russian tone, you get a warm feeling here (hand over heart).  Archb. John, of blessed memory responded: "Yes, I get the same feeling after three vodkas."

What is a problem, and why I said anything at all, is that usually those who are quite fine with the Constantinople rite are not fine with those who are not.  And among the former I find a lot of confusion between nostalgia, revisionism, mystique, the exotic and equating it with piety. 

The issue of Western country=Western rite is the odds are that in a Western country, most are Westerners.  You can find Westerners in the East, just not that many (remember: EP Celarius closed Latin rite parishes in Constantinople, so they were there).

[ialmisry]

I remember a priest I know, who was dogmatically against the WRO, and how universal the Constantinople rite was (I'm not sure if he knew of any other Eastern rite)....The Church, he insisted is supposed to be different from the world: he was one for all the rubrics and not letting one litany drop, but had no use for pomp outside the Church door, even not going to his college graduation, for instance.  Problem is, is that that is not a Church-World distinction but a East-West distinction, which anyone who sees Eastern cultures operating outside the Church can attest.

What does this personal anecdote prove? Secularism and liberalism have reduced public pomp worldwide; it's hardly a Western phenomenon anymore. 

It's not a modern issue: the Repubican Romans and the early empire had plenty to comment on the difference.

When I brought this up, some scurried to find photos of eleborate Western Churches, but I saw no plain Eastern ones.

What's your point? That Westerners don't like fancy ceremony and elaborate decor? Ever heard of rococo and baroque?

Why yes I have: an extreme counter action of the Counter Reformation to the iconoclasm of Calvin and company.  Ever notice how short and limited (not catching on in the North of Europe or the British Isles, but popular at St. Petersburg).

So a comparison of Western and Eastern secular ceremonial shows a difference which is reflected in the Western and Eastern rites, and other matters: the West has tried to keep the Scripture in the standard from of the contemporary vernacular ever since the Vulgate (indeed the Itala).  The East has been quite comfortable with diaglossia, at one time even contemplating Atticising the Koine of Scripture (as is done in the Church writings).

So what? Have the Eastern rite in English then- most of the parishes around me certainly do.

 

To really be Eastern rite, the DL should be in at least Chaucerian English, if not Anglo-Saxon.  Elizabethan English isn't even a close correspondance.

I am just curious that defenders of the Eastern rite in the West sound like the defenders of the Latin mass.  Uncomfortably close.

You sound uncomfortably close to my college literature professor who soaked up class time by indulging in obscure and irrelevant tangents.

[/quote]

I just prefer that when I upbraid the Vatican for Latinization, I can do so with a straight face and a clear conscience.

[ialmisry]

Back on the Ranch (did I leave?)....

Yes, Westerners should use the Western Rite.  The experience of going to a Western Rite (say, the Roman or Anglican) in an Eastern Culture (I did so in Egypt and Jerusalem) should convince anyone of that.

The reality is that America while located in the West is not very "Western" nor are its people. America is in fact a true blend of Eastern and Western thought. We have a very Eastern sense of work ethic

What work ethic you tallking about?

and cultural appreciation but have historical connection and some shared philosophical thought with Western Civilization.

LOL.  It's all Western thought.

In fact the Western Rite is completely foreign to most "Western" Christians who come from post enlightenment non-liturgical Protestant faiths.

The TLM, SPPIX, etc. say otherwise.  It hasn't been effaced. And it is not like we in the East didn't pass through the Great Western Captivity unscarred.

It is because it is identified as Western Rite that it turns those who are searching for a Church that has its origins in the Eastern context away from it. 

Why should they search for a Church that has its origins in the Eastern context?  To be exotic? If they want East, as Rafa points out they can have the Church of the East, which is headquarted wtih its patriarch here in Chicago.  Best of both worlds.

[ialmisry]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I don't have a problem with the Western Rite per se, in the cases of say an entire Church converting en masse, but I believe that when it is used specifically for missionary purposes (setting up new Western Rite missions for new converts) it is not a good idea. I for one grew up Lutheran and spent some time in the Roman Catholic Church; I had no desire to continue with the Western Rite.  I wanted the Eastern liturgy only.

Just my opinion.

Would I also guess, Father, that as a traditionalist you are somewhat leery of the kind of archaeologizing and manufactured liturgy that the Orthodox "Western rites" represent?

You mean like the Gregorian Reform?  The Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites?

[Iconodule]

Why yes I have: an extreme counter action of the Counter Reformation to the iconoclasm of Calvin and company.

And what were Protestant iconoclasts responding to?

To really be Eastern rite, the DL should be in at least Chaucerian English, if not Anglo-Saxon.  Elizabethan English isn't even a close correspondance.

Please point me to the rubrics that call for an archaic language in the liturgy.

I just prefer that when I upbraid the Vatican for Latinization, I can do so with a straight face and a clear conscience.

Uniformity is fine, as long as it is uniformity in the right faith. I prefer to upbraid the Vatican for their real errors.

[ialmisry]

Why do we assume that all Western Christians at one time were exposed to a form of Liturgy along the lines of the current Western rites that are accepted within Orthodoxy?  Most of these Western rites and liturgies seems to be heavily Anglicized and geared to an Anglo-Saxon or Anglophile audience.  From what I've seen, there tends to be a lot of Anglo/English sentiment that runs through your average Western rite Orthodox parish.  This might be fine if one is from an English/Anglican backround, but most people attached to "Western" or West European culture are not. 

For instance, why would someone who is Polish or Polish American who wants to convert to Orthodoxy have any interest in attending of the present Western rite parishes which, for the most part, use liturgical books based on ancient British and Celtic Church liturgies?  Why would someone like myself, who is primarily Italian American want to partake in such Anglicized ritual unless I was an Anglophile?  I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to accept what passes for Western rite Orthodoxy simply because some Church hierarchy thought that this was an expression of my culture.

The Rite of St. Gregory is Roman.  For the Poles, St. John's is as foreign as St. Gregory, just less so as most Poles have a history of the latter.

[wynd]

Why do we assume that all Western Christians at one time were exposed to a form of Liturgy along the lines of the current Western rites that are accepted within Orthodoxy?  Most of these Western rites and liturgies seems to be heavily Anglicized and geared to an Anglo-Saxon or Anglophile audience.  From what I've seen, there tends to be a lot of Anglo/English sentiment that runs through your average Western rite Orthodox parish.  This might be fine if one is from an English/Anglican backround, but most people attached to "Western" or West European culture are not. 

For instance, why would someone who is Polish or Polish American who wants to convert to Orthodoxy have any interest in attending of the present Western rite parishes which, for the most part, use liturgical books based on ancient British and Celtic Church liturgies?  Why would someone like myself, who is primarily Italian American want to partake in such Anglicized ritual unless I was an Anglophile?  I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to accept what passes for Western rite Orthodoxy simply because some Church hierarchy thought that this was an expression of my culture.

I've noticed this too. I'm not Anglican, have never been, and have no desire to immerse myself in a tradition I was never part of in the first place.

[ialmisry]

Why do we assume that all Western Christians at one time were exposed to a form of Liturgy along the lines of the current Western rites that are accepted within Orthodoxy?  Most of these Western rites and liturgies seems to be heavily Anglicized and geared to an Anglo-Saxon or Anglophile audience.  From what I've seen, there tends to be a lot of Anglo/English sentiment that runs through your average Western rite Orthodox parish.  This might be fine if one is from an English/Anglican backround, but most people attached to "Western" or West European culture are not. 

For instance, why would someone who is Polish or Polish American who wants to convert to Orthodoxy have any interest in attending of the present Western rite parishes which, for the most part, use liturgical books based on ancient British and Celtic Church liturgies?  Why would someone like myself, who is primarily Italian American want to partake in such Anglicized ritual unless I was an Anglophile?  I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to accept what passes for Western rite Orthodoxy simply because some Church hierarchy thought that this was an expression of my culture.

I've noticed this too. I'm not Anglican, have never been, and have no desire to immerse myself in a tradition I was never part of in the first place.

I didn't know you hailed from Constantinople.

[ialmisry]

Why yes I have: an extreme counter action of the Counter Reformation to the iconoclasm of Calvin and company.

And what were Protestant iconoclasts responding to?

The Seventh Ecumenical Council.

To really be Eastern rite, the DL should be in at least Chaucerian English, if not Anglo-Saxon.  Elizabethan English isn't even a close correspondance.

Please point me to the rubrics that call for an archaic language in the liturgy.

My favorite is the Gospel of the Road to Emmaus in the Slavic Church:with the two disciples you have all sorts fo duals which have dropped out of the Slavic languages (except Slovenian) still in the Church Slovanic.

Anna Comnena talks about teaching Greeks (i.e. Romans) to speak Greek (i.e. Attic):
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26357.msg416749/topicseen.html#msg416749

That's just it: there is no need for a canon.  It is that deeply engrained in the East.

I just prefer that when I upbraid the Vatican for Latinization, I can do so with a straight face and a clear conscience.

Uniformity is fine, as long as it is uniformity in the right faith. I prefer to upbraid the Vatican for their real errors.

Confusing Rome with the World (and uniformity of rite is this part of this Urbs et Orbis error) is the core of its errors.

[Andrew21091]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I agree with you Father. That is the reason why I am cautious concerning the Western Rite is that it will cause just that problem. Its like if some Protestant goes to and Eastern church and sees people kissing icons and they feel uncomfortable so maybe they will just decide to go Western Rite because they cannot fully accept kissing icons. The same goes for musical instruments. I'm fine with a big pipe organ when it comes to Western liturgies but I've seen Antiochian Western Rite churches using violins so it makes me wonder how far it will go. What if some people in the Western Rite say they want to use guitars since thats what they use in the West, will that be ok by their standards?

[Robb]

Since the rite of Constantinople has survived and flourished for around 15 centuries, it obviously must have some benefits over those archaic rites once used in the West, but now almost completely obscured and extinct. 

I also kind of get a kick at how some Orthodox, mainly converts will decry and disparage all things in Orthodoxy which they find too Eastern, ethnic, and exotic, as well as Ethnicity in general as "phyletheism". However they will, at the same time exhort and praise all things Western (which I guess they equate with "English") almost to the point that you could consider "Anglo-Phyletheist".  Talk about the pot and the Kettle...

I have my deep suspicions of the Western rite of Orthodoxy, but I fully except it as a valid choice for those who wish to attend it (as long as it is approved by an Orthodox synod).  I'm just not a fan of having people tell me that I MUST attend to and belong to Western rite Orthodoxy simply because I was born in a country that they define as "Western".

[Robb]

Many are not.

But to your point: why are you all perfectly happy?

I remember a priest I know, who was dogmatically against the WRO, and how universal the Constantinople rite was (I'm not sure if he knew of any other Eastern rite)....The Church, he insisted is supposed to be different from the world: he was one for all the rubrics and not letting one litany drop, but had no use for pomp outside the Church door, even not going to his college graduation, for instance.  Problem is, is that that is not a Church-World distinction but a East-West distinction, which anyone who sees Eastern cultures operating outside the Church can attest.

When I brought this up, some scurried to find photos of eleborate Western Churches, but I saw no plain Eastern ones.

So a comparison of Western and Eastern secular ceremonial shows a difference which is reflected in the Western and Eastern rites, and other matters: the West has tried to keep the Scripture in the standard from of the contemporary vernacular ever since the Vulgate (indeed the Itala).  The East has been quite comfortable with diaglossia, at one time even contemplating Atticising the Koine of Scripture (as is done in the Church writings).  I am just curious that defenders of the Eastern rite in the West sound like the defenders of the Latin mass.  Uncomfortably close.

I don't see what the big deal is. He said he's perfectly happy, what's wrong with that? I myself came from the RCC and much prefer the Eastern Orthodox way over the RC offering. Liturgical variety doesn't interest me -- I'd be happy attending the DL of St. John for the rest of my life. Note that I'm not saying my way has to be the way for everyone, but I feel that a simple "Western country = Western rite" can only lead to problems.

When the OCA Cathedral here switched to English (or rather, started using English), one gentleman sighed that "Oh, Vladiko, when you hear the old Russian tone, you get a warm feeling here (hand over heart).  Archb. John, of blessed memory responded: "Yes, I get the same feeling after three vodkas."

What is a problem, and why I said anything at all, is that usually those who are quite fine with the Constantinople rite are not fine with those who are not.  And among the former I find a lot of confusion between nostalgia, revisionism, mystique, the exotic and equating it with piety. 

The issue of Western country=Western rite is the odds are that in a Western country, most are Westerners.  You can find Westerners in the East, just not that many (remember: EP Celarius closed Latin rite parishes in Constantinople, so they were there).

Among adherents to the Western rite, you can find a lot mythologizing, romanticizing, and waxing nostalgia for "Merry old England", King Aurthur and his Knights, and all things (Western) Medieval as well.

[ialmisry]

Since the rite of Constantinople has survived and flourished for around 15 centuries, it obviously must have some benefits over those archaic rites once used in the West, but now almost completely obscured and extinct.

The Roman rite has also survived and flourished.  The benefit which both had was the sword in the hand of its supporter.

I also kind of get a kick at how some Orthodox, mainly converts will decry and disparage all things in Orthodoxy which they find too Eastern, ethnic, and exotic, as well as Ethnicity in general as "phyletheism". However they will, at the same time exhort and praise all things Western (which I guess they equate with "English") almost to the point that you could consider "Anglo-Phyletheist".  Talk about the pot and the Kettle...

But here both pot and kettle are on their stove.

I have my deep suspicions of the Western rite of Orthodoxy, but I fully except it as a valid choice for those who wish to attend it (as long as it is approved by an Orthodox synod).  I'm just not a fan of having people tell me that I MUST attend to and belong to Western rite Orthodoxy simply because I was born in a country that they define as "Western".

As long as the majority in that country who define themselves as Western can go to the Western Rite.

[ialmisry]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I agree with you Father. That is the reason why I am cautious concerning the Western Rite is that it will cause just that problem.

I've met plenty Eastern rite Orthodox who never "convert."

Its like if some Protestant goes to and Eastern church and sees people kissing icons and they feel uncomfortable so maybe they will just decide to go Western Rite because they cannot fully accept kissing icons.

They kiss icons in the WRO. And Crosses, and Bibles and all sorts of things.

The same goes for musical instruments. I'm fine with a big pipe organ when it comes to Western liturgies but I've seen Antiochian Western Rite churches using violins so it makes me wonder how far it will go.

Though I'm not for violins, I have to say that they have sounded better than the organs I have heard in scores of Eastern Churches. Btw, I've seen a wedding at a Eastern Greek Orthodox Church where they had *gasp* violins.

What if some people in the Western Rite say they want to use guitars since thats what they use in the West, will that be ok by their standards?

The Eastern Orthodox crossed that when they put the first organ in.

[ialmisry]

Many are not.

But to your point: why are you all perfectly happy?

I remember a priest I know, who was dogmatically against the WRO, and how universal the Constantinople rite was (I'm not sure if he knew of any other Eastern rite)....The Church, he insisted is supposed to be different from the world: he was one for all the rubrics and not letting one litany drop, but had no use for pomp outside the Church door, even not going to his college graduation, for instance.  Problem is, is that that is not a Church-World distinction but a East-West distinction, which anyone who sees Eastern cultures operating outside the Church can attest.

When I brought this up, some scurried to find photos of eleborate Western Churches, but I saw no plain Eastern ones.

So a comparison of Western and Eastern secular ceremonial shows a difference which is reflected in the Western and Eastern rites, and other matters: the West has tried to keep the Scripture in the standard from of the contemporary vernacular ever since the Vulgate (indeed the Itala).  The East has been quite comfortable with diaglossia, at one time even contemplating Atticising the Koine of Scripture (as is done in the Church writings).  I am just curious that defenders of the Eastern rite in the West sound like the defenders of the Latin mass.  Uncomfortably close.

I don't see what the big deal is. He said he's perfectly happy, what's wrong with that? I myself came from the RCC and much prefer the Eastern Orthodox way over the RC offering. Liturgical variety doesn't interest me -- I'd be happy attending the DL of St. John for the rest of my life. Note that I'm not saying my way has to be the way for everyone, but I feel that a simple "Western country = Western rite" can only lead to problems.

When the OCA Cathedral here switched to English (or rather, started using English), one gentleman sighed that "Oh, Vladiko, when you hear the old Russian tone, you get a warm feeling here (hand over heart).  Archb. John, of blessed memory responded: "Yes, I get the same feeling after three vodkas."

What is a problem, and why I said anything at all, is that usually those who are quite fine with the Constantinople rite are not fine with those who are not.  And among the former I find a lot of confusion between nostalgia, revisionism, mystique, the exotic and equating it with piety. 

The issue of Western country=Western rite is the odds are that in a Western country, most are Westerners.  You can find Westerners in the East, just not that many (remember: EP Celarius closed Latin rite parishes in Constantinople, so they were there).

Among adherents to the Western rite, you can find a lot mythologizing, romanticizing, and waxing nostalgia for "Merry old England", King Aurthur and his Knights, and all things (Western) Medieval as well.

LOL.  And no mythologizing about a couple of "Orthodox" empires we all know?

[Andrew21091]

I've met plenty Eastern rite Orthodox who never "convert."

One of the greatest things I fear is that Orthodoxy will soon become something like post Vatican II Roman Catholicism.

They kiss icons in the WRO. And Crosses, and Bibles and all sorts of things.

Well, I've never been to a Western Rite church so I will take your word for it.

Though I'm not for violins, I have to say that they have sounded better than the organs I have heard in scores of Eastern Churches. Btw, I've seen a wedding at a Eastern Greek Orthodox Church where they had *gasp* violins.

Yes, it sounds good to you and so a guitar or rock band might sound good to others so why not bring that silliness to the Western Rite too?

The Eastern Orthodox crossed that when they put the first organ in.

I agree with you and I think that all organs found within Eastern churches should either be smashed or taken out.

I just don't see the Western Rite as necessary. I was born Roman Catholic and I'm fine with the Eastern liturgy.

[yochanan]

Hmmm.. One thought to ponder: Could the Bishops make a new rite? I mean, they did that in Russia right? 

[FormerReformer]

Among adherents to the Western rite, you can find a lot mythologizing, romanticizing, and waxing nostalgia for "Merry old England", King Aurthur and his Knights, and all things (Western) Medieval as well.

Hey, I happen to love England (spent a few years there as a kid), I grew up on King Arthur (from Boy's King Arthur to L'Morte de Arthur, and Once and Future King to the Pendragon Cycle), and I attended Episcopal services on and off (mostly off) for a few years leading up to my inquiring into Orthodoxy.  I could care less about Rite worship, just so long as I have right worship.

Preferably in English, I know enough Greek to know when to cross myself, but never ever Latin (though I know enough of that to know when to cross myself, as well)!  Of course, a good Italian language liturgy approved by an Orthodox church would be an interesting experience (and I know enough to know when to cross myself).

P.S. so far the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is all I've been to.  Whatever Church is closest and Orthodox works fine for me.

[yochanan]

I could care less about Rite worship, just so long as I have right worship.

Preferably in English, I know enough Greek to know when to cross myself, but never ever Latin (though I know enough of that to know when to cross myself, as well)!  Of course, a good Italian language liturgy approved by an Orthodox church would be an interesting experience (and I know enough to know when to cross myself).

I agree!! The right Rite is, of course, just secondary to availability. 

[genesisone]

For most Evangelical and other non-liturgical Protestants (non-denom and otherwise), Eastern and Western Rites are equally foreign. In fact, Western may seem too "Catholic" (horrors!) for any with very limited exposure to Roman Catholicism, and be a real turn-off. Appeal might be limited to those already moving towards RCism.

[jnorm888]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I agree with you Father. That is the reason why I am cautious concerning the Western Rite is that it will cause just that problem. Its like if some Protestant goes to and Eastern church and sees people kissing icons and they feel uncomfortable so maybe they will just decide to go Western Rite because they cannot fully accept kissing icons. The same goes for musical instruments. I'm fine with a big pipe organ when it comes to Western liturgies but I've seen Antiochian Western Rite churches using violins so it makes me wonder how far it will go. What if some people in the Western Rite say they want to use guitars since thats what they use in the West, will that be ok by their standards?

Have you seen, "my big fat greek wedding"? You can find organs in the GOA. You don't have to go western rite to see that. To be honest, I'm actually fine with the Arabic/Syrian style of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.






ICXC NIKA

[ialmisry]

I've met plenty Eastern rite Orthodox who never "convert."

One of the greatest things I fear is that Orthodoxy will soon become something like post Vatican II Roman Catholicism.

The Eastern Rite isn't saving those in submission to the Vatican.  The WRO won't bring that into Orthodoxy, given the ethos of those in it.

Though I'm not for violins, I have to say that they have sounded better than the organs I have heard in scores of Eastern Churches. Btw, I've seen a wedding at a Eastern Greek Orthodox Church where they had *gasp* violins.

Yes, it sounds good to you and so a guitar or rock band might sound good to others so why not bring that silliness to the Western Rite too?

I didn't say it sounded good (or well ).  I said it sounded better.

The Eastern Orthodox crossed that when they put the first organ in.

I agree with you and I think that all organs found within Eastern churches should either be smashed or taken out.

I just don't see the Western Rite as necessary. I was born Roman Catholic and I'm fine with the Eastern liturgy.

[/quote]

I was born into a Lutheran family. I'm fine with the Eastern Liturgy. But then, I'm an Easterner.

[jnorm888]

Hmmm.. One thought to ponder: Could the Bishops make a new rite? I mean, they did that in Russia right?  

I could be wrong, but I think one of the Czar's did that in Russia. The slavic rite is a hybrid of both Roman Catholicism and Byzantinism.

And so it's both Eastern and Western. I'm not gonna front.....I actually like the slavic rite. I don't like it's statues and some of it's Icons, but I do like alot of other things about it.






ICXC NIKA

[jnorm888]

For most Evangelical and other non-liturgical Protestants (non-denom and otherwise), Eastern and Western Rites are equally foreign. In fact, Western may seem too "Catholic" (horrors!) for any with very limited exposure to Roman Catholicism, and be a real turn-off. Appeal might be limited to those already moving towards RCism.

I agree. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy will work just fine for alot of converts from low church protestantism. There is really no need for a western rite for those that came from a low church Baptist or Pentecostal/Charismatic background....as well as for those that come from neopaganism, old paganism, secularism, atheism.....etc. And this is one of the reasons why I'm fine with the Arabic/Syrian Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

It will work just fine as a mission for those that came from low churchism.









ICXC NIKA

[Andrew21091]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I agree with you Father. That is the reason why I am cautious concerning the Western Rite is that it will cause just that problem. Its like if some Protestant goes to and Eastern church and sees people kissing icons and they feel uncomfortable so maybe they will just decide to go Western Rite because they cannot fully accept kissing icons. The same goes for musical instruments. I'm fine with a big pipe organ when it comes to Western liturgies but I've seen Antiochian Western Rite churches using violins so it makes me wonder how far it will go. What if some people in the Western Rite say they want to use guitars since thats what they use in the West, will that be ok by their standards?

Have you seen, "my big fat greek wedding"? You can find organs in the GOA. You don't have to go western rite to see that. To be honest, I'm actually fine with the Arabic/Syrian style of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.






ICXC NIKA

I never said that there are not organs in GOA churches. I go to an Antiochian church that uses and organ unfortunately. They should not be there.

[jnorm888]

Most attempts to revive the Western Rite in modern times have been highly problematic, and have encouraged people to think they are not required to "fully convert" in my experience. This is a generalization.

I agree with you Father. That is the reason why I am cautious concerning the Western Rite is that it will cause just that problem. Its like if some Protestant goes to and Eastern church and sees people kissing icons and they feel uncomfortable so maybe they will just decide to go Western Rite because they cannot fully accept kissing icons. The same goes for musical instruments. I'm fine with a big pipe organ when it comes to Western liturgies but I've seen Antiochian Western Rite churches using violins so it makes me wonder how far it will go. What if some people in the Western Rite say they want to use guitars since thats what they use in the West, will that be ok by their standards?

Have you seen, "my big fat greek wedding"? You can find organs in the GOA. You don't have to go western rite to see that. To be honest, I'm actually fine with the Arabic/Syrian style of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

I never said that there are not organs in GOA churches. I go to an Antiochian church that uses and organ unfortunately. They should not be there.

I agree. I also don't like pews....and I like beards...etc.

 I guess the only thing to do about it is to pray, educate the kids, youth, young adults, and start a mission. The more missions the better! So that hopefully, the next generation will want things that are more Orthodox.






ICXC NIKA