Author Topic: WRO and Legitimacy  (Read 554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caelestinus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
WRO and Legitimacy
« on: November 11, 2016, 03:28:59 AM »
Quote
The Western Rite is in a confused state in the Orthodox Church. I've realized, of course, that this is often the preferred way of things in Orthodoxy - clearly defined precepts are only deferred to when absolutely necessary.

Quote
The instance on Byzantine customs or tradition, or the attempt at "restoring" the Western liturgy based upon vague intimations as opposed to hard evidence robs the Western Rite of any legitimacy.

http://arealliveone.blogspot.de/2015/07/western-rite-orthodoxy-and-legitimacy.html

Quote
Depending upon one's perspective, the Western Rite in Orthodoxy is either a well meaning but misguided attempt to save classical Western/Latin liturgy, hymody and prayer, or it is the confounding attempt by certain quarters to keep fighting the reformation. Whether either of these are true makes little difference as if the Western Rite continues to go in its current direction, it is lurching towards failure. This is not do some hidden agenda on the part of the Orthodox hierarchy. Rather, it is due to the fact that the Western Rite's advocates have a deficient historical perspective on the Latin liturgical tradition. This is not going to be corrected as long as the Western Rite keeps pulling from its normal reservoirs of adherents.

http://arealliveone.blogspot.de/2015/05/western-rite-orthodoxy-pars-secunda.html

Offline wgw

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,573
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2016, 09:44:27 AM »
"To keep fighting the reformation...". How impertinent.  At any rate, there is no question as to the legitimacy of canonical Western Rite parishes under the jurisdiction of canonical bishops; some in the Orthodox church are opposed to it for various reasons but this does not invalidate the sacraments performed in these parishes or make their members unorthodox.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,409
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2016, 04:40:08 PM »
At any rate, there is no question as to the legitimacy of canonical Western Rite parishes under the jurisdiction of canonical bishops...

Right, but

At the heart of it is a question no one has sufficiently answered: Is the WRO meant to be an active mission out to convert specific 'western' Christian groups of certain liturgical provenance, or is it simply meant to be a pastoral provision for people from a limited  number of western patrimonies that aren't anti-Orthodox, not unlike Rome's Ordinariate?

I suppose one could answer "both," and that would be ideal, but it doesn't seem to be working that way.

It's not that it's illegitimate — it's not — but that recent attempts to grow it has been ill formed and planned, and in one case entrusted to someone so committed to Orthodoxy that he left the canonical church at the first sign the ROCOR synod wanted to set some standards.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 04:41:29 PM by Agabus »
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline Caelestinus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2016, 06:45:17 AM »
As far as the Antiochian WR Vicariate is concerned, there is no question that their liturgies and existence as a whole is legitimate: it can be proven by written evidence (WR decree, letter from the Patriarch, directory etc.).

But are you sure that this is the case for the ROCOR WR Community?

Is there any written testimonial, except the synodal decision of July 13th 2013 and the epistle from the Met. which followed some weeks later?

One often reads, i.e. that this or that liturgy or customed is "authorized" oder blessed for use (by whom..the First Hierarch? The Synod?) as stated on websites.

I have never seen any record concerning liturgical issues, and probably the ROCOR responsibles remain that way on the secure path, because if they formally would approve a WR liturgy it would be illegal, if not done by the Holy Synod in Moscow (according to the Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church from 2013 V, 28, c).

The assumption that the WR is legitimate relies on the belief that a Bishop or the Synod of an autonomous church is the holder of the Jus Liturgicum, but his is not the case in ROC.

Therefor there is not only no concept behind it, the ROCOR WR seems to habe no legitimacy in current Russian Orthodoxy, it is just tolerated.

I would very much appreciate, if someone can refute my thesis.

BTW The Antiochian Ordo for Baptism mentions the use of oil of the Catechumens, but who blesses it (and the oil of the sick) and when? They dont have a bishop practising the WR, right? Just overseeing and without a Bishop all WR efforts remain uncomplete.

Offline scamandrius

  • Pray for our next president
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,774
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2016, 10:11:14 AM »
Why this discussion and why the discussion will not go away (even though, in my mind, it should) is because no one on the pro-WRO side will answer this question:  WHICH WESTERN RITE?  There are/were western riteS, but not a singular western rite.  So, again, I ask, which one?  When it comes down to it, it's all a big cut and paste job, using pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, post modern material that continue to make it suspect as a vehicle for communicating and praying the Orthodox faith.

Offline Caelestinus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2016, 12:21:46 PM »
Why this discussion and why the discussion will not go away (even though, in my mind, it should) is because no one on the pro-WRO side will answer this question:  WHICH WESTERN RITE?  There are/were western riteS, but not a singular western rite.  So, again, I ask, which one?  When it comes down to it, it's all a big cut and paste job, using pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, post modern material that continue to make it suspect as a vehicle for communicating and praying the Orthodox faith.

As everyone understands something different under the term Western Rite, I tend to say its in itself (in the singular at least) an artificial name, similar to a narrative or saga (partly to avoid the term Roman, though quite often the Roman Rite is meant).

Wasnt there a Liturgical Commission in ROCOR for the WR? Till now I havent heard anything about what they have done or on what they are working. Does anyone have news I missed?

One example:
Like the Byzantine Rite the Roman Rite has normaly only Epistle/Apostolus and Gospel. To add a further reading from the Old Testament is an innovation and to name it the restored lesson is based on a presumption popular in the 1960ies among RC scholars, a hypothesis which is not and can not be proved.

How would you or a hierarch react if this would be done to the ordinary orthodox rite?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2016, 12:23:39 PM by Caelestinus »

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,556
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of the South
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2016, 12:31:46 PM »
Why this discussion and why the discussion will not go away (even though, in my mind, it should) is because no one on the pro-WRO side will answer this question:  WHICH WESTERN RITE?  There are/were western riteS, but not a singular western rite.  So, again, I ask, which one?  When it comes down to it, it's all a big cut and paste job, using pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, post modern material that continue to make it suspect as a vehicle for communicating and praying the Orthodox faith.

Wasnt there a Liturgical Commission in ROCOR for the WR? Till now I havent heard anything about what they have done or on what they are working. Does anyone have news I missed?


Considering that WR in ROCOR has blown up in the bishops' faces a few times, I can see why they would want to keep things low-key.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Caelestinus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2016, 12:34:32 PM »
Why this discussion and why the discussion will not go away (even though, in my mind, it should) is because no one on the pro-WRO side will answer this question:  WHICH WESTERN RITE?  There are/were western riteS, but not a singular western rite.  So, again, I ask, which one?  When it comes down to it, it's all a big cut and paste job, using pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, post modern material that continue to make it suspect as a vehicle for communicating and praying the Orthodox faith.

Whatever is done: who has the autority to do so in the ROC? Is the Patriarch and the Holy Synod in Moscow at least aware of the existence of a WR?

On the website i posted above I read a comment that a WR Liturgy was celebrated in the presence of Russian Bishops in Russia and that the Kyrie was replaced by the litany of St. Gelase. I wonder if the petition for the ones decieved by jewish falseness was sung or omitted?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2016, 12:38:55 PM by Caelestinus »

Offline Caelestinus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2016, 12:36:47 PM »
Why this discussion and why the discussion will not go away (even though, in my mind, it should) is because no one on the pro-WRO side will answer this question:  WHICH WESTERN RITE?  There are/were western riteS, but not a singular western rite.  So, again, I ask, which one?  When it comes down to it, it's all a big cut and paste job, using pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, post modern material that continue to make it suspect as a vehicle for communicating and praying the Orthodox faith.

Wasnt there a Liturgical Commission in ROCOR for the WR? Till now I havent heard anything about what they have done or on what they are working. Does anyone have news I missed?


Considering that WR in ROCOR has blown up in the bishops' faces a few times, I can see why they would want to keep things low-key.

So it was established for calming down minds by pure existence?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2016, 12:38:11 PM by Caelestinus »

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,556
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of the South
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2016, 12:46:44 PM »
Why this discussion and why the discussion will not go away (even though, in my mind, it should) is because no one on the pro-WRO side will answer this question:  WHICH WESTERN RITE?  There are/were western riteS, but not a singular western rite.  So, again, I ask, which one?  When it comes down to it, it's all a big cut and paste job, using pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, post modern material that continue to make it suspect as a vehicle for communicating and praying the Orthodox faith.

Wasnt there a Liturgical Commission in ROCOR for the WR? Till now I havent heard anything about what they have done or on what they are working. Does anyone have news I missed?


Considering that WR in ROCOR has blown up in the bishops' faces a few times, I can see why they would want to keep things low-key.

So it was established for calming down minds by pure existence?

I'm not on the Synod, so I don't know.  It's continued existence (within ROCOR, anyway) may have a soothing effect.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 526
  • recovering zealot
  • Faith: ortho-wannabe
  • Jurisdiction: goaa--with pews, organs, the works!
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2016, 03:22:39 PM »
This is ridiculous. Perhaps the anti-Western Rite crowd should go complain to St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, that his liturgy based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer isn't Orthodox enough. Or St. Gelasius or St. Gregory, Popes of Rome. Or St. Patrick and all other Saints of Ireland about the rite in the Stowe Missal. Or St. Ambrose about the Ambrosian rite. Or any saints of Toledo that prayed in the Mozarabic rite.

Really the Western rites aren't being promoted because of the current irenicism with Rome and not wanting to do what they did with their Eastern rite churches and be seen as hypocrites, I would bet. (aka reverse u****ism)
Crist aras! Soþlice he aras! (on West Saxon Englisch)

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,344
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2016, 06:34:33 PM »
Why this discussion and why the discussion will not go away (even though, in my mind, it should) is because no one on the pro-WRO side will answer this question:  WHICH WESTERN RITE?

The one we have received and that has been blessed for our use by Patriarchal authority.

Quote
There are/were western riteS, but not a singular western rite.

Correct, which is why each jurisdiction that has blessed the Western Rite allow more than one liturgy.

Quote
So, again, I ask, which one?

The one we have received and that has been blessed for our use by Patriarchal authority.

Quote
When it comes down to it, it's all a big cut and paste job, using pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, post modern material

Yes, most things that have a living history bear the marks of their journey.

Quote
that continue to make it suspect as a vehicle for communicating and praying the Orthodox faith.

Not at all.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,344
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2016, 06:43:01 PM »
The impetus for the Western Rite, at least from the Antiochian perspective, was nothing more than Western parishes who wanted to become Orthodox. Some of those parishes embraced the Eastern Rite and some wanted to maintain their inherited tradition to the extent possible. There wasn't much talk, if any, about "resurrecting" rites or "restoring" a glorious age, or any other such concerns that may have entertained people wanting to play dress up. It was simply Christians who wanted to enter the communion of Orthodoxy and remain Western in their praxis and communal life.

Does that mean, for example, that this heritage includes things from historical eras that people don't like for one reason or another? Sure, but such is the way of organic growth. We don't create our own liturgies to suit our pleasures, and we don't pick from a menu of historical "options" (like, say, a parish on the plains of Iowa choosing the French Gallican liturgy for whatever reason).

It was decided, in great wisdom and patience, from great Orthodox luminaries and saints, that the healthiest approach to establishing a Western expression of Orthodoxy was to simply assume the inherited tradition, as is, and gently correct/supplement as needed.

Offline wgw

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,573
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2016, 06:46:48 PM »
The impetus for the Western Rite, at least from the Antiochian perspective, was nothing more than Western parishes who wanted to become Orthodox. Some of those parishes embraced the Eastern Rite and some wanted to maintain their inherited tradition to the extent possible. There wasn't much talk, if any, about "resurrecting" rites or "restoring" a glorious age, or any other such concerns that may have entertained people wanting to play dress up. It was simply Christians who wanted to enter the communion of Orthodoxy and remain Western in their praxis and communal life.

Does that mean, for example, that this heritage includes things from historical eras that people don't like for one reason or another? Sure, but such is the way of organic growth. We don't create our own liturgies to suit our pleasures, and we don't pick from a menu of historical "options" (like, say, a parish on the plains of Iowa choosing the French Gallican liturgy for whatever reason).

It was decided, in great wisdom and patience, from great Orthodox luminaries and saints, that the healthiest approach to establishing a Western expression of Orthodoxy was to simply assume the inherited tradition, as is, and gently correct/supplement as needed.

Very good post, a breath of fresh air.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Caelestinus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2016, 10:21:23 AM »
Quote
By comparison, ROCOR's Rite of St. Gregory is, if I may be so bold, a monstrosity and an affront to anyone who has respect and reverence for the Western liturgical tradition. This is a Frankenstein's monster, garbling together bits of Byzantium, Rome, and even the unchecked fixation with antiquity that led to some questionable modifications of the Roman liturgy in 1970.

http://arealliveone.blogspot.de/2015/07/western-rite-orthodoxy-and-roman.html
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 10:21:47 AM by Caelestinus »

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,940
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2016, 11:29:42 AM »
Quote
By comparison, ROCOR's Rite of St. Gregory is, if I may be so bold, a monstrosity and an affront to anyone who has respect and reverence for the Western liturgical tradition. This is a Frankenstein's monster, garbling together bits of Byzantium, Rome, and even the unchecked fixation with antiquity that led to some questionable modifications of the Roman liturgy in 1970.

http://arealliveone.blogspot.de/2015/07/western-rite-orthodoxy-and-roman.html
After reading the article, Im left with the feeling that the writer has no idea about the Antiochian WR at all. He assumes that the majority use the Rite of St. Gregory, which is not accurate.

From the article:
Quote
Antioch's insertion of an epiclesis is questionable and perhaps not absolutely necessary for an authorized liturgy
The bishops disagreed. The laity disagreed.

Quote
We should "shoot straight and speak the truth" here: ROCOR's Rite of Saint Gregory has no historical precedence - one is about as likely to encounter a liturgy like this in antiquity as one would the Novus Ordo
I would agree here.

PP
"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

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2016, 11:34:50 AM »
Quote
Antioch's insertion of an epiclesis is questionable and perhaps not absolutely necessary for an authorized liturgy
The bishops disagreed. The laity disagreed.

Then frankly the bishops and laity are either ignorant or believe the Eastern liturgical tradition to be inherently superior.
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,940
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2016, 11:42:29 AM »
Quote
Antioch's insertion of an epiclesis is questionable and perhaps not absolutely necessary for an authorized liturgy
The bishops disagreed. The laity disagreed.

Then frankly the bishops and laity are either ignorant or believe the Eastern liturgical tradition to be inherently superior.
What I meant was, the bishops specifically stated there needed to be an insertion of an epiclesis. So to say that it perhaps wasn't necessary is to ignore what they said.

If there was no epiclesis, that would be used as ammunition as to it NOT being a really liturgy.

PP
"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

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,881
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2016, 11:51:59 AM »
Quote
Antioch's insertion of an epiclesis is questionable and perhaps not absolutely necessary for an authorized liturgy
The bishops disagreed. The laity disagreed.

Then frankly the bishops and laity are either ignorant or believe the Eastern liturgical tradition to be inherently superior.
What I meant was, the bishops specifically stated there needed to be an insertion of an epiclesis. So to say that it perhaps wasn't necessary is to ignore what they said.

I'm aware of this but in doing so they were implying that the Western liturgical tradition was inferior or that an explicit Byzantine-style epiclesis had been in there and had somehow fallen out of use (with no evidence to support such an idea).

Quote
If there was no epiclesis, that would be used as ammunition as to it NOT being a really liturgy.

If anyone attempted to use such "ammunition", one need only refer to the testimony of Saint Nicholas Cabasilas (whom no one can accuse of being an appeaser of the Latins) who says that the "Supplices te rogamus" is functionally the same as an epiclesis. Why falsify history to appease ignorant Byzantine chauvinists?

The whole idea of the WR is that the West was just as Orthodox as the East and its liturgical traditions are worth conserving. The insistence on including a Byzantine epiclesis undermines this idea.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 11:55:03 AM by Iconodule »
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,940
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: WRO and Legitimacy
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2016, 12:49:54 PM »
Quote
I'm aware of this but in doing so they were implying that the Western liturgical tradition was inferior or that an explicit Byzantine-style epiclesis had been in there and had somehow fallen out of use (with no evidence to support such an idea).
Ah. I understand. Sorry, i was confused by your meaning.

Quote
If anyone attempted to use such "ammunition", one need only refer to the testimony of Saint Nicholas Cabasilas (whom no one can accuse of being an appeaser of the Latins) who says that the "Supplices te rogamus" is functionally the same as an epiclesis. Why falsify history to appease ignorant Byzantine chauvinists?
I agree with you. However, this does not stop some folks who are renowned for their "learning" like Met. Kallistos Ware, who calls the WR reverse Uniatism, which by even a cursory review of Eastern Catholicism is a totally dishonest comparison.

PP
"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