OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 05:48:24 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pontifical Western-Rite High Mass to be celebrated in ROCOR Canada WR  (Read 16025 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« on: April 01, 2011, 10:56:54 PM »

His Grace Bishop Jerome of Manhattan, Vicar-Bishop to His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has announced that in November he will celebrate a pontifical high mass in the Western-rite in Christ the Saviour Monastery in Canada.  His Grace has already worn Western vestments given to him by the Very Reverend Fr. Anthony (Bondi), Pastoral Vicar for the Western-Rite of ROCOR. Here is a photo of Vladyka Jerome with the Vicar-General for the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, and his assistant, with the Very Reverend Father Anthony (Bondi) to the left of His Grace. http://img534.imageshack.us/f/vestmentsepiscopalwr.jpg/


I queried the use of "Mass" with Vladyka Jerome, versus "Divine liturgy" and His Grace wrote in occidentalis:
Quote
I too see nothing wrong with using the word Mass. There is nothing heretical about it! St. Gregory Dialogus uses it ("missa") in his writings.

Fixed html code to allow users to actually view the picture and properly format quote
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 01:50:20 AM by arimethea » Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2011, 11:15:39 PM »

Gloria Dei!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2011, 12:00:19 AM »

Laudatus Jesus Christus!
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2011, 12:03:23 AM »

Are you talking about a Hierarchical Liturgy?

Why is it called a "Pontifical" Mass? I've only ever seen that term associated with a Mass celebrated by "the Pope".
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 12:03:40 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2011, 12:04:48 AM »

Gloria Dei!
Deo
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2011, 12:15:04 AM »

Are you talking about a Hierarchical Liturgy?

Why is it called a "Pontifical" Mass? I've only ever seen that term associated with a Mass celebrated by "the Pope".

pon·tiff   
[pon-tif]
–noun
1. any pontifex.
2. any high or chief priest.
3. Ecclesiastical .
   a. a bishop.
   b. the Roman Catholic pope, the Bishop of Rome.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,950



« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2011, 03:33:55 AM »

Cool! Cool


Lol! There are some non-English speakers and nobody corrects their errors. But when someone makes a mistake with Latin then there's always someone to correct. Grin
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 03:41:36 AM by Alpo » Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2011, 06:47:03 AM »

Are you talking about a Hierarchical Liturgy?

Why is it called a "Pontifical" Mass? I've only ever seen that term associated with a Mass celebrated by "the Pope".

pon·tiff   
[pon-tif]
–noun
1. any pontifex.
2. any high or chief priest.
3. Ecclesiastical .
   a. a bishop.
   b. the Roman Catholic pope, the Bishop of Rome.

Is it ("Pontifical Mass") used this way in the Roman church in modernity or is this a sort of ancient Western Orthodox revival in meaning?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2011, 07:52:28 AM »

Pontifical as in bishop and high mass as in a Western-rite Divine Liturgy which is legitimately called a "mass" according to Bishop Jerome and as commonly used in the AWRV and by ROCOR WR in Canada and the US.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2011, 10:02:22 AM »


Hope and Prayers.....

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

I wish the Roman Catholic Orthodox Western rite goes the way of the dinosaur, extinct....
Double Humbug..........Blaaa
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 10:04:27 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2011, 10:04:13 AM »

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

I wish the Roman Catholic Orthodox Western rite goes the way of the dinosaur, extinct....
Double Humbug..........Blaaa

I think it did, because such a thing doesn't exist.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2011, 10:08:57 AM »

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

I wish the Roman Catholic Orthodox Western rite goes the way of the dinosaur, extinct....
Double Humbug..........Blaaa

I think it did, because such a thing doesn't exist.
Blaaa....
Some Part of Orthodoxy is Trying to revive a long dead Western Rotten Corpse...... It should remain Buried
and forgotten ... Grin Let it Rest in Peace....


Why do we want to copy that abomination from the west anyway, it hasn't done the roman catholic or Anglican Churches any good ...Just look at the mess and  condition there in ....West is loosing there faith......Western Roman /Anglican Orthodoxy  isn't going to work........
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 10:29:50 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2011, 10:34:35 AM »

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

I wish the Roman Catholic Orthodox Western rite goes the way of the dinosaur, extinct....
Double Humbug..........Blaaa

I think it did, because such a thing doesn't exist.
Blaaa....
Some Part of Orthodoxy is Trying to revive a long dead Western Rotten Corpse...... It should remain Buried
and forgotten ... Grin Let it Rest in Peace....


That's an interesting choice of words.

Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2011, 10:42:55 AM »

Yes, it really is ironic that those who think they're defending Orthodoxy the most are the ones who most deny its power.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2011, 10:47:52 AM »

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

I wish the Roman Catholic Orthodox Western rite goes the way of the dinosaur, extinct....
Double Humbug..........Blaaa

I think it did, because such a thing doesn't exist.
Blaaa....
Some Part of Orthodoxy is Trying to revive a long dead Western Rotten Corpse...... It should remain Buried
and forgotten ... Grin Let it Rest in Peace....


That's an interesting choice of words.

[/img]


These Images Blaaa......Not Orthodox....
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2011, 10:57:22 AM »

Does anyone know what his Grace is wearing around his neck it doesn't look to be a pectoral cross.
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2011, 11:45:23 AM »

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

I wish the Roman Catholic Orthodox Western rite goes the way of the dinosaur, extinct....
Double Humbug..........Blaaa

I think it did, because such a thing doesn't exist.
Blaaa....
Some Part of Orthodoxy is Trying to revive a long dead Western Rotten Corpse...... It should remain Buried
and forgotten ... Grin Let it Rest in Peace....


Why do we want to copy that abomination from the west anyway, it hasn't done the roman catholic or Anglican Churches any good ...Just look at the mess and  condition there in ....West is loosing there faith......Western Roman /Anglican Orthodoxy  isn't going to work........
The funeral at the Vatican a few years ago shows that it still has quite some life in it. Just imagine if you put Orthodoxy into the picture.

The Phanar just consecrated a Metropolitan to a dead Metropolis which has no Faithful. I've been there, the cradle of the Ottoman State.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2011, 11:48:50 AM »

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

I wish the Roman Catholic Orthodox Western rite goes the way of the dinosaur, extinct....
Double Humbug..........Blaaa

I think it did, because such a thing doesn't exist.
Blaaa....
Some Part of Orthodoxy is Trying to revive a long dead Western Rotten Corpse...... It should remain Buried
and forgotten ... Grin Let it Rest in Peace....


That's an interesting choice of words.

[/img]


These Images Blaaa......Not Orthodox....
Neither is this:

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2011, 12:06:43 PM »

These Images Blaaa......Not Orthodox....

Matthew 23:24


Hope and Prayers.....

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

Yes, it really is ironic that those who think they're defending Orthodoxy the most are the ones who most deny its power.

Indeed.
Logged
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2011, 12:51:03 PM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?  This baffles me, utterly.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2011, 01:03:17 PM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?  This baffles me, utterly.

My local RCC parish has a service that looks and feels like a Baptist church service, except for the lay Eucharistic ministers and altar girls. And the preaching isn't nearly as good. No, you cannot go to Rome and get the real thing. Not anymore.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2011, 01:21:24 PM »

Great but why in November?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2011, 01:36:35 PM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?  This baffles me, utterly.

Doctrine, theology, where do you want to start?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2011, 01:42:14 PM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?
Orthodoxy, bereft of heresy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2011, 01:53:40 PM »

I still don't get it.

If I wanted to learn about the Eastern Rite, I would go to the Eastern Orthodox Church to learn about it. That means I would go to a parish that is truly and historically part of the Orthodox Church, such as the Russian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, or a canonical Orthodox Church in communion with them.  

 I would not go to Roman Catholic Church or a group in communion with Rome to learn about it, regardless of whether this group is called the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

It makes no sense for the Latin Church to use the Eastern Liturgy just as it makes no sense for the Eastern Church to perform the Western (Latin) liturgy.

Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism?  Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?

Eastern Rite Roman Catholics and Western Rite Orthodox are always going to be perceived as "grudge churches."  

And American, with all our jurisdictional pluralism and canonical mess is the LAST place that needs Western Rite Orthodox. We don't even have all the North American Orthodox on the same calendar and we introduce a Western Rite into our alphabet soup of jurisdictions?  I don't find that helpful, prudent or wise.  How can it possibly help American Orthodox to attain any unity?  It will only further fragment us into more tribal-like factions. It will create a liturgical ghetto for former Episcopalians and other converts rather than incorporating them into already existing American Orthodoxy.

As you can tell, I think the Western Rite in the USA is a horrible idea.  Perhaps in historical Western lands in Europe it could work, in places where there is a real organic link to the Western Orthodox past, like England or Ireland for example.  But it the USA, I think it will only further divide us.  And we desperately need more unity and cooperation. We are far too tribal and factional already.

Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2011, 01:57:07 PM »

I am not a member of the 'Eastern' Church. I am a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Eastern and Western, Northern and Southern, diversely united.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2011, 02:16:32 PM »

His Grace Bishop Jerome of Manhattan, Vicar-Bishop to His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has announced that in November he will celebrate a pontifical high mass in the Western-rite in Christ the Saviour Monastery in Canada.  His Grace has already worn Western vestments given to him by the Very Reverend Fr. Anthony (Bondi), Pastoral Vicar for the Western-Rite of ROCOR. Here is a photo of Vladyka Jerome with the Vicar-General for the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, and his assistant, with the Very Reverend Father Anthony (Bondi) to the left of His Grace. http://img534.imageshack.us/f/vestmentsepiscopalwr.jpg/


I queried the use of "Mass" with Vladyka Jerome, versus "Divine liturgy" and His Grace wrote in occidentalis:
Quote
I too see nothing wrong with using the word Mass. There is nothing heretical about it! St. Gregory Dialogus uses it ("missa") in his writings.

Fixed html code to allow users to actually view the picture and properly format quote
Great! This is wonderful to see! Smiley

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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2011, 02:20:45 PM »


Hope and Prayers.....

Baa Humbug...... Grin Angry

I wish the Roman Catholic Orthodox Western rite goes the way of the dinosaur, extinct....
Double Humbug..........Blaaa

Stashko, you don't have to try so hard.  No one will accuse you of given them the warm fuzzies
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2011, 02:28:09 PM »

I am not a member of the 'Eastern' Church. I am a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Eastern and Western, Northern and Southern, diversely united.

A simple but excellent post.   
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2011, 02:34:55 PM »

I still don't get it.

Obvioulsly.

I
f I wanted to learn about the Eastern Rite, I would go to the Eastern Orthodox Church to learn about it. That means I would go to a parish that is truly and historically part of the Orthodox Church, such as the Russian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, or a canonical Orthodox Church in communion with them.
 

I don't go to Church every Sunday to learn about the Eastern Rite particularly.  I go there to worship.

I would not go to Roman Catholic Church or a group in communion with Rome to learn about it, regardless of whether this group is called the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

I might go there to learn about the Vatican's teachings, if I were in an Eastern country and wanted to learn them.

It makes no sense for the Latin Church to use the Eastern Liturgy just as it makes no sense for the Eastern Church to perform the Western (Latin) liturgy
It makes no sense for the Catholic Church to limit herself to a direction. She held Ecumenical Councils, not Eastern ones.

Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism?

No, you are seeing things.

Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?
The WRO aren't.

Western Rite Orthodox are always going to be perceived as "grudge churches."
 
I would say only by the narrow minded, but I have no idea what a "grudge church" is.

And American, with all our jurisdictional pluralism and canonical mess is the LAST place that needs Western Rite Orthodox
And America, with all our ethnic ghettos and insularity nonsense is the FIRST place that needs Western Rite Orthodox.

We don't even have all the North American Orthodox on the same calendar and we introduce a Western Rite into our alphabet soup of jurisdictions?  I don't find that helpful, prudent or wise.
Thankfully, you're not in charge.

How can it possibly help American Orthodox to attain any unity?
For one, admitting that we are living in the West.  And whatever they did back in the Old Country, don't bring your old rule to your new monastery.

It will only further fragment us into more tribal-like factions.
LOL. Not while we are living on the WRO's reservation.

It will create a liturgical ghetto for former Episcopalians and other converts rather than incorporating them into already existing American Orthodoxy.
I've met plenty of Americanized Eastern Orthodox who ended up WRO rather than episcopalian.  That's enough of a reason.  And the WRO is already existing in American Orthodoxy, and has for two generations.

As you can tell, I think the Western Rite in the USA is a horrible idea.

That's OK. I think it is a SPLENDID idea.

Perhaps in historical Western lands in Europe it could work, in places where there is a real organic link to the Western Orthodox past, like England or Ireland for example.
You live in Alaska or Northern California?

But it the USA, I think it will only further divide us.  And we desperately need more unity and cooperation. We are far too tribal and factional already.
Yes, you animus against the WRO shows that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2011, 02:35:32 PM »

I am not a member of the 'Eastern' Church. I am a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Eastern and Western, Northern and Southern, diversely united.

A simple but excellent post.   
Indeed!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2011, 02:37:18 PM »

ah! thanks.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2011, 02:39:44 PM »

Does anyone know what his Grace is wearing around his neck it doesn't look to be a pectoral cross.
I think it is his grace's Panagia.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2011, 02:44:16 PM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?  This baffles me, utterly.

Sounds like twofold branch theory to me. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2011, 02:45:57 PM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?  This baffles me, utterly.

Sounds like twofold branch theory to me. 
Worse, as it condemned the one branch to withering and dying.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2011, 02:49:41 PM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?  This baffles me, utterly.

Orthodoxy is the real thing. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2011, 02:56:41 PM »

I still don't get it...Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism?  Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?   
Yea, we need to get over that too.   As one priest told me at one time:  "there are many RC's that are really Orthodox and many Orthodox that are really RC's."  This has nothing to do with "rite," but with the essence of the Faith found in any legitimate Orthodox rite (eastern, western, northern or southern) as St. Symeon of Thessalonica pointed out.  As same priest said to me:  "we should just have an exchange program--those of theirs that really belong to us should come over here, rite and all, and vice versa."   There are no "western" and "eastern" rites, there are universal rites that had their origin in particular localities throughout the west and east. 
Logged
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2011, 03:31:36 PM »

I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.

Please address and respond to the following questions:

1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?

2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?

3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?

4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" ... I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.

5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?

6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?  A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."

7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink

8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.  I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.  The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.  Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?  Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?  If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore. It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it. 

9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all?
Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2011, 03:45:04 PM »

1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?

Some people consider it more appealing. It also broadens horizonts. Cultural diversity is a good thing.

Quote
2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?

It's the only one choice.

Quote
3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?

It did not died out but was murdered.

Quote
4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" ... I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.

I don't have a Protestant background and I know personally about two Protestants but I share this belief so I suppose it's not the Protestant mentality.

Quote
5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?

Maybe He wants us to show some involvement in restoring it?

Quote
6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?  A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."

Why are you asking this question here? I doubt there are Church of Finland Council members to answer  to it.

Quote
7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink

Or perheaps as they  are under Constantinople they do not want to break Constantinople's approach of Hellenisation?

Quote
8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.  I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.  The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.  Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?  Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?  If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore. It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it.

It does not belong to Rome. It belongs to the Church.

Quote
9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all?

Yes. Repaired car is still a car.

Quote
Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?

Why not use latin Liturgies that formed the piety of our people for generations?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 03:45:26 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2011, 04:02:12 PM »

I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.

I have a funny feeling you will never accept any argument as "valid" for the WR.

Quote
1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?

The salvation of the faithful??

Quote
2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?

Nothing is wrong with the Eastern Rite.

Quote
3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?

There is evidence of a group of Old Believers--canonical the whole time--who have used a WR liturgy for centuries, meaning it has been in continual use. At any rate, excluding that group of Old Believers, it has been less than 1000 years. The monastery on Mt Athos lasted into the 1200s, and there had been a few attempts between then and the 1800s to bring the WR back into the fold. We also use other Eastern DLs on a sporadic basis, by your argument, it would be renovationsim there too.

Quote
4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" ... I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.

Who says anything about an ideal?? Maybe you are reading into the WR your own misconceptions.

Quote
5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?

Perhaps He is letting it come back into use for a reason??

Quote
6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?  A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."

Maybe they have found that what they have works for their circumstances?? Maybe those who use the WR have found it works for theirs??

Quote
7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

They probably also found that it is best to evangelise in Finnish. Does that mean we should also evangelise in Finnish, because it works for the Finns?? They do what works for them, and those working in the WR do what works for them.

Quote
8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.  I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.  The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.  Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?  Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?  If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore. It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it.

The Latin Mass belongs to the Church of Christ, as part of a rich liturgical heritage. It does not belong to an earthly city.

Quote
9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all?
Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?

Because naturally, those venerable liturgies have gone unchanged, set in stone for centuries.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 04:06:22 PM by John of the North » Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2011, 04:03:36 PM »

I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.

It's not so-called, that is what it's called.

Quote
Please address and respond to the following questions:

1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?

This is the wrong question to ask. Orthodoxy is not Utilitarian and interestingly enough, that question reeks of all that is currently wrong with "the West." It's not about what's "needed" it's about beauty and truth.

Quote
2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?

Nothing. Some of us just don't want our rich spiritual heritage to be thrown into the crapshoot.

Quote
3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?

It didn't die out. What in the world do you think the British and Roman Churches continued to use after the Schism? And it has been far less than 1,000. As an entire Rite, it's more like 700, and as far as liturgies go, there has never been a break within the Orthodox Church.

Quote
4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" ... I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.

I know "Protestant" is a dirty word to you, but you obviously don't know much about their original "mentality" otherwise, you'd know that what they wanted to do was much needed. Unless you're completely unaware of the doctrinal innovations of the Roman Catholic Church...

I'll never understand this common mindset within anti-Western Rite people of hating any idea of "restoration" or "resurrection" when that is exactly what the Church is all about. You want to talk about being "utterly baffled" by something...

Quote
5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?

Again, it didn't die out.

Quote
6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?

Perhaps no Lutherans have approached them?

Quote
A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."

Not sure who "the Cranmer" is, or what you think his relationship is to the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is (again, not "so-called" that is what it's called) but this is just another example of the historical ignorance and intellectual laziness of anti-Western Riters that people justly scoff at. You quite clearly haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Quote
7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink

If it works, God bless it!

Quote
8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.

All truth belongs to the Holy Orthodox Church.

Quote
I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.

That's nice of you.

Quote
The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.

All truth belongs to the Holy Orthodox Church.

Quote
Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?

"Tampering" is not the term I'd use when dealing with the expulsion of heresy, but perhaps that's because I take it seriously.

Quote
Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?

Yep!

Quote
If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore.

Probably why we call it the Rite of St. Gregory and not "The Tridentine Mass."

Quote
It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it.

LOL

Quote
9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all?

All truth belongs to the Holy Orthodox Church.

Quote
Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?

Because some people have their own legitimate heritage that formed the piety of Orthodox Saints for over a millennium and, unlike your very limited take on Orthodoxy, we believe that heritage rightfully belongs in the bosom of the Undivided Church of Christ.
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2011, 04:21:49 PM »

I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.
The Russian Church Abroad has authorised the Western-rite, so I am duty bound to accept this decision.  I do however share your misgivings about the place of and the so-called imperative or a Western-rite.
[quo
Please address and respond to the following questions:

Quote
1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?
There are some who say that the rite is needed for Western people who find the Byzantine too ethnic or exotic.  I see this as a form of cultural phyletism. because the Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom is celebrated in Western vernacular languages all over the world and in Asian and other languages also. Bishop Kallistos of Diokeltia wrote:
Quote
If we wish to help western persons joining Orthodoxy, the best way is to offer them the possibility of attending the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the English language. There is nothing "oriental" or "ethnic" about this Liturgy. True, it was written in Greek and not in Latin; but then Plato and Sophocles wrote in Greek, yet we recognize them as part of our shared European culture. The same is true of St. John Chrysostom. We English can feel thoroughly at home in his Liturgy - as I know from my own experience.

Quote
2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?
I think the Eastern-rite is really the Orthodox rite for all humanity.  Christianity is Eastern - our roots and culture and history lay in the Middle East.  Fr. Alexander Schmemann writes:
Quote
And then the last question: is it quite correct to define our rite as "Eastern" and therefore "foreign to all the Western Christians have known" to quote the Edict? I would like to suggest a rather sharp distinction between "Eastern" and "oriental". No doubt there are many oriental features, oriental ingredients in our liturgical life. No doubt also, that for many Orthodox this "orientalism" seems to be the essential element. But we know that it is not essential and we know that progressively all these "orientalisms" are being eliminated in a very natural and spontaneous process of adjustment of our cult to the American life. But then what remains and what can be described as "Eastern" is nothing else but the Biblical and the Patristic "content" of our liturgy. It is essentially and structurally Biblical and Patristic, and therefore, it is "eastern" in exactly the same measure in which the Bible and the Fathers, or rather, the whole Christianity can be termed "Eastern". But have we not proclaimed time and again in all our encounters with our Western brothers that it is this "East" precisely that constitutes the common and the catholic heritage of the Church and can supply us with a common language which has been lost or distorted? The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Easter Canon of St. John of Damascus, are, I believe, much closer to that common and Catholic language of the Church than anything else in any Christian tradition. And I cannot think of any word or phrase in these services that would be "foreign" to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox . . .

Quote
3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?
I liken it to taking some DNA and reconstructing a prehistoric dinosaur.  It arguably is a break with a massive break of hundreds of years of the West being immersed in heterodoxy.

Quote
4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" . .. I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.
Well there is a certain Anglo-Catholic tradition, taken up by vagantes of picking and choosing ecclesiastically rather than submitting to the Church and tradition. There is a risk of this occurring with the WR.  "I can use the 1549 Anglican mass with an Orthodox epiclesis but the Anglican matins and evensong are OK ...."  Where does this end?  

Have a look at: http://westernritecritic.wordpress.com/ quoted re the risks of this new Western-rite:
Quote
If you want to see the future of “Orthodoxy” in the vision of those making the most enthusiastic noise about “Western Rites”, you have only to look around you at the crumbling pillars of Rome and her children. The very religiosity into which they wish to initiate us is being boiled down, and our participation will be courted as the ‘recovery’ of something lost (merely an earlier stage in the process) and the ‘purification’ of what was fundamentally fine (a different stew than our fathers ever knew). We are being asked to embrace a new Orthodoxy, a traditional Orthodoxy, and a continuing Orthodoxy, all within the same confession. We are being asked to become Episcopalians in culture and Orthodox in name.

So-called “Western Orthodoxy” is merely a symbol of this process and a symptom of the new order being formed, a different ecclesiology, a pseudo-ekklesia. In and of itself, it certainly has significant problems, many of which have been rather universally recognized [survey]. In terms of what its progress is telling us about the contemporary Orthodox movement (and the very fact that it is movement, and can no longer be considered static or a state – and so now has much in common with the Episcopalian experience) — in those terms, it points to much larger problems that are as yet, just as with the Episcopalians, not widely or fully acknowledged. This despite the countless warnings of monastic communities, ascetic saints, Orthodox prophets, and holy martyrs. Lord have mercy.

You’d think the Episcopalians would like what these folk are up to, but anyone that has suffered what many of them have, through this process, could only look at it with sadness, and perhaps a will to help us fight it. The ones chasing it like a grail are those ‘true believers’ who still think the key problems are gays and women priests, and miss the point entirely. For them, an Episcopalianized Orthodoxy, especially a Western Orthodoxy, is a mirage, and they’re greedily gulping down what many of us recognize as sand. The sad thing is that we are feeding it to them, in the name of disseminating the Faith. This can only happen when we have begun to lose our Faith the same way they did: Quite literally by losing The Faith.

Quote
5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?
Maybe He has allowed its rebirth by DNA grafting also?  

Quote
6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?  A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."
There is no reason.  Take the Anglican prayer book offices of Matins and Evensong that replaced the 7 breviary hours.  They were contrived in a non-Catholic Zwingli-an spirit by Cranmer.  I cannot understand why the WR don't simply go back to the proper sevenfold pre-Reformation monastic hours.

Quote
7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink
Bishop Kallistos clearly thinks so, as do many Orthodox bishops ands scholars.  Of course some disagree strongly.

Quote
8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.  I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.  The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.  Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?  Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?  If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore. It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it.  
If you have to tamper with the Western Latin Catholic or Anglican masses in order to make them Orthodox, there has been something fundamentally rotten in these liturgical uses since day 1.  Why correct an error when you can use what the Church has right, has made right? Why not use the Byzantine liturgy in English/French/Japanese/Indonesian/Korean as happens in ROCOR now?

Quote
9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all? Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?
Logically a Western-rite Orthodoxy needs to be a sui juris or autonomous Church within Orthodoxy, with its own bishops, proper theological colleges for clerical formation and the opportunity to be a Western Orthodox Church. In my view if you are going to have a Western-rite Orthodoxy, make it an autonomous Church with its own bishops, synod etc. Of course the falling away from orthodoxy of the French autonomous WR Church after the repose of St. John of Shanghai in 1966 is a warning of what could happen also.

The problem is that right now they are perhaps 5% of converts to Orthodoxy worldwide with 95% being Eastern-rite.  If you want proof look at the online clerical directory of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia in the US, in Great Britain, in Australia.  You will see many priests and monastics, deacons, subdeacons and readers - all converts - serving in English and Slavonic.  This is mirrored in the numbers of Western convert laity.  So you have Eastern Orthodoxy - missionary and evangelical and successful at this competing with the Western-rite for converts.  

In my own country after almost 14 years of Western-rite missionary work they have 1 priest and 1 priest-monk who splits his time between the UK and Australia, 1 mission with at best half a dozen people at mass, and if you look at the Eastern-rite it is a different picture.  It seems to me that Eastern-rite Orthodoxy can be recognised by Western seekers as a living tradition, as a real tradition, albeit ethnic in many ways.  Western people looking at Western-rite Orthodoxy see a reconstruction of DNA, with no organic history before the latter part of the 20th century and have no real connection with Sarum/Celtic so-called pre schism Western spirituality and history. You can at least go into a Greek or Russian parish church and find community, continuity, generation after generation of Orthodox believers.  In the WR it is starting from scratch, a much harder proposition.  
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 04:34:39 PM by SubdeaconDavid » Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2011, 04:28:46 PM »

SubdeaconDavid: What on Earth is 'a sui juris Church'?
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2011, 04:32:16 PM »

SubdeaconDavid: What on Earth is 'a sui juris Church'?
I guess in essence autonomous - defined as making its own laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_iuris
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #44 on: April 02, 2011, 04:35:56 PM »

Again, I will repeat, there is no such thing as eastern and western rites, but rather universal rites which originated in various localities.  If the Liturgy of Sts. John, Basil, James, are not universal which originated in Syria, Caesarea, Jerusalem, but rather "eastern rites," we have no business serving them in the US.   However, as they are universal, regardless of where they originated in the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, there is no problem doing so. 
Logged
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #45 on: April 02, 2011, 04:57:39 PM »

I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.

It's not so-called, that is what it's called.

Quote
Please address and respond to the following questions:

1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?

This is the wrong question to ask. Orthodoxy is not Utilitarian and interestingly enough, that question reeks of all that is currently wrong with "the West." It's not about what's "needed" it's about beauty and truth.

Quote
2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?

Nothing. Some of us just don't want our rich spiritual heritage to be thrown into the crapshoot.

Quote
3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?

It didn't die out. What in the world do you think the British and Roman Churches continued to use after the Schism? And it has been far less than 1,000. As an entire Rite, it's more like 700, and as far as liturgies go, there has never been a break within the Orthodox Church.

Quote
4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" ... I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.

I know "Protestant" is a dirty word to you, but you obviously don't know much about their original "mentality" otherwise, you'd know that what they wanted to do was much needed. Unless you're completely unaware of the doctrinal innovations of the Roman Catholic Church...

I'll never understand this common mindset within anti-Western Rite people of hating any idea of "restoration" or "resurrection" when that is exactly what the Church is all about. You want to talk about being "utterly baffled" by something...

Quote
5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?

Again, it didn't die out.

Quote
6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?

Perhaps no Lutherans have approached them?

Quote
A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."

Not sure who "the Cranmer" is, or what you think his relationship is to the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is (again, not "so-called" that is what it's called) but this is just another example of the historical ignorance and intellectual laziness of anti-Western Riters that people justly scoff at. You quite clearly haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Quote
7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink

If it works, God bless it!

Quote
8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.

All truth belongs to the Holy Orthodox Church.

Quote
I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.

That's nice of you.

Quote
The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.

All truth belongs to the Holy Orthodox Church.

Quote
Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?

"Tampering" is not the term I'd use when dealing with the expulsion of heresy, but perhaps that's because I take it seriously.

Quote
Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?

Yep!

Quote
If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore.

Probably why we call it the Rite of St. Gregory and not "The Tridentine Mass."

Quote
It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it.

LOL

Quote
9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all?

All truth belongs to the Holy Orthodox Church.

Quote
Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?

Because some people have their own legitimate heritage that formed the piety of Orthodox Saints for over a millennium and, unlike your very limited take on Orthodoxy, we believe that heritage rightfully belongs in the bosom of the Undivided Church of Christ.


Sleeper:

Thank you for your thoughts and response. While I don't agree with everything you said, I appreciate you being frank enough to state your position. While I cannot address all the points you made, I would like to address one thing:

 You remarked, "I know "Protestant" is a dirty word to you, but you obviously don't know much about their original "mentality" otherwise, you'd know that what they wanted to do was much needed. Unless you're completely unaware of the doctrinal innovations of the Roman Catholic Church..." and you stated that "this is just another example of the historical ignorance and intellectual laziness of anti-Western Riters that people justly scoff at. You quite clearly haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about."

Reply: You would do well not to make assumptions about me.  I am quite familiar with Protestantism and intimately familiar with Lutheranism and Reformation history.  I have a Master's degree in history and taught Reformation history for over 6 years at the college level.  I graduated from a Lutheran college. I have read Luther in the original German (by the way, he's better in German, and far more colorful too!).  I spent 17 years in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and some of my best friends today are still Lutheran pastors whom I respect and with whom I often correspond. In addition to my graduate studies in history, I did language study in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and German.  I can also read French and have read some of Calvin in the original French as well.  We may have our disagreements and not see eye-to-eye on things.  That's OK.  But to say that I suffer from "historical ignorance" and "intellectual laziness" is going too far.  Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am ignorant or lazy.  In fact, I daresay you would find someone more informed on the theological nuances of the 16th century Protestant reformers than I.  

Just off the top of my head I could tell you about Martin Luther and The Bondage of the Will (his most significant work, in his opinion), Phillip Melanchton, the author of the Augsburg Confession, Johann Staupitz (Luther's father confessor when he was an Augustinian monk and someone of whom Luther always spoke kindly), The Schmalkald Articles where a cranky Luther vents his spleen against the Pope calling the Bishop of Rome "the very Antichrist" (that's actually pretty mild for Luther, if you know his language), or the Marburg Colloquy where Luther and Zwingli sat down to chat about the Holy Eucharist and Luther refused to shake Zwingli's hand because Zwingli denied our Lord's Real Presence in the Eucharist.  Then there's always John Calvin, who at the tender age of 24 thought he knew more than Holy Mother Church and all the Holy Fathers and authored his abominable "Institutes of the Christian Religion."  And I haven't even mentioned anything yet about John Knox, Martin Bucer, Theodore Beza, Andreas Carlstadt, Johann Bugenhagen, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and Cardinal Pole.  Nor have I mentioned the origins of the Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Formula of Concord, and the fights within the Church of England over the Book of Common Prayer.  

I will grant you that Martin Luther was a Christian. Misguided at times, but still a Christian.  I don't know how anyone can read the lives of John Calvin and John Knox and even think for a moment that they were Christians, though. Not with their hatred of the Church and especially their hatred of the Holy Eucharist.

Again, thank you for your response.  
Logged
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #46 on: April 02, 2011, 05:07:06 PM »

I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.
The Russian Church Abroad has authorised the Western-rite, so I am duty bound to accept this decision.  I do however share your misgivings about the place of and the so-called imperative or a Western-rite.
[quo
Please address and respond to the following questions:

Quote
1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?
There are some who say that the rite is needed for Western people who find the Byzantine too ethnic or exotic.  I see this as a form of cultural phyletism. because the Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom is celebrated in Western vernacular languages all over the world and in Asian and other languages also. Bishop Kallistos of Diokeltia wrote:
Quote
If we wish to help western persons joining Orthodoxy, the best way is to offer them the possibility of attending the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the English language. There is nothing "oriental" or "ethnic" about this Liturgy. True, it was written in Greek and not in Latin; but then Plato and Sophocles wrote in Greek, yet we recognize them as part of our shared European culture. The same is true of St. John Chrysostom. We English can feel thoroughly at home in his Liturgy - as I know from my own experience.

Quote
2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?
I think the Eastern-rite is really the Orthodox rite for all humanity.  Christianity is Eastern - our roots and culture and history lay in the Middle East.  Fr. Alexander Schmemann writes:
Quote
And then the last question: is it quite correct to define our rite as "Eastern" and therefore "foreign to all the Western Christians have known" to quote the Edict? I would like to suggest a rather sharp distinction between "Eastern" and "oriental". No doubt there are many oriental features, oriental ingredients in our liturgical life. No doubt also, that for many Orthodox this "orientalism" seems to be the essential element. But we know that it is not essential and we know that progressively all these "orientalisms" are being eliminated in a very natural and spontaneous process of adjustment of our cult to the American life. But then what remains and what can be described as "Eastern" is nothing else but the Biblical and the Patristic "content" of our liturgy. It is essentially and structurally Biblical and Patristic, and therefore, it is "eastern" in exactly the same measure in which the Bible and the Fathers, or rather, the whole Christianity can be termed "Eastern". But have we not proclaimed time and again in all our encounters with our Western brothers that it is this "East" precisely that constitutes the common and the catholic heritage of the Church and can supply us with a common language which has been lost or distorted? The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Easter Canon of St. John of Damascus, are, I believe, much closer to that common and Catholic language of the Church than anything else in any Christian tradition. And I cannot think of any word or phrase in these services that would be "foreign" to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox . . .

Quote
3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?
I liken it to taking some DNA and reconstructing a prehistoric dinosaur.  It arguably is a break with a massive break of hundreds of years of the West being immersed in heterodoxy.

Quote
4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" . .. I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.
Well there is a certain Anglo-Catholic tradition, taken up by vagantes of picking and choosing ecclesiastically rather than submitting to the Church and tradition. There is a risk of this occurring with the WR.  "I can use the 1549 Anglican mass with an Orthodox epiclesis but the Anglican matins and evensong are OK ...."  Where does this end?  

Have a look at: http://westernritecritic.wordpress.com/ quoted re the risks of this new Western-rite:
Quote
If you want to see the future of “Orthodoxy” in the vision of those making the most enthusiastic noise about “Western Rites”, you have only to look around you at the crumbling pillars of Rome and her children. The very religiosity into which they wish to initiate us is being boiled down, and our participation will be courted as the ‘recovery’ of something lost (merely an earlier stage in the process) and the ‘purification’ of what was fundamentally fine (a different stew than our fathers ever knew). We are being asked to embrace a new Orthodoxy, a traditional Orthodoxy, and a continuing Orthodoxy, all within the same confession. We are being asked to become Episcopalians in culture and Orthodox in name.

So-called “Western Orthodoxy” is merely a symbol of this process and a symptom of the new order being formed, a different ecclesiology, a pseudo-ekklesia. In and of itself, it certainly has significant problems, many of which have been rather universally recognized [survey]. In terms of what its progress is telling us about the contemporary Orthodox movement (and the very fact that it is movement, and can no longer be considered static or a state – and so now has much in common with the Episcopalian experience) — in those terms, it points to much larger problems that are as yet, just as with the Episcopalians, not widely or fully acknowledged. This despite the countless warnings of monastic communities, ascetic saints, Orthodox prophets, and holy martyrs. Lord have mercy.

You’d think the Episcopalians would like what these folk are up to, but anyone that has suffered what many of them have, through this process, could only look at it with sadness, and perhaps a will to help us fight it. The ones chasing it like a grail are those ‘true believers’ who still think the key problems are gays and women priests, and miss the point entirely. For them, an Episcopalianized Orthodoxy, especially a Western Orthodoxy, is a mirage, and they’re greedily gulping down what many of us recognize as sand. The sad thing is that we are feeding it to them, in the name of disseminating the Faith. This can only happen when we have begun to lose our Faith the same way they did: Quite literally by losing The Faith.

Quote
5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?
Maybe He has allowed its rebirth by DNA grafting also?  

Quote
6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?  A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."
There is no reason.  Take the Anglican prayer book offices of Matins and Evensong that replaced the 7 breviary hours.  They were contrived in a non-Catholic Zwingli-an spirit by Cranmer.  I cannot understand why the WR don't simply go back to the proper sevenfold pre-Reformation monastic hours.

Quote
7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink
Bishop Kallistos clearly thinks so, as do many Orthodox bishops ands scholars.  Of course some disagree strongly.

Quote
8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.  I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.  The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.  Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?  Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?  If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore. It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it.  
If you have to tamper with the Western Latin Catholic or Anglican masses in order to make them Orthodox, there has been something fundamentally rotten in these liturgical uses since day 1.  Why correct an error when you can use what the Church has right, has made right? Why not use the Byzantine liturgy in English/French/Japanese/Indonesian/Korean as happens in ROCOR now?

Quote
9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all? Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?
Logically a Western-rite Orthodoxy needs to be a sui juris or autonomous Church within Orthodoxy, with its own bishops, proper theological colleges for clerical formation and the opportunity to be a Western Orthodox Church. In my view if you are going to have a Western-rite Orthodoxy, make it an autonomous Church with its own bishops, synod etc. Of course the falling away from orthodoxy of the French autonomous WR Church after the repose of St. John of Shanghai in 1966 is a warning of what could happen also.

The problem is that right now they are perhaps 5% of converts to Orthodoxy worldwide with 95% being Eastern-rite.  If you want proof look at the online clerical directory of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia in the US, in Great Britain, in Australia.  You will see many priests and monastics, deacons, subdeacons and readers - all converts - serving in English and Slavonic.  This is mirrored in the numbers of Western convert laity.  So you have Eastern Orthodoxy - missionary and evangelical and successful at this competing with the Western-rite for converts.  

In my own country after almost 14 years of Western-rite missionary work they have 1 priest and 1 priest-monk who splits his time between the UK and Australia, 1 mission with at best half a dozen people at mass, and if you look at the Eastern-rite it is a different picture.  It seems to me that Eastern-rite Orthodoxy can be recognised by Western seekers as a living tradition, as a real tradition, albeit ethnic in many ways.  Western people looking at Western-rite Orthodoxy see a reconstruction of DNA, with no organic history before the latter part of the 20th century and have no real connection with Sarum/Celtic so-called pre schism Western spirituality and history. You can at least go into a Greek or Russian parish church and find community, continuity, generation after generation of Orthodox believers.  In the WR it is starting from scratch, a much harder proposition.  


Dear Subdeacon David:

Thank you, sir, for such a thoughtful and articulate post!  You elegantly stated what I was trying to say but you did it in a much better and clearer manner than I ever could. I think you have a gift for teaching.  Smiley
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #47 on: April 02, 2011, 05:28:18 PM »

Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism?  Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?

No. See: http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2007/05/western-rite-is-not-reverse-uniatism.html
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #48 on: April 02, 2011, 05:37:41 PM »

Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism?  Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?

No. See: http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2007/05/western-rite-is-not-reverse-uniatism.html

Interesting link.  Thanks.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #49 on: April 02, 2011, 07:04:51 PM »

I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.
The Russian Church Abroad has authorised the Western-rite, so I am duty bound to accept this decision.  I do however share your misgivings about the place of and the so-called imperative or a Western-rite.

I'm not completely familiar with ROCOR's approach to the Western Rite, but I don't think "imperative" is generally the way most Western Orthodox would describe what we hope to accomplish.

No one is saying that they won't convert, or won't worship, lest the Orthodox bow to their demands to have a Western Rite. That's nonsense. We just aren't going to let 1300 years of beautiful, life-giving tradition be tossed aside because of the accidents of history, and are of the firm conviction that there is nothing inherently superior in the Byzantine Rite compared to that which is found in our own tradition. There are no ultimatums being given here.

Again, it's truly baffling to me that some Orthodox Christians have such a small, narrow understanding of the Church. So much so that they think only Eastern expressions of the Universal Faith can adequately praise God.

Quote
There are some who say that the rite is needed for Western people who find the Byzantine too ethnic or exotic.

And there are more who want to see the rich tradition they inherited brought into the bosom of the Church.

Quote
I see this as a form of cultural phyletism. because the Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom is celebrated in Western vernacular languages all over the world and in Asian and other languages also.

C'mon Subdeacon, it's much more than language. In fact, that's not even relevant.

Quote
Bishop Kallistos of Diokeltia wrote:
Quote
If we wish to help western persons joining Orthodoxy, the best way is to offer them the possibility of attending the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the English language. There is nothing "oriental" or "ethnic" about this Liturgy. True, it was written in Greek and not in Latin; but then Plato and Sophocles wrote in Greek, yet we recognize them as part of our shared European culture. The same is true of St. John Chrysostom. We English can feel thoroughly at home in his Liturgy - as I know from my own experience.

Indeed! This has no bearing, however, on the aims of the Western Rite.

Quote
I think the Eastern-rite is really the Orthodox rite for all humanity.  Christianity is Eastern - our roots and culture and history lay in the Middle East.  Fr. Alexander Schmemann writes:
Quote
And then the last question: is it quite correct to define our rite as "Eastern" and therefore "foreign to all the Western Christians have known" to quote the Edict? I would like to suggest a rather sharp distinction between "Eastern" and "oriental". No doubt there are many oriental features, oriental ingredients in our liturgical life. No doubt also, that for many Orthodox this "orientalism" seems to be the essential element. But we know that it is not essential and we know that progressively all these "orientalisms" are being eliminated in a very natural and spontaneous process of adjustment of our cult to the American life. But then what remains and what can be described as "Eastern" is nothing else but the Biblical and the Patristic "content" of our liturgy. It is essentially and structurally Biblical and Patristic, and therefore, it is "eastern" in exactly the same measure in which the Bible and the Fathers, or rather, the whole Christianity can be termed "Eastern". But have we not proclaimed time and again in all our encounters with our Western brothers that it is this "East" precisely that constitutes the common and the catholic heritage of the Church and can supply us with a common language which has been lost or distorted? The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Easter Canon of St. John of Damascus, are, I believe, much closer to that common and Catholic language of the Church than anything else in any Christian tradition. And I cannot think of any word or phrase in these services that would be "foreign" to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox . . .

Again, this might be an issue for some, and it may have been more important early in the history of the Western Orthodox restoration, when hardly any Orthodox Churches served in English, but by and large it's not the "Eastern is foreign/exotic" mentality that drives the Western Rite. It's about the restoration of the Western Christian heritage to the Undivided Church.

Quote
I liken it to taking some DNA and reconstructing a prehistoric dinosaur.

Which is probably the root of your problems. This is not even close to what's being done within canonical Orthodoxy.

Quote
It arguably is a break with a massive break of hundreds of years of the West being immersed in heterodoxy.

Define "immersed." Do you have particular examples in mind?

Quote
Well there is a certain Anglo-Catholic tradition, taken up by vagantes of picking and choosing ecclesiastically rather than submitting to the Church and tradition. There is a risk of this occurring with the WR.  "I can use the 1549 Anglican mass with an Orthodox epiclesis but the Anglican matins and evensong are OK ...."  

I'm not aware of anyone using the 1549 Anglican Mass, although I think parts of it were used for ROCOR's "English Liturgy."

As far as Anglican Matins and Evensong, the point of using these is because that's what people were using. I know I've told you this a 100 times Subdeacon, and it obviously either makes no sense to you, or you just don't understand it, but the canonical Western Rite is not about setting the clock back 1,000 years. It is not about "resurrecting DNA."

Allow me to try and clarify things a bit:

The canonical Western Rite is the blessing of the Western Christian heritage, as it has been handed down to us today. The notion that the ancient Western Orthodox expression of the Faith was "lost" or "died" is a completely false one. The truth is that the Western expression continued to be used and developed, albeit by Christians who were no longer part of the visible Orthodox Communion. Of course, as one would expect, certain accretions occurred and certain essentials were discarded, so some correction/supplementation was necessary. But rites are living things, and the Orthodox Church understands this, which is why they adapted existing liturgies, and existing practices, rather than indulging in "liturgical archaeology" and the like.

In a nutshell, canonical Western Orthodoxy is the blessing of the historical Western Rites, as those rites have been developed and handed down to us today, with the intention of assuming as much of that heritage as possible.

There's not much more to it than that. Some might point to certain elements and cry, "That's post-Schism!" to which we have to reply, "That's not the point!"

Orthodoxy has the power to assume and bless all that is true and beautiful, regardless of where it came from. Many seem to forget this.

Quote
Where does this end?

It ends where the Bishop says it ends.

Quote
Quote
5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?
Maybe He has allowed its rebirth by DNA grafting also?

Doubtful, since this nowhere occurring within canonical Orthodoxy.

Quote
Quote
6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?  A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."
There is no reason.  Take the Anglican prayer book offices of Matins and Evensong that replaced the 7 breviary hours.  They were contrived in a non-Catholic Zwingli-an spirit by Cranmer.  I cannot understand why the WR don't simply go back to the proper sevenfold pre-Reformation monastic hours.

We could. No one is insisting that we use Matins and Evensong, it's just that we've been blessed by our bishops to do so, and many of us find them to be a great fit.

Quote
If you have to tamper with the Western Latin Catholic or Anglican masses in order to make them Orthodox, there has been something fundamentally rotten in these liturgical uses since day 1.

Methinks there are a number of Saints who'd like to have a chat with you about this one...

Quote
Why correct an error when you can use what the Church has right, has made right? Why not use the Byzantine liturgy in English/French/Japanese/Indonesian/Korean as happens in ROCOR now?

That's not the point and you know it.


Tikhon29605 had a "food for thought" post earlier, so I'd like to put one forward too. This is how a friend put it:

Recent Orthodox Saints Who Supported the Western Rite:

St. Tikhon (Bellavin)
St. Raphael of Brooklyn (Hawaweeny)
St. Nicholas of Japan
Russian New-Martyrs
St. John the Wonderworker (Maximovitch)

This omits St. John of Chicago (Kochurov), who accompanied St. Tikhon on many missionary journeys to Episcopalian churches. St. John could be assumed to support his hierarch's Western Rite initiative -- but to my knowledge he did not specifically say so.

This list also overlooks the uncanonized divine healer Dom Denis Chambault, a holy monk who celebrated the Benedictine monastic office and the Liturgy of St. Gregory in France under the patronage of St. John the Wonderworker.

Orthodox Saints Who Opposed the Western Rite:

(This space intentionally left blank.)

Take your choice.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #50 on: April 02, 2011, 07:18:39 PM »

Sleeper:

Thank you for your thoughts and response. While I don't agree with everything you said, I appreciate you being frank enough to state your position. While I cannot address all the points you made, I would like to address one thing:

 You remarked, "I know "Protestant" is a dirty word to you, but you obviously don't know much about their original "mentality" otherwise, you'd know that what they wanted to do was much needed. Unless you're completely unaware of the doctrinal innovations of the Roman Catholic Church..." and you stated that "this is just another example of the historical ignorance and intellectual laziness of anti-Western Riters that people justly scoff at. You quite clearly haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about."

Reply: You would do well not to make assumptions about me.  I am quite familiar with Protestantism and intimately familiar with Lutheranism and Reformation history.  I have a Master's degree in history and taught Reformation history for over 6 years at the college level.  I graduated from a Lutheran college. I have read Luther in the original German (by the way, he's better in German, and far more colorful too!).  I spent 17 years in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and some of my best friends today are still Lutheran pastors whom I respect and with whom I often correspond. In addition to my graduate studies in history, I did language study in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and German.  I can also read French and have read some of Calvin in the original French as well.  We may have our disagreements and not see eye-to-eye on things.  That's OK.  But to say that I suffer from "historical ignorance" and "intellectual laziness" is going too far.  Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am ignorant or lazy.  In fact, I daresay you would find someone more informed on the theological nuances of the 16th century Protestant reformers than I.  

Just off the top of my head I could tell you about Martin Luther and The Bondage of the Will (his most significant work, in his opinion), Phillip Melanchton, the author of the Augsburg Confession, Johann Staupitz (Luther's father confessor when he was an Augustinian monk and someone of whom Luther always spoke kindly), The Schmalkald Articles where a cranky Luther vents his spleen against the Pope calling the Bishop of Rome "the very Antichrist" (that's actually pretty mild for Luther, if you know his language), or the Marburg Colloquy where Luther and Zwingli sat down to chat about the Holy Eucharist and Luther refused to shake Zwingli's hand because Zwingli denied our Lord's Real Presence in the Eucharist.  Then there's always John Calvin, who at the tender age of 24 thought he knew more than Holy Mother Church and all the Holy Fathers and authored his abominable "Institutes of the Christian Religion."  And I haven't even mentioned anything yet about John Knox, Martin Bucer, Theodore Beza, Andreas Carlstadt, Johann Bugenhagen, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and Cardinal Pole.  Nor have I mentioned the origins of the Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Formula of Concord, and the fights within the Church of England over the Book of Common Prayer.  

I will grant you that Martin Luther was a Christian. Misguided at times, but still a Christian.  I don't know how anyone can read the lives of John Calvin and John Knox and even think for a moment that they were Christians, though. Not with their hatred of the Church and especially their hatred of the Holy Eucharist.

Again, thank you for your response.  

My apologies, I wasn't trying to make a sweeping generalization about you! It's just that, anyone who thinks the Rite of St. Tikhon is the same thing as the 1549 BCP quite obviously doesn't know much about the subsequent development of the original BCP by the Elizabethans, Caroline Divines, Non-Jurors, Scotch, Anglo-Catholics, etc.

This is a common problem. People hear "Anglican" and "Book of Common Prayer" and that the Orthodox Church "only" corrected the Epiclesis and removed the filioque, when the reason that was the "only" thing that was done (far from it actually) is because by the time the Rite of St. Tikhon was being created, most of the work of "Orthodoxizing" it had already been done in the subsequent centuries leading up the the 1928 American BCP (which is what the Rite of St. Tikhon is actually based upon) by these very knowledgeable people, some of whom formally sought union with the Orthodox Church.

So again, I apologize, but if you're familiar with the Rite of St. Tikhon and the 1549 BCP, and can still think that they're the same thing, I just find that hard to believe.

I meant no offense Smiley
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 07:20:48 PM by Sleeper » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #51 on: April 02, 2011, 07:44:41 PM »

You have already gotten excellent responses from Mike, Jonn and Sleeper.
I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.
It's here. It has been for over a century. After a half century of false starts, the remnants came home and have been part of the praxis of hte Orthodox Church here in North America for over the last fifty years. A century ago is back when Orthodxo praxis of one hierarchy in the land ruled the day.

Please address and respond to the following questions:

1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?
Because here is in the West. The cultrure (outside of Alaska) is Western, and part of the West.

Because the Church is Catholic: "From the rising to the setting of the sun the Name of the Lord will be praised."  That includes the West.

Because the Church is Apostolic.  It is sent to the West to baptize it, not easternize it.

Because the Church is One: Popes SS. Clement, Victor, Damasus, Leo, Gregory, Martin, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Lawrence etc. etc. etc. who celebrated the Western-not Eastern-rites of Orthodoxy did not go into schism in 1054.  If we cannot claim their patrimony, we are not the Church of the Fathers.

But as Sleeper pointed out, you are asking the wrong question.
2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?
If you are in the East, or Eastern, nothing.

What was wrong with the Eastern rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, before Constantinople suppressed them? Nothing.

The Arians, Macedonians, Monophysites, Monothelites and Iconoclasts didn't find anything wrong with the rites of Constantinople, so we tampered and changed them so they would

But as Sleeper pointed out, you are asking the wrong question.
3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?
It's less than a 1,000 years ago.

Is setting up the Orhodox hiearchies in Western Europe a "jump start" of hierarchies in within the Orthodox Church that broke off almost 1,000 years ago?

The Orthodox who use languages not spoken for over a 1,000 years, what's that about?

Moscow jump started the Patriarchate which had been suppressed for two centuries in 1917. Should we condemn them?

If we regain Agia Sophia, are you going to barr the door to stop jump starting Divine Liturgies there?
4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" ... I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.
You are finding something that isn't there.

This mentiality of "one Orthodox rite" is relatively new: a little over 800 years ago, each Patriarchate having its rite was the rule.

The idea of defining Tradition as "what my grandparents did" is not an Orthodox one. Witness the Nikonian reforms (and no, the Protestants were not involved in that).
Quote
Although the synods of Bulgaria, Servia, and Rumania have a certain dependence on the State (whose sanction is necessary for the promulgation of their edicts), there is not in their case anything like the shameless Erastianism of Russia and Greece. Between these two the only question is whether it be more advantageous for the Church to be ruled by an irresponsible tyrant or a Balkan Parliament. Lastly, it may be noticed, the church government by synod is a principle destined to flourish among the Orthodox. The secular governments of Orthodox countries encourage it and approve of it, for obvious reasons. It makes all the complicated questions of church establishment and endowment in the new Balkan States comparatively easy to solve; it has a fine air of democracy, constitutionalism, parliamentary government, that appeals enormously to people just escaped from the Turk and full of such notions. It seems then that the old patriarchal idea will linger on at Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (though even here, in its original homes, it is getting modified in a constitutional direction), but that all new movement in the Orthodox Church will be more and more towards the principles borrowed by Peter the Great from Lutheranism. The vital argument against Holy Directing Synods is their opposition to the old tradition, to the strictly monarchic system of the Church of the Fathers. Strange that this argument should be ignored by people who boast so confidently of their unswerving fidelity to antiquity. "Our Church knows no developments", they told Mr. Palmer triumphantly in Russia. One could easily make a considerable list of Orthodox developments in answer. And one of the most obvious examples would be the system of Holy Synods. What, one might ask, would their Fathers have said of national Churches governed by committees of bishops chosen by the State and controlled by Government officials?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07428a.htm
This was 1910.  Should we condemn the logic of restoring the patriarchal office throughout Orthdooxy as "Protestant mentality" to restor "a long, distant "ideal" past"?

5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?
Perhaps God let the Czar abolish the patriarch for a reason? Perhaps God let the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be reduced to an agent of the Ottoman state for a reason. Maybe God let the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem be reduced to suffragans to the Phanar for a reason. So I guess we should abolish all the patriarchates and have their primates confined into a curia at the Phanar, servants of the Turkish Republic.

6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?  A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."
It could. The Eastern rite, however, was the first to evangelize Finland, from Karelia to the north of Sápmi/Lapland, and is native to Fennoscandia.

I'd have no problem 'doxing the liturgy of the Church of Sweden/Finland (they share the same origin). Such organizations exist, and should be contacted and brought into Orthodoxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbetsgemenskapen_Kyrklig_F%C3%B6rnyelse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Sanctae_Birgittae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Church_Lutheranism#Sweden

As noted below, we had an opportunity in Norway which was blown.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-06-054-i

7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink
Perhaps their overlords in the Phanar won't allow evangelizing all those Lutherans and Scandinavians Wink.

The Phanariots in Scandinavia are dead (and I mean dead) set against evangelizing the North.  When the various groups got together and organized a pan Orthodox jurisdiction in Sweden, and placed it under the Phanariots, there response was to turn it into a Greek jurisdiciton, and telling the others to form their own ethnic enclaves in Sweden.  When the Nordik Catholic Church approached to be received into Orthodoxy, the Phanariots shut the door in their face: the Phanariot bishop stating that receving them would indicate "that Orthodoxy was for Scandinavians."  The horror! The NCC ended up under the Polish National Catholics (btw, that same Phanariot bishop harrasses Eastern missions too. Wonder if there is a connection ;0).  

I'm not sure if they have even bothered to convene their Episcopal Assembly yet.

8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.  I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.
 
But you are quite comfortable with damning the whole Western Patriarchate to hell. Interesting.

How about some of that respect and genuine charity for your fellow Orthodox (you are Orhodox, no?).

The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.
Are you consistent in recognizing the rights of herestics and schismatics to Orthodox sees?  Do you recognize the Latin supreme pontiff Benedict as Peter?

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory belongs to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Are you saying you recognize P. Benedict XVI as the head of that Church?

Btw, the Latin mass really belongs to North Africa (and hence the Pope of Alexandria) whence it came: Rome used Greek exclusively until c. 190, and did not replace it until c. 380.  

And speaking of belonging, you are aware that all of the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Romania and the Czech Lands and Slovakia belonged to Rome before the iconoclast emperors took them and gave them to the iconoclast patriarch of Constantinople. Should we give them back to the Vatican?

Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?
 
To purge the gold of the dross of heresy.

Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?
The vestiges are still there.  Restoring the full form of the Supplices Te Rogamus would be nice.

If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore.
No, it's the Divine Liturgy of Our Father among the Saints Gregory the Great Pope of Rome.

It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it.
Oh, it is worse than that: the Roman one is the only one that doesn't emphasize the epiclesis.  As the "Catholic Encyclopia, imprematur nihil obstat" confesses:
Quote
It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer. For instance, the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, immediately after the recital of the words of Institution, goes on to the Anamnesis — "Remembering therefore His Passion..." — in which occur the words: "thou, the God who lackest nothing, being pleased with them (the Offerings) for the honour of Thy Christ, and sending down Thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice, the witness of the Passion of the Lord Jesus, to manifest (opos apophene) this bread as the Body of Thy Christ and this chalice as the Blood of Thy Christ..." (Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I, 21). So the Greek and Syrian Liturgies of St. James (ibid., 54, 88-89), the Alexandrine Liturgies (ibid., 134, 179), the Abyssinian Rite (ibid., 233), those of the Nestorians (ibid., 287) and Armenians (ibid., 439). The Epiklesis in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is said thus: "We offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee that Thou, sending down Thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts" (the Deacon says: "Bless, Sir the holy bread") "make this bread into the Precious Body of Thy Christ" (Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, the holy chalice"): "and that which is in this chalice, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ" (Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, both"), "changing [metabalon] them by Thy Holy Spirit" (Deacon: "Amen, Amen, Amen."). (Brightman, op. cit., I 386-387).

Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations. The Gallican Liturgy had variable forms according to the feast. That for the Circumcision was: "Hæc nos, Domine, instituta et præcepta retinentes suppliciter oramus uti hoc sacrificium suscipere et benedicere et sanctificare digneris: ut fiat nobis eucharistia legitima in tuo Filiique tui nomine et Spiritus sancti, in transformationem corporis ac sanguinis domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi unigeniti tui, per quem omnia creas..." (Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", 2nd ed., Paris, 1898, p. 208, taken from St. Germanus of Paris, d. 576). There are many allusions to the Gallican Invocation, for instance St. Isidore of Seville (De eccl. officiis, I, 15, etc.). The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.

And then Ultramontanism raises its head:
Quote
The Catholic Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm

Quote
In any event, why do you think that the supplices te rogamus prayer was included in the old Latin mass?  Surely you don't believe that it is literally calling for an angel to come and take the gifts away into heaven, do you? I notice that you have not responded to any of  my arguments about it up until this point.

If he doesn't believe you maybe he will believe these guys:
Quote
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all?
Fast from such food.

Food for thought: since the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil and the liturgics with them (e.g. the iconstasis) did not weather the heresies that sprung up without tampering and changing, why are we using them at all?

Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?
The WRO already has formed the piety of generations of Orthodox.

In Alexandria and Antioch, the Divine Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark formed the piety of St. Anthony, Pope St. Athanasius, Pope St. Cyril, Patriarch St. Ignatius, Patriarch St. Theophilus, St. John of Damascus, etc. and the generations before and since them, until suppresed by the absentee "Patriarch of Antoch" Balsamon, who never set foot AFAIK outside of Constantinople.  Why shouldn't we have stuck with them, rather than go with the rites of the upstart on the Bosphoros?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #52 on: April 02, 2011, 08:03:56 PM »

Sleeper:

Thank you for your thoughts and response. While I don't agree with everything you said, I appreciate you being frank enough to state your position. While I cannot address all the points you made, I would like to address one thing:

 You remarked, "I know "Protestant" is a dirty word to you, but you obviously don't know much about their original "mentality" otherwise, you'd know that what they wanted to do was much needed. Unless you're completely unaware of the doctrinal innovations of the Roman Catholic Church..." and you stated that "this is just another example of the historical ignorance and intellectual laziness of anti-Western Riters that people justly scoff at. You quite clearly haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about."

Reply: You would do well not to make assumptions about me.  I am quite familiar with Protestantism and intimately familiar with Lutheranism and Reformation history.  I have a Master's degree in history and taught Reformation history for over 6 years at the college level.  I graduated from a Lutheran college. I have read Luther in the original German (by the way, he's better in German, and far more colorful too!).  I spent 17 years in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and some of my best friends today are still Lutheran pastors whom I respect and with whom I often correspond. In addition to my graduate studies in history, I did language study in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and German.  I can also read French and have read some of Calvin in the original French as well.  We may have our disagreements and not see eye-to-eye on things.  That's OK.  But to say that I suffer from "historical ignorance" and "intellectual laziness" is going too far.  Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am ignorant or lazy.  In fact, I daresay you would find someone more informed on the theological nuances of the 16th century Protestant reformers than I.
 

We are not interested in 16th century Protestant reformers.  We are interested in the Orthodox Faith and praxis of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Just off the top of my head I could tell you about Martin Luther and The Bondage of the Will (his most significant work, in his opinion), Phillip Melanchton, the author of the Augsburg Confession,

and its Greek "translation."

Johann Staupitz (Luther's father confessor when he was an Augustinian monk and someone of whom Luther always spoke kindly), The Schmalkald Articles where a cranky Luther vents his spleen against the Pope calling the Bishop of Rome "the very Antichrist" (that's actually pretty mild for Luther, if you know his language), or the Marburg Colloquy where Luther and Zwingli sat down to chat about the Holy Eucharist and Luther refused to shake Zwingli's hand because Zwingli denied our Lord's Real Presence in the Eucharist.  Then there's always John Calvin, who at the tender age of 24 thought he knew more than Holy Mother Church and all the Holy Fathers and authored his abominable "Institutes of the Christian Religion."  And I haven't even mentioned anything yet about John Knox, Martin Bucer, Theodore Beza, Andreas Carlstadt, Johann Bugenhagen, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and Cardinal Pole.  Nor have I mentioned the origins of the Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Formula of Concord, and the fights within the Church of England over the Book of Common Prayer.
 

How about the the Correspondence of the Utraquists and Constantinople? Of the Tubingen Theologians and Pat. Jeremiah II, and between the non-Jurors and the Patriarchs of the East?  And the findings of the Holy Governing Synod of Russia on the Anglican rites, and the Greco-Russian committee correspondance? 
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #53 on: April 02, 2011, 08:35:09 PM »

One reason maybe it hasn't grown is very few are aware of it's existence. When I started inquiry  into orthodoxy I took instructions at a Greek church. No mention of a western  rite. After attending a Liturgy I knew how people felt attending the Latin mass if they weren't RC. I am going to my first western rite liturgy tomorrow. If I become orthodox and a church I am attending is in a situation where they are no longer in communion with world orthodoxy, would naturally find another jurisdiction. I am RC by heritage but this does not include the abortion which is the novus  ordo. Like it or not western Europe culture is the direct descendant of the Roman culture, not the Byzantine. Is any one on this site going to say the western rite is not in communion with the Greek, Russian, ect. If so tell me and save me a trip. The only thing making me hesitate about converting is the troubling divisions I read about on this website and major differences for example how each jurisdiction accepts converts into orthodoxy. Pray for me I love what I have seen in Orthodoxy and need to make a prayerful decision.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #54 on: April 02, 2011, 08:42:46 PM »

One reason maybe it hasn't grown is very few are aware of it's existence. When I started inquiry  into orthodoxy I took instructions at a Greek church. No mention of a western  rite. After attending a Liturgy I knew how people felt attending the Latin mass if they weren't RC. I am going to my first western rite liturgy tomorrow. If I become orthodox and a church I am attending is in a situation where they are no longer in communion with world orthodoxy, would naturally find another jurisdiction. I am RC by heritage but this does not include the abortion which is the novus  ordo. Like it or not western Europe culture is the direct descendant of the Roman culture, not the Byzantine. Is any one on this site going to say the western rite is not in communion with the Greek, Russian, ect. If so tell me and save me a trip. The only thing making me hesitate about converting is the troubling divisions I read about on this website and major differences for example how each jurisdiction accepts converts into orthodoxy. Pray for me I love what I have seen in Orthodoxy and need to make a prayerful decision.

Lord, have mercy!

Without knowing what Church you plan to attend, I can't say for sure if they're canonical, but rest assured that all canonical Western Rite parishes are in full communion with the worldwide Orthodox Church.
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #55 on: April 02, 2011, 08:43:16 PM »

One reason maybe it hasn't grown is very few are aware of it's existence. When I started inquiry  into orthodoxy I took instructions at a Greek church. No mention of a western  rite. After attending a Liturgy I knew how people felt attending the Latin mass if they weren't RC. I am going to my first western rite liturgy tomorrow. If I become orthodox and a church I am attending is in a situation where they are no longer in communion with world orthodoxy, would naturally find another jurisdiction. I am RC by heritage but this does not include the abortion which is the novus  ordo. Like it or not western Europe culture is the direct descendant of the Roman culture, not the Byzantine. Is any one on this site going to say the western rite is not in communion with the Greek, Russian, ect. If so tell me and save me a trip. The only thing making me hesitate about converting is the troubling divisions I read about on this website and major differences for example how each jurisdiction accepts converts into orthodoxy. Pray for me I love what I have seen in Orthodoxy and need to make a prayerful decision.

"Byzantine" culture is Roman culture. it is simply a different expression of that Roman culture. Remember, St Constantine the Great was from Great Britain, and as ialmisry pointed out, the Roman Church used Greek until well after the Resurrection and Ascension.

As for the divisions you see, you must remember that we are the Church. Although the Church is perfect, we as individuals are not so. It is in Lent, and the demons will always attack us. We have survived much and we, the Church,  will persevere.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,622



« Reply #56 on: April 02, 2011, 08:47:34 PM »

Cool! Cool


Lol! There are some non-English speakers and nobody corrects their errors. But when someone makes a mistake with Latin then there's always someone to correct. Grin

It is well to be fluent in the tongue of the adversary . . .
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 02, 2011, 08:52:25 PM »

One reason maybe it hasn't grown is very few are aware of it's existence. When I started inquiry  into orthodoxy I took instructions at a Greek church. No mention of a western  rite. After attending a Liturgy I knew how people felt attending the Latin mass if they weren't RC. I am going to my first western rite liturgy tomorrow. If I become orthodox and a church I am attending is in a situation where they are no longer in communion with world orthodoxy, would naturally find another jurisdiction. I am RC by heritage but this does not include the abortion which is the novus  ordo. Like it or not western Europe culture is the direct descendant of the Roman culture, not the Byzantine. Is any one on this site going to say the western rite is not in communion with the Greek, Russian, ect. If so tell me and save me a trip. The only thing making me hesitate about converting is the troubling divisions I read about on this website and major differences for example how each jurisdiction accepts converts into orthodoxy. Pray for me I love what I have seen in Orthodoxy and need to make a prayerful decision.

Don't worry.  No one here is going to say that Western Rite is not in communion.  The whole point of the gripe on the anti-WR side is that they are in communion and there's not anything the gripers can do about it, save gripe some more.  That's all it is, sour gripes.

Full disclosure: I've never been a member of, or even attended any of the Western Rite parishes, and have absolutely nothing to do with this argument, aside from the fact that I am not against the Western Rite.  I've been reading this thread because it goes so well with popcorn (non-buttered, of course).

(Of course, I'm referring to Anticohian and ROCOR Western Rite, not any of the hundred vagante or schismatic Western Rites. )
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #58 on: April 02, 2011, 09:20:16 PM »

You have already gotten excellent responses from Mike, Jonn and Sleeper.
I am still yet to see a single valid argument here for the addition of a so-called "Western Rite" into the praxis of the Orthodox Church here in North America.
It's here. It has been for over a century. After a half century of false starts, the remnants came home and have been part of the praxis of hte Orthodox Church here in North America for over the last fifty years. A century ago is back when Orthodxo praxis of one hierarchy in the land ruled the day.

Please address and respond to the following questions:

1. Why is a Western Rite needed here?
Because here is in the West. The cultrure (outside of Alaska) is Western, and part of the West.

Because the Church is Catholic: "From the rising to the setting of the sun the Name of the Lord will be praised."  That includes the West.

Because the Church is Apostolic.  It is sent to the West to baptize it, not easternize it.

Because the Church is One: Popes SS. Clement, Victor, Damasus, Leo, Gregory, Martin, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Lawrence etc. etc. etc. who celebrated the Western-not Eastern-rites of Orthodoxy did not go into schism in 1054.  If we cannot claim their patrimony, we are not the Church of the Fathers.

But as Sleeper pointed out, you are asking the wrong question.
2. What is wrong with the Eastern Rite?
If you are in the East, or Eastern, nothing.

What was wrong with the Eastern rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, before Constantinople suppressed them? Nothing.

The Arians, Macedonians, Monophysites, Monothelites and Iconoclasts didn't find anything wrong with the rites of Constantinople, so we tampered and changed them so they would

But as Sleeper pointed out, you are asking the wrong question.
3. Is this not Renovationism to "jump start" a Rite within the Orthodox Church that died out over 1,000 years ago?
It's less than a 1,000 years ago.

Is setting up the Orhodox hiearchies in Western Europe a "jump start" of hierarchies in within the Orthodox Church that broke off almost 1,000 years ago?

The Orthodox who use languages not spoken for over a 1,000 years, what's that about?

Moscow jump started the Patriarchate which had been suppressed for two centuries in 1917. Should we condemn them?

If we regain Agia Sophia, are you going to barr the door to stop jump starting Divine Liturgies there?
4. Is not restoring something from a long, distant "ideal" past not part of the "Protestant Reformer" mentality?  (Think of all the Protestant rhetoric about "restoring the New Testament Church" ... I find it very similar to the logic of "restoring" the Western Rite in Orthodoxy.
You are finding something that isn't there.

This mentiality of "one Orthodox rite" is relatively new: a little over 800 years ago, each Patriarchate having its rite was the rule.

The idea of defining Tradition as "what my grandparents did" is not an Orthodox one. Witness the Nikonian reforms (and no, the Protestants were not involved in that).
Quote
Although the synods of Bulgaria, Servia, and Rumania have a certain dependence on the State (whose sanction is necessary for the promulgation of their edicts), there is not in their case anything like the shameless Erastianism of Russia and Greece. Between these two the only question is whether it be more advantageous for the Church to be ruled by an irresponsible tyrant or a Balkan Parliament. Lastly, it may be noticed, the church government by synod is a principle destined to flourish among the Orthodox. The secular governments of Orthodox countries encourage it and approve of it, for obvious reasons. It makes all the complicated questions of church establishment and endowment in the new Balkan States comparatively easy to solve; it has a fine air of democracy, constitutionalism, parliamentary government, that appeals enormously to people just escaped from the Turk and full of such notions. It seems then that the old patriarchal idea will linger on at Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (though even here, in its original homes, it is getting modified in a constitutional direction), but that all new movement in the Orthodox Church will be more and more towards the principles borrowed by Peter the Great from Lutheranism. The vital argument against Holy Directing Synods is their opposition to the old tradition, to the strictly monarchic system of the Church of the Fathers. Strange that this argument should be ignored by people who boast so confidently of their unswerving fidelity to antiquity. "Our Church knows no developments", they told Mr. Palmer triumphantly in Russia. One could easily make a considerable list of Orthodox developments in answer. And one of the most obvious examples would be the system of Holy Synods. What, one might ask, would their Fathers have said of national Churches governed by committees of bishops chosen by the State and controlled by Government officials?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07428a.htm
This was 1910.  Should we condemn the logic of restoring the patriarchal office throughout Orthdooxy as "Protestant mentality" to restor "a long, distant "ideal" past"?

5. Perhaps God let the Western Rite die out for a reason?
Perhaps God let the Czar abolish the patriarch for a reason? Perhaps God let the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be reduced to an agent of the Ottoman state for a reason. Maybe God let the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem be reduced to suffragans to the Phanar for a reason. So I guess we should abolish all the patriarchates and have their primates confined into a curia at the Phanar, servants of the Turkish Republic.

6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans?  A case for 'doxing up the Lutheran Liturgy could be made just about as firmly as those who "Orthodoxized" the Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in the so-called "Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon."
It could. The Eastern rite, however, was the first to evangelize Finland, from Karelia to the north of Sápmi/Lapland, and is native to Fennoscandia.

I'd have no problem 'doxing the liturgy of the Church of Sweden/Finland (they share the same origin). Such organizations exist, and should be contacted and brought into Orthodoxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbetsgemenskapen_Kyrklig_F%C3%B6rnyelse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Sanctae_Birgittae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Church_Lutheranism#Sweden

As noted below, we had an opportunity in Norway which was blown.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-06-054-i

7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink
Perhaps their overlords in the Phanar won't allow evangelizing all those Lutherans and Scandinavians Wink.

The Phanariots in Scandinavia are dead (and I mean dead) set against evangelizing the North.  When the various groups got together and organized a pan Orthodox jurisdiction in Sweden, and placed it under the Phanariots, there response was to turn it into a Greek jurisdiciton, and telling the others to form their own ethnic enclaves in Sweden.  When the Nordik Catholic Church approached to be received into Orthodoxy, the Phanariots shut the door in their face: the Phanariot bishop stating that receving them would indicate "that Orthodoxy was for Scandinavians."  The horror! The NCC ended up under the Polish National Catholics (btw, that same Phanariot bishop harrasses Eastern missions too. Wonder if there is a connection ;0).  

I'm not sure if they have even bothered to convene their Episcopal Assembly yet.

8. Lastly, the Tridentine Mass belongs to Rome.  I have far too much respect and genuine charity for my Roman Catholic friends and brethren to insult them by trying to do an "Orthodox" version of their Mass.
 
But you are quite comfortable with damning the whole Western Patriarchate to hell. Interesting.

How about some of that respect and genuine charity for your fellow Orthodox (you are Orhodox, no?).

The Latin Mass belongs to Rome, regardless of whatever language it is translated into.
Are you consistent in recognizing the rights of herestics and schismatics to Orthodox sees?  Do you recognize the Latin supreme pontiff Benedict as Peter?

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory belongs to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Are you saying you recognize P. Benedict XVI as the head of that Church?

Btw, the Latin mass really belongs to North Africa (and hence the Pope of Alexandria) whence it came: Rome used Greek exclusively until c. 190, and did not replace it until c. 380.  

And speaking of belonging, you are aware that all of the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Romania and the Czech Lands and Slovakia belonged to Rome before the iconoclast emperors took them and gave them to the iconoclast patriarch of Constantinople. Should we give them back to the Vatican?

Why should Orthodox people tamper with it?
 
To purge the gold of the dross of heresy.

Are we going to insert an Epiclesis into the Tridentine Mass?
The vestiges are still there.  Restoring the full form of the Supplices Te Rogamus would be nice.

If so, then it isn't the Tridentine Mass anymore.
No, it's the Divine Liturgy of Our Father among the Saints Gregory the Great Pope of Rome.

It isn't even Western anymore. We would have just "Byzantinized" it.
Oh, it is worse than that: the Roman one is the only one that doesn't emphasize the epiclesis.  As the "Catholic Encyclopia, imprematur nihil obstat" confesses:
Quote
It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer. For instance, the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, immediately after the recital of the words of Institution, goes on to the Anamnesis — "Remembering therefore His Passion..." — in which occur the words: "thou, the God who lackest nothing, being pleased with them (the Offerings) for the honour of Thy Christ, and sending down Thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice, the witness of the Passion of the Lord Jesus, to manifest (opos apophene) this bread as the Body of Thy Christ and this chalice as the Blood of Thy Christ..." (Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I, 21). So the Greek and Syrian Liturgies of St. James (ibid., 54, 88-89), the Alexandrine Liturgies (ibid., 134, 179), the Abyssinian Rite (ibid., 233), those of the Nestorians (ibid., 287) and Armenians (ibid., 439). The Epiklesis in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is said thus: "We offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee that Thou, sending down Thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts" (the Deacon says: "Bless, Sir the holy bread") "make this bread into the Precious Body of Thy Christ" (Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, the holy chalice"): "and that which is in this chalice, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ" (Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, both"), "changing [metabalon] them by Thy Holy Spirit" (Deacon: "Amen, Amen, Amen."). (Brightman, op. cit., I 386-387).

Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations. The Gallican Liturgy had variable forms according to the feast. That for the Circumcision was: "Hæc nos, Domine, instituta et præcepta retinentes suppliciter oramus uti hoc sacrificium suscipere et benedicere et sanctificare digneris: ut fiat nobis eucharistia legitima in tuo Filiique tui nomine et Spiritus sancti, in transformationem corporis ac sanguinis domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi unigeniti tui, per quem omnia creas..." (Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", 2nd ed., Paris, 1898, p. 208, taken from St. Germanus of Paris, d. 576). There are many allusions to the Gallican Invocation, for instance St. Isidore of Seville (De eccl. officiis, I, 15, etc.). The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.

And then Ultramontanism raises its head:
Quote
The Catholic Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm

Quote
In any event, why do you think that the supplices te rogamus prayer was included in the old Latin mass?  Surely you don't believe that it is literally calling for an angel to come and take the gifts away into heaven, do you? I notice that you have not responded to any of  my arguments about it up until this point.

If he doesn't believe you maybe he will believe these guys:
Quote
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

9.  Food for thought: If we can't use the Tridentine Mass in the Orthodox Church without tampering with it and changing it, why are we using it at all?
Fast from such food.

Food for thought: since the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil and the liturgics with them (e.g. the iconstasis) did not weather the heresies that sprung up without tampering and changing, why are we using them at all?

Why not just stick with the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil that formed the piety of our people for generations?
The WRO already has formed the piety of generations of Orthodox.

In Alexandria and Antioch, the Divine Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark formed the piety of St. Anthony, Pope St. Athanasius, Pope St. Cyril, Patriarch St. Ignatius, Patriarch St. Theophilus, St. John of Damascus, etc. and the generations before and since them, until suppresed by the absentee "Patriarch of Antoch" Balsamon, who never set foot AFAIK outside of Constantinople.  Why shouldn't we have stuck with them, rather than go with the rites of the upstart on the Bosphoros?


I enjoyed the article from Touchstone magazine about the Lutheran Church of Norway and the Nordic Catholic Church. Interesting.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #59 on: April 02, 2011, 09:27:32 PM »

One reason maybe it hasn't grown is very few are aware of it's existence. When I started inquiry  into orthodoxy I took instructions at a Greek church. No mention of a western  rite. After attending a Liturgy I knew how people felt attending the Latin mass if they weren't RC. I am going to my first western rite liturgy tomorrow. If I become orthodox and a church I am attending is in a situation where they are no longer in communion with world orthodoxy, would naturally find another jurisdiction. I am RC by heritage but this does not include the abortion which is the novus  ordo. Like it or not western Europe culture is the direct descendant of the Roman culture, not the Byzantine. Is any one on this site going to say the western rite is not in communion with the Greek, Russian, ect. If so tell me and save me a trip. The only thing making me hesitate about converting is the troubling divisions I read about on this website and major differences for example how each jurisdiction accepts converts into orthodoxy. Pray for me I love what I have seen in Orthodoxy and need to make a prayerful decision.

Lord, have mercy!

Without knowing what Church you plan to attend, I can't say for sure if they're canonical, but rest assured that all canonical Western Rite parishes are in full communion with the worldwide Orthodox Church.
I can say. If your bishop is on this list
http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/directories/bishops/
then he is canonical and the WRO parish is in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If he isn't, it isn't.

Where are you at?

PS now I see. Houston. IIRC there are a couple WRO there, i.e. canonical.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 09:29:04 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 02, 2011, 09:43:20 PM »

Like it or not western Europe culture is the direct descendant of the Roman culture, not the Byzantine.

Hmmmm. I'm rather suspicious of this claim. While it seems Byzantine culture took Roman culture in a slightly different direction than before (more Hellenized and greatly more Christian), it also seems like the West deviated from Roman culture much more than the Byzantines did because of the dominance of the Germanic barbarians.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #61 on: April 02, 2011, 10:43:21 PM »

Although I love the Roman rite and the other western rites (not necessarily those practiced by former episcopalians that call themselves "Western Orthodox" now) I still find it amazing that it didn't occur to the Westerners to give Sunday a somehow visible resurrectional/paschal character. I mean, you can look at the tridentine breviary and Sunday just doesn't have that, outside of Eastertide.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,950



« Reply #62 on: April 03, 2011, 04:36:24 AM »

6. Why has the Orthodox Church of Finland not developed a "Western Rite" for former Lutherans? 

I'm probably just about only Finn who thinks that Finnish WRO could be a realistic possibility. Theological arguments are irrelevant. To the most folks here Orthodoxy equals with Karelian, Russian and Greek heritage. Since WRO is not part of those it's an utopia.

Quote
7. Perhaps the Finnish Orthodox think the best way to evangelize all those Lutherans is to stick with the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?  Wink

The Finnish Church doesn't do much evangelism. On the other hand it seems that we don't have to since we gain converts anyway. My church has just found a respected place in Finnish society and in the past her energy has gone for maintaining even the most basic Orthodox traditions despite the pressure of Lutheran ethos and Finnish nationalism. If she couldn't convince her own faithful that they should baptize their children in their own Orthodox Church instead of Lutheran church I doubt that she had much interest in evangelism.
Logged

JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #63 on: April 03, 2011, 07:45:06 AM »

One reason maybe it hasn't grown is very few are aware of it's existence. When I started inquiry  into orthodoxy I took instructions at a Greek church. No mention of a western  rite. After attending a Liturgy I knew how people felt attending the Latin mass if they weren't RC. I am going to my first western rite liturgy tomorrow. If I become orthodox and a church I am attending is in a situation where they are no longer in communion with world orthodoxy, would naturally find another jurisdiction. I am RC by heritage but this does not include the abortion which is the novus  ordo. Like it or not western Europe culture is the direct descendant of the Roman culture, not the Byzantine. Is any one on this site going to say the western rite is not in communion with the Greek, Russian, ect. If so tell me and save me a trip. The only thing making me hesitate about converting is the troubling divisions I read about on this website and major differences for example how each jurisdiction accepts converts into orthodoxy. Pray for me I love what I have seen in Orthodoxy and need to make a prayerful decision.
I've chewed on these questions of jursidiction plenty. 

The more trouble I had with the jurisdictions issue, the deeper I dug, and I eventually came to the conclusion that the different jurisdictions are actually quite reflective of what the early church looked like. I'm quite certain that the churches in Ephesus, Rome, Egypt, Syria, etc., all had very distinct cultural flavors and characters, just as the Russian, Serbian, Greek, and even American modern jurisdictions have, and I think that there is something wonderful about this.  I think it is a powerful testament to the Orthodox Faith that amidst all of these different traditions, the Faith itself is infinitely more uniform and consistent than in the more homogenous RC church, or even amongst 2 different Baptist congregations a mile away from one another somewhere in Carolina. I was approaching it as a RC, also, and I had to change the lens through which I saw these things.

This forum/website is a place for discussion, and as such, people's differences probably get emphasized much more than they should be, and this is not representative of real world Orthodoxy. It can be a great place to wrap one's mind around complicated questions, to fellowship a bit, and to learn about new things, but I will never hold it up as the shining example of what the true church in action is.

As for the Western Rite deal, for me, Western Rite/Eastern Rite is not an issue, as I'm interested only in being in the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and in Russia, anyways, there is no Western Rite that I know of, so I have yet to be exposed to it. When I return to America, I imagine I will attend a WR service at some point, happily. I come from a Western Rite tradition, and I think it's wonderful to have some of the beauty of the Western heritage restored into Orthodoxy, even though I will most likely worship in an Eastern Rite setting most of the time. I think the important point here that has been re-emphasized by many here is that the Western Rite is not the property of the RC church! That mentality basically suggests that there's no point in trying to evangelize Roman Catholics...
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #64 on: April 03, 2011, 07:59:37 AM »

Recent Orthodox Saints Who Supported the Western Rite:

St. Tikhon (Bellavin)
St. Raphael of Brooklyn (Hawaweeny)
St. Nicholas of Japan
Russian New-Martyrs
St. John the Wonderworker (Maximovitch)

This omits St. John of Chicago (Kochurov), who accompanied St. Tikhon on many missionary journeys to Episcopalian churches. St. John could be assumed to support his hierarch's Western Rite initiative -- but to my knowledge he did not specifically say so.

This list also overlooks the uncanonized divine healer Dom Denis Chambault, a holy monk who celebrated the Benedictine monastic office and the Liturgy of St. Gregory in France under the patronage of St. John the Wonderworker.

You forgot St. Gorazd of Prague.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #65 on: April 03, 2011, 09:41:44 AM »

Recent Orthodox Saints Who Supported the Western Rite:

St. Tikhon (Bellavin)
St. Raphael of Brooklyn (Hawaweeny)
St. Nicholas of Japan
Russian New-Martyrs
St. John the Wonderworker (Maximovitch)

This omits St. John of Chicago (Kochurov), who accompanied St. Tikhon on many missionary journeys to Episcopalian churches. St. John could be assumed to support his hierarch's Western Rite initiative -- but to my knowledge he did not specifically say so.

This list also overlooks the uncanonized divine healer Dom Denis Chambault, a holy monk who celebrated the Benedictine monastic office and the Liturgy of St. Gregory in France under the patronage of St. John the Wonderworker.

You forgot St. Gorazd of Prague.

I didn't know that, thanks!
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #66 on: April 03, 2011, 12:36:02 PM »

This link states that it will take place in May instead of November:
http://orthodoxwesternrite.wordpress.com/all-the-news/
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #67 on: April 03, 2011, 01:17:59 PM »

This link states that it will take place in May instead of November:
http://orthodoxwesternrite.wordpress.com/all-the-news/

Bishop Jerome wrote at the Occidentalis Yahoo Group:
Quote
We are actually planning 3 [hierarchical] celebrations at present: in May at Christminster, in October at the conference, and then at the church of Christ the King in Tullytown, for their patronal festival.

Fr. Anthony Bondi added:
Quote
Bishop Jerome has suggested that the celebration of Christ the King be November 27th as the actual date of December 4th might be a conflict for him.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 01:19:42 PM by Michał » Logged
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #68 on: April 03, 2011, 03:00:34 PM »

I just attended st. Paul Antiochian western rite liturgy. The people there were very welcoming, and the liturgy was very familiar(St Gregory). I will start attending this service with the goal of becoming a catechumen.
It was because of this website that I  discovered the western rite. Thanks Anne God bless you.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 03:01:53 PM by Rdunbar123 » Logged
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #69 on: April 03, 2011, 03:04:34 PM »

I hate my iPad it fills in words for me. I meant thanks AND God Bless I don't even know someone named Anne
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2011, 03:41:07 PM »

I hate my iPad it fills in words for me. I meant thanks AND God Bless I don't even know someone named Anne
Haha. I understand completely.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #71 on: April 03, 2011, 04:12:48 PM »

Recent Orthodox Saints Who Supported the Western Rite:

St. Tikhon (Bellavin)
St. Raphael of Brooklyn (Hawaweeny)
St. Nicholas of Japan
Russian New-Martyrs
St. John the Wonderworker (Maximovitch)

This omits St. John of Chicago (Kochurov), who accompanied St. Tikhon on many missionary journeys to Episcopalian churches. St. John could be assumed to support his hierarch's Western Rite initiative -- but to my knowledge he did not specifically say so.

This list also overlooks the uncanonized divine healer Dom Denis Chambault, a holy monk who celebrated the Benedictine monastic office and the Liturgy of St. Gregory in France under the patronage of St. John the Wonderworker.

You forgot St. Gorazd of Prague.

I didn't know that, thanks!
I was going to add that but I hesitate because the Church of Czechoslovakia went Eastern rite, and I don't know St. Gorazd's role or opinion on that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #72 on: April 03, 2011, 04:27:48 PM »

I've read somewhere that he celebrated WR services too.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #73 on: April 03, 2011, 04:30:24 PM »

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage?  I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.  

I understand that that the WR are deemed Orthodox "by default", but the issue of their existence is not so cut and dry as WR advocates would have us believe.

It is possible that, in the future an Ecumenical Council could either confirm or abolish the WR in Orthodoxy.  IMHO, these rites really shouldn't have been created in the first place without the permission of, at least a Pan Orthodox Synod.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #74 on: April 03, 2011, 04:39:22 PM »

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage?  I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy. 

Latinophobia after the 4th Crusade?

Quote
It is possible that, in the future an Ecumenical Council could either confirm or abolish the WR in Orthodoxy.  IMHO, these rites really shouldn't have been created in the first place without the permission of, at least a Pan Orthodox Synod.

No ecumenical council was debating the liturgics. Why to start now?
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #75 on: April 03, 2011, 04:47:49 PM »

I was going to add that but I hesitate because the Church of Czechoslovakia went Eastern rite, and I don't know St. Gorazd's role or opinion on that.

That's a good point. He might have actually treated WR merely as a transitional form. However, I don't know that for sure.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 04:58:02 PM by Michał » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #76 on: April 03, 2011, 05:06:20 PM »

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage?  I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.  

Does the EP always involve himself in these matters? Why does the Church of Greece need to approve if none of its parishioners want to use the WR?

Quote
I understand that that the WR are deemed Orthodox "by default", but the issue of their existence is not so cut and dry as WR advocates would have us believe.

We are Orthodox for the same reason anyone else is Orthodox. What do you mean?

Quote
It is possible that, in the future an Ecumenical Council could either confirm or abolish the WR in Orthodoxy.  IMHO, these rites really shouldn't have been created in the first place without the permission of, at least a Pan Orthodox Synod.

They weren't created, they have been around for centuries. Were the liturgies of Ss John Chrysostom and Basil approved by this same process?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 05:10:31 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #77 on: April 03, 2011, 05:09:13 PM »

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage?

Actually, there might be one Western (Gallican) rite parish under a Ukrainian bishop of the EP in Argentina. At least that's what I was told. That's how this supposedly WRO church look like (picture from the bishop's visit):
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 05:10:52 PM by Michał » Logged
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #78 on: April 03, 2011, 05:24:56 PM »

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #79 on: April 03, 2011, 05:29:57 PM »

I've read somewhere that he celebrated WR services too.
yes. The Church was mostly WRO, including the saint, for the first decade or so.  The switch had something to do with the return of Carpatho-Rusyns to Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia IIRC.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #80 on: April 03, 2011, 05:40:11 PM »

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!
Since you are from around Houston, you may have heard about this from Dallas
Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20605.0.html

And you are right, the WRO do not need the EP or Greek Church's approval (though it got approval from prior EPs).  They get a little big for their britches every once and a while, but even they have admitted, amidst bemoaning, that the WRO are canonical Orthodox under canonical bishops.

The Orthodox do prefer to do things by consensus, but won't let the Church be held hostage.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,215


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #81 on: April 03, 2011, 05:40:47 PM »

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,950



« Reply #82 on: April 03, 2011, 05:42:51 PM »

I was going to add that but I hesitate because the Church of Czechoslovakia went Eastern rite, and I don't know St. Gorazd's role or opinion on that.

When and why this happened?
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #83 on: April 03, 2011, 05:44:25 PM »

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage?  I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.

Only if they vested in Western vestments. If they vested in oriental robes, there was no problem.

I understand that that the WR are deemed Orthodox "by default", but the issue of their existence is not so cut and dry as WR advocates would have us believe.
If they are under a canonical Orthodox bishop in a canonical Orthodox synod, yes, it is .

It is possible that, in the future an Ecumenical Council could either confirm or abolish the WR in Orthodoxy.  IMHO, these rites really shouldn't have been created in the first place without the permission of, at least a Pan Orthodox Synod.
They can abolisth the rites of Constantinople too.  The suppression of the rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem wasn't done by any synod, why should the revival of the rites of the Western Orthodox?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #84 on: April 03, 2011, 05:45:08 PM »

I was going to add that but I hesitate because the Church of Czechoslovakia went Eastern rite, and I don't know St. Gorazd's role or opinion on that.

When and why this happened?
Answered above, AFAIK.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2011, 04:37:00 PM »

The adoption of a new rite by the Church is an important matter, far too important to be decided on by a particular local Church alone.  Since Orthodoxy has no Papacy or Vatican to boss everyone around, decisions of such a grave nature should be reached by the consensus of the whole Body of Christ (A Synod of bishops representing all canonical Orthodox Churches).
 
It is true that local Churches have the right to use the Economia to help bring in converts and help them adapt, but the creation of entirely new Liturgies, supposedly based on defunct ones from centuries past goes way beyond such Economia.  It really is a question that should have been decided by the WHOLE Church and not just a few branches of Her acting independently.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2011, 04:59:43 PM »

Wonderful! Beautiful picture as well. I look forward to seeing pictures from this Pontifical Mass. I look forward to the day that the WR receives its own permanent episcopate, it will be a great step forward!
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2011, 05:05:48 PM »

The Orthodox Church has not been thinking since the very beginning that rites are the issue of the whole Church. What is more there are not a few branches acted for the WR but the few which did not. The Churches which have or used to have WR Parishes are: Antioch, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Poland and Czech lands and Slovakia which have about the 70% of the combined EO believers.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2011, 05:06:22 PM »

The adoption of a new rite by the Church is an important matter, far too important to be decided on by a particular local Church alone.  Since Orthodoxy has no Papacy or Vatican to boss everyone around, decisions of such a grave nature should be reached by the consensus of the whole Body of Christ (A Synod of bishops representing all canonical Orthodox Churches).

It isn't a new rite: what do you think Rome celebrated when it was Orthodox?
 
It is true that local Churches have the right to use the Economia to help bring in converts and help them adapt, but the creation of entirely new Liturgies, supposedly based on defunct ones from centuries past goes way beyond such Economia.  It really is a question that should have been decided by the WHOLE Church and not just a few branches of Her acting independently.
The WHOLE Church was involved when this got started in earnest in the mid 1800's.  The only one's who were not were part of the Serbs and Romanians, who became involved later and had their own WRO in France.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #89 on: April 04, 2011, 05:29:30 PM »

The adoption of a new rite by the Church is an important matter, far too important to be decided on by a particular local Church alone.  Since Orthodoxy has no Papacy or Vatican to boss everyone around, decisions of such a grave nature should be reached by the consensus of the whole Body of Christ (A Synod of bishops representing all canonical Orthodox Churches).
 
It is true that local Churches have the right to use the Economia to help bring in converts and help them adapt, but the creation of entirely new Liturgies, supposedly based on defunct ones from centuries past goes way beyond such Economia.  It really is a question that should have been decided by the WHOLE Church and not just a few branches of Her acting independently.



If local Churches can glorify people (i.e., add them to their lists of saints) I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to (re)introduce Liturgies. But anyway, in the late 1920s, the Polish Orthodox Church felt it was necessary to consult Constantinopole before introducing WR. She did and got an approval.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 05:31:57 PM by Michał » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #90 on: April 04, 2011, 05:37:09 PM »

The Churches which have or used to have WR Parishes are: Antioch, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Poland and Czech lands and Slovakia. . .

Also, possibly, Alexandria and Constantinopole.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #91 on: April 04, 2011, 10:26:52 PM »

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage?  I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.

Most of your points have already been adequately addressed, but I did want to mention that the GOA Met. of San Francisco was merely speaking on his own behalf. The Greek Church in Denver is quite supportive of the 2 WR parishes in that city, and just last night in my own city, we had the priests of the GOA Church as well as the OCA Church attend our Western Rite Solemn Vespers service for Laetare Sunday. And it wasn't begrudgingly! They were kneeling, standing, bowing and chanting along the whole time.
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #92 on: April 04, 2011, 10:41:20 PM »

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).
Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians, then and only then should he pass judgment about the Western-rite.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 10:42:43 PM by SubdeaconDavid » Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #93 on: April 04, 2011, 11:02:20 PM »

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).
Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians
By the grace of God, all the Churches would switch fully to the revised Julian Calendar.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 11:03:12 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #94 on: April 05, 2011, 03:05:03 AM »

If local Churches can glorify people (i.e., add them to their lists of saints) I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to (re)introduce Liturgies. But anyway, in the late 1920s, the Polish Orthodox Church felt it was necessary to consult Constantinopole before introducing WR. She did and got an approval.

You really should change your studies.
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #95 on: April 05, 2011, 06:47:28 AM »

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).
Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians
By the grace of God, all the Churches would switch fully to the revised Julian Calendar.

Please, no.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #96 on: April 05, 2011, 08:26:03 AM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?  This baffles me, utterly.

My local RCC parish has a service that looks and feels like a Baptist church service, except for the lay Eucharistic ministers and altar girls. And the preaching isn't nearly as good. No, you cannot go to Rome and get the real thing. Not anymore.

Nice job making false statements.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #97 on: April 05, 2011, 08:30:41 AM »

I still don't get it.

If I wanted to learn about the Eastern Rite, I would go to the Eastern Orthodox Church to learn about it. That means I would go to a parish that is truly and historically part of the Orthodox Church, such as the Russian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, or a canonical Orthodox Church in communion with them.  

 I would not go to Roman Catholic Church or a group in communion with Rome to learn about it, regardless of whether this group is called the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

It makes no sense for the Latin Church to use the Eastern Liturgy just as it makes no sense for the Eastern Church to perform the Western (Latin) liturgy.

Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism?  Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?

Eastern Rite Roman Catholics and Western Rite Orthodox are always going to be perceived as "grudge churches."  

And American, with all our jurisdictional pluralism and canonical mess is the LAST place that needs Western Rite Orthodox. We don't even have all the North American Orthodox on the same calendar and we introduce a Western Rite into our alphabet soup of jurisdictions?  I don't find that helpful, prudent or wise.  How can it possibly help American Orthodox to attain any unity?  It will only further fragment us into more tribal-like factions. It will create a liturgical ghetto for former Episcopalians and other converts rather than incorporating them into already existing American Orthodoxy.

As you can tell, I think the Western Rite in the USA is a horrible idea.  Perhaps in historical Western lands in Europe it could work, in places where there is a real organic link to the Western Orthodox past, like England or Ireland for example.  But it the USA, I think it will only further divide us.  And we desperately need more unity and cooperation. We are far too tribal and factional already.



Not to mention both "Western rites" are cobbled together. It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it. As for the "St. Tikon" liturgy, that's even stranger a "rite". And the combination of quasi-Western liturgy (mixture of pre- and post-schism elements with Byzantine additions) with Eastern theology---just not for me.
Logged
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #98 on: April 05, 2011, 09:50:08 AM »

slightly off the topic, but what is the calender deal? I am new and unfamiliar with what causes such a heated controversy. Back to topic, in reply to the other RC's on line, both the tridentine mass and "Novus Ordo" are sort of "cobbled together" and are not as ancient as the Byzantine.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #99 on: April 05, 2011, 10:13:36 AM »

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory belongs to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Are you saying you recognize P. Benedict XVI as the head of that Church?

No, it's the Divine Liturgy of Our Father among the Saints Gregory the Great Pope of Rome.


One thing I appreciate about this WRO business is the unstated implication that the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostolic See in Rome is a true Church. We cultivated the Roman rite for centuries after the schism, and now Orthodox are happily using it. Sure, there is a tacked-on Byzantine epiclesis, but I see so many post-schism elements in it that I appreciate the unstated assumption that the Lex Orandi of Orthodoxy could develop within the confines of the Roman Church. I've already seen WRO defenders on this thread say that the rite did NOT die off but was carried on by us Romans. So we are not  unbaptized heretics after all, or are unbaptized heretics capable of carrying on Tradition?

So when I see WRO elevate the Host at the Consecration, or read the Last Gospel, or celebrate Corpus Christi (texts written by St. Thomas Aquinas!), I smile. It's a sign of Orthodox recognition of Catholic orthodoxy.

I'm waiting to see feast days for St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, etc. in the WRO calendar.  Smiley
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #100 on: April 05, 2011, 10:25:13 AM »

Not to mention both "Western rites" are cobbled together.

That's funny, I feel that way about the post-Vatican II liturgy, and even parts of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. What currently-used rites weren't "cobbled" together at some point?

Quote
It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The Orthodox Church cares more about truth and redemption and beauty than most anything else. If it's true and can be used authentically by those who desire to do so, then glory be to God.

Quote
As for the "St. Tikon" liturgy, that's even stranger a "rite".

And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” - Luke 5:26

Quote
And the combination of quasi-Western liturgy (mixture of pre- and post-schism elements with Byzantine additions) with Eastern theology---just not for me.

Why would it be, when you're Roman Catholic? At any rate, any approved Orthodox rites do not have "Western" or "Eastern" theology, but have the unchanging, unalterable, universal, mystical and dogmatic theology of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Undivided Church.

One thing I appreciate about this WRO business is the unstated implication that the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostolic See in Rome is a true Church. We cultivated the Roman rite for centuries after the schism, and now Orthodox are happily using it. Sure, there is a tacked-on Byzantine epiclesis, but I see so many post-schism elements in it that I appreciate the unstated assumption that the Lex Orandi of Orthodoxy could develop within the confines of the Roman Church. I've already seen WRO defenders on this thread say that the rite did NOT die off but was carried on by us Romans. So we are not  unbaptized heretics after all, or are unbaptized heretics capable of carrying on Tradition?

Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. That being said, it's unlikely that the Orthodox Church would approve of wholly-new rites, with no historical roots whatsoever. But yes, post-Schism elements that were developed within the confines of the Roman Church (or Anglican Church for that matter), so long as they are true and logically derived from that which came before it, can be used with joy by those blessed by the Church to do so.

Quote
So when I see WRO elevate the Host at the Consecration, or read the Last Gospel, or celebrate Corpus Christi (texts written by St. Thomas Aquinas!), I smile. It's a sign of Orthodox recognition of Catholic orthodoxy.

Yes indeed, Orthodoxy recognizes her truth wherever it may be found.

Quote
I'm waiting to see feast days for St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, etc. in the WRO calendar.  Smiley

Smiley
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 10:33:18 AM by Sleeper » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #101 on: April 05, 2011, 10:34:11 AM »


Quote
It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The Orthodox Church cares more about truth and redemption and beauty than most anything else. If it's true and can be used authentically by those who desire to do so, then glory be to God.

I'm sorry, I must correct myself. It didn't lie fallow for hundreds of years---we have been cultivating it. And that is what you have adopted---that, and the Anglican version of it.

My question is, how Western can WRO go? How about post-schism saints? The Rosary? Stations? Eucharistic adoration? How about Western mysticism and spirituality? How about Augustine and Aquinas?

Or are we talking about a veneer of 16th-century Roman liturgy translated into "Elizabethan" English twinned with contemporary Byzantine theology?
If our Lex Orandi was worth adopting, why not our Lex Credendi and Lex Vivendi that went with it?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 10:35:24 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #102 on: April 05, 2011, 10:37:37 AM »

Not to mention both "Western rites" are cobbled together.

That's funny, I feel that way about the post-Vatican II liturgy, and even parts of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. What currently-used rites weren't "cobbled" together at some point?

Quote
It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The Orthodox Church cares more about truth and redemption and beauty than most anything else. If it's true and can be used authentically by those who desire to do so, then glory be to God.

Quote
As for the "St. Tikon" liturgy, that's even stranger a "rite".

And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” - Luke 5:26

Quote
And the combination of quasi-Western liturgy (mixture of pre- and post-schism elements with Byzantine additions) with Eastern theology---just not for me.

Why would it be, when you're Roman Catholic? At any rate, any approved Orthodox rites do not have "Western" or "Eastern" theology, but have the unchanging, unalterable, universal, mystical and dogmatic theology of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Undivided Church.

One thing I appreciate about this WRO business is the unstated implication that the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostolic See in Rome is a true Church. We cultivated the Roman rite for centuries after the schism, and now Orthodox are happily using it. Sure, there is a tacked-on Byzantine epiclesis, but I see so many post-schism elements in it that I appreciate the unstated assumption that the Lex Orandi of Orthodoxy could develop within the confines of the Roman Church. I've already seen WRO defenders on this thread say that the rite did NOT die off but was carried on by us Romans. So we are not  unbaptized heretics after all, or are unbaptized heretics capable of carrying on Tradition?

Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. That being said, it's unlikely that the Orthodox Church would approve of wholly-new rites, with no historical roots whatsoever. But yes, post-Schism elements that were developed within the confines of the Roman Church (or Anglican Church for that matter), so long as they are true and logically derived from that which came before it, can be used with joy by those blessed by the Church to do so.

Quote
So when I see WRO elevate the Host at the Consecration, or read the Last Gospel, or celebrate Corpus Christi (texts written by St. Thomas Aquinas!), I smile. It's a sign of Orthodox recognition of Catholic orthodoxy.

Yes indeed, Orthodoxy recognizes her truth wherever it may be found.

Quote
I'm waiting to see feast days for St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, etc. in the WRO calendar.  Smiley

Smiley

Well, Sleeper, I appreciate the respect and even love for the post-schism Roman tradition. That's really the implication of WRO that perhaps rubs some less ecumenical Orthodox the wrong way, IMO.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #103 on: April 05, 2011, 10:41:12 AM »

My question is, how Western can WRO go? How about post-schism saints? The Rosary? Stations? Eucharistic adoration? How about Western mysticism and spirituality? How about Augustine and Aquinas?

Or are we talking about a veneer of 16th-century Roman liturgy translated into "Elizabethan" English twinned with contemporary Byzantine theology?
If our Lex Orandi was worth adopting, why not our Lex Credendi and Lex Vivendi that went with it?

As far as the West is Orthodox. It excludes Thomas Aquinas and post-schism Saints.

It's not filled with the temporary Byzantine theology but the original Christian theology.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #104 on: April 05, 2011, 10:43:12 AM »


Quote
It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The Orthodox Church cares more about truth and redemption and beauty than most anything else. If it's true and can be used authentically by those who desire to do so, then glory be to God.

I'm sorry, I must correct myself. It didn't lie fallow for hundreds of years---we have been cultivating it. And that is what you have adopted---that, and the Anglican version of it.

Correct!

Quote
My question is, how Western can WRO go? How about post-schism saints? The Rosary? Stations? Eucharistic adoration? How about Western mysticism and spirituality? How about Augustine and Aquinas?

My parish serves a Rosary every Sunday before Mass, and we do the Stations every Friday during Lent. We don't actively do any sort of Eucharistic adoration service or anything, and I'm not aware of any parishes that do or what their reasoning for not doing so would be. Western mysticism has an interesting history amongst Orthodoxy, but interestingly enough, not by the Western Rite.

St Dimitri’s library held books by Bonaventure, Thomas a Kempis, Peter Canisius and other Roman Catholic authors, and in his spirituality such elements as the devotion of the passions of Christ, the five wounds of Christ and the heart of Christ may be traced. The influence of Roman Catholic spirituality on St Tikhon of Zadonsk can equally be sensed. And St Nicodemus translated the work of a Latin Theatine monk, Invisible Warfare, into Greek.

Quote
Or are we talking about a veneer of 16th-century Roman liturgy translated into "Elizabethan" English embellishing contemporary Byzantine theology?
If our Lex Orandi was worth adopting, why not our Lex Credendi and Lex Vivendi that went with it?

The Western Rite is new and will continue to grow and develop within the Orthodox Church (God willing). Most of what's in use right now is simply taking what had been used by those parishes desiring to enter into communion with the Orthodox Church, and assuming and blessing as much of it as possible. Perhaps more things will be brought into the fold, perhaps some will naturally fall out of use. It's tough to say.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,267

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #105 on: April 05, 2011, 10:47:55 AM »

Well, Sleeper, I appreciate the respect and even love for the post-schism Roman tradition. That's really the implication of WRO that perhaps rubs some less ecumenical Orthodox the wrong way, IMO.

I think this is true. And, personally, I find it understandable, I just think it's too narrow an understanding of Orthodoxy.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #106 on: April 05, 2011, 11:24:31 AM »

I still don't get it.

If I wanted to learn about the Eastern Rite, I would go to the Eastern Orthodox Church to learn about it. That means I would go to a parish that is truly and historically part of the Orthodox Church, such as the Russian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, or a canonical Orthodox Church in communion with them.  

 I would not go to Roman Catholic Church or a group in communion with Rome to learn about it, regardless of whether this group is called the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

It makes no sense for the Latin Church to use the Eastern Liturgy just as it makes no sense for the Eastern Church to perform the Western (Latin) liturgy.

Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism?  Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?

Eastern Rite Roman Catholics and Western Rite Orthodox are always going to be perceived as "grudge churches."  

And American, with all our jurisdictional pluralism and canonical mess is the LAST place that needs Western Rite Orthodox. We don't even have all the North American Orthodox on the same calendar and we introduce a Western Rite into our alphabet soup of jurisdictions?  I don't find that helpful, prudent or wise.  How can it possibly help American Orthodox to attain any unity?  It will only further fragment us into more tribal-like factions. It will create a liturgical ghetto for former Episcopalians and other converts rather than incorporating them into already existing American Orthodoxy.

As you can tell, I think the Western Rite in the USA is a horrible idea.  Perhaps in historical Western lands in Europe it could work, in places where there is a real organic link to the Western Orthodox past, like England or Ireland for example.  But it the USA, I think it will only further divide us.  And we desperately need more unity and cooperation. We are far too tribal and factional already.



Not to mention both "Western rites" are cobbled together. It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.
The modifications to the Tridentine Mass and the Book of Common Prayer to make them the DL Liturgies of SS. Gregory and Tikhon are not "byzantine" modifications, they (explicite epiclesis, deletion of references to merits of the saints, etc.) are Orthodox ones. That's the difference between the WRO and the Vatican's "eastern rites"

The DL of St. James was picked up in various parts having laid fallow for hundreds of years there (though in continous celebration elsewhere), made some modifications from the rites of Constantinople, and then started using it.


As for the "St. Tikon" liturgy, that's even stranger a "rite".

How so?  It least when it was used by heretics and schismatics, it had an explicite epiclesis, something that no less than St. Philaret of Moscow (at the time the senior hiearach and Patriarch in all but name) brought up.

And the combination of quasi-Western liturgy (mixture of pre- and post-schism elements with Byzantine additions)

You meann like the Kyrie?

with Eastern Orthodox theology
fixed that for you

---just not for me.
"Yet know this, that the kingdom of God is at hand." Luke 10:11
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 11:26:15 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #107 on: April 05, 2011, 11:30:52 AM »

slightly off the topic, but what is the calender deal? I am new and unfamiliar with what causes such a heated controversy. Back to topic, in reply to the other RC's on line, both the tridentine mass and "Novus Ordo" are sort of "cobbled together" and are not as ancient as the Byzantine.
Shhh!  You're not supposed to notice that, let alone point it out!

As to the calendar: in brief a lot has to do with the way the calendar change was enforced (by bullets in some places) and the personages with whom the change is associated (collaborators with the Bolsheviks, too exurberant ecumenists, corrupt clerics etc.), something that has become rancid with time in some places, in others mellowed. In some places (like Antioch) it wasn't a problem at all.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #108 on: April 05, 2011, 11:37:16 AM »

slightly off the topic, but what is the calender deal? I am new and unfamiliar with what causes such a heated controversy. Back to topic, in reply to the other RC's on line, both the tridentine mass and "Novus Ordo" are sort of "cobbled together" and are not as ancient as the Byzantine.
Shhh!  You're not supposed to notice that, let alone point it out!

As to the calendar: in brief a lot has to do with the way the calendar change was enforced (by bullets in some places) and the personages with whom the change is associated (collaborators with the Bolsheviks, too exurberant ecumenists, corrupt clerics etc.), something that has become rancid with time in some places, in others mellowed. In some places (like Antioch) it wasn't a problem at all.

As an aside, I heard Antioch did not change the calendar until 1943, and no one really knows why they changed it, it just happened. Any insights?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #109 on: April 05, 2011, 01:36:25 PM »

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).
Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians
By the grace of God, all the Churches would switch fully to the revised Julian Calendar.
I think there is no chance of convincing the Russian Church, the Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem and Mt Athos of this. Why would we change? There was nothing wrong about using the calendar we have always used. Pseudo-scientific appeals of new calendarism have nothing to do with the Orthodox faith and everything to do with ecumenism and heterodoxy.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #110 on: April 05, 2011, 01:41:16 PM »

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage?  I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.

Most of your points have already been adequately addressed, but I did want to mention that the GOA Met. of San Francisco was merely speaking on his own behalf. The Greek Church in Denver is quite supportive of the 2 WR parishes in that city, and just last night in my own city, we had the priests of the GOA Church as well as the OCA Church attend our Western Rite Solemn Vespers service for Laetare Sunday. And it wasn't begrudgingly! They were kneeling, standing, bowing and chanting along the whole time.
Perhaps the electric organs creeping their way into the GOA, pews limiting the movement of the faithful and veneration of icons, and in some places shrinking iconostasis reflects a Latin-ization of the Byzantine in the US?
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #111 on: April 05, 2011, 02:21:42 PM »

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage?  I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.

Most of your points have already been adequately addressed, but I did want to mention that the GOA Met. of San Francisco was merely speaking on his own behalf. The Greek Church in Denver is quite supportive of the 2 WR parishes in that city, and just last night in my own city, we had the priests of the GOA Church as well as the OCA Church attend our Western Rite Solemn Vespers service for Laetare Sunday. And it wasn't begrudgingly! They were kneeling, standing, bowing and chanting along the whole time.
Perhaps the electric organs creeping their way into the GOA, pews limiting the movement of the faithful and veneration of icons, and in some places shrinking iconostasis reflects a Latin-ization of the Byzantine in the US?
You don't find such things only in the US, or other parts of the "diaspora" for that matter, but in the "Mother Churches" themselves  Shocked

Btw, smaller and transparent iconstasis are just a restoration of earlier Orthodox usage.

And electric organs and pews have nothing to do with the WRO.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #112 on: April 05, 2011, 02:34:08 PM »

slightly off the topic, but what is the calender deal? I am new and unfamiliar with what causes such a heated controversy. Back to topic, in reply to the other RC's on line, both the tridentine mass and "Novus Ordo" are sort of "cobbled together" and are not as ancient as the Byzantine.
Shhh!  You're not supposed to notice that, let alone point it out!

As to the calendar: in brief a lot has to do with the way the calendar change was enforced (by bullets in some places) and the personages with whom the change is associated (collaborators with the Bolsheviks, too exurberant ecumenists, corrupt clerics etc.), something that has become rancid with time in some places, in others mellowed. In some places (like Antioch) it wasn't a problem at all.

As an aside, I heard Antioch did not change the calendar until 1943, and no one really knows why they changed it, it just happened. Any insights?
No. None at all. It was such a non-issue, it left no record. By then Constantinople and Alexandria had changed, as had Greece, Romania and Albania, and IIRC there was talk of Jerusalem doing so (which never happened permanently).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,950



« Reply #113 on: April 05, 2011, 02:53:12 PM »

Btw, smaller and transparent iconstasis are just a restoration of earlier Orthodox usage.

Why these were restored?
Logged

FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #114 on: April 05, 2011, 03:24:02 PM »


I think there is no chance of convincing the Russian Church, the Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem and Mt Athos of this. Why would we change? There was nothing wrong about using the calendar we have always used. Pseudo-scientific appeals of new calendarism have nothing to do with the Orthodox faith and everything to do with ecumenism and heterodoxy.

Not to get derailed into a calendar debate, but pseudo-science?  There's nothing pseudo about the fact that Old Calendar March 21 is 13 days after the spring equinox it is supposed to mark.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #115 on: April 05, 2011, 04:07:21 PM »

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).
Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians
By the grace of God, all the Churches would switch fully to the revised Julian Calendar.
I think there is no chance of convincing the Russian Church, the Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem and Mt Athos of this.

The New Calendar was one of the issues on the table for the Great of the Russian Church which the Bolshevik Revolution interrupted. Just recently I posted something from the Imperial Russian Academny of Science or Astronomy or some such thing that put forth a proposal on the calendar.

The Church of Serbia was the one which proposed the revision of the Julian calendar, which should be adopted in full.

I confess I have no knowledge of the thoughts of the Catholicate of Georgia on the matter, except that it hasn't changed, yet.

Jerusalem is the only ones who outdo the Phanar in ignoring the fact that the Exalted Ottoman State is no more.  They have stuck their fingers firmly in their ears that they cannot hear the plain words of the angels "why do you seek the Living among the dead?"  Those tomb worshipper are too busy killing the Church, accomplishing what over a millenia of Muslims and Crusaders could not do.

Time does not move much on Mt. Athos, so I am told, so I dare say it woudn't matter much.

Why would we change?
Truth.

There was nothing wrong about using the calendar we have always used.

It had fallen out of compliance with the canon set by the Fathers for Pascha.
Pseudo-scientific appeals of new calendarism have nothing to do with the Orthodox faith and everything to do with ecumenism and heterodoxy.
You mean about the pseudo-sun in the pseudo-sky next to the pseu-moon there?  And those hetetrodox ideas of Copernicus about the earth revolving around the sun?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 04:11:35 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,999


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #116 on: April 05, 2011, 09:48:40 PM »

The modifications to the Tridentine Mass and the Book of Common Prayer to make them the DL Liturgies of SS. Gregory and Tikhon are not "byzantine" modifications, they (explicite epiclesis, deletion of references to merits of the saints, etc.) are Orthodox ones.

No, they are Byzantinizations.  If the Roman Mass ever had an explicit Epiclesis of the Eastern type, and there is no definitive proof it did, Pope St Gelasius likely removed it.  It is known that since Pope St. Gregory the Great the Holy Mass has been celebrated without an explicit Epiclesis, Byzantine or otherwise.  St. Nicholas Cabasilas, in the midst of the Hesychast battles, was able to see the venerable Roman Canon as sufficient without one, recognizing the Supplices te rogamus as an implicit Epiclesis; that those invovled with current Western Orthodox liturgics cannot is disturbing
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #117 on: April 05, 2011, 11:20:52 PM »

The modifications to the Tridentine Mass and the Book of Common Prayer to make them the DL Liturgies of SS. Gregory and Tikhon are not "byzantine" modifications, they (explicite epiclesis, deletion of references to merits of the saints, etc.) are Orthodox ones.

No, they are Byzantinizations.  If the Roman Mass ever had an explicit Epiclesis of the Eastern type, and there is no definitive proof it did, Pope St Gelasius likely removed it.  It is known that since Pope St. Gregory the Great the Holy Mass has been celebrated without an explicit Epiclesis, Byzantine or otherwise.  St. Nicholas Cabasilas, in the midst of the Hesychast battles, was able to see the venerable Roman Canon as sufficient without one, recognizing the Supplices te rogamus as an implicit Epiclesis; that those invovled with current Western Orthodox liturgics cannot is disturbing
If St. Nicholas saw the Roman canon as sufficient without one, he would have seen the need of recognizing Supplices te rogamus as one (as indeed, it is the remnants of the fuller one), now would he, Deacon?

Your confusion, of course, is coming from the Vatican:
Quote
The Catholic Church [i.e. Trent] has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.
Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
Alas! This is just another example of error and heresy that crept into Rome that transformed it into the ecclesiatical community that left the communion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as it left the venerable Roman canon
Quote
It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer...Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations....The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.
leaving a deficient canon and an insufficient one were it not for the vestige "Supplices." It was not only the Orthodox in the East who noticed the problem:
Quote
in the West too (since the sixteenth century especially), this question aroused some not very important discussion. The Dominican Ambrose Catharinus (sixteenth century) thought that our Consecration takes place at an Epiklesis that precedes the recital of Christ's words. This Epiklesis he thinks to be the prayer "Quam oblationem." A few others (including Renaudot) more or less shared his opinion. Against these Hoppe (op. cit. infra) showed that in any case the Epiklesis always follows the words of Institution and that our "Quam Oblationem" cannot be considered one at all. He and others suggest a mitigated theory, according to which the Invocation (in our case the "Supplice te rogamus") belongs not to the essence of the sacrament, but in some way to its (accidental) integrity. John of Torquemada at the Council of Florence (Hardouin IX, 976), Francisco Suárez (De Sacram., disp. lviii, 3), Bellarmine (De Euch., iv, 14), Lugo (De Euch., disp. xi, 1) explain that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is made rather that He may sanctify our reception of the Holy Eucharist. This is a theoretical explanation sought out to account for the fact of the Epiklesis, without giving up our insistence on the words of Institution as alone consecrating. Historically and according to the text of the old invocations they must rather be looked upon as dramatically postponed expressions of what happens at one moment.
Most dramatically and to the point, the Scottish church after the reformation saw the deficiency and wrote an explicite epiclesis into their liturgy, and when the newly formed Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States received ordination from Scotland (as the English bishops were prevented by law), Scotland gave it on the condition that PECUSA retain the epiclesis, which later became a source of pride to the delegation to St. Philaret of Moscow. That epiclesis of the rite of St. Tikhon would suffice for the rite of St. Gregory, were it not for the insistence of Ultramontanism that the Vatican's rites are perfect the way she dictates them.  The insertion of the epiclesis familiar to most Eastern Orthodox serves a necessary pastoral need, both to legitimize the WRO to any EO who would question it, and to signal to the WRO that they have left the heresy of the West for its venerable Orthodox Tradition.  Those who are invovled with current Western Orthodox liturgics know their business, unshaken Orthodox witness:
Quote
On the other hand Orthodox theologians all consider the Epiklesis as being at least an essential part of the Consecration. In this question they have two schools. Some, Peter Mogilas, for instance, consider the Epiklesis alone as consecrating (Kimmel, Monumenta fidei eccl. orient., Jena, 1850, I, 180), so that presumably the words of Institution might be left out without affecting the validity of the sacrament. But the greater number, and now apparently all, require the words of Institution too. They must be said, not merely historically, but as the first part of the essential form; they sow as it were the seed that comes forth and is perfected by the Epiklesis. Both elements, then, are essential. This is the theory defended by their theologians at the Council of Florence (1439). A deputation of Latins and Greeks was appointed then to discuss the question. The Greeks maintained that both forms are necessary, that Transubstantiation does not take place till the second one (the Epiklesis) is pronounced, and that the Latin "Supplices te rogamus" is a true Epiklesis having the same effect as theirs. On the other hand the Dominican John of Torquemada defended the Western position that the words of Institution alone and at once consecrate (Hardouin IX, 977 sqq.). The decree of the council eventually defined this "quod illa verba divina Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent," ibid.; see also the decree for the Armenians: "forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris" in Denzinger, 10th ed., no. 698-old no. 593). Cardinal Bessarion afterwards wrote a book "De Sacramento Eucharistiæ et quibus verbis Christi corpus conficitur, 1462, in P.G., CLXI, 494-525), to whom Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus answered in a treatise with a long title: "That not only by the sound of the Lord's words are the divine gifts sanctified, but (in addition) by the prayer after these and by the consecration of the priest in the strength of the Holy Ghost."

The official Euchologion of the Orthodox Church has a note after the words of Institution to explain that: "Since the demonstrative pronouns: This is my body, and again: This is my blood, do not refer to the Offerings that are present, but to those which Jesus, taking in His hands and blessing, gave to His Disciples; therefore those words of the Lord are repeated as a narrative [diegematikos], and consequently it is superfluous to show the Offerings (by an elevation) and indeed contrary to the right mind of the Eastern Church of Christ" (ed. Venice, 1898, p. 63). This would seem to imply that Christ's words have no part in the form of the sacrament. On the other hand Dositheus in the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) apparently requires both words of Institution and Epiklesis: "It [the Holy Eucharist] is instituted by the essential word [remati uparktiko, i.e. Christ's word] and sanctified by the invocation of the Holy Ghost" (Conf. Dosithei, in Kimmel, op. cit., I, 451), and this seems to be the common theory among the Orthodox in our time.
Why the modern WRO liturgists, now opertating in full safety, should abandon the position held by the Orthodox bishops being starved into submission at Florence, the Orthodox Met. Mogilas restoring a destroyed Church under the heel of the Polish king acting as the Vatican's agent, etc. i.e. when the Orthodox were being rendered powerless but yet holding tight to the Orthodox position-why the WRO liturgists working in freedom should abandon that position I will leave to you to explain.

I know that doesn't comport with your Byzantinization, but we don't do things the way the Vatican does. That is why we are Orthodox, and it is not, and why the WRO is not "reverse-uniatism" (if there is a more PC term, let me know: I've never heard the accusation of "reverse-eastern ritism" for instance).  The Orthodox confess what we believe and believe what we confess: you won't see any WRO parish were someone has gone through all the service books and wrote in "and the Son" Cheesy
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 11:29:14 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #118 on: April 06, 2011, 04:43:02 PM »

In the WR, do they use leavened bread as in the Byzantine, or unleavened bread for Communion?
Is there benediction of the Blessed Sacrament practiced as well?  Are statues permitted and devotions such as the Sacred Heart encouraged?

I have heard that the WR extends only to liturgy and that the theology is all Easter, but how far can a WR go in preserving Western spirituality?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #119 on: April 06, 2011, 04:47:43 PM »

There are statues and leavened bread. IDK about the rest.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #120 on: April 06, 2011, 04:54:35 PM »

In the WR, do they use leavened bread as in the Byzantine, or unleavened bread for Communion?

Leavened.

Is there benediction of the Blessed Sacrament practiced as well?

In some communities - yes.

Are statues permitted. . .

In the ROCOR - no. In the AWRV - yes, but they are not widespread and there aren't many of them.

. . .devotions such as the Sacred Heart encouraged?

Only by some in the AWRV.

I have heard that the WR extends only to liturgy and that the theology is all Easter, but how far can a WR go in preserving Western spirituality?

If anything post-Schism is kept, it must not contradict the Orthodox faith.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #121 on: April 06, 2011, 04:57:21 PM »

Do the WR parishes of ROCOR use the Julian or revised calendar?  What about the Pascal reckoning?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #122 on: April 06, 2011, 04:59:10 PM »

ROCOR Parishes follow Orthodox paschalion and Julian calendar.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,999


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #123 on: April 06, 2011, 10:39:47 PM »

If St. Nicholas saw the Roman canon as sufficient without one, he would not have seen the need of recognizing Supplices te rogamus as one (as indeed, it is the remnants of the fuller one), now would he, Deacon?

I added the "not" as I think that is what you meant to say. 

I did not say he saw it as sufficient without one (meaning any) I said without an explicit descending Epiclesis of the Byzantine type.  Supplices te rogamus is an implicit ascending Epiclesis.  Quam oblationem is an implicit descending Epiclesis.

And again you side step the point.  The Orthodox Popes of Old Rome from St Gregory Dialogos to St. Zachary celebrated the Holy Roman Mass without a Byzantine Epiclesis.  If it was good enough for these Orthodox Fathers it should be good enough for the modern Western Orthodox.  If a more explicit Epiclesis is so necessary there are Western ones to choose from in Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #124 on: April 07, 2011, 12:00:04 AM »

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing?  This baffles me, utterly.

Um, because they disagree with Roman doctrine.

Things like Original Sin, the Papacy, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, the Filioque, and an intolerance for Baklava (the greatest heresy of them all!!)
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #125 on: April 07, 2011, 02:04:18 AM »

If St. Nicholas saw the Roman canon as sufficient without one, he would not have seen the need of recognizing Supplices te rogamus as one (as indeed, it is the remnants of the fuller one), now would he, Deacon?

I added the "not" as I think that is what you meant to say.
Ah, yes. Thank you, Deacon.

I did not say he saw it as sufficient without one (meaning any) I said without an explicit descending Epiclesis of the Byzantine type.  Supplices te rogamus is an implicit ascending Epiclesis.  Quam oblationem is an implicit descending Epiclesis.
'We aren't scholastics, so we don't analyze to death validity, licity, form, matter etc.  Either it suffices, or it doesn't.  All the Fathers said it did, but then they weren't dealing with the arrogance of such statements "The Catholic Church [i.e. Trent] has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York." That changes things somewhat.

And again you side step the point.  The Orthodox Popes of Old Rome from St Gregory Dialogos to St. Zachary celebrated the Holy Roman Mass without a Byzantine Epiclesis.
The Ecumenical Patriarchs of New Rome do not have a Byzantine Epiclesis.  They have a Constantinopolitan one.

The Roman Canon didn't need a Constantinopolitan Epiclesis, a Roman one would suffice.

Quote
Supplices te rogamus

This prayer is commonly believed to be the remnant of the Roman Epiklesis (Duchesne joins the preceding "Supra quæ" to it as making up the Invocation, "Origines", 173). It seems certain that our liturgy, like all the others, once had an Epiklesis, and this would be its natural place. Even as late as the time of Pope Gelasius I (492-96) there seems to have still been one. He writes: "How shall the Heavenly Spirit, when He is invoked to consecrate the divine mystery, come, if the priest and he who prays Him to come is guilty of bad actions?" (Ep., vii; Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont., I, 486: "si sacerdos, et qui eum adesse deprecatur". By striking out the "et" we have a much plainer sentence: "If the priest who prays Him to come".) Watterich (Konsekrationsmoment, 166), and Drews (Entstehungsgesch., 28) think that several of the Secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary (which does not contain the Canon) are really Epikleses, For instance: "Send, we pray Thee O Lord, thy Holy Spirit, who shall make these our present gifts into thy Sacrament for us", etc. (ed. Feltoe, p. 74; XXX Mass for July). The chief reason for considering our prayer "Supplices te rogamus" as the fragment of an Epiklesis is its place in the Canon, which corresponds exactly to that of the Epiklesis (following the Anamnesis) in the Syrian Rite (Brightman, 54). But its form is hardly that of an Epiklesis. The first words of the preceding prayer, "Supra quæ propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris", suggest the beginning of the Alexandrine Epiklesis: "Look down upon us and upon this bread and this wine" (Brightman, 134), and the last part (Sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem) have perhaps a vague resemblance; but certainly the chief thing, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is wanting. Moreover there is a prayer in the Alexandrine Liturgy which corresponds singularly to these two prayers ("Supra quæ" and "Supplices"): "the Sacrifices . . . of them that offer honour and glory to thy holy name receive upon thy reasonable altar in heaven . . . through the ministry of thy holy angels and archangels; like as Thou didst accept the gifts of righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our father Abraham", etc. (Brightman, I, 170, 171; the Greek form, 129). And this is not an Epiklesis but an Offertory prayer, coming in the middle of the Intercession that with them fills up what we should call the Preface. On the other hand the end of the "Supplices te rogamus" (from "ut quotquot") corresponds very closely to the end of both Eastern Epikleses. Antioch has here: "that it may become to all who partake of it" (quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione) "for a forgiveness of sins and for life everlasting" etc. (Brightman, 54); and at Alexandria the form is: "that it may become to all of us who partake of it (a source of) Faith", etc. (ib., 134). It seems, then, that this prayer in our Canon is a combination of the second part of an Invocation (with the essential clause left out) and an old Offertory prayer. It has been suggested that the angel mentioned here is the Holy Ghost — an attempt to bring it more into line with the proper form of an Invocation. There is however no foundation for this assertion. We have seen that the Alexandrine form has the plural "thy holy angels"; so has the Latin form in "De Sacramentis"; "per manus angelorum tuorum" (IV, v). The reference is simply to an angel or to angels who assist at the throne of God and carry our prayers to Him (Tobit 12:12, etc.). We have already seen that the order and arrangement of our Canon presents difficulties; this is a further case in point. As for the vanished Invocation itself, it will probably always remain a mystery what has become of it. Watterich (op. cit., p. 142) thinks that it was Gelasius himself who removed it from this place and put it before the words of Institution. And indeed the prayer "Quam oblationem" has a curious suggestion of an Invocation in its terms. On the other hand an Epiklesis before the words of Institution would be an anomaly unparalleled in any rite in the world. To come back to the rubrics, the celebrant has resumed the normal attitude of standing with uplifted hands after the "Unde et memores", except that now the forefingers and thumbs remain joined; at the "Supplices te rogamus" he bows deeply over the altar — a ceremony obviously in accordance with the nature of its first words — resting his joined hands on it; and he stays so to the words" ex hac altaris participatione" at which he kisses the altar, rises, joins his hands, and makes the sign of the cross over the Host at "Corpus", over the chalice at "Sanguinem", and on himself at "omni benedictione" (while he crosses himself, the left hand is, as always in this case, laid on the breast). He joins his hands for "Per eumdem", etc., and lifts them up for the next prayer. The next two prayers complete the Intercession, of which we have the greater part before the Consecration.
Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

If it was good enough for these Orthodox Fathers it should be good enough for the modern Western Orthodox.

Alas! The defiance to Orthodox praxis and Faith by the purported successors to these Orthodox Fathers has chnaged the goal posts. Much like the changing of the Doxology:
Quote
In general this word means a short verse praising God and beginning, as a rule, with the Greek word Doxa. The custom of ending a rite or a hymn with such a formula comes from the Synagogue (cf. the Prayer of Manasses: tibi est gloria in sæcula sæculorum. Amen). St. Paul uses doxologies constantly (Romans 11:36; Galatians 1:5; Ephesians 3:21; etc.). The earliest examples are addressed to God the Father alone, or to Him through (dia) the Son (Romans 16:27; Jude 25; I Clement 41; Mart. Polyc., xx; etc.) and in (en) or with (syn, meta) the Holy Ghost (Mart. Polyc., xiv, xxii, etc.). The form of baptism (Matthew 28:19) had set an example of naming the three Persons in parallel order. Especially in the fourth century, as a protest against Arian subordination (since heretics appealed to these prepositions; cf. St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 2-5), the custom of using the form: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost", became universal among Catholics.
Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05150a.htm

If a more explicit Epiclesis is so necessary there are Western ones to choose from in Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites.
Or the one the Scotts created for their use of the Roman rite.  They wouldn't serve the same purpose, at present.  Once the WRO is fully integrated into the Catholic communion of all the Orthodox Churches, it might be dropped. Then, or before then, I would like to see the restoration/editing of Supplices Te Rogamus and Oblationem to conform in full to Orthodox liturgics.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 02:13:01 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #126 on: April 07, 2011, 03:20:35 AM »

If a more explicit Epiclesis is so necessary there are Western ones to choose from in Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites.

This is what was done in most of the ROCOR-WR Liturgies - an epiclesis taken from the Gothic Missal.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #127 on: April 07, 2011, 05:02:52 AM »

Um, because they disagree with Roman doctrine.

Things like Original Sin, the Papacy. . .

We Orthodox have no objections to these as such but to the wrong interpretations of these.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 05:03:35 AM by Michał » Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #128 on: April 07, 2011, 10:14:18 AM »

Wonderful! Beautiful picture as well. I look forward to seeing pictures from this Pontifical Mass. I look forward to the day that the WR receives its own permanent episcopate, it will be a great step forward!
Re: The Forthcoming All-Western-Rite AWRV-ROCOR Forum

I believe the site for this year's conference (Oct 4-7, 2011) has already been
chosen: the Mount Albernia Retreat Center in Wappinger Falls, NY, a bit north of
NYC - which is a good travel hub. See Fr. Aidan's Oremus blog entry for April 4,
2011

http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/


Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: April 07, 2011, 11:21:11 AM »


I look forward to the day that the WR receives its own permanent episcopate, it will be a great step forward!

My understanding is that the bishops will not create specifically Western Rite bishops since it is not right to divide the faithful within a territory either by race or rite. Presumably if the Isle of Man were solidly Western Rite with no admixture of Byzantines a case could be made for appointing a Western Rite bishop for the island.


Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,999


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #130 on: April 07, 2011, 09:55:57 PM »

My understanding is that the bishops will not create specifically Western Rite bishops since it is not right to divide the faithful within a territory either by race or rite. Presumably if the Isle of Man were solidly Western Rite with no admixture of Byzantines a case could be made for appointing a Western Rite bishop for the island.

Not the strongest arguement since Russian Orthodox faithful are still divided between between ROCOR dioceses and MP dioceses in America and elsewhere and they are the same race and rite.  The Western Rite can't get a vicar bishop? The Old Rite had one.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: April 07, 2011, 10:10:30 PM »

My understanding is that the bishops will not create specifically Western Rite bishops since it is not right to divide the faithful within a territory either by race or rite. Presumably if the Isle of Man were solidly Western Rite with no admixture of Byzantines a case could be made for appointing a Western Rite bishop for the island.

Not the strongest arguement since Russian Orthodox faithful are still divided between between ROCOR dioceses and MP dioceses in America and elsewhere and they are the same race and rite.  The Western Rite can't get a vicar bishop? The Old Rite had one.

Yes, there is some chaos in the Diaspora but why spread it?

I take your point about the Old Believers Diocese though.

At the moment the Western Rite of ROCA does have a Vicar Bishop -Bishop Jerome of Manhattan.

The entire Western Rite world of ROCA (USA, Australia and Britain) is outside the diocesan system and every institution is constituted as a "stavropegial" institution directly under Metropolitan Hilarion.   This was something he enacted to protect ROCA's Western Rite since there is not a great amount of favour for it among the synod of bishops and some would refuse to have Western Rite in their dioceses.  So its existence remains precarious and it would remain to be seen how it would fare if a new Metropolitan were elected who was not sympathetic to Western Rite.

The preponderance of bishops against Western Rite also helps explain why the Old Believers have a diocese but the WRers do not (apart from the reason of their very small numbers.)
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #132 on: April 08, 2011, 06:00:17 AM »

. . . the Old Believers have a diocese . . .

They do?
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #133 on: April 08, 2011, 06:14:03 AM »

. . . the Old Believers have a diocese . . .

They do?

Yes. Headed by Bishop Daniel of Erie (Thrice Blessed Memory!) until his repose last year.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #134 on: April 08, 2011, 06:23:02 AM »

. . . the Old Believers have a diocese . . .

They do?

Sorry, my error.   Bishop Daniel of Erie who died last year (memory eternal) was a vicar-bishop and not the ruling bishop of a diocese.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #135 on: April 08, 2011, 06:29:45 AM »

. . . the Old Believers have a diocese . . .

They do?

Sorry, my error.   Bishop Daniel of Erie who died last year (memory eternal) was a vicar-bishop and not the ruling bishop of a diocese.

That's what I thought. It would be strange to have a diocese consisting of one parish. Wink
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #136 on: April 08, 2011, 08:26:42 AM »

My understanding is that the bishops will not create specifically Western Rite bishops since it is not right to divide the faithful within a territory either by race or rite. Presumably if the Isle of Man were solidly Western Rite with no admixture of Byzantines a case could be made for appointing a Western Rite bishop for the island.

Not the strongest arguement since Russian Orthodox faithful are still divided between between ROCOR dioceses and MP dioceses in America and elsewhere and they are the same race and rite.  The Western Rite can't get a vicar bishop? The Old Rite had one.

Yes, there is some chaos in the Diaspora but why spread it?

I take your point about the Old Believers Diocese though.

At the moment the Western Rite of ROCA does have a Vicar Bishop -Bishop Jerome of Manhattan.

The entire Western Rite world of ROCA (USA, Australia and Britain) is outside the diocesan system and every institution is constituted as a "stavropegial" institution directly under Metropolitan Hilarion.   This was something he enacted to protect ROCA's Western Rite since there is not a great amount of favour for it among the synod of bishops and some would refuse to have Western Rite in their dioceses.  So its existence remains precarious and it would remain to be seen how it would fare if a new Metropolitan were elected who was not sympathetic to Western Rite.

The preponderance of bishops against Western Rite also helps explain why the Old Believers have a diocese but the WRers do not (apart from the reason of their very small numbers.)
Is it your understanding that the majority of ROCOR bishops and many clergy are against the WR Father?
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #137 on: April 08, 2011, 10:34:04 AM »

What rite did the apostles use? When did any formalized liturgy become fixed and unchanginG in use? Did any of the ecumenical councils codify what was the acceptable content of the liturgy? My point is that in my view as a RC, the strength and validity of the OC is that it adheres to the first councils and the theology doesn't evolve so error doesn't creep in. The essentials can't change
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #138 on: April 08, 2011, 03:27:24 PM »

What rite did the apostles use?

Who knows?

Quote
When did any formalized liturgy become fixed and unchanginG in use?

St. James Liturgy is the oldest currently used EO DL. I have no idea when did it originate. Second, third century?

Quote
Did any of the ecumenical councils codify what was the acceptable content of the liturgy?

No, not really.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #139 on: May 30, 2011, 03:58:14 PM »

http://christminster.org/2011/05/joyous-weekend-at-christminster/

Relation and pictures.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #140 on: May 30, 2011, 10:13:56 PM »

Wonderful! Thanks for sharing. I look forward to their video upload of the Liturgy. Smiley

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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #141 on: May 31, 2011, 04:52:29 PM »



Well doesn't he just look snazzy in his Latin vestments.  Grin
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,800


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 31, 2011, 05:15:23 PM »


Well doesn't he just look snazzy in his Latin vestments.  Grin

Maybe its just me, but they really don't look all that comfortable. I wish them well and I don't doubt their sincerity, I guess I really don't need to have an opinion on this.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #143 on: May 31, 2011, 05:41:02 PM »

Christus resurrexit!


Well doesn't he just look snazzy in his Latin vestments.  Grin
Yes, his grace does.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #144 on: May 31, 2011, 05:42:35 PM »

Christus resurrexit!


Well doesn't he just look snazzy in his Latin vestments.  Grin
Yes, his grace does.
Vere resurrexit!

I'm curious, why isn't His Grace wearing a pallium?

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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #145 on: May 31, 2011, 06:34:22 PM »

He is a Vicar Bishop. AFAIK in Latin Tradition it shows the right to ordain Bishops and he has none.

Just a guess.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 06:34:39 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #146 on: May 31, 2011, 06:38:52 PM »

He is a Vicar Bishop. AFAIK in Latin Tradition it shows the right to ordain Bishops and he has none.

Just a guess.
Ah, I forgot. He is the same as Bp. George (Schaeffer) of Mayfield.

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
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 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 0.547 seconds with 174 queries.