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).
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%B6rnyelsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Sanctae_Birgittaehttp://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?
Perhaps their overlords in the Phanar won't allow evangelizing all those Lutherans and Scandinavians
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:
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:
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
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:
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?