Ironically I came to the Orthodox Church in order to preserve the Latin rite, not to avoid it.
"Yet the true cleavage today is not between the 'East' and the 'West.' It is between those who seek in the liturgy the essential food of their Christian life and those for whom it is a matter of "attachment"...And all these tensions...cannot and will not be solved except by an ever deepened interest — not in 'liturgies' per se, not in 'rites,' but in the Orthodox faith these rites reveal and communicate
. Whatever the future of the Western rite, it depends, I am sure, on the thirst and hunger for the fullness of the Orthodox faith and on nothing else
. Dogmatically, ecclesiologically — and I said this some twenty years ago on these very pages — Orthodoxy has no objection to the Western Rite as such. To have such an objection would mean the loss by the Orthodox Church of her claims to universality. The question therefore is not whether a rite is Eastern or Western. Neither Easternism or Westernism are important in themselves. The only question is whether a rite adequately embodies, manifests and communicates the eternal and unchanging Truth
, — is Orthodox in the deepest sense of this word."
- Protpresbyter Alexander Schmemann, St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 4/1980, pp. 266-269. (emphasis added)
There are a number of people who become Orthodox because of various degrees of dislike or disenchantment with the western rite(s).
Probably true, though not a very good reason at all.
it's not just the the theology itself it's the entire complex western churches and liturgical innovations/traditions that become discouraging to them. The refreshing trend some of these people find is that the Orthodox Church has little or no western baggage and problems in it. Therefore to find that what one hoped to "escape from" or at least "avoid" even if this wasnt the main reason that became orthodox, to find it again within the Church, can be uncomfortably disturbing to them.
I sympathize with this, I really do. But the hang-ups of some should never dictate the worship of others, especially
when the very Church they are running to says the worship is fully Orthodox.
You either trust the Church or you don't.
To this extent I can sympathize with them, the western rite of the Orthodox Church is in many ways very ecumenical in the sense that it explores and resolves a number of the original causes and origins the led to the schism of the Roman Catholic Church from it. It is perhaps destined to remain controversial for a certain period of time for that reason. But this is not enough of a reason to abandon it or speak against it. It simply must keep growing and maturing, in time the controversies that exist today will be resolved.
The moral of the story here is this:
If the prayers don't exist in a latin original as a counterpart to the english, they need to be removed.
I cannot agree with this, but even if it were true
, the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon meets this criteria in every way. The Scottish Liturgy upon which it is largely based modeled the liturgical prayers upon primitive sources, although admittedly of a more Eastern character than the ancient Latin. As one scholar put it:
"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764." -The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley
I cannot agree with your conclusion for many
reasons, but one important one was articulated quite nicely by Fr. George Grabbe:
“(T)he West has been separated from Orthodoxy for so many centuries. Life is not static. It is development and growth. This is why it is impossible to return mechanically to forms of Christian life that existed in the West more than a thousand years ago
, when it was still Orthodox. To express Orthodoxy again, the western forms must be enriched by the heritage of the centuries of uninterrupted tradition in the life of the Orthodox Church. Its experience (…) must become your experience and be incorporated into western liturgical forms.”
- Attempts at creating a western orthodox rite
Historical outline, by Jean-François Mayer, Religioscope – May 2002
Living liturgy restored and fulfilled is always better than forced, mechanical attempts at recreating the past according to our own vision. And the unbroken tradition of the Orthodox Church puts it in a unique position to shape the Western Liturgy to conform to the fullness of Orthodoxy, even better than Western Orthodox of the first millennium.
We are Orthodox now
, we were not baptized into the pre-Schism Western Church.
As long as protestant prayers or liturgies exist within the Western rite of the Orthodox Church, they will be used as an excuse to avoid or discourage the use of the various Latin rites within the Orthodox Church.
There are no Protestant prayers, nor liturgies, within the Orthodox Church. Seriously, how could there be
? What do you think the Russian Synod, the theologians on the Western Rite Commission, etc., were doing
when the Western Rites were approved?
I'd really love to know, and on what you are basing these accusations.
I have no love or interest for Thomas Cranmer's innovations or prayers that do not correspond to latin originals.
As has been noted numerous times in this thread, Cranmer's work is neither here nor there. The Scottish tradition was not influenced by him or his theology. If you have particular prayers of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon you find troublesome, let's see them and discuss them.
They happened in an inorganic fashion similar on some level to the various shortcomings of the Novus Ordo of vatican II.
Given your odd pursuit of some kind of historical "purity" in liturgy, I hate to inform you that every
liturgy used within canonical Orthodoxy has been reformed and revised over the centuries. As Fr. John Meyendorff (interestingly enough, an original member of the Western Rite Commission) says:
“Since neither theology nor liturgical piety could remain completely aloof from the issues arising from history, by studying them together we can follow the evolution of the religious mind...liturgy resond(s) creatively to the changes of history. The interplay of continuity and change, unity and diversity, faithfulness to a central prototype and local initiative, is unavoidable in the lex orandi of the Church.” - Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, p. 115
If the liturgy commonly referred to as the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" happened to disappear one day I would not notice or mind.
Translated: "I don't care one bit about the Christian souls expressing prayer and worship through this venerable rite, I only care about my own idea of liturgical purity and ensuring my vision of the Western Rite wins the day."
It's interesting that this is the most widely-used Western Rite liturgy within canonical Orthodoxy, and that the parishes blessed to use it are of remarkable stability and Orthodox zeal.
I think that the adaptation of any directly protestant liturgies or prayers into the Orthodox Church is a mistake and I will have no part in participating in them on a regular basis.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. 5:21
“We must hate and detest the misbeliefs and unlawful customs of the Latins and others who are Heterodox; but if they have anything sound and confirmed by the Canons of the Holy Synods, this we must not hate.” - St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, p. 26
“We must accept the expressions of their feelings and their life and not say, 'This is not Orthodox!' What is not Orthodox? Not Orthodox is to be impure, to be dishonest, to be against the will of God, this is unorthodox.” Abp. Anastasios of Albania, Understanding Orthodoxy: How to distinguish true mission from proselytism.
"[T]hroughout history the Orthodox Church was willing under certain circumstances to recognize the real activity of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the rites and teachings of other ecclesial communities with which it is not in communion...And the other ecclesial communities..can have many good and wonderful things in them that are really of God, and He really does act in them—we see holy people in them; we’ve even canonized and put in our calendar people who were never technically Orthodox." - Fr. Thomas Hopko, November 2, 1996 at the Greek Orthodox Church of the Assumption, Seattle, WA
The "burden of them is intolerable".