quotes from the article:
"One of the more serious though less frequently mentioned problems presented by Western-rite Orthodoxy is that the
Western rite itself is ultimately a canonical problem. It is not a problem of canonical jurisdiction. Rather, the problem is the
lack of standing of the Western rite in Orthodox canon law. In the establishment of a Western rite, the applicability of various
points of canonical legislation was never actually answered to any significant degree and indeed there is ample reason to
think that these questions were never really asked in the first place. At best it seems these canonical questions were considered
only superficially. Where they have been considered at all, most attention has been directed towards the text of the rites and not towards addressing the canonical issues per se. This canonical problem arises because the entire enterprise has been entered into without a thorough understanding of the concept of rite as more than just a liturgy.
(I've said this for years)
(NOTE: In terms of canonical jurisdiction, the question becomes problematic. Some Westem-rite groups, like the Antiochians, would be considered canonical by most Orthodox groups because of their communion with the patriarch of Antioch. The same is the case for the Westem-rite bodies belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which is, as of 2007, now in full communion with the patriarch of Moscow and the entire Russian Orthodox Church.)
Such an approach is unsatisfactory because a rite "must be seen as a Church's theological-liturgical-cultural reality. It is not some theological- liturgical-cultural 'suit of clothes' worn by the one Church in order to create an impression of variety and diversity."3 A rite is therefore the totality of the life of that church within a given theological-liturgical-cultural framework. A rite is more than a eucharistic liturgy: it includes the disciplines surrounding that liturgy, the forms of celebration of the other sacraments, devotional practices, monastic activity, and the theological reflection that grows from the worshiping community, to name a few points. In summation, a rite is the totality of the local church being the Church.
The Western rite does meet some of the criteria for "rite" in the definition above, but the only place where the Western rite seems fully formed is in the area of liturgy, and even then there are disputes about what constitutes the authoritative text
for celebrating the Eucharist. The formation of other aspects of the rite has been very uneven, particularly within the
AWRV. For example, while medievalisms are permitted in the celebration of the rite, especially in the area of devotional practices, monastic orders are theoretically only allowed to exist according to the Rule of Saint Benedict since it antedates the so-called Great schism.' While Metropolitan Anthony's Edict on the Western Rite directly states that "Western rite parishes and clergy are subject to the canons of the Orthodox Church "and while this seems acceptable initially, there are serious problems that arise from such an edict because the canon law of the Orthodox Church envisions only one rite, the Byzantine, making strict adherence to this portion of the edict impossible without modification to the Western rite in ways that are not normally envisioned and that would not conform to the substantive definition of rite.
II. The Canons of Trullo and the Western Rite
If one is not careful, one of Alexander Schmemann's more subtle critiques of the Western rite might go unnoticed. In a response to Andrew Sopko, who laments what he sees as evidence of creeping Byzantinization, Schmemann comments that "[Sopko] deplores, not without some irony, the abandonment by St. Stephen's parish of the daily celebration of the Eucharist during Great Lent, celebration forbidden as everyone knows, not only in the Eastern Rite, but by an Ecumenical Council as Here, Schmemann is referring to the Penthekte Council, better known in the West as the Quinisext Council or the Synod in Trullo. This council was convoked by Justinian II in 691/692 ostensibly to complete the work of Constantinople II (553) and III (681) since these councils did not have any associated disciplinary canons. The council was composed of 21 5 bishops, many of whom had been present at the previous council in 681, but there were no Western bishops invited. Basil of Gortyna claimed to represent the papacy as a legate as he had during Constantinople 111, but it is far from certain whether or not he was so authorized or merely acting on the authority he possessed a decade earlier.'
Though the fathers of the council considered it to be ecumenical, as is evidenced by the very first canon, the West frequently treated the council with open hostility. Bede describes the council as a "reprobate synod and Paul the Deacon dismisses it with the epitaph of erratic.12 Pope Sergius resolutely rejected the council, stating that he would rather die than "consent to erroneous novelties."' While we do not know which canons Sergius was opposed to, Canon 82 aroused particular fury in the Syrian-born pope as he added the chant Agnus Dei to the liturgy and ordered that the mosaic Worship of the Lamb be restored in Saint Peter's Basilica.
If Sergius proved to be a man of intractable loyalties to the Roman form of Christianity, Justinian was equally fiery in his temperament, as contemporary accounts suggest, and was not to have his imperial will thwarted easily. Like his predecessor Constans II had in dealing with Pope Martin, Justinian dispatched the protospatharios in Ravenna to arrest the pope.'5 Unfortunately for Justinian, he would have less success than his grandfather as the citizenry of Ravenna and Rome defended Sergius to the point that Justinian's envoy was left to cower under the pope's bed while Sergius tried to disperse the mob.16 Shortly afterwards, Justinian was exiled, Sergius died in 701, and the matter was moot until Justinian's return to power in 705. At that time, Justinian was more amenable to compromise and requested Pope John VI to inform him which canons were deemed offensive by the Roman Church. When that attempt failed due to the pope's death, the same point was posed to his successor, John VII. The latter simply returned the canons of Trullo without comment. l7 The situation was finally resolved in 705 when Pope Constantine personally visited the emperor in Constantinople and agreed that the council would be accepted as ecumenical but the West would simply ignore the canons it deemed reprehensible."
Aside from Rome, there was little support for accepting the council as ecumenical, much less the canons contrary to Western practice. The sole exception was Spain where the bishops made a formal acceptance of the council at the demand of King Wittiza. However, that council (Toledo XVIII, ca. 703) was omitted from later Spanish canonical collections and was definitively repudiated at a later council in Asturias.' Later, during the iconoclastic period, Pope Hadrian acknowledged the council as ecumenical and used Canon 82 to support his opposition to iconoclasm. Finally, John VIII affirmed that the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (including Trullo) were accepted by the Roman Church provided that they "were not contrary to previous canons or decrees of the holy pontiffs of this see or to good moral."' Subsequently, there has been little comment on the validity or ecumenicity of the Trullan canons, except to reject them outright. Certainly, there are reasons to consider the extent that the council was received as ecumenical in the West, but this question is beyond the scope of the present What is significant for our concern is that even if the canons of Trullo were received as ecumenical (and that is not without significant discussion), they were at the very least selectively enforced where the matter came to legislation contrary to established Roman ecclesiastical tradition - if the canons were ever enforced at all. Certainly, the prohibitions of the council do not exert significant influence on Western liturgy, at least in the sense that absolutely no change to Western liturgical practice resulted from attempts to conform to the canons.
The importance of Trullo cannot be overstated for Orthodoxcanon law....