They artifically were stopped because Rome fell away, not because of a doctrinal problem.
But they still ceased, and have not been a living tradition within the Orthodox Church for a millennium. That is a problem for some.
Crude epiklesis? Since the epiklesis was inserted by an ER future patriarch......
Some regard the insertion of a Byzantine epiklesis into a Western liturgy crude and artificial. It's hardly the first time someone has disagreed with an ER patriarch. HAH Bartholomew runs the gauntlet fairly regularly on this board.
Many of the practices go back WAY before the schism.
But some don't, and those are problematic.
Ok, so the WR is fulfilling the Great Commission..I fail to see an issue. Better than the "You're not Greek" attitude exhibited in some parishes.
I don't see what comparing it to unenlightened attitudes in a small number of other parishes proves. The Great Commission needs to be fulfilled, the question is whether the WR is a good means of doing so.
Which had nothing to do with the WR. If Rome ever became Orthodox (and orthodox) again, the WR is what would be used more than likely.
Of course, as it should be. But that's a very different situation, and a very implausible one.
Two things here...first, who cares? Secondly, there is very little interest among those who dont like the WR, and a large amount of interest who do like it.
A large amount of interest from a very small number of people.
Which makes me wonder if there isnt some anti-western stuff going on.
To some extent I'm sure there is, but I think it also has to do with the theological proximity of the EO and OO and a realistic hope for union.
I don't necessarily support this either, but how widespread a problem is this among WR communities?
From what I understand (I'm sure someone will correct me), this is the ROCOR approach, while point 2 is that used by the Antiochians.
Such as? I know of traditions that are not Eastern, but not traditions that are not Orthodox.
Sacred Heart devotion and post-schism saints were what I had in mind.
This is not an easy problem to fix. The "firmer foundations" of Eastern parishes have more to do with the stability that comes with a mix of converts and cradles, a longer continuity and life within the Church, a better support structure, etc. How much does it have to do with the rite, though?
It's not a problem of rite per se, but people coming from a tiny Eastern Rite mission parish will have a much broader and more stable network at their disposal that those in a tiny WR mission will not.
Funny how that thought never occurred to those pesky ethnic groups.
Indeed, but why add to the problem?
Who needs to be interested in the WR for it to be legitimate?
The creation of new dioceses, the ordination of bishops, the setting up of parishes which all need a priest is no small thing. Lack of interest doesn't delegitimise the WR, but it is a perfectly valid objection to its establishment.
Again, these are not necessarily my personal opinions, I'm just attempting to demonstrate a number of legitimate concerns which account for the ambivalence to the WR mentioned by the OP, but which are not the product of rite-snobbery.