OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 04:28:47 AM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Western Rite Visit  (Read 2117 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2013, 11:26:31 AM »

Don't be shocked if the WR stops existing within a few years or decades. Would that be a deal breaker for you?
Me neither. Im Orthodox. Unlike the "U-word", I share the same tradition (and Tradition) as my ER brethren, the same canon, the same bishops, the same EXACT faith. If tomorrow, the WR was eliminated, it wouldn't change me in the least. I'd be sad, because the WR is an actual attempt to renew the history and tradition of the Orthodox pre-schism west. I think that we'd lose a wonderful resource to evangelize the west, but I'd simply become just like every other Orthodox Christian and practice the only rite left available to me.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 192



« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2013, 05:22:45 PM »

Quote
You don't necessarily need WR bishops if existing bishops learn how to serve, and you probably don't need a diocese
The only issue that I agree with you on. We should not have specifically WR bishops. That makes us no different than the "U word", which we are not, nor were supposed to be.

PP

I don't see a need for them, but what would be inappropriate about a Western Rite Orthodox bishop? In a hundred years? I can see why it wouldn't be good to do in say, Rome. But why not other places?
Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,206



« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2013, 05:33:21 PM »

Quote
You don't necessarily need WR bishops if existing bishops learn how to serve, and you probably don't need a diocese
The only issue that I agree with you on. We should not have specifically WR bishops. That makes us no different than the "U word", which we are not, nor were supposed to be.

PP

I don't see a need for them, but what would be inappropriate about a Western Rite Orthodox bishop? In a hundred years? I can see why it wouldn't be good to do in say, Rome. But why not other places?

I agree. There is nothing wrong with a Western Rite Bishop. The Church should be flexible on other Rites and accommodate them.
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,464


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #48 on: October 08, 2013, 06:02:49 PM »

Quote
You don't necessarily need WR bishops if existing bishops learn how to serve, and you probably don't need a diocese
The only issue that I agree with you on. We should not have specifically WR bishops. That makes us no different than the "U word", which we are not, nor were supposed to be.

PP

I don't see a need for them, but what would be inappropriate about a Western Rite Orthodox bishop? In a hundred years? I can see why it wouldn't be good to do in say, Rome. But why not other places?

I agree. There is nothing wrong with a Western Rite Bishop. The Church should be flexible on other Rites and accommodate them.
The western rite bishop should be the same bishop as ER parishes. one city, one bishop(i know we violate this, but we shouldnt do it more)
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
alexpetros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 143


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2013, 03:52:08 AM »

A lot of my Catholic friends like to say to me, "Alex, if there was an Eastern Catholic parish near you, then you would be fine. You could get your love of East and West there and still remain Catholic."

The funny thing is, I understand and know to be true the Orthodox Church is the True Faith. My angst is not having an eastern Rite in communion with Rome, but having a western Rite in communion with the One True Church.

I am a westerner, born and raised. I love the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, but I was raised on the Roman Missal. That was the faith that shaped me into who I am. If there is a chance that as Orthodox I can still be in union with the One True Church and maintain the western home of the Liturgy of St Gregory, then I shall take it. However, if the Western Rite becomes obsolete, then I will be saddened but remain a Orthodox Christian none the less. If the bishops decided to suspend indefinitely the Liturgy of St Gregory, then I should acknowledge greater understanding of the Church than I have.

Do I wish my OCA mission parish would start the Liturgy of St Gregory? Yes. Am I going to go out of my way to find a parish that does? No.

On a side note, could the ancient western Celtic Rite come back? Tongue
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2013, 09:13:01 AM »

Quote
You don't necessarily need WR bishops if existing bishops learn how to serve, and you probably don't need a diocese
The only issue that I agree with you on. We should not have specifically WR bishops. That makes us no different than the "U word", which we are not, nor were supposed to be.

PP

I don't see a need for them, but what would be inappropriate about a Western Rite Orthodox bishop? In a hundred years? I can see why it wouldn't be good to do in say, Rome. But why not other places?
Because a Bishop is a Bishop is a Bishop. The who thing about there being a separate bishop for a rite is a Roman innovation. It is also a main reason why the WR should not considered reverse-uniatism.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #51 on: October 09, 2013, 09:23:19 AM »

Quote
You don't necessarily need WR bishops if existing bishops learn how to serve, and you probably don't need a diocese
The only issue that I agree with you on. We should not have specifically WR bishops. That makes us no different than the "U word", which we are not, nor were supposed to be.

PP

I don't see a need for them, but what would be inappropriate about a Western Rite Orthodox bishop? In a hundred years? I can see why it wouldn't be good to do in say, Rome. But why not other places?
Because a Bishop is a Bishop is a Bishop. The who thing about there being a separate bishop for a rite is a Roman innovation. It is also a main reason why the WR should not considered reverse-uniatism.

PP

So would it be fine if WR Bishop simply refers to an Orthodox Bishop whose rite is WR, but still has jursidiction is solely based on Geography? Without ritual considerations?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 09, 2013, 09:24:31 AM »

Quote
You don't necessarily need WR bishops if existing bishops learn how to serve, and you probably don't need a diocese
The only issue that I agree with you on. We should not have specifically WR bishops. That makes us no different than the "U word", which we are not, nor were supposed to be.

PP

I don't see a need for them, but what would be inappropriate about a Western Rite Orthodox bishop? In a hundred years? I can see why it wouldn't be good to do in say, Rome. But why not other places?
Because a Bishop is a Bishop is a Bishop. The who thing about there being a separate bishop for a rite is a Roman innovation. It is also a main reason why the WR should not considered reverse-uniatism.

PP

So would it be fine if WR Bishop simply refers to an Orthodox Bishop whose rite is WR, but still has jursidiction is solely based on Geography? Without ritual considerations?

That would be canonical.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 09, 2013, 09:26:57 AM »

Quote
You don't necessarily need WR bishops if existing bishops learn how to serve, and you probably don't need a diocese
The only issue that I agree with you on. We should not have specifically WR bishops. That makes us no different than the "U word", which we are not, nor were supposed to be.

PP

I don't see a need for them, but what would be inappropriate about a Western Rite Orthodox bishop? In a hundred years? I can see why it wouldn't be good to do in say, Rome. But why not other places?
Because a Bishop is a Bishop is a Bishop. The who thing about there being a separate bishop for a rite is a Roman innovation. It is also a main reason why the WR should not considered reverse-uniatism.

PP

So would it be fine if WR Bishop simply refers to an Orthodox Bishop whose rite is WR, but still has jursidiction is solely based on Geography? Without ritual considerations?
I think all Bishops should be allowed to perform a WR liturgy or an ER. That way, none of this becomes an issue....which is basically what Michal said.

Then again, I also believe that there should be 1 Bishop in a city regardless of jurisdiction.....

In other news, it bothers me when our Bishop shows up and cant participate in the liturgy with us.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #54 on: October 09, 2013, 05:16:33 PM »

Don't be shocked if the WR stops existing within a few years or decades. Would that be a deal breaker for you?
Me neither. Im Orthodox. Unlike the "U-word", I share the same tradition (and Tradition) as my ER brethren, the same canon, the same bishops, the same EXACT faith. If tomorrow, the WR was eliminated, it wouldn't change me in the least. I'd be sad, because the WR is an actual attempt to renew the history and tradition of the Orthodox pre-schism west. I think that we'd lose a wonderful resource to evangelize the west, but I'd simply become just like every other Orthodox Christian and practice the only rite left available to me.

PP

I agree completely . before I became Orthodox I was RC and determined that if the WR ended, I would also be sad but my theology is EO. if the western liturgy was the only attraction I  would go 5 miles to my old church rather than an 80 mile round trip. a solution for those opposed to WR-don't visit
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 05:28:52 PM by Rdunbar123 » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,722



« Reply #55 on: October 10, 2013, 12:36:09 AM »

Don't be shocked if the WR stops existing within a few years or decades. Would that be a deal breaker for you?

Yes, because WRO is only about smells and bells whereas BRO is about Holy Fathers and Theosis. Same question could be asked from ER inquirers. Yet no one does that.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.07 seconds with 38 queries.