Confused About the Rites

[africanus]

As a catechumen of the OCA I am totally confused about the "Rites" of both Eastern and Western orthodoxy. Having seen the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum and St. Basil I've not witnessed any other liturgies in the Orthodox churches I've visited. Just how many 'liturgies' are considered "Eastern" or "western"? And do not some Orthodox churches use "western rite"? What is going on with all this 'eastern vs. western rite' pot of gumbo? And speaking of 'liturgies' just how many legitimate or recognized Divine Liturgies are there between the east and west?

[LBK]

There are also the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, held during Wednesdays and Fridays of Great Lent, and the Liturgy of St James, the most ancient of the Orthodox liturgies, though, these days, the least-commonly held. All Orthodox recognize these as "legitimate" liturgies, if such terminology must be used.

The same could not be said for the modern-day (less than a century, and often much less) western rite. You'll find opinions ranging from enthusiastic approval, to "liturgical archeology", to outright refusal of its use within certain Orthodox jurisdictions.

[dzheremi]

While you will very rarely witness it in the Church in which you inquiring, the Liturgy of St. James is the most commonly celebrated liturgy of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which still celebrates it in the Syriac language (plus whatever the native language of the congregation is, of course; generally Arabic, Malayalam, and/or English -- here is a clip in mostly English from the Indian Syriacs in America, for instance, except for the Syriac phrases "barekhmor"/Lord bless and "Showe w zodek"/meet and right).

[Alpo]

The same could not be said for the modern-day (less than a century, and often much less) western rite. You'll find opinions ranging from enthusiastic approval, to "liturgical archeology", to outright refusal of its use within certain Orthodox jurisdictions.

However no one denies validity of WR sacraments. Also, no one denies the idea that WRO are members of the Church.

[mike]

Going back to the OP:

Liturgy of St. Basil is celebrated only around 10 times in a year so it's not suprising you did not see it very often. On the other hand it is celebrated universally.

Liturgies of St.St. John and Basil cover like 99.999999% of liturgical practice so it is really no need to be bothered by the rest. They also have very minor differences

If you are interested in,there are two additional Byzantine Liturgies celebrated from time to time in some places: of St. James and of St. Mark. St. James' is considered to be the least changed rite and it's celebrated mostly of St. James' feast (yesterday) and by the Church of Jerusalem. Liturgy of St. Mark is celebrated sometimes in the Church of Alexandria but I cannot say much about it.

As for Western Rite, Antiochians have two service types: Liturgy of St. Tikhon and Liturgy of St. Gregory the Dialogues. The first one is similar to Anglican and the second - to traditional RC Masses.

ROCOR used to have several other Western Liturgies in use but they seem to stop its WRO.

While you will very rarely witness it in the Church in which you inquiring, the Liturgy of St. James is the most commonly celebrated liturgy of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which still celebrates it in the Syriac language (plus whatever the native language of the congregation is, of course; generally Arabic, Malayalam, and/or English -- here is a clip in mostly English from the Indian Syriacs in America, for instance, except for the Syriac phrases "barekhmor"/Lord bless and "Showe w zodek"/meet and right).

I missed the part he asked about Oriental Orthodoxy.

[africanus]

Michal wrote: "As for Western Rite, Antiochians have two service types: Liturgy of St. Tikhon and Liturgy of St. Gregory the Dialogues. The first one is similar to Anglican and the second - to traditional RC Masses".
Thank you Michal. Is the Liturgy of St. Gregory some 4 hours long? I've heard that it is?

[mike]

Thank you Michal. Is the Liturgy of St. Gregory some 4 hours long? I've heard that it is?

I doubt.

[primuspilus]

WRO Liturgies - Liturgy of St. Tikhon, Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, Sarum Liturgy (from which the Liturgy of St. Tikhon was derived, used somewhere in ROCOR), and Liturgy of St. John the Divine. This last one is more of liturgical archaeology than anything else. However, I do laugh at folks who think the first two are such.

Is the Liturgy of St. Gregory some 4 hours long? I've heard that it is?

It can be, but its not done anywhere IIRC.

PP

[Iconodule]

Thank you Michal. Is the Liturgy of St. Gregory some 4 hours long? I've heard that it is?

I doubt.

The first time I attended Presanctified it took over 3 hours, so I can believe that it could be stretched to 4.

[Iconodule]

As a catechumen of the OCA I am totally confused about the "Rites" of both Eastern and Western orthodoxy. Having seen the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum and St. Basil I've not witnessed any other liturgies in the Orthodox churches I've visited. Just how many 'liturgies' are considered "Eastern" or "western"? And do not some Orthodox churches use "western rite"? What is going on with all this 'eastern vs. western rite' pot of gumbo? And speaking of 'liturgies' just how many legitimate or recognized Divine Liturgies are there between the east and west?

The Western rite is an attempt by some Orthodox (largely converts in the US and Western Europe) to revive the old Western rites of undivided Christendom. It's unlikely that you will come across the Western rite unless you actively seek it out; the vast majority of Orthodox, including in the West, use the Eastern rite. WR is not a major trend in Orthodoxy and likely never will be.

[Alpo]

ROCOR used to have several other Western Liturgies in use but they seem to stop its WRO.

AFAIK there's no Vicariate anymore but the parishes and monasteries still exist.

[ilyazhito]

The Western Rite in ROCOR is now directly under the authority of Metropolitan Hilarion. The parishes still exist, but the structure will probably be absorbed into the existing ROCOR geographical dioceses.

[scamandrius]

As a catechumen of the OCA I am totally confused about the "Rites" of both Eastern and Western orthodoxy. Having seen the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum and St. Basil I've not witnessed any other liturgies in the Orthodox churches I've visited. Just how many 'liturgies' are considered "Eastern" or "western"? And do not some Orthodox churches use "western rite"? What is going on with all this 'eastern vs. western rite' pot of gumbo? And speaking of 'liturgies' just how many legitimate or recognized Divine Liturgies are there between the east and west?

There are dozens of "western rites" which is why it is useless to speak of A western rite.  Some of the more famous and prominent western rites are/were the Gallican Rite, the Sarum Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, the Rite of Pope St. Gregory, etc.   the western rites as used by the Antiochians (I cannot speak for ROCOR) are essentially cut and paste jobs from the English BoC.  Full disclosure:  I'm no fan of western rites in Orthodox churches but suum cuique.

I would direct you to this blog post by a Serbian priest and he lays out a lot of the criticisms about the western rite(s) and its/their implementation and practice.

http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/thoughts-on-western-rite/

[Shanghaiski]

Michal wrote: "As for Western Rite, Antiochians have two service types: Liturgy of St. Tikhon and Liturgy of St. Gregory the Dialogues. The first one is similar to Anglican and the second - to traditional RC Masses".
Thank you Michal. Is the Liturgy of St. Gregory some 4 hours long? I've heard that it is?

No. It's about an hour.

[Sleeper]

In order to nurture an authentic Western Rite within Orthodoxy, those involved had to make a decision: attempt to resurrect older rites via scholarship and historical inquiry, using our best judgment; or, simply resume the living rites of those seeking to become Orthodox yet Western, and enrich them as necessary, either from the Eastern tradition, or from the Western.

ROCOR largely employed the former, Antioch the latter, though both have overlap. There are, perhaps, strengths and weaknesses to both. But the fruit of both approaches have been approved and blessed, time and time again, by competent Orthodox authority.

The liturgical tradition for the Orthodox Western Rite, at least within Antioch, has been firmly established and has been now for generations. It will, Lord willing, continue to blossom under the caring hands of our Orthodox leaders and faithful laypeople.

[alexpetros]

The liturgical tradition for the Orthodox Western Rite, at least within Antioch, has been firmly established and has been now for generations. It will, Lord willing, continue to blossom under the caring hands of our Orthodox leaders and faithful laypeople.

I sure hope so...

[primuspilus]

Some thoughts on the critique that scamandrius posted.

Thus, the concept of a Western rite simply prolongs the East-West myth, beloved of the condemned Anglican branch theory, which heretically declares that the Orthodox Church is merely an ‘Eastern’ Church (and its rites ‘Eastern’ rites and not universal rites) and that the ‘other half of the Church’ is ‘Western’

This is not at all why the concept of a western rite was established. It has nothing to do with a myth of East/West. There was a distinct western tradition in Orthodoxy (look up the phrase "Do what the Romans do") that was lost in the isolation of the west. This is perfectly clear in the fact that there was a ruling monastery on Mt. Athos that was western rite clear into the 15th century.

Is this talk of ‘Western rite’ simply not all Western chauvinism, racism, the usual Western feeling of ‘superiority’ to the rest of humanity?

Well, this introduces a nice circular argument. Is this antagonism to a western rite due to western disdain? Anti-westernism? Hyperhellinism?

The concept of a Western rite suggests heretically that the Universal Orthodox Church is incomplete

Not at all. It is not incomplete. However, the west has been missing something for 1,000 years. Orthodoxy in the western tradition, which was clearly present, but lost due to Roman influence and the sword.

Fourthly, when the term ‘Western rite’ is used, of which Western rite is revival meant? The Roman rite? The Gallican? The Ambrosian? The Mozarabic? Or some later version based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer? The problem is that the ancient rites only survive in an incomplete manuscript form. Can they ever be restored?

One of the only things I agree with. The western Rite, IMHO has been established using as a baseline, a theological low point of western theology. I personally would prefer the actual Sarum Rite of England, or the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great (which is incredibly old, proven to be heavily used in the west, and we have the full text of it).

St Tikhon and St John

The entire section I find completely silly. So basically, because the group that applied left the Church, that nullifies the findings of the Holy Synod and St. Tikhon? Pretty weak there....

The idea that you must be "eastern" to be Orthodox has no basis in fact. Should the Liturgy only be done in Greek? Russian? What about Latin, a western language? What about the Liturgy being in English? Is this also an issue? Is this "too western" or do people just love LARPing a Hellene? Where is the line drawn?

There is a western tradition in Orthodoxy that should be restored. It is no different than if Istanbul fell and called Constantinople again. There would be a restoration of things lost since the Turks took over. In the same token, if Orthodoxy is to re-take the west, the traditions of the west should be restored and used to help evangelize the west.

To be frank, my current Patriarch, his predecessor of blessed memory, the Holy Synod of Antioch, my Metropolitan, and my bishop have all approved it, and that is good enough for me.

The liturgical tradition for the Orthodox Western Rite, at least within Antioch, has been firmly established and has been now for generations. It will, Lord willing, continue to blossom under the caring hands of our Orthodox leaders and faithful laypeople.

Unfortunately, thats not good enough for some folks.

PP

[mike]

Where did you got that quote from?

[primuspilus]

All of them were from the critique on the western rite by a Serbian priest that scamandrius posted. The article is at http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/thoughts-on-western-rite/

PP

[podkarpatska]

All of them were from the critique on the western rite by a Serbian priest that scamandrius posted. The article is at http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/thoughts-on-western-rite/

PP

I'm not WRO and that blog post upset me, so I understand pp's point.

[primuspilus]

All of them were from the critique on the western rite by a Serbian priest that scamandrius posted. The article is at http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/thoughts-on-western-rite/

PP

I'm not WRO and that blog post upset me, so I understand pp's point.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with people being critical of the WR. There are some things that I don't particularly care for. However, if someone is going to critique it, do it from a neutral standpoint, or from one not so obviously hateful.

Thats why I like Fr. Reardon's critique of the WR. He gives good points and bad. Almost all of it I agree with. But even if I didn't, he does it with love and care, and in the correct spirit.

PP

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

All of them were from the critique on the western rite by a Serbian priest that scamandrius posted. The article is at http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/thoughts-on-western-rite/

PP

I'm not WRO and that blog post upset me, so I understand pp's point.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with people being critical of the WR. There are some things that I don't particularly care for. However, if someone is going to critique it, do it from a neutral standpoint, or from one not so obviously hateful.

Thats why I like Fr. Reardon's critique of the WR. He gives good points and bad. Almost all of it I agree with. But even if I didn't, he does it with love and care, and in the correct spirit.

PP

I really like your balanced approach.

[Jules_Grant]

In order to nurture an authentic Western Rite within Orthodoxy, those involved had to make a decision: attempt to resurrect older rites via scholarship and historical inquiry, using our best judgment; or, simply resume the living rites of those seeking to become Orthodox yet Western, and enrich them as necessary, either from the Eastern tradition, or from the Western.

The liturgical tradition for the Orthodox Western Rite, at least within Antioch, has been firmly established and has been now for generations. It will, Lord willing, continue to blossom under the caring hands of our Orthodox leaders and faithful laypeople.

I happen to personally adore Western liturgy, as my previous faith was Anglo-Catholicism with Byzantine theology (which you could say I still am, just I reject papal infalliability and the papal innovations on doctrine now) and a few Methodist views on sanctification and grace, such as previenient grace and perfection in love, if that makes any sense, you can message me for an explaination of that and my full religious history. The Sarum Use, the Gallician Uses, the York Use, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, the Tridentine Roman Rite (and the English and American Missals inspired by it) the 1928 and 1662 Book of Common Prayer, all beautiful liturgies. I love listening to Masses composed by Mozart, Rossini, and Bach, or any of the various classical composers.

However, the current Western Rite isn't Western, it's a very Byzantine Canon with Western features. The Liturgy of Saint Tikhon and the Liturgy of Saint Gregory are not organic, and a fusion of the Tridentine Roman Rite and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer with the Constantinopolitan Rite. It's simply just horrible, really. A true Western Rite is pure and untainted by Eastern liturgics.

I'd like to see a Western Rite that is very Anglo-Catholic in appearance and feel. Beautiful music, use of Western liturgical arts, an authentic liturgy which is centuries old, not a few decades.

[Sleeper]

In order to nurture an authentic Western Rite within Orthodoxy, those involved had to make a decision: attempt to resurrect older rites via scholarship and historical inquiry, using our best judgment; or, simply resume the living rites of those seeking to become Orthodox yet Western, and enrich them as necessary, either from the Eastern tradition, or from the Western.

The liturgical tradition for the Orthodox Western Rite, at least within Antioch, has been firmly established and has been now for generations. It will, Lord willing, continue to blossom under the caring hands of our Orthodox leaders and faithful laypeople.

I happen to personally adore Western liturgy, as my previous faith was Anglo-Catholicism with Byzantine theology (which you could say I still am, just I reject papal infalliability and the papal innovations on doctrine now) and a few Methodist views on sanctification and grace, such as previenient grace and perfection in love, if that makes any sense, you can message me for an explaination of that and my full religious history. The Sarum Use, the Gallician Uses, the York Use, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, the Tridentine Roman Rite (and the English and American Missals inspired by it) the 1928 and 1662 Book of Common Prayer, all beautiful liturgies. I love listening to Masses composed by Mozart, Rossini, and Bach, or any of the various classical composers.

Mozart's Requiem Mass is my favorite piece of music.

However, the current Western Rite isn't Western, it's a very Byzantine Canon with Western features.

The canon may have somewhat of an Eastern quality to it, but that has more to do with the Scottish Non-Jurors and their study of the ancient liturgies, as well as their correspondence with Orthodox Patriarchs, than it does with some kind of forced Byzantinization; something which Met. PHILLIP strongly and vocally opposes.

The Liturgy of Saint Tikhon and the Liturgy of Saint Gregory are not organic, and a fusion of the Tridentine Roman Rite and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer with the Constantinopolitan Rite.

This is partially correct, in that the Mass of St. Tikhon is essentially a "fusion Mass," but it is not with the Constantinopolitan Liturgy, but rather with the Roman Mass itself. And contrary to what you may have read or heard, this was itself an organic process, spanning centuries of liturgical development via the Caroline Divines, Scottish Non-Jurors, Tractarians, the Oxford Movement, etc. It's a fascinating history.

It's simply just horrible, really. A true Western Rite is pure and untainted by Eastern liturgics.

While not "horrible" by any stretch of the imagination, I can somewhat sympathize with the desire to maintain Western purity, free from Byzantinizations. But we are, after all, Orthodox Christians, and in order for the Western Rite to grow within the bosom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, sometimes that entails making concessions to maintain peace and harmony. When the Patriarch of Antioch requested the pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom be added to both of our Western Masses, part of his reason was so that worshipers from an Eastern context would have something familiar and comfortable to pray when they attend our services. I think it's a nice gesture.

I'd like to see a Western Rite that is very Anglo-Catholic in appearance and feel. Beautiful music, use of Western liturgical arts, an authentic liturgy which is centuries old, not a few decades.

The Western Rite, at least within Antioch, draws from the full 2000 year tradition of the West, not specific time periods, whether ancient or recent. We offer God the very best within our heritage, not giving precedence to one thing over another merely because of geography or era. You'll hear Bach settings, you'll see people praying the Rosary, you'll see beautiful Western art along with contemporary icons.

It isn't perfect, but for those of us who love the magnificent Western heritage, it is what God has blessed us with. And we are the better for it.

[Regnare]

Has anyone interested in the Western Rite seen the Rad Trad's blog? Despite the sedevacant-y name, he's actually just a Melkite Catholic with a really broad knowledge of liturgical history. He writes a lot about the difference between the Roman Rite just before Vatican II and the Tridentine and pre-Tridentine Rites, and about their various advantages and disadvantages, and the thing that actually struck me is that a lot of the problems he cites (in a six-part article beginning here http://theradtrad.blogspot.ca/2013/04/reasons-for-reform-of-roman-rite-part-i.html) are identical to common Orthodox complaints about the Western Rite, and the fix would be somewhere between the liturgies of St. Gregory and Sarum.

I'm also confused when people complain about the addition of the Byzantine epiclesis. I go to an Anglican Use Catholic parish, and the addition wouldn't bother me. It seems to flow reasonably well.

[Alpo]

A true Western Rite is pure and untainted by Eastern liturgics.

AFAIK, here.

http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SarumMassLatin2011c.pdf
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SarumMass2011c.pdf

[podkarpatska]

[quote author=Sleeper link=topic=54464.msg1013188#msg1013188 date=13826674
While not "horrible" by any stretch of the imagination, I can somewhat sympathize with the desire to maintain Western purity, free from Byzantinizations. But we are, after all, Orthodox Christians, and in order for the Western Rite to grow within the bosom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, sometimes that entails making concessions to maintain peace and harmony. When the Patriarch of Antioch requested the pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom be added to both of our Western Masses, part of his reason was so that worshipers from an Eastern context would have something familiar and comfortable to pray when they attend our services. I think it's a nice gesture.

As a general rule I try not to comment on WRO threads as I don't have a strong opinion either way.

This quote did catch my eyes however as it resonated with my own jurisdiction's history (as it should with many in the OCA and UOC who came to Orthodoxy via the Unia (now at least 75 or more years ago).

The sentiments echo those of the overwhelming majority of mostly well intentioned Roman Catholics as the Greek Catholics immigrated to new lands. "Concessions to maintain peace and harmony" and "something familiar" to visitors from the "majority" rites were the same buzzwords which sent half of the North American Greek Catholics out of their churches - many to Orthodoxy, others to many disparate places.

I realize the circumstances are different, as well as why there is a WRO and how it came to be is surely not analogous to that of the Unia. But, if any lessons are to be learned from the experiences of those in and now out of the Unia, I would caution against trying too hard to force a Byzantine square peg into a western round hole. It is easy to ignite passions and the results can be unpredictable. Good luck and Godspeed.  

[Jules_Grant]

The canon may have somewhat of an Eastern quality to it, but that has more to do with the Scottish Non-Jurors and their study of the ancient liturgies, as well as their correspondence with Orthodox Patriarchs, than it does with some kind of forced Byzantinization; something which Met. PHILLIP strongly and vocally opposes.

This is partially correct, in that the Mass of St. Tikhon is essentially a "fusion Mass," but it is not with the Constantinopolitan Liturgy, but rather with the Roman Mass itself. And contrary to what you may have read or heard, this was itself an organic process, spanning centuries of liturgical development via the Caroline Divines, Scottish Non-Jurors, Tractarians, the Oxford Movement, etc. It's a fascinating history.

While not "horrible" by any stretch of the imagination, I can somewhat sympathize with the desire to maintain Western purity, free from Byzantinizations. But we are, after all, Orthodox Christians, and in order for the Western Rite to grow within the bosom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, sometimes that entails making concessions to maintain peace and harmony. When the Patriarch of Antioch requested the pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom be added to both of our Western Masses, part of his reason was so that worshipers from an Eastern context would have something familiar and comfortable to pray when they attend our services. I think it's a nice gesture.

The Western Rite, at least within Antioch, draws from the full 2000 year tradition of the West, not specific time periods, whether ancient or recent. We offer God the very best within our heritage, not giving precedence to one thing over another merely because of geography or era. You'll hear Bach settings, you'll see people praying the Rosary, you'll see beautiful Western art along with contemporary icons.

I suppose I was being a tad bit melodramatic. I still stand firmly behind liturgical purism, however. I oppose use of the Liturgy of Saint Gregory and the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon because they aren't from Western heritage. They are created from use of the Byzantine Rite, two Books of Common Prayer, and the Tridentine Roman Rite. The Orthodox Catholic Church, having great reverence to tradition should use a traditional Western rite, like the Tridentine Roman Rite, the Sarum Use or the York Use.

Similar to what another individual has said in this thread, there is a great danger in making concessions to those who aren't familiar with the rite. We have service leaflets for that purpose and prayer books. Certainly if we wanted to make concessions, we'd start with making the Divine Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom more understandible to the Catholics and Protestants who visit Orthodox Catholic churches. I don't see anyone suggesting that.

Liturgical diffusion with other rites is inevitable, but let it be natural. As far as I know, the Divine Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom hasn't changed much since it was written. It seems unnatural for two western liturgies to be given an epiclesis and Eucharistic prayers from an entirely different liturgical tradition. Of course, modifications, such as those to the Nicene Creed and some theological language is necessary. There are times when modification for doctrine is necessary, but it must look and seem natural. If an invocation of the Holy Ghost in the epiclesis was so necessary, then the language saying brought by the hands of thy holy Angel to thine altar on high should be changed to brought by the hands of thy Holy Spirit to thine altar on high. If certain phrases needed modification, such should be done in a way that fits with the text present. An example of this done correctly is the English Missal and Anglican Missal, Anglo-Catholic variations on the Tridentine Roman Rite, Sarum Rite, and the Book of Common Prayer. Traditional Eastern prayers are lovely, but they are just that, Eastern prayers. If we started introducing the Collect for Purity or the concept of a collect to the Byzantine Rite, we would be crucified.

[mike]

I suppose I was being a tad bit melodramatic. I still stand firmly behind liturgical purism, however. I oppose use of the Liturgy of Saint Gregory and the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon because they aren't from Western heritage. They are created from use of the Byzantine Rite, two Books of Common Prayer, and the Tridentine Roman Rite. The Orthodox Catholic Church, having great reverence to tradition should use a traditional Western rite, like the Tridentine Roman Rite, the Sarum Use or the York Use.

What do you think DL of St. Gregory is?

[Sleeper]

The canon may have somewhat of an Eastern quality to it, but that has more to do with the Scottish Non-Jurors and their study of the ancient liturgies, as well as their correspondence with Orthodox Patriarchs, than it does with some kind of forced Byzantinization; something which Met. PHILLIP strongly and vocally opposes.

This is partially correct, in that the Mass of St. Tikhon is essentially a "fusion Mass," but it is not with the Constantinopolitan Liturgy, but rather with the Roman Mass itself. And contrary to what you may have read or heard, this was itself an organic process, spanning centuries of liturgical development via the Caroline Divines, Scottish Non-Jurors, Tractarians, the Oxford Movement, etc. It's a fascinating history.

While not "horrible" by any stretch of the imagination, I can somewhat sympathize with the desire to maintain Western purity, free from Byzantinizations. But we are, after all, Orthodox Christians, and in order for the Western Rite to grow within the bosom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, sometimes that entails making concessions to maintain peace and harmony. When the Patriarch of Antioch requested the pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom be added to both of our Western Masses, part of his reason was so that worshipers from an Eastern context would have something familiar and comfortable to pray when they attend our services. I think it's a nice gesture.

The Western Rite, at least within Antioch, draws from the full 2000 year tradition of the West, not specific time periods, whether ancient or recent. We offer God the very best within our heritage, not giving precedence to one thing over another merely because of geography or era. You'll hear Bach settings, you'll see people praying the Rosary, you'll see beautiful Western art along with contemporary icons.

I suppose I was being a tad bit melodramatic. I still stand firmly behind liturgical purism, however. I oppose use of the Liturgy of Saint Gregory and the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon because they aren't from Western heritage.

Of course they are. They were the living rites of the parishes that came into Orthodoxy as Western Rite and had been their established forms of worship for generations.

They are created from use of the Byzantine Rite, two Books of Common Prayer, and the Tridentine Roman Rite. The Orthodox Catholic Church, having great reverence to tradition should use a traditional Western rite, like the Tridentine Roman Rite, the Sarum Use or the York Use.

The Orthodox Church, have great reverence for tradition, uses the living liturgies that were literally traditioned to the people who brought them into the Church. They are entirely Western, entirely authentic, entirely traditional. The only thing from the Byzantine rite is the set of pre-Communion prayers. Not even the epiclesis is Byzantine.

Similar to what another individual has said in this thread, there is a great danger in making concessions to those who aren't familiar with the rite. We have service leaflets for that purpose and prayer books. Certainly if we wanted to make concessions, we'd start with making the Divine Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom more understandible to the Catholics and Protestants who visit Orthodox Catholic churches. I don't see anyone suggesting that.

There is also a great danger in being unwilling to be charitable and open when it comes to the spiritual leadership of our Church. I see nothing wrong with the Byzantine pre-communion prayers. There has always been cross-pollination in liturgical development. The Gloria is wholly Eastern, but no one is calling for its removal merely because it didn't rise up from within Latin-speaking Christians.

I would love to see more English use of the Byzantine Rite.

Liturgical diffusion with other rites is inevitable, but let it be natural.

I agree, I just disagree that the Rites of Ss. Gregory and Tikhon do not fit this description. The natural development of liturgy was beautifully described in his classic work On the Organic Development of Liturgy, by Dom Alcuin Reed. He says, “We can observe in St. Gregory’s reply to St. Augustine that there is a clear sense in which the liturgy is received and not simply constructed anew according to the tastes of the people among whom he finds himself and that innovation must be for a good reason and carefully integrated with the Tradition."

Those reasons being: 1. a necessity for the development, 2. a profound respect for liturgical Tradition, 3. little pure innovation, 4. the tentative positing of newer liturgical forms alongside the old, and 5. the integration of the newer forms following their acceptance over time. Reid says, "This is the principle of the organic development of the liturgy in operation. It combines profound respect for the received liturgical tradition, with an openness to necessary development. Continuity and harmony with tradition are primary concerns. Liturgical orthopraxy and orthodoxy are thus ensured, without precluding necessary and natural development...Progress in liturgy must be an enrichment by the acquisition of new forms rather than by the violent loss of the ancient ones.”

There is no reason the pre-Communion prayers should not be seen as "enrichment" in this sense. In a contemporary Orthodox context, an epiclesis is certainly a necessity. The one added to both of our Western Masses stems from having a profound respect for liturgical tradition in that they were pulled from ancient Western sources, rather than Byzantine. The addition of said epiclesis, as well as the two pre-Communion prayers are definitely not "pure innovation" as there were very good, grounded reasons for incorporating them. They also weren't added immediately, but were "tentatively posited alongside" the existing rite and now continue to remain due to their acceptance by the faithful over time.

Antioch took the received tradition of Western catholics and used that as the starting point for an authentic, healthy Western Rite to grow within the bosom of the Orthodox Church. It couldn't have been more organic.

An example of this done correctly is the English Missal and Anglican Missal, Anglo-Catholic variations on the Tridentine Roman Rite, Sarum Rite, and the Book of Common Prayer.

Incidentally, it was indeed the Anglican Missal that served as the basis for the Mass of St. Tikhon.

[Shiny]

Can we dismiss all those opposed to the WR as Romophobics?

[Jules_Grant]

The Orthodox Church, have great reverence for tradition, uses the living liturgies that were literally traditioned to the people who brought them into the Church. They are entirely Western, entirely authentic, entirely traditional. The only thing from the Byzantine rite is the set of pre-Communion prayers. Not even the epiclesis is Byzantine.

I agree, I just disagree that the Rites of Ss. Gregory and Tikhon do not fit this description. The natural development of liturgy was beautifully described in his classic work On the Organic Development of Liturgy, by Dom Alcuin Reed. He says, “We can observe in St. Gregory’s reply to St. Augustine that there is a clear sense in which the liturgy is received and not simply constructed anew according to the tastes of the people among whom he finds himself and that innovation must be for a good reason and carefully integrated with the Tradition."

Those reasons being: 1. a necessity for the development, 2. a profound respect for liturgical Tradition, 3. little pure innovation, 4. the tentative positing of newer liturgical forms alongside the old, and 5. the integration of the newer forms following their acceptance over time. Reid says, "This is the principle of the organic development of the liturgy in operation. It combines profound respect for the received liturgical tradition, with an openness to necessary development. Continuity and harmony with tradition are primary concerns. Liturgical orthopraxy and orthodoxy are thus ensured, without precluding necessary and natural development...Progress in liturgy must be an enrichment by the acquisition of new forms rather than by the violent loss of the ancient ones.”

There is no reason the pre-Communion prayers should not be seen as "enrichment" in this sense. In a contemporary Orthodox context, an epiclesis is certainly a necessity. The one added to both of our Western Masses stems from having a profound respect for liturgical tradition in that they were pulled from ancient Western sources, rather than Byzantine. The addition of said epiclesis, as well as the two pre-Communion prayers are definitely not "pure innovation" as there were very good, grounded reasons for incorporating them. They also weren't added immediately, but were "tentatively posited alongside" the existing rite and now continue to remain due to their acceptance by the faithful over time.

Antioch took the received tradition of Western catholics and used that as the starting point for an authentic, healthy Western Rite to grow within the bosom of the Orthodox Church. It couldn't have been more organic.

The approach that Antioch took is more organic and sensible than I originally thought. I was not aware that they look such a careful and thoughtful approach to crafting the Rites of Ss. Tikhon and Gregory. I underestimate the wisdom of our hierarchs, a habit from my experience with heretical and naive Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops. I wish to break it with time.

I suppose liturgical purism is important, but we must also allow the liturgy to be diffused with authenic and beautiful liturgical material. I must say, you are only of a few people who have managed to change my opinion on an issue so quickly. I have synesthesia, in which certain words and concepts invoke certain colours and sensations for me, and in some cases, one being in pain causes me to empathise in such a way that I begin to feel pain. Orthodox Catholicism in the Western tradition was a word associated with dark brown, which represent something which is impure or even an abomination in my mind. You managed to change the colour association to a royal shade of purple and burgundy, two colours I associate with grandeur, beauty, magnificence, and splendour. The only dark brown associated with the Western Rite is the epiclesis in the Rite of S. Gregory which is, incidentally, Byzantine.

Now that my objections to the liturgy of Orthodox Catholicism in the Western tradition are no longer such, I feel now that the Western rite can use some real beautification and ornamentation with our help.

[Jules_Grant]

Can we dismiss all those opposed to the WR as Romophobics?

No, because some have real, principled objections over the way the liturgy is structured.

[Sleeper]

The Orthodox Church, have great reverence for tradition, uses the living liturgies that were literally traditioned to the people who brought them into the Church. They are entirely Western, entirely authentic, entirely traditional. The only thing from the Byzantine rite is the set of pre-Communion prayers. Not even the epiclesis is Byzantine.

I agree, I just disagree that the Rites of Ss. Gregory and Tikhon do not fit this description. The natural development of liturgy was beautifully described in his classic work On the Organic Development of Liturgy, by Dom Alcuin Reed. He says, “We can observe in St. Gregory’s reply to St. Augustine that there is a clear sense in which the liturgy is received and not simply constructed anew according to the tastes of the people among whom he finds himself and that innovation must be for a good reason and carefully integrated with the Tradition."

Those reasons being: 1. a necessity for the development, 2. a profound respect for liturgical Tradition, 3. little pure innovation, 4. the tentative positing of newer liturgical forms alongside the old, and 5. the integration of the newer forms following their acceptance over time. Reid says, "This is the principle of the organic development of the liturgy in operation. It combines profound respect for the received liturgical tradition, with an openness to necessary development. Continuity and harmony with tradition are primary concerns. Liturgical orthopraxy and orthodoxy are thus ensured, without precluding necessary and natural development...Progress in liturgy must be an enrichment by the acquisition of new forms rather than by the violent loss of the ancient ones.”

There is no reason the pre-Communion prayers should not be seen as "enrichment" in this sense. In a contemporary Orthodox context, an epiclesis is certainly a necessity. The one added to both of our Western Masses stems from having a profound respect for liturgical tradition in that they were pulled from ancient Western sources, rather than Byzantine. The addition of said epiclesis, as well as the two pre-Communion prayers are definitely not "pure innovation" as there were very good, grounded reasons for incorporating them. They also weren't added immediately, but were "tentatively posited alongside" the existing rite and now continue to remain due to their acceptance by the faithful over time.

Antioch took the received tradition of Western catholics and used that as the starting point for an authentic, healthy Western Rite to grow within the bosom of the Orthodox Church. It couldn't have been more organic.

The approach that Antioch took is more organic and sensible than I originally thought. I was not aware that they look such a careful and thoughtful approach to crafting the Rites of Ss. Tikhon and Gregory. I underestimate the wisdom of our hierarchs, a habit from my experience with heretical and naive Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops. I wish to break it with time.

I suppose liturgical purism is important, but we must also allow the liturgy to be diffused with authenic and beautiful liturgical material. I must say, you are only of a few people who have managed to change my opinion on an issue so quickly. I have synesthesia, in which certain words and concepts invoke certain colours and sensations for me, and in some cases, one being in pain causes me to empathise in such a way that I begin to feel pain. Orthodox Catholicism in the Western tradition was a word associated with dark brown, which represent something which is impure or even an abomination in my mind. You managed to change the colour association to a royal shade of purple and burgundy, two colours I associate with grandeur, beauty, magnificence, and splendour. The only dark brown associated with the Western Rite is the epiclesis in the Rite of S. Gregory which is, incidentally, Byzantine.

Now that my objections to the liturgy of Orthodox Catholicism in the Western tradition are no longer such, I feel now that the Western rite can use some real beautification and ornamentation with our help.

You have no idea how happy this makes me, as I too am a synesthete! I have strong color associations with things that deeply effect the way I think of, and relate to, them. So I don't take your shift in colors lightly

[Jules_Grant]

My preference would be for Sarum Use, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, and Gallician as well as Tridentine Roman Rite over the Rites of Ss. Tikhon and Gregory still. Perhaps it is just the ritualism in me that I get from rich Western liturgy. Something in my spirit just prefers to use the older rites. There is a richer hymnody and more propers and prayers in the older rites, it's more elaborate and more beautiful in my opinion. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

[mike]

St. Gregory IS the Tridentine rite.

[Jules_Grant]

St. Gregory IS the Tridentine rite.

Albeit altered. Has a Byzantine epiclesis and no filioque (not that I support the filioque to begin with).

[Sleeper]

My preference would be for Sarum Use, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, and Gallician as well as Tridentine Roman Rite over the Rites of Ss. Tikhon and Gregory still. Perhaps it is just the ritualism in me that I get from rich Western liturgy. Something in my spirit just prefers to use the older rites. There is a richer hymnody and more propers and prayers in the older rites, it's more elaborate and more beautiful in my opinion. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I tend to agree, although I'm firmly convinced of the reintegration of the living Western tradition being the healthiest option as a starting point, recovering aspects of our rich, more ancient heritage over time, in an organic way. In other words, the Rites of Ss. Gregory and Tikhon, but developed further over time.

This has already been the case since the inception of the Western Rite within Orthodoxy. For example, just last year the fasting rules for those of us under Antioch were changed from the 1950's rules back to those of the ninth century. Devotional and festal aspects, such as the Sacred Heart, which were once widespread within the Vicariate have slowly fallen out of use (though not entirely). Originally, Western Rite Christians made the sign of the cross in the open-palmed manner, from left to right, but we now use the more ancient Western custom which just so happens to be that of contemporary Orthodoxy. Icons are now censed prior to the congregation, just before the Offertory. And so on.

And we've already discussed the enrichment of the Mass itself, from both traditional Western sources, as well as Eastern. As the Western Rite continues to plant roots in the Church, I anticipate more of this type of liturgical development. But it's extremely vital that it happen in a natural way, the way our ancient rites came about in the first place. This ensures that anything that is good, true, and beautiful within the Western heritage, regardless of era or geography, is preserved to the glory of God.

[Sleeper]

Someone in another thread shared a beautiful, insightful interview with schema-monk Gabriel Bunge, a one-time Benedictine who converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago. I thought this was perfectly in line with this discussion:

"Of those who are wavering—do you think they could go in the direction of Orthodoxy, or might they instead give up everything?

—The only way I see it happening is if they turn to their own Orthodoxy, because unless God works an unprecedented miracle that turns everyone to Byzantine Orthodoxy, there is a whole culture at work to prevent it. It is not just a matter of texts, or formulas. But they must turn back to their own Orthodoxy, their own traditions. For all these years, when I wrote my little books, my aim was this: as a monk, to help people have a spiritual life, to rediscover, reintegrate their own spiritual heritage, which is of course the same as ours; because we have the same roots."

Further, "I feel that my own path is to prove, even to the Orthodox, that it is possible, even within the Western tradition, to rediscover the common ground, and to live out of this. You can do this—not by yourself, of course, but only with God’s grace. But then I reached a point where I could no longer support being in only spiritual communion with the Orthodox Church so close to my heart. I wanted real, sacramental communion. Therefore, I asked for it."

[primuspilus]

I tend to agree, although I'm firmly convinced of the reintegration of the living Western tradition being the healthiest option as a starting point, recovering aspects of our rich, more ancient heritage over time, in an organic way. In other words, the Rites of Ss. Gregory and Tikhon, but developed further over time

Sarum or Liturgy of St. Gregory

This has already been the case since the inception of the Western Rite within Orthodoxy. For example, just last year the fasting rules for those of us under Antioch were changed from the 1950's rules back to those of the ninth century

Yeah, that caused some serious confusion at my parish.

Devotional and festal aspects, such as the Sacred Heart, which were once widespread within the Vicariate have slowly fallen out of use

Im glad. I always found the Sacred Heart disturbing. Now to get rid of some others.....

PP

[Alpo]

^What others?

[Shanghaiski]

St. Gregory IS the Tridentine rite.

Albeit altered. Has a Byzantine epiclesis and no filioque (not that I support the filioque to begin with).

Then why even bring up the filioque?

[ilyazhito]

The reason why the Western rite liturgies were altered from their non-Orthodox originals (the rite of St. Gregory from the Tridentine Mass) was to bring them in line with mainstream Orthodox theology. The Tridentine mass places a profound emphasis on Christ's death and his sacrifice, whereas Orthodox traditionally emphasize the Resurrection of Christ, even in the hymns of Great and Holy Friday. I would not demand that Western Rite Orthodoxy cease to exist, but the rules are thus: Individuals converting to Orthodoxy have to accept the whole package, including the Byzantine Rite, but GROUPS admitted into Orthodoxy are allowed to use their own rite, if it conforms to Orthodox theology.

[Alpo]

Individuals converting to Orthodoxy have to accept the whole package, including the Byzantine Rite

The Byzantine rite = Orthodoxy. Way to go.

[Mor Ephrem]

The reason why the Western rite liturgies were altered from their non-Orthodox originals (the rite of St. Gregory from the Tridentine Mass) was to bring them in line with mainstream Orthodox theology. The Tridentine mass places a profound emphasis on Christ's death and his sacrifice, whereas Orthodox traditionally emphasize the Resurrection of Christ, even in the hymns of Great and Holy Friday.

A false dichotomy.  First, you are comparing the Roman rite of Mass to non-Eucharistic Byzantine Holy Week services.  Compare the ordinary of the Mass with that of the Liturgy and try to make the same argument.  Second, I suspect that we are reading into the various rites our own pieties.  We associate the Latin West with "Passion" and the Greek East with "Resurrection" and through that lens we evaluate the rites.  But the Roman liturgy does have the resurrectional elements which offer the proper balance, and the Byzantine liturgy has its own "Passion" elements which balance the resurrectional "emphasis" (e.g., yours is the only rite in all of Christendom to use a spear to pierce the Lamb).

I would not demand that Western Rite Orthodoxy cease to exist, but the rules are thus: Individuals converting to Orthodoxy have to accept the whole package, including the Byzantine Rite, but GROUPS admitted into Orthodoxy are allowed to use their own rite, if it conforms to Orthodox theology.

LOL.  It is as Alpo said.  

I can't wait for the discussion on how many people constitute a group.  

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Confused About the Rites