OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 08:13:52 PM *
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 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: WR Orthodox, a Rite or More?  (Read 3873 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,267



« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2013, 06:46:27 AM »

IOW, "All saints are equal, but some are more equal than others by virtue of their provenance". Frankly, I find this idea very, very disturbing, to put it mildly.

No more disturbing than a Russian church that may have an icon of St John of Kronstadt but not an icon of St Nektarios of Aegina. 
My parish is dedicated to St. Innocent of Alaska and we have icons of St. John and St. Nektarios. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,267



« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2013, 06:58:15 AM »

Obviously, my disassociation from Orthodoxy was largely because of the question asked in this thread.

My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone. Without the fullness of the actual western rite, the complete rite, canons etc, there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy, with only a part of it. Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.

A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make. Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again. It is a permanent inconsistency, it is neither "fish nor fowl".
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite.

The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved.
I understand there isnt much other option, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are the only two churches people think of when they think of consistently ancient pre-reformation christianity (novus ordo aside...). I admit that the intentions are very holy and noble, I admire the intentions of the western liturgy within Orthodoxy, but with this is comes also naivity and flawed perception

Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever.
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community.
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with.

Hokum. Pure hokum.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,487


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2013, 08:51:15 AM »

Quote
My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone
I dont know what parish you attended, but a real WR parish will celebrate pre-schism western feasts (which we do), pre-schism western saints (which we do), and pre-schism fasting rules for the West (again, which we do). Sounds to me that parish you spent time in were Orthodox LARP'ers trying to be Roman Catholics.
Quote
Without the fullness of the actual western rite
We have it.
Quote
the complete rite
We have it.
Quote
canons et
We share the same canons...we're not Eastern Catholics after all.
Quote
there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy
The Church disagrees with you.
Quote
Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite by the byzantine = Orthodox crowd is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.
There ya go.
Quote
A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make
Since Orthodoxy does not equal Byzantine this is completely accurate.
Quote
Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again
Time and Time again what? Your sentence makes no sense. What theology expressed? We have the same exact theology. I hate to tell you, but a HUGE amount of Orthodox theology came from a *gasp* western source. Your sentence above shows me you know exactly nothing of the western rite, but are using Ortho-sounding filler words to make yourself sound far more knowledgeable than you actually are about this topic.

Quote
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite
Ah, so those who agree with you are educated, and those who don't arent? Well, lets go through the list of the uneducated who have ruled on the Orthodoxy of the Western Rite, shall we? St. Tikhon, the Holy Synod of Russia, Metropolitan Phillip, the Ecumenical Patriarch (the last 2), Patriarch Ignatius IV of blessed memory, Patriarch of Antioch John, the Holy Synod of Antioch, the Holy Synod of ROCOR (yes, they no longer are actively pursuing the WR, but they have always stipulated, and still do, that the WR is indeed totally Orthodox). On top of that, every single Orthodox parish in the world will receive Western Rite Orthdox..including Mt. Athos. So, yeah they're all very uneducated concerning this supposed Latin Rite.

Facts are facts, the Church has universally accepted the Western Rite, but you haven't. Therefore, you're right and they're all simply uneducated concerning the "Latin Rite".

Quote
The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved
Not at all. We use the western tradition and expression of the Orthodox faith. If Rome returned to Orthodoxy, do you REALLY think they'll use the Byzantine liturgy? Keep dreaming.

Quote
Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever
The Western Rite is growing all the time, champ.

Quote
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community
It exists already, but you just choose to disagree with the Church who says not only is it a viable rite,  but completely in every way Orthodox.

Quote
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with
If the Roman Catholic or Orthodox scholars you mentioned are experts in wine or computer science maybe, not so if they were scholars in Church history, liturgics, etc.

PP
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 08:55:54 AM by primuspilus » 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
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2013, 09:10:48 AM »

Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.

I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints.  

Unfortunately, ISTM this emphasis still pushes the equation too far towards "either/or", rather than "both/and".



Further to the above:

The "neglect" of the active commemoration of many western saints for centuries was as much to do with honest ignorance brought on by geographic separation and other such practical factors. Yet, in recent years, the non-WRO Church has made surprisingly good progress in redressing this, and through natural and reasonable effort, "organic", if you will. Communication is now unimaginably far-reaching than in past eras, and instantaneous, and so there is far more scope for the Church to broaden its pool of saints, and for Orthodox believers, cleric and layman alike, to be better informed of not only the existence of these "forgotten" saints, but also of their lives and contributions to the life of the Church.

By contrast, the WRO directive comes across as forced and artificial.

If "preference should be given" sounds "forced" then I really don't know what to tell you. It's the same thing with feasts. Why would we celebrate the feast of a "local" Eastern saint, over a local Western one? Wouldn't that just seem odd? It's not like we don't venerate those saints, we are just encouraged to develop a deeper devotion to those of our "own" organic history. If we don't do this consciously and intentionally, it would be very easy for it to wither away altogether, I'm afraid. Lines have to be drawn sometimes, for purely practical reasons. 

I really do think you're making a big deal out of nothing.
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,158


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2013, 09:14:15 AM »

The directive is not only speaking of liturgical commemoration, but of personal, private devotion, including which saints should be preferred in one's choice of domestic iconography. You're trying to tell me this isn't forced or artificial?

EDIT: For those who came in late, this is the directive referred to:


This vision is articulated quite clearly in our most recent Ordo, published by the Vicariate. There is an entire section titled "Fidelity to the Rite" which states:

"Western Rite clergy are not to use the dress, vestments, rites, forms, or customs of the Byzantine Rite clergy at any time. Temporary exceptions are granted for us for specific services when serving with or for Byzantine clergy in a Byzantine service. An exception to the prohibition of Eastern customs shall be made for the cult of icons. In the use of icons in the church, home, and among the faithful, preference should be given to those of our Lord, the Theotokos (the Blessed Virgin Mary), major Catholic Saints and great feasts rather than to those of local Eastern Saints."


« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 09:25:12 AM by LBK » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,487


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2013, 09:16:22 AM »

The directive is not only speaking of liturgical commemoration, but of personal, private devotion, including which saints should be preferred in one's choice of domestic iconography. You're trying to tell me this isn't forced or artificial?
In all fairness, I gotta say, if it is forced, then I wouldn't want that either. LBK, even though it doesn't seem to be forcing folks into it, I can also say that I totally see why some folks would think it was forced.

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
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2013, 10:14:10 AM »

The directive is not only speaking of liturgical commemoration, but of personal, private devotion, including which saints should be preferred in one's choice of domestic iconography. You're trying to tell me this isn't forced or artificial?

Right, I wasn't speaking of merely liturgics. And yes, I'm trying to tell you this isn't forced or artificial. It's conscious and intentional for the purpose of preserving aspects of our Western heritage that, quite honestly, were it not for WR parishes/people, would likely disappear altogether. This is also why directives were given even as to the style of the images (Romanesque).

Expand it further; would you find it troublesome if there were explicit directives that "preference should be given" to pray the Divine Office according to the Benedictine Rule, rather than that of eastern monastics? Did you know that fasting rules are also exclusive of Byzantine ones? Even in our private lives? Or that we are strictly forbidden by our Metropolitan to pray the Hail Mary in the Byzantine manner, rather than the Ave Maria?

That we should "prefer" all things Western over Eastern should simply be a given. The only reason it was made explicit in regards to icons is because the "cult of icons" is the one exception to this rule, for us.

The directive says nothing about veneration of the many holy fathers, mothers, and saints of the "East" which we do, frequently and also quite intentionally. But merely the images that we choose to adorn our churches and homes.

I don't expect you to agree with this, but don't turn it into something that it isn't. The directive is not a commentary about Eastern saints or Eastern styles of iconography.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 10:14:43 AM by Sleeper » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,781


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2013, 12:05:22 PM »

Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.

I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints. 

Unfortunately, ISTM this emphasis still pushes the equation too far towards "either/or", rather than "both/and".

LBK,

There is no rule that the East can only venerate Eastern saints and the West Western saints.  The saints belong to the Catholic Church (in the ialmisry sense: as opposed to Vatican City Smiley).  But that doesn't mean that each of the local Orthodox Churches celebrates all the saints from everywhere except in a very general sense. 

The calendar is only so big, and the calendars of local Churches reflect the saints which they hold in especial esteem, because the whole phenomenon of recognition of saints is proper to the local Church.  No one handed down a calendar from above: local Churches kept feasts for certain saints and events, and some of these gradually spread to the entire Church (e.g., Christmas, SS Peter and Paul) while others remained local.  It doesn't mean the saints aren't saints, but it does mean that the calendar of a local Church reflects the devotion of its people and is not simply some magisterial proclamation of who is and who is not a saint. 

That doesn't scandalise us when it comes to the East.  It doesn't scandalise anyone that the Typikon of the Church of Greece makes no mention of commemorating St Herman of Alaska in any way whatsoever on 13 December, while in America he might be more popular than SS Eustratios, Auxentios, Eugene, Mardarios, and Orestes of Sebaste.  And forget about St Herman, since his relation to America is special: the OCA calendar includes a handful of Slavic saints on the same date, which the Greeks omit entirely.  No one is bothered by that.  Why is it a problem if the WRO want to replicate the same in accordance with their own tradition? 

It's difficult for me to see how the real problem is not an uneasiness regarding Western Orthodoxy, rather than a perceived deficiency in the piety due to the saints.           
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2013, 12:15:43 PM »

Enlightener-saints are often given prominence over the usual listing in the Menaion in the regions and cultures they evangelized.

I can understand that (even though we'd never let them trump an Apostle).  That said, if it can be justified based on "region" and "culture", I don't think it's substantially different from WRO emphasising Western saints. 

Unfortunately, ISTM this emphasis still pushes the equation too far towards "either/or", rather than "both/and".

LBK,

There is no rule that the East can only venerate Eastern saints and the West Western saints.  The saints belong to the Catholic Church (in the ialmisry sense: as opposed to Vatican City Smiley).  But that doesn't mean that each of the local Orthodox Churches celebrates all the saints from everywhere except in a very general sense. 

The calendar is only so big, and the calendars of local Churches reflect the saints which they hold in especial esteem, because the whole phenomenon of recognition of saints is proper to the local Church.  No one handed down a calendar from above: local Churches kept feasts for certain saints and events, and some of these gradually spread to the entire Church (e.g., Christmas, SS Peter and Paul) while others remained local.  It doesn't mean the saints aren't saints, but it does mean that the calendar of a local Church reflects the devotion of its people and is not simply some magisterial proclamation of who is and who is not a saint. 

That doesn't scandalise us when it comes to the East.  It doesn't scandalise anyone that the Typikon of the Church of Greece makes no mention of commemorating St Herman of Alaska in any way whatsoever on 13 December, while in America he might be more popular than SS Eustratios, Auxentios, Eugene, Mardarios, and Orestes of Sebaste.  And forget about St Herman, since his relation to America is special: the OCA calendar includes a handful of Slavic saints on the same date, which the Greeks omit entirely.  No one is bothered by that.  Why is it a problem if the WRO want to replicate the same in accordance with their own tradition? 

It's difficult for me to see how the real problem is not an uneasiness regarding Western Orthodoxy, rather than a perceived deficiency in the piety due to the saints.           
I just came across my bulletin from when I went to Holy Trinity Cathedral in Chicago, announcing that in Moscow that day St. John Kochurov was being glorified, and that the cathedral had sent a delegation, including the priest, who was the successor of St. John, the priest who had pastored the Cathedral while it was being built.  The Russians had come earlier to see if their was a local cult (there was) but the glorification was still left to Moscow as his "local Church."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,607



« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2013, 05:32:55 PM »

Quote
That means being "Western" is more important to him than being Orthodox.

Likewise I can that also being "Eastern" is more important to most of the hierarchy than being Orthodox.
The Ordination of multiple men to the priesthood within a single Mass is a legitimate ancient Western custom, yet it is disrepected and made now viewed as heterodox, but it is not. It is Orthodox.

I think there is enough hypocrisy to go around here, I'll be pleased to share it with others.

If you have a list of legitimate Western customs, canons, etc. that you feel are disregarded or viewed as heterodox within Eastern Orthodoxy, or if you would compile such a list, I for one would be interested in reading it.  At least some of those things, I'm sure, would also affect us (OO): for example, none of our Churches prohibits multiple men from being ordained to the same rank within a single Liturgy (in fact, it is often done, even for the ordination of bishops).   

I know others elsewhere (CAF? I can't remember) have pointed out EO churches doing multiple ordinations (Antiochian, etc.), including video footage. Even if those were violating the standards of the Byzantine-EO tradition or whatever, it still just comes across as polemical more than anything when it's applied to other churches.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2013, 05:48:11 PM »

If you have a list of legitimate Western customs, canons, etc. that you feel are disregarded or viewed as heterodox within Eastern Orthodoxy, or if you would compile such a list, I for one would be interested in reading it.  At least some of those things, I'm sure, would also affect us (OO): for example, none of our Churches prohibits multiple men from being ordained to the same rank within a single Liturgy (in fact, it is often done, even for the ordination of bishops).   

Unleavened bread for the Eucharist, Baptism by affusion, Icons not in conformity with Byzantine canons are three that seem to come up alot.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2013, 06:46:29 PM »

Quote
My lesson from my time within the what is called the western rite of the orthodox church was that it is not the western rite at all, but the western liturgy alone
I dont know what parish you attended, but a real WR parish will celebrate pre-schism western feasts (which we do), pre-schism western saints (which we do), and pre-schism fasting rules for the West (again, which we do). Sounds to me that parish you spent time in were Orthodox LARP'ers trying to be Roman Catholics.
Quote
Without the fullness of the actual western rite
We have it.
Quote
the complete rite
We have it.
Quote
canons et
We share the same canons...we're not Eastern Catholics after all.
Quote
there can be no viable western rite orthdooxy
The Church disagrees with you.
Quote
Until the prejudice against the complete pre-schism western rite by the byzantine = Orthodox crowd is overcome the western liturgical community (it is not a western rite community) will never become successful.
There ya go.
Quote
A western liturgy alone, within a byzantine orthodoxy, byzantine canon law, byzantine customs exclusively, does not a western rite make
Since Orthodoxy does not equal Byzantine this is completely accurate.
Quote
Therefore, where there is any confusion or disagreement connected to the western liturgy and theology expressed, it will eventually revert back to the byzantine, time and time again
Time and Time again what? Your sentence makes no sense. What theology expressed? We have the same exact theology. I hate to tell you, but a HUGE amount of Orthodox theology came from a *gasp* western source. Your sentence above shows me you know exactly nothing of the western rite, but are using Ortho-sounding filler words to make yourself sound far more knowledgeable than you actually are about this topic.

Quote
As it currently exists it will never ever retain credibility with educated people who deeply understand the latin rite
Ah, so those who agree with you are educated, and those who don't arent? Well, lets go through the list of the uneducated who have ruled on the Orthodoxy of the Western Rite, shall we? St. Tikhon, the Holy Synod of Russia, Metropolitan Phillip, the Ecumenical Patriarch (the last 2), Patriarch Ignatius IV of blessed memory, Patriarch of Antioch John, the Holy Synod of Antioch, the Holy Synod of ROCOR (yes, they no longer are actively pursuing the WR, but they have always stipulated, and still do, that the WR is indeed totally Orthodox). On top of that, every single Orthodox parish in the world will receive Western Rite Orthdox..including Mt. Athos. So, yeah they're all very uneducated concerning this supposed Latin Rite.

Facts are facts, the Church has universally accepted the Western Rite, but you haven't. Therefore, you're right and they're all simply uneducated concerning the "Latin Rite".

Quote
The use of the western liturgy without the western rite in the orthodox church is an act of desperation on the part of those involved
Not at all. We use the western tradition and expression of the Orthodox faith. If Rome returned to Orthodoxy, do you REALLY think they'll use the Byzantine liturgy? Keep dreaming.

Quote
Some can live with the western liturgical orthodox churches for a time, but I suspect not many forever
The Western Rite is growing all the time, champ.

Quote
I yearn for the day when the Western liturgical community is a bonafide western rite community
It exists already, but you just choose to disagree with the Church who says not only is it a viable rite,  but completely in every way Orthodox.

Quote
And what I am saying is something any orthodox or catholic scholar would agree with
If the Roman Catholic or Orthodox scholars you mentioned are experts in wine or computer science maybe, not so if they were scholars in Church history, liturgics, etc.

PP

*slow clap*

Well done, sir. +1
Logged
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2013, 06:50:56 PM »

The Church baptizes culture; it doesn't discard it wholesale.

Sure, the Church baptizes culture; that's not the same as exhuming it. 

Yeah, if only the Church believed in resurrection...
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2013, 12:19:26 AM »

Phronesis and primuspilus,

Until the those who use the western liturgy within the Orthodox Church also abide by the canons found in:

The Collectio Anselmo dedicata (9th c. Italy)
The Libri duo de synodalibus causis (ca. 906, by Regino of Prüm)
The Decretum by Burchard of Worms (ca. 1020)

They are not truly practicing the western rite, but a primarily a western liturgy with a handful of familiar western customs thrown in to appease ignorant lay people who have little exposure beyond the weekly Sunday morning Mass and possibly Sunday Vespers.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 12:21:00 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2013, 01:08:26 AM »

Phronesis and primuspilus,

Until the those who use the western liturgy within the Orthodox Church also abide by the canons found in:

The Collectio Anselmo dedicata (9th c. Italy)
The Libri duo de synodalibus causis (ca. 906, by Regino of Prüm)
The Decretum by Burchard of Worms (ca. 1020)

They are not truly practicing the western rite, but a primarily a western liturgy with a handful of familiar western customs thrown in to appease ignorant lay people who have little exposure beyond the weekly Sunday morning Mass and possibly Sunday Vespers.



Again, I don't think you understand what the word, "rite," means.

rite
rīt
noun
noun: rite; plural noun: rites
1.
a religious or other solemn ceremony or act.
"the rite of communion"
synonyms:   ceremony, ritual, ceremonial; More
a body of customary observances characteristic of a church or a part of it.
"the Byzantine rite"
synonyms:   ceremony, ritual, ceremonial; More
a social custom, practice, or conventional act.
"the family Christmas rite"
synonyms:   ceremony, ritual, ceremonial; More
Logged
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2013, 01:14:42 AM »

Observing the Western Rite =/= Doing everything as the Western Church did pre-schism.

We're not trying to recreate the Roman See as it was in 1054. We are restoring the ancient Western liturgical and devotional traditions to the life of the Holy Catholic Orthodox Church, in conformity with the theology thereof.

If you were expecting something different, I'm not surprised that you're disappointed. The Western Rite is not a haven for those who don't really want to become Orthodox. It is The Church.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 20, 2013, 01:54:45 AM »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

A quote from the beginning of the definition of a rite in the catholic encyclopedia of A.D. 1912 :

"A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows. Sacraments, the Divine Office, and sacramentals (in a wide sense) make up the rite of any Christian religious body."

If one does not follow the pre-1054 western rite, nor the post-1054 western rite, one follows, in fact, no western rite, but simply a particular component of a rite. I hold the historic ORTHODOX teaching that a using particular liturgy by itself does not equate to using the entire western rite.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 02:00:50 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #62 on: December 20, 2013, 07:11:57 AM »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

A quote from the beginning of the definition of a rite in the catholic encyclopedia of A.D. 1912 :

"A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows. Sacraments, the Divine Office, and sacramentals (in a wide sense) make up the rite of any Christian religious body."

If one does not follow the pre-1054 western rite, nor the post-1054 western rite, one follows, in fact, no western rite, but simply a particular component of a rite. I hold the historic ORTHODOX teaching that a using particular liturgy by itself does not equate to using the entire western rite.

This is why you're so confusing, because the Antiochian Western Rite does exactly this.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,267



« Reply #63 on: December 20, 2013, 07:36:00 AM »

Phronesis and primuspilus,

Until the those who use the western liturgy within the Orthodox Church also abide by the canons found in:

The Collectio Anselmo dedicata (9th c. Italy)
The Libri duo de synodalibus causis (ca. 906, by Regino of Prüm)
The Decretum by Burchard of Worms (ca. 1020)

They are not truly practicing the western rite, but a primarily a western liturgy with a handful of familiar western customs thrown in to appease ignorant lay people who have little exposure beyond the weekly Sunday morning Mass and possibly Sunday Vespers.


Which holy synod of bishops do you sit on again? Until then, you are the arbiter of your own ecclesiastical fantasy. I know "prelest" is not a "western" word, but perhaps you should look it up and meditate on it. Please, brother, reconsider your schism from Holy Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,487


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 20, 2013, 08:28:09 AM »

Quote
If one does not follow the pre-1054 western rite, nor the post-1054 western rite, one follows, in fact, no western rite, but simply a particular component of a rite. I hold the historic ORTHODOX teaching that a using particular liturgy by itself does not equate to using the entire western rite.
I find this statement completely hilarious, especially since in the defense of your Byzantine only approach, in the preceding paragraph to make your nonsensical point, you use a Roman Catholic definition of something.

Also, I'd like to further note that in this statement:

Quote
A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration of sacraments, among which the service of the Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons, prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of vows
You just gave my parish's schedule sans the days we do them in.

I would also note that there are PLENTY of ER churches that do none of these things, but they seem to evade your sagely critique.

Finally, you bring up the year 1054 alot. That is a nice round figure for the schism, but it is in no means historically accurate. The schism could go anywhere from 800 through the 15th Century when the Pope started naming and recognizing titular Latin Patriarchs of Antioch.

Quote
Until the those who use the western liturgy within the Orthodox Church also abide by the canons found in:

The Collectio Anselmo dedicata (9th c. Italy)
The Libri duo de synodalibus causis (ca. 906, by Regino of Prüm)
The Decretum by Burchard of Worms (ca. 1020)

They are not truly practicing the western rite, but a primarily a western liturgy with a handful of familiar western customs thrown in to appease ignorant lay people who have little exposure beyond the weekly Sunday morning Mass and possibly Sunday Vespers.
Since you have no clue about the aforementioned western customs, your statement is nonsense. Again, more Ortho-sounding fillers to make yourself far more knowledgeable than your wiki searches would make you out to be.

The end of this discussion is simple. The Church has decreed that the Western Rite is completely viable, and NOBODY can deny us the Eucharist without being in schism. Everything else doesn't matter. You are in direct opposition to what the Church has decreed multiple times (Im still waiting on a response from you concerning those poor uneducated sops I listed before...you know, the one including synods, saints, and Patriarchs).
If you think that the Church is wrong, then maybe you need to stop listing canons for us and start reading them yourself.

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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #65 on: December 20, 2013, 09:32:39 AM »

Quote
That means being "Western" is more important to him than being Orthodox.

Likewise I can that also being "Eastern" is more important to most of the hierarchy than being Orthodox.
If we're wrong to have attachments to cultural expressions, than we're both equally wrong.

Nope, there's a very plain difference: whatever cultural attachments the hierarchs may be guilty of, they're still in the Church, and you're in... Charismatic crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic land? You are lost and confused. Come back to the Church.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #66 on: December 20, 2013, 10:45:30 AM »

Quote
That means being "Western" is more important to him than being Orthodox.

Likewise I can that also being "Eastern" is more important to most of the hierarchy than being Orthodox.
If we're wrong to have attachments to cultural expressions, than we're both equally wrong.

Nope, there's a very plain difference: whatever cultural attachments the hierarchs may be guilty of, they're still in the Church, and you're in... Charismatic crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic land? You are lost and confused. Come back to the Church.

This. WRO is important but when it comes to salvation the most important "thing" is Christ and His Church.
Logged

Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,607



« Reply #67 on: December 20, 2013, 01:14:03 PM »

Quote
That means being "Western" is more important to him than being Orthodox.

Likewise I can that also being "Eastern" is more important to most of the hierarchy than being Orthodox.
If we're wrong to have attachments to cultural expressions, than we're both equally wrong.

Nope, there's a very plain difference: whatever cultural attachments the hierarchs may be guilty of, they're still in the Church, and you're in... Charismatic crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic land? You are lost and confused. Come back to the Church.

This. WRO is important but when it comes to salvation the most important "thing" is Christ and His Church.

+1 to both of you.

There are people that, with no Eastern background, go to densely ethnic and xenophobic parishes that speak little to no English. And why would they do that if the highest priority is preserving one's [cultural/religious/ethnic] heritage?
Logged
Misplaced Book
Don't Mind Me.....
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Constantinople
Posts: 172



« Reply #68 on: January 05, 2014, 10:44:33 AM »

I believe the OP is asking if the Western Rite can be regarded as Eastern Orthodoxy with Western decoration, or as a strictly Western expression of Orthodoxy, independent of (but, of course, not forsaking) the East. Of course, being that Christianity is, in my view, an "Eastern" religion, one would be hard pressed to adopt a strictly Western approach to Orthodoxy.

A very important question.

From my understanding (which I am open to correction), the Western Rite was conceived as a way for Western Christian Communities to retain many of their customs and at the same time,  come into Orthodoxy.

I am trying to understand how the Western Rite is NOT a form of Liturgical Anthropology and Reconstructionism....and at the same time, how can you shield the WR from its critics who state that it has had "Byzantinizations" imposed upon it and is not an organic expression of Western Spirituality.

It reminds me a lot of the Tractarian Movement within Anglicanism.  The so called "Anglo-Catholics" were tolerated with the Communion at large, and were technically in Communion with everybody else.  But there was a fairly big disconnect.

In the end,  they were a Liturgical flight of fancy,  and ended up ghettoized.   How does the WR differ?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #69 on: January 05, 2014, 02:14:53 PM »

WRO is important but when it comes to salvation the most important "thing" is Christ and His Church.

This is a false dichotomy.  There is no generic Orthodox or Catholic.  One can only be Orthodox or Catholic by following one of the Ritual Traditions present in that Church. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 05, 2014, 02:58:55 PM »

Deacon Lance,

The Roman Catholic Church in the past more frequently emphasized that those who leave the faith have a higher chance of going to hell.
I think that Alpo is entitled to that point of view. It is a legitimate point of view that I have a higher chance of going to hell if I leave the "true faith". I accept this fact. I agree with Alpo and would say it myself.

I think for myself, my contingency on whether the Orthodox Church was the true faith hinged on how well it accepted the principal of catholicity and inculturation. I guess once it failed to pass this test from my own perspective , the rest of my confidence in it was lost.

Irregardless of others views, my own view has always been that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are profoundly similar. Similar to the extent that for me to accepting one as true and the other as false rests upon a few subtle details. I've always felt that the debates over papal authority and filioque for instance were largely political rather than absolute "black and white" divisions.
In a sense they are black and white, but it is also for me seen as an abstract concept far removed from the everyday life of prayer and a parish community.

I would hate to say that I am a moral relativist... I don't know what I am. I may be tied to the tradition of the church in most ways,  but for hierarchy and advanced theology...not as strongly...  From my perspective my life will be far easier if I accept the mainstream traditional roman catholicism and become obedient to whatever the Roman Catholic Church historically teaches through it's councils. From this point forward thats my goal. I am blessed that the very beautiful sung latin mass and RC "anglican use" ordinariate masses and communities are exist close enough to where I live.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 03:07:29 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #71 on: January 05, 2014, 03:36:57 PM »

Deacon Lance,

The Roman Catholic Church in the past more frequently emphasized that those who leave the faith have a higher chance of going to hell.
I think that Alpo is entitled to that point of view. It is a legitimate point of view that I have a higher chance of going to hell if I leave the "true faith". I accept this fact. I agree with Alpo and would say it myself.

I think for myself, my contingency on whether the Orthodox Church was the true faith hinged on how well it accepted the principal of catholicity and inculturation. I guess once it failed to pass this test from my own perspective , the rest of my confidence in it was lost.

Irregardless of others views, my own view has always been that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are profoundly similar. Similar to the extent that for me to accepting one as true and the other as false rests upon a few subtle details. I've always felt that the debates over papal authority and filioque for instance were largely political rather than absolute "black and white" divisions.
In a sense they are black and white, but it is also for me seen as an abstract concept far removed from the everyday life of prayer and a parish community.

I would hate to say that I am a moral relativist... I don't know what I am. I may be tied to the tradition of the church in most ways,  but for hierarchy and advanced theology...not as strongly...  From my perspective my life will be far easier if I accept the mainstream traditional roman catholicism and become obedient to whatever the Roman Catholic Church historically teaches through it's councils. From this point forward thats my goal. I am blessed that the very beautiful sung latin mass and RC "anglican use" ordinariate masses and communities are exist close enough to where I live.
Christopher,

That was not the point I was addressing.  Rather I was refering to the fact that some seem to think there is a base-line Orthodoxy or Catholicism to which Roman, Byzantine, Syriac, etc are tacked on.  One can only be Catholic or Orthodox by being Roman, or Byzantine, or Syriac or any of the others.  It is like saying male/female isn't important I am just human.  No, one is only human while also being either male or female.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #72 on: January 05, 2014, 03:53:43 PM »

I don't know what I am. I may be tied to the tradition of the church in most ways,  but for hierarchy and advanced theology...not as strongly...

This doesn't sound like mainstream traditional Roman Catholicism. Actually the exact opposite.
Logged

Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #73 on: January 05, 2014, 05:11:33 PM »

I believe the OP is asking if the Western Rite can be regarded as Eastern Orthodoxy with Western decoration, or as a strictly Western expression of Orthodoxy, independent of (but, of course, not forsaking) the East. Of course, being that Christianity is, in my view, an "Eastern" religion, one would be hard pressed to adopt a strictly Western approach to Orthodoxy.

A very important question.

From my understanding (which I am open to correction), the Western Rite was conceived as a way for Western Christian Communities to retain many of their customs and at the same time,  come into Orthodoxy.

This is correct.

Quote
I am trying to understand how the Western Rite is NOT a form of Liturgical Anthropology and Reconstructionism

It is neither of these things (at least within Antioch) because it was the living traditions of the communities that were merely resumed and reintegrated with Orthodox tradition. It was not a retreat to the past nor was anything concocted artificially according to the whims of a few individuals.

Quote
....and at the same time, how can you shield the WR from its critics who state that it has had "Byzantinizations" imposed upon it and is not an organic expression of Western Spirituality.

The onus is on those claiming something has been Byzantinized. Can an epiclesis really be considered one? Are icons? Two pre-Communion prayers from the Byzantine liturgy?

It is also important to bear in mind the spirit in which any of these sorts of adjustments are made. There are great reasons for all of them.

Quote
It reminds me a lot of the Tractarian Movement within Anglicanism.  The so called "Anglo-Catholics" were tolerated with the Communion at large, and were technically in Communion with everybody else.  But there was a fairly big disconnect.

In the end,  they were a Liturgical flight of fancy,  and ended up ghettoized.   How does the WR differ?

The biggest difference is that this Western liturgical tradition is now under the care of the undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Surely that makes an immeasurable difference? And experience has shown that WR parishes are remarkably involved in pan-Orthodox initiatives at the local level and are very much integrated into the wider Orthodox presence in their respective communities.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 05:11:58 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Misplaced Book
Don't Mind Me.....
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Constantinople
Posts: 172



« Reply #74 on: January 06, 2014, 12:07:51 AM »

It is neither of these things (at least within Antioch) because it was the living traditions of the communities that were merely resumed and reintegrated with Orthodox tradition. It was not a retreat to the past nor was anything concocted artificially according to the whims of a few individuals.

That leaves open the question of how compatible the Tradition is.   In the case of Anglicanism you have rupture upon rupture in it's history.   Sure there are some Traditions which may have their roots in the "Orthodox West" but they have been smothered by centuries of innovation.   Reintegration would not be possible without some form of "modification" and if that is the case,  how is that not a reconstruction?

The onus is on those claiming something has been Byzantinized. Can an epiclesis really be considered one? Are icons? Two pre-Communion prayers from the Byzantine liturgy?

It is also important to bear in mind the spirit in which any of these sorts of adjustments are made. There are great reasons for all of them.

   The fact that those things were part of the "original Liturgy" is irrelevant to the larger question.   To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all.   It is the same spirit that some flavors of Protestantism evoke when they attempt to "bring back First Century practices."   What is the difference?  Things were part of the Tradition then but they no longer are.

I understand the spirit of receiving the WR.  It is an act of Economy, and I have no doubt that it has nourished many of the souls who entered into the agreement.  Nor will I speak ill of Our Bishops who have set up these arrangements.


The biggest difference is that this Western liturgical tradition is now under the care of the undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Surely that makes an immeasurable difference? And experience has shown that WR parishes are remarkably involved in pan-Orthodox initiatives at the local level and are very much integrated into the wider Orthodox presence in their respective communities.


Again, I have no doubt that many souls have benefited.   

Don't misunderstand,  I am not hostile to the WR.    I have mixed feelings about them and am in doubt as to it's long term viability.   How can they grow or be "promoted" without being painted as reverse Uniatism?  Trying to resurrect Western Orthodoxy in pockets and piecemeal just seems to be a self defeating thing, which will no doubt cause friction in the long term.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,487


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2014, 09:11:15 AM »

Quote
In the case of Anglicanism you have rupture upon rupture in it's history
Ruptures can be healed.

Quote
Sure there are some Traditions which may have their roots in the "Orthodox West" but they have been smothered by centuries of innovation
Which can be corrected. Just look at Iconoclasm.

Quote
To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all
So when/if Rome returns, they better learn the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? What about the Hagia Sophia? Its been 600 years. So we should stop praying for it to come back to Christian hands? How long is too long for something to be "organic"? Further, the Western rite was not dead for 1,000 years. More like 500 when you account for the fact that there was a Western ruling monastery on Mt. Athos.

Quote
Again, I have no doubt that many souls have benefited.
Based on what findings?

Quote
How can they grow or be "promoted" without being painted as reverse Uniatism?
Because anyone who has read more than 5 minutes into Uniatism knows the WR is nowhere close to it. Unless said person wants to use it as an argument and remain blissfully ignorant (yes, Im looking at you Met. Kallistos).

Quote
Trying to resurrect Western Orthodoxy in pockets and piecemeal just seems to be a self defeating thing, which will no doubt cause friction in the long term
No, its defeating because people still hold to the Byzantine = Orthodox nonsense.

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
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2014, 04:13:05 PM »

I really can't believe we keep hearing this "liturgical archaeology/anthropology" nonsense.

Several posters here have repeatedly explained why these charges don't stick, but there's a bigger issue:

SO WHAT?!?!

I mean, really. People throw around the liturgical archaeology label like it's some kind of trump card. But seriously, so what if it is? Why is it a bad thing? Which part of the WR are you saying is incompatible with the life of the Orthodox Church and faith? Which of the synods, saints, and patriarchs who've affirmed the WR do you believe were in error? I've yet to see one person actually explain what they mean by "liturgical archaeology/anthropology," let alone why that's a bad thing.

As I've pointed out before, the Church believes both in giving new life and resurrection; it seems quite appropriate to put those beliefs into action w/r/t a venerable and ancient rite whose practice had been forced to persist outside the Church.

Look, I get why people get nervous when it comes to liturgical innovation - and that is a healthy response. We shouldn't just be digging up any old assemblage of prayers and saying they're OK to use just because they're old. But that's not what's happening here. Here you have an entire devotional and liturgical rite that was faithfully lived out within the Orthodox faith from the earliest centuries of the church up through the schism. Thereafter, it persisted but only under the watch of a See that was in error. What the WR restores is this ancient rite, free from any later modifications that took place when the rite was no longer in use among the sees not in error. Is this really archaeology? We're just picking up where we left off. But even if it is, so what?

There is only one valid reason to oppose the WR and that is because you believe it is incompatible with the Orthodox faith. But to make that argument, you're going to need to excommunicate a lot of saints and every bishop before the schism.
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2014, 04:58:58 PM »

Look, I get why people get nervous when it comes to liturgical innovation - and that is a healthy response. We shouldn't just be digging up any old assemblage of prayers and saying they're OK to use just because they're old. But that's not what's happening here. Here you have an entire devotional and liturgical rite that was faithfully lived out within the Orthodox faith from the earliest centuries of the church up through the schism. Thereafter, it persisted but only under the watch of a See that was in error. What the WR restores is this ancient rite, free from any later modifications that took place when the rite was no longer in use among the sees not in error. Is this really archaeology? We're just picking up where we left off. But even if it is, so what?

Generally true, although there are a couple of pre-schism references to "merits" of saints which were excised from the Antiochian liturgy of St. Gregory.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2014, 06:10:23 PM »

The fact that those things were part of the "original Liturgy" is irrelevant to the larger question.   To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all.   It is the same spirit that some flavors of Protestantism evoke when they attempt to "bring back First Century practices."   What is the difference?  Things were part of the Tradition then but they no longer are.

They haven't been dead for a thousand years.  They have been in use, by Churches the Orthodox may consider heretical and schismatic, but they have been in use.  Don't the Orthodox always proclaim we don't know where the Spirit isn't? Did the Western Church lose every grace of the Spirit, every bit of holiness?  I don't think the hiearchy of the Orthodox Church thinks so.

edit for typos
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 06:27:49 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2014, 06:18:00 PM »

The fact that those things were part of the "original Liturgy" is irrelevant to the larger question.   To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all.   It is the same spirit that some flavors of Protestantism evoke when they attempt to "bring back First Century practices."   What is the difference?  Things were part of the Tradition then but they no longer are.

They haven't been dead for a thousand years.  They have been in use, by Churches the Orthodox may consider heretical and schismatic, but they have been in use.  Don't they Orthodox always proclaim we don't know where the Spirit isn't? Did the Wetsern Church lose every grace of the Spirit, every bit of holiness?  I don't think the hiearchy of the Orthodox Church thinks so.

+1

Precisely.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #80 on: January 06, 2014, 07:54:03 PM »

I really can't believe we keep hearing this "liturgical archaeology/anthropology" nonsense.

Several posters here have repeatedly explained why these charges don't stick, but there's a bigger issue:

SO WHAT?!?!

I mean, really. People throw around the liturgical archaeology label like it's some kind of trump card. But seriously, so what if it is? Why is it a bad thing? Which part of the WR are you saying is incompatible with the life of the Orthodox Church and faith? Which of the synods, saints, and patriarchs who've affirmed the WR do you believe were in error? I've yet to see one person actually explain what they mean by "liturgical archaeology/anthropology," let alone why that's a bad thing.

As I've pointed out before, the Church believes both in giving new life and resurrection; it seems quite appropriate to put those beliefs into action w/r/t a venerable and ancient rite whose practice had been forced to persist outside the Church.

Look, I get why people get nervous when it comes to liturgical innovation - and that is a healthy response. We shouldn't just be digging up any old assemblage of prayers and saying they're OK to use just because they're old. But that's not what's happening here. Here you have an entire devotional and liturgical rite that was faithfully lived out within the Orthodox faith from the earliest centuries of the church up through the schism. Thereafter, it persisted but only under the watch of a See that was in error. What the WR restores is this ancient rite, free from any later modifications that took place when the rite was no longer in use among the sees not in error. Is this really archaeology? We're just picking up where we left off. But even if it is, so what?

There is only one valid reason to oppose the WR and that is because you believe it is incompatible with the Orthodox faith. But to make that argument, you're going to need to excommunicate a lot of saints and every bishop before the schism.

Agreed.

It's not about archaeology. It's about getting our stuff back after the divorce.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #81 on: January 06, 2014, 07:56:08 PM »

Look, I get why people get nervous when it comes to liturgical innovation - and that is a healthy response. We shouldn't just be digging up any old assemblage of prayers and saying they're OK to use just because they're old. But that's not what's happening here. Here you have an entire devotional and liturgical rite that was faithfully lived out within the Orthodox faith from the earliest centuries of the church up through the schism. Thereafter, it persisted but only under the watch of a See that was in error. What the WR restores is this ancient rite, free from any later modifications that took place when the rite was no longer in use among the sees not in error. Is this really archaeology? We're just picking up where we left off. But even if it is, so what?

Generally true, although there are a couple of pre-schism references to "merits" of saints which were excised from the Antiochian liturgy of St. Gregory.

I thought that was a misunderstanding. Prior to the schism (and a couple centuries afterward), "meritas" did not refer to there being some great pool of extra grace from the works of the saints.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #82 on: January 06, 2014, 07:59:55 PM »

The fact that those things were part of the "original Liturgy" is irrelevant to the larger question.   To attempt to reinsert or reestablish practices that have been dead for a thousand years is itself innovation and not "organic" at all.   It is the same spirit that some flavors of Protestantism evoke when they attempt to "bring back First Century practices."   What is the difference?  Things were part of the Tradition then but they no longer are.

They haven't been dead for a thousand years.  They have been in use, by Churches the Orthodox may consider heretical and schismatic, but they have been in use.  Don't the Orthodox always proclaim we don't know where the Spirit isn't? Did the Western Church lose every grace of the Spirit, every bit of holiness?  I don't think the hiearchy of the Orthodox Church thinks so.

edit for typos

I think a strong case can be made that the Western Church through schism and heresy lost, certainly, the grace of the Holy Spirit that came through the sacraments--and that any grace that may be there operated in spite of, not because of, those sacraments. But that is another question entirely when one looks at rites. Just because a group goes into schism doesn't mean its prayers, composed by Orthodox, prayed by Orthodox, sanctifying the faithful, have ceased to be Orthodox. Prayers are neither baptized, nor do they fall into heresy and schism, provided they are not corrupted. And what changes were made after the schism are not hard to see and fix.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,549



« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2014, 08:14:32 PM »

Needs more emphasis on the Western-style of worship service
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 08:14:54 PM by WPM » Logged
Misplaced Book
Don't Mind Me.....
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Constantinople
Posts: 172



« Reply #84 on: January 07, 2014, 04:06:07 AM »

To primuspilus:

"Ruptures can be healed."

REPLY:  Very true.  However, some wounds require a band aid...and others require reconstructive surgery.

"Which can be corrected. Just look at Iconoclasm."

REPLY:  Yes, but lets not pretend that all situations are equal.

"So when/if Rome returns, they better learn the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? What about the Hagia Sophia? Its been 600 years. So we should stop praying for it to come back to Christian hands? How long is too long for something to be "organic"? Further, the Western rite was not dead for 1,000 years. More like 500 when you account for the fact that there was a Western ruling monastery on Mt. Athos."

REPLY:  No...but there will need to a very serious discussion as to what can be kept, and what must be discarded.   Latin Ecclesiology and Life has become so intertwined with its Errors, that separating them will require the "major reconstructive surgery" to go back to my earlier analogy.    One Monastery on the Holy Mountain does not translate into the vast expanse of Church life.

We should never stop praying for anything.

"Based on what findings?"

REPLY:  I was trying to be charitable and concede the point (which I have no doubt is true) that souls have benefited from what you are doing.  If they haven't, what is the point?  Calling your own position into doubt in an attempt to out me as a hypocrite or troll isn't putting glitter on this conversation.

"Because anyone who has read more than 5 minutes into Uniatism knows the WR is nowhere close to it. Unless said person wants to use it as an argument and remain blissfully ignorant (yes, Im looking at you Met. Kallistos)."

REPLY:  I never said that the Union of Brest or any of that nonsense is the same as the Western Rite, which is voluntary and an act of Pastoral Economy.
However,  "Perception is Reality" for many people, and for any Church to grow, it requires some evangelization and "promotion" to use crude secular terms.  How will you "sell" the Western Rite?  What about those disaffected Anglicans and Latins out there who may want to keep their traditions?  Orthodox-Western Rite:  You don't have to be Byzantine to be Orthodox.  That's your draw, is it not?  I'm saying this because that is how it will come off.   The comparison comes in, because Eastern Catholics say that "You don't have to be Western to be Catholic."  And that they can "keep their traditions" and be in union with Rome.   Western Rite people can "keep their traditions" and be in union with Canonical Orthodoxy.   That is where comparisons to the Unia come in.  No sensible person would attempt to stack up their histories or engage in any moral equivocation....this is about the stripped down, fundamental perception between the two.   My post was not an attack but a question/point of discussion.   How can the Western Rite grow and avoid this mess?  

Perhaps it can't.  Maybe the masks need to come off on both sides,  and both sides admit that Ecumenism of Return is the default position of both sides.   I'm fine with that.  Let's not dance around the point.

"No, its defeating because people still hold to the Byzantine = Orthodox nonsense."

REPLY:  And those people are wrong.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 04:08:21 AM by Misplaced Book » Logged
Misplaced Book
Don't Mind Me.....
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Constantinople
Posts: 172



« Reply #85 on: January 07, 2014, 04:25:06 AM »

I really can't believe we keep hearing this "liturgical archaeology/anthropology" nonsense.

Several posters here have repeatedly explained why these charges don't stick, but there's a bigger issue:

SO WHAT?!?!

I mean, really. People throw around the liturgical archaeology label like it's some kind of trump card. But seriously, so what if it is? Why is it a bad thing? Which part of the WR are you saying is incompatible with the life of the Orthodox Church and faith? Which of the synods, saints, and patriarchs who've affirmed the WR do you believe were in error? I've yet to see one person actually explain what they mean by "liturgical archaeology/anthropology," let alone why that's a bad thing.

As I've pointed out before, the Church believes both in giving new life and resurrection; it seems quite appropriate to put those beliefs into action w/r/t a venerable and ancient rite whose practice had been forced to persist outside the Church.

Look, I get why people get nervous when it comes to liturgical innovation - and that is a healthy response. We shouldn't just be digging up any old assemblage of prayers and saying they're OK to use just because they're old. But that's not what's happening here. Here you have an entire devotional and liturgical rite that was faithfully lived out within the Orthodox faith from the earliest centuries of the church up through the schism. Thereafter, it persisted but only under the watch of a See that was in error. What the WR restores is this ancient rite, free from any later modifications that took place when the rite was no longer in use among the sees not in error. Is this really archaeology? We're just picking up where we left off. But even if it is, so what?

There is only one valid reason to oppose the WR and that is because you believe it is incompatible with the Orthodox faith. But to make that argument, you're going to need to excommunicate a lot of saints and every bishop before the schism.

Innovation, as it plays out in our modern context is something I believe to be corrosive, and very dangerous.  The Latin Church is a lesson on this point.   American Culture itself was born of this spirit of Innovation and the Worship of Progress.  It is the stream we swim in, it is a very very fine line, and very dangerous to the Faith.  It needs to be Transformed, not Adopted.  This may seem like needless hyperbole and exaggerations, but the Spiritual Wreckage of Western Religious Life says otherwise.  It is this trauma that causes the Reactions to "Innovation."   The calls for "understanding" go both ways.

I don't oppose the Western Rite.     My point/question was in the context of Ecumenism and how the Western Rite will be able to grow and fit in into that framework.  "Sheep Stealing" is a very sensitive issue, and I had that in mind as I framed the post.   I am beginning to see that that is perhaps the wrong way to approach the question.  

Forgive me if anything I said offended anyone.   I understand that some folks might be defensive. Please remember that not every doubt is an attack.



« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 04:26:16 AM by Misplaced Book » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2014, 07:29:49 PM »

Great questions by Misplaced Book, and superb answers all around. I don't think you've said anything offensive and it's healthy to ask these kinds of questions.

In regards to much of what has been said and asked, I am reminded of the recent remarks of Fr. Thomas Hopko on Ancient Faith Radio (titled "The Slippery Slope" from Speaking the Truth in Love):

"I really think, we have to be mature enough, enlightened enough, careful and responsible enough, in our Church, to make changes that the conditions of our life and culture compel us to do. And it's not just for convenience or prudence, but it can be for societal changes, and it may be for the restoration of something that has been lost. Why not? Why cannot there be things in society that require us to make changes in our behavior, and even in our worship? There are Russians who, any little change you would make about anything, is considered to be a dangerous and poisonous changing of tradition. Well, why? The true Church is not the perfect Church. People make mistakes, things come into existence, things go out of existence; it's a living organism inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have to have discernment, that's why you have bishops and clergy, scholars, holy monks and nuns, so that we don't lose the real tradition."
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #87 on: January 07, 2014, 07:48:36 PM »

Great questions by Misplaced Book, and superb answers all around. I don't think you've said anything offensive and it's healthy to ask these kinds of questions.

In regards to much of what has been said and asked, I am reminded of the recent remarks of Fr. Thomas Hopko on Ancient Faith Radio (titled "The Slippery Slope" from Speaking the Truth in Love):

"I really think, we have to be mature enough, enlightened enough, careful and responsible enough, in our Church, to make changes that the conditions of our life and culture compel us to do. And it's not just for convenience or prudence, but it can be for societal changes, and it may be for the restoration of something that has been lost. Why not? Why cannot there be things in society that require us to make changes in our behavior, and even in our worship? There are Russians who, any little change you would make about anything, is considered to be a dangerous and poisonous changing of tradition. Well, why? The true Church is not the perfect Church. People make mistakes, things come into existence, things go out of existence; it's a living organism inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have to have discernment, that's why you have bishops and clergy, scholars, holy monks and nuns, so that we don't lose the real tradition."

And it's important to recognize how much the Church has changed what it does over time. For example, we no longer start the Liturgy at one place in the city and process to another. Fasts used to be shorter, but services used to be longer. More people used to become monastics than today--this is actually problematic for our hierarchical structure, giving a much smaller pool to draw from and by extension fewer bishops than may be needed.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2014, 07:54:39 PM »

Is the so-called Eastern Rite more than a rite? I don't think so. To me, a rite is something encompassing a way of prayer and possibly administration and praxis. Essentially, however, all the basic and essential elements of Orthodox Christianity should be there, no matter the rite. These don't come about automatically, however. The prayers are a means to communication with God, the sacraments for sanctification, the canons and the practices for good order.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,487


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #89 on: January 08, 2014, 08:46:38 AM »

Quote
However, some wounds require a band aid...and others require reconstructive surgery
The medicine is already been prescribed. Return to the Pre-Schism West which the WR is. Whether Rome or anyone else takes their medicine is another issue entirely.

Quote
Yes, but lets not pretend that all situations are equal
Im not saying they are, but Im saying that major problems can be corrected, and its not an insurmountable obstacle.

Quote
I was trying to be charitable and concede the point (which I have no doubt is true) that souls have benefited from what you are doing.  If they haven't, what is the point?
You said that you doubted that many souls have benefited. I asked for evidence. I wasn't calling you a hypocrite. I just asked for evidence to back up your assumption.

Quote
Calling your own position into doubt in an attempt to out me as a hypocrite or troll isn't putting glitter on this conversation
If you think I was attacking you I apologize. I was not.

Quote
How will you "sell" the Western Rite?
We dont have to "sell" it. We're not con men.
Quote
What about those disaffected Anglicans and Latins out there who may want to keep their traditions?
If those traditions are Orthodox then why not? The WR isn't like Rome where as long as you bow your knee to the Pope you can believe whatever you want.

Quote
hat is where comparisons to the Unia come in.  No sensible person would attempt to stack up their histories or engage in any moral equivocation....this is about the stripped down, fundamental perception between the two.   My post was not an attack but a question/point of discussion.   How can the Western Rite grow and avoid this mess?
The difference is pretty obvious. With Rome, you can believe whatever you wish, as long as you bow your knee to Rome. Melkites can believe all they want that the Pope is primus inter pares, while they bow their knee to him and obey his whims.

With the WR, we have to be completely orthodox and Orthodox in every way. Every other argument concerning the WR and the Unia is really a non sequitur.

Quote
Maybe the masks need to come off on both sides,  and both sides admit that Ecumenism of Return is the default position of both sides.   I'm fine with that.  Let's not dance around the point
The WR isn't dancing around anything. The WR is giving people a chance to see that there is a time before Rome's innovations, and see what the western half Orthodoxy looked like before the schism. That return is possible without having to be ethno-centric (as they see it).

Quote
sheep stealing
That is something everyone wants to avoid. I cant speak for everyone, but in my town, there are 2 Orthodox churches. The Greek church has no priest, and only has services maybe twice a month. So quite a few come to our Church (especially on major feasts) but when a priest shows up there they go o their home church. Very few (I can only think of one family) has actually switched to our church "full time".

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
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.185 seconds with 72 queries.