Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

[ialmisry]

Jesuits vs. Russian Orthodox?  I don't think so.  For the Chinese Orthodox, nationality became of less consequence to them than their Orthodoxy.  Nothing in that about being annexed by Russia or necessarily losing their Chinese identity. Jesus Christ and the Holy Orthodox faith was of greater importance than notions of race and nation.  This is the story of Orthodoxy.  National identity is less important than Orthodox identity.  This happened for the Chinese Orthodox.  It happened for the Aleutian-Alaskan Orthodox.  It happened for the Japanese Orthodox and it is happening now for the Indonesian Orthodox, the Western Orthodox converts and so many more.

Before we go into that, are you Chinese? Have you met any Chinese Orthodox?

Eastern Orthodox life has been an organic development always-

The Novella of Justinian, the Byzantinization of Pat. Balsamon "of Antioch," the Reformation of Nikon, the Spiritual Regulation of Czar Peter....you skip over, or have substantial gaps in, significant parts of the history of the Orthodox Church.

mperfect at times in application, but arguably nurtured by so many saints and holy people of God.  Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

This assertion has been made before, and it has failed yet, as far as I have seen, to be substantiated.

As for not producing saints, what you should mean is that the Orthodox Church cannot, at least at present, glorify saints that the West produced after the schism. What you have said is that virtue evaporated from the West

Do get your facts straight, and state straightforward what you mean by "that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas ."

It is only Eastern Orthodoxy that has breathed the Spirit of God into the spiritually bankrupt West.

Oh, the East hasn't been the land of plenty you are portraying.  Had it been, we would not have experienced the Western Captivity of the Church.

We western converts owe our spiritual lives on those saints and missionaries from Greece, Russia and the Middle East.  The Western-rite itself is the product of the benevolence of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Your point?

Of course the negatives of the West have hugely impacted on Orthodox societies and contemporary culture.  That Orthodox Christian kingdoms like Greece and Serbia are now secular republics is a product of the anti-monarchical and anti-Orthodox spirit of modern post French Revolution western thinking.

The Spiritual Regulation of the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Empire was issued long before the French Revpolution.

Even Russia today is yet to make peace with God in the restoration of the Orthodox Tsars.

As much as I am a monarchist, Russia is under no obligation of God to elect a Tsar nor restore the Romanovs.

The New Calendarist modernism owes much to the spirit of contemporary Western pseudo-scientific and entirely secular thinking. That is why the Julian calendar itself is so important because it serves as a signal separation of the Orthodox from non-believers.

So you have to disavow science to reject secularism?  I prefer to follow the Fathers, and accept that the spring equinox occurs on March 21, Revised Julian Calendar.

That the English monarchy has preserved albeit via a heterodox Church of England so much Orthodox notions of the relationship between the monarchy and God is a sign of the residue of Orthodoxy in some places of the Western psyche. May God grant that Orthodoxy, Eastern and Western will convert the West anew.

And in the process convert the East anew.

[Hermogenes]

 Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

[SubdeaconDavid]

Our Lord did indeed show love for the most fallen.  I have met an Anglican monk, the late Dom Anthony Damron from the Benedictine Abbey at Three Rivers in Michigan whom  I would consider a man with many saintly qualities, recognised I imagine by God Himself.  Nonetheless, Dom Anthony was outside the Body of Christ and this separation colours everything as it does for all in every country who are outside the Orthodox Christian faith. Fr. Anthony has long left his body, however I cannot imagine God not welcoming him into Paradise: a monk who prayed the hours and lived the Benedictine Rule most of his adult life.

Indeed I am sure Dom Anthony had much less need of the mercy of God than me.

[ialmisry]

Our Lord did indeed show love for the most fallen.  I have met an Anglican monk, the late Dom Anthony Damron from the Benedictine Abbey at Three Rivers in Michigan whom  I would consider a man with many saintly qualities, recognised I imagine by God Himself.  Nonetheless, Dom Anthony was outside the Body of Christ and this separation colours everything as it does for all in every country who are outside the Orthodox Christian faith.

No country is outside the Orthodox Christian Faith.  Were the smallest country outside it, the Orthodox Christian Faith would not be that of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Do you include Tamania/Australia as inside the Orthodox Christian Faith, or outside it?

[ialmisry]

Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

[elijahmaria]

Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.

[Hermogenes]

Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.

If you ever want to have an interesting experience, hang out for awhile with a group of monks from a variety of different traditions and religions. What is interesting is that the monks all seem to have more in common with one another, no matter what path they are treading, than they do with the lay people of their own denominations. An Anglican Franciscan, a Zen Buddhist sensei, and a Greek Orthodox Hieromonk seem to have a bond that goes beyond boundaries.

The early Fathers learned from all kinds of sources.

[ialmisry]

Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.

If you ever want to have an interesting experience, hang out for awhile with a group of monks from a variety of different traditions and religions. What is interesting is that the monks all seem to have more in common with one another, no matter what path they are treading, than they do with the lay people of their own denominations. An Anglican Franciscan, a Zen Buddhist sensei, and a Greek Orthodox Hieromonk seem to have a bond that goes beyond boundaries.

The early Fathers learned from all kinds of sources.

Yes. If you read their writings, you seem then winnowing the wheat from the chaff, following the Apostolic injunction "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." Phil. 4:8. If they could do so from pagan and heathen Rome, why not Ultramontanist Rome?

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.

Care to quote me on that?

[Shlomlokh]

Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.

Wow. Isa basically commented your church and saints and you took it as an opportunity to spit back in his face? Classy.

I agree with both Isa and Hermogenes. There are very holy men and women after the schism, but from the Orthodox perspective, they if they are to be read, it should be done under the direction of a spiritual father (as should all spiritual reading, from what I understand).

In Christ,
Andrew

[Hermogenes]

Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.

Wow. Isa basically commented your church and saints and you took it as an opportunity to spit back in his face? Classy.

I agree with both Isa and Hermogenes. There are very holy men and women after the schism, but from the Orthodox perspective, they if they are to be read, it should be done under the direction of a spiritual father (as should all spiritual reading, from what I understand).

In Christ,
Andrew

And many people have benefitted from writers such as Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day, Teillhard de Chardin, Henri Nouwen, etc., Just as Westerners have benefitted from "post-Schism" our saints.

[elijahmaria]

Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.

If you ever want to have an interesting experience, hang out for awhile with a group of monks from a variety of different traditions and religions. What is interesting is that the monks all seem to have more in common with one another, no matter what path they are treading, than they do with the lay people of their own denominations. An Anglican Franciscan, a Zen Buddhist sensei, and a Greek Orthodox Hieromonk seem to have a bond that goes beyond boundaries.

The early Fathers learned from all kinds of sources.

I know that very well.

However there is a breach in the logic of the on-going approach that I mentioned above and I was noting it. 

[Shlomlokh]

Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Shlomlokh]

Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Bump!

[Sleeper]

This seems to be a common occurrence...

[Shlomlokh]

This seems to be a common occurrence...

Did it happen to you as well? Did you get your money back? I hope it wasn't a scam.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Sleeper]

No, not to me, but I was very interested in obtaining one until I found several others who had never received their book. It's not a scam as much as, I don't know, perhaps laziness or an inability to fulfill the order for some reason? I hope it works out for you...

[Hermogenes]

Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?

[Shlomlokh]

Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?

The Old English prayerbook that Hieromonk Aidan compiled and is put out by his printing press under the ROCOR. I sent away for it over 4 weeks ago and I even contacted Hieromonk Aidan by email to see what the story was. No word. I'd rather it be negligence as Sleeper said and not a scam.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Hermogenes]

Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?

The Old English prayerbook that Hieromonk Aidan compiled and is put out by his printing press under the ROCOR. I sent away for it over 4 weeks ago and I even contacted Hieromonk Aidan by email to see what the story was. No word. I'd rather it be negligence as Sleeper said and not a scam.

In Christ,
Andrew

How odd. I got mine in about a week. I bought it in November, I think.

[SubdeaconDavid]

They are liturgically foregin to the East

No, the Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
Where was it maintained as a living tradition after the Schism?
And where is there even a complete pre-schism manuscript of the Sarum Rite missal and beviary?
Don't turn this into East vs. West.
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.

This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

[SubdeaconDavid]

Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?

The Old English prayerbook that Hieromonk Aidan compiled and is put out by his printing press under the ROCOR. I sent away for it over 4 weeks ago and I even contacted Hieromonk Aidan by email to see what the story was. No word. I'd rather it be negligence as Sleeper said and not a scam.

I know the St. John of Kronstadt Press have the book listed in stock and they are an excellent and efficient mailer.

[Hermogenes]

Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?

The Old English prayerbook that Hieromonk Aidan compiled and is put out by his printing press under the ROCOR. I sent away for it over 4 weeks ago and I even contacted Hieromonk Aidan by email to see what the story was. No word. I'd rather it be negligence as Sleeper said and not a scam.

I know the St. John of Kronstadt Press have the book listed in stock and they are an excellent and efficient mailer.

Amazon usually has it available, too.

I've been making the argument you made about Sarum rites since I joined this thread. Prepare to be--well, not  shouted down, people here are pretty kind anf respectful. "Corrected" might be the word. LOL

[podkarpatska]

They are liturgically foregin to the East

No, the Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
Where was it maintained as a living tradition after the Schism?
And where is there even a complete pre-schism manuscript of the Sarum Rite missal and beviary?
Don't turn this into East vs. West.
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.

This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

The DNA point is interesting and calls up a recent anecdote. My son is a microbiologist and we exchanged emails the other week about a report on Japanese researchers attempting to 'recreate' a mammoth from DNA strands of a frozen mammoth found in Siberia and other DNA aspects from modern elephants, a species closely related to the extinct mammoth. I observed to my son that while they might end up with an animal from this process, while it might be an animal, it surely would really be neither mammoth nor elephant. It might be worth the effort to try, but the scientists would not end up with that which they started to seek.

[Michał Kalina]

This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Why the Bishops dead 1000 years ago are wiser that those alive now? Why aren't we allowed to start new tradition or new rite?

[Shlomlokh]

This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Why the Bishops dead 1000 years ago are wiser that those alive now? Why aren't we allowed to start new tradition or new rite?

Well, technically the Sarum liturgy/rites are not new at all.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Sleeper]

They are liturgically foregin to the East

No, the Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
Where was it maintained as a living tradition after the Schism?
And where is there even a complete pre-schism manuscript of the Sarum Rite missal and beviary?
Don't turn this into East vs. West.
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.

This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

This is only an issue if one insists an authentic Western Rite has to be pre-Schism. The Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate would say (correctly, IMHO) that this is not so. Hence their reasoning behind adapting existing Western liturgies which have been kept alive.

The issue then would be whether or not we should "reject" something simply because it was not maintained by the Orthodox Church. And if you're going to take this line of reasoning, you're going to run into some problems.

The fact is, there wasn't nearly as much "damage" to the Western Rites as some like to think and they were quite easily adjusted to once again live as authentically ancient Western expressions of the Holy Catholic Faith.

There is no "resurrecting" going on within the AWRV. Restoration would be more accurate.

[James2]

This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Sarum is a use of the Roman rite, not a rite itself.  There is no pre-schism Sarum use, because it developed following the Norman conquest.  The pre-schism Anglo-Saxon church also used the Roman rite.  By the time of the Norman conquest the Roman rite had already evolved to a point that it strongly resembled what later became known as the "Tridentine" rite.  Sarum and other medieval uses were fairly minor variations on the Roman rite.  Thus, the AWRV Liturgy of St. Gregory is an appropriate adaptation of the historic Western liturgy for use in present-day Orthodoxy.

[Papist]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

[James2]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

Sure, as long as they dropped the Novus Ordo!

[Monk Vasyl]

This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Why the Bishops dead 1000 years ago are wiser that those alive now? Why aren't we allowed to start new tradition or new rite?

I agree with you 100%, Michal.

[Hermogenes]

This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Why the Bishops dead 1000 years ago are wiser that those alive now? Why aren't we allowed to start new tradition or new rite?

I agree with you 100%, Michal.

It seems to me--I hope this doesn't sound grandiose--that the goal is to lead us to God through Christ.If the Western Rite can help do that within a valid Orthodox liturgical theology, then I don't see any reason to oppose it. I doubt it would be for me, but it might be just the job for someone else.

[Sleeper]

It was good enough for St. Benedict, St. Patrick, St. Columba, St. Dunstan, St. Etheldreda and countless others, why wouldn't it be good for us today?

[ialmisry]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

no, they would have to adopt the rite of St. Gregory.

[Achronos]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

I look forward to the day when you become Orthodox, in fact it's predicted in Revelation. Wouldn't that be something if the Pope of Rome decided that his church became Orthodox, I couldn't imagine the uprise it would cause for the Catholic faithful.

[James2]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

I look forward to the day when you become Orthodox, in fact it's predicted in Revelation. Wouldn't that be something if the Pope of Rome decided that his church became Orthodox, I couldn't imagine the uprise it would cause for the Catholic faithful.

It would upset their many modernists even more.

[Hermogenes]

I just received a copy of the Western Rite Service Book, for use in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I don't know what I was expecting, but after all the passionate defense of its uniqueness I certainly wasn't expecting what I got. This is for all purposes, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The so-called Liturgy of St. Tikhon is the Anglican service of Holy Communion, with a few things tossed in to make it conform theologically. The book also includes such "Orthodox" rites as the Stations of the Cross and the Adoration of the Blessed Sacramment--which appear to have been adapted from the Prayer Book of St. Augustine (a prayer book published early in the last century for high-church Anglicans). Even the order of services in the book follows the Anglican format. The Matins and Vespers services appear to be lifted from BCP nearly word for word.

My one response is--why? What is the point of this? Why is an Orthodox church using a Protestant prayer book, even assuming certain corrections for the sake of theological uniformity? The Anglican Eucharist isn't simply different theologically: The entire intent of the service is explicitly different. Anglicans aren't simply Orthodox waiting to be liberated from their Protestant disguise, who once thus liberated can continue as before but under new management. The books published by Fr. Aidan are at the least quite different. They present a unique perspective on the liturgy.

This Western Rite book is a Protestant prayer book in Orthodox clothing.

[Aindriú]

 ,,,

[Alpo]

The books published by Fr. Aidan are at the least quite different. They present a unique perspective on the liturgy.

In your opinion, what makes Fr. Aidan's books different?

[Sleeper]

I just received a copy of the Western Rite Service Book, for use in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Congrats!

I don't know what I was expecting, but after all the passionate defense of its uniqueness I certainly wasn't expecting what I got.

That happens.

This is for all purposes, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

It certainly feels that way, true.

The so-called Liturgy of St. Tikhon

It's no so-called, that's its official title

is the Anglican service of Holy Communion, with a few things tossed in to make it conform theologically.

Some things were removed too, but yes, it has been supplemented from the Rite of St. Gregory and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

The book also includes such "Orthodox" rites as the Stations of the Cross and the Adoration of the Blessed Sacramment--which appear to have been adapted from the Prayer Book of St. Augustine (a prayer book published early in the last century for high-church Anglicans).

Those aren't rites, they're devotions.

Even the order of services in the book follows the Anglican format. The Matins and Vespers services appear to be lifted from BCP nearly word for word.

Indeed!

My one response is--why?

Because all things true and beautiful belong in the bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church.

What is the point of this?

Taken from http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/wrv_history.pdf:

The purpose of the Western Rite Vicariate, as originally conceived in 1958, is threefold. First, the WRV serves an ecumenical purpose. The ideal of true ecumenism, according to an Orthodox understanding, promotes “all efforts for the reunion of Christendom, without departing from the ancient foundation of our One Orthodox Church.”  Second, the WRV serves a missionary and evangelistic purpose. There are a great many non-Orthodox Christians who are “attracted by our Orthodox Faith, but could not find a congenial home in the spiritual world of Eastern Christendom.” Third, the WRV exists to be witness to Orthodox Christians themselves to the universality of the Orthodox Catholic Faith – a Faith which is not narrowly Byzantine, Hellenistic, or Slavic (as is sometimes assumed by non-Orthodox and Orthodox alike) but is the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for all men, in all places, at all times. In the words of Father Paul Schneirla, “the Western Rite restores the normal cultural balance in the Church. The pre-schismatic condition is restored between East and West in symbol and potentiality. A primary result of this reunion is that the Church proclaims her catholicity. She demonstrates that the is the Oecumenical Church, not a tribal religion.”  The WRV, while existing within the bosom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, has an entirely “Western Catholic” liturgical life, as it includes translated and adapted Latin liturgical texts for the Divine Office, the Mass (Divine Liturgy), the Sacraments, and various Blessings; forms for the observance of the Western Church Year and the old Roman sanctoral kalendar; the use of Gregorian chant as well as other forms of traditional Western church music and hymnody; ceremonial acts, vestments, architecture, ecclesiastical arts, popular piety and ethos. The basis for the WRV’s eucharistic texts may be found in two seminal documents: (1) the Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis (drawn up by J. J. Overbeck and approved by the Russian Synod in 1869, and by Constantinople in 1882), and (2) the 1904 response of the Russian Synod to Archbishop (now Saint) Tikhon concerning the 1892 American Book of Common Prayer.

Sums it up nicely.

Why is an Orthodox church using a Protestant prayer book, even assuming certain corrections for the sake of theological uniformity?

In the words of one wise man:

No honest human being could describe this as "The Book of Common Prayer." Although Anglo-Catholics would recognize it, and most Western Christians feel an instant and familiar sense of worship while praying it, St. Tikhon's Liturgy far exceeded any edition of the BCP...

Much less could it be called "Protestant." It is a liturgy compiled according to the instructions of the Orthodox Church, at the behest of Orthodox saints, by distinguished Orthodox theologians, blessed within the Orthodox Church, and celebrated within multiple patriarchates of the Orthodox Church for decades. No Protestant would be comfortable with the liturgy's fervent supplication of the saints and the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. He would not appreciate its commemoration of Orthodox hierarchs. He would find no "Zwinglian" content in its outspoken profession of the Real Presence. And no Calvinist -- the British variety of which paid thugs to smash church pictures and stained glass windows with a hammer -- would feel comfortable in a church that visibly expresses its acceptance of the seventh ecumenical council.

In giving its approval, the Church adoped the liturgy's every word and turn-of-phrase -- whatever its provenance -- as Her own. One is inescapably led to believe as the Orthodox Church does about this liturgy, and the Western Rite in general: that it conveys the fulness of Orthodox faith, worship, and devotion to those, of whatever ethnic background, privileged to share in its celebration.

- Benjamin Anderson, westernorthodox.blogspot.com

The Anglican Eucharist isn't simply different theologically: The entire intent of the service is explicitly different.

Texts don't have "intent," people do. If you'd like to know what those of us Orthodox worshipping with this beautiful liturgy "intend" you should come to one of our services

Anglicans aren't simply Orthodox waiting to be liberated from their Protestant disguise, who once thus liberated can continue as before but under new management.

Indeed!

The books published by Fr. Aidan are at the least quite different. They present a unique perspective on the liturgy.

We aren't looking for "different" or "unique" liturgies; we want the authentic and venerable traditions of our forefathers.

This Western Rite book is a Protestant prayer book in Orthodox clothing.

I've emailed Patriarch Ignatius IV of the Holy See of Antioch to let him know this. Expect a response be E.O.B. on Friday. I'd email those who played the largest role in ushering this venerable and holy liturgy into the bosom of the Mother church, but they're in Heaven right now being honored as Saints.

All kidding aside, I'd like to leave with one more quote:

We are simply Orthodox Christians (because we believe the Orthodox Catholic Faith) who, with the blessing of the Church, worship, pray and live out our Christian existence according to the authentic and venerable traditions of the Western Church, as they have come down to us. That's it, and all of it. Let the great internet theologians say whatever they want; we're just here trying to live out our Christian lives, rejoicing in the communion of the Orthodox Catholic Church, and thankful for the gift of our Western Rite expression.

- Benjamin Andersen, westernorthodox.blogspot.com

On another note, I'm probably not the only one interested in those portions of this liturgy that you find so repugnant, or miss the mark, or are blatantly false, or any other thing that causes you to dislike it.  Let's talk about some specifics!

[deusveritasest]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

[Melodist]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day. The radings prayers for Palm Sunday seem to be more centered on Holy Friday than they do on Palm Sunday, it's a difference but I'm not sure if it's worth drawing a line in the sand over, even though I find it odd.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.

[Papist]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.

What are those implications?

[Melodist]

Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

The only real differences between the latin and AWRV is the insertion of an extra epiclesis and the precommunion prayer of St John Chrysostom.

[Melodist]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.

What are those implications?

I know it's not written from a modern perspective, but from a modern perspective, the "for us" sounds too much like "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me". I think "that it may become the Body and Blood" conveys a more concrete reality of what we are asking for and what is happening in the consecration. But then again I suppose it could be understood in a context of "it's for us because we are who it is promised to and can't be found anywhere else". Like I said, just my personal opinion.

[Papist]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.

What are those implications?

I know it's not written from a modern perspective, but from a modern perspective, the "for us" sounds too much like "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me". I think "that it may become the Body and Blood" conveys a more concrete reality of what we are asking for and what is happening in the consecration. But then again I suppose it could be understood in a context of "it's for us because we are who it is promised to and can't be found anywhere else". Like I said, just my personal opinion.

You actually raise an interesting point.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?