So, now you're disregarding the first 1000 years of western Christianity and retroactively concluding that the liturgy that was served there in 400 AD and later was somehow not REALLY Orthodox?
If we haven't practiced something for a thousand years, how can we really consider it to be part of the LIVING Tradition of our Church? The point is that the so-called 'Western Rite' is not part of our Living Tradition, is Foreign to the Orthodox Church (even the rites that pretend to be pre-schism, as has already been said in this thread, are not based on academic reconstructions of the Liturgies with obvious post-schism latinizations), and historically lead to no good, but rather the evils of Heresy and Schism, and not simply a small break from the Church for a few years, but rather a Sustained Schism/Heresy, which has been propagated for nearly a millenium, the Western Liturgy is an inseperable element of this; just as the Eastern Liturgy is an inseperable element of the Orthodox Church.
That doesn't make any sense. Since they are "heretics" (to be blunt and uncharitable), we don't recognize the Abp of Canterbury or Pope of Rome as Bishops anyways.
Whether any of us like it or not, the Western Rite has been "living" (even if as an infant or on "life support" so to speak) for several decades now and is continuing to live. Some type of new Tradition has been revived and it may just be here to stay.
But we have made it clear that if they do convert to Orthodoxy we will recognize their Episcopal Sees, and accordingly will recognize the Ancient Rights of these Sees. Granted it is an act of Economy, but no doubt would be, if the opportunity presented itself, a prudent one. Furthermore, a hand full of converts engaging in practices inconsonant with the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox Church hardly constitutes a living Tradition. And Even IF it did, you are ignoring the 900+ years where this tradition was non-existant in the Orthodox Church. Try as some might, the Western Rite and their Liturgy is not, and will never be, a part of the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition and will continue to be nothing more than a foreign element artificially maintained amongst a small segment of the population.
The point is that majority of the Church has not formulated her oppinion. I would not be inclined to run and parade myself as member of either party, because once the Church speaks out, I might be in the party that is wrong, and for reasons of egoism, that can bring upon the schismatic nature.
Either way, I see good points and bad in both of the arguments, wisdom will be in using all the good ones and managing the bad.
After all, may it be done for the glory of God and salvation of the souls.
A majority of the Church does not even know this phenomena exists, never mind formally decreeing on it. However, with that said, I would quite enjoy to see this issue formally brought up in an endimousa synod, as I feel fairly confident of what side the Synod would come down on. The Oecumenical Patriarchate and others closer to here for reasons of ecumenism, the Russians and other Slavic Churches on account of the current vision of the West as a threat.
But (sorry to burst your bubble) it's not your place to question the strength of their conviction. That is between them and the bishops who bought them into the Church.
But it is my place, as well as the place of all the faithful of this Metropolis, to consider the points our former Metropolitan made on the Issue, inorder that the faithful of the Greek Orthodox Church may be Protected from this Phenomena; and in assessing the level of threat to the Church from this phenomena, this is a more than valid question. So while I am not these people spiritual father, and hence not to be concerned with their conviction for their own sake, it is certainly understandable that I would be concerned about it from the perspective of desiring to see the well-being of the Church as a whole maintained. Thus, while it may be inappropriate for me to ask about the personal conviction of Western Rite Parishioners John and Jane from All Saints of the West Antiochian Orthodox Church; it is far from inappropriate for me to inquire as to whether or not this method of proselytism is benificial to the Orthodox Church, and the potential conviction and devotion to the Church of potential converts is certainly a variable that should be taken into account in such an analysis.
The western rites are also part of the liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church.
Even if they were part of some tradition a thousand years ago, they are not part of the Living Tradition of the Church, and thus it is inappropriate for them to be used in our Liturgical Celebrations, just as it is inappropriate for us to resurrect some ancient eastern rite liturgy which has fallen into disuse for our current liturgical devotion.