I am not talking about different rites within Orthodoxy, but refurbishing heretical systems. Has this ever been done before modern WRO?
It hasn't been done - our present WRO (note, not 'modern') is not a refurbishment of heretical systems.
As I said before, I am all for integrating parts of western culture, but what seems to be happening is not the integration of western culture, but western religion!
By your personal judgment? And based upon what evidence? The Novatian's clergy who repented were restored in their rank and use according to Canon 8 of the 1st Council of Nicea. Canon 19 of the 1st Council of Nicea says the Paulianists were to be rebaptized, and their clergy reordained. The Arabic version of the Council has canons 31 and 32 on bringing back those from Arianism and like heresies, and more importantly - those who keep Orthodox dogma. Canon VII of the same reserves re-baptism only for those who departed from Trinitarian theology - the rest are chrismated. The various Canons of Ephesus demand clergy deposed and removed from their rank for Nestorianism.
It depends then, on the extent of the heresy. As for Anglicanism - there never has been, is not now, and never will be a single thing as 'Anglicanism'. Anglicans have always run a gamut of practices and opinions forced together by their civil government (including those who had agreement with the Orthodox Church.) As we can see by the above canons, how one was received depended very much on how much error. And, it should be noted - the Old Catholics and Anglo-Catholics who have returned to the Church are not representative of the more extreme errors one has found in Protestantism or the West (rather, they represent the closest stream to Orthodoxy kept in the West.) Roman Catholics? It varies (and has varied) as well - the two heresies (of dual procession implied by the filioque, and of papal universal jurisdiction) have never attained to uniformity in Roman Catholicism. The filioque *has* been historically understood by many (and some Anglicans as well) as the Orthodox view of single origin in the Father, with procession from the Father *through* the Son (sending the Holy Spirit.) Even the view of the Pope being subject to Ecumenical Councils has been championed in the past in the Roman Church (some even now, calling for Conciliarity.) Hence, why so many of us Westerners when first presented with the Orthodox dogma, could say "But that is what I've always believed!"
The Uniates were restored as well, with their own uses - as the ACROD and OCA. The whole Church of Georgia is a restored Church (once they were Monophysite). Many other ancient groups were restored to the communion - without the lack of charity to leave them without their own places of worship, their own clergy, etc.
Technically, of course, we are doing something wrong with the WRO - there have not been Bishops consecrated for that use (though, there had been once - the Bishop of Washington was Western Rite.) ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
Also, is the canon about not kneeling on Sundays violated in the English use? (20th Canon of Nicea)
I'll answer that if you'll answer about whether your use uses a spoon for communion, in violation of the Canons (seriously, I'm not saying that rhetorically). And also, whether the Canons are there for the judgment of brethren, and whether the Greeks and Antiochians are Heterodox for their kneeling on Sundays.
Beams and splinters: everyone check your eyes. In any case, the attitude of kneeling is likely not the correct translation of that canon, but rather prostrations (kneeling, a standing upon the knees, not being the subject of that canon, but rather the face to the floor prostration.)
By Apostolic Canon 35, Constantinople I Canon II, ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Chalcedon Canons 18 and 28, all of the Byzantine jurisdictions in the West are in violations of Canons. So where does that put us all?
This is the arguement I have been making all along: the Western Rite should be how the western churches worshipped when they were in communion with us. However a lot of these things seem to be practices developed and taken from them when they weren't in communion with us, hence all of my concern.
That is called liturgical archaeology - a 'Catch 22' (if its good for the goose, its good for the gander - why not pre-Schism Byzantine?), and has not been the Orthodox approach. Practices are not judged whether they might have guilt by association, or whether they belong to a 'Golden Age of Liturgy' but whether they express the Orthodox Faith and are helpful liturgically.
Well, I know it sounds clear in word that they are now Orthodox, but is it? Say an Anglican comes to Orthodoxy, they get to use their own Liturgy with a few changes. Is it really going to feel to them as if they are in a new faith, the True Faith, or if they just "changed bishops?"
Some wonder that about many converts to Byzantine rite - are they converted to the Faith ... or to an Exotic culture, or a counter-cultural statement against 'the Establishment', etc.
As for the liturgy ... 'few changes' really does not even begin to describe the difference between Anglican and WRO liturgy. They are not equivalent, and there is so much more to the latter.