Any Western Orthodox Here?

[DL82]

I understand the Orthodox Church in America have tried to win converts through the whole crisis over the Latin Mass, by re-establishing a Western Rite and celebrating according to the Tridentine, and even the Sarum, Ambrosian and Mozzarabic Rites.

Is there anyone here who has gone down this route and converted from Catholic to Orthodox, or who was already Orthodox and attends a Latin Rite church? Does anyone know anyone who has done this?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Western Orthodoxy existed before Vatican 2.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I understand the Orthodox Church in America have tried to win converts through the whole crisis over the Latin Mass, by re-establishing a Western Rite and celebrating according to the Tridentine, and even the Sarum, Ambrosian and Mozzarabic Rites.

Is there anyone here who has gone down this route and converted from Catholic to Orthodox, or who was already Orthodox and attends a Latin Rite church? Does anyone know anyone who has done this?

I’ve considered it before.

 

[chrisb]

I understand the Orthodox Church in America have tried to win converts through the whole crisis over the Latin Mass, by re-establishing a Western Rite and celebrating according to the Tridentine, and even the Sarum, Ambrosian and Mozzarabic Rites.

Is there anyone here who has gone down this route and converted from Catholic to Orthodox, or who was already Orthodox and attends a Latin Rite church? Does anyone know anyone who has done this?

Grace and Peace,

I don’t believe it is the OCA which has a Western Rite but I know that the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America do.

I don’t believe it was an attempt to ‘win converts’ in any malicious way but only to protect the ancient traditions of the One True Church. Amen.

I applaud them for their efforts.

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello DL82,

I understand…

No, you don’t.

Sorry…

the Orthodox Church in America have tried to win converts through the whole crisis over the Latin Mass, by re-establishing a Western Rite…

In North America the Western Rite was established mostly by Anglicans who were accepted into Orthodoxy and allowed to keep the liturgy they were using with modifications. It is called the Liturgy of St Tikhon.

In France, and probably Germany, some Old Catholics approached the Orthodox church after having been separated from Rome for decades. Their liturgy is called the liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great, and it amounts to a version of your Extraordinary Form. That form is allowed in North America but is not the one most often used, because there were not that many Old Catholic parishes welcomed into the Orthodox church west of the big pond.

As chrisb has stated, it is not the OCA, but the Patriarchate of Antioch which has a western rite organization in North America. They were approached and agreed.

There is one western rite monastery in New England somewhere which is associated with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, now connected with the Patriarchate of Moscow.

I don’t understand how you got the idea that there was some scheme to profit over the so-called “crises” in the Latin church by offering a Latin mass. All of this happened long before Vatican Council II. There was no premeditated action on the part of Orthodox bishops.

So the Western Rite Orthodox are not full of angst over the New Mass, they don’t have a history with it.

I do believe that the introduction of the Novus Ordo (as it was called then), the Dutch Catechism, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, altar girls and all that lovely stuff did shake the faith ( I suppose we should say “created doubts” in their minds) of more than a few and some of these looked to the east. The Eastern Catholic churches have loads of these people, and others went to Orthodoxy. I have met these people in both, they are mostly an aging population.

But these by and large have not involved themselves in the western rite of Orthodoxy, that’s a pretty small group of pretty small parishes. (It’s actually a lot easier to hook up with the SSPX than with a western rite Orthodox parish, and always has been. Plus, one doesn’t change one’s theology with the SSPX.)

Would they like more members? Of course they would, they would be very nice to you if you showed up for Mass.

Michael

 

[DL82]

My apologies for implying that the Orthodox Church was up to anything uncharitable in establishing a Western Rite.

I am still trying to understand how being ‘traditional’ about the Catholic Church can lead to people breaking communion, whether for Orthodoxy or the SSPX. To me, the one most excellent tradition of the Catholic Church, worth more than all the Latin and incense in the world, is its’ Unity, One Body from the time Our Lord founded it until today.

 

[Hesychios]

I am still trying to understand how being ‘traditional’ about the Catholic Church can lead to people breaking communion, whether for Orthodoxy or the SSPX. To me, the one most excellent tradition of the Catholic Church, worth more than all the Latin and incense in the world, is its’ Unity, One Body from the time Our Lord founded it until today.

I tried to allude to that in my response.

I only speculate that these peoples experiences shocked them into doubts, and they became open to question things they had never questioned before.

“Unity” after all, is an idea or term that is pregnant with meaning. These meanings we bring to it and assume everyone else sees it the same way.

For Orthodox, unity is doctrine and practice. There are no well known “schools of thought” like Molinism, Thomism or Liberation Theology and that sort of thing, just one. The church has a Typica and everyone follows it to the best of their ability, innovations in the presentation of the liturgy are almost impossible. Orthodox theologians all write the same theology, no surprises there, little to nothing in the way of theologians being censured or silenced. That then, for Orthodox is: One Body from the time Our Lord founded it until today.

For Latin Catholics unity generally means an integrated corporate structure. Orthodoxy does not assume that, some dioceses are integrated closely with each other and some are not. The Church of Cyprus (for example) has been completely independent, totally and completely free of administrative or economic control by any Pope or Patriarch since it was granted Autocephaly at the Council of Ephesus (431AD). This is not schism, it is merely an organic multilateral church structure, each church being organized in it’s particular place.

So as regards to “unity” we really are talking past one another all of the time. If a Latin Catholic experiences doubts due to their liturgical experiences in the church, they might look around and see that the Orthodox define unity in different terms or according to different standards and do not have the same problems. Most Catholics are shocked by that at first, but some, just some, ultimately embrace it.

commons.orthodoxwiki.org/images/c/c4/Dikefalos_Aetos.jpg

 

[Peter_J]

I am still trying to understand how being ‘traditional’ about the Catholic Church can lead to people breaking communion, whether for Orthodoxy or the SSPX.

To me, those are two different questions with two very different answers.

The SSPX believe that Benedict XVI is a valid Pope, i.e. he ranks first out of all the bishops in the world. The Orthodox believe him to be in heresy.

So, in a sense, comparing the Orthodox to the sedevacantists or conclavists would be more appropriate (or less inappropriate?) than comparing them to the SSPX. (Not meaning any offense to the Orthodox. )

 

[Aramis]

To me, those are two different questions with two very different answers.

The SSPX believe that Benedict XVI is a valid Pope, i.e. he ranks first out of all the bishops in the world. The Orthodox believe him to be in heresy.

So, in a sense, comparing the Orthodox to the sedevacantists or conclavists would be more appropriate (or less inappropriate?) than comparing them to the SSPX. (Not meaning any offense to the Orthodox. )

Actually, in looking at it, Abp Lefebvre made claims that the church was leaving its tradition behind for heteropraxy, if not heterodoxy.

Much the same as the take of the Orthodox have about Rome.

Williamson has made claims more strong than that; his implication seems that Pope Paul VI was a heretic for promulgating the new missal.