West Orthodox compared to Roman Catholic

[Redratfish]

I think this is the right place for this.

Today I was talking to a West Orthodox and I realized that I didn’t know much about the Orthodox faith. From what she told me, Catholics and Orthodox seems to have a lot in common. What are the differences between the faiths, and how did the Western Orthodox faith come about?

 

[Aramis]

The Western Rite Orthodox seem to arise from some schismatic groups of the early 20th century. These vagante groups had origins in the Roman Church. For a variety of reasons they broke from Rome.

They came to orthodoxy for various reasons, as bodies of clerics. They were permitted, as an economia, to retain a Western liturgy, but required to conform fully to the EO expression of the faith in all other matters.

His Grace St. Tikhon adapted a western liturgy for use by those in communion with the Muscovite Patriarch. It is still in use by ROCOR. It’s permitted (technically) in Russia, as well, tho’ I’ve only heard of its use in Russia by ROCOR clergy. The OCA might also allow it, but it isn’t at present in any regular OCA use.

The Antiochean Orthodox also have an adapted western liturgy. The AO have been very active in proseletizing to protestants, for whom the Western Rite is more familiar than the Byzatine Rite. That said, the AO also have accepted the Evangelical Orthodox, for whom the Byzantine praxis overcame their protestant origins… so the AO have a lot of former protestants, at least in the US.

Both can be seen as Byzanto-Roman liturgies. Both take what is essentially a Roman liturgy (Anglican Recension) and add Byzantifications. The general flow is close to that of the Trent Missal, but there are some minor differences.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The idea of a Western Rite Orthodoxy has always kind of upset me. Isn’t this pretty much the same as the Roman Church proselytizing the Byzantine Churches? At least Rome, on the official level, never required the Byzantines or other Easterners to change their Liturgies to better reflect Roman theology. Still, one way or another this is simply “uniatism” in a different form. These are just my initial impressions and I’m open to correction.

 

[5Loaves]

His Grace St. Tikhon adapted a western liturgy for use by those in communion with the Muscovite Patriarch. It is still in use by ROCOR. It’s permitted (technically) in Russia, as well, tho’ I’ve only heard of its use in Russia by ROCOR clergy. The OCA might also allow it, but it isn’t at present in any regular OCA use.

I was thinking His Grace St. Tikhon had given those in Australia permission to use the Western Rite but maybe it was the Sarum Rite/ Sarum Use, which is another Rite of the West so could have confused me.

I don’t think OP is asking about Orthodox Churches who use the Western Rite. It sounded like a mis worded question OP posted.

 

[Madaglan]

The idea of a Western Rite Orthodoxy has always kind of upset me. Isn’t this pretty much the same as the Roman Church proselytizing the Byzantine Churches? At least Rome, on the official level, never required the Byzantines or other Easterners to change their Liturgies to better reflect Roman theology. Still, one way or another this is simply “uniatism” in a different form. These are just my initial impressions and I’m open to correction.

I’ve mentioned this in the past, but Western Rite Orthodoxy is not the same as the proselytism of Eastern Orthodox by the Latin Church. In many cases, the churches that become Orthodox experience a liturgical and spiritual movement closer to Orthodoxy some time before actually converting to Orthodoxy. They draw inspiration from the Fathers and others who guide them closer to Orthodoxy.

Also, when they become Orthodox, they fall under the jurisdiction of an Eastern bishop and therefore there is no Western Orthodox Church of America or any individual WRO jurisdiction.

The changes found in the Mass of St. Gregory are really quite minimal–an added Byzantine-style epiclesis and the removal of the filioque are the only two significant changes of which I am familiar (besides the Mass said in the vernacular).

I see the Western Rite Orthodoxy movement more similiar to the Anglican Use phenomenon in the Latin Church. The creation of WRO and Anglican Use churches primarily is to serve the pastoral need of bringing people into the fold while allowing them to maintain their good traditions.

 

[Hesychios]

… Still, one way or another this is simply “uniatism” in a different form. These are just my initial impressions and I’m open to correction.

There is no effort being made to calve off dioceses of the Latin Catholic church.

There is no intent to establish a parallel ‘Catholic’ hierarchy, nor any effort to exploit crises within that church. Some non-Catholic congregations have converted to Orthodox theology and asked to be accepted under Orthodox bishops.

If I recall correctly, the western rite priests in the AO are bi-ritual and they have no western rite ordaining bishops. The whole thing is based upon economy, similar (but still not the same) to the Anglican Use before the Ordinariates.

I myself am of two minds on the subject.

I would somewhat disagree (nobody asked me ) that they should have been accepted with that liturgy, because it creates this confusion in the minds of so many that we just don’t need. But that of course is now water under the bridge.

Yet I am happy for them in their Orthodoxy. I am also reassured when I see that these parishes model a western church that can be Orthodox. It is a hopeful sign.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Madaglan and Hesychios,

Thank you both for your responses. I was not aware that Western Rite Orthodoxy did not have its own hierarchy. I presumed it did, but that that hierarchy was subject to Metropolitan Philip here in the U.S., and the Patriarch of Moscow in Russia.

I guess the main thing that “disturbs” me (for lack of a better word) is tampering with the Eucharistic Canon in order to give it a more explicit epiclesis. This would seem to be changing a tradition of the West in order for it to better fit Byzantine theology. By way of comparison, it seems almost equivalent to Rome requiring Eastern Catholics to recite the filioque in the Creed (I know Rome doesn’t BTW).

I know that Fr. Alexander Schmemann also had issues with the idea of a Western Rite Orthodoxy. I’ll have to go back and review what he had to say about it.

But thank you for your responses. They were enlightening.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

On reviewing my first post on this thread I realized that I misspoke. Western Rite Orthodoxy does not look like the Orthodox proselytizing the West. I’m sorry that I said that because such is certainly not the case. What I meant was that, to me, it looks like an Orthodox version of “uniatism.” One could simply look at the definition, problems and scope of uniatism spelled out by Cyril Korolevsky and apply it to Orthodoxy in re the Western Rite. Again, I could be wrong because I may be misunderstanding the relationship of the Western Rite to the rest of Orthodoxy, but it seems to me that if it was trying to be an authentic “Western Rite” it would embrace all that goes along with the Rite (i.e. spirituality, theology, phronema, discipline, etc.). If, on the other hand, it is an Orthodox church that “celebrates the Divine Liturgy funny” I hardly think they could rightfully be called a “Western Rite.”

Just my :twocents:

 

[Madaglan]

Madaglan and Hesychios,

Thank you both for your responses. I was not aware that Western Rite Orthodoxy did not have its own hierarchy. I presumed it did, but that that hierarchy was subject to Metropolitan Philip here in the U.S., and the Patriarch of Moscow in Russia.

I guess the main thing that “disturbs” me (for lack of a better word) is tampering with the Eucharistic Canon in order to give it a more explicit epiclesis. This would seem to be changing a tradition of the West in order for it to better fit Byzantine theology. By way of comparison, it seems almost equivalent to Rome requiring Eastern Catholics to recite the filioque in the Creed (I know Rome doesn’t BTW).

I know that Fr. Alexander Schmemann also had issues with the idea of a Western Rite Orthodoxy. I’ll have to go back and review what he had to say about it.

But thank you for your responses. They were enlightening.

A concern I have with the WRO is its nature: is it to reflect how the Western Churches actually were before the Schism (even where the East may have disagreed) or is it to reflect how the Western Churches ought to have been in the eyes of their Byzantine contemporaries?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

A concern I have with the WRO is its nature: is it to reflect how the Western Churches actually were before the Schism (even where the East may have disagreed) or is it to reflect how the Western Churches ought to have been in the eyes of their Byzantine contemporaries?

This is a great way of putting it, and I believe gets at the heart of “uniatism,” be it Catholic or Orthodox uniatism. True union and communion seeks to restore that union that existed prior to the Schism, even where the East and West may have disagreed. This would maintain the Apostolic and Patristic Traditions of both/all parties involved. Uniatism, on the other hand, is reflected in the latter part of your statement. It seeks to conform the church(es) seeking communion to what they “ought to be” in the eyes of the party with which the churches are seeking communion. The end result is “Roman Catholic who celebrate Mass funny” or “Eastern Orthodox who celebrate the Divine Liturgy funny.” Neither can be a model of true unity, but is only a bad parody of the communion that we so desire.