Western-Rite Orthodox

[Byz_Guy]

I am unclear as to what “sort of argumentation” you are referring to. When and where were Eastern Catholic liturgies discouraged? This has not been the case officially since at least Orientalium Dignitas.

If the “Western Rite” really is acceptable to Orthodox, which it appears to be in several jurisdictions,in honesty one would think it logically follows that liturgical and ecclesiological uniatism are themselves acceptable, whether they originate from the Catholic or the Orthodox.

Why is it assumed that in Orthodoxy it must be “unitatism” (or stay that way)? Could it not be possible for it to develop into something that would not be so (if indeed it is)?

 

[Alfonsus]

“For me, the only important question is: What exactly do we mean by conversion to Orthodoxy? The following definition will, I presume, be acceptable to everybody: it is the individual or the corporate acceptance of the Orthodox faith and the integration in the life of the Church, in the full communion of faith and love. If this definition is correct, we must ask: can the “conversion” of a group or a parish, for which its spiritual leaders have signed a formal doctrinal statement and which has retained its Western rite, however purified or amended, can such a “conversion” – in our present situation, i.e., in the whole context of the Orthodox Church as she exists in America today – be considered as a true conversion? Personally, I doubt it very much. And I consider this growing interpretation of conversion in terms of a mere jurisdictional belonging to some Orthodox Diocese, of a “mimimum” of doctrinal and liturgical requirements and of an almost mechanical understanding of the “Apostolic Succession” as a very real danger to Orthodoxy. This means the replacement of Orthodoxy of “content” by Orthodoxy of “form”, which certainly is not an Orthodox idea. For we believe that Orthodoxy is, above all, faith that one must live, in which one grows, a communion, a “way of life” into which one is more and more deeply integrated. And now, whether we want it or not, this living faith, this organic spirit and vision of Orthodoxy is being preserved and conveyed to us mainly if not uniquely, by the Orthodox worship. In our state of national divisions, of theological weakness, in the lack of living spiritual and monastic centers, of unpreparedness of our clergy and laity for more articulate doctrinal and spiritual teaching, of absence of a real canonical and pastoral care on the part of the various jurisdictional centers, what holds the Orthodox Church together, assures its real continuity with tradition and gives the hope of a revival is precisely the liturgical tradition. It is a unique synthesis of the doctrinal, ethical and canonical teachings of Orthodoxy and I do not see how a real integration into the Orthodox Church, a genuine communion of faith and life may be achieved without an integration in the Orthodox worship.”

“The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Easter Canon of St. John of Damascus, are, I believe, much closer to that common and Catholic language of the Church than anything else in any Christian tradition. And I cannot think of any word or phrase in these services that would be “foreign” to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox”

" I think that in the present situation of the Orthodox Church in America, the Western Rite, theoretically justified and acceptable as it is, would, instead of “facilitating conversion”, dangerously multiply spiritual adventures of which we had too many in the past, and which can but hinder the real progress of Orthodoxy in the West."

These quotes are from back in 1958 when Fr. Schmemann was voicing his concern to the Antiochian Archdiocese for then beginning in earnest the promotion of the “Western Rite”. I find his comments very sensible.

IMO Fr. Schmemann assumed that Orthodoxy equals Byzantine tradition.
It shows suspicion if not rejection of anything that is not Byzantine. For me this is one great homework that Byzantine tradition need to venture.
From this point of view, reunion, of whatever form means conversion to Byzantinism. Other form of theological and ecclesial tradition (Western, Oriental, Assyrian) are seen with suspect, inadequate or heretical.
If it is to be received anyhow, it is merely tolerated and not seen as equals.

To be honest, I think I’m experiencing dejavu… wasn’t the same assumption once widespread somewhere somehow?

 

[angelic06]

I am going to throw out a very uneducated guess, but is the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon related to the Sarum Use? Or does it use portions from one of the early Books of Common Prayer? My home parish is Anglican Usage, and we have the Prayer of Humble Access right before Holy communion-our Mass includes portions of the Sarum rite, from what I read.

Quite strangely, I remember my mother asking me sometime after visiting my church: “Is it Orthodox?”

 

[Diak]

IMO Fr. Schmemann assumed that Orthodoxy equals Byzantine tradition.
It shows suspicion if not rejection of anything that is not Byzantine. For me this is one great homework that Byzantine tradition need to venture.
From this point of view, reunion, of whatever form means conversion to Byzantinism. Other form of theological and ecclesial tradition (Western, Oriental, Assyrian) are seen with suspect, inadequate or heretical.
If it is to be received anyhow, it is merely tolerated and not seen as equals.

To be honest, I think I’m experiencing dejavu… wasn’t the same assumption once widespread somewhere somehow?

Why should a Byzantine church exist if it is not Byzantine? He is absolutely right in saying that a particular Church is particular for a reason - a unique liturgical and spiritual heritage. There already is a multiplicity of particular Churches with particular liturgical tradtions. With a united Catholic and Orthodox church the Western rites would be Western, the Eastern Eastern and no syncretism between them.

The larger point I see is that if “uniatism” is really acceptable by the Orthodox per the “Western Rite”, let’s be honest, all accept it as fact and not call out the Catholics for doing it with the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I am going to throw out a very uneducated guess, but is the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon related to the Sarum Use? Or does it use portions from one of the early Books of Common Prayer? My home parish is Anglican Usage, and we have the Prayer of Humble Access right before Holy communion-our Mass includes portions of the Sarum rite, from what I read.

Quite strangely, I remember my mother asking me sometime after visiting my church: “Is it Orthodox?”

The “Liturgy of St. Tikhon” was largely taken from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

 

[Qatrinius]

Fr. Schemmann was one of the members of the Western Rite Commission, was part of the team that vetted the Rite of St. Tikhon, and also taught at a Western Rite seminary in France. So he may’ve had some hesitations on certain aspects of Western Orthodoxy, but we wouldn’t have what we have today, within the Western Rite Vicariate anyway, if it weren’t for him.

And yes, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon draws certain elements from the 1928 BCP, primarily as you would’ve found it in the American Missal.

 

[Alfonsus]

Why should a Byzantine church exist if it is not Byzantine? He is absolutely right in saying that a particular Church is particular for a reason - a unique liturgical and spiritual heritage. There already is a multiplicity of particular Churches with particular liturgical tradtions. With a united Catholic and Orthodox church the Western rites would be Western, the Eastern Eastern and no syncretism between them.

The larger point I see is that if “uniatism” is really acceptable by the Orthodox per the “Western Rite”, let’s be honest, all accept it as fact and not call out the Catholics for doing it with the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The “Liturgy of St. Tikhon” was largely taken from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

I agree that Byzantine Church need to be Byzantine. The problem is the notion that Orthodox equals Byzantine only. This cause problem when a Church outside of Byzantine tradition profess Orthodox faith, wish to enter communion (aka the Western Orthodox).

The question become, is Orthodoxy equals Byzantine tradition, or is it possible being Orthodox without being Byzantine?
If Orthodoxy equals Byzantine, then all other ecclesial tradition non-Byzantine outside of Orthodoxy are more or less heterodox and can find salvation only by entering communion with Orthodoxy and adopting Byzantine tradition.

Now, I myself is not really care if this is true, since I’m at the other side of the fence as a Catholic. I’ll let the Orthodox mind their own business.

Yet as an observer, I see Western Orthodoxy as having no positive contributing factor for the Orthodox world. Either it will become a tolerated ghetto, a transitional bodies that in time need to be absorbed to true Orthodoxy (make it Byzantine), or stay in limbo.

I too see that Western Orthodoxy has potential to make Orthodox Church experience the possibility of differing ecclesial tradition in one communion. This will help contributing bridging the rift between Eastern theology with Western theology. But if only if Western Orthodoxy can be received not as a mere tolerated eccentric communities.

The Catholic Church made that similar mistakes long long time ago and the damage is still with us.

 

[Peter_J]

Wow.

I ask the moderators not move this to the non-Catholic religions section as this is directed toward Eastern Catholics, whose opinions I would very much like to hear.

A new western-rite Orthodox mission is forming in my area. The priest overseeing it also serves several other missions and visits monthly, and was actually the priest who recieved me into Orthodoxy when he oversaw my current parish about 8 years ago. I was considering becoming involved in this mission, but had some reservations that I’ve been unable to reconcile.

First, I’m concerned that it will be western in liturgy but eastern in theology. They’re using a modified version of the Anglican liturgy that’s been dubbed “The Liturgy of St. Tikhon”. I spoke with the man that will likely be the priest of this mission when he’s ordained, and he said that he planned to teach Orthodox theology but with western terminology, e.g. sanctification rather than theosis. This seems to me to be exactly what Eastern Catholic churches are accused of being, only in reverse. I wonder if ultimately this can work.

Second, I’m concerned that this will lead to more division in Christendom. The Catholic Church as I understand has in modern times decided not to receive any more Orthodox churches into its communion as siu uris churches in manner of existing ones, e.g. Ruthenian, Melkite, etc. (correct me if I’m wrong, this is something I’ve read on these forums). It’s concern is that this will lead for worse relations with the Orthodox and only lead to a more division rather than a rapprochment between the two churches. I’m afraid that the establishment of western-rite Orthodoxy parishes would have the same consequence.

Third, unlike Eastern Catholic Churches which are particular churches that have come into communion with the Catholic Church, western-rite Orthodoxy is largely an ecclesiastical anomaly, the creation of a new church which no historic foundation (the exception to this would be existing Anglican or Catholic parishes that come into communion with Orthodoxy). This idea that you can recreate a church from scratch strikes me as Protestant and not in conformity with patristic ecclesiology.

Fourth, the revised Anglican liturgy they’ll be using is not a pre-Reformation liturgy but a revised post-Reformation one, and still bears some signs of that theology. For example, there’s a line the priest says just before the distribution where he speaks of communing on Christ’s body and blood by faith. While this can be understood in an orthodox sense, it was inserted in the Anglican liturgy by more Reformed theologians to promote a more Calvinist eucharistic theology.

Fifth, there are some Byzantine liturgical insertions that are unnecessary and even redundant, and are frankly a corruption of the liturgy. For example, in the Anglican liturgy there is the “Prayer of Humble Access” where we pray that we would be worth to partake of his body and blood, that he would grant us remission of sins, not judge us for our sinfulness, etc., and this is then repeated by the Byzantine corresponding prayer where we say “I believe O Lord and I confess… etc.” (I’m sure you’re familiar with it). There is no need to repeat a western prayer with its eastern counterpart when they say virtually the same thing.

On the positive however, it may teach some Orthodox to appreciate western traditions and theology, and come to see our differences as ones of “emphasis and expression” than of dogma. This could potentially be very important in a future reproachment, although the impact of such a small number of parishes and people would admittedly be small.

I would very much like to hear your reactions to these concerns, and any insights that you might have as Eastern Catholics on what I’ve said and the subject generally. Do you agree with these concerns? Can they be overcome? What do you think of Western-rite Orthodox generally? Thank you, and forgive me for being argumentative or uncharitable in the past,

Don

Hi Don. I know I’m coming late to this thread, but I really feel that your post needs to be straightened out. I don’t feel I’m qualified myself to instruct everyone concerning WRO, but there’s a whole (sub)-forum devoted to it.

For myself, all I can really say is that I believe we should seek to first understand WRO, rather than charging in and declaring everything that’s wrong. (I advise people the same with regard to Eastern Catholicism – and there’s no shortage of people who need to hear that advise, as you may have noticed!)

 

[dcointin]

Thank you all again for your thoughts, I admit I was focusing on the negative. I decided to join this western-rite mission, which is Anglican use but very traditional. I’m hoping it can teach me an appreciation for western Christianity again, and I’m going to start reading western fathers like St. Ambrose. Any classics you all could recommend?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Thank you all again for your thoughts, I admit I was focusing on the negative. I decided to join this western-rite mission, which is Anglican use but very traditional. I’m hoping it can teach me an appreciation for western Christianity again, and I’m going to start reading western fathers like St. Ambrose. Any classics you all could recommend?

Confessions of St. Augustine.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Both the Gregorian rite (the Tridentine style) and the Anglican are modern forms. One is not better nor more appropriate than the other, and although I am sure no one would consider it the Novus Ordo could probably be adapted for use too. In fact it would theoretically have to be, if there is any hope that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches might reconcile some day it would be nice to have a working model.

If the idea was to use a pre-schism western rite, the Mass would be different in some significant ways, and someone would have to decide what century is most appropriate.

The idea was instead to integrate modern western Christians back into Orthodoxy.

Just to make clear, the Anglican rite of St Tikhon is much more common in north America (for obvious reasons) but in France the western rite uses the Gregorian rubrics, because that was what those parishes were using when they decided to become Orthodox…
Not at all. If they did they would not be Orthodox.

It should also be noted that there is not a separate hierarchy for the western rite. There are no bishops exclusive to this rite. This is not an attempt to establish a rival self sustaining ‘Sui Iuris’ type of church, it is a pastoral allowance for some parishes.

It would be possible to place these parishes under Roman Catholic bishops if there was reconciliation, I am sure.

In fact, only King Henry VIII (who was a schismatic Roman Catholic and never a “protestant” in the Cranmerian/Calvinistic/Lutheran sense) asserted himself as “head of the ecclesia Anglicana.” The Queen is the protector of the Church of England and also of the Presybterian Kirk of Scotland - not their head in the sense that a bishop or other primate would be.

Alex

 

[Exsilivm]

Although some people attempt it, I don’t think it is necessary to try and resurrect every defunct version of every liturgical tradition. We just need a way to get people into church together, worshipping with dignity, believing as one and receiving the all-important sacraments.

The variation of mass forms in medieval western Europe was often due to manual copying, variations crept in as news arrived from Rome, changes were not always made on time, and there was no central office that was able to review all of the mass books in all the towns and cities. Because there was no Empire in the old, Roman sense, travel was difficult. Priests and bishops wanted to follow Roman liturgical practices, but they could not.

Trent ended within a century of the Guttenberg press, and about the same time that nation states were able to ensure safe travel across their territories, which for the first time enabled Rome to distribute standarized lectionaries Europe-wide. It was not a matter of diversity being the desired norm, but rather the reality of a politically unstable world.

Applying that fact to WRO, we have to ask why apostolic succession is important? Is it simply a pedigree for a noble church, or is it a basic symbol of Christian unity? If the latter, then we have to ask whether we agree that both Orthodox and Catholic bishops are vaild. If they are, we have to ask what the limits to geographic bishoprics are in the modern world. Are there countries were two bishops can have two flocks, and are there countries were this is disallowed? How do we decide what territories are sacrosanct to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and which are open to joint rule, if that is permitted?

If Orthodox and Catholics are serious about unity, then the rational way forward follows one of two possibilities: strict geography, in accordance with the rules in force when the Roman Empire still lived, or no to few limits on the rite of priests and people to form communities under their chosen rite, but the obligation to follow the local bishop regardless of rite (or confession). For example, Catholics in Russia must obey the Russian bishop of their geographic see. Some will say this will lead, eventually, to the Easternizing of Catholics, and the Latinizing of Greeks and Easterners. This is true. The rules in force during the Roman Empire assumed this to be the case, and those old bishops were right. In far Asia and the New World, the metropolitans should divide it into areas, and let nature take her course.

 

[Peter_J]

Do Anglican/Orthodox still consider the Queen of England the head of their church? Still in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury?

There are no Anglican/Orthodox. There are ex-Anglican Orthodox, and (presumably) there are ex-Orthodox Anglicans.

 

[Contarini]

Interesting. Sounds to me like Anglican groups wanting to “back door” back into Apostolic Succession without returning through the door from which they exited; i.e., Catholicism. Seems like a mismatch to me, given how “western” Anglicanism is and how “Eastern” Orthodoxy is.

I find it baffling that Catholics give such immense importance to the concepts of “Eastern” and “Western.” Or rather, I understand the historical reasons for this–I appreciate that Catholics are trying to move away from traditional Latin religious imperialism. But it seems to me that even something as beautiful and respectful as the “two lungs” metaphor takes a contingent cultural division of the ancient Roman Empire and exalts it into some kind of eternal ecclesiological reality.

Truth matters a lot more than being “Eastern” or “Western.”

Your language of going back into the door from which one exited assumes a Catholic account of what the “exit” was and when it happened.

If the Orthodox are right, then members of the Roman Communion have also in some sense “exited.”

I’m not sure about that, myself. One of the reasons I can’t bring myself to become Orthodox is that the greater ecumenism of Rome is very appealing to me, and Rome seems to have a better account of church unity and how it can be restored. The Orthodox seem to value purity above unity, which I cannot accept.

But if in fact Anglicans conclude that Protestantism is wrong, but that the claims of Rome are not necessarily right (which is basically the historic Anglo-Catholic position), then they are essentially agreeing with the Orthodox. If the Orthodox “called it” hundreds of years before the Reformation, then that is a much more important consideration than any cultural difficulties Anglicans might face.

My difficulty is more basic: I cannot and will not accept that the community I presently participate in is not part of the Church. Rome is more appealing to me than Orthodoxy (in spite of my general disposition to agree more with Orthodoxy on every other count) because I think Rome has a better account of how the community I’m part of is part of the Church. But even Rome would require me to renounce the Eucharist in which I presently share. And I can’t do that.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

I find the “back door” comment a little weird, in that it makes it sound like Anglicans who become Orthodox are actually planning on joining Catholicism later on.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I find the “back door” comment a little weird, in that it makes it sound like Anglicans who become Orthodox are actually planning on joining Catholicism later on.

In fact I know several Western Orthodox Christians who came from Anglican and Roman Catholic backgrounds - they have no use for the Roman Catholic Church of today. When I attended the Western Rite Orthodox conference in Toronto some years back, I heard former Roman Catholics say all kinds of nasty things about their Church - there was no indication anywhere that they were planning on rejoining it any time soon!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I find it baffling that Catholics give such immense importance to the concepts of “Eastern” and “Western.” Or rather, I understand the historical reasons for this–I appreciate that Catholics are trying to move away from traditional Latin religious imperialism. But it seems to me that even something as beautiful and respectful as the “two lungs” metaphor takes a contingent cultural division of the ancient Roman Empire and exalts it into some kind of eternal ecclesiological reality.

Truth matters a lot more than being “Eastern” or “Western.”

Your language of going back into the door from which one exited assumes a Catholic account of what the “exit” was and when it happened.

If the Orthodox are right, then members of the Roman Communion have also in some sense “exited.”

I’m not sure about that, myself. One of the reasons I can’t bring myself to become Orthodox is that the greater ecumenism of Rome is very appealing to me, and Rome seems to have a better account of church unity and how it can be restored. The Orthodox seem to value purity above unity, which I cannot accept.

But if in fact Anglicans conclude that Protestantism is wrong, but that the claims of Rome are not necessarily right (which is basically the historic Anglo-Catholic position), then they are essentially agreeing with the Orthodox. If the Orthodox “called it” hundreds of years before the Reformation, then that is a much more important consideration than any cultural difficulties Anglicans might face.

My difficulty is more basic: I cannot and will not accept that the community I presently participate in is not part of the Church. Rome is more appealing to me than Orthodoxy (in spite of my general disposition to agree more with Orthodoxy on every other count) because I think Rome has a better account of how the community I’m part of is part of the Church. But even Rome would require me to renounce the Eucharist in which I presently share. And I can’t do that.

Edwin

As an Eastern Catholic - I don’t know about your comment that Rome has a more far-reaching ecumenical and catholic focus than the East.

The RC Church is more universally prevalent - that is true. But the experience of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and that of mine in particular, is that Rome “divided and conquered” via its Latin Rite and was largely, for the longest time, opposed to the purity of Eastern rites and especially the Particularity of the Eastern Churches in communion with it, officiall pronouncements notwithstanding.

The problem with Truth in general is that it does exist but that humans cannot grasp it outside the prism of their own cultural framework. So while the same Truth is confessed by Churches and individuals, this is done via the spiritual culture in which they are imbedded.

The experience of Eastern Orthodox (and Eastern Catholic) Churches in the West has largely been one of maintaining ties to the Mother Church in the ethnic homeland. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, unless the language/cultural context becomes a straight-jacket to succeeding generations and converts (as is so often the case now).

The Christian East, however, has something very valid to say to and teach Western Christians, including Roman Catholics that reflects both universal Truth and the beauty of its particular liturgical and canonical forms of worship that glorify the Holy Trinity, the Resurrected Christ, the powerful role of the Holy Spirit in Theosis, the glory of the Mother of God and the Saints and the significance of the community that is the Church as the Body of Christ in communicating and applying the Salvation and Deification of Christ in the Holy Spirit to humanity.

Alex

 

[jwinch2]

The Christian East, however, has something very valid to say to and teach Western Christians, including Roman Catholics that reflects both universal Truth and the beauty of its particular liturgical and canonical forms of worship that glorify the Holy Trinity, the Resurrected Christ, the powerful role of the Holy Spirit in Theosis, the glory of the Mother of God and the Saints and the significance of the community that is the Church as the Body of Christ in communicating and applying the Salvation and Deification of Christ in the Holy Spirit to humanity.

Alex

Agreed, 100%.

 

[dcointin]

I find it baffling that Catholics give such immense importance to the concepts of “Eastern” and “Western.” Or rather, I understand the historical reasons for this–I appreciate that Catholics are trying to move away from traditional Latin religious imperialism. But it seems to me that even something as beautiful and respectful as the “two lungs” metaphor takes a contingent cultural division of the ancient Roman Empire and exalts it into some kind of eternal ecclesiological reality.

Truth matters a lot more than being “Eastern” or “Western.”

Your language of going back into the door from which one exited assumes a Catholic account of what the “exit” was and when it happened.

If the Orthodox are right, then members of the Roman Communion have also in some sense “exited.”

I’m not sure about that, myself. One of the reasons I can’t bring myself to become Orthodox is that the greater ecumenism of Rome is very appealing to me, and Rome seems to have a better account of church unity and how it can be restored. The Orthodox seem to value purity above unity, which I cannot accept.

But if in fact Anglicans conclude that Protestantism is wrong, but that the claims of Rome are not necessarily right (which is basically the historic Anglo-Catholic position), then they are essentially agreeing with the Orthodox. If the Orthodox “called it” hundreds of years before the Reformation, then that is a much more important consideration than any cultural difficulties Anglicans might face.

My difficulty is more basic: I cannot and will not accept that the community I presently participate in is not part of the Church. Rome is more appealing to me than Orthodoxy (in spite of my general disposition to agree more with Orthodoxy on every other count) because I think Rome has a better account of how the community I’m part of is part of the Church. But even Rome would require me to renounce the Eucharist in which I presently share. And I can’t do that.

Edwin

While I can’t speak to the Catholic position, the Orthodox do not make a judgement concerning any other church’s sacraments. We are not part of that communion, and we are to judge ourselves, not our neighbor.

 

[Schism_hater]

In answer to the OP-

1. I think Western Orthodoxy is a great thing. If as most Orthodox apologists claim, Orthodoxy is apostolic and patristic Christianity par excellence, then it is a no-brainer that it should include a Western Rite, since for at least the first six or seven centuries, the western church was patristic, and orthodox. Western Rite Orthodoxy helps address what is, at least to me, a problem in Orthodoxy: while I believe Orthodoxy has, compared to the West, maintained catholicity of doctrine, it is pretty clear to me that the west has achieved better catholicity across nations and cultures.
   Btw, I’m going to work in here a recommendation of a scholarly but pretty accessible book, out of print and not easy to find but well worth reading, which examines in detail the gradual shift in the western church’s teaching on authority, from a stance quite compatible with Orthodoxy which viewed the supreme authority of the Church as Sacred Tradition, with the bishops and the Pope as simply guardians of that Tradition, to the position which prevails to this day in Rome of the “Magisterium” as being the supreme authority. The book is Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, 300-1100 by Karl F. Morrison. End of commercial.
2. As to the concern about “cobbling” together a liturgy which isn’t an exact continuation of a liturgy which existed in the west, I think that concern is misplaced. The fact is, all liturgies in use today, east and west, were at one time “cobbled together”; requiring exact continuity smacks to me of liturgical absolutism and archaism (archaeologism?). As Fr. Thomas Hopko (Orthodox) wrote in his essay on Eastern Catholicism in his book All the Fullness of God, ultimately there is only one criterion for determining whether or not something should be in the liturgy: whether it is theologically sound. This preoccupation with preserving this or that rite or liturgical tradition, or with the preserving the “easternness” or “westerness” of the liturgy, strikes me as borderline idolatrous. There is one God, one Christ, one Spirit, east and west. If something is in accord with Faith once delivered to the Apsotles, it belongs in the liturgy, if it isn’t, it doesn’t.

 

[In_All_Things]

Hello, Don. Peace and the glory of Christ be with you.

I am a person who has a Western Rite Orthodox parish within his neighborhood (a ten minute walk from my home ). Fr. Theodore, a former Anglican, is very welcoming for the morning prayer every Sunday. Never having been in an Anglican church, I imagine it’s very Anglican in style (we use St. Dunstan’s Plainsong Psalter, with little square notes, if that’s any help). It’s lovely, and I don’t understand why we don’t use it in our Divine Office.

According to what he’s told me, his church (also Western-Rite Antiochian) uses the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, which is a pre-Schism, pre-Reformation liturgy, not like St. Tikhon’s Liturgy. I have never heard either to be honest. But if the Antiochian Church’s bishops approve of it, I would believe it’s suitable (though perhaps not ideal) for Orthodox worship. Maybe a second edition is in order?

When I found out Western Rite Orthodox meant “Orthodox, but like Westerners”, and not “Catholic”, I was honestly a bit disappointed. (I’ve always wanted to attend an Eastern Liturgy; I have since writing this.) But I’ve come to take a liking to the tiny Western-Rite Orthodox parish in my neighborhood and their plainsong Morning Prayer. I hope to see this “Liturgy of St. Gregory” before I have to move. And I hope in the months to come their parish is filled with many souls looking for Our Lord.

Thanks for asking, and God Bless,

Attila

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great is the Tridintine Mass thologically corrrected(according to Orthodoxy) removing mention of merits and adding an explicit Epiclesis (the one from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysistom)