Western-Rite Orthodox

[dcointin]

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

 

[TarkanAttila]

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

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

Hmmm… The western rite orthodox church in D.C.is under the Antiochian patriarchate but uses the “Gregorian rite” (aka the traditional Latin mass) rather than the cobbled together Anglican “St. Tikhon” liturgy. I wonder why. It would seem far more suitable to use the Gregorian rite, seeing as it is actually a catholic rite with continuity back to the pre-schism times.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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. But I’m not an Anglican or Orthodox, so maybe it fits better than I think. Do Anglican/Orthodox still consider the Queen of England the head of their church? Still in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury?

 

[Nine_Two]

Hmmm… The western rite orthodox church in D.C.is under the Antiochian patriarchate but uses the “Gregorian rite” (aka the traditional Latin mass) rather than the cobbled together Anglican “St. Tikhon” liturgy. I wonder why. It would seem far more suitable to use the Gregorian rite, seeing as it is actually a catholic rite with continuity back to the pre-schism times.

Both liturgies have been approved for use, it is simply a matter of choice in the Parish. I assume they’d make it based on whether they expect more former Anglicans or former Catholics.

 

[jwinch2]

We have two Western Rite Orthodox Parishes in our town, both of which are former Anglican Parishes. I have been meaning to check out a liturgy at one of them at some point, but have not gotten around to it yet.

Personally, I have mixed feelings on the existence of Western Rite Orthodox. However, I am willing to stipulate that the situation is complex.

 

[5Loaves]

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.

In my opinion how this new Western Rite Orthodox mission will function and which “use” of Western Rite liturgy they use is between the priest and his hierarch. I assume his bishop has approved this. In US these parishes are part of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, or of ROCOR. I’m not aware of either jurisdiction having problems with their Western Rite parishes.

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**

Western Rite Orthodox parishes have been around for over a century. I’m not aware of Rome having issues with them. What individual Catholics or even some clergy might make of it who knows. We have enough issues with Catholics not understanding who we Eastern Catholic are. Maybe you mean that Western Rite Orthodox parishes are a block to unity as far as the Orthodox not wanting more of them.

Jan. 1, 2012 HH Benedict XVI established the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter for those* groups* of Anglicans in the United States who seek to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church while retaining elements of Anglican heritage and liturgical practices. A year ago the first ordinariate, Our Lady of Walsingham, was established for England and Wales. Do you see this as a block to unity?

There are not large numbers of parishes in Western Rite Orthodoxy nor in these Personal Ordinariates. HH Benedict XVI finally responded to “repeated and persistent inquiries from Anglican* groups* worldwide who were seeking to become Catholic” by offering Personal Ordinariates. This is nothing that Rome initiated. I assume the Orthodox are responding to “repeated and persistent inquiries” from those who wish to worship in a Western Rite in Orthodoxy. I’m sure ROCOR and the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America aren’t making an effort to* initiate* these Western Rite parishes. In both cases those who seek to be enrolled in these parishes are called to accept being fully Catholic for the Personal Ordinariates or fully Orthodox for the Western Rite Orthodox.

 

[Wesley7]

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,

i was chrismated and received in a western rite style liturgy.

tell you the truth, it just a matter of taste and liturgical preference/style.

god bless

 

[Hesychios]

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. But I’m not an Anglican or Orthodox, so maybe it fits better than I think.

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…

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

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.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hi Don,

I have some of the same reservations as you with regards to Western Rite Orthodoxy. It just feels like another form of un—ism. I do know of movements within Western Rite Orthodoxy, however, to fully restore Western theology and liturgical practice back into these churches. This sounded to me somewhat akin to the movement within Eastern and Oriental Catholicism to return to their respective Eastern or Oriental traditions.

I would say that the Western Rite Orthodoxy, much like Eastern and Oriental Catholicism, reflect the sad post-schism situation in which we live. But I can see a lot of good coming from it. If the Western Rite Orthodox have the courage to be 100% true to their Western/Roman (let’s be honest) roots and still maintain communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, they can be a powerful witness to Western Christianity within Orthodoxy, in the same way that the Eastern Catholics (ideally) are a powerful witness to Eastern Christianity within Catholicism. How wonderful if, at a pan-Orthodox Council, the Pope could approach the leaders of the Western Rite Orthodoxy and say that they spoke for Roman Catholicism and all of Western Christianity, just like Patriarch Athenagoras said to the Melkite Patriarch and Bishops at Vatican II.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hesychios,

A pre-schism Western Rite Mass would be interesting, especially since prior to the schism there were a plethora of Western Rite Masses. The Mass as celebrated in Rome was not imposed throughout the entire Roman Patriarchate until the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century. And even then, from what I’ve read the Tridintine Mass was a combination of abbreviations and additions to pre-existing rites within the Church in Rome itself. Prior to that, even in Rome there were multiple forms of the Mass. It seems that liturgical stability came much later to the West than to the Byzantine East.

So, in order to restore the Western Patriarchate to its pre-schism liturgical praxis, I would think we would have to open the doors to multiple liturgical uses. Perhaps the Extraordinary Form, the Ordinary Form, the Gregorian Mass (sans Byzantinizations), the Mass of St. Tikhon (sans Byzantinizations), etc. could all coexist together within the West when Catholicism and Orthodoxy again embrace one another in full communion.

 

[Petergee]

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.

It’s the first I’ve heard of that idea. The evidence seems to indicate that under the last two popes the Church has become even more keen on receiving Orthodox churches into its communion as sui iuris churches in the manner of existing ones And that this is seen as an aid to ecumenism and eventual reunion with the Orthodox rather than a hindrance…

 

[twf]

Hesychios,

A pre-schism Western Rite Mass would be interesting, especially since prior to the schism there were a plethora of Western Rite Masses. The Mass as celebrated in Rome was not imposed throughout the entire Roman Patriarchate until the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century. And even then, from what I’ve read the Tridintine Mass was a combination of abbreviations and additions to pre-existing rites within the Church in Rome itself. Prior to that, even in Rome there were multiple forms of the Mass. It seems that liturgical stability came much later to the West than to the Byzantine East.

So, in order to restore the Western Patriarchate to its pre-schism liturgical praxis, I would think we would have to open the doors to multiple liturgical uses. Perhaps the Extraordinary Form, the Ordinary Form, the Gregorian Mass (sans Byzantinizations), the Mass of St. Tikhon (sans Byzantinizations), etc. could all coexist together within the West when Catholicism and Orthodoxy again embrace one another in full communion.

There are already multiple forms of the Mass in use in the Latin Church - though admittedly only the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and to some extent, the Extraordinary Form, are widespread. The new Anglican Ordinariate in the US will use the Anglican Use Divine Book of Worship, while the UK Ordinariate, I understand, is developing a separate Anglican form of the Mass. Various religious orders maintain their own forms (Dominican, Carmelite, Franciscan, etc) and a few locales still do as well (eg. Ambrosian rite in Milan).

 

[BertBlyleven]

From what I can tell, the Western-Rite Orthodox Liturgies and customs have not been well recieved by all Orthodox. Tolerated, but many question the orthodoxy of them. Strangely similar to pre-schism East/West relations. But, just accepting Western Liturgical customs is a huge step for the Orthodox Churches, and for that, I am very thankful.

I have never heard any objections by Roman Catholic heirarchs. Almost all WRO parishes are formerly Anglican and Lutheran; they were outside the Church anyway, if anything it brings them closer to it.

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios,

A pre-schism Western Rite Mass would be interesting, especially since prior to the schism there were a plethora of Western Rite Masses.

This is because there were a plethora of western churches. They were not one Sui Iuris church.

Western Christianity was organized into synods, just like the east. This is why there were different liturgies. (I am not referring to the different styles of Mass used by religious orders, which is a much later phenomenon).

It is pretty well established that the ‘Gregorian’ Mass of Rome derives from a merging of the Gallican liturgy and the Roman liturgy, but I don’t know exactly what century.

The Mass as celebrated in Rome was not imposed throughout the entire Roman Patriarchate until the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century.

But by then it was already used in most of those places, it was the local practice (or ‘custom’) that tended to vary and was decided had to go. This variance of custom is still a factor in the Byzantine rite, and no one seems to mind.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Charlemagne’s kingdom effectively imposed the blended Gallo-Roman rite in it’s territory and this signaled the reduction of all other rites (including the Byzantine in places further west), a process which lasted a while.

And even then, from what I’ve read the Tridintine Mass was a combination of abbreviations and additions to pre-existing rites within the Church in Rome itself. Prior to that, even in Rome there were multiple forms of the Mass.

Probably so. Even an early form of the Byzantine liturgy was in use there.

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.

 

[Qatrinius]

The Rite of St. Tikhon is essentially the Tridentine Rite with certain elements of the Scottish Prayer Book tradition interpolated. Put another way, it’s a way of celebrating the classic Western Mass that honors some of the unique concentrations of the Anglican heritage.

It’s not Protestant or Reformed, it’s not even really “post-Schism” unless you take that to mean that certain ways of wording things were from later centuries, but what does that really matter? In fact, the Tikhonian Rite preserves some very ancient elements of the Western Catholic tradition that, to my knowledge, you cannot find anywhere else. We can’t even put a solid date on the “schism” so using that as some kind of contrived measuring stick is really muddy anyway.

Those concerned about division should not be worried as the establishment of the Western Rite Vicariate was an ecumenical move. It was not “sheep stealing” nor is it designed to entice anyone from their communions. It was a way of saying the Orthodox Church (at least from Antioch’s perspective) is prepared to do what’s necessary to bring about reunion with Catholic-minded Christians.

 

[malphono]

This is because there were a plethora of western churches. They were not one Sui Iuris church.

Western Christianity was organized into synods, just like the east.

While it is true that the West was organized into synods, and while it is also true that what I’ll call the Primatial Provinces were self-governing, whether they would be considered separate “Churches sui juris” in today’s terms is debatable.

 

[dvdjs]

… The Mass as celebrated in Rome was not imposed throughout the entire Roman Patriarchate until the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century. And even then, from what I’ve read …

What are you reading? Evidently not, Quo Primum.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[twf]

While it is true that the West was organized into synods, and while it is also true that what I’ll call the Primatial Provinces were self-governing, whether they would be considered separate “Churches sui juris” in today’s terms is debatable.

Even today the national episcopal conferences enjoy a certain degree of autonomy within the Latin Church. Yes major decisions must be ratified by Rome - but then the election of the primates of autonomous churches in E Orthodoxy requires ratification from the mother Church as well. Between national Latin churches you will find different fasting requirements, different local calendars, different norms for liturgical postures etc. Devotional practices among the Latin faithful vary to an immense degree from nation to nation. I’m currently working in the Dominican Republic and have noticed a number of differences. The two biggest Marian feasts here, for example, are Our Lady of Mercy and Our Lady of Altagracia - neither of which are celebrated back home. In near by Nicaragua the Immaculate Conception is the major Marian feast while back home it is the solemnity of the Mother of God (jan 1). Holy days of obligation vary accordingly. I’m used to remaining kneeling throughout the Eucharistic prayer but here the norm is to kneel only during the consecration itself. The local bishops make local decisions on a number of topics. The Latin Church isn’t micromanaged by Rome as some seem to think.

 

[malphono]

Even today the national episcopal conferences enjoy a certain degree of autonomy within the Latin Church. Yes major decisions must be ratified by Rome - but then the election of the primates of autonomous churches in E Orthodoxy requires ratification from the mother Church as well. Between national Latin churches you will find different fasting requirements, different local calendars, different norms for liturgical postures etc. Devotional practices among the Latin faithful vary to an immense degree from nation to nation. I’m currently working in the Dominican Republic and have noticed a number of differences. The two biggest Marian feasts here, for example, are Our Lady of Mercy and Our Lady of Altagracia - neither of which are celebrated back home. In near by Nicaragua the Immaculate Conception is the major Marian feast while back home it is the solemnity of the Mother of God (jan 1). Holy days of obligation vary accordingly. I’m used to remaining kneeling throughout the Eucharistic prayer but here the norm is to kneel only during the consecration itself. The local bishops make local decisions on a number of topics. The Latin Church isn’t micromanaged by Rome as some seem to think.

Yes, I’m well aware of that, but those post-conciliar so-called “national conferences” are a far cry from the Primatial Provinces of the 1st Millennium. In matter of fact, those “conferences” really don’t have any more “authority” than did their forebearers (i.e. the severely weakened Provincial synods of the pre-conciliar era). Although it did further weaken what were the already anemic prerogatives of the Primatial Sees, it basically amounts to little more than a name change.