Western-Rite Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcointin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate the Western Rite of the Orthodox church. Another step towards unity?
 
I hope. I know some Orthodox dislike the whole idea of a western rite, claiming it is not, well…orthodox.
 
John_of_Patmos said:
I hope. I know some Orthodox dislike the whole idea of a western rite, claiming it is not, well…orthodox.
Click to expand...
I think the Orthodox you are referring to are more so found within any Greek parish. The Slavic Churches are much more accepting and willing to be ecumenical. Of course both of these sides are important, the Greeks help the Church to avoid accepting churches into communion that don’t have the same essential dogma (which is one of the reasons the filolique and papal infallibility have been and are often thorns when Rome and the Orthodox speak of communion). However, they are also a hindrance, especially in relations with the Oriental Churches (last I read, the Russians were willing to receive the Oriental Churches back into communion since they had use of different terminologies).

More so on the topic of this thread, I believe that Western Rite Orthodox parishes are one of the means of future reconciliation with Western Christianity. This is one of the ways to help us deal with our problems with one another.
 
As far as I know, only ROCOR and the Antiochan Archdiocese have Western Rite Parishes, and I’ve read some harsh things about the Western Rite from members of those juristictions. I’m not sure there is any real pattern to their acceptance.
 
I attended the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon (which apparently is the one St. Vincent’s does, not st. Gregory) last Sunday. I do believe it’s an improvement on the Ordinary Form (not that I’ll leave the Holy Catholic Church for it! :p), and that the Western Rite may do much to soften the hearts of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Anglicans and their progeny in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may be pivotal in reuniting Rome and Constantinople. Because, for the first time in 1900 years (100 years ago), the Orthodox have allowed their theology to be explained in Western terms. They may be more understanding of Rome’s way of thinking now. 🙂

I got a good feeling about this.
 
TarkanAttila said:
The Anglicans and their progeny in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may be pivotal in reuniting Rome and Constantinople. Because, for the first time in 1900 years (100 years ago), the Orthodox have allowed their theology to be explained in Western terms.
Click to expand...
Interesting point. Thanks for sharing that. 👍
 
TarkanAttila said:
I attended the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon (which apparently is the one St. Vincent’s does, not st. Gregory) last Sunday. I do believe it’s an improvement on the Ordinary Form (not that I’ll leave the Holy Catholic Church for it! :p), and that the Western Rite may do much to soften the hearts of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Anglicans and their progeny in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may be pivotal in reuniting Rome and Constantinople. Because, for the first time in 1900 years (100 years ago), the Orthodox have allowed their theology to be explained in Western terms. They may be more understanding of Rome’s way of thinking now. 🙂

I got a good feeling about this.
Click to expand...
You know, I’ve been curious about St. Vincent’s for some time now. Next time I’m in Omaha, I’ll have to check it out 😃
 
“Western-rite Orthodoxy is largely an ecclesiastical anomaly, the creation of a new church which no historic foundation.”

Thus it may be according to our understanding, while seeking - whether directly or cloaked within the covering of the Blessed Trinity - unity, for which Christ, Himself, prayed.
 
Whatever their size, they were apparently present at the March for Life, along with many other Orthodox. 🙂

Orthodox Christians take high-visibility role in the March for Life
Wed Jan 25, 2012WASHINGTON, D.C., January 25, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com)
Orthodox faithful began Monday’s events by gathering for two prayer services. Eastern Orthodox Christians held a Divine Liturgy and prayer service at St. Nicholas Cathedral on Massachusetts Ave. A Western Rite Orthodox Mass was held at St. Gregory the Great Orthodox Church in metropolitan Washington.
Click to expand...
 
BertBlyleven said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Eastern Orthodox need to get over their paranoia about anything Western. It’s simply not “Orthodox.”

And one would hope that a future ecclesial reunion envisioned by the Orthodox is not one where the West simply receives the Eastern Rite . . . .

Alex
 
Byz_Guy said:
I came across this Western Rite Orthodox Mass:

vimeo.com/25843227

Does anyone know what particular liturgy this is?
Click to expand...
I believe this is the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory. It is mostly the Tridentine Mass, translated into the vernacular, with the removal of the filioque from the Creed, and with an Epiclesis inserted.
 
I don’t think the concerns of the late and great Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory can be simply dismissed. Like him, I believe that there is a sacramental and liturgical ethos that is transmitted through the Constantinipolitan tradition that is unique to Chalcedonian-Byzantine Orthodoxy. I don’t think this is necessarily a paranoia as Fr. Alexander explains. For me it also brings into question the notion of this being a “western Unia” amongst the Orthodox, as these liturgical creations are modern (20th century) and specifically designated for the union of a particular group of Western Christians with Eastern Orthodoxy.
 
Diak said:
I don’t think the concerns of the late and great Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory can be simply dismissed. Like him, I believe that there is a sacramental and liturgical ethos that is transmitted through the Constantinipolitan tradition that is unique to Chalcedonian-Byzantine Orthodoxy. I don’t think this is necessarily a paranoia as Fr. Alexander explains. For me it also brings into question the notion of this being a “western Unia” amongst the Orthodox, as these liturgical creations are modern (20th century) and specifically designated for the union of a particular group of Western Christians with Eastern Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Could you elborate on what Fr. Schmemann said regarding this topic? I hold him in the highest esteem, and his works were pivotal in my decision to convert to Orthodoxy.
 
“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.
 
I would disagree. I think Orthodoxy can be universal also and does not need to be limited to the Eastern Church. This is the same sort of argumentation that some used years ago to try to discourage the spread of Eastern Catholic liturgies in the Catholic Church. There are dangers to watch for (losing one’s traditions in the name of “unity,” for example), but I think it’s a worthwhile endeavor.
 
I would disagree. I think Orthodoxy can be universal also and does not need to be limited to the Eastern Church. This is the same sort of argumentation that some used years ago to try to discourage the spread of Eastern Catholic liturgies in the Catholic Church. There are dangers to watch for (losing one’s traditions in the name of “unity,” for example), but I think it’s a worthwhile endeavor.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top