Western Rite Orthodox

[Peter_J]

I’ve never been Orthodox, but just speaking as a non-Orthodox looking in … I think WRO makes a lot of sense. My only concern is that people might get the impression that in order to be “Eastern-Rite” Orthodox one needs to be ethnically Eastern.

 

[andrewstx]

Not to be confused with West, Texas, which I never heard of until it was in the news recently.

Neither had I. West, Texas is a small town actually located in central Texas.

West Texas is a region in Texas that get’s little attention in Austin the state capitol. I actually had to look it up and it’s larger than some states.

 

[jwinch2]

Neither had I. West, Texas is a small town actually located in central Texas.

West Texas is a region in Texas that get’s little attention in Austin the state capitol. I actually had to look it up and it’s larger than some states.

Don’t worry. They don’t really know we exist in Texoma either. Which might be a good thing now that I think about it…

 

[Kosta]

In regards to whether some of my co-religionists look down on the Western Rites, to an extent, yes, I think that there is an almost bemusement about their existence. With my friends I’ve made in my OCF (which is a type of club for Orthodox Christians where if there is a chaplain, vespers is performed on a certain day), the very few times the Western Rite has come up, at least someone says “Which I don’t get, why do they not take what we have?” “What we have” meaning Eastern liturgical practices] I personally don’t think it’s fair to say that, in fact I personally love the Western Rite. In fact, I almost joined D.C.'s one Western Rite parish because I prefer small parishes and because I feel like it’s such a small congregation that they need all the warm-bodied parishioners that they can get, but I fundamentally am an Easterner, and I would miss my Eastern church just too much.

 

[steve_b]

Many Orthodox feel deeply hurt by the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches because they seem to encroach upon Orthodox spirituality and jurisdiction. I’d image many also feel uncomfortable in “returning the favor”, so to speak, by creating an Eastern Orthodox Church that encroaches upon Western spirituality.

No ONE speaks for Orthodoxy. There is no central authority or jurisdiction. Each Church in EO speaks for themself. When a Church decides they will return to Catholic unity, they have that right as an independent Church. The others who don’t want that for themselves, that’s thjeir choice. They really can’t complain about those that do choose Catholic unity. Afterall, it’s within their independent choice in the system EO created.themselves.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/en/articles/the-crisis-of-ecumenism-according-to-cardinal-kasper

That’s why there is dialogue between individual Churches.

 

[Kosta]

No ONE speaks for Orthodoxy. There is no central authority or jurisdiction. Each Church in EO speaks for themself. When a Church decides they will return to Catholic unity, they have that right as an independent Church. The others who don’t want that for themselves, that’s thjeir choice. They really can’t complain about those that do choose Catholic unity. Afterall, it’s within their independent choice in the system EO created.themselves.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/en/articles/the-crisis-of-ecumenism-according-to-cardinal-kasper

That’s why there is dialogue between individual Churches.

See, that’s not true, like at all, unless you want to call it secession, which is not allowed.
A synod speaks for a Church. All bishops have to agree to any big issue like union with any Church. Every single bishop, mind you, from every jurisdiction, from the Churches of Four of the Five Ancient Patriarchs, to the Metropolitan of Poland, to even the local Carpatho-Russian bishop of Scranton.
Churches only speak for themselves when they’re speaking for each other; Antioch can’t say something that only applies to Antioch and then run on its merry way.
What you’re referring to is only bitter politicking in Moscow; no one else seriously is considering passing the most honourable position of primus-inter-pares to His Emenince in Moscow.

 

[Rawb]

Christ is Risen!

Look how old the article is too. Those, however, who parrot nonsense like “An Orthodox Church doesn’t exist” won’t hear any of your explanations. Those who won’t have ears to hear, won’t hear.

 

[Peter_J]

No ONE speaks for Orthodoxy. There is no central authority or jurisdiction. Each Church in EO speaks for themself. When a Church decides they will return to Catholic unity, they have that right as an independent Church. The others who don’t want that for themselves, that’s thjeir choice. They really can’t complain about those that do choose Catholic unity. Afterall, **it’s within their independent choice in the system EO created themselves.
**

So who created the system whereby the whole Western Lung is “under the Pope” so to speak?

That’s why there is dialogue between individual Churches.

I guess the flip-side of that is that there is no dialogue within the Latin Church.

 

[steve_b]

See, that’s not true, like at all, unless you want to call it secession, which is not allowed.
A synod speaks for a Church. All bishops have to agree to any big issue like union with any Church. Every single bishop, mind you, from every jurisdiction, from the Churches of Four of the Five Ancient Patriarchs, to the Metropolitan of Poland, to even the local Carpatho-Russian bishop of Scranton.
Churches only speak for themselves when they’re speaking for each other; Antioch can’t say something that only applies to Antioch and then run on its merry way.
What you’re referring to is only bitter politicking in Moscow; no one else seriously is considering passing the most honourable position of primus-inter-pares to His Emenince in Moscow.

Obviously there were EO Churches that did freely return to Catholic unity.

 

[steve_b]

Christ is Risen!

Look how old the article is too. Those, however, who parrot nonsense like “An Orthodox Church doesn’t exist” won’t hear any of your explanations. Those who won’t have ears to hear, won’t hear.

What’s changed in the last 11 years since the article in 2002? The CC and EO Churches have been in dialogue for 1000 years. Now THAT’s a looooooong time. And what’s changed?

 

[steve_b]

So who created the system whereby the whole Western Lung is “under the Pope” so to speak?

as far as the patriarchal system of 5 equal heads of the Church, that was a creation of the East.

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Let me ask you…what part of the Church did Jesus say was off limits to Peter’s authority?
P:

I guess the flip-side of that is that there is no dialogue within the Latin Church.

please explain

 

[Kosta]

Obviously there were EO Churches that did freely return to Catholic unity.

While we might find the reasons questionable, like I said, that’d be considered schism.

 

[jimmy]

I imagine that it would be perfectly in line with Orthodoxy as long as it doesn’t become like the Catholic sui juris churches, in which there is a specific church that is associated with the rite. The main problem the Orthodox have with the concept of the eastern churches is that the rite has become part of their identity and consequently you have churches of the latin rite, the byzantine rite, the antiochian rite, the alexandrian rite, and etc. with overlapping jurisdictions.

There have always been multiple liturgical rites. In the fifth century there was the Syrian rite, the Roman rite, the Byzantine rite, and others. The liturgy was different in different places and cultures. When people were in Rome, they did as the Romans. And when in Constantinople, they did as the Constantinopolitans. There is no reason why it shouldn’t be the same now.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J

So bottom line, Jesus never prescribed a two-lung system.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Well, I don’t know how much there is to explain. You said, “That’s why there is dialogue between individual Churches” in Orthodoxy, so it seemed natural (and relevant) to point out that there isn’t dialogue in the Latin Church.

 

[steve_b]

So bottom line, Jesus never prescribed a two-lung system.

Here’s the context of 2 lungs ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2UKREP.HTM

also lpca.us/breathing%20with%202%20lungs.htm

 

[steve_b]

Well, I don’t know how much there is to explain. You said, “That’s why there is dialogue between individual Churches” in Orthodoxy, so it seemed natural (and relevant) to point out that there isn’t dialogue in the Latin Church.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. Since there is no ONE voice for EO The CC dialogues with each EO Church since they are all seperate Churches.

 

[marlo]

Western Rite Orthodox is just like a Masked Eastern Orthodox, or in a more frank way, a different flavor, it is not really a rite, It is in no way similar to the Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic church, where they preserve their own identity, I tell you, the Western Rite Orthodox will not use the writings of the Western Fathers, because the Eastern Orthodox are not familiar with them nor they believe the existing manuscripts of the Western Fathers writings are authentic. I would say, its a false advertising

 

[Peter_J]

Western Rite Orthodox is just like a Masked Eastern Orthodox, or in a more frank way, a different flavor, it is not really a rite, It is in no way similar to the Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic church, where they preserve their own identity, I tell you, the Western Rite Orthodox will not use the writings of the Western Fathers, because the Eastern Orthodox are not familiar with them nor they believe the existing manuscripts of the Western Fathers writings are authentic. I would say, its a false advertising

There’s one school of thought (at least on the internet) that makes WRO out to be *just *like Eastern Catholicism – thus cutting the legs out from Orthodox complaints about uniatism. Then there’s another school of thought that won’t allow any similarity at all between the two. But I think anyone with common sense and a little time to look into the matter will see that neither of those extreme positions make any sense.

 

[dvdjs]

There’s one school of thought (at least on the internet) that makes WRO out to be *just *like Eastern Catholicism – thus cutting the legs out from Orthodox complaints about uniatism.

I don’t think that there is an EO position on what “uniatism” is, or why, exactly Orthodox violently despise it. A common complaint however, is that the RCC set up Eastern churches for Orthodox to come into the Catholic Church. The problem with this view is that it entirely disregards history. The reality is not that new churches were created, but that particular churches with a long and living tradition returned to communion with Rome - a communion that, in the cases of Byzantine churches, they had enjoyed for the better part of their history. The irony is that that criticism - a serious one - is precisely the problem with the WRO.