Western Rite Orthodoxy

[Nicholas82]

No. Western Rite Orthodoxy is some unfortunate anomaly to create pseudo Christian unity. It is similar to Eastern Catoics - both are not liked by church they imitate and not understood by church which offers them home. I believe to be Orthodox is to worship like Orthodox - why we call ourselves pravosavnije - we who worship correctly. Such Western orthodoxy is like Eastern Catolics - confusing and not helpful to ultimate return of all christians to one Christian church. Despite Patriarch Tikhon who developed such churches I think many Orthodox are not deeply supporting them. Yes, I think those who want Orthodoxy should want to worship with other Orthodox peoples and not with Catolics and Anglicans.

I personally don’t get the problem with Western Rite Orthodoxy. It’s such a small movement anyway; if someone holds the same Orthodox faith as you and finds themself with a large enough community of believers to celebrate a perfectly Orthodox Liturgy according to ancient Western traditions, what is the problem? The faith is the same and the customs different, just as it was in the first 1000 years.

Admittedly sometimes Western Orthodox liturgies almost seem a little forced, and I think a lot of that has to do with the generally small number or parishoners than anything else, a lack of money. I’m not sure if any Western Rite parishes have had a great enough success yet to acquire a Church building large and ornate enough or liturgical impliments and vestments authentic enough to make the average Roman Catholic feel at home. I haven’t yet heard of large groups of Roman Catholics or Anglicans flocking to Western Rite Orthodox parishes because of the similarity of customs that go along with the Orthodox Faith. So if a small group can support itself and possibly grow while maintaining a cultural and liturgical identity that was perfectly valid and true to the Orthodox Faith for so many centuries, why not? If they don’t have your support, your acceptance is probably enough.

[Moderator Note: This discussion on Western Rite Orthodoxy was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from them. Please http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=246251”]see here for the original discussion.]

 

[Peter_J]

It is similar to Eastern Catoics - both are not liked by church they imitate and not understood by church which offers them home.

I agree. But the solution is for people to be more tolerant and more understanding, respectively.

The answer is not to get rid of the EC and WRO.

Blessings,
Peter.

 

[Hesychios]

I personally don’t get the problem with Western Rite Orthodoxy. It’s such a small movement anyway; if someone holds the same Orthodox faith as you and finds themselves with a large enough community of believers to celebrate a perfectly Orthodox Liturgy according to ancient Western traditions, what is the problem? The faith is the same and the customs different, just as it was in the first 1000 years.

Admittedly sometimes Western Orthodox liturgies almost seem a little forced, and I think a lot of that has to do with the generally small number or parishoners than anything else, a lack of money. I’m not sure if any Western Rite parishes have had a great enough success yet to acquire a Church building large and ornate enough or liturgical impliments and vestments authentic enough to make the average Roman Catholic feel at home. I haven’t yet heard of large groups of Roman Catholics or Anglicans flocking to Western Rite Orthodox parishes because of the similarity of customs that go along with the Orthodox Faith. So if a small group can support itself and possibly grow while maintaining a cultural and liturgical identity that was perfectly valid and true to the Orthodox Faith for so many centuries, why not? If they don’t have your support, your acceptance is probably enough.

I do not necessarily disagree here. But I have another perspective to share…

I think some Orthodox are bothered by the idea that some potential new Orthodox might make the liturgical practice something like a condition upon which their conversion is based. It seems rather insincere.

In other words: “if we cannot have our own liturgy…we will not be coming! We’d rather remain Protestants!”

Well, perhaps that is too extreme a remark, I don’t know.

When one becomes Orthodox it is not expected that they would be making demands or shopping around for a favorite liturgy, but we all know what human nature does to us. I am no better, really.

In one respect then, many Orthodox (being largely Traditionalists themselves) can take an attitude similar to the older style Traditionalist Latin Catholics who might have said of the Eastern Rites in days gone by: “If they are going to be real Catholics, they need to act and think and worship like real Catholics…in Latin and on their knees!” I want to be like that.

I do wish there were a WRO parish in my area, I would love to visit with them. In a sense they may represent the best of the western tradition.

Western Rite Orthodox can be problematic if they become an obstacle to Christian unity. They were never intended to replace the Latin church, it is an exercise in economy on the part of some sympathetic bishops who were impressed with their sincerity. These were mostly Protestant (perhaps more often than not Anglican) and Old Catholic parishes (mostly in Europe) which gravitated toward communion with the ancient Patriarchal Sees.

If we ever did find a way to heal this dreadful east-west schism I suppose that eventually the WRO would find themselves incorporated into the Latin church structure. But honestly they are typically so small that they could face closure rather quickly, as the huge Latin Catholic dioceses struggle with questions of finance and efficiency and ultimately how best to allocate their diocesan resources and personnel. I can’t see anyone wanting to face to possibility of having their tidy little parish community shut down as a result of reconciliation between the Catholics and the Orthodox.

Michael

 

[Madaglan]

I do not necessarily disagree here. But I have another perspective to share…

I think some Orthodox are bothered by the idea that some potential new Orthodox might make the liturgical practice something like a condition upon which their conversion is based. It seems rather insincere.

In other words: “if we cannot have our own liturgy…we will not be coming! We’d rather remain Protestants!”

Well, perhaps that is too extreme a remark, I don’t know.

When one becomes Orthodox it is not expected that they would be making demands or shopping around for a favorite liturgy, but we all know what human nature does to us. I am no better, really.

In one respect then, many Orthodox (being largely Traditionalists themselves) can take an attitude similar to the older style Traditionalist Latin Catholics who might have said of the Eastern Rites in days gone by: “If they are going to be real Catholics, they need to act and think and worship like real Catholics…in Latin and on their knees!” I want to be like that.

I do wish there were a WRO parish in my area, I would love to visit with them. In a sense they may represent the best of the western tradition.

Western Rite Orthodox can be problematic if they become an obstacle to Christian unity. They were never intended to replace the Latin church, it is an exercise in economy on the part of some sympathetic bishops who were impressed with their sincerity. These were mostly Protestant (perhaps more often than not Anglican) and Old Catholic parishes (mostly in Europe) which gravitated toward communion with the ancient Patriarchal Sees.

If we ever did find a way to heal this dreadful east-west schism I suppose that eventually the WRO would find themselves incorporated into the Latin church structure. But honestly they are typically so small that they could face closure rather quickly, as the huge Latin Catholic dioceses struggle with questions of finance and efficiency and ultimately how best to allocate their diocesan resources and personnel. I can’t see anyone wanting to face to possibility of having their tidy little parish community shut down as a result of reconciliation between the Catholics and the Orthodox.

Michael

You make the good point of the WRO not meant to replace the Latin Church. When the Eastern Catholic churches were formed, there also was created a church hierarchy in opposition to the Orthodox one in the same jurisdiction. To my knowledge, there is no WRO bishop (who only oversees WRO churches) but rather the WRO churches are under the guidance of Eastern bishops.

I think the difficulty is not so much the Orthodoxy of the WRO, but determining what exactly “Western” Orthodoxy looks like. There is one side that wants to hold onto as much Anglican traditions (especially hymns) as possible, while there also is a desire to return to Western worship as it existed before the schism (hence the use of the Mass of St. Gregory, basically an edited version of the Tridentine Latin Mass and chanted in English). Personally, when I left the church for the first time, I thought “too bad the Latin Catholics don’t adopt this liturgy.” I was rather impressed by how the WRO used a vernacular form of the Tridentine Mass, and how their hymns in fact well-complemented the liturgy.

The only thing I found somewhat odd was the “Byzantinization” of the liturgy. There were no statues, but instead Byzantine-style icons. The people crossed themselves Greek hand style, sometimes Russian style crossing with the shoulders. I found that a little out of place, but perhaps that’s how Western Orthodox worshipped back in the day.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The only thing I found somewhat odd was the “Byzantinization” of the liturgy. There were no statues, but instead Byzantine-style icons. The people crossed themselves Greek hand style, sometimes Russian style crossing with the shoulders. I found that a little out of place, but perhaps that’s how Western Orthodox worshipped back in the day.

This could speak to an institutional paralysis and an amagisterial set-up that is ill prepared to examine and than speak definatively about where the “Eastern” ends and the “Orthodoxy” begins. Things that as a Greek Catholic I am not wild about among my brother Catholics… Well sometimes I have to concede that not all of us are taking the tack of approaching spirituality for Greco-Slavonic pietistic sensibilities… More plainly they aren’t “Greeks” and reasonably should not be forced to find an indentity that happens to make a super-majority of “Greeks” comfortable because of an inability to seperate “Greek-ness” from Orthodoxy. Even the existence of the WRO is something that - far from being a universally accepted aspect of Orthodoxy is often ignored or unknown by many (and some objections raised by folks who ask “Who are these bishops who see themselves fit to define a non-Greek praxis that is Orthodox - bishops who would likely NEVER see themselves as fit to unilaterally deviate from accepted Byzantine praxis with revising the Divine Liturgy but feel comfortable promulgating whole books?”

On the face of it, Byzantinizations and Latinizations would seem to be closesly related phenomena… Delving more into it, they are most related at concepts of ecclisiology. (With secondary issues of nationalism often in play.)

 

[Madaglan]

This could speak to an institutional paralysis and an amagisterial set-up that is ill prepared to examine and than speak definatively about where the “Eastern” ends and the “Orthodoxy” begins.

Things that as a Greek Catholic I am not wild about among my brother Catholics… Well sometimes I have to concede that not all of us are taking the tack of approaching spirituality for Greco-Slavonic pietistic sensibilities…

More plainly they aren’t “Greeks” and reasonably should not be forced to find an indentity that happens to make a super-majority of “Greeks” comfortable because of an inability to seperate “Greek-ness” from Orthodoxy.

They’re not being forced. They freely chose to become Orthodox, and nobody is forcing them to sign this way or that.

Even the existence of the WRO is something that - far from being a universally accepted aspect of Orthodoxy is often ignored or unknown by many (and some objections raised by folks who ask “Who are these bishops who see themselves fit to define a non-Greek praxis that is Orthodox - bishops who would likely NEVER see themselves as fit to unilaterally deviate from accepted Byzantine praxis with revising the Divine Liturgy but feel comfortable promulgating whole books?”

The liturgy that is celebrated in the WRO is not a confected liturgy but the liturgy of St. Gregory, which is quite similiar to the Tridentine Latin Mass, which has many parts of ancient origin. The Orthodox bishops recognize that Byzantine/Greek is not the only historic expression of Orthodoxy in the history of the Church. The recognition that the Western Church was Orthodox before 1054 is a basis for allowing Western liturgies to be celebrated by the WRO.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Do me the solid favor of offering more than a near-meaningless emoticon to illustrate how you are confused or disagree. I can’t respond or clarify based on faces.

They’re not being forced. They freely chose to become Orthodox, and nobody is forcing them to sign this way or that.

No one said they were being forced. Did they?

The liturgy that is celebrated in the WRO is not a confected liturgy but the liturgy of St. Gregory, which is quite similiar to the Tridentine Latin Mass, which has many parts of ancient origin. The Orthodox bishops recognize that Byzantine/Greek is not the only historic expression of Orthodoxy in the history of the Church. The recognition that the Western Church was Orthodox before 1054 is a basis for allowing Western liturgies to be celebrated by the WRO.

And this is the party line… but who are these bishops to promulgate these things based on the working theory of the “pre-1054 Orthodox west” theory?

And your response can’t be said to be true for the majority of the tiny communities in the US that are BCP-based, the notion that the book of common prayer is somehow a link to a Western Orthodox past is somewhat of a serious, serious stretch. All well and good if there is a self-concept of Orthodoxy as something that is not so entrenched and near entangled in a Byzantine mindset that is fiercely loyal to patrimony preservation…

The idea however that some bishops can promulgate a “Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory” or “DL of Saint Tikhon” (aka the BCP)… That is both odd and incongruous with what is otherwise offered by the Eastern Orthodox. No surprises that at least one Greek bishop forbade his clergy from assisting at those parishes, and disallowed the wearing of “WRO” vestments to any event his priests participated in…

 

[Madaglan]

Do me the solid favor of offering more than a near-meaningless emoticon to illustrate how you are confused or disagree. I can’t respond or clarify based on faces.

Those parts do not make any sense. It’s all double talk, to be honest.

No one said they were being forced. Did they?

I interpreted your previous post as saying that the WRO were forced to worship in Greek style to make the Greeks happy.

And this is the party line… but who are these bishops to promulgate these things based on the working theory of the “pre-1054 Orthodox west” theory?

The West was at one time Orthodox, and at one time was in communion with the Eastern Churches. The Orthodoxy of the West in the first millenium is not a working theory.

The bishops pray and spiritually discern the best course of action regarding the WRO. The Latin Church similarly has prayed for guidance regarding those Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) churches which have come into communion with Rome.

And your response can’t be said to be true for the majority of the tiny communities in the US that are BCP-based, the notion that the book of common prayer is somehow a link to a Western Orthodox past is somewhat of a serious, serious stretch. All well and good if there is a self-concept of Orthodoxy as something that is not so entrenched and near entangled in a Byzantine mindset that is fiercely loyal to patrimony preservation…

The Book of Common Prayer was not written entirely from scratch. Many of the prayers included are from the Sarum rite or from the Roman Rite and go back many centuries. Yes, there was a Protestant influence on certain prayers, and these have been duly noted by Orthodox observers for quite some time now.

See: anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html

From what I understand, many of the WRO works that come from Anglicanism have been edited and amended to ensure sound doctrine. It seems the Book of Common Prayer used by the TAC in communion with the Pope is also edited of errors.

The idea however that some bishops can promulgate a “Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory” or “DL of Saint Tikhon” (aka the BCP)… That is both odd and incongruous with what is otherwise offered by the Eastern Orthodox.

Can you please explain your last statement. What is otherwise offered by the Eastern Orthodox, and how is this incongruous with bishops promulgating these liturgies?

No surprises that at least one Greek bishop forbade his clergy from assisting at those parishes, and disallowed the wearing of “WRO” vestments to any event his priests participated in…

I would not be surprised if there are quite more than one Old Calendarist Greek bishops who forbid their clergy from assisting at New Calendarist parishes.

Sure, there will be some bishops opposed to WRO. Just as, in the Latin Church, there are bishops opposed to the Tridentine Latin Mass.

 

[Madaglan]

Just a slight edit to my previous post: when I wrote of those TAC now in communion with Rome, I meant Anglican Use Catholics.

In doing a little research, I have discovered that the Anglican Use Catholics do not per se use the Book of Common Prayer, but instead use the Book of Divine Worship (BDW), which is based on the Book of Common Prayer.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Those parts do not make any sense. It’s all double talk, to be honest.

Well put a little effort into your disagreement and nail down where you are getting confused or disagree. I am sorry you don’t agree or at least don’t get it - but there is no double speak there.

Yes, there is a Catholic Book of Divine Worship. The difference with clear distinction in the matter is that their is a magisterial office to promulgate and approve. That simply is absent in the jurisdictional melee of nation-state churches that make up the autocephalous polyarchy of the East. Metropolitan Philip of the AOA approves it, +MARK of San Francisco (now of blessed memory) of the GOA, clearly DID NOT.

So whose authority makes this Orthodox?

I am not alone in my thinking on this - a lot of Orthodox on line have shared as much when it comes to their distaste for the tiny western-rite communities. See Western Rite Critic.

 

[Madaglan]

Well put a little effort into your disagreement and nail down where you are getting confused or disagree. I am sorry you don’t agree or at least don’t get it - but there is no double speak there.

What did you mean by amagisterial set-up?

Yes, there is a Catholic Book of Divine Worship. The difference with clear distinction in the matter is that their is a magisterial office to promulgate and approve. That simply is absent in the jurisdictional melee of nation-state churches that make up the autocephalous polyarchy of the East. Metropolitan Philip of the AOA approves it, +MARK of San Francisco (now of blessed memory) of the GOA, clearly DID NOT.

So whose authority makes this Orthodox?

I am not alone in my thinking on this - a lot of Orthodox on line have shared as much when it comes to their distaste for the tiny western-rite communities. See Western Rite Critic.

If there is serious issue of the orthodoxy of the WRO, then the bishops can hold a council and settle the matter.

The way you write, something is not Orthodox or Catholic until stamped Orthodox or Catholic by a magisterium.

However, the authority does not “make” something Orthodox or Catholic but decides and declares whether something already existing and in use is or is not Orthodox or Catholic.

Similarly, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement was not “made” Catholic when formally recognized by the Pope.

 

[Peter_J]

I am not alone in my thinking on this - a lot of Orthodox on line have shared as much when it comes to their distaste for the tiny western-rite communities. See Western Rite Critic.

True, you’re not alone. However, I don’t think I would put too much stock in that blog.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

True, you’re not alone. However, I don’t think I would put too much stock in that blog.

Whether an extreme minority or the minority party that is actually vocal in their objections, the objections they raise, resonate with many from very different areas.

I point to them as an illustration that the percieved uniformity in accepting the WRO communities as truly Orthodox organic manifestations of rightful aspirations that bishops have a right to sponsor and promulgate… Well it is not so cut and dry as presented in some fora sometimes. In fact more than a few Orthodox are not pleased with what they see as “the experiment” and some don’t see it as legitimate in the least.

What did you mean by amagisterial set-up?

Rather simply in the absense of a grand governing council or a patriarchate that can offer that this IS in fact legitimate, the competing opinions of different hierarchs is what we are left with. Given the largely disparate approaches between some of the parties on either end of the spectrum, the question arises “Who is to be listened to?”

If there is serious issue of the orthodoxy of the WRO, then the bishops can hold a council and settle the matter.

Would that it were so easy. In fact the widely disparate approaches to the Catholic Church (up to and including at least four different approaches to the reception of Catholic priests into Orthodoxy) and the question of “to baptize or not to baptize” seems to have weight enough that a council of the sort you speak of (easy enough on paper) should well have been called already. It hasn’t and I don’t believe likely would. Who would even be invited to solve and settle is up for grabs - certainly we witnessed animosities and ambivalence about “who gets seated at the table” with the ROC walk-out on Catholic-Orthodox talks over the Estonians.

The way you write, something is not Orthodox or Catholic until stamped Orthodox or Catholic by a magisterium.

Yes, that is the way I write… but to be clear, there is a matter of how something is known to be definative. With strongly competing antiethetical opinions on the matter, the question again arises (when we are offered it is truly Orthodox) “Says whom?” I can’t imagine any of the EO churches not running into some serious difficulty if they engaged in a church-wide reform of their DL promulgating any major changes. How it can then be the case that it is within the power or authority of these same hierarchs who would be hesitant (perhaps even fearful of isolation) to revise their RDLs or proumulgate alternative of different sorts would feel they had the freedom to judge and then promulgate something like the BCP (even one that is edited and expurgated)as an authentic expression of Orthodoxy.

However, the authority does not “make” something Orthodox or Catholic but decides and declares whether something already existing and in use is or is not Orthodox or Catholic.

Similarly, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement was not “made” Catholic when formally recognized by the Pope.

On the matter of the CCR - I am not certain I understand the correlation or how it is analagous. Maybe you could better explain this point? At the very least, their was a place where the buck stopped and debate could be ended as to if it was allowable and “truly Catholic” at some level or another. Maybe I misunderstand your point?

 

[Madaglan]

Rather simply in the absense of a grand governing council or a patriarchate that can offer that this IS in fact legitimate, the competing opinions of different hierarchs is what we are left with. Given the largely disparate approaches between some of the parties on either end of the spectrum, the question arises “Who is to be listened to?”

One listens to one’s bishop, one’s priest and one’s spiritual director.

In Latin Catholicism, one listens to the Pope because he is the oracle of God.

Would that it were so easy. In fact the widely disparate approaches to the Catholic Church (up to and including at least four different approaches to the reception of Catholic priests into Orthodoxy) and the question of “to baptize or not to baptize” seems to have weight enough that a council of the sort you speak of (easy enough on paper) should well have been called already. It hasn’t and I don’t believe likely would. Who would even be invited to solve and settle is up for grabs - certainly we witnessed animosities and ambivalence about “who gets seated at the table” with the ROC walk-out on Catholic-Orthodox talks over the Estonians.

I don’t think we should push time-tables on God. Look at the Council of Trent: not held until nearly three decades after the 95 Theses, and even after first held, taking nearly 20 years and 3 periods to complete.

I was talking about a council concerning the WRO, not baptism.

There are plenty of animosities and ambivalences in the Latin Church as well. Look at how some Latin bishops ignore or resist implementation of the *motu propio *on the Tridentine Latin Mass, for example.

What’s amazing, I think, is, despite animosities, the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR are now back in full communion with each other.

Yes, that is the way I write… but to be clear, there is a matter of how something is known to be definative. With strongly competing antiethetical opinions on the matter, the question again arises (when we are offered it is truly Orthodox) “Says whom?” I can’t imagine any of the EO churches not running into some serious difficulty if they engaged in a church-wide reform of their DL promulgating any major changes. How it can then be the case that it is within the power or authority of these same hierarchs who would be hesitant (perhaps even fearful of isolation) to revise their RDLs or proumulgate alternative of different sorts would feel they had the freedom to judge and then promulgate something like the BCP (even one that is edited and expurgated)as an authentic expression of Orthodoxy.

If you want definitiveness in everything, then you certainly are in a good place with the Pope. Whatever he says concerning faith and morals is definitive truth–the Almighty’s divine will expressed in human speech.

Why would the Orthodox want a “church-wide” reform of the Divine Liturgy? They’ve already seen the difficulties ushered in by the so-called Novus Ordo Liturgy, sparked by a definitive, church-wide Council and developed by commissions set up by definitive Latin authority.

The bishops do make some changes to the Divine Liturgy (such as translation), but as the Divine Liturgy is celebrated slightly differently in each Church, it would not be good to homogenize the Divine Liturgy into one commissioned Divine Liturgy imposed on all Churches.

From what I understand, there are some people in the Eastern Catholic Churches who want to consolidate many of the Eastern Catholic Churches into a conglomerate American Byzantine Catholic Church that merges together the Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Ruthenian Catholic and Romanian Catholic eparchies in America. I do not believe this a good idea, due to the unique traditions of each sui iurus Church. .

On the matter of the CCR - I am not certain I understand the correlation or how it is analagous. Maybe you could better explain this point? At the very least, their was a place where the buck stopped and debate could be ended as to if it was allowable and “truly Catholic” at some level or another. Maybe I misunderstand your point?

The CCR was not “made” Catholic but already was Catholic even before formally accepted. The Renewal began in 1967 but was not formally accepted by the Pope until 1975. The CCR had its critics within the Catholic Church, many of whom identified the movement as too Protestant/Pentecostal, but the fact that these critics existed before 1975 did not mark the CCR as un-Catholic.

Similarly, the WRO has its critics, but the fact that these critics exist does not mean that WRO is un-Orthodox. If a council in the future formally approves of WRO, this does not indicate that only at the moment is the WRO “truly Orthodox” but that it is an Orthodox Movement that, unless otherwise noted, was Orthodox all along.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

In Latin Catholicism, one listens to the Pope because he is the oracle of God.

If you want definitiveness in everything, then you certainly are in a good place with the Pope. Whatever he says concerning faith and morals is definitive truth–the Almighty’s divine will expressed in human speech.

After I get some work done, I am going to sit down and attempt to write a response to some of your other points but lets get something clear here and now - your disagreeing with me all you please until the cows come home, disco nap and go out again won’t bother me a bit or make me to lose a wink of sleep.

The sarcasm or flippancy just will not work. If you are interested in having a discussion about this, let’s do like adults and drop the comments about “The almighty’s divine will expressed in human speech” or utter dreck (which can only be intended to mock - and you certainly should know better if you intend to be serious and taken seriously) about “oracle of God.”

That is pure mockery, plain and simple.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

One listens to one’s bishop, one’s priest and one’s spiritual director.

And from there I guess one hopes and prays against hope that the bishop whom history will vindicate as “the Orthodox party” in a dispute between two different views is your own… or that your own’s error is not so eggregious to be bothersome. I suppose one can also hope that in God’s mercy, He will simply allow Providence to have a hand in sorting out and allowing the right thinking to prevail in time without a consensus or a council…

I don’t think we should push time-tables on God. Look at the Council of Trent: not held until nearly three decades after the 95 Theses, and even after first held, taking nearly 20 years and 3 periods to complete.

I am not certain how this is analagous.

I was talking about a council concerning the WRO, not baptism.

Either way, disparate and strong opinions that differ vastly hold sway among different parties in the various Orthodox Churches as to the very validity or rightfulness of a hierarch promulgating such a text. If the folks with the strongest anti-WRO opinions are holding the true Orthodox opinion, would one just hope it is not that big of a deal or that they will prevail soon enough?

There are plenty of animosities and ambivalences in the Latin Church as well. Look at how some Latin bishops ignore or resist implementation of the *motu propio *on the Tridentine Latin Mass, for example.

Yes - they are animosities not rooted in confusion over a teaching that isn’t clearly knowable. This is not analagous. The bishops dragging their feet aren’t doing so with an idea that their opinion is just as valid. They are being disobedient, plain and simple, and avenues are there to remedy the situation with appeal to Rome to achieve compliance. Could it be said that +MARK of San Francisco (GOA, now of blessed memory) was disobedient or dissodent to ++PHILIP? Clearly no… Yet two hierarchs where in deep disagreement that the WRO was even Orthodox or not. One vehemently denying, one actively promoting…

What’s amazing, I think, is, despite animosities, the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR are now back in full communion with each other.

That is a beautiful thing, though I am at a loss to see how it is germaine… I think I don’t understand what you are getting at with this example of ecclesial re-grafting/restored communion.

Why would the Orthodox want a “church-wide” reform of the Divine Liturgy? They’ve already seen the difficulties ushered in by the so-called Novus Ordo Liturgy, sparked by a definitive, church-wide Council and developed by commissions set up by definitive Latin authority.

Rather a cheap shot at good ole V2 - but no biggie, everyone likes to get a piece of that action.

I rather have in mind the situation of a Serbian friend of mine in Belgrade who attends a parish that gathers in a new space without an icon screen and serves the DL in modern Serbian with some different music and a different rescension than is more the norm for the various Slavonic Orthodox Churches - in a real and significant way. I have seen photos and footage of some of it, very beautiful, very attractive to young Serbs… and something I don’t believe would fly at the official level. So swipes at the Second Vatican Council aside, if and when such a movement gained currency enough to go to a local council, one can be somewhat more than confident eyebrows would be raised in a way similar to the revised Julian calendar, with many questioning what would give these bishops the right to “tamper with Holy tradition?!”

Yet the AOA has confidence in its ability to promulgate a version of the Book of Common Prayer that is edited to their own satisfaction?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The bishops do make some changes to the Divine Liturgy (such as translation), but as the Divine Liturgy is celebrated slightly differently in each Church, it would not be good to homogenize the Divine Liturgy into one commissioned Divine Liturgy imposed on all Churches.

I wasn’t suggesting such. I was suggesting that significant changes to norms would be odd, disruptive, and out of step with the historic norms for implementing changes in Orthodoxy.

From what I understand, there are some people in the Eastern Catholic Churches who want to consolidate many of the Eastern Catholic Churches into a conglomerate American Byzantine Catholic Church that merges together the Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Ruthenian Catholic and Romanian Catholic eparchies in America. I do not believe this a good idea, due to the unique traditions of each sui iurus Church. .

I am really at a loss to see how this is in anyway germaine to a discussion of WRO.

The CCR was not “made” Catholic but already was Catholic even before formally accepted. The Renewal began in 1967 but was not formally accepted by the Pope until 1975. The CCR had its critics within the Catholic Church, many of whom identified the movement as too Protestant/Pentecostal, but the fact that these critics existed before 1975 did not mark the CCR as un-Catholic.

No one said the CCR was “made Catholic” - then again the comparison is strained inasmuch as a Catholic bishop is not a member of a communion of autocephalous polyarchy where multiple bishops with fairly similar levels of autonomy and authority are granted the rights to decides such things nearly unilaterally. Additionally, not one of them was promulgating a new set of books for the Eucharist. More comparable still would be if an individual bishop or a group of bishops acted to promulgate and allow for a non-Catholic rite to begin to be used without reference to Rome. Further, if there was a conflict in allowances made for the CCR in their liturgical praxis, questions as to its allowability could be pursued all the way up to Rome when the issue was pressed.

Similarly, the WRO has its critics, but the fact that these critics exist does not mean that WRO is un-Orthodox. If a council in the future formally approves of WRO, this does not indicate that only at the moment is the WRO “truly Orthodox” but that it is an Orthodox Movement that, unless otherwise noted, was Orthodox all along.

The flip side of the coin is that it has its proponents and that these proponents exist does not mean that it is Orthodox. It is simply beyond the reasonable purview of a bishop to take something like the Book of Common prayer and impliment it as Orthodox. Additionally a council could easily go the other way and say that it is not Orthodox now, nor was it ever.

 

[Peter_J]

If you want definitiveness in everything, then you certainly are in a good place with the Pope. Whatever he says concerning faith and morals is definitive truth–the Almighty’s divine will expressed in human speech.

And from there I guess one hopes and prays against hope that the bishop whom history will vindicate as “the Orthodox party” in a dispute between two different views is your own… or that your own’s error is not so eggregious to be bothersome.

Madaglan and Simple,

While making sarcastic remarks may be satisfying, it seldom does much for the conversation.

then again the comparison is strained inasmuch as a Catholic bishop is not a member of a communion of autocephalous polyarchy where multiple bishops with fairly similar levels of autonomy and authority are granted the rights to decides such things nearly unilaterally.

The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. (James 1:20)

 

[Madaglan]

I rather have in mind the situation of a Serbian friend of mine in Belgrade who attends a parish that gathers in a new space without an icon screen and serves the DL in modern Serbian with some different music and a different rescension than is more the norm for the various Slavonic Orthodox Churches - in a real and significant way. I have seen photos and footage of some of it, very beautiful, very attractive to young Serbs… and something I don’t believe would fly at the official level. So swipes at the Second Vatican Council aside, if and when such a movement gained currency enough to go to a local council, one can be somewhat more than confident eyebrows would be raised in a way similar to the revised Julian calendar, with many questioning what would give these bishops the right to “tamper with Holy tradition?!”

How did I “swipe” at Vatican II. I simply recognized that the Liturgical Crisis in the Latin Church can be traced back to Vatican II, although admittedly, as Vatican II itself did not establish the Novus Ordo, it is the commissions that were initiated by Vatican II which are to be associated with many of the problems facing the Latin Church today.

Concerning the Belgrade church of which you speak, I will mention lex orandi, lex credendi. Just because something is attractive to a certain group does not mean it should supplant the tradition (which may not be as attractive).

The vast majority off Latin Catholic parishes no longer have Gregorian chant, and are lucky to have a regular choir. Hopefully, many Latin Catholic parishes heed the call of the Pope for a return to Gregorian chant.
.

Yet the AOA has confidence in its ability to promulgate a version of the Book of Common Prayer that is edited to their own satisfaction?

The intention behind the Orthodox emendation of the Book of Common Prayer was not the same as Vatican II and subsequent commissions in creating the Novus Ordo Mass. The Orthodox looked at the Book of Common Prayer, took out parts that were not Orthodox, and strengthened parts to make it more in conformity with Orthodox teaching. The same with the Mass of St. Gregory the Great. The Orthodox took out the filioque and placed extra emphasis on the epiclesis. The intention therefore was rather simple: make this book/liturgy orthodox.

The commissions that crystallized the Novus Ordo Mass had various intentions. There was an *ad fontes *attitude which looked back to the liturgies of the early Church. There also was an attitude of making the liturgy assessable to modern man. And then there was the attitude that the liturgy needed to be less off-putting to the Protestants, in order for ecumenism with this body of Christians to be successful.

Personally, I believe the changes made to the Book of Common Prayer and the Mass of St. Gregory were far less ambitious than the creation of the Novus Ordo Mass, which was not an organic development of the TLM but an attempt to create a Mass that fulfilled the numerous aspirations held by the Council Fathers and members of the commissions.

 

[Madaglan]

Additionally, not one of them was promulgating a new set of books for the Eucharist. More comparable still would be if an individual bishop or a group of bishops acted to promulgate and allow for a non-Catholic rite to begin to be used without reference to Rome. Further, if there was a conflict in allowances made for the CCR in their liturgical praxis, questions as to its allowability could be pursued all the way up to Rome when the issue was pressed.

Rites such as Baptism in the Spirit?

The flip side of the coin is that it has its proponents and that these proponents exist does not mean that it is Orthodox. It is simply beyond the reasonable purview of a bishop to take something like the Book of Common prayer and impliment it as Orthodox. Additionally a council could easily go the other way and say that it is not Orthodox now, nor was it ever.

The WRO spans continents and jurisdictions, as well as decades. It has been endorsed by Orthodox saints such as St. John Maximovitch, St. Tikhon and St. Raphael. of Brooklyn. In fact, it was St. Tikhon who, when still in America, sent the Book of Common Prayer to the Holy Synod and received a response of confirmation to proceed. The acceptance of the Book of Common Prayer (emended) for Orthodox use is not isolated to the bishop of the AOA.

There has been no ecclesiastic schism occasioned anywhere in the world by the introduction of the WRO.