Western Rite Orthodoxy

[bkovacs]

What do you all think of Western Rite Orthodoxy. Just curious.
http://www.westernorthodox.com/
__________________

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

I think its ironic that the Orthodox give the Pope hell for claiming universal jurisdiction, and they're doing the same thing by having "Western Orthodox" churches. 

[3Sanctus]

Madness.  Even if you presume they're in the right theologically and ecclesiastically speaking...where are the statues?  I love icons (and have one of Our Lord on my nightstand, next to my San Damiano Cross), but statues are more western.  Go figure.

Oh, and obviously MeaMaximaCulpa is right.

[Robert De Brus]

The only thing that looks 'western' about them is their vestments.

After 1054, and more precisely, after the Norman Conquest (1066) of England, the Churches of the West were drawn into the Great Schism of the Roman Patriarchate away from the Unity of the Orthodox Church.

Oh the irony.

[moneil]

If one persued the "The Orthodox Western Rite", with its very brief history, it tells of St. Tikhon (the liturgy approved for use by western rite Orothodx parishes is called The Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon) and his missionary work on the west coast of the U.S.  In a lengthier piece I once read on the topic, St. Tikhon origionally came to the US to care for small Russian Orthodox immigrant communities, from Alaska to California.  He had the observation that western peoples might be more receptive to Orthodoxy if its devotional life were more "familiar" to what they were accustomed to.  Hence he developed a Liturgy based on western liturgical practices.  The web site article says it is based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, but I've seen other sources that say he did more extensive liturgical research and its develpment primarily drew from pre reformation sources.  From an online text I once read, there is certainly a lot more commoration of The Theotokos and the saints then one would find in the BCP, not to mention the incence.

I believe (though I'm not absolutely certain) that though the use of a western rite liturgy was origionaly approved by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (pre Bolshevik revolution), its use in the United States is only approved in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America http://www.antiochian.org/.  Whether it has any following outside of the U.S. I don't know.

An interesting fact about St. Tikhon is that he had returned to Russia, and was Patriarch of Moscow at the time of the Bolshevik revolution, later killed by the Communist government, and was cannonized by the Orthodox as a martyr.

There is a western rite Orthodox parish (only 26 are listed in the directory) in Spokane, WA.  It was formed by a breakaway very "high church Anglo-Catholic" Episcoplian parish there.  I would guess (though I'm not certain), that most of the western rite Orthodox parishes have Anglican roots.  In my local observation, most of the evangelical or mainstream protestants that convert to Orthodoxy prefer the traditional eastern Orthodox useages.

My familiarity with the Christian East is through the Greek Orthodox (though I have attended Ruthenian Divine Liturgies), and the Greeks are not very keen on "western rite".  At the time the parish in WA state was formed Archbishop Anthony (RIP) of the Metropolis of San Francisco (covering Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) issued an encyclical stating that while the western rite Orothodox were docrinaly Orthodox, and their sacraments valid, the practice of a "western rite" was "liturgical unsound and inherently un Orthodox".  The lay faithful were discouraged from attending such liturgies, and priests and deacons of the Archdiocese were forbidden from concelebrating at them.  If a western rite deacon or priest were to concelebrate at a liturgy in the Archdioces, they must vest in a traditional eastern Orthodox manner.

As an interesting aside, when Ruthenian (Eastern Catholic) priests or deacons (there are three Ruthenian parishes in the state of Washington) concelebrate at a liturgical function in the Spokane Diocese, they vest in traditional eastern vestments.

[Ravenonthecross]

Madness.  Even if you presume they're in the right theologically and ecclesiastically speaking...where are the statues?  I love icons (and have one of Our Lord on my nightstand, next to my San Damiano Cross), but statues are more western.  Go figure.

Oh, and obviously MeaMaximaCulpa is right.

I'd much rather have icons over statues; even "western icons" as they are more pointing towards heaven in my mind; and less likely to be confused by outsiders as Idols and less similar to idol statues. However, I obey the church in this; e'en if I do not particularly care for many statues, with the Crucifix being a major exception.

[youngfogey]

I think it's ironic that the Orthodox give the Pope hell for claiming universal jurisdiction, and they’re doing the same thing by having “Western Orthodox” churches.

No; it makes sense because each side says it’s the one true church.

Where are the statues? I love icons (and have one of Our Lord on my nightstand, next to my San Damiano Cross), but statues are more western.

The only thing that looks “western” about them is their vestments.

Good catch! The self-byzantinisation is a problem just like the self-latinisation of their mirror, the Greek Rite Catholics.

[formerdatt]

Just for the argument, what have you against these people? Obviously the issue of the Papacy and a very ornate definition of the words "proceeding from the Son" have kept us at odds, but do you believe in the validity of their Holy orders and other sacraments? i am about to lose my Latin Mass community as our pastor is approaching 85 years and can't move about much. For me they appear an attractive alternate to the NO. Where am I wrong?

[hormisdas]

I think its ironic that the Orthodox give the Pope hell for claiming universal jurisdiction, and they're doing the same thing by having "Western Orthodox" churches.

What the Young Fogey said.  Given Orthodoxy's claim to be the one Catholic Church of the Creed, it's not that strange that Eastern Orthodox hierarchs might try to bring Western Christians back from heresy and schism using an adapted Western liturgy.

BTW, I have some experience in Western Rite Orthodoxy, so I can help explain it; but I am not here to carry its water.  In fact, I am of the opinion that WRO just doesn't work at the end of the day.

[hormisdas]

Just for the argument, what have you against these people? Obviously the issue of the Papacy and a very ornate definition of the words "proceeding from the Son" have kept us at odds, but do you believe in the validity of their Holy orders and other sacraments? i am about to lose my Latin Mass community as our pastor is approaching 85 years and can't move about much. For me they appear an attractive alternate to the NO. Where am I wrong?

Most Roman Catholics I've encountered don't really have anything against WRO.  Obviously, they don't think it's a good idea to be separated from Rome, and they could quibble over how the Western Liturgy's been adapted to fit Byzantine theology and customs, but I've never personally encountered in person the kind of animosity one finds online.

Rome obviously recognizes the validity of Holy Orders and Sacraments in Western Rite communities under canonical Orthodox Churches (at this point, there are only two which sponsor a Western Rite: Antioch and the Russian Church Abroad under Moscow). 

As I understand Roman Catholic canon law, attendance at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, whether Byzantine or Western, would not normally fulfill your obligation.  And from the Orthodox perspective, you wouldn't be allowed to receive Communion or go to Confession unless you were first catechized in the Orthodox Faith and received into Orthodox communion (either by confession of faith, chrismation, or baptism, depending on the jurisdiction and hierarch).

If I were you, I wouldn't consider a WRO church an option for regular churchgoing unless I decided to begin the process of becoming Orthodox.

[hormisdas]

Even if you presume they're in the right theologically and ecclesiastically speaking...where are the statues?  I love icons (and have one of Our Lord on my nightstand, next to my San Damiano Cross), but statues are more western.  Go figure.

Again, as the Young Fogey said.  You will find statues in some WRO churches, but usually you will encounter icons, mostly in a Greek or Slavic style, and occasionally in an authentically Western (Romanesque or Gothic) style.  You will find some WRO clergy and laity who believe that statues should not be allowed.

You will also, BTW, likely encounter people making the sign of the cross the Byzantine way, Byzantine ways of venerating icons, prostrations, etc.  Very similar to Latinizations among Eastern Catholics, though not nearly as bad as this:

http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm

[formerdatt]

Very moderate and sensible answers - many thanks. I am getting a little tired of apologizing for the Church leadership today (not the Church itself). Why have the Orthodox seem to have escaped all the progressive nonsense going on within the Catholic Church. Too simple an answer, "Because they did not convene a Second Vatican Council"?

[Vetus Ordo]

Why have the Orthodox seem to have escaped all the progressive nonsense going on within the Catholic Church. Too simple an answer, "Because they did not convene a Second Vatican Council"?

The answer is "seem". They "seem" to have escaped but this is only but an appearance.

Progressivism and modernism are rampant throughout all the orthodox churches.

[Resurrexi]

Just for the argument, what have you against these people? Obviously the As I understand Roman Catholic canon law, attendance at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, whether Byzantine or Western, would not normally fulfill your obligation. 

Nope. In accordance with Canon 1248, one's obligation is only fulfilled by attending Mass in a Catholic rite. As far as I am aware, an Eastern Orthodox rite is in no way a Catholic rite.

[hormisdas]

Very moderate and sensible answers - many thanks. I am getting a little tired of apologizing for the Church leadership today (not the Church itself). Why have the Orthodox seem to have escaped all the progressive nonsense going on within the Catholic Church. Too simple an answer, "Because they did not convene a Second Vatican Council"?

Students and recent alumni of American Orthodox seminaries might be able to tell you some horror stories: modern liberal biblical scholarship, rationalism, fudging on moral issues.  Your average American Greek Orthodox layperson, for instance, is functionally Protestant, just like your average American Roman Catholic.  

The ruin of the Roman Catholic Church in the wake of the Second Vatican Council was much faster and more dramatic because the rot reached the highest levels and was able to be introduced "officially" from there.  It's much harder to foment revolution in the Orthodox Churches because they're not a monolith; authority and magisterium is much more diffused (indeed a few, like Fr Thomas Hopko, argue that the Orthodox don't really have a magisterium as such).  But this would not exempt the Orthodox from the temptation to gradual accommodation to secular culture (case in point: contraception).  

As for the Liturgy, it would be impossible to foist a Byzantine Novus Ordo on the entire Orthodox Church, again, because the Orthodox don't have a universal mechanism which could be exploited by an Orthodox Bugnini.  However, the Orthodox Liturgy has been changing gradually over the decades, thanks to  progressive liturgical ideas emanating mostly from the seminaries (and borrowed from post-conciliar Roman Catholic liturgical scholars).