Western Rite Liturgy from Saint Patrick's Orthodox Church

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nobody is suggesting such hyperbole. Entertainment and excitement? Where do you get this?

The West used to be part of Orthodoxy. It was holy and united with our faith. Don't tell me that the Celtic lands were celebrating the St. John Chrysostom liturgy. Why can't we look back at what the West was doing right BEFORE their albatross event of 1054 and restore the good things they turned their backs on? What is so wrong with reviving something beautiful and making it right? I just don't get the cynical angle. Nobody is saying the Divine Liturgy is insufficient, but why must that form of liturgy be the only option for all peoples across the world either? You have yet to prove a Western liturgy would bring any harm to Orthodoxy, just vague speculation. And it feels like there is a lack of faith in our patriarchs and bishops to protect it? I don't see pulling in Westerners who come from a Catholic or Anglican background who want their Western style of worship to continue while joining Holy Orthodoxy as some threat.

Mind you, I'm in a Serb parish. I'm a HUGE fan of our liturgy. I adore it from beginning to end! I've never even gone to a WR liturgy. I just don't see the dastardly outcomes therein.

I guess this is my beef. Why insist on re-instituting discontinued traditions? For fun and excitement? Why rebel against or reject an established liturgical tradition that has obviously been sufficient for the entire Orthodox Church for a thousand years?

 

[ArmyMatt]

related to this, but St Nektarios of Aegina adapted the Coptic Liturgy of St Mark for our use, and it is used. this is a Liturgy we haven't used for 500 more years than the Western Rite.

 

[dzheremi]

related to this, but St Nektarios of Aegina adapted the Coptic Liturgy of St Mark for our use, and it is used. this is a Liturgy we haven't used for 500 more years than the Western Rite.

Do you mean the liturgy of St. Cyril, which is a recension of the Greek liturgy of St. Mark? We do not commonly call it the Liturgy of St. Mark (I've seen it referred to in parenthesis in this manner in some commentaries, but that's it), though it is recognized that this is its origin.

What was the context for his doing this, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[TheLostCoin]

Couple of things...

We both agree these are our opinions, which are private and flawed.
It's not a hill either of us wants to die on...

My problem with what you're saying is the regular use of "I" in this post. You ask, "that I have a right to do so?" Well, with respect, neither you nor I have any right to do any of this! We're not clergy, just a couple of feeble laymen speculating and daydreaming about what could or could not be. Patriarchs, bishops, and priests determine these things, so of course you have no right to do any of these things, nor do I. You won't be digging up any liturgy. The Church will.

And I think at some point we have to place some faith in our leadership to do what is right. Your post presupposes that some individual by himself is going to concoct some new liturgy replete with modernisms or bad Roman Catholic papal thinking. It seems like you're painting an image of a liturgy that is created in a vacuum without respect to the Fathers, saints, traditions, and current holy patriarchs/bishops of the Church. Now, if that were true, which it isn't, I'd be right there with ya! But personally I trust my bishop a lot. Bishop Maxim is a very holy man, learned, blessed, pious, and rich in his understanding of theological traditions. If he proposed to our Patriarch Irenej, that we should create a new WR liturgy and our bishops and patriarch agreed and they all worked together on it, why would I have doubts that these pious men are fiends who will create something of an abomination? I just don't see the Episcopal Church at every corner, that's all.

I think our church is big enough, mature and holy enough, and guided and protected by the Holy Spirit enough to create a sanctified, beautiful WR liturgy. I'm just not paranoid about it. And I'm just a layman anyway. I'm some sixth grade teacher musing on the internet about what could be. I'm not St. John of Shanghai, who has said things that honestly make a WR plausible. Surely he knows better than Rus and Gurney.

I look at the Ecumenical Patriarch and cringe. But I don't allow stupidity from without or within to inform my thoughts to become too cynical and paranoid. At some point a little faith and glass half full is needed.

Coming from a Roman Catholic background, I still have some baggage in terms of not trusting the clergy or the hierarchs as people with good, moral, theologically sound intentions.

When people like Father James Martin are promoted by the highest places of the Vatican without any discipline or censorship, and the Vatican directly lends liturgical artwork for the "Heavenly Bodies" fashion exhibit, literally blaspheming - in the most disgusting and vile way possible - the Saints, the Theotokos, and Christ Himself (I urge you not to google it, for your eyes will be scandalized if you see it), inherent mistrust of authority is the result.


Backing up this baggage is the fact that the Clergy in the past HAVE apostatized, which can be seen with every bishop that attended Florence (except Saint Mark of Ephesus). The fact that we have several supposed (emphasis on "supposed") Russian prophecies about a massive apostasy heading our way in the future that will make it such that we cannot normally attend Liturgy in mainstream Churches; we'll have to go back to the Catacombs.

However, these doubts are still no excuse for my mistrust of clergy now, whom I guess I have to trust. The Church will prevail in the end anyways, and if the Western Rite is irregular (which I truly don't think it is), then hopefully a Council will elaborate on it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear ya. I’m a former Catholic as well. I brought heaps of baggage. But fortunately the clergy who deal with such things are Orthodox, not Catholic. I think I’m our church we hear the word “Western” and instantly cross-dressing Episcopalian Wicca priestesses or South American liberation theologians or liturgical dance-advocating cookoo priests come to mind...

Coming from a Roman Catholic background, I still have some baggage in terms of not trusting the clergy or the hierarchs as people with good, moral, theologically sound intentions.

When people like Father James Martin are promoted by the highest places of the Vatican without any discipline or censorship, and the Vatican directly lends liturgical artwork for the "Heavenly Bodies" fashion exhibit, literally blaspheming - in the most disgusting and vile way possible - the Saints, the Theotokos, and Christ Himself (I urge you not to google it, for your eyes will be scandalized if you see it), inherent mistrust of authority is the result.


Backing up this baggage is the fact that the Clergy in the past HAVE apostatized, which can be seen with every bishop that attended Florence (except Saint Mark of Ephesus). The fact that we have several supposed (emphasis on "supposed") Russian prophecies about a massive apostasy heading our way in the future that will make it such that we cannot normally attend Liturgy in mainstream Churches; we'll have to go back to the Catacombs.

However, these doubts are still no excuse for my mistrust of clergy now, whom I guess I have to trust. The Church will prevail in the end anyways, and if the Western Rite is irregular (which I truly don't think it is), then hopefully a Council will elaborate on it.

 

[Light of the East]

When I watched the first 10 minutes of it, what I saw was identical to the Anglican Use Liturgy of the Roman Church. Had I not known what I was looking at, I would have thought I was watching the Anglicans.

Yes, very nice, but I have become quite spoiled to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and if I am led out of where I am now......will probably go OCA, even though St. Patrick's is only an hour from my front door.

 

[archer75]

I am pretty sure I agree with you, @archer75. My ambivalence towards this probably has more to do with my own background than any problems with it (i.e., I personally don't understand converting to Orthodoxy and keeping the Latin liturgy, but as I meant to show earlier with reference to the Brahmavar Malankara Orthodox diocese, the same has happened in my own communion, and was accepted), and I recognize that. Again, if the WR parishes are theologically Orthodox, which they are according to your common confession, then any reason to oppose this must be based in something else (and may be suspect? I don't know; it seems like there are a range of views on this). I really didn't mean for my post to read like opposition, and I really hope it doesn't. If it does, I apologize and am thankful for the reminder that I must be more careful with my words. All I'm doing is questioning whether or not it really is true that the liturgy as shown there represents some kind of organic continuation or reestablishment of the liturgy as it would have been celebrated in the West prior to the Great Schism. I'm not even saying it doesn't represent that (I don't know enough about the history of the Western liturgies to say), I just mean I look at that and think "Yeah, that's a Roman Catholic mass", not "Wow, that's the reestablishment of the ancient Roman Orthodox liturgy." But again, that's my view because that's my own faith background. For Westerners who want that in particular and to be in the Eastern Orthodox communion, then it seems like the WR is the place to go.

Understood, and I apologize if my post seemd like arguing. I think I just meant to say that I don't see the reasons for opposing it. Not liking it, fine. I mean, I like our style of worship, but part of it is that I just like standing. It's just my preference. Even if there are good reasons to stand, I just like it anyway. So if something else I don't like -well, whatever. It's not meant to be pleasing to me.

There are all kinds of local variations. Often we celebrate them. So this is another one. '

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do you mean the liturgy of St. Cyril, which is a recension of the Greek liturgy of St. Mark? We do not commonly call it the Liturgy of St. Mark (I've seen it referred to in parenthesis in this manner in some commentaries, but that's it), though it is recognized that this is its origin.

What was the context for his doing this, if you don't mind me asking?

yes, that's the one I mean.

as for his reasons why, I suspect it was because he was under Alexandria, and so had a lot of dealings with Copts. if you look at a lot of what he did (adapting the Liturgy of St Cyril, writing the hymn "Oh Pure Virgin," writing a huge book on Christology, etc.) there was a clear Alexandrian influence.

 

[Ioustinos]

Besides, if you're going to resurrect this, then what next? Do you do a purified version of the Mozarabic mass for the Latinos, of the Bragan for the Portuguese, of the Galgolitic (Slavicized Latin) for the central Slavs, and so on? Call me when you get to the Mozarabic tradition, because I already know that sounds amazing when the solo parts are given to a Greek chanter (Lykourgos Angelopoulos):

On a side note - I am of the Byzantine school, however I truly enjoy Gregorian and Mozarabic Chant:

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

It not for me, I'm so used to the Byzantine rite liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. That doesn't mean I don't see reverence or the love God in the western rite liturgies, with that said I wonder why we have to reconstruct pre-schism liturgies to make it easier for Catechumans into Orthodoxy, there some concerns I have with kneeling on Sundays, Catholic rosaries, pipe organs, Corpus Christi , the Immaculte heart, etc that many Orthodox would find problematic to say the least. No, it doesn't mean I don't have faith in our bishops, who have good hearts in wanting to help converts into Orthodoxy, but I ask why make it easier, when Orthodoxy isn't supposed to be easy?

 

[TheLostCoin]

It not for me, I'm so used to the Byzantine rite liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. That doesn't mean I don't see reverence or the love God in the western rite liturgies, with that said I wonder why we have to reconstruct pre-schism liturgies to make it easier for Catechumans into Orthodoxy, there some concerns I have with kneeling on Sundays, Catholic rosaries, pipe organs, Corpus Christi , the Immaculte heart, etc that many Orthodox would find problematic to say the least. No, it doesn't mean I don't have faith in our bishops, who have good hearts in wanting to help converts into Orthodoxy, but I ask why make it easier, when Orthodoxy isn't supposed to be easy?

No, it shouldn't be easy, but intentionally allowing it to be harder for no reason is clearly not the Christian way, especially when it isn't hard for you personally as an individual.

Was it sinful when Veronica wiped the face of Christ on the Road to Cavalry?

And also, Luke 11:46.

The Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart are generally not allowed in Western Rite Orthodoxy as devotions; there is no feast day on the calendars of either ROCOR or Antioch for them, and priests that have tried to implement it have had it voided by their Bishops once they find out about it.

And the question of Pipe Organs and kneeling is a question to be addressed, primarily with kneeling, due to the Council of Trullo which the Eastern Orthodox accept forbidding it at points. However, if the Greeks can do it (Pipe Organs and kneeling), then so can the Western Rite.

The rosary is also a serious question, because even though the words are Orthodox (except the Latin Nicene Creed) (I don't get why asking to pray to the Mother of God to pray for us now and the hour of our death, and adding "as it was in the beginning" to the Doxology is heretical), the spirituality probably isn't.

It also is worth pointing out that Corpus Christi is not allowed in ROCOR.

 

[archer75]

It not for me, I'm so used to the Byzantine rite liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. That doesn't mean I don't see reverence or the love God in the western rite liturgies, with that said I wonder why we have to reconstruct pre-schism liturgies to make it easier for Catechumans into Orthodoxy, there some concerns I have with kneeling on Sundays, Catholic rosaries, pipe organs, Corpus Christi , the Immaculte heart, etc that many Orthodox would find problematic to say the least. No, it doesn't mean I don't have faith in our bishops, who have good hearts in wanting to help converts into Orthodoxy, but I ask why make it easier, when Orthodoxy isn't supposed to be easy?

There are Byzantine Rite parishes that have kneeling on Sundays.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yep! The Greek parish down the street from my Serb parish has tons of kneeling and sitting during their liturgy. Their DL is only one hour long! It has an organ, too. It's always a culture shock for me to go to that parish. Our liturgy is closer to 2 hours, standing the entire time (except sermon), very thorough, no organ.

There are Byzantine Rite parishes that have kneeling on Sundays.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

I have never been to a Orthodox Church where kneeling was OK, and pipe organs used, this seems to mostly in Greek Churches that are in protestant buildings with the Organ. How can GOARCH allow this?

 

[Light of the East]

There are Byzantine Rite parishes that have kneeling on Sundays.

And it makes me want to scream, pull my hair out and yell "You are ORTHODOX!!! STOP KNEELING!!!!"

(Yeah, I know.....not really Orthodox fully!)

 

[Light of the East]

The BEST Orthodox Divine Liturgy I ever attended was at an OCA parish in Lincoln NE.

NO PEWS!!!!

NO KNEELING!!!

LOTS OF INCENSE!!!

If my wife ever moves us out there, I am joining. No questions asked.

 

[MariaJLM]

Yep! The Greek parish down the street from my Serb parish has tons of kneeling and sitting during their liturgy. Their DL is only one hour long! It has an organ, too. It's always a culture shock for me to go to that parish. Our liturgy is closer to 2 hours, standing the entire time (except sermon), very thorough, no organ.

How do they get through Liturgy in an hour? Even when rushed the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom still takes about an hour and a half.

 

[MariaJLM]

I have never been to a Orthodox Church where kneeling was OK, and pipe organs used, this seems to mostly in Greek Churches that are in protestant buildings with the Organ. How can GOARCH allow this?

I'm honestly confused when people say Greek churches have organs. All the Greek church here has is traditional Byzantine Chant.

 

[MariaJLM]

It not for me, I'm so used to the Byzantine rite liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. That doesn't mean I don't see reverence or the love God in the western rite liturgies, with that said I wonder why we have to reconstruct pre-schism liturgies to make it easier for Catechumans into Orthodoxy, there some concerns I have with kneeling on Sundays, Catholic rosaries, pipe organs, Corpus Christi , the Immaculte heart, etc that many Orthodox would find problematic to say the least. No, it doesn't mean I don't have faith in our bishops, who have good hearts in wanting to help converts into Orthodoxy, but I ask why make it easier, when Orthodoxy isn't supposed to be easy?

Except neither me nor my priest feel the Western Rite is even necessary to bring in converts(people will come in regardless of which liturgy is used if they have interest in doing so). It's not even an authentic Pre-Schism Rite either, but a reconstructed version of an old Anglican Rite. For that reason my priest is really not a fan of the Western Rite and I'm inclined to agree.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The priest reads parts of the Divine Liturgy on his own while the liturgy goes on. He's multi-tasking it royally. Things move FAST there. I remember one time when I was there and the DL was 54 minutes long. True story. My parish is closer to 2 hours.

How do they get through Liturgy in an hour? Even when rushed the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom still takes about an hour and a half.