Western Rite Liturgy from Saint Patrick's Orthodox Church

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It looked like I was watching a Roman Mass. I didn't watch the whole thing, but it looked like they were using Roman wafers. I am not sure why there is a need for this.

They use leavened bread, but in continuing with Roman tradition, they make the leavened bread look like unleavened bread.

They also mandate serving both kinds, continuing with Orthodox Tradition in both East and West - a practice not abolished until Trent.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
ecumenism isn't the intent. and for it to be ecumenism it would have to be blurring our theological differences with Rome, and the Western Rite doesn't.

If ecumenism was the intent, there wouldn't be a Western Rite, because the Orthodox would just view Rome or the Anglicans as a "sister Church" and see a Western Rite unnecessary.

It's why the Russian Greek Catholic Church has had no bishop and has no priests in Russia, with very little support from the Vatican.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If ecumenism was the intent, there wouldn't be a Western Rite, because the Orthodox would just view Rome or the Anglicans as a "sister Church" and see a Western Rite unnecessary.

It's why the Russian Greek Catholic Church has had no bishop and has no priests in Russia, with very little support from the Vatican.

good point
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, that is granted.
I’m just saying that it was a great thing a thousand years ago, but now is going to contribute to ecumenism.
No iconostasis? At all? As if there were no reason for it, or the curtain? (One tiny obvious concern among many.) Granted that other WR parishes may have them. But the one in the video was helpd up,as representative, and I am speaking to that. Yes, it looked very Roman, as Rome does it in our time, and they are falling away, too.

As I've said, it's a historical fact that the Iconostasis developed post-schism. The closest thing to it in the West is the Rood Screen, which is mostly an English tradition, but it's function is much different than the Iconostasis, as it separates the choir from the people rather than the altar.

I'm not sure if the West had a tradition of using a curtain.
 
Upvote 0

AMM

A Beggar
Supporter
May 2, 2017
1,725
1,269
Virginia
✟329,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
No iconostasis? At all? As if there were no reason for it, or the curtain? (One tiny obvious concern among many.)
As I've said, it's a historical fact that the Iconostasis developed post-schism. The closest thing to it in the West is the Rood Screen, which is mostly an English tradition, but it's function is much different than the Iconostasis, as it separates the choir from the people rather than the altar.

I'm not sure if the West had a tradition of using a curtain.

As TheLostCoin said, a lot of these things are post-schism developments. That's fine, and they're great for their own reasons. But we can't say that they're 100% absolutely necessary unless we want to believe in "development of doctrine" as Rome does.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
They use leavened bread, but in continuing with Roman tradition, they make the leavened bread look like unleavened bread.

So why would they need to make it "look" like wafers?
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I usually agree with Rus, but in this case I just see nothing to fear in the WR. It shows a paranoia on our part that Orthodoxy isn’t strong enough to have more than one liturgical tradition within our world. We’re not Orthodox because we have the Divine Liturgy. Orthodoxy is our theology, spiritual faith and beliefs. We see our beliefs played out in the liturgy. As long as the liturgy has no post-schism heretical ideas (like indulgence prayers or references to purgatory or Stabat Mater style talk), no lady priests, filioque in the creed, and everything is done kosher within an Orthodox context, I see no need to fear WRL. How is the form of the liturgy something we should fear? If there is incense, leavened bread, iconography, dignified vestments, proper piety and strength of language, then it is a viable option. Do we believe that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great and St. James are the ONLY God-given liturgies we can have?

As long as the Ecumenical Patriarch has ZERO involvement in the WR liturgy, I’m ok with it....and keep in mind I’m a fan of the DL....
I don’t mind your disagreeing, and admit that this is only my opinion, and not a hill I am willing to actually die on.
But I do deny and reject a charge of paranoia. To say you see no need to fear is to say you don’t see. That is, while one might see something that is not there one might equally NOT see something that IS there.
The reason for doing anything is vital, especially for either a) introducing a change or b) reinstating a practice that had been definitively and universally discontinued. It matters when we do such things. Do I think I can dig up a liturgy used in, say, the fourth century, let alone write one of my own devising? That I have a right to do so? Why should I, even if I can and it was really used at one time?

Sometimes we need a wet blanket.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,272
Central California
✟274,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, heck....I'm still ok with the WR. I frankly found the Stations of the Cross a powerful devotional back in the day. Since I've gone Orthodox, I see Christ the Victor more than Christ the Victim. I see the Stabat Mater as definitely not ideal language and it probably isn't in line with our Eastern thinking. However, the West had its different emphases even when we were all in communion together. Pre-schism the West had more Augustinian thinking and their understanding of the Fall and sin even was slightly different. Could I live with a Westernized Orthodoxy that has small differences and traditions but we

a) all have the same Creed
b) both use leavened bread
c) maintain a dignified liturgy
d) both recognize the importance of iconography
e) don't have absurd modernized nonsense like gay marriage and female "priests"
f) are conciliar and not papal
g) agree on the same councils

My answer is YES
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I feel like this is adding to the wet blanket, but I just mean to share my honest first impressions. I know the theology behind it is different, and it's certainly more reverent than your average RC mass, but I guess having been RC myself makes it hard to shake the initial impression that this is just a well-celebrated RC mass done by people who really want to be the 'bridge' between East and West that the RCC is always trying to claim that Eastern Catholics are. I don't buy that when the RCC says it, and I don't really buy this either. I just have a really hard time believing that a thousand years ago or whatever, when you guys still saw Rome as equally Orthodox, the liturgies of the West would've been essentially the same as a well-celebrated standard Roman Catholic liturgy of today. So it's kinda hard to take the idea that this is a reestablishment of something ancient, rather than an adaptation of what those people had already been doing in their previous non-Orthodox churches (which I'm fine with, for the record; that's how in my own communion we received the Latinized Indians who came into the OO communion when Mar Julius Alvares left the RCC; he had been a Latin priest, so he already knew their rite, and so did all the people who came with him some 130 years ago, and to this day that particular community lives on in the Bhramavar diocese...it's one of those weird little quirks of history ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).

It ultimately doesn't matter, of course, so long as the WR parishes are recognized by the EO Church as being Orthodox, but I still find it kinda weird.

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):


For some reason the 'Western rite' is not this (even though Spain is plenty western), but instead the more standard Latin rite liturgy (of the type that was forcibly imposed on the Spanish Church, it should be noted). Why is that? Is it so that the 'Western Rite' can mean one thing which everyone can equate with a particular liturgy even if in practice there is more than one that can fit under that label, in a similar way to how EO use the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom almost exclusively but do also use that of St. Basil or of St. Mark on occasion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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?

evangelism and to show that Orthodoxy goes beyond Eastern nations.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I feel like this is adding to the wet blanket, but I just mean to share my honest first impressions. I know the theology behind it is different, and it's certainly more reverent than your average RC mass, but I guess having been RC myself makes it hard to shake the initial impression that this is just a well-celebrated RC mass done by people who really want to be the 'bridge' between East and West that the RCC is always trying to claim that Eastern Catholics are. I don't buy that when the RCC says it, and I don't really buy this either. I just have a really hard time believing that a thousand years ago or whatever, when you guys still saw Rome as equally Orthodox, the liturgies of the West would've been essentially the same as a well-celebrated standard Roman Catholic liturgy of today. So it's kinda hard to take the idea that this is a reestablishment of something ancient, rather than an adaptation of what those people had already been doing in their previous non-Orthodox churches (which I'm fine with, for the record; that's how in my own communion we received the Latinized Indians who came into the OO communion when Mar Julius Alvares left the RCC; he had been a Latin priest, so he already knew their rite, and so did all the people who came with him some 130 years ago, and to this day that particular community lives on in the Bhramavar diocese...it's one of those weird little quirks of history ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).

It ultimately doesn't matter, of course, so long as the WR parishes are recognized by the EO Church as being Orthodox, but I still find it kinda weird.

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):


For some reason the 'Western rite' is not this (even though Spain is plenty western), but instead the more standard Latin rite liturgy (of the type that was forcibly imposed on the Spanish Church, it should be noted). Why is that? Is it so that the 'Western Rite' can mean one thing which everyone can equate with a particular liturgy even if in practice there is more than one that can fit under that label, in a similar way to how EO use the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom almost exclusively but do also use that of St. Basil or of St. Mark on occasion?

except the Western Rite is theologically Orthodox
 
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟253,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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?
Is anyone insisting? I mean, don't get me wrong. I have some curiosity about the WR - but not that much. I love the Byzantine Rite and have zero desire to change it up. But...

wasn't "not using Slavonic" sufficient for the OC for nearly a thousand years? St. Methodius was even brought up on charges. Then it turned out Slavonic was ok. When liturgical changes were made in the ROC, some people were scared and went into schism. Now we say they should hvbe obeyed their bishops. The Church has had plenty of innovation and change. This isn't even innovation, not exactly. It's a re-introduction of forms that were formerly used in the OC.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟253,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think I hear you, @dzheremi. The only answer I can think of to your "why not resurrect this and that" is "there's no call for it, and if there were a reasonable and theologically EO call for it...why not?"

I was not aware that this was supposed to be a bridge, although I am uncomfortable when that claim is made about Eastern Catholics. I thought the WR was to minimize disorientation among people who are very used to the forms of one kind of worship (though it's still not quite what anyone is used to).

I don't know. I guess my main statement is "I don't object" because I'm not sure what I should object to. St. John of Shanghai did a lot of work on Western (Orthodox) saints, sometimes even saints recognized by all of us before the horrible schism that followed Chalcedon. Why should they be neglected because we were in the habit of neglecting them or were just ignorant of them? I would guess fairly few people in Russia have a particular devotion to St. Hilda of Whitby, but she's a perfectly EO saint, so why not? Or why shouldn't an Orthodox English person venerate her?

Of course, no one is saying St. Hilda should be neglected or that no one should care about the Holy Martyr St. Abanoub (you taught me about him, by the way, so thanks). I'm the one saying that if we have something perfectly venerable from the past and there"s a reason to use it...why not?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I think that there is something important to be discussed here, and that there seems to be two different mindsets - both historically with previous Western Rites and now - in how the Western Rite is interpreted.

1. Trying to resurrect the Liturgy as it existed 1000 years ago, or getting close to it.
2. Viewing the Roman Mass / Anglican Catholic Mass as continuous, living tradition which, although being heretical, can be adapted to be Orthodox and thus have continuity with the Apostles both theologically and historically.


The Western Rite of today - in ROCOR and in Antioch - has taken the 2nd route, which is why the Western Rite Churches have flattened, white leaven bread, traditional Gregorian Chant, birettas, Fiddleback Chasubles, and even some Post-Schism devotions, like the Litany of the Saints, the Stations of the Cross, etc.

If you look at the Mass that is being used in this video, that is, "The Liturgy of Saint Gregory," you will see that it is based heavily not on some 1st millenium rubric, but rather, the Tridentine Mass (that is, the Roman Mass before it was completely transformed in the 1960s), but changed so that things which are clearly not Orthodox have been removed or purged. Most notably, an Epiclesis as well as a Cherubic Hymn has been added to it.

For comparison:

The Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/144b2c_20fb156e03c34f56a6dc312f73f9888d.pdf

The Tridentine Mass:
http://www.extraordinaryform.org/ExtraordinaryFormTextLandscape.pdf


Saint John Maximovitch's experiment of the Western Rite takes the former route, using the rubrics of 1st millenium French liturgical usage, and filling in the gaps with the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.


The Liturgy he helped establish - the Liturgy of Saint Germanus - is still practiced by the schismatic Orthodox Church of France, and by one canonical Church in the United States. It can be seen here:








Me personally, IF there should be a Western Rite, I'm completely against the former path (unless it already exists and is practiced by a community, like the Liturgy of Saint Germanus), because such a Mass can NEVER be fully replicated to be what it WAS. No idealized imagination can perfectly match what a Roman Orthodox Mass was; the Orthodox Roman Rite Mass of 800 is dead along with the Roman Orthodox Catholic Church, when it was TRULY the Roman Orthodox Catholic Church and not an impostor, brought to spiritual death by its false doctrines.

To try to artificially reconstruct what it was like in the good ole days is, in my opinion, is as artificial as the Novus Ordo Missal of the Roman Catholic Church - mind you, which had the exact same goals but with a more significant Protestant mindset (let's get the Catholic Mass back to what it was like in the Early Church, with communion in the hand, more vernacular languages, and less theologically extravagant language!). And boy. do we see the results of that horrible idea.

IF (key word "IF") there should be a Western Rite, it should be for pastoral reasons and it should be with a living, continuous tradition. The Eastern Liturgical Tradition of Constantinople wasn't broken with the Acacian schism, or iconoclasm, so I don't think that it's out of the possibility that those who want to become Orthodox but retain their liturgical traditions shouldn't be denied, particularly when the Tridentine Mass has legitimately retained a significant amount of Orthodox practice, and has an organic tradition going back to Saint Gregory the Great himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,272
Central California
✟274,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

I don’t mind your disagreeing, and admit that this is only my opinion, and not a hill I am willing to actually die on.
But I do deny and reject a charge of paranoia. To say you see no need to fear is to say you don’t see. That is, while one might see something that is not there one might equally NOT see something that IS there.
The reason for doing anything is vital, especially for either a) introducing a change or b) reinstating a practice that had been definitively and universally discontinued. It matters when we do such things. Do I think I can dig up a liturgy used in, say, the fourth century, let alone write one of my own devising? That I have a right to do so? Why should I, even if I can and it was really used at one time?

Sometimes we need a wet blanket.
 
Upvote 0