What do you think of the Western Rite Orthodox?

[Albion]

Honestly, jurisdictional issues are outside the realm of what we experience as a community. When I see someone who is Greek Orthodox, I see someone who is Orthodox. The same goes with Antiochian, OCA, Russian and yes, Western Orthodoxy.

We as Orthodox Christians don't have to experience jurisdiction conflicts. It isn't a fight between jurisdictions everywhere.

That said, which point am I pushing too far?

The Orthodox do indeed have jurisdictional rivalries with multiple jurisdictions dividing even the same ethnic groups--often quite bitterly. This isn't to say that most other church bodies don't have them, too. And as for Western Orthodoxy, there are plenty of Orthodox people who consider it to be invalid.

 

[All4Christ]

The Orthodox do indeed have jurisdictional rivalries with multiple jurisdictions dividing even the same ethnic groups--often quite bitterly. This isn't to say that most other church bodies don't have them, too. And as for Western Orthodoxy, there are plenty of Orthodox people who consider it to be invalid.

Ok. Yes, there are jurisdictional rivalries, as do most. I do not (and didn't) deny that. However, my personal experience does not have that same conflict. In my region, it isn't a competition. So yes, there are problems with jurisdictions, which is sad to see - but that doesn't mean we all experience that competition amongst the Orthodox faithful. Does that make sense?

 

[Albion]

Ok. Yes, there are jurisdictional rivalries, as do most. I do not (and didn't) deny that. However, my personal experience does not have that same conflict.

I understand. Thank you.

 

[rakovsky]

You have a point, but don't try to push it too far. Three competing and mutually hostile Russian jurisdictions and four--count 'em--four Ukrainian orthodox jurisdictions do not a mutual admiration society make.

Please describe how the Russian jurisdictions are hostile to each other?
I have been to many Russian and several Ukrainian parishes in America, as well as spoken with numerous members of both and have not found hostility at a Church level, although I think that in the last few years many Ukrainians have hostility toward Russia in a political context.

 

[rakovsky]

The Orthodox do indeed have jurisdictional rivalries with multiple jurisdictions dividing even the same ethnic groups--often quite bitterly.

Can you point to specific writings describing bitterness expressed towards Orthodox Christians for having a separate ethnic jurisdiction in America?
For example, have they ever referred to each other as "depraved" or so forth for having other jurisdictions?

 

[Albion]

Can you point to specific writings describing bitterness expressed towards Orthodox Christians for having a separate ethnic jurisdiction in America?
For example, have they ever referred to each other as "depraved" or so forth for having other jurisdictions?

I don't know about the use of that particular word, but YES! Absolutely. I could tell you real-life stories and cite official church publications, etc. etc.

 

[All4Christ]

I don't know about the use of that particular word, but YES! Absolutely. I could tell you real-life stories and cite official church publications, etc. etc.

I have never seen that as the main attitude between Orthodox jurisdictions. In fact, I never have seen these publications and do not see it as beneficial to anyone. In our typical parish life, I have not heard of these stories as being typical. Why focus on the few that have political fights, rather than focus on the fellowship as a whole? Is it of any benefit to anyone?

ETA: I could cite political and theological fights among Anglicans as well, but it doesn't seem to be the common attitude among the Anglicans I know; it only seems detrimental to focus on it. The same concept applies to Orthodoxy. The overall populace of Anglicans are very kind and seem to be faithful and not focused on political issues. It is the same way with Orthodoxy.

 

[rakovsky]

I could tell you real-life stories

Sure, please let me know how many Orthodox you have spoken with over the years and what number of them have expressed serious bitterness toward other mainstream Orthodox jurisdictions for existing.

All the mainstream/canonical Eastern Orthodox people in American can take communion in each other's churches.

 

[Philip_B]

Missal of Robert of Jumieges

Hi Mockingbird,
Thank you very much for that. Robert of Jumièges, whilst pre Norman Conquest is in fact the first Norman Archbishop of Canterbury, and as you would expect the Nicene Creed in the text conforms to the Creed of Rome from 1014.

Et in spiritum sanctum, (And in the Holy Spirit)
dominum et uiuificantem, (the Lord the giver of life)
qui ex patre filioque procedit. (who proceeds from the Father and the Son)
qui cum patre et fiiio simul adoratur et cum glorificatur (who with the father and the Son is worshipped and glorified)​

The thing that interests me much more is what was Stigand using? And what was the English Church using before this time. Edward chose Robert over Æthelric who was the chapters choice, generally thought to settle the Pope, however with the impending return of Godwin, Robert filled with fear and fled the country abandoning his post. Edward them appointed Stigand, who chose not to release Winchester and so held both posts, whilst being busy at court, and seems to have been in charge of the money as well. Stigand had been Cnut's mass priest (chaplain) and busy at court through the Danish period, though perhaps most close to Emma, Widow of Edmund and Wife of Cnut (though he produced two heirs who proceeded Edward by his handshake wife).

Given the Popes interest in the Norman conquest and the witness of the Bayeux Tapestry that the Pope's banners were carried into battle with the Bishop of Bayeux wielding a club (it would have been improper for a Bishop to wield a sword), and the determination of William to replace the English Bishops with Normans and Italians and enforce a liturgy in greater conformity with Rome, I am interested to see what was there before. Given that 1066 is but 12 years after 1054, I can not help but wonder if primacy, procession and the filioque were not factors.

I do apologise to rakovsky that this post is a little off thread. I hope he will forgive me.

 

[rakovsky]

I do apologise to rakovsky that this post is a little off thread. I hope he will forgive me.

Good discussion. I think it's relevant.
It would be nice to see what liturgy they were using in England before Norman or even Frankish influences could be felt.
Philip has a theory that centuries earlier the English had autocephaly from Rome, so it would be interesting to see how this could be confirmed and how far it went.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know about autocephaly. Certainly in ancient times there were customs unique to the British Isles which have largely disappeared under not just Roman but later English tendencies towards uniformity and centralisation. (Google Synod of Whitby to give you some background on the tension between Roman versus Irish customs and the disputed idea of a particularly Celtic church).

This is not really my area of expertise, but it is interesting!

 

[Feuerbach]

From my admittedly limited interactions with the Orthodox at my wife's parish (Greek Archdiocese of N. America) and conversations with her priest, the opinion of Western Rite Orthodoxy is varied, but tends toward the negative (more suspicion than outright opposition). I also can't help but think that if I personally subscribed to Orthodox piety and belief, that the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom or Basil or whatever would be fine with me. I guess what I'm saying is I view Western Rite Orthodoxy similarly to how I view the Anglican Ordinariate, if you're going to convert, just convert.

 

[rakovsky]

From my admittedly limited interactions with the Orthodox at my wife's parish (Greek Archdiocese of N. America) and conversations with her priest, the opinion of Western Rite Orthodoxy is varied, but tends toward the negative (more suspicion than outright opposition). I also can't help but think that if I personally subscribed to Orthodox piety and belief, that the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom or Basil or whatever would be fine with me. I guess what I'm saying is I view Western Rite Orthodoxy similarly to how I view the Anglican Ordinariate, if you're going to convert, just convert.

Typically what I remember hearing about the Western Rite has been positive. I think it was the Antiochian Bishop Thomas whom I heard say it was important for the Orthodox Church to grow and that some people thought the Western Rite wouldn't work but that it's worked. The Antiochians took up the Western Rite in its current form decades ago and it brought a lot of people to Orthodoxy. Western Rite parishes have communion with the other Orthodox Churches and they are directly part of specific canonical churches. Basically no one in the EO Church is going to turn away someone from communion for being in a Western Rite parish. They have the same theology as the EOs. The main issue would be things like whether one objects to the arrangement of certain prayers or hymns during the service.

 

[Shane R]

My diocese lost a priest, a while back, to the Western Rite. However, no one really opposed him. For my diocese, the "three streams" are not: anglo-catholic, evangelical, charismatic; but rather: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican. The said individual is held in such regard that he is still the professor of OT at the seminary.

 

[Albion]

From my experience, both shane and Feuerbach are correct in what they wrote, respectively, in posts 34 and 32.

Of course, they were not speaking of exactly the same thing. The one mainly concerned the Orthodox attitude towards the idea and practice of Western Rite Orthodoxy, while the other concerned the Anglican view of it.

 

[everbecoming2007]

My knowledge of this topic is quite limited, so these opinions are tentative. But from what I have read and discussed with persons more knowledgable than myself on this topic I am skeptical that the rite is historic in the way it presents itself, especially with Easternizations such as leavened bread and the epiclesis introduced to make it palatable to the Orthodox. (I seriously doubt the epiclesis was present in the ancient Roman rite notwithstanding its inclusion in the modern Roman rite and in a more moderate form in later editions of the BCP.)

It appears to me to be a reconstruction, and there is always going to be some uncertainty with such endeavors as to the historicity of some elements of the product.

That doesn't mean I think there is anything wrong with the liturgy or even adoption of some Eastern elements into our Western liturgies Roman, Anglican, or whatever. I am simply skeptical about how Western Rite Orthodoxy is often represented.

 

[Albion]

Maybe we have to be careful about which church body is making the Western Rite available. If it's one of the ancient Patriarchates like Antioch (to whom most Westerners turn, I think), that'd be different (I'd think) from some non-canonical jurisdiction.

 

[rakovsky]

Maybe we have to be careful about which church body is making the Western Rite available. If it's one of the ancient Patriarchates like Antioch (to whom most Westerners turn, I think), that'd be different (I'd think) from some non-canonical jurisdiction.

I understand.
The Two jurisdictions that have large scale Western Rite sections are the Antiochian Patriarchate and ROCOR, which is under Moscow.
I gave the jurisdictions' Western Rite pages in the OP.

 

[Bonifatius]

I do not really see a point in 'Western Rite Orthodoxy'. I mean, if you are Western Rite, why would you not join one of the churches that have developed and lived the Western Rite over centuries and still live in it? Like the Roman Catholic church or the Anglicans or parts of the Lutheran and Old Catholic churches. Even if you consider yourself a traditionalist you may find old rite Catholic and even Anglican churches.

For me the identity of Orthodoxy is very much linked with their liturgy. So if one wants to be Orthodox one should accept their liturgical forms which are the expression of their spiritual tradition and faith.

Also on a more personal level I would never feel able to join a church of the Moscow patriarchate, as they in my view have become a political body serving as the religious arm of Putin's regime, following a political agenda rather than a spiritual one. And what sense does it make if you live say in the US but consider yourself to be in communion with and under the jurisdiction of a bishop or patriarch in Antioch whom you may never see in the your whole life?

So, to sum it up: This whole thing of Western rite orthodoxy seems to me a very postmodern thing where one can combine all sorts of different bits of tradition and historical identities into one new thing (traditional Western liturgy, traditional Eastern teaching, Eastern jurisidiction). It might serve as a niche for some, but I cannot see that this makes a lot of sense altogether...

 

[everbecoming2007]

I do not really see a point in 'Western Rite Orthodoxy'. I mean, if you are Western Rite, why would you not join one of the churches that have developed and lived the Western Rite over centuries and still live in it? Like the Roman Catholic church or the Anglicans or parts of the Lutheran and Old Catholic churches. Even if you consider yourself a traditionalist you may find old rite Catholic and even Anglican churches.

For me the identity of Orthodoxy is very much linked with their liturgy. So if one wants to be Orthodox one should accept their liturgical forms which are the expression of their spiritual tradition and faith.

Also on a more personal level I would never feel able to join a church of the Moscow patriarchate, as they in my view have become a political body serving as the religious arm of Putin's regime, following a political agenda rather than a spiritual one. And what sense does it make if you live say in the US but consider yourself to be in communion with and under the jurisdiction of a bishop or patriarch in Antioch whom you may never see in the your whole life?

So, to sum it up: This whole thing of Western rite orthodoxy seems to me a very postmodern thing where one can combine all sorts of different bits of tradition and historical identities into one new thing (traditional Western liturgy, traditional Eastern teaching, Eastern jurisidiction). It might serve as a niche for some, but I cannot see that this makes a lot of sense altogether...

I have had similar thoughts as have some Orthodox. To really revive a continuous and living Western tradition in Orthodoxy in the same way they possess a living Eastern spirituality wouldn't there need to be a reunion of an entire Western branch of the Church with Orthodoxy rather than little parishes and groups here and there aligning themselves with an Eastern rite diocese? How can they simply reconstruct a Western spirituality? Something here seems artificial. This is not how the Catholic Church under the Pope reabsorbed Eastern rites, either: the situation is not the same. And even when this happened in the Catholic Church there still exist uneasy theological and liturgical tensions.

I also dislike experiments on the parish level that have occurred in the Episcopal Church with using Rite III to reconstruct the Liturgy of St. John of Chrysostom. The Orthodox certainly reject our more limited endeavors to absorb and modify their rites.