The 4th Century Science of St Macrina (II)
11 hours ago
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Western Rite Conference
Via the Orthodox Caveman word of a pan-jurisdictional conference on the Orthodox Western Rite. I found the details very interesting and wish I had known about it earlier. (My sister lives in Wappinger Falls.) A few snippets to whet the appetite... A Pontifical High Mass in Latin and a Mass according to the Gallican Rite! How long since either has been seen in the Orthodox Church? Wow, just wow!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
*whet
I stand corrected.
As a convert attending an Antiochian parish only the past few years, I have simply never given much thought to Western Rite and just never saw the justification for it. The following strikes me as an impressive apologetic:
[In response to the charge that WR is religious 'Live Action Role Playing']:
"Have you ever actually worshiped at a WRO Mass, or is this remark as prejudiced as it appears?
I fail to see how Western-Rite Orthodoxy is any more artificial than a bunch of ex- (or maybe not-so-ex-) Protestants pretending to be Byzantine. I cannot begin to tell you how it stuck in my craw to be expected to address an Irish-American convert bishop, with no more Russian blood in his veins than I have, as “Vladyka”; or to be unable to speak plain English and say “spiritual struggle” and “delusion”, but to have to pretend to be Russian and say “podvig” and “prelest.” As if the language of Shakespeare, the Authorized Version, and the Book of Common Prayer were not worthy to express the truths of Orthodoxy.
At least the Western-Riters are taking what is good and true and Orthodox in their own cultural patrimony and laying claim to it as Orthodox, on behalf of Orthodoxy. And if Orthodoxy really is the Catholic and Apostolic faith (you do believe that, don’t you?), then the liturgical heritage of St Irenaeus, St Augustine, Pope St Gregory the Great, Pope St Leo the Great, and Pope St Martin (and on and on) belongs to the Orthodox Church. And in laying claim to that heritage the Western Rite folks, it seems to me, are doing less “religious role-playing” than the (frankly) still-Western converts who dress up as Byzantines, speak in the arcane Byzantine lingo, and kvetch about how St Augustine is a heretic who is responsible for everything that is wrong (and irredeemable) about the West.
Which is more LARPing: Western Christians embracing Orthodoxy while honestly and un-apologetically remaining Western, or Western Christians dressing up in somebody else’s culture every time they go to Church?"
From here: http://venuleius.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/schmemann/#comment-2352
via serge's blog.
And if Orthodoxy really is the Catholic and Apostolic faith (you do believe that, don’t you?), then the liturgical heritage of St Irenaeus, St Augustine, Pope St Gregory the Great, Pope St Leo the Great, and Pope St Martin (and on and on) belongs to the Orthodox Church.
What a shallow crock. No one's denying that Orthodoxy had a Western flavor aeons ago. The issue on which the WR skeptics focus is the intervening 1,000 years of heresy that have infected the Western Rite traditions. Sure, if we could freeze WR history at approximately 1054 and re-adopt an authentic Orthodox WR, none of the controversy would exist.
The problem is that the last 1,000 existed, WR traditions were tainted, and present-day leaders have to decide which elements of the polluted traditions can be successfully brought into our undefiled Tradition. And now I'm supposed to believe that the WR is more authentic for Western-located Orthodox believers than the Eastern Rite? Please.
Furthermore, I don't have a problem with converts' acting the way in which "authentic" Russians and Greeks should act in church. Tell me about those authentic old-country Orthodox customs, like smoking out in the parking lot during the Sunday Liturgy or leaving the Paschal Liturgy after the procession.
Let's get real. The whole Christian experience at its best is role-playing a Revelation that none of us feels naturally. Is a convert priest acting like a counterfeit Greek if he gives me a swift kick in the ass for being an authentic prick?
Anti-Gnostic,
Thank you very, very much for your kind words.
Visibilium,
The problem is that the last 1,000 existed, WR traditions were tainted, and present-day leaders have to decide which elements of the polluted traditions can be successfully brought into our undefiled Tradition.
How is it that the Church has maintained her "undefiled Tradition"? Is it not by applying her Rule of Faith, trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit? If the Church has, by divine grace, the discernment to keep her Tradition undefiled, then surely she can use that same discernment to recognize what is, and what is not, her own in the Western heritage.
I stand by what I wrote.
If the Church has, by divine grace, the discernment to keep her Tradition undefiled, then surely she can use that same discernment to recognize what is, and what is not, her own in the Western heritage.
An integral Western Rite won't pop into Orthodoxy effortlessly. Discernment takes place under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and under conditions of time, space, and conciliarity.
An integral Western Rite won't pop into Orthodoxy effortlessly.
Well, sure -- and nothing I wrote suggests that it would (or has). Everything is subject to the Church's discernment which, as you say, is under conditions of time, space, and conciliarity.
But in your first comment you appeared to rule out the Western Rite entirely. I don't agree with that; I think the jury is still out. And the analysis I gave is my idea of the sort of thing the Church should consider in her discernment.
I do feel strongly about this, but everything I have said about it is offered only as my opinion, with no more authority than one man's opinion can have.
Dear Visibilium,
Since it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through such Hierarchs as St. Tikhon the Confessor, who paved the way, and St. John the Wonderworker of Shanghai & San Francisco who truly brought it to fruition, perhaps you should cut a little slack for the revivers of the Latin Rites and, at least, speak more respectfully of your brother and sister Orthodox - who worship and serve under the blessing and protection of not one, not two, not three, but four Orthodox Patriarchates.
I may be a "Greek" at present, but I lived and worshipped for a year in a ROCOR Western Rite monastery. The forms of worship used there were settled long, long before the division between East and West, much of it spelled out in great detail in the Rule of St. Benedict, which has always been revered as an Orthodox document; most of the rest was directly inherited from a liturgical tradition, including the Anaphora of St Peter/St Gregory, that is older in its origins than that of St. John Chrysostom.
This summer, I was honored to travel to Colorado and train and direct a small schola cantorum for a Sung Requiem for a deacon of the Western Rite (ROCOR). A few days later, I attended a Roman Catholic Mass of Christian Burial for my beloved, 103 year old grandmother. There was little in common between the two events. The ancient Orthodoxy of the first, and the tainted and demeaned trajectory of the second were in plain contrast.
Wiser heads than yours or mine are guiding this revival; faithful Orthodox Christians are living it - often at great personal and corporate sacrifice and in the face of scorn such as you have voiced. We are not dealing with an "issue" here, we are dealing with persons of love, faith, and dedication -- of neither less nor more integrity than their Eastern brethren.
So, if we truly believe that ours is an undefiled tradition (an assessment that depends, of course, on the particular sense in which we use "tradition"), perhaps we can afford to respect and trust our Saints and Patriarchs more highly than we do our own opinions or concerns.
Fr. Theodore, I'm fine with a Western Rite project nurtured under the ROCOR's careful supervision, and I'm heartened by Antioch's coordination with the ROCOR in this area.
Dear Visibilium:
Amen. Let us pray that their good work continues. And may the Lord have mercy on us all. :-))
I am going to agree with Visibilium on this one. There can never be any tradition in Byzantine Orthodoxy, but Byzantine. All the ancient eastern tradtions, such a the Coptic, Syrian, Armenian et cetera were considered as non-Orthodox and were done away with. Why, other than as a property grab, should anyone then turn around and support a western rite?
Also, why should ROCOR be any better path for a western rite? Simply because their so-called western rite is so Russified that it questions, why even bother? Or perhaps because Antioch is not orthodox?
In the end, if one wishes to belong to the Byzantine Church, one must become Byzantine. I fail to see how difficult this is to understand. It also gives hairy ex-Episcopalians a folklore to live by.
Dale:
It's not the Byzantine Church, it's the Orthodox Church.
And Byzantium is dead and gone and never coming back, brother.
I can only deduce that you have never spoken to a Greek about this issue! And it is their tradition and their church.
There can never be any tradition in Byzantine Orthodoxy, but Byzantine ... it is [the Greeks'] tradition and their church.
What phyletist claptrap! Last time I checked the Nicene Creed, "Byzantine" was not one of the four marks of the Church. "Catholic" was, however, and to identify the Church solely with the Byzantine tradition and (what is worse) to suggest that the Church belongs exclusively to the Greeks is a denial of the Catholicity of the Church.
Dale, you've observed my intentional omission of Antioch as a careful WR steward, and I'm afraid that my response will irk some nice people.
As I see it, there are three problems with a significant Orthodox WR right now:
1) It looks like heretical Old Rome to the Greeks. WR adherents need to give regular Orthodox a little time to adjust.
2) The mainline OCA hates it because of her experience with Uniatism.
3) Antioch's stewardship has been too carelessly experimental. Want an example? How about the "authentic" Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is an Anglican BCP rip-off. Yeah, I know that St. Tikhon and Moscow made favorable noises a century ago, but that's a slim foundation for such a game-changer, and a careful steward would have hesitated to set such a precedent.
In my view, the ROCOR has unquestionable bona fides to nurture a controversial--and substantial--project like the WR. It's too important to screw up.
Visibilium,
But the ROCOR "English Liturgy" is almost verbatum, especially the Canon of the Mass, with the Antiochian Anglican use liturgy, so I really fail to see your point here.
But in the end, I do agree with you that there is no place in the Byzantine Church for a western rite; as the Ecumenical Patriarch has declared several times: "Orthodoxy is Hellenism and Hellenism is Orthodoxy.' Hence, I fail to see how a western rite, or any other rite other than the Byzantine can ever find a place within such an ethno-centric denomination. In this I agree with you.
It's too important to screw up.
On that we can agree. The rest of your last comment leaves me a bit mystified.
It looks like heretical Old Rome to the Greeks.
Perhaps, but should the Greeks (or anybody else) be judging on appearances, or on substance? The Western-Rite Orthodox are Orthodox in faith, and (given that their praxis is blessed by canonical Orthodox bishops) they are Orthodox in praxis as well. That is the fact and the substance of the matter, and if despite that the Greeks are going to judge it on appearances, well, shame on them.
WR adherents need to give regular Orthodox a little time to adjust.
What does "giving them time to adjust" mean? Should the WRO stop existing until the Greeks give them permission to exist? And be it noted that WRO are "regular Orthodox." They are not second-class Orthodox or half-way Orthodox; they are Orthodox, full stop.
The mainline OCA hates it because of her experience with Uniatism.
This is the most puzzling line in your comment. First of all, I don't know that it is true that "the OCA hates it"; I was OCA for ten years and I never heard a word of hostility against the Western Rite (I did hear plenty of bad-mouthing of another Antiochian "experiment," the Evangelical Orthodox who were received into Orthodoxy during my time in the OCA). When I left the OCA for an AWRV mission, I did so with my parish priest's blessing, with no hint from him that the Western Rite was in any way questionable.
Secondly, I doubt that any antipathy to the WR in the OCA is due to "her experience with Uniatism." Historically, her experience with Uniatism was fundamentally positive: that is where most of her membership comes from! The OCA's response to Uniatism has been the correct one, to receive the Uniates back into Orthodoxy.
In any case, the Orthodox Western Rite has little in common with Uniatism. Western Rite Orthodoxy has a different purpose, a different rationale, and a different organization from Roman Catholic Uniatism. It is a mistake to respond to WRO according to any sort of analogy with Uniatism.
Antioch's stewardship has been too carelessly experimental. Want an example? How about the "authentic" Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is an Anglican BCP rip-off.
I should not press this point too far as a differentiator in favour of the ROCOR Western Rite. ROCOR accepts the liturgy of St Tikhon and has blessed it for use in its WR parishes who wish to use it.
A "careless experiment" it may be, but it is one that ROCOR has endorsed.
I would add one more point about the "careless experiment": it appears to me that the liturgy of St Tikhon is slowly being eclipsed in the AWRV by the liturgy of St Gregory (the old Roman Rite). Most of the new parishes that have joined the AWRV in recent years are Gregorian parishes, not Tikhonite ones. I should expect that, over time, the Gregorian liturgy will come to be the principal liturgy of the Vicariate, with the liturgy of St Tikhon becoming a less commonly used variant. I think this is happening because the WR people themselves are seeing the liturgy of St Gregory as more traditional, more reliably Orthodox, and more expressive of the Orthodox faith.
There is a part of me (the cradle Anglo-Catholic part) that is sad to see this happening. All the same, I believe it is the right direction for the WR to go.
Dale,
I think you are creating a straw-man argument. Orthodoxy is not a racial or ethnically based religion. I had no heard that the EP said "Orthodoxy is Hellenism and Hellenism is Orthodoxy." But if he did he is wrong. Such a statement comes perilously close to heresy. The EP is not the Orthodox Pope and he is not regarded as infallible.
In ICXC
John
I think that perhaps intellectually the Byzantine Orthodox may profess to be the one, true catholic church (sometimes, but not always), but they most certainly do not act that way.
The "Orthodoxy is Hellenism" was stated not only by the patriarch, but by Archbishop Christodolous of Athens many, many times, and was re-echoed by especially the Greek Church in the United States.
It is nice to know that the patriarch is not the Pope, but I have no idea what that has to do with this issue.
Personally, I will believe that the Byzantine Church is more than an ethnic sect, when it stops behaving like one; and I think that rejection of any tradition other than byzantine simply re-inforces this reality.
But one does need to remember that Greek Orthodox hatred of any tradition other than the Byzantine one is not limited to the west; they very happily, when they had the might of the Byzantine empire behind them, happily set-up artificial patriarchates in the east and suppressed all ancient non-byzantine eastern traditions there as well.
It would appear that all apostolic traditions are so "stained" that only the byzantine can ever be valid in such an ethno-centric denomination.
I do not believe that this is a strawman argument; it is simply the historical reality of the Byzantine church.
Dale:
especially the Canon of the Mass
I'm not too concerned with the liturgy's words, but with the lineage--with which the ROCOR has been far more prudent. Canons are identical? I'm not a theologian, and Western canons sound tediously alike to me.
As to our inherent Hellenism, I agree. All Orthodox belong to a Greek Church (or perhaps Graeco-Russian), generically speaking. The question remains whether generic Hellenism necessarily excludes WR.
Chris:
Should the WRO stop existing until the Greeks give them permission to exist? And be it noted that WRO are "regular Orthodox."
How sanctimonious. The burden of proof is on WR adherents, not the other way around. No Orthodox disputes that Orthodoxy is conveyed without contradiction in her Eastern Rites. You'd need to prove your case to regular Orthodox. If you interpret regular as meaning full, that's your issue. Regular sometimes means customary. You may want to expand your vocabulary to avoid umbrage.
Historically, her experience with Uniatism was fundamentally positive
The OCA's experience with Uniatism was so positive that she jumped aboard Orthodoxy! Remember St. Alexis Toth? He couldn't wait to get out of the Unia. That's why mainline OCA will refer sneeringly to the WR as “reverse Uniatism”. AND, this criticism of the WR has merit—since it identifies a key element of WR success or failure—whether the hierarch overseeing the WR believes in its legitimacy.
As to the Evangelical Orthodox, any alleged OCA antipathy didn't extend to Abp Dmitri, who would have accepted them into the DOS if the Antiochian relationship hadn't preceded his election.
ROCOR accepts the liturgy of St Tikhon
Methinks you're confusing the Liturgy of St Tikhon, the English Liturgy, and the Sarum Liturgy. You may wish to mention any ROCOR parishes using the Antiochian Liturgy of St Tikhon.
At least we agree about St Gregory's Liturgy.
Visbilium, thank you so much for at least setting others straight that everyone who is Byzantine does indeed belong to the Greek religion. Which has been exactly my point, your denomination is reality simply the Greek race and their barbarian converts at prayer. No thanks, strangely enough, I am quite happy with the traditions of my own ancestors. I do not need to run after the ways of foreigners.
I can only suspect that you would find the canons of the true eastern rites of Egypt, Armenia, Syria, Ethiopia, India tedious as well...how very sad, but very, very Byzantine!
Visibilium,
How sanctimonious
I wasn't being sanctimonious, I was being snide, and advisedly so, to make a point.
You may want to expand your vocabulary to avoid umbrage.
There is nothing wrong with my vocabulary, and I know the full range of meanings of the word "regular." I wasn't interpreting "regular" to mean "full" (which, actually, is not included in the semantic range of the word "regular"), I was interpreting it as you clearly intended it, to mean "according to the rule or norm, within the bounds that define the set." As opposed to "irregular" meaning "outside the normal range, exceptional, with a connotation of illegitimate or inauthentic."
I think any fair-minded reader who reads this sentence of yours:
It looks like heretical Old Rome to the Greeks. WR adherents need to give regular Orthodox a little time to adjust.
would say that you were clearly identifying "the Greeks" as "regular Orthodox" ("according to the rule or norm") and, by implication, identifying "WR adherents" as something other than "regular Orthodox."
The burden of proof is on WR adherents
Nonsense. There is no "burden of proof," because there is nothing to be proven. Western Rite Orthodox confess the Orthodox faith; they are under the omophorion of canonical Orthodox bishops; they are in communion with all canonical Orthodox in the world; and they serve a liturgy which has the blessing of their ruling hierarch, on an antimension signed by that ruling hierarch. Ergo, they are Orthodox. Why, then, should they bear a "burden of proof"?
Methinks you're confusing the Liturgy of St Tikhon, the English Liturgy, and the Sarum Liturgy
No, I am not. I based my statement on a posting by Bishop Jerome (Shaw) of Manhattan on a Western-Rite message board in which he stated (in response to a direct question) that both liturgies in use in the AWRV (the Gregorian and the Tikhonite) are recognized by ROCOR as valid Orthodox liturgies and their use is permitted in ROCOR WR parishes. Whether any ROCOR parishes are taking advantage of that permission I do not know.
Dale,
You quote a handful of people and make assertions that they somehow establish that Orthodoxy is an ethno-racial cult. I could just as easily quote high ranking Roman clergy spouting heretical nonsense and claim that they represent Rome. And of course such arguments would carry the same weight as yours. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion then by all means do so. If on the other hand you are just trolling and trying to provoke, go peddle that elsewhere.
Dale, did I win the Greek race, or am I an also-ran? It's crucially important that you validate my self-esteem.
Chris:
There is no "burden of proof," because there is nothing to be proven.
Is that why the WR is marginalized and anomalous, because there's nothing to be proven to regular Orthodox? I'd imagine that if WR were to become more marginalized and anomalous the ruling hierarch could easily withdraw his blessing. And, yes, WR isn't regular Orthodoxy precisely because it's an anomaly. Fully Orthodox? Sure. Regular Orthodox? Nah. Marginal, insignificant, exotic? Yepper.
Let's hope that the situation changes and a properly administered WR becomes as routine within Orthodoxy as holy water, but that remains a hope, not a reality.
are recognized by ROCOR as valid Orthodox liturgies and their use is permitted in ROCOR WR parishes.
That sounds like a bit of pastoral oeconomia, rather than a meritorious assessment, especially since the ROCOR hasn't added St. Tikhon's to its liturgical policy. Actually, the fact that Bp Jerome would take such a pastoral step confirms to me the notion that he's the right leader to coordinate an American WR project.
Vis
Dale posted a comment earlier today that was pure troll. I don't like censorship but I do have some limits. It's probably gonna be a while before I permit him to post here again. Good rule of thumb, when your a visitor in someone else's home, don't piss on the welcome mat.
Visibilium,
I agree with your last comment. In particular, thank you for clarifying what you meant by "regular Orthodox." Of course the WR are unusual and out-of-the-ordinary among Orthodox. I hope that in 30 - 50 years, through persistent evangelism and the grace of the Holy Spirit, that will no longer be the case. But it certainly is now.
I will say that the WR are no more "marginal, insignificant, and exotic" among Orthodox than all Orthodox are in the society at large. Here's hoping that both of those things cease to be true over time.
That sounds like a bit of pastoral oeconomia
Yep -- and in my view a very wise one.
Bp Jerome [is] the right leader to coordinate an American WR project
So it would seem. Bp Jerome strikes me as wise, pastorally sensitive, and very level-headed.
John, you and I have different limits, and I just can't help screwing with trolls and snarks. Whenever someone starts hitting that "Orthodoxy is just an ethnic [or aesthetic] affectation" theme song, my antenna goes up and the gloves get laced.
Post a Comment