Due to an ongoing health crisis in the family, blogging will be 'on and off' as time and circumstances permit for the foreseeable future. I also beg your indulgence if I am slow in responding to emails. New posts will appear below this notice.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Western Rite Orthodoxy

There is an excellent overview here of the Orthodox Western Rite and its history.

HT: Dr. Tighe

6 comments:

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Thank you for this post. WR seems very much a work in progress.

David Dickens said...

As a "low-church" Protestant convert, I must admit all of my Anglophile tendencies are still not enough to give me any interest in a Western Rite. It feels far more foreign to me than than my OCA parish or the GOA parish I visit from time to time. I suppose that if I had a liturgical tradition, I'd enjoy seeing that "Orthodized" but that is mere speculation on my part.

I miss many of my old songs, but since the "Old Rugged Cross" and "When Peace Like a River" aren't on anyone's list, I can't help but feel that WR is no more American to me than what I've already experienced.

Not that I'm asking for the Priest to chant the Anaphora to the tune of Simple Gifts. I'm just sharing a different story.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I'm content to wait a few hundred years and see how things work out.

Anonymous said...

I have never been to a WR church and only know a little about it but on the outside it just seems like orthodoxy's version of uniatism. I have heard the attitude of 'just come over to the orthodox church but keep all your traditions and just commemorate an orthodox bishop.'

I have never heard a good response from the WR that they are not just another version of the Unia.

I don't write this as a condemnation but as a serious question. For most orthodox, WR makes them very uncomfortable.

Visibilium said...

I must confess that I find the earnestness of the WR proponents more attractive than the Rite itself.

Chris Jones said...

I have never heard a good response from the WR that they are not just another version of the Unia.

Suppose that were true; what is wrong with it? From a Roman Catholic point of view, the Eastern Catholic Churches (the "Unia") are a reclaiming of the Catholic Church's legitimate patrimony, and if Rome's claim to being the one true Church were true, then there would be nothing wrong with that. If, on the other hand, Orthodoxy is the true Church, then the liturgical and theological tradition of the West ultimately belongs to Orthodoxy (because it belongs to the Church).

The Western Rite represents the return to the Orthodox Church of that which is, in truth, her own patrimony. That is simply one of the implications of her claim to be the true, Apostolic Church.

To divide up the Church's tradition and say that part of it belongs to Orthodoxy and part of it belongs to Catholicism is tantamount to accepting the legitimacy of the Schism and admitting that the Church herself is in fact divided. That is something that neither an orthodox Catholic nor an orthodox Orthodox can allow.