www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Toleration

There are some major theological differences between the West and the East. However there are a number of liturgical practices in the West that many of the Orthodox refuse to recognize as legitimate. I have seen that even in Western Othodoxy that Eastern practices have been carried over. Like the insistence upon triple immersion for baptism, communion under both kinds, the use of leavened bread. Rome is tolerant of many valid yet diverse practices. I think it would go along way towards ecumenism for the East to accept our Roman liturgical practices as being valid. Like pouring at baptism, communion under one kind and the use of leavened bread. Each of these practices in both the East and West are legitimate and valid and should be accepted and tolerated. Rome does not try to force its liturgical practices upon the East and the Orthodox should show us in the West the same toleration.

A.C. ---

There is a difference between "Orthodox refuse to recognize as legitimate" and "Orthodox criticize". While there are some Orthodox who definitely would say that some of the practices of the Latin Church are "not legitimate", a larger group would say that they are legitimate but worthy of some brotherly critique.

"Like the insistence upon triple immersion for baptism". Orthodoxy permits baptism by "pouring" if needed in emergency circumstances, so I don't think you can say that the Orthodox critique of this subsequently-developed Latin practice rises to the level of calling into question its "legitimacy". Nevertheless the critique is a valid one, both because (1) there was a time when the Latin Church itself didn't perform this sacrament differently and (2) the more ancient form of the sacrament reveals the fullness of its meaning (ie, death and rebirth) -- the meaning that the Latin Church ascribes to the sacrament as well. Far from "becoming Byzantine", the Latins should recover their own best tradition in this regard -- which isn't very different from the Byzantine tradition, *incidentally*.

"communion under both kinds"

Again, not illegitimate, but not the older Latin practice, either.

"the use of leavened bread"

This is a non-issue at this point ISTM.

Brendan

Also remember, at least in the case of communion in both forms, this is now the normative practice for Latin Catholics, even if some cosnervative clergy have been slow in its implementation.

K.

Dear Friends,

Actually, the point raised here is quite legitimate.

As someone who is very interested in the Western Rites and Western Orthodoxy in particular, I know that it is very often the case that Westerners in Orthodoxy get the "cold shoulder" about their Rites, and not only vice-versa.

I attended a Western RIte Orthodox conference under the auspices of the Antiochian Orthodox Church here in Toronto. I also know a wonderful Western Rite Orthodox Priest, a convert (with his entire parish) from Episcopalianism.

The Western Rite includes former RC's, Anglicans, Lutherans, Old Roman Catholics, Old Catholics and some others.

They seemed to have their guard up about their Eastern Rite brothers and sisters.

Eastern poaching of their priests appeared somewhat common.

They even had some jokes about the Eastern Church practices, something my former Eastern Rite circle used to do about Western Church practices.

Both East and West seem to continue in their mutual self-estrangement in terms of devotion, let alone matters pertaining to Faith.

It is good to hear that my dear Friend, Robert Tallick, has given me his blessing to continue with the Rosary!

There is hope yet!!

Alex

>>>I have seen that even in Western Othodoxy that Eastern practices have been carried
over. Like the insistence upon triple immersion for baptism, communion under both kinds, the use of leavened bread. <<<

All of those ARE legitimate Western Traditions. The fact that over the past 1000 years the West has changed its praxis doesn't alter that fact. That the Latin Church is attempting to restore most of them, and has in fact restored baptism by triple immersion and communion under both species (something the West abandoned only in 1215, for reasons that seem utterly frivolous today), merely reinforces the common Tradition that used to bind both East and West.

>>>Rome is tolerant of many valid yet diverse practices. I
think it would go along way towards ecumenism for the East to accept our Roman liturgical practices as being valid. <<<

Most Orthodox, particularly at the hierarchical level, do not make much of a fuss over the manner in which Western sacraments are administered (with the exception of baptism by aspersion, something that even the Latin Church now rejects). I haven't heard anyone make a big deal about azymes in, oh, seven hundred years. And, in case you haven't noticed, the Latin Church itself says that communion under both species is normative and desirable.

To Alex:

>>> As someone who is very interested in the Western Rites and Western Orthodoxy in particular, I know that it is very often the case that Westerners in
Orthodoxy get the "cold shoulder" about their Rites, and not only vice-versa.<<<

Unfortunate the attitude of some Orthodox to their own Western rites. Uniatism cuts both ways. My main problem with the WRV is the manner in which it has altered the text of the Roman Canon to include an explicit epiclesis, which reflects an old, and unfounded, Orthodox myth that the Latin Church removed the epiclesis some time in the sixth century. In fact, the Canon is so old, it never had an epiclesis of the type found in Basil or Chrysostom, simply because it solidified before the Pneumatological controversies of the fourth century.

It also reflects the old polemical (and discredited) argument over when the "magic moment" occurs in the Liturgy. If the Latin Scholastic definition said at the Institution Narrative, then, by gum, the Orthodox would insist on the Epiclesis. Thus, without an epiclesis, no anaphora is legitimate. Of course, the consensus among liturgical theologians East and West is that the entire Anaphora or Eucharistic prayer constitutes a single, indivisible act of consecration, and that there is no "magic moment" to which one can point. So, when it insisted on altering the Canon, the Orthodox Church was guilty of overt byzantinization, which is just as wrong and sinful as the latinization to which we have been subjected.

Oh, and they should never have imported the communion prayer; the Latin liturgy has its own penitential rites, and doesn't need the Byzantine prayer to make it "more" Orthodox.

[This message has been edited by StuartK (edited 08-20-2001).]

I have to agree with Stuart on this. The physical manifestations of spirituality are merely that: physical manifestations. The underlying spirituality of the sacraments is what counts. What's next? Measuring the temperature of the baptismal waters to assure canonical validity?

Blessings, y'all!

Interesting book suggestion:

"The Byzantine Lists: The Errors of the Latins." it is a book which details Byzantine polemics against Latin practices (not much doctrine in this book-- mainly disciplines). The author, whose name escapes me, argues that these polemics MEANT something to those engaged in them, in a sort of sociological identification thing. I didn't have time to finish the book, but it looked interesting.

anastasios

Dear Stuart,

I see that you are not only a pre-eminent expert on all things Eastern, but Western as well.

The points you raise are precisely what Archpriest Schneirla discussed during his talk while I was at the Conference.

Interestingly, an Antiochian Bishop came by to proclaim the Patriarch's true love and respect for the Western Rite. "Otherwise," he said, "Why would he have insisted on including the Byzantine pre-Communion prayer into the Western Rite liturgy?"

Some snickered around the room at that . . .

My friend who is an Antiochian Western Rite priest loves Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and holds this regularly in his parish.

He tells me he wouldn't do it in front of his bishop, however, since that might be "too much" for him.

Also, the Western Riters cross themselves from left to right, but once an Eastern Bishop argued with one of them to do it the "proper way."

He also had an icon of his favourite Anglican saint, King Charles the Martyr, written and he put it up in the back.

The bishop came by, looked at it, he said, but didn't say anything. "Silence is consent," he concluded happily.

They have taken over a number of modern Western practices which are solidifying among them, I think, mainly because they are becoming symbols of their Western Rite identity within a "persecuted Uniate mentality."

I suffer from PUM (*trademark by Orthodox Catholic) too sometimes . . .

This is something I had in common with them, and I was tickled to think that the shoe was on the other foot this time.

The Western Rite Orthodox parishes are very aggressive and I met two gentlemen who go around to every store-front Old Catholic Church to bring it into communion with Antioch.

I also met a former Anglican priest who left after most of his parish in Winnipeg "went over to Antioch."

Besides helping so many ethnocultural Orthodox Christian immigrants at the turn of this century, this Arabic Church is amazingly dynamic, bringing in former Anglicans and Roman Catholics, including the "Evangelical Orthodox." There is an independent "Lutheran Rite" group that is thinking of joining Antioch and the Polish National Catholic Church is in talks with it.

That kind of ritual flexibility is amazing and they are to be complimented for their achievements!

As you should be for yours, Stuart!

Alex

[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 08-21-2001).]

Alex could you tell me more about this Lutheran rite. Is there a link? Thanks!

Dear AlexiusComnenus,

Yes, here is the link:
http://Members.aol.Com/EvCathCh/index.HTML

They follow in the High tradition of Lutheranism, they invoke saints, honour the Blessed Sacrament, and even have a religious Order.

Alex





[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 08-21-2001).]

Thanks Alex!

>>>Measuring the temperature of the baptismal waters to assure canonical validity?<<<

So if the baby pees in the font, the baptism ain't valid? Then what about Constantine V Copronymos? But then, he came to sticky end.

Stuart, my friend, I'm sure that there is a tractatus somewhere which explains in great detail that the urinary output of an infant cannot significantly raise the temperature (Farenheit or Celsius) of the baptismal font. Should such an infant exist, I have a friend at the National Institutes of Health who would be very interested in the phenomenon.

In the meantime: take yourself off to your little trundle bed. I think you've overtaxed yourself worrying about this. Don't forget your med's. :-)

Blessings!

PS: Constantine Who? You must be using one of those apo-crap-fhul neo-Coptic-Alexandrian calendars.

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 08-22-2001).]

>>>Stuart, my friend, I'm sure that there is a tractatus somewhere which explains in great detail that the urinary
output of an infant cannot significantly raise the temperature (Farenheit or Celsius) of the baptismal font.<<<

That depends on the size of the font--and as you should know, Epiphany's font is hardly large enough to hold a guinea pig, let alone an infant.

Dear Orthodox Catholic,

Quite interesting link concerning the Evangelical Catholic Church.

It looks, from my vantage point, that these people are extremely high Lutherans who are catholic. The liturgy looks to be a synthesis of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and the Lutheran worship service.
I found it quite interesting about the apostolic succession page on the site.

Thank you very much for posting this informative link.