www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West RE: Western Rite Orthodoxy

How can the True Church lose its critical elements?

I think that people are searching for a religion that doesn't demand anything of them. The mega churches allow them to do thier time on Sunday and then live secular lives the rest of the week. No confession, no priests, no threat of hell once one is "saved," etc...

I am not saying that there is not holiness in the mega church, but that many converts convert for a convenient gospel.

Others convert because they were poorly Catechized to begin with and were easy pickin's for Brother and Sister Smith who spent 2 years in a class to learn how to convert the pagan Catholics and Orthodox.

How could a religion of a prophet of peace found a faith that devolved in to something that at many times is composed of a set of divided and often warring groups? I'm sure that's something non Christians ask, and would be right to do so. How could this happen? How could the split happen between the Chalcedonians and Non Chalcedonians, between the East and West, within the East, and then within the West? What gave rise to the Reformation, Secularism, Atheism?

I think the churches must all share in the blame.


Dr. Eric, to be honest, from what I have seen in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, there are many good people doing many good things; but nominalism and people seeking low to no demands are everywhere. There are so many examples I've seen I don't even know where to start, but it certainly starts with people who think the religious education of their children is somebody else's job. I never cease to be amazed by that.

My experience in the evangelical world is nil, but my wife grew up in an evangelical church. People at her church went to Sunday morning services and Sunday school. They went to Wednesday services, had Bible studies, did activities together. They participated as a community. They also tithed, i.e. it was normal to give 10% of their income.

I'm not saying I agree with their theology, but they must be doing something, and providing something we are not. I thought it was a great testimony of faith when I saw the story recently of the evangelical missionaries in Turkey who were martyrd and suffered horrifying deaths; but then I thought I couldn't recall seeing a single word from a Catholic or Orthodox source not only protesting what happened to them, but praising their devotion to Christ and their willingness to bring it to Muslims.

I'm sorry, I know this is all off topic.


As I said, I think the blame is with us. At the very least I think we need to assume it is us until proven otherwise. We actually had friends over the other night who are Catholic and who have said they have lost faith in the church after the pedastry scandal. They will do confirmations for their kids but nothing else. Maybe this is an excuse, maybe not. Maybe there's blame on both sides there, but net effect is the church for them is a cultural relic. How untypical is that.

Andrew,

Your point about Church being a cultural relic was spot on.

My point is that the critical elements are the Holy Mysteries, not getting 40,000 people in a dome.


I also agree with your point about parents not being responsible for their children's spiritual education. For shame!

God Bless You,

Dr. Eric

Dear AMM,


Had you simply described me as an "odd person" I would not bother to comment. But I must take exception to your thus offending someone whom you have almost certainly never met and probably never will, and who is not himself party to this discussion. There is nothing odd about him, his godparents, his wife and his children, except insofar as many people who themselves don't go to Church or take Christianity seriously regard those of us who do go to Church and take Christianity seriously as "odd", but I trust that was not your meaning.

"All politics is local politics" - and I can assure you from decades of pastoral experience that when it comes to driving people away from the Church, personal insults are much more effective than the serious reading of Church History!

Fr. Serge

The dictionary, the encyclopedia, every Orthodox clergyman I've ever spoken to and not a few Roman Catholic clergy. As I was responding to your allegation that any difference between WRO and "Reverse Uniatism" deserves a "loud horse laugh" and a "fool's gold medal," my methodology is simple:

-- "Uniates" is commonly defined as simply another term for "Byzantine Catholics," the various groups of former Orthodox who joined union with Rome. The term was formerly used thus by RCC, and many Orthodox refer to ByzCaths only as "Uniates," both using the term as an equivalence (A=B). It is now considered pejorative. [1]
-- Western Rite Orthodox are Orthodox Christians who celebrate the Western Rite. My experience is that of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate (and secondarily, knowledge of ROCOR's WRO in Australia).

The question is: Can the formation, history, praxis, and claims of Byzantine Catholicism ("Uniatism") be equated with Western Rite Orthodoxy so thoroughly that attempts to differentiate them deserve a "horse laugh"? The answer is Nay. (Sorry.) They cannot, for the reasons I delineated on my blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com] and on this board, and thus your assertion is utterly baseless. You're free to earn your "horse laugh"; you need merely disprove that:

1. The government no exerted economic/social/political pressure in the formation of WRO (positive, not negative incentives);
2. WRO do not use the unedited liturgy of their Roman counterparts (today, the Novus Ordo or, in a few indult parishes, the 1962 Roman Missal); AND
3. WRO do not describe themselves with a term equally as misleading as the ByzCath "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

If you have information that "the Roman Mass as it was prior to the time of Blessed John XXIII" was celebrated in the vernacular, without the Filioque, with a descending epiclesis, and containing the Byzantine Pre-Communion Prayers [2] -- post it, Good Father! You owe it, not only to this discussion, but for the revision it will necessitate in all of liturgical history.

It is no secret that Orthodox object to the misleading and oxymoronic term "Orthodox in communion with Rome," as do some Catholics [ukrainian-orthodoxy.org]; this members of this forum well know. From an Orthodox POV, one is either fully Orthodox or fully RCC; indeed, a Melkite bishop has recently affirmed this [melkite.org] holds true for Catholicism, too. For such an assessment from a (then-)Byzantine Catholic, see here [byzfaith.com]. WRO certainly don't advertize themselves as anything other than "Orthodox in communion with Orthodox." If you know of an exception, please provide it here.

Unless the Edinoverie were Western Rite, it certainly would not be germane to this topic. (Do please consult the title of this thread.) My blog entry [westernorthodox.blogspot.com] merely distinguished between "Uniatism" (ByzCatholicism) and Western Rite Orthodoxy. This appears to be another example of [/b]"buckshot apologetics[/b] [catholic.com], as was your digression into alleged "receptionism." As your Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin stated:
ENDNOTES:
[1]You may quibble endlessly about how the term "Uniatism" has no meaning; we must provide something approaching an ex cathedra definition before we can discuss the issue, etc. But then you would be perceived as merely avoiding the gaping holes in your logic I've pointed out. FWIW, here [oca.org] are several [orthodoxwiki.org] such references [unicorne.org] defining "Uniate" as an alternate term for "Byzantine Catholic."
2. This is the Liturgy of St. Gregory as celebrated by the Antiochian WRV from its inception in 1958. Of course, the Mass Dr. JJ Overbeck first had approved in the the 1870s also differed from the Roman Mass...and his efforts were explicitly directed at Old Catholics, not Roman Catholics. L'ECOF's liturgy was not found in any other communion.

----------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

On the contrary. Negative assessments of WRO as "Uniatism" began on the first page of this thread. Fr. Serge then derided any difference between WRO and reverse "uniatism" with a "loud horse laugh" and "fool's gold medal" on the second page of this thread. Since my blog had been referenced on this thread (page 1), I then noted where I had differentiated WRO and ByzCaths on the sixth page of this thread. (See my blog entry, The Western Rite is not "Reverse Uniatism."[/b] [westernorthodox.blogspot.com], please.) This is a bad faith tactic of referring to a response to an attack as an attack.

Quote

it doesn't matter that the end result is the same. Hmmm....

The end result of ByzCaths and WRO is not the same. The normative liturgy in your Latin Rite is the Novus Ordo Missae, which is certainly not an approved part of The Orthodox Missal. Nor do we employ the 1962 Missal (the standard for indult Masses), nor is our Gregorian Mass an unedited version of any Roman Catholic missal. Apples-and-oranges.

Quote

There is no difference between the WRO and the ECs they are both using Liturgies that are normally associated with the "opposite" governing Ecclesial body. WRO with Rome and EC with Constantinople, Antioch, etc...

See above.

Quote

Actually, based on the argument of government pressure, the Ukrainian Catholic Church was forced to join the ROC in 1946 due to strong military pressure from the USSR.

Unless they were forced to become {b]Western Rite, it is immaterial to this thread.

Indeed. A history professor (taking aim at the term "Greek Orthodox") once said historically no Christian called himself "Greek," because the term "Greek" was synonymous with paganism. The term "Roman" designated Christian; even under the Turks the Orthodox were the "Rum Millet" (Roman Nation). When asked about the term "Greek Catholic," he laughed wryly and said, "Those are the pagan Catholics." ;)their

If you click on the tab "vagantes" on my blog, you'll see a vast array of their perfidy, including drug use, embezzlement, and molestation. The groups first caught my attention, as many falsely claim they are "Orthodox," thus giving us a bad name.

I knew he was Ukrainian; I had no idea he was also of Jewish background! Very interesting.

The temperature does seem to be elevated in some portions of this forum, certainly well above 98.6 degrees Farenheit.

I should note this is an American (and Canadian) expression meaning "few." I'm sure AMM meant no harm. As there seem to be no substantive answers to my post, perhaps we should all pack it in on good terms?

----------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

I fear that, alas, our Western Orthodox brother is taking an Alice-in-Wonderland view of the use of language: that a word means whatever he wants it to mean. That, of course, renders a rational conversation impossible. When asked for a definition of "Uniatism" he answers:


Interesting. In that case, why is the term often applied to such Churches as the Chaldean Catholics, the Coptic Catholis, the Armenian Catholics and all the other Eastern Catholic Churches which do not use the Byzantine Liturgy?


One does assume that to be the case. However, our brother should note that one may not define anything by using the same words over again in one's definition (it is, for example, unacceptable to define "bookstore" as "a store that sells books". In any case, I don't remember asking for a definition of Western Rite Orthodoxy. But here's an example:

Western Rite Orthodoxy: a movement of Christians beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century, seeking canonical communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Moscow, or another of the historic Patriarchates in full communion with the two Patriarchates just mentioned, with the specific condition of retaining the use of liturgical texts and forms now or previously used by Anglicans and/or Roman Catholics - or, in the specific case of the ECOF, liturgical forms and texts elaborated from Gallican liturgical texts which otherwise passed out of use several centuries ago. At present one can find such communities in the USA, Canada, France, Australia and certain other countries. Noteworthy leaders of the past were J. J. Overbeck, Louis-Charles Winnaert, Alexis van der Mensbrugghe, Alexander Tyler Turner, Jean (Evgraph Kovalevsky), and others.

That, dear brother, is how it is done.

Our brother then asserts, gratuitously:


But that is not the question, and cannot be, if only because there are several Greek-Catholic Churches, each of which has her own formation, history, praxis, and claims. I might be inclined to formulate the question in this way:

"The term 'Uniate' is felt to be pejorative, especially by those to whom others apply it, and thus it is better left out of peaceable discourse. However, when pressed, Eastern Orthodox spokesmen are lilkely to assert that this term refers to the use by the adherents of one Church of liturgical texts and forms, vestments, and similar characteristics which are felt to be the �ntellectual or spiritul property of another Church. If one admits that in the first place, would this unfortunate term not apply to several phenomena in the religious world besides the phenomenon of Eastern Catholicism?"

I can easily cite Orthodox statements supporting the tentative definition which that statement of the question implies - even though, as I have said repeatedly, there is no full Orthodox consensus on the meaning of the word itself, which is also a good reason to avoid its use.

Our brother then suggests that I have some obligation to "disprove" that:


Since with the unique exception of France, I have never asserted that the governments (note the plural) of the countries involved asserted positive pressure (note that our brother appears to concede the existence of negative pressure, which is not insignificant), I see no reason to require me to disprove this.


Again, I have not claimed that the Western Rite Orthodox have made no changes at all in the services they have appropriated - I do know how to read, and a copy of the Orthodox Missal is right in front of me on my desk. Why should I support a claim that I have never asserted?


I have never criticized any expression by which Western Rite Orthodox choose to call themselves. They may call themselves what they please, within some semblance of reason (if they called themselves Shintoists in communion with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church that would have no semblance of reason - but the Western Rite Orthodox have not used and do not use any such expression to identify themselves!). Greek-Catholics may also call themselves what they please, within some semblance of reason. To quote Father Cyril Korolevsky, writing in 1927: "There is even nothing wrong with calling ourselves 'Orthodox Catholics', for Orthodox we are and we are Catholics likewise". Similarly, Patriarch Joseph (Cardinal Slipyj) of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics wrote in 1967: "Ecclesiastically united in Christ, under the visible Head, the Pope of Rome, thus Orthodox we are and Orthodox we shall remain." (my translation from the original Ukrainian).

However, I may be permitted to note that the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh and the USA does not use the term "Orthodox". Does our brother conclude from this that the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh and the USA is therefore not 'Uniate'?

Our brother rhetorically asks me if


On the matter of vernacular celebrations, I refer our brother to Father Cyril Korolevsky's excellent book Living Languages in Catholic Worship. Our Western Orthodox brother does not use the Filioque, and neither do I, nor does my parish, nor do lots of other Greek-Catholic parishes in the English-speaking world, and we would be more than happy to see it consigned to the dustbin of history - but I have the impression that if the entire Catholic Church stopped using the the Filioque as of this afternoon, our Western Rite Orthodox brother would be annoyed, rather than pleased.

A descending Epiclesis in the Roman Canon? Excuse me? The Roman Canon is one of the very oldest Anaphoras (Eucharist Prayers) in Christendom. St. Nicholas Cabasilas had no trouble pointing out that the prayer Supplices te rogamus has the same ultimate effect as the Byzantine Epiclesis. So why patch in a descending Epiclesis?

The Byzantine Pre-Communion prayer? Yes, I do realize that it's in the Orthodox Missal because the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch likes it. I like it myself - but its intrusion into the Roman Mass is just the sort of thing - just the sort of 'Uniatism', if one must use that word - to which the Greek-Catholics object. A liturgical tradition has its own integrity, and the intrusion of the descending Epiclesis and the Byzantine Pre-Communion Prayer (as an obligatory element - if people wish to use it for their private devotion, there is no reason to interfere) violates the integrity of the Roman Mass to no good purpose. That sort of intrusion does not warrant a horse laugh; it warrants grief - and a sense of "deja vu all over again". Greek-Catholics and other Eastern Catholics know only too well where this sort of thing leads.

Then our brother asserts that:


The Old Ritualists will take strenous issue with you. I have in front of me the book Order for the Reception of Those Coming from Heresy and Order of Holy Baptism (in Church-Slavonic) published by the Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Church sometime in the late nineteen-nineties, approved by Metropolitan Alympyj of Moscow and all Rus. On page 3 recto one reads that "in Russia after 1800 there has been a 'Edinoverie' church, set up in imitation of the Roman Unia in Poland . . .".

My digression into "receptionism" was accurate - which is why the Orthodox Missal has been corrected (leaving white spots on the page, which seems delightful - there's an expression for that in Russian). Evidently I was not the first to spot the problem (in fact I didn't spot it; Metropolitan Kallistos brought it to my attention).

Our Western Rite Orthodox brother finishes up with a quote from:


Since I've never heard of Mr. Akin previously, I have nothing against him but I am unable to recognize him as being my apologist for Roman Catholicism or anything else. But the techniques described in what appears to be a quote from Mr. Akin are well used by our Western Rite Orthodox brother.

Once again, I am not an opponent of the idea of Western Rite Orthodoxy. I have recommended and I continue to recommend the lovely Liturgy and the magnificent music associated with the Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe de France. The Roman Mass and the Book of Common Prayer are obviously not my preference, but de gustibus non est disputandum. I cannot grasp why our Western Rite Orthodox brother feels that I am somehow trying to undercut his position and/or attack him personally. In any event, that is his problem, not mine.

Fr. Serge

Yes, I meant the odd person here and there, as in there would be just a few. Not that the person himself is odd. I am rather odd myself in my own estimation if that helps...

I'll give your blog a read through btw WO. Personally I believe support and maintenance of the Western Rite (even if just a small movement) is critical to maintain the catholicity of the church. Some day I might even make it to a WO service.

Dear Andrew,

Pardon me as I say, without reference to anything else in this thread!, that I think you are odd too...but in a very nice way. Apparently we don't agree on everything but I do understand why you think the way you do about some things and because you are odd, and I appreciate the oddities, it makes it difficult for me to disagree with you.

Now back to our regular programming.

Mary

It is truly unfortunate that in a thread on Western Rite Orthodoxy we are in a debate on uniatism when there are so many other issues and questions, liturgical and devotional on my part, that could be discussed on this matter.

The focus on "uniatism" as a definition and as an historical phenomenon (which is usually discussed without an agreed upon definition - always a problematic thing) has led us to shift gears, so to speak, here and there.

When I suggested that the forcible union of Greek-Catholics in Eastern Europe with the ROC is a form of "uniatism" where political force is used to achieve ecclesial unity, I am told that unless the Greek-Catholics wished to become Western Rite, that point was irrelevant to this discussion.

And I beg to differ. When we talk about "uniatism," we are talking about it as a phenomenon in either the Eastern or Western Churches. The fact is that the Western Orthodox Blog itself makes a point of comparing the Western Orthodox to Eastern Catholics to suggest the WO are not "uniates." So, given the rejoinder above, are we to believe that unless the EC's have become totally Western Rite Catholic, the point is not germane to this discussion? Of course not!

In fact, besides the EC's in Eastern Europe (including other historical instances of unions of "uniates" with the ROC in pre-Soviet times) and the Edinoverie (and the "Uniate Believers" as they called themselves "Uniate" or "United" (Uniti) which comes to the same thing) were actually quite antagonistic to other Old Rite Orthodox as "schismatics" etc. - just like EC's toward Orthodox in history, besides these there are other examples of Eastern Churches being united with Orthodoxy that lost their specific ecclesial culture and became Byzantinized wholesale - these include the Assyrians, the Armenians who accepted Chalcedon (St Paissy Velichkovsky numbered Armenian Chalcedonians among his followers) and the Georgian Church, formerly Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox, that lost all of its Oriental Orthodox heritage save for its Miaphysite saints like ST David of Garesja and others.

In fact, if we are comparing Uniates, Catholic and Orthodox, Catholic Uniates became Latinized NOT because Rome imposed it (a frequent error of judgement on the part of Orthodox seeking to understand Catholic "Uniatism") but because their own local bishops and even the people themselves became Latinized.

And with respect to Latinization, it is also a myth that if the "Uniates" had remained Orthodox, they would not have been Latinized - that Latinization resulted because of their union with Rome.

NONSENSE!

The Orthodox Church of the 17th and 18th centuries was heavily Latinized. When Orthodox seminarians were sent to Paris to study the "methods of the RC enemy," they came back as members of Immaculate Conception Brotherhoods (especially popular in Orthodox Kyiv), with rosaries, Little Offices etc. etc.!

In that case, a "Uniate mentality" pervaded the Orthodox Church in E. Europe to the point where Orthodox historians classify that period of Orthodox history as "Baroque" replete with a scholastic approach to Orthodox theology.

I also see the "Uniate mentality" in Western Orthodox parishes that encouraged later Western devotions such as Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the like (unless one can determine that such Adoration existed prior to the Schism . . . anyone?).

NOT that there's anything WRONG with that!!

So I feel torn here. On the one hand, I find the Western Rite Orthodox movement to be fascinating both from the standpoint of my own as yet unresolved issues with Latin practices that are still and always will be part of my spiritual makeup AND with respect to the wider implications for Anglican and other post-Schism churches that see in Western Orthodoxy (or Eastern Orthodoxy) something to be grasped at . . .

I wish the whole discussion left aside the contentious issue of uniatism (which is an expression of one upsmanship) and focused on the mission of Western Rite Orthodoxy in the West, how more or less successful its prospects are for reaching a Western audience starved for what it stands for than Eastern Orthodoxy etc.

I've said my peace and I will begin a new thread on this topic, with everyone's blessing (or not . . .).

Alex

There actually is no question there. I am aware of the history of both groups now. At the time I was aware the OCF was isolated, but, to be honest, I don't recall if I was aware of the exact nature of the shady past of the Milan group. I knew also they were isolated as "Old Calendarists". It wasn't until years later I came to find out that they weren't your average "OCs" but rather vagantes.



And yet it was at one point canonical and under the protection of canonical orthodoxy. Was it actually Orthodox at one point? Could it be again? I have read in passing they are in discussion with the Serbian Church. Of course I have read for years that the PNCC has been in discussions with the OCA and/or other Orthodox... Discussion can sometimes be just that - talking.

In all fairness perhaps you misunderstood the question I did ask. Perhaps you were of the thinking that when it came to WRO the choice was between the no-longer-canonical OCF or the never-canonical Milanese. In fact what I was asking was out of ANY conceptualization of a genuinely Orthodox and genuinely western ritual which is right and who could decide?



But a question I still have an interest in hearing you respond to is this:



As to the idea of the duplicitousness of us Eastern Uniate in fooling the unlearned into our churches in days of yore, do you feel that we are still doing so today?

A minority of the Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe de France managed to remain with the Patriarchate of Romania. They are allowed to have their Gallican Liturgy five times a year.

Fr. Serge

Dear Alex,

The Blessing of the Lord!

May I suggest a new thread on Western Rite Orthodoxy, with a strict ban on the term "Unia" and all of its derivatives?

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father Archimandrite!

You are right! "United we stand!"

Alex

Or, as one says in Latin, "divide et impera!"

Fr. Serge