www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West ROCOR Western Rite

Can one really call western rite Orthodoxy a form of uniatism? It advances one parish at a time, whereas Catholic uniatism was a result of a treaty and whole block of churches in the Ukraine and elsewhere moving from Orthodoxy to the RCC. If indeed one can call western rite Orthodoxy uniatism, it is on far smaller scale than Roman uniatism is. What are the total number of western rite Orthodox communicants world wide? How does the number compare with the total number of Uniate Catholic communicants?

It's pretty well known that many Greek Catholic parishes lacked Iconostases (and still do in Canada), and that was almost 30 years ago.. I am willing to bet they have since installed one

Would you consider Bulgarian Catholics, Greek (from Greece) Catholics, Albanian Byzantine Catholics, and Russian Catholics uniates? They all came into being similar manner as Western Rite Orthodox

A few corrections, there is no UGCC parish in Erie nor do I know of one ever existing.

There are two Ruthenian parishes in Erie County [eriecountybyzantines.org]. Both went through a great revival under the former pastor Fr. Andrew Deskevich.

Ss Peter and Paul in Erie has renovated the interior, installing a new Icon Screen, Holy Table, Icons throughout, Chandelier, etc... There are some pictures that I posted a while back during the Consecration of the Holy Table by Metropolitan Basil, of Blessed Memory. Ss Cyril and Methodius in Girard had the icons finished on the walls and ceiling of the Church during Fr. Andrew's tenure.

You can see more pictures on the website that I linked above.

Ed, a former parishioner

First of all, the formal establishment of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was not solely "the result of a treaty" (see Fr. Borys Gudziak, Crisis and Reform among other reputable sources). As one example among many, several centuries earlier Prince Danylo had been crowned by a Papal legate (13th century), so it is fatuous to contend the UGCC sprang from one day and one signature in 1596.

Regardless of scale of parishes, the hybridizations that have been observed and mentioned in this thread do indeed implicate the Western Rite as uniatistic. Fr. Alexander Schmemann himself was not favorable to the WR for this reason, and felt the existing Eastern traditions to be adequate for the evangelizing of Western lands.

The "Western Rite" as it currently exists is not the end result of a fluid "pre-Schism" Western liturgical development, and did not exist before the 20th century. It is a uniatistic construct from the early 20th century by a group of disaffected Anglicans who petitioned to Bishop St. Tikhon, maintaining the opinion that indeed this new liturgy would be the liturgical means of conversion of many to Orthodoxy through this uniatistic Western liturgy. This liturgical construct was, in turn, created from the "Anglican Missal" which was itself a purged revision of the Book of Common Prayer as well as some inserted material from the Latin Missal.

The parallels between the Western Rite and Eastern Catholic Churches in regard to uniatism is not limited to Eastern Catholic observers; several Orthodox clergy (even within jurisdictions that have "Western Rite" parishes) have made similar observations. For example Fr. Michael Johnson, formerly of the OCA, now the GOA, himself a convert, goes so far as to say the Western Rite is divisive by its very nature for Orthodoxy.

To quote Protopresbyter Alexander of blessed memory:

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

I really can't say anything one way or another about the fact that westerners join their forms of worship to an Eastern bishop or synod, or whether easterners join their forms of worship to a Western bishop. The people on the opposite side always seem to want to raise a fuss.

For the record, I wish people could just be met where they are and served in a manner that reflects their own spiritual needs, whether it happens that they are part of a phenomenon that began centuries ago or whether it is recent. I deal every day with people who have been hurt by the Church--whether it is because of the back and forth that raises so much anger between our Eastern and Western Churches or because they have been bulldozed by clergy or for so many other reasons.

Many years ago, I helped my employer at six funerals where elderly people had stopped going to church and practicing their faith because clergy told them they were just ignorant of what it was all about anyway and that they weern't going to Heaven. The families related the anguish these people had felt and the extreme hurt that they had felt. And I wondered about that Gospel passage that says if we hurt one of these "little ones" what we ought to do to ourselves instead. The feeling of being absolutely abandoned after practicing the Faith leaves a big hole in one's life. And as St. Peter observed, "Where are we to go?" in such a situation.

I'm no fan of mixing rituals and coming up with all sorts of spiritual and liturgical hybrids, but if a canonical bishop and his synod accept a group into its spiritual care, why should we be upset? Or if a group ends up with Rome for some reason of history, why should we be upset? Surely in each case, there is guidance and oversight to prevent meltdowns into craziness.

Look back at the thread I closed about the sad history of the movement of borders in Eastern Europe and a bishop there. We Christians seem to delight in destroying each other. And yet the real "action" is in front of us each day that the DL is served in our parishes. When each of us goes eyeball to eyeball with Jesus Christ in receiving Him, do we get all focused on who our bishop is or who ultimately in in charge in the Church? Well, I don't. When I come that close to Divinity, all I see is how small and insignificant I am and what a profound Gift He is. I'm lost in trying to wrap my feeble brain around it and being thankful He thinks anything about me at all. I'm lost in a crowd of people far more worthy than I, too.

So let's be thankful that people can find a spiritual home. And let's pray that they find Christ and experience His Peace from above. And let's be thankful people aren't snared in all the nutty variations out there that aren't canonical or New Age or a mixture of pagan and Christian.

And let's be thankful that the Holy Spirit is still working in all the mess we've been able to make of Christ's message.

Maybe He can explain it all to me some day--probably take eternity to do that.

Bob

Well said, my brother.

Many years,

Neil

I appreciate the response from Theophan. I do hope one is not "upset" at those who continue, as archaic as it may sound, to believe in the transfigurative power of the Holy Spirit working through the received organic traditions of Apostolic origin, and who might be just a bit wary of syncretism. Anyone who lived through the Latin church of the 1970s perhaps may understand this wariness from a Western perspective, and likewise there are those such as the famous Fr. Alexander Schmemann quoted here as well as several other Orthodox clergy who have well elucidated concerns from their own Orthodox perspective. I can't really see all of this as reduced to "fuss". Likewise the I trust that summarizing the invention of a rite and including these opinions of learned clergy does not constitute a "fuss".

DIAK:

Christ is Born!!

Please understand that I'm no fan of syncretism either. I was just trying to fend off any potential polemical development that might have arisen from this thread. Seems of late that everyone is geared up to draw out the knives at any real or perceived expression or question that goes against his grain.

I honestly don't know what to do with people who we find in these situations: half in one camp and half in another. So it's for wiser heads than mine to sort it out.

Sadly the separations in Eastern Europe have generated much more anger and vitriol than those elsewhere. The Middle Eastern Christians seem to be able to accommodate by serving each other's members when people find themselves outside the reach of their own pastors. But the threads opened here about events, people, shifting borders, and politics wrapped around believers and the Faith have shown that this is like walking into a room full of gunpowder carrying a torch.

And I guess from my experience dealing with people when there are deaths has changed my perspective. There are so many who have walked away from all of our Churches and groups.

Bob

Litvin noted, "Would you consider Bulgarian Catholics, Greek (from Greece) Catholics, Albanian Byzantine Catholics, and Russian Catholics uniates? They all came into being similar manner as Western Rite Orthodox?'

Words change their meanings over the years; Uniate is a case in point. Many, at least on my side of the street consider it to be a good label for all parts of the ECC. As a member of the EOC, I have no problem with the usage, although many members of the ECC do.


The survey: https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...202010%20Lay%20Orthodox%20Sur#Post354556
i suggest you review the survey posted here about Orthodox attitudes toward reunion with the RCC. Many members of the EOC would only consider it on Orthodox terms. Following the line of thinking, i suspect they would argue this is an NOT an act of uniatism, but recreating the Western Orthodox Church that existed before the schism. I do not intend to be offensive, but many members of the EOC, just look at the survey, feel this way. in fact the survey was of educated Orthodox (lawyers, doctors, educators, and the like).

Yet, in the end, the whole of Orthodox opinion of efforts to seek union is united on only ONE topic - the role of the Patriarch of Rome in a future united Church. The Orthodox have never, and will never, accept any post-schism formulation of the role and function of the papacy that claims any universal jurisdiction over the Churches of the East. Papal supremacy was, and remains the problem to us.

Therein lies the difficulty in formulating a 'recreation of the Orthodox Church' in the West as it existed pre-schism. Frankly, we Orthodox have to realize that is as impossible of a demand as would be one to 'recreate Orthodoxy of the East' as it existed then. There are no Orthodox empires, kings or emperors today. The liturgical use of today has evolved from that era. It is the essence of the Faith that has been preserved and the papacy can not escape how it is viewed in terms of that Essence.

As to the Western Rite and its relation to Uniatism - I suspect that those of us who are the products of Papal Uniatism, whether we be Catholic or Orthodox, have a different perspective and opinion on Western Rite Orthodoxy and the role it might play and they way it is looked upon by Eastern Orthodox, than do the Orthodox whose history never dealt with all of the aspects of the Unia.

DMD, I have no quarrel with what you say. I would point out that the views and structure of the RCC like that of the EOC are a products of historical events. The stereotype (there would not be stereotypes if they did not have some basis in fact) of Rome being hung up on legalism is a direct result of the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476; the Latin Church took over the many of the duties that were formally those of the Western empire. Some one had to do the job. Both churches have to live with their legacies even if they are a burden. The other side has to realize this.


Let me raise an issue that will offend a number of people here. Perhaps disunity of the the various sects that make up Christianity (RCC, EOC, Mormon) should be accepted as the norm! Before Constantine I there were myriad of sects that claimed to be Christian. Unity only occurred when the emperor dragged the various sects to Nicaea and imposed unity of belief on them (the church calls it the inspiration of the Hagion Pnevma!). Remember 250 bishops (yes I know tradition says 318) in a Hall where the emperor is on this throne and Soldiers on both sides of the room in full battle regalia; that can really make an impression. The emperor also knocked heads. Unity was, at least from the historical perspective, imposed on squabbling sects (Arian, Orthodox, etc.). I should note that the moment Constantius II, with his Arian leanings, ascended the throne, unity went to hell.


Sorry for wandering off the topic. DMD your comments on on the mark! In a word, unity may not be possible and is that really a bad thing if one takes the long view back to 33AD? Several years ago Theophane, one of the moderator's here, posted a description of what a united church would be like if reunion were ever to occur. I was not able to find the post or I would post the link here.

I would posit, to add to the words of Protopresbyter Alexander of blessed memory, that in the case of "Western Rite Orthodoxy" a new level of uniatistism is created. This is the wholesale development of a new liturgical corpus specifically for uniatistic purposes. This is a departure from (such as the case of the UGCC) the historical switching of a jurisdiction from Orthodox to Catholic for whatever purposes and continuing to celebrate that venerable received tradition.

johnzonaras:

Christ is in our midst!!

I couldn't find it either. Our search software still leaves a lot to be desired. My take-off was based on a linked article by Fr. Robert Taft which essentially said that the best we could hope for is "communion" and then he went on to describe the loose sort of thing that would be. Essentially it amounted to a modus vivendi wherein we would have to trust each other to express and to live out the Faith we hold in common, not mixing our traditions but allowing them to live side-by-side.

I proposed that it might look like a synod of local bishops in a local area who would shepherd their own ritual flocks but would have to collaborate on a continuing basis on administration issues. The discussion also linked to a situation in San Francisco where men in drag were publicly receiving Holy Communion from the bishop there and the shock that this brought out of our Orthodox members. I suggested that rather than Rome having a say in that bishop remaining on the job it might be a situation where the man's brother bishops of the Eastern Churches would be able to step in and say "enough is enough." They would remove him in a synod action and supervise an election by the local diocesan clergy of a new bishop. The local synod of bishops would also be part of a provincial or state synod with a metropolitan at the head who would be the presider for meetings and the contact with the national body. This would be a model more in tune with the Orthodox model but would allow for things like the clergy crisis to be dealt with at the local level and much more quickly than currently--where Rome must give the final approval for a priest being defrocked for accusations found to be true.

I don't know if my post can be found by using the search word "communion" but "unity" and "union" didn't turn it up, even when I searched my own threads and responses.

Bob

Diak, in the eyes of some members of the EOC, uniatistim only occurs when the RCC grabs some churches that form part of the EOC. These same folk may well feel they are are reviving a rite in the EOC that has not existed since 1054 when the west decided to follow her own, new path that was separate from the mother church. In other words, uniatism is a one way street. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored!

Bob, you have pretty much outlined what i remember was in your posting!!!!