www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Western rite Orthodoxy problematic?

Agreed. It does not resemble the organic movements that arose in Ukraine, the Carpathians, Transylvania or the Middle East, but rather those later, more artificial entities that were created by various Latin religious orders in the absence of any indigenous clamor for communion with Rome. It's noteworthy that the latter have never managed to become large and established Churches, but remain fringe movements within the lands they were meant to convert.

I would say the situation is rather different, in that the Anglican Church is an offshoot of the Latin Church, so that the provision of special ordinariates represents a pastoral provision to smooth the reintegration of members of what is technically a schismatic sect.

On the other hand, the Orthodox Churches were never "under" or part of the Church of Rome, so the artificial uniate movements were something quite different. The WRV might today appeal mainly to High Church Anglicans and Tridentine Catholics, but at the time of its creation in the early 20th century, it was in fact an Orthodox attempt at uniatism--winning over individuals from one Church to another by offering a ritual alternative.

A few thoughts:

I liked Diak's "Uniastic", and maybe there should be an annual most "Uniastic" award given on the board for the best and most creative mixing of church rites.

My question "what is western theology" is somewhat rhetorical. Is that North Africa in the 4th century? France in the 13th? Sweden in the 18th? All of the above? Are the terms "Eastern" and "Western" even meaningful if we're talking about one gospel?

I personally don't have a problem with the WRO or ECC. People have a right to exist and worship as they see fit. It seems to me there are significant portions of both movements (including what happened in Eastern Europe IMO), that are not particularly "organic". I care more about the reality today though. The past can't be changed, though we can dwell in it forever.

Who said we have low opinions of each other? We do have some pointed views about the manner in which our particular Churches emerged, and both are tainted with the stain of the original sin of schism. That doesn't make individual Western Orthodox or Eastern Catholics good or bad people, does not make them responsible for the situation of their Churches. But unless we recognize that situation for what it is, we won't be able to heal the wounds that divide us.

Read all five volumes of Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition, and find out. Or wait for the movie version.

Actually, right after I posted that, it occurred to me that I might need to clarify it, to refer to a low opinion of Western Orthodoxy rather than a low opinion of Western Orthodox.

I guess the big question, to me, is: What if the Orthodox created a WR (particular) church? Would that do away with some of your objections?

I have, and thus I ask. What is it?

While waiting to see if anyone wants to respond to my last question, I thought I would mention this blog entry I came across. An interesting passage from Bp. Charles C. Grafton, described as "a lifelong Anglo-Catholic", along with a little commentary by Ben Johnson.

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/03/bp-grafton-on-orthodox-anglican.html

As I know, most western orthodoxy consists most of them of community from Episcopal tradition.
By western theology, perhaps we can safely say theological school that develops in western churches, not only of one era.
For instance, the question of evil (and from there the idea of original sin), develops differently in east and west.
Local councils and canons and theological expositions which develops in the west and accepted by the Episcopal groups that makes up western orthodoxy.


Are there impulses which persuade them to to discard them and become Byzantine with Latin/Anglican vestments?
Or do they have every right to maintain their theological school, scholastic approach, Episcopal/Anglican views for instance.

I really want to understand, how the Orthodox approach these issues of western orthodoxy.
Is it in the end, the same bad approaches and mistakes that Rome took and repudiated so hotly by the Orthodox?
Is it the better way for us to learn as a model?

No. The eventual objective is the disappearance of the Eastern Catholic Churches once it becomes redundant to say "Orthodox in communion with Rome". We go home to our Mother Churches. We heal the schism that was incited to heal the schism. Having the Orthodox follow the Catholic error makes no sense at all.

I have, and thus I ask. What is it?

Just as there is a spectrum of Eastern theologies, there is a spectrum of Western theologies, so what follows is a gross oversimplification.

1. Western theology is highly Christocentric.
2. Western theology tends to be cataphatic rather than apophatic
3. Western theology prefers the concrete to the mystical
4. Western theology is analytical rather than reflective
5. Western theology has evolved into an academic discipline fragmented into numerous specialties--systematic theology, moral theology, sacramental theology, etc.
6. Western theology proceeds independently of Western liturgy

Each one of these characteristics has its exceptions, and each can be decomposed further, but as a one-over-the-universe description, I think it is accurate.

(emphasis added)

Wait, what happened to the Stuart who was criticizing Western Rite Orthodoxy for not having "an independent Church, but a ritual adjunct of an Orthodox jurisdiction"?

I'm saying it doesn't matter. Rome only elevated us to independent Churches to facilitate our eventual reintegration into the Orthodox Churches. In other words, being raised from rites to Churches was the first step in a process of correcting the original sin of uniatism.

You know what they say about good intentions!

Glory to Jesus Christ!


Stuart,

I'm still a bit naive of the history of the ECC and the RCC. But the ECC were not always viewed as independent churches but just rites of the RCC? When did Rome accept the status of the ECC as churches and not just rites? And what document officiates (is that even a word? lol) that change of status in Rome's eyes?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel