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

If you think the EC opinions are "low", I would suggest looking at some opinions from very noted Orthodox theologians themselves (such as Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory) who have a "low opinion" of the Western Rite and who acknowledge inevitable comparisons with other efforts at "uniatism".

Most of what I see in this thread is more in the realm of objective fact, such as that the "Western Rite" itself was created only in the 20th century specifically to foster a unia of Western Christians into Eastern Orthodoxy using a fabricated liturgical form to do so.

I'm not going to object at the moment, but I reserve the right to do so later, after having time to better wrap my mind around your claims. But I'll give you my thoughts about:


For what it's worth, what I think about it is: it's a nice ideal, but quite lacking in pastoral sensitivity.

Even the statement "You must give up several elements in your liturgy, which you adapted from the Latin Church, because they don't really belong in the Byzantine rite" is difficult for many ECs to hear. But to tell them (once full communion is established) "You must return to the church that your ancestors left a few centuries ago, now that it is in full communion with Rome"? Not very realistic.

Just as it would not be pastoral or realistic to disallow some people to use western forms of worship if they so desire.

The Melkites have accepted it and made it part of their official policy. The Ukrainians would do it in a second if (a) they did not have to be part of the Church of Moscow; and (b) could retain their communion with the Church of Rome. Their objective is a single, undivided Kyivan Church. I believe even the Ruthenians wouldn't mind combining with ACROD, now that most of the people who remember the lawsuits are asleep in the Lord--especially if it meant ditching the Revised Divine Liturgy.

Bishop John Michael of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church puts it this way: the Greek Catholics have a vocation to disappear.

May the day come that His Grace's words come true!

To be fair, I don't believe anyone wants to "disallow some people to use western forms of worship". We all agree that ECs can "go Latin" if they wish to. It's rather a question of using a "hybrid" liturgy or not.

I assume you're referring to:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f...n/1492225/posts

and the like? If so, then I once again have to say that you are greatly oversimplifying. He never says anything about "going home to our Mother Churches".

I'd suggest a better description would be "an equal merging of two sister churches".

A merger of the big and the small is never a merger of equals--though the divisions in the Orthodox camp have led to proposals that the Patriarch of the UGCC would become the Patriarch of the Kyivan Church. The Melkite bishops have already agreed in writing that, in the event communion is reestablished, they would step aside in favor of their Orthodox counterparts wherever overlapping jurisdictions exist. Bishop John Michael has made the statement I quoted on many occasions, in my presence.

That sounds to me like something I should be citing in support of my objection! However, I'd better first ask: proposals by whom?

Better not to name names. Let us just say that the idea was broached by serious Orthodox churchmen, and leave it at that.

Are you talking about the earlier or later opinions of Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory, as despite his earlier criticism he later had a part of getting the WRO organized in the US.

http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/wrv_history.pdf

As for the WRO being "a creation of the 20th century," no, not a fact, objectively or otherwise.

I forgot to add: what do you mean by "a fabricated liturgical form," as the form the WRO use was "fabricated" by the Christian West. The changes the Orthodox have made to conform it to Orthodoxy (and not "Byzantineness") are no more than what the Anglicans did to their mass to make it Protestant, nor any more than the Vatican has changed the Divine Liturgy of Orthodox Rome to incorporate/reflect the development of its dogma post-Orthodoxy.

So, what you are saying is that instead of the Vatican having four patriarchs of Antioch, for instance, it will have six when all us Orthodox (EO and OO) submit to the "font of unity" of the supreme pontiff.

I humbly disagree with this, for they (the Orthodox) made it conform with Byzantine Orthodoxy not simply Orthodoxy. The Western Liturgy never had an epiclesis (I could be wrong but I am pretty sure it didn't) before and after the schism. And their are other examples of this, not just the addition of the epiclesis.

Roman Orthodoxy, as you call it Orthodox Rome, was still different from Byzantine Orthodoxy before the schism of 1054. To say it wasn't is historically false.

I agree.