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

What is wrong with wanting to be Orthodox but wanting to celebrate another liturgy besides St John or St Basil? The type of liturgy does not determine if you are orthodox.

No, that's not it ... well, okay, I guess that is one thing you would say; but I doubt it would be the only thing, in view of the way you're always using ECism to leverage your complaints against Catholicism.

Sorry, I've been forgetting my manners.

Thank you, but no.

If I were Orthodox, I wouldn't leave Orthodoxy, but neither do I have any intention to join it.

Same would be true with those living in portions of Ukraine, too. Not to mention that a good number want to be Catholic, but still worship on the Julian Calendar.

So are you saying there is something wrong with the Catholic Church? If the church is two lungs and all, then whats the point of being Orthodox? If the sacraments are valid, and recognized by the Orthodox, then whats the point?

There has been thousands of hours spent arguing "liturgical archeology," trying to convince people that the western rite is using the authentic liturgy of the west. As if Rome got it wrong?

What happened in ROCOR with the western rite has little to do with a "western rite." It has everything to do with the discernment of certain bishops and their appointment of clergy from vagante groups without proper discernment. Appointments such as Nathan Monk who renounced his ordination because the church does not support gay marriage, is just the beginning of the problems with these groups.

ROCOR has always had a problem with these types of things. Remember Blanco?

^I have to agree with you here.

No, I'm not saying there is something wrong with the Catholic Church. As I said in response to Isa's invitation: if I were Orthodox, I wouldn't leave Orthodoxy, but neither do I have any intention to join it.

I'm saying that Western-Rite Orthodox are Orthodox.

As for "what's the point of being Orthodox?" I don't think it's my place to answer that; but I would ask, do you mean to imply that there's no point to being Orthodox?

No, I am implying that several Orthodox Christians will state that the Catholic Church has fully valid mysteries and are simply separated brothers.

With that being said, the only difference would be form of worship. So, whats the point of a western rite? I have even read some very detailed revisions of history from western rite churches pointing out that the differences are simply personality, or a centuries old miss-reading of text. Does it all boil down to married clergy? Is it some grand scheme to poke Rome in the eye over the unia? You tell me. Years and years of discussion on this very forum with posters pointing out that the differences between east and west are simply minutia. whats the point then? Numbers?

Rocor western rite was a much different animal than some Episcopal parish brought into Antioch. Several of these "groups," were vegante at best. And the others were nothing more than a small family. And no they were not Orthodox. Not in theology, not in worship, not in "lifestyle."

As for your last question, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I don't believe there is any point in being western rite. And as for my stance on Orthodoxy, well I am one of those crazy traditionalist.

I would count myself a traditionalist, although, given the varying definitions, I'm not sure that says anything.

There is a point to the WRO. Having had the experience of being Lutheran in the (Middle) East, that point was brought home very early to me.

Btw, the Lutherans have their own Eastern rite:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/saintsophiaseminary/liturgy.html

I've read a lot from the WRO, and I never recall it ever being presented as a question of "simply personality, or a centuries old miss-reading of text" or "married clergy." No defense of the filioque, for instance, but rather an Orthodox denunciation. Closest thing I've come across that meets your description is a defense of the cult of the sacred heart, but that even has been rare, or, more Orthodox, images including statues, like Our Lady of Walsingham.

I would say, more than several.

I know that experiences differ from place to place but here are some things I have ran into.


"The form of worship is unapologetically Western while maintaining the richness of our Eastern Spirituality delivered once to the saints. When the Roman Church separated from Orthodox unity in 1054 her Western Rite (style of Worship/ Liturgy) was perfectly “Orthodox.” She maintained this holy Apostolic Rite up until the mid 1960’s when their forms of worship were radically and tragically altered. In the 19th century, venerable saints such as Sts. John Maximovich (the Wonderworker) and Tikon restored the Western forms of worship to Orthodox Church."

http://www.saintbrigit.org/2.html
http://www.saintbrigit.org/3.html

"After a number of centuries, various differences in theology and practice arose between the Eastern and Western churches. This resulted in the initial split in 1054 and culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204. The Western church became known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern church continued on as the Orthodox Catholic Church."

http://www.stmichaeloc.org/

So from these two examples you get the feeling that it is theological differences that brought them to Orthodoxy. But the reality is much different, correct?

To add to the fray; On the issue of papal Catholic sacraments:From Orthodox Priest Alexander Lebedeff via Orthodox priest monk Ambrose Mooney of New Zealand:

Actually, not just the position of the Russian Orthodox Church during the
past 400 years, but the position of the whole Church up until Patriarch
Cyril and the Tomos of 1755.

I would suggest careful reading of the following.

The best Greek theologian and scholar to write on this issue, Fr. George Metallinos, in his book "I confess One Baptism" (available on-line) writes:

"According to the prevailing view, after the schism the Orthodox Church recognized ''the validity of the Latin sacraments,''[228] and indeed that of baptism. Upon their conversion, the Church applied Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council or XCV of Penthekte to them, or occasionally received them by a mere recantation of their foreign doctrines.[229] Even after the Crusades and the Council of Ferrara/Florence (1438-1439), when the relations between Orthodox and Latins became strained, and the stance of the Orthodox East in dealing with the Latins became more austere, [230] the East considered the application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council to be an adequate measure of defense, that is she received them by chrismation and a written statement. This action was officially ratified by the Local Council of Constantinople in 1484, with the participation, moreover, of all the Patriarchs of the East.

This Council also wrote an appropriate service.[231] Thus, according to I. Karmiris (and also according to the arguments of the Latinizers and pro-westerners during the Turkish rule), the cases of ''rebaptism'' were exceptions, owing ''to individual initiative,'' and ''not to an authoritative decision of the Church.''[232]

"This custom, however, was overturned in 1755 under Cyril V, Patriarch of Constantinople, by the imposing of the (re)baptism of Latins and all Western converts in general,[233] again through the application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council and the other relevant Canons of the Church. This action, to this day the last ''official'' decision of the Orthodox Church,[234] was opposed by those who disagreed. It was considered to have subverted the decision of the Council of 1484. because of its circumstantial character,[235] not having gained universal acceptance and application, it was often not adhered to. In addition, the practice of the Russian Church from 1667 differed from that of the other Orthodox Patriarchates, and indeed that of Constantinople.[236] This, then, is what is commonly accepted to this day concerning the issue in question."

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/B6.htm

Here we see that the prevailing view was that the Orthodox Church, since 1054, "accepted the validity of the Latin sacraments" and that even after the Council of Florence, when relations between the East and the West had totally deteriorated, the Council of Constantinople of 1484, at which all four Eastern Patriarchs participated, decreed that Latins should be accepted by Chrismation and a written statement, and, more importantly, this Council created a special service for the Reception of Converts according to the mandated form (Chrismation after giving a statement renouncing false teachings and professing the Orthodox faith).

Fr. Metallinos underscores that the Oros of 1755 under Cyril V
**overturned** this previously established custom.

It is critical to note that the Russian Church **NEVER** accepted the Oros
of 1755 as being binding for it, and continues to this day to consider as
prevailing the decision of the Council of Constantinople
in 1484, which directed that Latins NOT be baptized. This was confirmed at
the Council of the Russian Church in 1667--the last time that a Council of
the Russian Church addressed this issue.

In fact, it would have been impossible for a Council of the Russian Orthodox
Church to have accepted the Oros of 1755, since there WERE NO Councils of
the Russian Church held from 1690 until 1917!!!

The Russian Church Council in 1667, at which two Patriarchs of the East
participated, had previously sent queries to ALL of the ancient Patriarchs,
asking for their opinion on this question. The unanimous
reply of all four Patriarchs confirmed the position of the 1484 Council of
Constantinople--that Latins were not to be repabtized.

Fr. George Metallinos writes: "The Council of Moscow in 1620-21 decided to
baptize Western converts.[276] However, the ''great'' Council of Moscow in
1666-67, in which the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch also
participated, approved the decision of the 1484 Council of Constantinople,
and thus rejected the (re)baptism of Western converts."

We must remember tyhat Fr. George Metallinos' work is based on the positions
of the Kollyvades Fathers, especially Neophytos and C. Oikonomos. Still, he
admits:

"Nevertheless, the Council of Constantinople in 1484 creates the greatest
difficulties for an acceptance of our theologian's position on Latin
baptism. This Council decided ''only to anoint with chrism
the Latins who come over to Orthodoxy,.after they submit a written statement
of faith.'' In other words, it ranks them in the class of the Arians and
Macedonians of the Second Ecumenical Council (Canon
VII).[262]"

In a footnore, Metallinos quotes Bishop Kallistos Ware:

"Ware writes in this connection: ''Neither of these Councils [i.e.
Constantinople, 1484, and Moscow, 1667] was exposed to foreign pressure or
acted from fear of Papist reprisals"

So it is totally incorrect to attribute the position of the Russian Church
regarding accepting as valid the baptism of the Latins to Peter the Great or
to Western influence.

Actually, regarding Peter I, Metallinos quotes from a reply in 1718 of
Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias III to Czar Peter the Great, in which the
Patriarch directs the Czar to receive Latins ''by mere
chrismation,''

Metallinos is forced to admit that even the theologian he uses as the basis
for his thesis, C. Oikonomos, wrote the following:

"''I honor and respect the Russian Church as the undefiled bride of Christ
and inseparable from her Bridegroom, and in addition as my own benefactress,
by which the Lord has done and shall do many great and marvelous things, as
she unerringly and verily follows the rule of piety. Hence, I do not doubt
that it was in a spirit of discernment that she chose the older rule, in
accordance with which she accepts
the baptism of the other Churches [sic], merely chrismating those who join
when they renounce their patrimonial beliefs with a written statement and
confess those of the Orthodox faith.''[317]"

Here we have the clear statement of Metallinos chief theologian that the
Church of Russia chooses to follow what he calls "the **older rule**, in
accordance with which she accepts the baptism of other
Churches."

Now, please tell me how is the position stated by Archbishop Hilarion of
Volokolamsk any different from the position of the Russian Church has held
since 1667, which is based on the decision of the Council of the Four
Patriarchs of 1484?

With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

https://www.facebook.com/groups/323912757639023/permalink/625204300843199/

So what is the consensus? The western rite says Rome is wrong and the Orthodox says Rome is ok?

To clarify, I am usually considered a schismatic at best when it comes to my use of the word traditional. Even though our bishops trace their linage through ROCA and St. Philaret.

Blog post. [sergesblog.blogspot.com]

The real issue here seems to be that Bishop Jerome took a short cut to grow his vicariate: receiving and ordaining vagante ('independent Catholic') types quickly, without checking them out or teaching them. Nathan Monk was the last straw: a 28-year-old showoff priest wannabe who loudly quit everything after eight months. He was the bomb that blew up Western Rite ROCOR, even though he wasn't WR when he quit. He was one of those hastily ordained for WR.

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

So ROCOR had to clean house; the Western Rite is only incidental.

Not a personal scandal for Bishop Jerome: no heresy, theft, or sexual sin. He just made a mistake. A nice fellow who's retiring gracefully.

Do issues like this one not highlight the need for a strong primacy of the Bishop of Rome?


Sad story really. I for one was taken in by his outreach to the homeless.

Not necessarily, to be fair. One should defend the papacy as it has developed in the Catholic Church. But breakdowns in church discipline happen everywhere. Witness the big priestly underage gay sex scandal and coverup in America, which the gay lobby has made sure is misreported as pedophilia; it has turned the church into a national punchline. Not a reason to convert to Orthodoxy, the reason Rod Dreher did.

And of course the far greater damage throughout the Catholic Church after, yes, because of, Vatican II.