www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Western Orthodox ONLY stepping stone to "real" (Eastern) Orthodoxy?

I wish I could say I have found someone with good things to say about "Western Orthodoxy" but I have not. An aquaintance from Spokane, Washington, USA had this to say to me about them (btw he is a convert from calvinism):

"As a Westerner, in a see of fellow Westerners, converts from all sorts of heterodox Christian traditions, I can tell you that TO US, the Divine liturgy is GRAND, and in no way foreign or less relevant than the Western Rite. Again, the ONLY ones the WR appeals to are the dyed-in-wool, cradle Anglicans. The so-called "Western Rite" is superfluous, in all ways inferior to the so-called "Eastern" liturgical cycle, and such a minority representation as to be a modern/current anomoly. It'll not be around for long, I guess, UNLESS there is a mass (no pun intended) return of Anglicans and/or Latins to the Orthodox Faith.

Most Orthodox jurisdiction categorically oppose the experiment, including (for example) the OCA. That doesn't mean that the OCA consider the WR clergy "less" Orthodox ontologically. They are legitimately ordained by legitimate bishops... just bishops experimenting beyond the comfort level of 99% of the rest of the bishops around the world. They DO have an Orthodox self-identity, and I do "like" their services (I have been), but they are dying.

Most of this formerly-Anglican Antiochian parish were WR for a period, as a stepping stone to "real" Orthodoxy. The ones who are left are dying off. There are very few younger members, and even the priest is a "maintenance" priest in his 70s. It will undoubtedly succumb to going "Eastern" or being closed within the next few years. This is the state of nearly every WR parish around the country.

Yes, it has its apologists, its boosters and fans, but I don't envision it taking hold to any measurable extent. Like I said, it is an anomoly. It is aesthetically inferior, even pedantic by comparison. As a Westerner among hundreds of other Westerners, I feel it is less appealing, even to Westerners, except those older Anglicans nostalgic for the church experiences they had in their youth.

There's also a HUGE gap in the didactics of the Western liturgical experiment. The *Orthodox* liturgical cycle of services is totally informative and didactic, instructive, catechizing, transforming the heart AND the mind according to the phronema of the Church and Her Head, Christ Jesus our Lord. Didactics are almost totally missing from the Western, individualistic, contemplative masses (liturgies?)

The Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great was a complete liturgy in its own native, Catholic, Orthodox context. But this liturgy disappeared from the Church's experience as a living tradition and has only been artificially resurrected as an experiment. And arbitrarily trying to manufacture mostly from scratch a new "Western" tradition is kinda like trying to develop Elvish or Klingon languages. Yes, lots of time and effort have gone into these experiments, but they are NOT living languages, and the depth and history, the slang and allusions, etc., etc., the LIVING culture necessary for REAL languages is missing. And The truth of the matter is that my answers here are ORTHODOX, not "convert zeal."

So tell me something good about Western Orthodxy please! Are all "converts" to Eastern Orthodoxy really comfortable with the Eastern Traditions ?? I think many have difficulty with them... I met a Roman Catholic priest who told me that he preferred the Roman liturgy to the St. Basil or St. John one. He told me that he felt it had more of a sense of contemplation, peace/silence. He thought the Eastern liturgy was too dramatic, this priest was of german descent from Kansas I might add. The Eastern liturgy seemed to overwhelm him.

Also if this man's correct (which I hope he's not) could a High Roman Mass said at the vatican be modified slightly to become a living tradition of Orthodoxy which would be respected everywhere moreso than current "Western Orthodoxy"?

Criostoir,

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

As to the Western rite movement in general, as a Catholic I see it as largely positive since it is an explicit acknowledgement within Holy Orthodoxy of the orthodoxy of the West. there are, of course, negatives, but I won't recount those now.

Gordo

Considering there are no WR members here to defend that church, it seems to me like little of value would come out of this thread.

I have only run across a few members of that church. They, in my experience, tend to be very friendly to the idea of reconciliation between East and West. They also either tend to be unknown, attacked, or misunderstood by the much larger body of Eastern Orthodox believers. I would think all of those things combined would engender some sympathy for them on the part of Eastern Catholics.

Andrew

What I am trying to say is that many Eastern Orthodox are as prejudiced towards the Western Rite Orthodoxy as some Roman Catholics are of Eastern Catholicism. Thought not to same degree.
This man to me appears to be bigoted. I just dont see whats wrong with Western Orthodoxy, either it's legitimate or it's not. I dont understand why Western Orthodoxy is hated so much. Why is it attacked by Easterners? Can anyone tell me specifically? Is Western Orthodoxy right or is it wrong. Does WO have a right to exist? What are the problems with it?

The reason this came up is because I am wondering how many westerners actually join the Eastern Churches because they feel culturally at home? I am thinking that they join them more out of theological agreement than cultural agreement. The Western Orthodox idea presents a solution to any cultural uncomfortability I assume.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that all Orthodox despise the Western Rite. St John Maximovitch was instrumental in establishing western rite diocese in France and the Netherlands. And this was in ROCOR, probably the most conservative branch of Canonical Orthodoxy. I think the problem lies more in the mindset of the individuals attracted to the Rite. For lack of a better word, it almosr seems that vagantism is quite prevelant amongst them. Almost all western rite attempts have drifted off into vagantism, in one fashion or another. The inherent idea is good, but the implementation has thus far, not yielded any real results.

Alexandr

I belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite (AWRV).

Your friend is merely regurgitating all the tired old lies, stereotypes, and red herrings about the Western Rite in the Orthodox Church. There's nothing new here at all.

Purely and simply, he is ignorant. He needs to do his homework and have a wider experience of the Church before he presumes to speak the Church's mind.

How very sad!

Change "Eastern Orthodox" to Roman Catholic in the above paragraph and who do you have? ANY of the 'other' rites of the Catholic Church. Lets not be so judgemental of Orthodoxy. The Western Rite of Orthodoxy was introduced to allow a new group of converts to feel comfortable within the Church, not that much different than Rome's decision with our Eastern rites, which if you are honest are also old and dying off.

Sam,

Are you asserting that the Western rite Orthodox movement is a form of Western "uniatism" within Orthodoxy?

Gordo

Criostoir,

Many WRO use liturgies based on the BCP. Here is a critique from a Russian Orthodox perspective of the theological soundness of the Prayer Book Texts.

http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgics/Russian1904.pdf

Unfortunately, this has been the assertion whether right or wrong from some within the Orthodox Church and from outside of it. As someone else pointed out, a recently glorified saint of the Orthodox Church, Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco actively promoted it, and actually blessed and participated in Western Orthodox services while Archbishop of Brussels.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Gordo,
In a sense,yes. It was introduced to offer certain Protestant converts some familiarity, not much unlike the Eastern Catholic situation.

I would also have to say that I think that Western Orthodoxy is Orthodox Uniatism, but I don't see anything wrong with it. At least the converts (whom I assume are mostly Anglicans and other Protestants) are now receiving the Holy Sacraments that were not present in the faith communities that they were once in.

Having said that, I know that the Balamand Statement has condemned Uniatism, but I believe that the Western Orthodox Churches were started before 1993.

Dr Eric,
I believe there is only one Western Rite, found within the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I think there may be about 10 parishes within the US, with the original coming out of Texas (?).
They use the Liturgy of St James, as opposed to John Chrysostom.

Actually,

It seems to me that western Orthodoxy is more similar to the Anglican usage Churches permitted by Rome; except that the intent in the Orthodox Church seems to be to constitute the western Orthodox liturgy as a rite. There is an Anglican usage parish in Columbia, SC. I've never been there but I've always wanted to see what they do. Basically, they use an altered form of the Prayer book, approved by Rome. But my understanding is that the Anglican usage churches are supposed to be only a temporary transition and someday they will have to close. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Sam,

Not quite. They use the Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon which is a modified Book of Common Prayer Eucharistic service, and the Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory which again is a modified version of the TLM. As far as the parishes emanating from Texas, I have to think you are wrong on that, since the time they were originally established in the 1950s, no parishes were in Texas at that time. It might help if you look up via Google the parish in Denver Colorado, Saint Mark's. Their website has a good history section along with liturgics.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+