What do you think of the Western Rite Orthodox?

[Albion]

I do not really see a point in 'Western Rite Orthodoxy'. I mean, if you are Western Rite, why would you not join one of the churches that have developed and lived the Western Rite over centuries and still live in it? Like the Roman Catholic church or the Anglicans or parts of the Lutheran and Old Catholic churches. Even if you consider yourself a traditionalist you may find old rite Catholic and even Anglican churches.

For me the identity of Orthodoxy is very much linked with their liturgy. So if one wants to be Orthodox one should accept their liturgical forms which are the expression of their spiritual tradition and faith.

Also on a more personal level I would never feel able to join a church of the Moscow patriarchate, as they in my view have become a political body serving as the religious arm of Putin's regime, following a political agenda rather than a spiritual one. And what sense does it make if you live say in the US but consider yourself to be in communion with and under the jurisdiction of a bishop or patriarch in Antioch whom you may never see in the your whole life?

So, to sum it up: This whole thing of Western rite orthodoxy seems to me a very postmodern thing where one can combine all sorts of different bits of tradition and historical identities into one new thing (traditional Western liturgy, traditional Eastern teaching, Eastern jurisidiction). It might serve as a niche for some, but I cannot see that this makes a lot of sense altogether...

The reason for the attraction seems to be that it's a sort of 'last resort' for some people. That is to say, they've ruled out the RCC because of the Papacy or something else and they've discounted the Anglicans and Lutherans, despite them being liturgical churches, because these folks have been persuaded by the "one true church" argument. Western Rite Orthodoxy, then, seems to be the only way to "thread the needle" though the various demands they have on any church that they'd consider joining.

Unfortunately for many of them, AFTER they've made the move they find that the jurisdiction that they've chosen doesn't entirely consider their church to be normal. Instead, they find their own clergy describing it as
a waystation for converts to Orthodoxy and they're made aware that they're
expected to make the full move when they get sufficiently acclimated.

 

[Bonifatius]

Yes, Albion, I think that's the point. It is the 'last resort' argument. I guess that many of them are looking for the 'safe haven' that guarantees them to be in the right place and not in danger of any kind of heresy, ordination of women and so on. But they are not ready to fully let go of their Western identity. If I were in that situation (which I am not) I guess I would try to join a traditional church which aims for full communion with the Orthodox. I am not sure there are many such church bodies, but I'd suspect that some branches of the Old Catholics (such as the Union of Scranton, Polish National Catholic Church) would be on that trail.

 

[Albion]

On that trail, yes, but the PNCC is not part of the Union of Utrecht nor are any of the other "Old Catholic" church bodies in this country.

Even if any of these churches seemed worth looking into, they don't make the grade with most of the "one true church" folks because--as you said--they are at best only willing to consider full communion with the Orthodox. None of them is in full communion at present, and, in addition, none of them can make that "original church" assertion that is a part of the appeal of Orthodoxy for these people. When it comes to that particular claim to fame--the Councils, the ancient saints, the Patriarchates, etc.--the Old Catholics and the PNCC are seen by the Orthodox as little different from the Protestants.

 

[Bonifatius]

As far as I can see the Union of Utrecht is off limits for the Orthodox because of their decision (at least in most of their churches) to ordain women to the priesthood. So the Union of Scranton/PNCC would be closer to the Orthodox church since they have not links with the Papacy and no ordination of women. But you may be right about the 'one true church' thing.

After recent events surrounding the Pan-orthodox Council I have no illusions about the 'unity' of the Orthodox church though. That might be a wonderful idea, but in practice it does not exist any more.

 

[All4Christ]

After recent events surrounding the Pan-orthodox Council I have no illusions about the 'unity' of the Orthodox church though. That might be a wonderful idea, but in practice it does not exist any more.

In practice, there is unity. Perhaps there are political issues at times, but in real life, there is unity among the Orthodox jurisdictions. We are in full communion with these churches. Watching the events around the council doesn't change this reality - in real life practice. This is from first-hand experience, not news articles or political pieces.

 

[Albion]

In practice, there is unity. Perhaps there are political issues at times, but in real life, there is unity among the Orthodox jurisdictions. We are in full communion with these churches.

If being in full communion is what 'unity' means. But of course, this only involves the fifteen (?) jurisdictions that are called canonical. All the others are on the outs.

 

[Bonifatius]

In practice, there is unity. Perhaps there are political issues at times, but in real life, there is unity among the Orthodox jurisdictions. We are in full communion with these churches. Watching the events around the council doesn't change this reality - in real life practice. This is from first-hand experience, not news articles or political pieces.

I am very sorry, but my interpretation of the facts is different. There is 'full communion' and 'unity' in theory. And sure you may take part in a service of other Orthodox jurisdictions and receive the sacraments there. But in reality there is no unity. In reality the Orthodox have not had a council where they could agree on anything within more than 1000 years. And the most recent attempt to meet and discuss things in a brotherly way and sort out some of the issues that have arisen in the past was destroyed by some Orthodox churches who would not take part and do not accept the council. In my view this is not unity but division, covered up by a theoretical concept of unity.

 

[All4Christ]

I am very sorry, but my interpretation of the facts is different. There is 'full communion' and 'unity' in theory. And sure you may take part in a service of other Orthodox jurisdictions and receive the sacraments there. But in reality there is no unity. In reality the Orthodox have not had a council where they could agree on anything within more than 1000 years. And the most recent attempt to meet and discuss things in a brotherly way and sort out some of the issues that have arisen in the past was destroyed by some Orthodox churches who would not take part and do not accept the council. In my view this is not unity but division, covered up by a theoretical concept of unity.

We can agree to disagree...I don't want to argue, and I don't want to violate the rules as a guest poster.

I do see it differently especially in practice, but as I said, considering where I am, the purpose of my posting (in fellowship), and limited time at the moment (I'm getting ready for vacation), I'll just say that we understand the facts differently.

 

[Mockingbird0]

the determination of William to replace the English Bishops with Normans and Italians and enforce a liturgy in greater conformity with Rome, I am interested to see what was there before. Given that 1066 is but 12 years after 1054, I can not help but wonder if primacy, procession and the filioque were not factors.

I think it is a mistake to exaggerate the difference between the English church under the Norman dynasty and the English church under the Wessex dynasty. The anaphora in the Leofric Missal differs little from the modern Roman Canon. The Regularis Concordia and Aelfric's instructions to the monks are well within the tradition of the Western office.

 

[Philip_B]

I think it is a mistake to exaggerate the difference between the English church under the Norman dynasty and the English church under the Wessex dynasty.

I am inclined to agree with you - yet one wonders why the determination to rid the English Church of English Bishops.

However the two aspects particularly that I want to track down are to do with the Nicene Creed/Symbol. Both for its position within the liturgy, and for the words used especially in regard to the Filioque. I keep being frustrated by the form "I believe in God &tc" or some such similar as it does not answer my question. I also am happy to admit that my Latin is about as good a google search! It does seem to be there is a very short space between 1054 and 1066 and whilst it is clear that relationship between the Pope and the Patriarch were at an all time low, it also seems that the relationship between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury was also a few shades south of ordinary, and the relationship between the Pope and Edward the Confessor was probably also very strained. If you have anything to help the hunt I would be glad of it.

Thankyou for your support

 

[Mockingbird0]

However the two aspects particularly that I want to track down are to do with the Nicene Creed/Symbol. Both for its position within the liturgy, and for the words used especially in regard to the Filioque.

We should not expect to find a single day on which all the churches in England began reciting the creed during the Eucharistic rite, when on the day before they hadn't done so. Nor should we expect to find a single day on which all the sacramentaries in England were modified to include the filioque.

A few data-points that you might find interesting. The Stowe Missal

https://archive.org/stream/publications32henruoft

an Irish book written in the early 800's with some later material that the editor thinks was added by around 900, has the creed -as far as I can make out from examining pp 8-9 of the printed edition--after the Gospel and before the Offertory. The text originally did not have the filioque, but the word was later added interlinearly (page 8, footnote 7.) English translation of the rite is at

http://web.archive.org/web/20050204114716/www.celticorthodoxy.org/document022.shtml

The Leofric Missal does not seem to write out the Ordinary of the Mass. Nor does the Missal of Robert of Jumieges.

In the Appendix to the published edition of the Leofric Missal is a short description of the Red Book of Derby, a mass-book of the early Norman period. It contains the creed, with the filioque, in its Ordo Baptismi. But though the book is early Norman, it would presumably have been copied from an earlier book.

My best guess is that England was always connected to Western Europe, and the same liturgical trends would have been seen there elsewhere. A few years' difference between the first use of the filioque in Ireland and its first use in England is of no significance unless we can find evidence of a controversy over it.

 

[Mockingbird0]

Robert of Jumièges, whilst pre Norman Conquest is in fact the first Norman Archbishop of Canterbury, and as you would expect the Nicene Creed in the text conforms to the Creed of Rome from 1014.

Et in spiritum sanctum, (And in the Holy Spirit)
dominum et uiuificantem, (the Lord the giver of life)
qui ex patre filioque procedit. (who proceeds from the Father and the Son)
qui cum patre et fiiio simul adoratur et cum glorificatur (who with the father and the Son is worshipped and glorified)​

The thing that interests me much more is what was Stigand using? And what was the English Church using before this time.

Please provide a citation to the place in the published edition of the Missal where the Nicene Creed is written out.

That Robert was a Norman has nothing to do with it. The book is an English book, made in England, with some rubrics in English (in the Missa pro infirmis).

 

[Philip_B]

We should not expect to find a single day on which all the churches in England began reciting the creed during the Eucharistic rite, when on the day before they hadn't done so. Nor should we expect to find a single day on which all the sacramentaries in England were modified to include the filioque.

A few data-points that you might find interesting. The Stowe Missal

https://archive.org/stream/publications32henruoft

an Irish book written in the early 800's with some later material that the editor thinks was added by around 900, has the creed -as far as I can make out from examining pp 8-9 of the printed edition--after the Gospel and before the Offertory. The text originally did not have the filioque, but the word was later added interlinearly (page 8, footnote 7.) English translation of the rite is at

http://web.archive.org/web/20050204114716/www.celticorthodoxy.org/document022.shtml

The Leofric Missal does not seem to write out the Ordinary of the Mass. Nor does the Missal of Robert of Jumieges.

In the Appendix to the published edition of the Leofric Missal is a short description of the Red Book of Derby, a mass-book of the early Norman period. It contains the creed, with the filioque, in its Ordo Baptismi. But though the book is early Norman, it would presumably have been copied from an earlier book.

My best guess is that England was always connected to Western Europe, and the same liturgical trends would have been seen there elsewhere. A few years' difference between the first use of the filioque in Ireland and its first use in England is of no significance unless we can find evidence of a controversy over it.

Thank you so much for this, I think that the Stowe missal is very interesting. The earliest reference i have elsewhere to moving the Creed to the western position is the Synod of Friuli in 796, and this would seem to predate that, by a few years. The Council of Frankfurt in 794 inserted the Filioque, without papal assent. I think this is a very helpful piece of evidence, and certainly weakens the claim of those who speak of the Synod of Hatfield in 680. Mind you that council did express an acceptance of a theology of double procession, however that is not the same as inserting it in the creed.

 

[Shane R]

To resurrect this old thread, I have to say my take on Western Rite Orthodoxy has changed. Western Rite Orthodoxy is equivalent to the Anglican Ordinariate in the RCC. Both are lonely places to be. Both are expected to fade away with time, and only the Eastern Rite and the Roman Rite remain. Pursuing Western Rite Orthodoxy is a temporary solution to a perceived problem with Anglicanism. The grass is the same color over there that it is here, despite reports to the contrary.

 

[Athanasius377]

To resurrect this old thread, I have to say my take on Western Rite Orthodoxy has changed. Western Rite Orthodoxy is equivalent to the Anglican Ordinariate in the RCC. Both are lonely places to be. Both are expected to fade away with time, and only the Eastern Rite and the Roman Rite remain. Pursuing Western Rite Orthodoxy is a temporary solution to a perceived problem with Anglicanism. The grass is the same color over there that it is here, despite reports to the contrary.

I looked into WR some ten years ago. There is a local OCA church locally whose priest I know very well. I asked him about it as he had some position were he was an assistant to the bishop of the diocese. He stated pretty much what you had said. The intention is to bring people into the Orthodox Church and have them become ER over time. In fact, there used to be an active publishing house for the WR but it appears the activity has diminished dramatically over the last couple of years.

Just my two cents.