The Western Rite

[Suaidan]

Hey forum,

What version of Western rites do you consider legitimate expressions of Orthodoxy?

[joasia]

"version"? or do you mean tradition like habits and services?

[nyc_xenia]

"version"? or do you mean tradition like habits and services?

I don't understand his question either and we're married.

Perhaps, dear husband, you could clarify what exactly you meant?

[Suaidan]

"version"? or do you mean tradition like habits and services?

I don't understand his question either and we're married.

Perhaps, dear husband, you could clarify what exactly you meant?

I meant what forms of the Western rite do the listmembers consider permissible.

Do they consider the pre-schism liturgies permissible?
Do they consider reconstructions like the Church of France's permissible?
Do they consider Protestant liturgies like the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" (which is actually the 1892 BCP rite) permissible?

That, most beloved wife, is what I was asking.

[尼古拉前执事]

I meant what forms of the Western rite do the list members consider permissible.

Do they consider the pre-schism liturgies permissible?
Do they consider reconstructions like the Church of France's permissible?
Do they consider Protestant liturgies like the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" (which is actually the 1892 BCP rite) permissible?

a. Yes.

b. Maybe.

c. No!

[joasia]

Well, the Western rite would have to be a mirror of the Holy Orthodox Tradition, if it's permissible. So that means that the Holy Liturgy would have to be performed the same way, by tradition and since it's not, then the whole package is not permissible. This is not including certain cultural traditions, like the Russians who buy phrosphoras to share or take home, whereas the Greeks don't do that.

And any innovations of Western rite tradition may not fall under dogma of conduct concerning church matters, but can fall under incorrect spiritual directions.

[nyc_xenia]

Well, the Western rite would have to be a mirror of the Holy Orthodox Tradition

Ok, first of all, I just want to point out that for any Western Rite to be Orthodox, it should predate the schism. Following this form of thought, the West had it's own ORTHODOX traditions.

... if it's permissible.

Not sure what you mean by that...

But I'd like to ask you something, when you say "the Western rite", do you mean to say that you believe that there is only one Western Rite, or do you mean, "The (particular) Western Rite being discussed(?)"

So that means that the Holy Liturgy would have to be performed the same way,

Wrong, that is an incorrect presumption, because if it were, "done in the same way", that would make it the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, would it not?

... by tradition

By WHOSE tradition?

The Traditions of Holy Orthodox Church (both East & West) or the traditions of the East alone, i.e., that which you are accustomed to?

...and since it's not

Since it is not what? The Liturgy of St. John?

I mean, what are you stating REALLY?

It's not.....Orthodox? Why?

Because you don't have any actual pre-schism Orthodox text or because you can't read the Latin Google pdfs?

What exactly are you saying, or meaning to say here.

I hope your not saying that pre-schism Western Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy at all. 'Cause man, I'd hate to have to be the one to suddenly (upon my own merit or lack of understanding), excommunicate all of those Western Saints.

...then the whole package is not permissible.

Do you see how perhaps, you have already come to a certain conclusion before actually posting your response to this thread. It reads like this:

"This is not permissible because...."

Except, your post has been put forth in a tone of inquiry.

Now, I'd like to ask you, what do you mean by "the Liturgy" has to be "performed" the same way?

Ok, sorry, another question coming up.

Do you believe that there is only one pre-schism Liturgical "Western Rite"?

This is not including certain cultural traditions, like the Russians who buy phrosphoras to share or take home, whereas the Greeks don't do that.

I hope you are aware that you are STILL comparing the local traditions within the sphere of those who use the SAME Liturgy to make your point.

However, I'd like to point out that the pre-schism Western Rites are not Byzantine.

Thus, they differ in structure, as well as text. They are nevertheless, just as Orthodox. Why?

Well...Because they were accepted as so at the time of their use by the entire Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

And maybe that's what people refuse to accept. Maybe people believe that somehow these Rites have no merit.

Maybe they believe that they are no longer Orthodox. Or maybe they believe that a "broken use" of them, makes them "useless". I don't know what peoples pet peeves are, really.

Thus far, I can tell you that I have found that many who practice the Eastern traditions refuse to look at the fact that once upon a time, there was a Western and an Eastern Church and they were both equally Orthodox.

Many will often take anything that is "Latin" and throw it into the "heresy pile". Which is much like "throwing out the baby with the bath water".

And any innovations of Western rite tradition may not fall under dogma of conduct concerning church matters, but can fall under incorrect spiritual directions.

Interesting observation, as I have also found, that many who claim to practice "The" (as in one and only) Western Rite, prefer to use innovations such as Anglican prayer books in place of truly Orthodox pre-schism text.

Not only that, but these same people who cling to innovations justify themselves based on their being "recognized" or "canonical" Orthodox.

Meanwhile, the only thing that they have to barricade themselves against any proven or well argued point is hurling out words like "vagante" or "schismatic". Why?

Well, because it is easier to attack the messenger than it is to "take on", "the message".

They have and will gladly make mockery of anything that is genuinely pre-schism Western Orthodoxy, calling it "liturgical archeology".

Not only that, but in the same breath, they will fuel enough "innovative" energy to spew out the bizarre notion that statues are "3D icons", which according to their own words are permissible for (get this) the "Western Orthodox" usage.

Even when their errors are pointed out to them in light of the councils and the Holy Fathers, they leave no room for correction. Falling back on the only thing they are familiar with, their pride leads them to retaliate with the only mantra which can defend their innovations, or lack of desire to continue in the traditions of the Orthodox West, that is that which was handed down to us which pre-dated the schism.

"Schismatic!" They shout, unable argue or to back their choice of innovations over Holy Western Orthodox traditions.

Sad.

Anyway, sorry, I'm not getting "uppity" with you, it's just a sore spot.

I just weary with both extremes. On the one side there are those who condemn the pre-schism Western Orthodox Rites for being either unfamiliar, Latin, or of "broken" tradition.

Then, on the other side, the so called "Western Rite" Orthodox, who refuse to actually practice Orthodoxy.

:ohvey: