Sts. Tikhon & John of San Francisco on the Western Rite

[Maria]

The Western Rite

Some people say that St. Tikhon of Moscow and St. John have blessed the Western Rite, while others, particularly the Greek Orthodox, do not recognize the Western Rite as they consider it to be an anomaly. St. Tikhon of Moscow and St. John of San Francisco were not infallible, so all the utterances from their mouths and all the words penned by them are NOT to be taken as divine commands. It is very important not to adopt Roman Catholic thinking here.

Using a western rite liturgy especially after 800 AD, and saying that it is Orthodoxy is foolish as the Roman Catholic Church was becoming schismatic and heretical starting with the filioque in the 6th century. Then there were the use of unleavened bread, the removal of the Trisagion and Epiclesis from the Liturgy, the separation of the Holy Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Communion, the offering of only the consecrated bread to the faithful, the insertion of the Creed with the filioque during the Mass, and finally the forced celibacy on the clergy.

As the centuries went on, more and more discrepancies and heresies crept into the Divine Liturgy or "Mass" of the Roman Catholic Church, until the Council of Trent "standardized" that Mass. Therefore, the Mass of 1962 is certainly not Orthodox as after the Council of Trent, even with the Papal decree of Pope Pius V, there were still unauthorized changes taking place. Finally after Vatican II, with all the heresies in the Catholic Church, there came the new modernistic Novus Ordo Mass with its clown and beer masses, where Satan himself had entered the sanctuary.

[Maria]

In saying the above, I am encouraging the users here to point out any errors that I have made.

No one is perfect save Christ.

I am certainly a fallible human, and I admit that I am not an historian. That was not my specialty in college.

[Holdfast]

While I can certainly understand a resistance to the forms of the western rite such as those used by the Antiochians, I am unsure how the pre schism rites cannot be considered orthodox.
While it is true that innovations began to appear in some parts of the west around the 6th century that does not invalidate the entire western church or the liturgical rites that it used from that time forward. For instance the filioque was not used in Rome until the 11th century and a western rite monastery existed on Athos from the 9th-12th century.
All of the errors that you mentioned, as far as I know, are absent in the pre schism rites. Perhaps you could point to something more specific in their usage that makes them heretical?
Do you also find those who lived post 6th century in the west and that are venerated as saints by the church to be heterodox?

[Isaakos]

I think a better argument against the western rite could be made in this way:

We must include within the purview of God's providence, not only what he preserves, but also what he allows to become extinct. The fact is that after the 13th century there simply were no more Orthodox Churches using the western rites. And the future attempts to regraft them into Orthodoxy are problematic because they are artificial impositions. And where they are implemented to bring a group of western converts over, I believe it is an erroneous usage. Conversion is entire. If you are Protestant or Catholic and convert to Orthodoxy, you leave behind your Catholicism and Protestantism. A converts job is to bring their mind in conformity to Orthodoxy, not vice versa.

[Maria]

Yes, I agree with Philaret's assessment. These Western Rites should have never been brought back. Didn't they all have to be altered by adding the epiclesis, subtracting the filioque or changing them into English, when they were originally in Latin?

Having been a cradle Catholic, I particularly objected to the "silent" Mass, whether it was the "silent" Latin Masses of the pre-1962 and 1962 varieties or those of the Novus Ordo (vernacular variety).

It is easy for both the celebrant and especially the laity to become distracted during the periods of silence. Since the laity or altar servers are not required to be present when a priest is saying a private Latin or Novus Ordo Mass, It is frightfully easy for the celebrant to omit prayers in their haste to finish their prayers, so that a Latin Mass or Novus Ordo could be completed in 20 to 25 minutes. Priests have confessed that they have omitted some "non-essential" prayers or dropped some "repetitive" Kyrie Eleisons, or that they say them mentally, rather than pronouncing those prayers silently with their lips. Worse is the muttering where the words become incomprehensible.

I have observed these same liturgical abuses in the Byzantine Divine Liturgies of the New Calendarists, where concelebrating Greek Orthodox Priests can complete a Sunday Divine Liturgy within 40 minutes by dividing up the different priestly prayers of the Litanies or Anaphora so that they are saying different prayers meant to be prayed one after another, not simultaneously. They also omit the repetitions of certain festal troparia which are meant to be sung three times. But this topic should be reserved for another thread.

[Maria]

While I can certainly understand a resistance to the forms of the western rite such as those used by the Antiochians, I am unsure how the pre schism rites cannot be considered orthodox.
While it is true that innovations began to appear in some parts of the west around the 6th century that does not invalidate the entire western church or the liturgical rites that it used from that time forward. For instance the filioque was not used in Rome until the 11th century and a western rite monastery existed on Athos from the 9th-12th century.
All of the errors that you mentioned, as far as I know, are absent in the pre schism rites. Perhaps you could point to something more specific in their usage that makes them heretical?

Do you also find those who lived post 6th century in the west and that are venerated as saints by the church to be heterodox?

I do not believe in the Light-Switch theory of grace.

Look at the holiness of St. Dominic Guzman, a post-schism Roman Catholic saint. Like St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Dominic's face glowed with heavenly uncreated light and love. This is why he is depicted with a star over his head. He died on August 6, 1221, at Bologna, Italy. When his tomb was opened, people from miles around were drawn to the church by the heavenly odor which emanated from his relics. By his life of continuous prayer, love, and preaching, he hoped and prayed that heresies and schism would be healed. In fact, members of his Dominican Order were sent into Georgia and to Constantinople in order to understand Orthodoxy and try to resolve any theologican disputes. However, both Priories, which were established in those two countries, ended up converting to Orthodoxy, and the poor monks living a live of voluntary poverty were allowed to continue wearing the white habit, so that they were called the "White Monks." Many people do not realize that St. Seraphim of Sarov wore white, but the white Dominican habit signified angelic purity and virginity, a life which both Sts. Dominic and Seraphim lived from their youths.

[Lydia]

While I can certainly understand a resistance to the forms of the western rite such as those used by the Antiochians, I am unsure how the pre schism rites cannot be considered orthodox.
While it is true that innovations began to appear in some parts of the west around the 6th century that does not invalidate the entire western church or the liturgical rites that it used from that time forward. For instance the filioque was not used in Rome until the 11th century and a western rite monastery existed on Athos from the 9th-12th century.
All of the errors that you mentioned, as far as I know, are absent in the pre schism rites. Perhaps you could point to something more specific in their usage that makes them heretical?

Do you also find those who lived post 6th century in the west and that are venerated as saints by the church to be heterodox?

I do not believe in the Light-Switch theory of grace.

Look at the holiness of St. Dominic Guzman, a post-schism Roman Catholic saint. Like St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Dominic's face glowed with heavenly uncreated light and love. This is why he is depicted with a star over his head. He died on August 6, 1221, at Bologna, Italy. When his tomb was opened, people from miles around were drawn to the church by the heavenly odor which emanated from his relics. By his life of continuous prayer, love, and preaching, he hoped and prayed that heresies and schism would be healed. In fact, members of his Dominican Order were sent into Georgia and to Constantinople in order to understand Orthodoxy and try to resolve any theologican disputes. However, both Priories, which were established in those two countries, ended up converting to Orthodoxy, and the poor monks living a live of voluntary poverty were allowed to continue wearing the white habit, so that they were called the "White Monks." Many people do not realize that St. Seraphim of Sarov wore white, but the white Dominican habit signified angelic purity and virginity, a life which both Sts. Dominic and Seraphim lived from their youths.

You have got be kidding. Dominic is not a saint. He is not "depicted" in any way. It is not appropriate to compare him to a true Orthodox Saint, Seraphim.
Go ask your GOC Bishop what he thinks of Dominic, the Dominican Friars, and The Rosary. :ohvey: