Two Continuing Churches May Go Orthodox

Prydain ^ | 2/23/2006 | Will

[RKBA Democrat]

"The Western Rite Liturgy is not the Sarum, or Gallic or Ambrosian or the Mass of +Paul V. Its a construct designed to make converts "comfortable"."

This really does sound like an Orthodox version of the N.O. Mass. And I do think that the charge of 'reverse uniatism' is apt.

(I just hope that in 500 years, the western Orthodox aren't being called a bunch of "uniadox" or some such by their western Catholic bretheren.)

From my point of view, we think as we pray, and such a large part of how we pray in the eastern tradition is encapsulated in our liturgy, that I just don't see how a "western Orthodox" church is going to work for the Orthodox as a whole.

There really is a big difference in emphasis between what we've come to recognize as western theology and eastern theology. And from a practical perspective, 'reverse uniatism' could well prove as problematic to Orthodoxy in the long run as 'uniatism' has proven to be for Catholics.

[Kolokotronis]

"From my point of view, we think as we pray, and such a large part of how we pray in the eastern tradition is encapsulated in our liturgy, that I just don't see how a "western Orthodox" church is going to work for the Orthodox as a whole."

Like I said, lex orandi, lex credendi! I can't see it working for even a part of Orthodoxy, at least for any length of time.

"There really is a big difference in emphasis between what we've come to recognize as western theology and eastern theology. And from a practical perspective, 'reverse uniatism' could well prove as problematic to Orthodoxy in the long run as 'uniatism' has proven to be for Catholics."

If it ever really got off the ground (I sincerely doubt it will), it would be a major problem since it allows converts to avoid the development of an Orthodox phronema. This Western Rite is a concession to pride in a way. "I want to be Orthodox, but I don't want to be part of anything foreign." Reminds me of the woman convert who, after her chrismation said, "Now I can celebrate 2 Easters!"

[Agrarian]

"This would seem to imply that the only valid expression of Orthodoxy is the Byzantine Rite."

At this time, it is certainly the only complete, living expression of Orthodoxy in my opinion.

This is quite different from saying that the Byzantine rite is the only *possible* liturgical expression of Orthodoxy. I have come full circle on this. When I first coming to Orthodoxy, I was very much opposed to Western rite experimentation by the Orthdox Church, primarily because of the wealth and riches of the living tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy. I then became a proponent of Western Rite Orthodoxy (in the Sarum or Gallican Rite sense). I later just got to the place where it seemed to be something destined for incompleteness, at risk of being a sort of choreography on stage, rather than a living liturgical life. I more lost interest than becoming opposed to it, and that is where I primarily am now.

As my message clearly indicated, I believe that the Western Rite can and will be recovered. But it will be done by the Patriarchate of Rome, which is currently separated from the Orthodox Church.

You are right that the pre-Vat II liturgy is not terribly distant from the Western liturgies that were in use prior to the Schism. Even the Tridentine Mass would need work in many ways to return it to fully Orthodox expression, but it would not be "major surgery." The concept of a full liturgical cycle (as opposed to reducing all liturgical activity to a single service -- the Mass) would need to be recovered (again, it's all there in the pre-Vat II daily offices, not in need of terribly major surgery to return it to what Orthodoxy would recognize as being of the same spirit and content.) There are a host of minor things, but in general you are right.

*But* I would submit to you that the average modern Roman Catholic would find even the Tridentine Mass quite foreign to them. I stand by my assessment that in general, there are not a lot of potential converts in the West whose sole or primary reason for not converting to Orthodoxy is the fact that they walk into an Orthodox parish in America and encounter a Byzantine Liturgy served in English as opposed to a Sarum Rite High Mass.

"A strong argument could be made that the various reforms post Vatican II constitute a break with the traditional liturgical rites of the west."

That argument would be a true one, and it has been made best of all by astute Catholic critics of the liturgy.

"I also think you are proceeding under a false assumption that the West and the East were in complete accord on things even in the 1st millennium. They were not. There were significant differences in their spirituality and their worship from the beginning."

No, I am not, actually, although I can see that it would seem that way. There are a couple of thoughts on this that I have, though. The first is that you are exactly right to point out that the West had not only its own liturgical tradition but also a spiritual tradition closely linked with it. During the centuries in which the Schism developed, that seamless whole of liturgy, theology, and spirituality (with which the East was in basic unity) was gradually broken and distorted, and all three began to change in ways that made them not just different from Eastern expressions and traditions, but actually foreign to Orthodoxy.

The wholeness of the Byzantine Orthodox tradition is theological, liturgical, and spiritual/ascetic -- and that tradition is unbroken. The outward Western liturgical expression would be the easiest thing to recover for a potential WRO. Also, the theological unity is pretty easy -- it was always the point at which there was the least difference between East and West. The unifying spiritual tradition that must be the "glue" that holds theology, liturgy, and general Christian praxis together will be the hardest thing to recover.

Don't get me wrong. I have no actual objections to those who want to try to create Western liturgical expressions, and I certainly want to connect as deeply as possible with the Western spiritual writings and saints as I can. I bear the name of a pre-Schism western saint, and have several of their icons. I completely agree with St. John of SF -- I most certainly have not become Eastern, as the cowboy boots that I wear nearly every day will attest! :-)

I wish all Western Rite proponents well, but I am pessimistic about how successful they will be. There is nothing heretical in the Antiochian Anglican-based liturgy, but next to the fullness of the Byzantine Rite, it seems to be quite thin. Perhaps it will grow and become thick and rich :-) -- but I am so comfortable in the Byzantine Rite (as I know you also are), that I really don't feel compelled to encourage it or play any role in it. I personally don't think that things like the Sarum or Gallican Rite would do much better, at least here in the U.S. But I would love to be proven wrong.