Latinized New "ROCOR"

[Priest Siluan]

ROCOR-MP "Bishop Jerome" (Fr. John Shaw)

More:

http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Western.html

---

DECISION CONCERNING THE SO-CALLED WESTERN RITE:

"RESOLVED: The Western rite in its present form was introduced after the apostasy of the West from the Orthodox Church and is not in accord with the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church with which it had been united for the course of many centuries. It does not reflect the Orthodox Church's liturgical tradition. Thus, it does not satisfy converts to Orthodoxy when they familiarize themselves with it to a greater degree, and has nowhere enjoyed success. In consequence of the above, the Council of Bishops does not recognize it as possible to permit the Western Rite in the Russian Church."

– Decision of the Synod of Bishops, 1978. Published in January of 1979

http://roacusa.org/1.DoFRotSoBotROCoRNe ... 790221.PDF

[Mark Templet]

On several occasions I have pondered the case of a Western Rite within the Orthodox Church. I have been somewhat torn on the issue. One the one hand, there was in the distant past a functioning Western half of the Church that was Orthodox and yet had its own rites. This means that these were legitimate liturgical traditions, as legitimate as the Divine Liturgies celebrated in the East. From this point of view then, it would seem that this could be an okay possibility.

However, this would ignore history and the ontological nature of Orthodoxy in the world today. The West did apostatize and the truth was preserved in the East and survives in the liturgical traditions there. There are so many dangers and temptations that come along with allowing for a Western Rite. For one, the risk is of an incomplete conversion by converts who want to be Orthodox but preserve, mostly, the rites that they are used to. The other are the countless errors and dangers that come from ignorance; what does "Bishop" Jerome know about ancient western rites? It is more than just slapping on some Roman Catholic vestments and playing the part. Why try to preserve something that has been in disuse by the Orthodox Church for so long?

The main point that convinces me to be against it is this: I despise the Roman Catholic Church's attempts to lure the Orthodox away with their Eastern Rite. They come to potential uniates and say, "You can keep doing what you're doing and just be in communion with us." Yet we all know that within these so-called Eastern Catholic jurisdictions how much innovation has crept in and morphed their practices.

So, now you can have the Divine Liturgy and still be Roman Catholic, or you can have mass and still be Orthodox; how confusing for those looking at this from the outside! Both "churches" are willing to pose like the other one to attract converts. I think given the condition that this world is in and how close we are to the end, we need for what is East to be East and what is West to be West, and never the two shall meet.

[frphoti]

It all really smacks of the "Believe-and-do-what-you-want-just-as-long-as-you-are-in-communion-with-us" ideology/false teaching which has invaded Orthodoxy from the West.

[Priest Siluan]

On the other hand it is interesting that a real Western Liturgy was preserved in the Church, it is the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts of Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome, it is not necessary the innovative invention of modern men, so called "Western Rites" like "Gallican Rite", "Old Sarum" et. al.

[searn77]

I'm not sure what kinds of western liturgies ROCOR-MP has in their synod, but I know that in my own synod there are some who use the ancient Sarum rite and the Hispanic (Mozarabic) rite. Honestly I think these rites are just as foreign to modern western Christians (like Roman Catholics and Protestants) as much as the Eastern rite is to them. I've been to an Antiochian western rite church back when I was in World Orthodoxy and their liturgy of St. Gregory was very much like a traditional Anglican liturgy with the Protestant hymns and such. But when I went to a Sarum rite liturgy of my synod, it honestly didn't even compare to the Antiochian western rite as it was very Orthodox in its content and there were no traces of Protestantism or RC-ism to be found. It was simply an Orthodox liturgy in the true sense of the word "Orthodox." Also, I have read that in pre-Nikonian Russia, they used to do the Sarum liturgy on the feast day of St. Gregory. Just some food for thought.

[Pravoslavnik]

I was a member of an Antiochian Western Rite parish for several years before moving to the ROCOR many years ago. Many liturgical aspects of the Western Rite are certainly quite ancient, dating to the earliest years of the Orthodox Church. And the Latin liturgy was, of course, an integral part of the Orthodox Church in Western Europe until 1054 A.D. I am truly grateful to God for my years in that Western Rite parish. However, in time, I was increasingly drawn toward the traditions of the ROCOR.

Code: Select all

 In my direct experience, there were many differences in the praxis and liturgical calendars of the ROCOR and the Western Rite parish to which I once belonged-- especially with regard to fasting, standing, full vigils, and such important traditions as the commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Great Lent.

  In truth, it is not my part to judge such exalted matters within the Church.  I do know that St. John of San Francisco actively encouraged Western Rite parishes within the Orthodox Church-- in Europe and in America.  Also, if I am not mistaken, the Patriarch, St. Tikhon, blessed a Western Rite liturgy for use in the Orthodox Church.

  Who am I to question the judgments of St. John, St. Tikhon, or any hierarchs of the true Church, including the traditional ROCOR?  As for this latest action by the MP-ROCOR, I do not consider these hierarchs to be bishops of the true Church.

[Mark Templet]

I'm not sure what kinds of western liturgies ROCOR-MP has in their synod, but I know that in my own synod there are some who use the ancient Sarum rite and the Hispanic (Mozarabic) rite. Honestly I think these rites are just as foreign to modern western Christians (like Roman Catholics and Protestants) as much as the Eastern rite is to them. I've been to an Antiochian western rite church back when I was in World Orthodoxy and their liturgy of St. Gregory was very much like a traditional Anglican liturgy with the Protestant hymns and such. But when I went to a Sarum rite liturgy of my synod, it honestly didn't even compare to the Antiochian western rite as it was very Orthodox in its content and there were no traces of Protestantism or RC-ism to be found. It was simply an Orthodox liturgy in the true sense of the word "Orthodox." Also, I have read that in pre-Nikonian Russia, they used to do the Sarum liturgy on the feast day of St. Gregory. Just some food for thought.

This is a great point, and I think it proves my point as well. If these rights are done correctly they are/will be foreign to converts. So, why try to reestablish a tradition that ended essentially for the Orthodox nearly 1,000 years ago? Because we are westerners? I haven't an ounce of eastern heritage in my veins, but I want Orthodoxy more that honoring a past of heresy in my family tree.

In truth, it is not my part to judge such exalted matters within the Church. I do know that St. John of San Francisco actively encouraged Western Rite parishes within the Orthodox Church-- in Europe and in America. Also, if I am not mistaken, the Patriarch, St. Tikhon, blessed a Western Rite liturgy for use in the Orthodox Church.

Who am I to question the judgments of St. John, St. Tikhon, or any hierarchs of the true Church, including the traditional ROCOR? As for this latest action by the MP-ROCOR, I do not consider these hierarchs to be bishops of the true Church.

This is a valid point as well, but let's get something straight about this. These heirarchs are Saints because of their holy lives and unshakable faith, not because every opinion they had was a good one. Just because St. John or St. Tikhon had some involvement in having a western rite doesn't mean that it's a good idea. After all, as Fr. Siluan so adeptly pointed out:

"RESOLVED: The Western rite in its present form was introduced after the apostasy of the West from the Orthodox Church and is not in accord with the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church with which it had been united for the course of many centuries. It does not reflect the Orthodox Church's liturgical tradition. Thus, it does not satisfy converts to Orthodoxy when they familiarize themselves with it to a greater degree, and has nowhere enjoyed success. In consequence of the above, the Council of Bishops does not recognize it as possible to permit the Western Rite in the Russian Church."
– Decision of the Synod of Bishops, 1978. Published in January of 1979

So, apparently in 1978 the synod recognized this as a bad idea for the life of the Church, despite some individual bishops having had a favorable opinion of it in the past. They made this decision in retrospect; seeing that it "has nowhere enjoyed success."

I could see a valid restoration of the Western Rite to the True Church within a couple of generations after the 1054 schism. But by now, so many layers of innovation and interwoven western poison are contained in this idea to me. I used to be an Episcopalian and I loved the high church liturgical traditions there. However, when I realized that it was a false church I left and knew that I needed to make a complete and clean break from all of that and give myself over to Orthodoxy unconditionally. I am not saying that the ancient rites are not valid, just that in the context of the world 1,000 years later with the World Orthodox and the other heretics running headlong into the arms of the Antichrist, I just can't see the use of this set up. It just seems to add complication and confusion to the situation in my humble opinion.