Yet Another Western Rite Argument

[Revnitel]

Firstly, one can read the rubrics of Sarum and observe the recreation of those rubrics and see a rite which looks very much like the Living Orthodox Rites.Pics are available, even on the net. ROCOR, however, isn't even using those rubrics but is using post Reformation Sarum ritual. Only the Milan people observe a more traditional Sarum. And I write this with some confidence because prior to the Reformation, Rood Screens had been mandated in the Western church by Lyons and before that been ubiquitous in the West from before the time of the Schism, although not everywhere, but they were with Sarum and Trondheim. Older rubrics took the Rood screen into account in detailing liturgical propers. ROCOR Sarum and the Antiochian WRs do not. So they are post Reformation rites which definitely precludes their consideration as authentically Orthodox. Secondly, people should accept Orthodoxy on Orthodoxy's terms and the way the Holy Spirit hands that Orthodoxy to them. Since it isn't emanating from some British church, the talk of receiving Orthodoxy under the Sarum or any under Western rite becomes unTraditional when one considers the notion that the Tradition is the Life in the Holy Spirit uniting all believers at all times in all places. Sarum or any other Western rite didn't get to us in this way. And as far as the "non sequiter" argument against the Western rites by comparing them to the Mormon temple rite, the Mormon temple rite is a Luciferian and evil rite. That is true. It is also true that no Western rites survive to be handed to us from living local churches. Therefore, they must be restored/reborn/readmitted, etc., and that process often involves ADAPTATION or at very least research in the compilation of these rites to ascertain what is the most ancient and Orthodox useage. In that process, not a little "reduction/addition" takes places, meaning the creation of a rite. Such a practice could even be done with the Mormon rite to "adapt it to Orthodoxy". Why this is not non sequiter is because that practice in and of itself is an artificial approach to liturgics which in essence embodies the contrivance of "Western Rite Orthodox" liturgies for people to have an INNOVATION to observe rather than just accept Orthodoxy the way it has been handed down by surviving local Orthodox churches. You would essentially be contriving either the Western liturgy or Mormon rite and writing it yourself to be Orthodox. That is why my remarks follow and horribly indict the Western Rite movement as a sham. There are no surviving Western Rite Orthodox local churches in the West. None. There is no way to receive Western Orthodoxy within the living Tradition, accept to conjure up a rite you call Western and christen it "Orthodox". At very best, you can reenact by reconstruction ancient Western liturgics rites which will not look much different from those which we already have. I hope that clears up the relevancy of the Mormon/Western rite "adaptation" process and shows a direct parallel for some. And as far as Bishops blessing the use of a Western rite, I would think that Orthodox Traditionalists who are opposed to innovations would not want to encourage their Bishops to bless these innovations. Because that is what the Western Rite movement boils down to: a veiled excuse for renovationism.

[Hieromonk Enoch]

Ok. What rubrics? Does it have the Great Litany and the little litanies? Does it have the Great Entrance? Does it have the Prothesis as described in the Liturgy of St. John (or St. Basil)? Does it have the opening invocation and exclamation of the Priest glorifying the Trinity's Kingdom? Does it have the antiphons and Psalms (like "Praise the Lord O My Soul", or the Beatitudes sung during the Mass)? Does it have the adding of the hot water after the Consecration? Does it have the priest wearing a felonion that cuts up to the breast? Does the Priest make the commemorations during the Great Entrance (assuming their is a Great Entrance)?

Those would seem like they are some pretty big differences between both traditions? So, just because you have a chancel/rood screen, that doesn't automatically indicate everything is the same. In this thread, I'm not necessarily addressing the wisdom of using one, I'm just addressing the contention that you could open up the Gregorian, Leonine, Gelasian, or one of the various other Sacramentaries from the 5th, 6th, or 8th centuries, or the Ordinaries contained in things like Missa Illyrica and find the equivalent parallels, other than the certain parallels you find in absolutely all ancient liturgies we have examples of (like epistle and Gospel lesson, demarcation between the two main sections of the Liturgy, the Anaphora, and conclusion).

What I will say is, as one of those 'Milan' people and priest of such, I would be happy to discuss this same issue once again 50 years from then (assuming we are all here). And then, my successors can discuss the same question another 50 years from now (assuming Christ chooses to tarry for that time). From my perspective, it is no longer an issue of reviving, as it would be in continuous current use. If it dies out among the question will be moot; if things continue as they have among us, and the Lord's choose to not return, for say, 500 years, eventually it will be a moot question there.

[Matthew]

You both seem to bring up excellent points. For me, (I have no personal invested desire to see one of the other position prevail) the main point I would feel needs to be kept in mind regardless of taking one side or the other, is that there is something wrong in taking either position to a point of total exclusivity, of absolutism. I believe the history of the Church, along with total dedication to Orthodox Truth, also shows latitude, flexibility, practicality, and sensitivity to the changing needs and situations of the people they minister to. The Church was never meant to be put into a liturgical or cultural strait jacket. There is always freedom to adapt and adjust and make allowances for what is best suited to the people of the times. The main difference between that Godly and Orthodox latitude and living and ongoing response to the changing times among the Orthodox is that the Latins did not maintain Orthodox Faith but it also was subjected to the whims and vicissitudes of the times or changing papal leaders or political ambitions etc. But as I say, granted one does not reduce liturgical practice to an implacable rigorist stance, you both seem to have very good points that need to be considered carefully.

Symeon

[Revnitel]

Well, the very fact you have to use a modernist argument of "straight jackets" and call for "liturgical openess" to push the Western Rite is open admission that it is Renovationism.

Rubrics in the sense of liturgical actions, those left to us by ancient sacramentaries, some more complete than others, and they detail a ritual very much like an Eastern Rite and not much like a post Reformation Western Rite. Most people of Western Rite heritage wouldn't even recognize pre Schism Western Rites as Western. Just take them to the AWRV. You know it. So the cynicism is over the top. I wrote that the pre Schism WRs are not much different than the Eastern Rite when celebrated properly, not that they were textually the same. You seem to agree. So what is the point of your experiment of grafting a dead shoot on to a living tree? How was the living Eastern Rite not enough for you?

Finally, TRADITION is a LIVING ORGANISM in the LIFE of the HOLY SPIRIT of TRUTH AND PIETY handed down. The WR didn't get to us this way. Therefore, it does not arise out of that Tradition, but out of an innovation of men. We still haven't found out what is wrong with the Eastern Rite which the Holy Spirit did provide you in the Tradition, Priest of Milan. How are they not enough for you and your synod? They seem to be enough for the Church as over a millenium has shown. How is it Orthodox liturgical practice isn't enough that you have to have novelties and innovations in its place?

[Revnitel]

Was the Orthodox Church incomplete for over a millenium when there was no Western Rite? Is the rite we have a straight jacket or a means of piety? Or do we need a WR/certain type of openess to lead us to a liturgical renewal ala Vatican II?! I choose Orthodoxy, Orthodox worship, no innovations, no contrived archaeological recreations, but living Traditional Orthodox Faith, and that is the difference between my position and that of WR advocates. I leave Vatican II to papist heretics and liturgical reforms to Renovationist heretics.

[Matthew]

It is impossible to have a sensible discussion when the person one is trying to have a meeting of the minds with constantly twists your words, attributes conclusions or motives that are foreign to one's position, and is on top of it insists on speaking in a rude and disrespectful manner. Dear Revnitel, please apologise to Father Enoch (Augustine) for referring to him so tersely as, "Priest of Milan." This is not acceptable on this forum and if you continue to insist on using such bold and rude manners you may find yourself temporarily banned from posting. He has already said he is reticent about posting due to the poor tone of internet forums. I would like him to feel that Euphrosynos Cafe is the exception where people uniformly conduct themselves with utmost respect and care when communicating with others, even when the topic is an emotionally charged one. You should be willing to do this because the same respect will be accorded to you even though others might feel less inclined to do so.

[Revnitel]

Since I did not refer to him in a disrespectful way, I don't think I need to apologize to him. But I will for the sake of comity. What I do find objectionable is that you engage me in a personal attack without merit. This discussion was about neither of our persons, but about the Western Rite and that is what I was talking about. Please stay on topic. Words were not twisted, things were not taken out of context, but rather your arguments were taken to their logical conclusions and subjected to syllogisms which proved them to be less than Traditional.