Yet Another Western Rite Argument

[Suaidan]

Is it just me or do these arguments all look the same?
Please feel free to agree, disagree, give a reason....
[full disclosure: I completely disagree with almost all of it, with the exception of the "TYPE A" description, which is prohibited in our Church.]

http://www.saintedwardbrotherhood.org/OCTOBER%2011.pdf

“Please enlighten me father about the Western Rite Orthodoxy.
A relative of mine from southern Philippines who I am catechizing asked
me about the Western Rite. He told me about the presence of the Western
Rite monastery missions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia in southern Philippines. (If I understand it correctly, the ROCOR
have Western Rite parishes and missions even before it unites with the
Moscow Patriarchate. That is even during the time that our Synod has
a canonical communion with ROCOR.) Please counsel me father about
who are the Western Rite and what are their significance to our Holy
Church. Is their a particular canon of the Ecumenical Councils that
mandates exclusive use of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom?
Are the Orthodox faithful of the Western Rite parish allowed to receive
communion with us and vice-versa? Indeed, I need much learning from
you.” (copied as sent) - A.Q., Philippines, by email.

Regarding the Western Rite, I must start by saying that what I am
going to say is only my opinion, and I may well be wrong. I only offer
it, because you asked for my opinion.

It is true that the ROCOR which has united with Moscow, ROCA-
MP, has in the last couple of years taken in a number of Western
Rite clergymen and parishes, and appears to be promoting them. Although,
rather strangely, on their official website, little or no mention
has been made of this fact. There the emphasis seems to be on Russianness.
Perhaps they fear that the two things do not quite marry and are
keeping them in separate compartments. His Eminence Metropolitan
Hilarion appears to have taken all the Western Rite groups under his
own omophorion, whatever geographical diocese they happen to fall in.
He is assisted by His Grace Bishop Jerome of Manhatten. The ROCA,
under His Eminence Metropolitan Agafangel, which is our sister Traditional
Synod, does not have any Western Rite clergy or parishes to the
best of my knowledge.

Regarding the Rite itself, I believe that there should be great
concerns about its implementation, and I believe the fact that it is being
sponsored is something that should be of great concern to Orthodox
Traditionalists. I will try and explain why I feel this.

First of all, there seem to be two types of Western Rite. There are
those who use a modified form of relatively modern Roman Catholic or
Anglican rites, from which things, which are ostensibly not Orthodox,
have been excised, and into which some Orthodox features have been
added. Let us call these TYPE A. And there are those who have tried
to return to rites which were current in the West, before the Schism of
Rome from Orthodoxy. Let us call them TYPE B. I believe that there
are dangers in adopting either of these approaches.

TYPE A: In this instance, they are using rites, which although
they might be able to trace a history back to something authentic, have
essentially been shaped and formed by people outside the Church. The
modifications, excisions and additions, do not seem to have been long
and hard thought over. It seems to me as if they have taken a Ford Escort,
added in a couple of features, improved the upholstery and taken off
the Escort insignia, and pretend it is a Lexus. Just recently, I saw a clip of
one of these Western Rite services, and they had statues in their church. If
such a “conversion” of these rites was to be undertaken, then I would think
that it should be done not by one or two hierarchs and not in a short space
of time, but by the whole Church acting together - a thing which, given the
situation that Orthodoxy finds itself in today, is completely impossible.

TYPE B: Here we have the problem of trying to revive something
which has been unused in the Church for a thousand years. If I am not
mistaken, none of the rites used in the pre-schism West still exist in their
entirety, and so those who have adopted this approach, of necessity, have
to feed in certain elements from Byzantine usage. I once, many years
ago, attended such a Mass, celebrated by Bishop Germain de Saint-Denis,
who struck me as a very affable man (I gave him a lift in my car), but,
although I am no expert in liturgics, it was obvious that the rite he performed
could not have been that of the pre-schism West. If my memory
serves me right, he even used the dikiri and trikiri candles, which I am
sure were not used in pre-schism France!

Furthermore, with TYPE B, we have the problem of providing
for those feasts which are celebrated by the Orthodox today, but were not
observed in the pre-schism West. Do services, fitting the Western usage,
have to be composed for them, or are these feasts simply to be ignored?
I think, too, that there is a “chicken and egg,” problem. The West
fell away from Orthodoxy, and since that time has added heresy to heresy.
One has to ask: were the Rites that they were using in some sense
deficient, and unable to contain the fullness of Orthodox teaching? If
such is the case, there is extreme folly in returning to those Rites, especially
as we do not possess them in their fulness. But maybe the West fell
away from Orthodoxy despite the adequacy of their Rites at that time;
then there is folly in the TYPE A approach. We are in a twilight zone here,
and we need fathers of clear spiritual insight, or, better still, the consensus
of the whole Church to guide us before we venture on a path which may
be perilous.

I am bold enough, and stupid enough, to believe that the adoption
of the Western Rite is a path which is extremely perilous, and I will try to
explain, in addition to the above, why.

First of all, in the Byzantine Rite, we have an immense wealth of
liturgical materials, which have been used by the whole Church for centuries.
We have a banquet spread before us. Why turn away from it and
pick at crumbs which are stale and may be contaminated?
Second, the vast majority of people involved in the Western Rite
movement, if one can call it that, are quite understandably converts to
Orthodoxy. They are, perhaps, the people who most need to drink from
the living sources, to be nurtured on Orthodox teaching and understanding
through the services of the Church.

Thirdly, those in the TYPE A situation, who are excising and
amending to bring their rites into an Orthodox frame, are often the very
people who should not be doing this! They are not, by and large, people
who have been formed by Orthodoxy, who have reached spiritual heights,
but are the converts themselves, very often converts who, because of
their adherence to these rites, have lived, as it were, on the very outskirts
of the Orthodox world, have not integrated with it. How different their
approach to that of that beautiful example of a convert, our foremother
Ruth - see her confession (chapter 1:15-18) and see her extraordinary
obedience (chapter 3:2-5). Can you think for a moment how difficult
that obedience must have been for a modest, Eastern woman of that period?
And yet her answer was: “All that thou sayest unto me, I will do.”
Maybe I judge them, and if I do may I be forgiven, but it seems to me that
these people are instead making that most horrible of professions, “I will
do it my way.”

Lastly, at least for now, from the clip that I saw the other day, my
attending Bishop Germain’s Mass, and other things I have seen, it seems
to me that the Rite itself fosters an un-Orthodox spirit. There appears
to be a strong element of posing (for want of a better word), of striking
“pious” poses, which is alien to Orthodoxy. It appears also that the
order somehow takes precedence over the spirit. The thing appears to
be an elaborate ritual. In a sense, we do not have ritual in Orthodoxy. I
remember years ago seeing Fr Vladimir serve at Jordanville. One could
not say he was performing a ritual (although of course there is an outward
ritual form to our services), rather it was clear that he was entering into
a dialogue with our Saviour. Perhaps I exaggerate - I was young and
impressionable at the time, but it does seem to me that the Western Rite
(what I have seen of it) promotes a contrary spirit, - to put it very crudely,
a “look at me, see how well I am doing this” ethos. Again, forgive me if I
am wrong. This may in any case be a defect of the celebrants I have seen,
and not of the rite itself, but it is these same celebrants who are furthering
its use.

I believe that before ROCA-MP went under Moscow, there was
only one Western Rite community, and that was countenanced more as a
pastoral condescension to its priest, with whom I had a brief correspondence,
than anything else. There was an earlier venture into Western
Ritism with the consecration of Bishop Jean-Nectaire of Saint-Denis, but
that did not last long.

As far as I know there is no canon of the OEcumenical Councils
regarding the Western Rite - what rites were being used in the West at
that time would have been Orthodox, and the question of assessing them
would not have arisen.

Regarding whether Western Riters can receive the Holy Mysteries
in Eastern Rite churches: I presume, and only that, that in the present
ROCA-MP they can, because surely as they are under the same Bishops
they are of one mind and one heart with each other, and with their Bishops.
I have probably said more than enough. As you are in correspondence
with Archbishop Chrysostomos and the fathers at Etna, I will copy
this screed to them, in case I have said anything outrageously wrong, and
I hope they will correct me. But, in short, my advice would be, if you
want to become Orthodox, or grow in Orthodoxy, avoid the Western Rite.
God grant that some of this be profitable for you, and please forgive
its shortcomings.

[Ephrem]

What would be the positive benefits of a western rite?

[Suaidan]

What would be the positive benefits of a western rite?

To me, that's a strange question after the fact. The Western rite, in some form or another, has been used corporately for almost 140 years and pre-schism usages are going on 40. Because of that, we are well past the question of whether or not it is a theoretical possibility (thus necessitating pros/cons) or even if it is done correctly.

Most of the arguments against even a pre-schism use are already addressed (what to do with Saints of universal impact in the calendar, et cetera). There are Western services composed to St Seraphim, St Mark of Ephesus, et cetera. The author's objection, "Easternization" of Western Rites, is forever problematic with the Gallican since it is a pastiche of Eastern usages in a Western form with popular additions. But this is not even really common.

I think this is my problem. Most Easterners, especially converts, have no interest in Western usages personally. Which to me is fine, since its purpose is to reach out to those outside the Church. What I then don't understand is the hostility many have to something they don't have a vested interest in using themselves.

[PeterG]

The purpose is to reach out to those outside the Church? Who is it that is so familiar with the ancient forms of Western worship that it can reach them on a personal level? Sure, as a descendant of Britons, I find it kind of interesting; but these rites are just as foreign to modern westerners as the Liturgy of St. John, so I have a hard time seeing the "outreach" in all of this.
If someone is interested in the Church, why not join in the entirety of the community?
An apt comparison, I think, would be if someone was looking to learn the English language. Would you immerse them in modern English or would you have them read Beowulf? After all, Old English would be more familiar to a German-speaker(like what westerners are supposed to feel about the WR?); but in the end you would have someone who still had no real connection to those around him.

[Suaidan]

The purpose is to reach out to those outside the Church? Who is it that is so familiar with the ancient forms of Western worship that it can reach them on a personal level?

Well, one thing to remember is that a great deal of everyday usage in the Western usages continues to retain certain familiar aspects of forms. Certainly what they have is incomplete, but not completely worthless.

Sure, as a descendant of Britons, I find it kind of interesting; but these rites are just as foreign to modern westerners as the Liturgy of St. John, so I have a hard time seeing the "outreach" in all of this.

But this is part of my point. If you don't see the outreach, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Who can gauge the effect of a certain hymn at dawn, or at the offices? I realize that sounds silly on paper, but even the pre-schism rites contain hundreds of these practices in their daily use. If it is enough to bring someone to want to enter into Orthodoxy, it is worth keeping.

If someone is interested in the Church, why not join in the entirety of the community?

The entirety of the community extends back 2,000 years.

An apt comparison, I think, would be if someone was looking to learn the English language. Would you immerse them in modern English or would you have them read Beowulf? After all, Old English would be more familiar to a German-speaker(like what westerners are supposed to feel about the WR?); but in the end you would have someone who still had no real connection to those around him.

Forgive me, but this analogy makes no sense. The entire cultural switch involved in modern conversion is almost invariably more like telling someone who speaks pidgin English to learn perfectly good German as opposed to learning correct English-- assuming the community does some or all of the service in English. I realize that this is how conversions to Orthodoxy took place over about 100 years without the existence of Western rites (missionary efforts to Western countries were fairly low until the 18th century) but the Church is faced with either an economic use of popular knowledge of Christianity or one that starts completely from nothing. I realize the latter is common and is even more convenient. But is it the right thing to do altogether?

For those who have no real knowledge of Christianity, of course, it doesn't matter. But what of those who do? The attitude that an unbaptized pagan is in a better state than a heretic is only useful in gauging them when they are outside the Church; when they come to us, however, the Church has always exercised some level of psychological economy. How much more important is it to do so when there are aspects of the Fathers' teaching already there waiting to be given proper context?

I don't know. I remember I was taught that Orthodox parents bless their children. I thought this was an amazing reality until I realized my mother did the same thing. And this is part of the problem. When you are catechized with the idea that everything you ever learned was worthless "until now", it's often a disappointment to learn it isn't true. It helps people become ecumenist if we never address the truth of a matter.

[Ephrem]

What would be the positive benefits of a western rite?

To me, that's a strange question after the fact. The Western rite, in some form or another, has been used corporately for almost 140 years and pre-schism usages are going on 40. Because of that, we are well past the question of whether or not it is a theoretical possibility (thus necessitating pros/cons) or even if it is done correctly.

Most of the arguments against even a pre-schism use are already addressed (what to do with Saints of universal impact in the calendar, et cetera). There are Western services composed to St Seraphim, St Mark of Ephesus, et cetera. The author's objection, "Easternization" of Western Rites, is forever problematic with the Gallican since it is a pastiche of Eastern usages in a Western form with popular additions. But this is not even really common.

I think this is my problem. Most Easterners, especially converts, have no interest in Western usages personally. Which to me is fine, since its purpose is to reach out to those outside the Church. What I then don't understand is the hostility many have to something they don't have a vested interest in using themselves.

I see what you mean about how its too late to ask whether it should be done. But, what I was wondering is why should we use it at all? Like, what are the reasons for using it, all other arguments aside?

[PeterG]

But this is part of my point. If you don't see the outreach, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Who can gauge the effect of a certain hymn at dawn, or at the offices? I realize that sounds silly on paper, but even the pre-schism rites contain hundreds of these practices in their daily use. If it is enough to bring someone to want to enter into Orthodoxy, it is worth keeping.
The entirety of the community extends back 2,000 years.

How much does the WR really bring them into the Church though? The community I was speaking of is namely the Orthodox around them(not the long since deceased Orthodox of pre-schism Europe); and when you use the WR you aren't bringing them into that community, you're creating a separate albeit related community. This will never be as beneficial as inclusion in the larger community of believers where the new converts can be shaped by the Church
and learn and grow together with others instead of piecing their piety together from fragments of extinct practices found in books.

I don't know. I remember I was taught that Orthodox parents bless their children. I thought this was an amazing reality until I realized my mother did the same thing. And this is part of the problem. When you are catechized with the idea that everything you ever learned was worthless "until now", it's often a disappointment to learn it isn't true. It helps people become ecumenist if we never address the truth of a matter.

I'm sorry but a poor catechist is a poor catechist no matter what rite they use. If someone from the WR had a poor catechism it could be just the other extreme; where instead of thinking everything they had before was worthless, they see it as still somehow salvific!
The solution to your quoted problem isn't reintroducing rites from W. Europe, but rather it's having more competent catechists.