Latinized New "ROCOR"

[Ephrem]

It should also be pointed out that St. Tikhon never blessed any Western-Rite liturgy. What happened was St. Tikhon, when he was bishop of the American diocese before becoming Patriarch, was petitioned by a group of Episcopalians to be received into the Church. They wanted to continue to use the Book of Common Prayer for their worship services. St. Tikhon sent a BCP to the Holy Synod for examination. They determined that after a number of changes it could potentially be used as an Orthodox liturgy, but they specifically approved it "only on the spot in America." They sent their observations back to St. Tikhon, but by then the Episcopalians had already withdrawn their petition.

In the end, neither St. Tikhon nor the Holy Synod approved of the rite. It wasn't until the 1970's (which was obviously well after St. Tikhon's time) that the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon", which is now used in the Antiochian Western-Rite, appeared.

[Suaidan]

Blagoslovite:

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.

True Orthodox using a Western Rite know just how much innovation has crept in there as well.

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.

I do not believe those using a Western rite in its traditional form are "posing" at all. Restoring an ancient tradition that fell into disuse not because of heresy but historical circumstance is no sin. I could point to St John, but if the argument is that he's wrong anyway, what's the point of discussion? Besides, in his relevant quotes to the Church of France, he was not talking to Easterners who would not listen, but Westerners who he advised to ignore attempts to dissuade them.

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.

But it WASN'T heresy. It was your Orthodox heritage. And if you choose to ignore it Father, you can. But it will still be your Orthodox heritage from long ago, an inescapable part of your being.

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."

[/quote]

That decision was written before ANY pre-schism rites were used and right after the "liturgy of St Tikhon" was invented. ROCOR was trying to protect itself from that. How could a pre-schism rite even qualify under the definition in the resolution?

[Suaidan]

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.

Blagoslovite: Dear Father Siluan, did you get what I wrote on the matter addressing your positions on the Western Rite?

[Mark Templet]

Restoring an ancient tradition that fell into disuse not because of heresy but historical circumstance is no sin. I could point to St John, but if the argument is that he's wrong anyway, what's the point of discussion? Besides, in his relevant quotes to the Church of France, he was not talking to Easterners who would not listen, but Westerners who he advised to ignore attempts to dissuade them.

God bless you Father,

I wish to state clearly: I am not say that this is a sin or morally wrong, nor am I saying that there are no circumstances under which this would be a good idea. My point is that in the context of the contemporary situation of trying to reach converts from the West that this may not be the best avenue.

Likewise, in my opinion your argument that my ancient ancestors from my French roots were Orthodox is weak. Me trying to connect to roots removed from Orthodoxy by scores of generations just seems like a grasp at straws. I converted to Orthodoxy and in doing so I have agreed to follow Her in whatever traditions She passes to me; since the time of the Great Schism She has preserved Her faith in these Eastern Rites.

Is it possible to reconstruct the ancient Western Rites and preserve in them True Orthodoxy? Yes, for some that could work but for how many would it ultimately become a stumbling block? We have all agreed that these authentic Western Rites are foreign to nearly 100% of converts, as much so as the Divine Liturgies of Saints John and Basil. So, why try to do that given the circumstances? At least I can feel comfortable traveling to Suzdal or something like that to know that although I am separated by language and culture from these people, I can instantly recognize their worship as my own. I have a connection to these people who are suffering for True Orthodoxy in Russia each time I worship in unity with them.

Make no mistake, I am not Russian, nor am I trying to be or adopt their culture. But I do want to learn my faith from them; I want to follow their examples diligently. I want to worship as closely as I can to what they have preserved. I don't want to look at these people and say, "I like you faith, and although your church life is vibrant, I would rather return to a form that is foreign to you and me."

Again, I am not saying that this is wrong on some moral or ethical level, I just question the motives for insisting on something like this, and how it can bring about complete conversion for Westerners without the temptations of returning to their former heresies. Now, I can see that the argument could be made that this could in fact attract even more Westerners because it honors their past. So, how did that work out for ROCOR in France in the long-run?

[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.

Blagoslovite: Dear Father Siluan, did you get what I wrote on the matter addressing your positions on the Western Rite?

Yes. I did, but anyway, we should admit that the whole matter with the "Western Rite" has failed completely. Many of these ideas has come from some Russian in the circle of Paris (Russian MP-Masonic-Ecuminst minded Kowalevski Brother), who tried to revive the pre-schism French Church rite, called Gallican Rite, which very little has survived to our time, then they took "a little from here and a little from there" from other traditions (Byzantine, Roman et al) for completing that very little from the real Gallican tradition had survived until now. It is very interesting that Russian people had been so unnecessarily interested in reviving the pre-schism French traditions. The same thing could be said as for Old Sarum rite. This would be the situation for some "western rites", for other ones like Mozarabic Rite, they "survived" but outside the Church, among heretics for 1000 years, neither this last situation is good.

For this reason, my very humble opinion is that the "Western Rite" question is not good and it is even unnecessarily, it is closer to innovation than anything else, and it is even dangerous and confuse for people. And for its defender,who argue about it good with missionary or culture purposes et al, it would be good ask them about if they think, for instance, Mozarabic rite is so or more strange for a Mexican than the Byzantine Rite.

On the other hand, I agree that we should remember and reassess the pre-schism Local Western Churches, their saints, traditions, et al. but within the framework of the surviving traditions in the Church. I think the resolution of the ROCOR Synod of 1978 was in this same spirit.

[Priest Siluan]

It should also be pointed out that St. Tikhon never blessed any Western-Rite liturgy. What happened was St. Tikhon, when he was bishop of the American diocese before becoming Patriarch, was petitioned by a group of Episcopalians to be received into the Church. They wanted to continue to use the Book of Common Prayer for their worship services. St. Tikhon sent a BCP to the Holy Synod for examination. They determined that after a number of changes it could potentially be used as an Orthodox liturgy, but they specifically approved it "only on the spot in America." They sent their observations back to St. Tikhon, but by then the Episcopalians had already withdrawn their petition.

In the end, neither St. Tikhon nor the Holy Synod approved of the rite. It wasn't until the 1970's (which was obviously well after St. Tikhon's time) that the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon", which is now used in the Antiochian Western-Rite, appeared.

Dear in Christ, Ephrem:

Yes. It is true completely. the Arab Bishops of Russian Eparchy in America were who imposed this "Liturgy"among their people, as a "legal" and "from Patriarch Tikhon"...

As for St. John, he was a Great Saint, but was wrong with the Kowalevsky "French" gruop.

[searn77]

Restoring an ancient tradition that fell into disuse not because of heresy but historical circumstance is no sin. I could point to St John, but if the argument is that he's wrong anyway, what's the point of discussion? Besides, in his relevant quotes to the Church of France, he was not talking to Easterners who would not listen, but Westerners who he advised to ignore attempts to dissuade them.

God bless you Father,

I wish to state clearly: I am not say that this is a sin or morally wrong, nor am I saying that there are no circumstances under which this would be a good idea. My point is that in the context of the contemporary situation of trying to reach converts from the West that this may not be the best avenue.

Likewise, in my opinion your argument that my ancient ancestors from my French roots were Orthodox is weak. Me trying to connect to roots removed from Orthodoxy by scores of generations just seems like a grasp at straws. I converted to Orthodoxy and in doing so I have agreed to follow Her in whatever traditions She passes to me; since the time of the Great Schism She has preserved Her faith in these Eastern Rites.

Is it possible to reconstruct the ancient Western Rites and preserve in them True Orthodoxy? Yes, for some that could work but for how many would it ultimately become a stumbling block? We have all agreed that these authentic Western Rites are foreign to nearly 100% of converts, as much so as the Divine Liturgies of Saints John and Basil. So, why try to do that given the circumstances? At least I can feel comfortable traveling to Suzdal or something like that to know that although I am separated by language and culture from these people, I can instantly recognize their worship as my own. I have a connection to these people who are suffering for True Orthodoxy in Russia each time I worship in unity with them.

Make no mistake, I am not Russian, nor am I trying to be or adopt their culture. But I do want to learn my faith from them; I want to follow their examples diligently. I want to worship as closely as I can to what they have preserved. I don't want to look at these people and say, "I like you faith, and although your church life is vibrant, I would rather return to a form that is foreign to you and me."

Again, I am not saying that this is wrong on some moral or ethical level, I just question the motives for insisting on something like this, and how it can bring about complete conversion for Westerners without the temptations of returning to their former heresies. Now, I can see that the argument could be made that this could in fact attract even more Westerners because it honors their past. So, how did that work out for ROCOR in France in the long-run?

I understand your point Father and I think you make a good argument against a western rite in our contemporary times (although I personally don't agree with you) but the part I put in bold in your last paragraph I do not understand. How can a pre-schism western rite tempt westerners into returning to their former heresies, since the rite is just as foreign to them as the eastern rite? I understand that the Antiochian western rite liturgies could tempt westerners as they are basically Anglican liturgies. But if a western True Orthodox Christian who follows a pre-schism western rite is tempted to fall back into his previous heresies and leave the TOC, do you really think it would be the pre-schism western rite that tempts him, as he probably hasn't seen anything similar to these rites outside of Orthodoxy?

Also, I see where you say that you feel a connection with the Orthodox in Suzdal as you all follow the same eastern rite. But can't I feel the same connection with the Orthodox saints of the west who followed ancient pre-schism western rites by using the same rite as they did?

Make no mistake, I am not Russian, nor am I trying to be or adopt their culture. But I do want to learn my faith from them; I want to follow their examples diligently. I want to worship as closely as I can to what they have preserved.

Can't I say the same thing when speaking about the saints in ancient Britain or Ireland? Even though the heretical west have not preserved the Orthodox faith and their rites, it's still the same faith and rites that the Orthodox saints of old had used. And our Church is not only a comprised of us here on earth but also of those who are in the heavens. Just because in our recent past there hasn't been any Orthodox using these ancient rites doesn't mean that we can't start using them again, at least in my opinion.

It may be nice that you or I can go to places all over the world and instantly recognize the liturgy (as I follow the eastern rite too), but this is a more recent aspect of the Church. In former times, as you undoubtedly know, this was not the case. And I'm sure that the Orthodox who used different rites still felt a connection with other Orthodox who used different rites, as it's the faith that unites us, not the rite, because World Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism have the same rites but they have not kept the faith.