Answering two posts:
Mark Templet wrote: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?
Well, addressing last things first, the collapse of the French Mission was not due to itself (although the Gallican rite IS a reconstruction), but to ROCOR abandoning it immediately after the death of St John. Orphaned, L'ECOF went into chaos as it could not successfully create a succession (it had one Bishop) and attempted to find another jurisdiction to assist it. It is disingenous to blame the French Church, since ROCOR basically destroyed what St John created, for its own demise. (Nor am I blaming you in the argument, as it is common-- but at least give credit where credit is due. The fact that there still ARE factions of L'ECOF indicates that had they been given spiritual guidance properly, they likely would have prospered.)
The most important factor is that among many heterodox cultures, formerly Orthodox today, exist many perfectly Orthodox customs divorced from their historical context. This is not only true of life customs, but even the readings of the Western fathers, which, when referencing liturgy, become non-sensical or require a specialist to explain words and features. To a True Western Orthodox believer, everything that the Western Fathers refer to makes sense, because we are using the paradigms they created. Just as a Westerner who had never seen an Eastern liturgy would not understand Cabasilas' seminal work, an Easterner would not understand all of the liturgical commentaries of the Western Fathers.
Priest Siluan wrote:
Yes. I did, but anyway, we should admit that the whole matter with the "Western Rite" has failed completely.
Why would I admit that, when there are over 100 such parishes throughout the world and those just using either a traditional rite or the Gallican? (Not counting the ecumenist rites)
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.
Exactly why do you keep throwing Sarum rite in with the Gallican reconstruction? The Sarum rite is a well-attested pre-schism liturgy, like the Mozarabic, with literally hundreds of manuscripts available for reference. It's not a reconstructed liturgy at all! Yet this is the third or fourth time you've said that, I've addressed it, and you repeat it without a shred of proof!
And the fact that they survived in the West is proof that it is bad? Considering the history of the West with its ritual suppressions, their survival should be a good thing. Any Orthodox customs surviving among people should be encouraged and used.
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.
Then you know less about Mexican culture than you think: there are a number of imported Mozarabic customs for centuries among the Mexican Catholics. The first printed edition of the Mozarabic rite was done in Mexico; Mozarabic Bishops and priests were always there. A number of customs survive in Latin American Catholicism in general, not just in Mexico. And were the two rites done together, although neither would be a Roman Mass, I am certain that a native Mexican would feel the Mozarabic is more familiar and more preserving of indigenous custom.
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.
It is unnecessary to imagine the "spirit" of a document when we know why it was written: to keep post-schism innovations from being promulgated in the ROCOR, as they were in World Orthodoxy.
