Yet Another Western Rite Argument

[Suaidan]

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.

Firstly, the Orthodox Church is comprised of all Orthodox from the Bishops to the laity. Therefore, if WR people are already there, this is a moot point. This in itself becomes a cyclical argument. And it once again fails to address the fact that (a) some are turned away because it has no relation to their ancestral understanding of Christianity (much of which may well be Orthodox anyway) and (b) that some are turned away because of a feeling of alienation which does not need to be there.

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.

[/quote]

I was giving an example. Your response, however, does not reflect the reality of the situation. It's not so simple as poor catechism. In your example, what you are basically saying is to educate people on the Orthodox East and West and then say "well, this is what we use". It's unrealistic and no such catechetical instruction exists today. Even if you plow through Vladimir Moss' voluminous discussions of Orthodox England (and Western Orthodoxy is not all English) it is still insufficient when we actually read the Fathers. Can you read any liturgical description given by St Gregory the Great and say "oh that fits here"? No, but sadly a Roman Catholic, even with his bared and reduced ritual can.

The truth is that from many of our modern texts to modern Eastern Orthodox converts, the dictum "all Western Christianity is evil" is not only common, but at times part of our actual teaching. It's the very reason that Romanides and Kailomiros-- even though their confessions of Orthodoxy are at times questionable-- are so attractive to converts. It creates a notion that all things Western are either corrupt intrinsically or corrupt for a very long time (usually long before the schism).

Now, we can deny it, or we can be honest and ask ourselves how many times we've said "the ORTHODOX teaching, as compared to the WESTERN teaching" in explanation. It isn't truthful, but it's convenient.

[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.

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?

I wouldn't ask anyone already Orthodox in a Russian or Greek Church to use it at all.

For some reason, the desire of Western Orthodox to exist is always confused with the desire to take over. But then the converse happens-- out of fear that they have a desire to take over, many Eastern converts try to end their existence.

[Ephrem]

The truth is that from many of our modern texts to modern Eastern Orthodox converts, the dictum "all Western Christianity is evil" is not only common, but at times part of our actual teaching. It's the very reason that Romanides and Kailomiros-- even though their confessions of Orthodoxy are at times questionable-- are so attractive to converts. It creates a notion that all things Western are either corrupt intrinsically or corrupt for a very long time (usually long before the schism).

Now, we can deny it, or we can be honest and ask ourselves how many times we've said "the ORTHODOX teaching, as compared to the WESTERN teaching" in explanation. It isn't truthful, but it's convenient.

All western Christianity does kind of seem evil, though. I mean, all western confessions are heretical ones, so how is that not evil?

[Suaidan]

All western Christianity does kind of seem evil, though. I mean, all western confessions are heretical ones, so how is that not evil?

Thank you for making my point I guess? How can I really supposed to respond to that?

Technically, all Orthodox in the West are geographically Western, but have their national loyalties, et cetera. And real Western Orthodox are both ethincally Western and spiritually Orthodox. Heresy is heresy, location is location, rite is rite. The simple reality is that there were a great numbers of Eastern heresies. Arianism was an Eastern heresy. It is the primary Christological teaching part of the Jehovah's Witnesses, so does this mean I can discuss the Orthodox versus "the Eastern teaching" when I talk to them?

[jgress]

On the one hand I agree with Dcn Joseph: why not let both rites be used? If some people are repelled by the Eastern rite, let them come to Orthodoxy through the Western rite. If some are repelled by the Western rite, let them come through the Eastern rite. Even if the Western rite doesn't work for most, the fact that it works for some should mean it has some value and use. Just because I personally don't have a taste for it doesn't mean I should impose my tastes on others, and this really does seem to be a matter of taste rather than dogma. I'm not convinced that you could argue the Western rite is just wrong, in an absolute sense.

On the other hand, I agree with the opposing arguments insofar as they are attempting to explain why ultimately the Western rite will probably not work to bring over significant numbers to Orthodoxy. Resurrecting authentic Orthodox Western rites to me smacks too much of antiquarianism, however well-intentioned. Although I was raised in a Western rite as a traditional RC, and therefore might be thought to be predisposed to prefer that rite, I feel that an important aspect of the Church's liturgical life (and praxis in general) is continuity. The Eastern rites are spiritually alive, not because they are intrinsically better or more Orthodox than the old Western rites (or even the new-fangled Orthodox Western rites that are based on Catholic or Anglican usage), but simply because they have been in continual use by Orthodox believers, while there has been no continual use of Western rites by Orthodox believers from the time of the Apostles to our own day. The Orthodox West was cut off and died spiritually. Their rites are like dry bones, not living bodies.

But that is simply my own opinion. I might turn out to be wrong, and the Western rite might turn out to be a huge (or even small) success. So I'm not saying Dcn Joseph needs to quit his job or leave the Western rite. I'm just saying I'm not holding my breath.

[Mark Templet]

First of all, I want to credit Fr. Joseph for opening with a fair, honest, and sober assessment of the Western Rite situation. He at least deserves that much respect for his even-handedness.

I would like to pose a different angle: suppose tomorrow that a new Pope was elected and he came out and said that the entire Western Church is heretical and must submit itself to True Orthodoxy (I know this is far far far fetched, but keep reading). This new Pope along with thousands of people worldwide suddenly fill the few True Orthodox Churches that exist and fall down on their faces weeping and begging to be accepted and forgiven for their sins and errors. After we catechized them, baptized them all properly, and chrismated them what would we do with them? Would we tell them to go back home and try to be good Christians and keep doing what they were doing before? No, that would be a huge mistake. Would we try to tell them to return to some pre Vatican II mass? No, that is still full of innovations and errors. How far back would we have to go in Western liturgics before we finally would just tell these people to do what we are doing now?

My point of view is that there should NEVER have been different "rites" in the Church; and furthermore I submit that such WAS the genesis of schism. Even prior to 1054 the Eastern and Western Churches were not talking to each other and relations were more often strained than cordial. This is not the same Church that we read about in the Book of Acts that "came together and was of one accord." The mind of the Church should not be Western or Eastern-- it should be Christian. Orthodoxy comes BEFORE being Greek or Russian or American or of any ethnic decent. We are baptized into Christ and members of His Body, that means we leave behind the old man and trade in our ethnic identity for a Christian citizenship. It is antithetical that anyone could be “repulsed” by the worship of the Church.

The fact is that the branch of the West cut itself off from the trunk of the Tree of Life, the Church. Today, the real Church has one Divine Liturgy that has developed and is maintained. This is not an Eastern Rite any longer; it is THE rite of true worship of the one mind of true Christians. How can we slap generations of people in the face who have preserved this universal worship of the Church with their own culture and blood? How can we say to them, “Thanks for preserving the true faith, but I don’t like the way you did it and I will instead pick up defunct rites to preserve my own cultural ego.” How can we not see how prideful this is? We don’t need more rites in the True Orthodox Church; we need to rally around the one rite that has produced the plethora of saints.

We all know the differences between the ways that the Greeks and Russian bring different styles into the same Divine Liturgy. Over time, not in a forced way mind you, we will develop a distinct style ourselves. There is room for style; there is not room for complete replacement. In the mean time, I work to learn the faith and practice that my bothers and sisters keep in Russia and have for so long. I don't care about being Russian,I care about being united with these people and trying to purify myself by modeling their spirituality. When they meet me, I want them to feel that I am one of them, not because I copy their culture or language but because I emulate their Christian examples.

May God have mercy on me a sinner!

[jgress]

I think your argument makes a lot of sense. In principle, different practices are not good, since there shouldn't really be a distinction between faith and practice. In reality, the Church can tolerate some degree of difference in practice where it doesn't affect the dogmatic profession of some individual or group. But it does seem that, throughout the history of the Church, differences in practice were not tolerated indefinitely: at some point, efforts were made to eliminate the differences. Wherever differences in practice persisted without attempts to correct them, we often find that such differences in praxis eventually turned into dogmatic differences and complete severance from the Church. After all, why did the Church condemn the Gregorian calendar? Not because the calendar is itself dogma, but also not because they were blinded by fanatical anti-Latinism (as if the Holy Spirit would tolerate the Church being hijacked by nationalism). Rather, because they could see that adoption of a heterodox practice would inevitably lead to adoption of heterodox dogma, which is precisely what we've seen happen with the New Calendar churches.