Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Western Rite/Archive 1

10,332 bytes added, 22:11, February 26, 2007
thank you for all the work you've done on OrthodoxWiki - already it is a resource for Orthodox.
: Fixed! --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 21:06, 25 Feb 2005 (CST)
== Thoughts on Criticisms of the Western Rite. ==
One of the things I think was missed in the criticism section of this article was that what many find disquieting about Western Rite parishes is that most, if not all, are primarily convert parishes. In some circles there is a feeling that while the rite itself is unobjectionable, there is a danger that these parishes want to be Orthodox but not too Orthodox: they do not want to give up the comforting familiarity of their former religion and might thus come to further 'infect' the Church with other (this time unwarranted) innovations brought in from their former church. This, I think, is behind the worry about the lack of a liturgical tradition that is referenced in the main article.
== Negotiations ==
  In the late 1990s, negotiations had been underway with the Church of Serbia for the Eglise to come under its jurisdiction, but NATO's bombing of Kosovo in 1999 abruptly ended those hopes, as France was then seen by the Serbians as complicit in its persecution by the West. Talks reportedly resumed in 2004.
I must say I find this paragraph a little bizarre - maybe it's my American mentality of separation of church and state, but why would church negotiations be affected by what the French government does? And why is the ''reported'' necessary? Either they did or they didn't, and if it's a maybe, another wording might be more appropriate since ''reportedly'' sounds like someone is suspicious of certain claims which are being made. (And if this is the case, the concern should be made explicit). Thanks, [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
I believe this proves all my assertions. I added them to give a more complete picture of St. Hilarion's Monastery, particularly since, as I noted, certain figures there have a disturbing background, high ambition, and have been less than honest about their background (and well as the practices, faith, and even ''Orthodoxy'' of Antioch -- but that's another post). Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------===In Reply #1===
Rdr. Andrew sent me some more links to the whole thread of discussion on [ westernriteorthodoxy]. I've ''briefly'' read through your discussion together, and I venture the following comments:
#I'm amazed by the depth of discussion. I think at one point Ben said that no good history of Western Rite Orthodoxy yet exists. I'm very heartened to see so much knowledge going around and I have high hopes for this article here. I hope you folks don't give up on all of this.
#It seems to me that your strained conversation is a sad side effect of internet discourse. How quickly differences escalate into flame wars! I'm not convinced that either of you are actually wrong. Let me explain:
::Ben takes issue with Rdr. Andrew's openness to the Milan Synod and other groups which call themselves Orthodox, but are not in fact in communion with any of the ancient sees. Rdr. Andrew responds that we should not write these groups off too quickly, and gives some historical examples to back this up (e.g. the way some groups - even, e.g. the OCA - have failed at one point or another to meet the strict definition of canonicity offered by Fr. Matusiak (which I think is a good summary statement, but not a complete treatise on ecclesiastical polity).<br>::My impression is that Rdr. Andrew is being too cautious/charitable here. I don't know the specific history of the Milan Synod, but '''I recommend that we change it's descriptor from "Old Calendar" to something that more accurately highlights the problematic character of its claims.''' Perhaps the best thing to do would be to provide a link to an article which goes into some of the history of the [[1 Holy Synod of Milan|Milan Synod]].<br>::In terms of ecclesiology, obviously this isn't really the place for an in-depth discussion, but I award points to both parties. Personally, I don't have much trouble holding the two perspectives in tension. It seems that most of us (in mainstream canonical Orthodox churches) can appreciate that, even if we aren't fully in communion with R.O.C.O.R. (not yet at least), they still have a claim to authenticity that's radically different from, e.g., a group like H.O.C.N.A. It is "common sense" to us to state the basic criteria of canonicity without totally excluding some groups which have become estranged for certain kinds of historical reasons (in this case, communist control of the Moscow Patriarchate).<br>
:3. It seems to me that both of you have a lot to contribute. Again, I'm not really sure why things have escalated so quickly (maybe because it's Lent?), but I trust that we are all "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph. 4:3) and that this can be resolved in a worthy manner.
May God bless you both, [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] 21('''''Honcho in Chief''''')---------------------------------:17Wow, howdy, 4 Apr 2005 Chief! :) I certainly hope whatever kicked off things off in such a manner was a passing thing and we can make a "second first-impression." I'm more than willing. I'd certainly welcome any opportunity to promote the Western Rite within Antioch and broader (EDTcanonical) Orthodoxy. My criteria for Orthodoxy is not merely being Orthodox and in communion with "all the pentarchy" (Rome isn't around anymore), or even a single Patriarchate, but any one of the autocephalous churches. As such, ROCOR doubly qualifies, as it is in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem (and soon Moscow!). HOCNA, Milan, ROAC, and others are not and so do not. There are troubling allegations of spiritual, physical, and sexual abuse with several such groups, as well.  :What is particularly troubling to me is that many converts come looking for the true Church -- the Body of Christ, Holy Orthodoxy -- and find the aggressive online proselytizing of one of these groups. (Particularly those looking for the Western Rite finding Milan.) Then rather than ending up within the Holy Church (particularly within the W. Rite of Antioch or ROCOR, which can use all the members we can get!), they end up in what most of us consider an "imitation Orthodox" group, so trying to end up Orthodox they end up in a very odd and non-Orthodox organization, convinced they're the ''real''Honcho Orthodox. Further, many of these groups are dishonest about their relations with Orthodoxy (St. Hilarion's Monastery in particular, as noted), claiming simultaneously that: ::1) Antioch and ROCOR love and cherish their liturgy and approve of the "validity" of their orders (red light!);::2) Antioch and ROCOR will stop at nothing to crush their "competitors"; and::3) Antioch and ROCOR's Western Rites are evil, post-schism, or - gasp! - "Byzantized"! :I think OrthodoxWiki is providing a potentially invaluable service to interested converts looking for information. In order to guide them into the safe haven of the Church, we need to be clear how mainstream Orthodoxy regards the Greek OCs.  :If I may further muddy the waters, ROCOR despises most Greek OCs, as they were burned after setting them up, but they are still in communion with the Oropos-Fili faction. However, this group says it will break communion when ROCOR reunites with Moscow, so it's a temporary arrangement.  :Father, bless. (And I'll see what I can do about getting you that extra-large monitor! Hey, you too, Andrew -- how's ''that'' for fence-mending?) :) ::I would just add: I don't think the examples Rdr. Andrew used are appropos. The OCA was granted autonomy by Moscow, which means at a minimum it was in communion with '''Moscow'''. St. Maximus the Confessor was persecuted by his hierarch and the Pope of Rome. ROCOR has always been in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem (or one or the other). None of this can be said of the ever-splitting Greek OCs.===In Reply #2===Hi Ben, I really do see (and share) your concerns. Just in the past few months, I've been personally troubled by the divisiveness, aggressive proselytizing, and half-truths of one of these groups. I've also been looking into some allegations of sexual abuse against one group in Chiefparticular and the more I scratched the surface, the more disturbed I was by what I found. All that said, I think Rdr. Andrew's concern is that we shouldn't lump all these groups together too quickly. I am more sympathetic with some of the Greek Old Calendarists than others... each has it's own history, it's own dramas.  On Wikipedia, there's a thing called NPOV - "neutral point of view" - which we've adopted, in a modified form, at OrthodoxWiki (see [[OrthodoxWiki:Style_Manual#Neutrality_and_the_OrthodoxWiki_Bias|Neutrality_and_the_OrthodoxWiki_Bias]]). I think of this as the editorial voice we're trying to cultivate here - more descriptive than prescriptive. So, I think it's preferable to simply describe the situation of these various groups, including their own claims as well as the accusations against them and how they are regarded by other groups. We're aiming for description, and I'd like to leave any direct pronouncements about these groups to the official websites of the various Orthodox Churches, and any unofficial ones that want to enter into that fray. We're not trying to do everything - thank God they're there - but I do think OrthodoxWiki is filling an important gap in the Orthodox cyber-sphere.  Practically, a descriptive tone would mean, for example, saying "these groups are regarded as schismatic by the Orthodox Churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate" or "their belief in reincarnation, if allegations are true, is incompatible with Orthodox teaching" rather than the more pointed and not very helpful "they're heretics." It seems to me that the facts of the cases speak more loudly than any direct polemic we want to insert. I would welcome a response from folks in any of those groups, as long as they didn't wipe out the words of those who have voiced concerns against them. One final note - about the OCA thing, I think Rdr. Andrew was referring more to the ambiguous status of the Metropolia before the autocephaly was granted by Moscow. Wishing you a good battle, [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] P.S. May I invite you to open an OrthodoxWiki account?
== Formatting and Indentions ==
I'm sure there are other Western Rite forums in existence, but I don't have my links handy. Others? Anyone? Anyone?
*beginning of new comments by other user* I have found few Western Rite forums in use by actual Western Rite Orthodox. The 'westernriteorthodoxy' list at Yahoogroups probably being singular. Since the closing of the old "occidentalis" list in about 2002, AWRV clergy have not really participated in any online forum or listserv that I can find. The same goes for ROCOR WRO clergy as of 2003. The only place I know where discussion might be had on the subject is a single forum on another list that is primarily for Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, with Roman Catholics and Orthodox participating. - Aristibule
About the listservs, I would suggest we list everything relevant, but that we clearly note the source, e.g. Antiochian Archdiocese, etc. or Controversial Groups (Milan Synod). We don't have to pretend that, e.g., the Milan Synod has legitimate canonical standing in the Orthodox world, but I think we should include all the data relevant to the discussion.
Maybe this could be accomplished by including a brief overview of the relationship of the "non-mainstream" groups to the Western rite, including some of the things which have been discussed here and in the linked threads, but in digest form (and with links to more detailed OrthodoxWiki articles!).
How does that sound to everybody? - [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
Sounds like a good idea, Father. It might help as many are seeing subtle language pushing the Milan Synod pov over the neutral language in other articles. I've tried to clarify on a few points where I have some knowledge of the subject. The issue is the language in how their Western Rite project is described, being of word choices which either overtly or by intimation cast aspersion on the Western Rite as used by the (mainstream) Orthodox Church. Having said that, reporting using the self-descriptive political language of the group imports the bias of the group. - Aristibule
==Miscellaneous Information==
I have a few items to add later once I can get some more detailed information. I'm placing them here as placeholders so I don't forget.
- The role of the Western Rite Orthodox in the "Pilgrimage to Orthodoxy", including the initial placement of then AWRV priest Fr. Michael Keiser over what would become the British Antiochian Deanery (and its subsequent Byzantinization.)
- Dr. Raymond Winch (RIP), who was converted to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism in the late 1950s, and became a proponent for Western Rite Orthodoxy through "The Gregorian Club". His major influence was through his investigations into the canons which direct the Roman rite for those nations speaking the English tongue.
- Use of a Byzantinized liturgy based around the Roman Canon by Russian Old Believers up into the 1960s in Turkey.
- The special relationship of the Latin rite monasteries and churches of the post-Schism era on Mt. Athos and in Constantinople/Nicea/Crimea/"New England"(unkown place on the Black Sea coast) which included Latin rite communities having privileges not extended towards other 'Latins'. The Varangians (Anglivarangoi) in particular, and how Blondal's theory of them remaining under Roman pastorate is problematic in several details.
- The first Orthodox Christians in the Americas being the family of Leif Ericsson, sent by St. Olaf of Norway with priest to Greenland - users of a Roman rite, and under the 'omophorion' of the Bishop of Hamburg-Bremen (over half a century before the Great Schism). Records of that local church describe an Episcopal visit to 'Vinland' by the Greenland (North American) bishop of Gardar in the period while the Great Schism was developing. That community survived at least until the period contemporary with the voyages of Columbus.
Any help in gathering details on any would be helpful. (I've got papers I'm supposed to be writing as well.) - Aristibule *end
:::I can post the information regarding the Old Believers' use of the Roman Canon until the 1960s; Fr. John Shaw of ROCOR actually translated the liturgy in question. Also, Fr. Andrew Phillips wrote up the details of the Vinland use of the Western Rite. I'd happily note the information and link the articles. However, Andrew pointed out on "westernriteorthodoxy" that the article didn't go into the pre-Schism history of the Western Rite, per se. He suggested we start another article. I think this may be worth having all in one place. What think the rest of ye? I'm amenable to either solution. -- Ben Johnson
:::: Thanks Ben. If we could begin with Fr. Andrew's information, and I'll add and correct from there. I believe I've read it before, and I know some details he might not been aware of. I can understand a separate area for pre-Schism history, but the area I'm interested in is that 'post-Schism' continuity of Western forms within the Eastern Church, or in the West where it has bearing upon canonical issues of our jurisdictions? Would that need to be in a separate article as well? - Aristibule

Navigation menu