www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Trad Anglican Church to 'Dox

At one time there was no Eastern Rite hierarchy in the Western Church either.

If we look to vagante Churches you will find Western Rite hierarchs.

So what you are telling me is that the Eastern Orthodox created the Western Rite within their Chruches for those Eastern Orthodox who wished to have a Western Rite rather than following their own Eastern Rites?

I was under the impression that the creation of the Western Rite with in Orthodoxy occured when Western Rite individuals wanted to enter the Orthodox Churches.

The real question is why these Orthodox would prefer this "Liturgy of St. Tikhon," a variation of a liturgy conccocted by Protestant Reformers with the intention to dumb down the Catholic and sacrificial elements instead of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Mostly because it's familiar, I suppose!

Logos Teen

My guess is that it is the same reason that some Anglican converts to Catholicism prefer the Anglican Use Liturgy which is a Catholic correction of the Anglican Liturgy.

I have nothing against these people, just think that them being Western they should join a Western Church rather then throw away all Western tradition and only have a Western Rite laid on top of Eastern tradition.

This all sounds like these folks are looking more for a liturgical "smorgasbord" with whatever they feel comfortable with - I hear "celtic" "sarum" etc. etc. then Coptic!!!

But isn't this already evident within the Church as a whole? Each Rite has its own, and in some cases more than one, Eucharistic Liturgy. What is wrong with this?

Latin Rite already has 3 if you do not count the various religious orders that have their own rites.

DavidB

That all may be the case.

The Western Rite within Orthodoxy however has no hierarchy, and to my knowledge no plans to create one. I don�t believe those in the Western Rite view themselves as a distinct or autonomous church that would demand a hierarchy, I believe they just view themselves as a liturgical rite. That in and of itself probably would discount the idea of WR Orthodoxy as �reverse Uniatism�.

I definitely do not claim to be very familiar with the Western Rite�s history or current practice. My understanding of the nexus of the movement though is that it was started by people who were already Orthodox, at least in the AOA. I imagine there may be a mix now of people who are Orthodox or some who are joining Orthodoxy directly through the Western Rite.

Regarding this question

I would let those in the Western Rite speak for themselves. I have however been to some Anglican services, and I have to say the ones I attended were extremely dignified and the liturgy was quite formal in a way that I think what one could term to be classically �catholic�. I have also attended services at any number of Roman Catholic churches where the structure of the worship was essentially the polar opposite of what I just described.

Andrew

Dear Friends,

I've known a number of former Anglican and RC priests who are now members of the Antiochian Orthodox Church's Western Rites (Rite of St Tikhon for former Anglicans and the Rite of St Gregory for former RC's).

I attended a Western Rite conference here in Toronto some years back where I saw RC's studying to become Orthodox who got up to speak about the Roman Catholic Church and thoroughly ridiculed a number of aspects of Roman Catholicism, including the papacy.

They, these converts from Anglicanism, RCism, Old Catholicism and Old Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, consider themselves to have embraced the fullness of the Church and Orthodox faith. They consider all those in union with Rome to be not "half way home" as some consider them, but to be simply "outside the Church."

Orthodoxy, as we know, does not have the "almost full" glass model of ecumenical theology.

As for Davidb's point about joining an Eastern Church, the converts from Anglicanism, RCism et al. see Orthodoxy as having the fullness of the Apostolic faith, free of all later "Latin heretical inventions." That Orthodoxy hitherto did not have Western liturgical rites within it simply means, for them and other Orthodox, that the West fell from the true Church - period.

In addition, it took a lot for the Orthodox to accept the legitimacy of not only an "Orthodoxized" Anglican/Sarum Rite liturgy, but also of a Tridentine liturgy. The Orthodox are also generally against resurrecting any liturgical rites that have fallen into disuse over the years or are in use among those who are "outside the true Church."

Western Rite Orthodox often have to face opposition EVEN within the Antiochian Orthodox Church itself to their Western liturgical traditions.

During the conference, I heard complaints that Father so-and-so of the Western Rite had been approached to join the Eastern Rite and so on. The Western Rite Orthodox tended to do what EC's do to Roman Catholicism - poke fun at the larger Church's traditions . . .

I've assisted Protestant friends who wanted to become something other than Protestant along their journeys. Some became Catholic, others became Eastern Orthodox (and they can't stand ANYTHING Western as it brings back painful memories of the situation that led to their conversion) and others became Western Rite Orthodox.

Again, before anyone accuses me of encouraging people to convert here or there - I don't tell them what to do, I will discuss things from my viewpoint, which is Catholic, but ultimately if they want to become Orthodox, that is their business and I'm certainly going to congratulate them on this as we Catholics see the Orthodox Church as the Body of Christ etc.

And Western Rite Orthodoxy is NOT uniatism.

No one encouraged them to become Orthodox and certainly Orthodoxy in general tends to be an entirely Eastern Rite affair. As they wanted their own liturgical culture, Orthodox churches, although not all of course, explored the possibilities here and in some cases received ecclesial approval.

The "Evangelical Orthodox" within the Antiochian Orthodox Church although I don't believe they're called that now, were Protestants who started an independent Orthodox movement until they came into communion with canonical Orthodoxy. Their rite is Byzantine, but it is adapted to certain Protestant traditions.

In addition, I believe the Old Rite Orthodox of Russia had a version of the old Latin Mass that they call the "Liturgy of ST Peter" that they, in some areas, celebrated on the feast of the Chief Apostles Peter and Paul. Mt AThos also had a Benedictine monastery, Amalfion, whose ruins can be seen today.

In terms of other liturgical traditions within Orthodoxy, I believe the Russian Orthodox Church allowed for the Assyrian Orthodox (converts from what was called "Nestorianism") to maintain the integrity of their own ancient liturgies and also the Chalcedonian Armenians - at least for a time.

The Georgian Orthodox Church, formerly a Miaphysite Church that joined Eastern Orthodoxy, became "Byzantinized" and today follow the same liturgical tradition as the Byzantine Rite - except that they keep their Miaphysite saints in their own calendar.

Byzantinization also occurred in the Orthodox Churches of Antioch, as I understand, who were originally celebrating the Liturgy of St James.

Alex

Alex, interesting points. A couple of comments.

According to my priest the EOC did some weird things which have fallen in to disuse. The EOC as such doesn't exist anymore and I think the people that have stayed in the AOA have adopted what are considered normal Byzantine practices. That is the case with the people I know who came from that movement anyway.

I believe the Antiochian Church used the West Syrian liturgy, but this was gradually overtaken by Byzantine liturgical practice. I remember reading somewhere this change was essentially complete before the schism.

Andrew

Hmm intereasting, I wonder if the priest has been conditionally reordained.
I will have to go by this place one day just to have a look. Since it is only 40 minute drive from my house.

GMmcnabb, someone with more knowledge than me may come along and correct me, but I don't believe we do conditional ordinations as opposed to ordaining someone outright. He will also go from being a bishop to simply being a priest.

Andrew

I wasn't aware their pastor was a bishop. Hmm.

Anyways, I thought Orthodox viewed Anglican Orders as valid (though me being a Catholic, I don't think they are). Plus I thought I read that Trad Anglicans got Apostolic succession from Old Catholic Bishops but I might be wrong as well.

GMmcnabb,

I think there's two parts to your question.

At one time the Ecumenical Patriarch investigated Anglican orders and said they probably could be acceptable if the churches ever came in to communion. That obviously never happened, and since that time I think it is fair to say the Anglican Church has gone off the deep end, so that scenario is one that will never be realized.

Generally speaking within Orthodoxy there is no concept of "valid" sacraments of any kind outside of the church in the sense that the RCC understands this. So Bishop Waggener will be Chrismated along with his parish and then ordained. Catholic priests who converted to Orthodoxy would be received in the same manner.

The second part of your question is about Anglican orders themselves. Traditionally I believe the stance of the RCC is they are not valid due to changes in the manner of ordination during the English Reformation. I believe that is now clouded however due to the involvement of Old Catholic bishops in Anglican ordinations. I believe for instance that one Anglican bishop (Graham Leonard I think it was) was received in the RCC and ordained conditionally and not outright. I believe the reason was due to the Old Catholic link somehow creating doubt that his Anglican ordination was null and void.

Andrew

Andrew,
You are correct that is why officially the RCC positions is that Anglican Orders are considered null and void. But each on is looked at on an individual basis due to the re introduction of some valid ordinations by Old Catholics.
Stephanos I

Dear Andrew you said:

" I don�t think any Orthodox bishop is seeking to actively rend parish communities from Anglicanism."

I say:

If I recall correctly, or at least I was made to believe, that an Antiochian bishop actively persued the Anglicans after their last fiasco...or rather 'heretical' stance. They're not growing by leaps and bounds for no reason.

The problem is not if someone is actively persuing the Anglicans, but rather is our faith being diluted in it's orthodoxy so that more members can be drawn in? Now that is the question.

Zenovia

Zenovia

Without knowing who or which situation you�re referring to, I can�t comment on the level or nature of that �pursuit�. Generally I don�t think the Antiochians, or any Orthodox jurisdiction, overtly court members of the Episcopal Church. They certainly make it known the door is open however. I have anecdotally heard that 30% of the clergy coming in to the AOA right now are former priests from the ECUSA. The AOA is not the only church of course to receive converts from this denomination. The recently consecrated bishop of the OCA here in Philadelphia is a former Episcopalian. The RCC has also received a large number of converts including priests, although they tend do to do liberals for conservatives style trade with the ECUSA with probably equal numbers of converts going from on to the other.

I suppose the basic question is the faith something we own, or is it Christ�s and something we participate in. Really the faith is diluted by all of us as we live sinful lives and continually turn from doing the will of God. So to solve the problem of diluting the faith, really we should look in our own hearts first and change what is wrong there. That, I suppose, is an overarching view of your question.

Now generally speaking is the faith being diluted by converts coming in? I suppose you could find examples to say yes, and examples to say no. What is happening is change, and without change the faith would not be diluted, it would die. Interestingly probably one of the best things to happen to Orthodoxy in the last half century was its opening to the West. In large part that was the work of a convert, and former Anglican � Bishop Kallistos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain. As we all know, he was sadly initially turned away from converting. Luckily he did not give up, because I think his impact has been immeasurable.

My parish is an interesting one because it is almost evenly split between converts and cradle Orthodox. I am a convert, and my sponsor was a convert. My wife�s sponsor is cradle Greek Orthodox as are my children�s Godparents. I have seen and heard stories of great faith and devotion coming from both streams. I have seen and heard negatives in both streams. I have seen converts who accept Orthodoxy in their head, but never in their heart. I have seen converts come in, burn out and disappear. I have sadly seen cradle Orthodox who are mired in nominalism, who think the church is an ethnic club or a place to hold food fests and language classes between attending a services a few times a year. We are in a school or sinners and not a society of saints however for the most part. It is not my job to judge, and the bad will always come with the good.

Now to look at this specific story. I have heard that Bishop Waggener is a very devoted man of Christ. Converting is not easy, and I can assure he is giving up a great deal by making this choice. He is certainly humbling himself by coming in as a priest, without any real hope of attaining the office he once held. So when I heard this story I rejoiced, and didn�t question whether anything was being diluted by yet another worker entering the field of the Lord. The harvest is great and the workers are few.

Andrew