To me, that phrase is a powerful one. It marks a particular point in time when things changed in Israel. One could use any number of "moments," but this one will do for deaths do mark changes. Change causes anxiety and angst, but we are all called to change so it seems that it must be part of the human experience as God has given it to us.
I opined on my other blog about the potential changes coming to the Orthodox Church regarding jurisdictional/canonical corrections. As I pointed out there, it is an absolutely necessary change for Orthodoxy. But strictly speaking it is a heartbreak to me because of the Western Rite.
I had lunch with a dear friend of mine today and we spoke a little about what is going on. You know how priests are when we get together. We have to share the latest news and our opinions and thoughts about it all. Sad to say that we probably don't confess gossip as much as we should. That reminds me, I have some to do.
I commented that with the unification of jurisdictions, I am concerned for our Western Rite. The comment I received was chilling. "It will probably just be a marginal note in the history of Orthodoxy." There are too few real parishes and they aren't stable is an accurate paraphrase of another comment from my friend. What are 25 diminutive, struggling, widely-variant parishes in the face of Orthodox unity? His words hit their mark. I know he is right, but it doesn't make it more palatable. So, has the King died? I fear if he hasn't that he is probably on life-support and some of the doctors are urging that the plug is pulled from his ventilator. All at a time that I started reviewing my Latin again!
What are the possibilities then for the WR parishes? I can only see two. I think they will be given an option to either "go native" and become Eastern Rite, or to be released from the omophorion of our current bishops. I would hope the latter might be done with a generosity of spirit, giving their communities whatever assets they currently hold (building, capital, vestments and so forth). This has happened in the past with the Gallican Church in France, which was an odd Orthodox Church which used the Gallican Rite (a modern re-creation of a medieval French use). They were released from the Romanians and have become a unit of one. They have also since done things which have closed the doors from their coming back to Orthodoxy.
Will our little WRV fair the same? I think so. If I were to speculate, I would think that most will probably accept being released rather than becoming Eastern Rite. There might be some little desire to remain connected together to see if they could find other digs, but I'm not sure there is really enough unity among our WRV for that to be successful even in the short run. Most of the parishes have suffered and sacrificed enormously to keep their historic liturgical use and it would be too brutal for pastors to force their people to change. I'm not sure their souls would ever recover.
If they could not stay together and come to a common vision, they would not be able to find anyone who would take them in within Orthodoxy. But parishes cannot live as solecistic communities. Without other communities (and a bishop), there is no communion… there is no Church.
I rather suspect that a few will try to go back from whence they came. I doubt that any would become Episcopalians again, but I could see some of them decide to become "continuing Anglicans." There is a deep anti-Roman bias among many of them, so I would assume that they would feel forced to look for another type of non-papal catholicism. Perhaps some would go to the American Orthodox Church which has some tenuous claim to the apostolic lineage of Oftimios Ofesh and has a WR. I think some would probably find that very comfortable because they could become married bishops.
The Old Catholic Church has gone pretty flat in the last couple of decades. There are many groups who claim a Mathew line of succession, but profess heresy or are "affirming catholics" in the modern Episcopalian sense. I'm not sure any one would head there.
I would hope that none of them would decide to start their own church, but sadly, I think there might be just one or two who would consider such a thing if they couldn't remain WR Orthodox. I will never say whom I think would do so, but I have a couple in mind. That's all the Church needs… one more denomination.
Finally we come to the only other possibility that I could see and that is Rome. As I wrote above, I think there are many of the guys that are too Romophobic to even countenance such a possibility. But I honestly think that this would be the best direction for those who love the WR should they not be able to stay where they are. I was told by a good friend of mine that he thinks there is a natural problem for a minority rite within a larger church. I think that's probably true. The "Roman Option" was certainly something that I personally considered in 1991 before I became Orthodox. It was for me an impossibility because I believed that I had a vocation to the priesthood and was married. It was not a problem of belief so much as a problem related to a discernment of vocation.
These will be stressful times for anyone who loves the WR. It will cause anxiety and sadness because I do believe that the King is dying. Yet through this stress, we must be able to be honest with ourselves and allow ourselves to question our own assumptions because something will have to change. There will be no choice. We need to pray. We need to read and meditate and ask for God's guidance.
Father, bless!
ReplyDeleteThese are sobering words, and I cannot pretend they are not a little disheartening. There isn't much to say, except that I will continue to pledge my support for whatever seems to good to the Holy Spirit and to our bishops. May God grant them wisdom, and may he cause to flourish the vocation of the Western Rite within Holy Orthodoxy to his praise and glory, amen.
I do have one question though: aren't there others (like ROCOR) who use the Western Rite? What is the state of this usage in their archdiocese? In a unified American Orthodox Church, would not these WR parishes need to combine with the Antiochian parishes in some way, and what would be the possible benefits (as well as difficulties) from this?
It is a little disheartening as I said to you on Saturday. But I do think God is at work and it may require us to live in the desert a little bit before we know exactly what God is doing.
ReplyDeleteThank you for, finally, an honest appraisal of so-called "western rite Orthodoxy." It never really had a chance to begin with and has only been a bait-and-switch reality anyway. The heresy of phyletism is simply too strong in Byzantinism for it to ever rediscover Catholicity; unfortunately, far, far too many Anglicans have not been able to discern this reality.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this was a bait and switch program at all. I don't know of a single parish that has been forced to change rite from the outside. It has been a very difficult path though. There have been many practical problems. I don't think that the problem is strictly speaking an issue of phyletism. That is focused on valuing an ethnic group or race as being superior to others. The difficulties would be almost impossible to diagnos if one hasn't spent time within the Orthodox Church.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the history and final Byzantinization of Holy Redeemer in Los Altos, CA. The parish was Byzantinized on the direct demand of the Metropolitan who sent an Arab priest who showed up with a couple hundred Arabs to take over the property, located in a very, very high rent district. The parish is not only Byzantine, the last time I was there Orthros was almost entirely in Arabic. The same was done with Holy Trinity in Santa Fe (except this time by the priest), several members left in disgust with the forced Byzantinization. Please, please continue your earlier attempt at honesty.
ReplyDeleteThe inability for the Byzantine Church to exist outside of one ethnic manifestation, Greek, most certainly is phyletism. Notice that neither Rome nor the Oriental Orthodox seem to suffer this; this is especially true of the Oriental Orthodox who have numerous different liturgical traditions, including, in India, Latin, all united by Faith not ethno-cultural identification. Do not forget that it was Patriarch Nikon who by the light of burning Old Believers declared: 'My body is Russian but my soul is Greek."
ReplyDeleteI had forgotten about Holy Redeemer in Los Altos. It was a very strange thing that happened there. What I heard was that a large number of Arabic parishioners joined the parish until such time as they represented the majority of the parish. They essentially took it over and caused it to become Byzantine. At least that's the way I heard the story from WR clergy. It was certainly scandalous and wrong. I don't doubt at all your experience of Orthros there.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware with what happened in Santa Fe. I think there were sewn into problems for it to continue in the WR from the beginning. The parish began byzantinizing its WR use even before it came into Orthodoxy. It was of course accelerated once it came in. It was victim in some measure to its previous Episcopalian incarnation.
As for myself, I am a strict missal Mass sort of guy and don't see the necessity to put on Eastern aires. In fact, I don't think it's appropriate.
Nevertheless I would suggest that the potential end of the WR is not due to bait and switch but something else entirely. (1) The Antiochian Archdiocese has never formalized the nature of the Vicariate, showing it to be a canonical structure rather than a department of the Archdiocese. This has led to great difficulties and problems. Without it's own bishop--who is only WR--it can never have permanent stability. (2) The coming jurisdictional unity of the Orthodox in the US will cause the WR to be a victim as a result, in large measure because of (1). I think it is indefensible, because the folks in the WR are not playing, it is their spiritual lives.
Please don't think I'm making light of the many problems that exist. I'm not. They are real and I think that, unless there is a miracle, they are terminal. That's the bottom line isn't it? At the end of the day the autopsy makes little difference because one is still looking at a corpse.
There are many things that I would like to write, but prudence holds my pen at bay for the moment. Please don't take my comments as an attempt at obfuscation or dishonesty.
I know that we could go on and on about all of this, but I was also personally involved with the original "Pilgrimage to Orthodoxy" in England...what a bold faced lie that was! friends of mine actually gave up their livings, were forced to leave their homes and just before reception were told: "Sorry no western rite...become 'real' Orthodox (i.e. Byzantine) or go someplace else." Of course two parishes were permitted a western rite for a short time to Byzantinise their people. It has been a dismal failure.
ReplyDeleteYes, the fact that no real structural identity was given to the so-called Western Rite Vicariate was problematic, but was that not part of the fact that it was always going to be expendable and was always considered as a short term reality?
I do know that what is happening is that any union that includes the Greeks will mean that the western rite must be expendable. You may say that this is not because of the heresy of Phyletism...but I think that that is lacking in honesty. I do realize that the hatred the Greeks have to the western rite is not simply directed towards the west, they hate the ancient eastern liturgical traditions of the Copts, the Syrians, the Armenians et cetera just as well as they hate our traditions.
Of course the fact that Patriarch Bartolomeos has defended a woman's "Right to choose (i.e. supports abortion)" and his local representative has called Obama the "New Alexander" does not seem to bother the Orthodox very much...and these people condemn the Anglicans!?! If the administrative union or the Byzantines is built upon such a rock, good luck!
The situation in England was worse than awful and I can imagine the reception just as you have written it. I will emphatically agree with Fr. Hunwicke who said he would never be part of an Orthodox Ordinariate in England. It's untenable and I don't think Anglicans should spent their time thinking on that at all. It seems to me that they are only seeking a non-papal Catholicism. In England it can only be considered a half-way house which will not be very helpful to anyone.
ReplyDeleteI suppose my parish is sick of me speaking of the moral necessity of supporting pro-life candidates and actions. I do so frequently. And I am deeply disturbed by the acceptance of Obama by not only the Greeks but by the Antiochian Archdiocese. I am terribly scandalized.
And I would agree that I view the Greeks very suspiciously regarding phyletism. I think you may well be right on the mark there. I have told a couple of my friends that I cannot see myself entering under the omophorion of the Greeks. There are many, many reasons for this and one of the primary reasons is my experience pastoring a parish that was 80% Greek in Florida. I still have weeping wounds from it.
As you say, if the Greeks are in charge of Orthodoxy the WR is over. Patriarch Bartholomew has already tried to get it ended, so I've heard. The Greeks are completely sold on all things Greek and they tend to despise anything that is not Hellenic (I have known a few lovely exceptions to that though). I recall my daughter was seeing a fellow of Greek heritage for a period of time--thank God it wasn't too long--and I took him to task. He was glowing about all of the great gifts that the Greeks have given to us all. So I began to take them apart. I pointed out that no one wants democracy. The founding fathers of the US looked at the city-states of Greece and found they only lasted about 100 years or so and that they were highly unstable, so we looked to Rome and developed a Republic instead. I went on from there.
I wish that I could speak even more openly with you because I think you would be rather pleased, but my position requires much more prudence than to say some things on the blogosphere. I can say that we are both pilgrims who are waiting to see what will happen shortly. Let us pray for one another.
I could see some of them decide to become "continuing Anglicans."
ReplyDeleteI understand that's what happened to the original Holy Incarnation Antiochian WRO Church in Detroit. It went into one of those jurisdictions (back whence it came?) and changed its name. I have no idea why.
Holy Incarnation later was revived, in a different place, in town, still under you guys with the former high-Lutheran Fr John Fenton in charge.
THis is deeply disturbing. I have not seen or heard about this on any other blog. Actually, I thought things were looking up for the WR, guess I was wrong in that assessment. I have always believed in the Orthodox Western Rite and have participated in it when I was able. Mostly I am a Gregorian Rite kind of guy but I like the Anglican Type liturgy as well. I have a hard time calling it Saint Tikhon, I understand why they chose to name it that but it really indicates an Eastern origin, not Western.
ReplyDeleteWhen much younger I had hoped for the Anglican/Episcopalian Orthodox intercommunion as many did back in the 60's and before but we know whence road that went down. I found out about the Orthodox WR but it wasn't available in my area back then but always held out hope. For other reasons I embraced Byzantine Catholicism because I could not tolerate what had become of the Roman Latin Rite. Sadly, the Ruthenian Byzantines are abandoning tradition and 'modernizing' instead of returning to 'Orthodoxy' in worship. Many Ukrainian Byzantine are trying to return but the latinizations they underwent still hold many, esp. the older generation.
So, I became OCA Orthodox. Now I am in limbo.
With Metropolitan Hilarion (ROCOR) pro WR and Metropolitan Jonah indicating by his actions with the new ANGLICAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA, I thought there might be hope; however, ACNA is on the same trajectory as TEC, that looks like a wasted effort.
What's left? Pope Benedict XVI is a Godsend. With the restoration of the old liturgy and the reformation of the new, there may be hope for a real church home again. Add to that, the Anglican Ordinariate with an Anglican Use Liturgy may provide a home for those who can overcome their prejudices (unwarranted, in my opinion).
I have never had the theological difficulties that so many orthodox Anglo-Catholics, Catholics and Orthodox have with one another.
We will see what we will see what the Holy Spirit saith to the churches. Amen.
Young Fogey--
ReplyDeleteHoly Incarnation became Orthodox WR in 1976 and remained so until it was essentially forced to close in the mid-1990s. Fr. Joseph Angwin retired to Florida (where I met him). The parish was almost entirely dissolved. Then a fellow was ordained to rebuild the place. It took it about 3 months or so before he left for some continuing group. The parish was then dissolved with an interesting proviso. All of its material assets and finances were held in trust by the Archdiocese until another WR parish could be planted in Detroit of the same name. Year's later--almost at the end of the 10 years--Fr. Fenton came in with his group. He is an excellent priest.
Matthew--
I too prefer the Gregorian rite, but I love the style of the English. I can certainly sympathize with your journey so far. Met. Jonah is not for a WR Orthodoxy, and you're correct that ACNA is headed in the essentially the same direction as TEC. They merely wound the clock back to 1980. There is one difference though, they now have a very decided Calvinist bent which is why, in part, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has not affiliated with them formally. As you say, we'll see…
I see no reason for despair, Father. I have not heard anything official from the Phanar, Damascus, or from our own archdiocese about the fate of the Western Rite in this new arrangement. My guess is that the new arrangement may take a long time to implement anyway (read "Orthodox time"), and the main things they will tackle in the meantime is the size of clergy beards and the shape of their riazzas before they pay any special attention to the Western Rite. At worse, we will be ignored, which may not be a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI do not see a problem in the foreseeable future, so until I read with my own eyes and hear with my own ears something official about our rite, I will go on happily singing "sanctus, sanctus, sanctus" and keeping up my Latin :-)
In Christ,
Subdeacon Thomas Llizo
St. Michael Parish, Whittier, CA
Sbdn. Thomas-
ReplyDeleteI hope that our bishops will listen to our VG and his assistant who asked them to speak out for the WR. It cannot be ignored at this critical juncture, which I think it will be. Its nature as a vicariate should mean that it is a quasi-diocese and not a department of the Archdiocese. This central issue has caused great problems in relation to the current multiple dioceses from what it was before. It will only be far worse if this is not addressed at the beginning. Silence gives me no comfort at all. But I too will keep up my Latin. :-)
If keeping one's mouth shut, hoping for a low profile, and gee whiz perhaps they will forget about us is what is offer...are you people real?
ReplyDeleteI think it would be far, far more honest to advise Anglicans to look elsewhere than Byzantium. The song-and-dance that Jonah is now giving some Anglo-Catholics is absolutely disgusting...I have contacts with several Anglo-Catholic priests who are really stupid enough to think that this guy is going to erect an Anglican (western rite) diocese for them! When I explain that for Jonah "Classical Anglicanism" means the Russian Rite in English, they think that I am being negative!!!
Please, please can't you Byzantines try honesty for a change?
Oy vey!
ReplyDeleteMy point is that we just calm down, do what we are doing, and wait for anything official to come down the pike.
Having said that, I agree with you, Father, that we need to discuss any possible outcomes, and how we will deal with one way or another. Being prepared, and knowing what to do when we cross whatever bridge we need to cross, is a good thing.
But let's not be so willing to throw in the towel.
"What are 25 diminutive, struggling, widely-variant parishes in the face of Orthodox unity?"
My sincerest pardons, Father, and I mean no disrespect towards your friend, but this sounds too much like a Stalinist "you gotta crack some eggs to make an omelette" kind of thinking that is at variance with the Gospels. What are these parishes? These are parishes with souls for which our bishops have a duty to care, and will give an account for on the day of judgment. There is something about it being better for them to tie a stone about their necks, that sort of thing. I hope our bishops keep that in mind when they implement whatever plan they have for Orthodox unity in this country.
Forgive me if I'm being impudent. I do not intend to be, and if you can see my facial features, you would read that I say this with all possible charity.
Ora pro me, Pater!
Sorry to sound the voice of reality again, but where were the bishops when converting Anglicans got screwed in England with the "Pilgrimage to Orthodoxy?" Don't hold your breath...they will sell the western rite down the river faster than you can blink an eye.
ReplyDeleteWhen that inevitable time comes, which it will, you will do best to join up with the descendents of Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh. There you will find an accepting home that has been and always will be pro WR. Just be sure to get both sides of Blessed Aftimios's story. What you find in the mainstream is a horrible attempt to discredit his authority, life and ministry. However, there is still truth out there if you are willing to find it. The overall importance of the WR to the Antiochians can be seen in the fact that there is not a WR Bishop that oversees it. Why could that be? Perhaps a WR Bishop would have further solidified its presence and importance? Brush up on your latin if you must be aware that once you submit to their authority all those wonderful dreams of ministry you had will instead be replaced by a door leading to a brick wall.
ReplyDeleteI think we are all being presented with the Chambesy process as a sort of Juggernaut before which we all must allow ourselves to be crushed, before which even the OCA, let alone the Antiochian WRV can not hope to stand. The Chambesy documents themselves are rather much more restrained. We must not lose our heads. Any of us, whether in the WRV or any other jurisdiction though, simply must be more committed to Orthodoxy than to Rite.
ReplyDeleteFather Yousuf Rassam
St. Innocent Orthodox Church
Tarzana, CA
Well said, Father.
ReplyDeleteDear Father,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The "Roman Option" was certainly something that I personally considered in 1991 before I became Orthodox. It was for me an impossibility because I believed that I had a vocation to the priesthood and was married. It was not a problem of belief so much as a problem related to a discernment of vocation.
Question #1: did you tell the Antiochian Archdiocese that your conversion was based on your desire to be a married priest, and that the Faith was secondary to your ministerial aspirations?
Question #2: do you still see your primary commitment to your priesthood over your Church membership?
Question #3: if your primary commitment is to your priesthood, how can you teach the faith to your parish when you are less than completely committed to it yourself?
Question #4: are you aware of the significant differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?
This whole blog entry is horrid, because it seems to make WR people as intolerant and mercenary, being more interested in matters of liturgics than of the weightier matters of our Faith. Those who know me know that I am not against the WR in any way, but rites are secondary to the dogmas of the Church. It is the old cart-and-horse problem: the Faith pulls the rites, otherwise the worship and prayer is empty of Truth.
I certainly hope this is a case of your keyboard getting ahead of your brain.
Your friend,
Priest George Aquaro
Dear Father George,
ReplyDeleteI think there are a few things that are simply being misunderstood. First of all, when I wrote of the "Roman Option," I was expressing things as I understood it at that time. I don't find this to be a problem, because I came from a real place with a genuine outlook. Now whether or not that was correct is another topic, but as an Anglo-Catholic my perspective included the three-branch theory of the Church. I don't believe in that at all now, but this is why I wrote what I did. I was simply trying to express where I was at the time of becoming Orthodox.
Answer #1: I didn't go to seminary until I had been Orthodox for four years. My perspective on thing had matured since my conversion and surely this is healthy and normal. So it was not a germane issue.
Answer #2: I understand that my priesthood is within the Church, and that it is not a personal possession.
Answer #3: The "if" in your question is not applicable, so the question is resolved already.
Answer #4: are you aware of the significant differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy? I am certainly aware of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I am also quite aware that in several cases we have had a terrible history of speaking past one another. I am perfectly willing to give the same charity and open-mindedness to Rome as we seem as Orthodox to be willing to give to the non-Chalcedonians.
I'm sorry that you misunderstand the thrust of the post. I would say that the liturgical life of the Church manifests her Faith. They are indeed intimately and ontologically united. I don't see a separation here. But the experience of the Western Rite faithful and clergy must be given its rightful place within the Church. The history is not so kind, even within our Archdiocese--and I don't believe that you are personally guilty of this because we have spoken about some of these things personally (which conversations I value greatly).
Once this Rite has been restored to the Church it must be valued and supported in more than merely permissive ways, else it is indeed nothing more than a bait and switch game that it has been accused of for some time. If that is the case, then for heaven's sake, end it now. There ought to be no lying about it, either it is authentic or it is not. Furthermore, I don't think it ought to be hybridized into something that it never was.
It is scandalous to me (and many) that some parishes have been strongly encouraged to use the Western Rite on one Sunday and the Eastern Rite on the next, alternating between the two throughout the year. Would such a thing be suggested to Eastern Rite parishes so that they might better know their Western Rite brothers and sisters? I am also scandalized that a full parish became filled with parishioners of Arabic descent and then the parish became Eastern Rite, entirely displacing those who did the hard work of building the parish in the first place. I could go on.
The questions of Rite is in its very core is the same as the tension of ethnicity and culture. This is not a new issue as it was one of the first big problems faced in the Church and caused us to have deacons (the Hebrews vs. the Hellenists). We could also point to the problems in Antioch and the Gentiles as well. WR folks have been tremendously tolerant but they have not received the same. I have not written about dogmatic issues because I have not thought that these are issues that cause us any difficulties.
I hope that this answers your questions.
Your brother in Christ,
Fr. John Guy Winfrey
Dear Father,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you clarified your post, because I was very concerned as it was. In fact, it was forwarded to me by someone who was also concerned, and we both read it as problematic. Normally, I'm not a big blog-reader for a whole host of reasons.
That being said, I think that we must separate dogma from liturgics because, especially in the history of the WR, the initial process involved taking a preexistant non-Orthodox service and making such theological changes to it to make it Orthodox. At least, that was my understanding of St. Tikhon's approach.
That being said, the same problem of dogma before rite versus 'all-the-same-thing' would cure a far greater problem within the Eastern Rite: Byzantine versus Slavic tensions. I have dealt with this as a pastor, where people will refuse to come to church because we don't use such-and-such music. I try to convince them that the Church is the Church, and the Church is in the church no matter the rite. They must first confess that all the rites are Orthodox, then they are forced to confess that all the rites are then, by nature, Orthodox. Once that confession is made, then their discrimination against one or the other is, by extension, a rejection of the Church.
So, this is a bigger issue than merely the WR.
In other words, I ask people to look at the commonalities rather than the differences. I may have preferences, but they are not essentials. In the case of people who discriminate in absolute terms (i.s. claiming that the WR is purely heterodox, for example), their admission that the WR is dogmatically correct makes them more or less dilettantes rather than 'defenders of the Faith' as some WR opponents position themselves.
I also think that a man's yes should be yes and his no a no. But, I also would not accept a man who says 'Either I get my rite or I leave,' because this attitude is just as reprehensible in a WR as it would be in a ER.
Frankly, I would like to see the WR explore more than Anglican services. How about the Tridentine and Ambrosian masses?
g
The Tridentine use is also available in the WRV. That is what St. Augustine in Denver uses. It was what was actually in use when the WRV was inaugurated in the Archdiocese in 1958 as the Liturgy of St. Tikhon did not come into existence until 1976. I have always thought that the older Tridentine use is fuller, richer and beyond argument the historic use of Christians in the West even prior to the Schism.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that my comments helped to clarify things.