Western-Rite Orthodox

[Qatrinius]

The Rite of St. Tikhon is essentially the Tridentine Rite with certain elements of the Scottish Prayer Book tradition interpolated. Put another way, it's a way of celebrating the classic Western Mass that honors some of the unique concentrations of the Anglican heritage.

It's not Protestant or Reformed, it's not even really "post-Schism" unless you take that to mean that certain ways of wording things were from later centuries, but what does that really matter? In fact, the Tikhonian Rite preserves some very ancient elements of the Western Catholic tradition that, to my knowledge, you cannot find anywhere else. We can't even put a solid date on the "schism" so using that as some kind of contrived measuring stick is really muddy anyway.

Those concerned about division should not be worried as the establishment of the Western Rite Vicariate was an ecumenical move. It was not "sheep stealing" nor is it designed to entice anyone from their communions. It was a way of saying the Orthodox Church (at least from Antioch's perspective) is prepared to do what's necessary to bring about reunion with Catholic-minded Christians.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

This is because there were a plethora of western churches. They were not one Sui Iuris church.

Western Christianity was organized into synods, just like the east.

While it is true that the West was organized into synods, and while it is also true that what I'll call the Primatial Provinces were self-governing, whether they would be considered separate "Churches sui juris" in today's terms is debatable.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

... The Mass as celebrated in Rome was not imposed throughout the entire Roman Patriarchate until the Council of Trent in the late 16th Century. And even then, from what I've read ...

What are you reading? Evidently not, Quo Primum.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

[twf]

Originally Posted by malphono

While it is true that the West was organized into synods, and while it is also true that what I'll call the Primatial Provinces were self-governing, whether they would be considered separate "Churches sui juris" in today's terms is debatable.

Even today the national episcopal conferences enjoy a certain degree of autonomy within the Latin Church. Yes major decisions must be ratified by Rome - but then the election of the primates of autonomous churches in E Orthodoxy requires ratification from the mother Church as well. Between national Latin churches you will find different fasting requirements, different local calendars, different norms for liturgical postures etc. Devotional practices among the Latin faithful vary to an immense degree from nation to nation. I'm currently working in the Dominican Republic and have noticed a number of differences. The two biggest Marian feasts here, for example, are Our Lady of Mercy and Our Lady of Altagracia - neither of which are celebrated back home. In near by Nicaragua the Immaculate Conception is the major Marian feast while back home it is the solemnity of the Mother of God (jan 1). Holy days of obligation vary accordingly. I'm used to remaining kneeling throughout the Eucharistic prayer but here the norm is to kneel only during the consecration itself. The local bishops make local decisions on a number of topics. The Latin Church isn't micromanaged by Rome as some seem to think.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by twf

Even today the national episcopal conferences enjoy a certain degree of autonomy within the Latin Church. Yes major decisions must be ratified by Rome - but then the election of the primates of autonomous churches in E Orthodoxy requires ratification from the mother Church as well. Between national Latin churches you will find different fasting requirements, different local calendars, different norms for liturgical postures etc. Devotional practices among the Latin faithful vary to an immense degree from nation to nation. I'm currently working in the Dominican Republic and have noticed a number of differences. The two biggest Marian feasts here, for example, are Our Lady of Mercy and Our Lady of Altagracia - neither of which are celebrated back home. In near by Nicaragua the Immaculate Conception is the major Marian feast while back home it is the solemnity of the Mother of God (jan 1). Holy days of obligation vary accordingly. I'm used to remaining kneeling throughout the Eucharistic prayer but here the norm is to kneel only during the consecration itself. The local bishops make local decisions on a number of topics. The Latin Church isn't micromanaged by Rome as some seem to think.

Yes, I'm well aware of that, but those post-conciliar so-called "national conferences" are a far cry from the Primatial Provinces of the 1st Millennium. In matter of fact, those "conferences" really don't have any more "authority" than did their forebearers (i.e. the severely weakened Provincial synods of the pre-conciliar era). Although it did further weaken what were the already anemic prerogatives of the Primatial Sees, it basically amounts to little more than a name change.

[John of Patmos]

I appreciate the Western Rite of the Orthodox church. Another step towards unity?

[ThatOneGuy92]

Originally Posted by John of Patmos

I appreciate the Western Rite of the Orthodox church. Another step towards unity?

Perhaps in the long run. Only time will tell.

[John of Patmos]

I hope. I know some Orthodox dislike the whole idea of a western rite, claiming it is not, well...orthodox.

[Jacob Loyd]

Originally Posted by John of Patmos

I hope. I know some Orthodox dislike the whole idea of a western rite, claiming it is not, well...orthodox.

I think the Orthodox you are referring to are more so found within any Greek parish. The Slavic Churches are much more accepting and willing to be ecumenical. Of course both of these sides are important, the Greeks help the Church to avoid accepting churches into communion that don't have the same essential dogma (which is one of the reasons the filolique and papal infallibility have been and are often thorns when Rome and the Orthodox speak of communion). However, they are also a hindrance, especially in relations with the Oriental Churches (last I read, the Russians were willing to receive the Oriental Churches back into communion since they had use of different terminologies).

More so on the topic of this thread, I believe that Western Rite Orthodox parishes are one of the means of future reconciliation with Western Christianity. This is one of the ways to help us deal with our problems with one another.

[Nine_Two]

As far as I know, only ROCOR and the Antiochan Archdiocese have Western Rite Parishes, and I've read some harsh things about the Western Rite from members of those juristictions. I'm not sure there is any real pattern to their acceptance.

[jwinch2]

http://www.westernorthodox.com/

http://www.stlukespriory.com/

A place for those who may be interested in learning more...


Peace,

[TarkanAttila]

I attended the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon (which apparently is the one St. Vincent's does, not st. Gregory) last Sunday. I do believe it's an improvement on the Ordinary Form (not that I'll leave the Holy Catholic Church for it! ), and that the Western Rite may do much to soften the hearts of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Anglicans and their progeny in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may be pivotal in reuniting Rome and Constantinople. Because, for the first time in 1900 years (100 years ago), the Orthodox have allowed their theology to be explained in Western terms. They may be more understanding of Rome's way of thinking now.

I got a good feeling about this.

[jwinch2]

Originally Posted by TarkanAttila

The Anglicans and their progeny in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may be pivotal in reuniting Rome and Constantinople. Because, for the first time in 1900 years (100 years ago), the Orthodox have allowed their theology to be explained in Western terms.

Interesting point. Thanks for sharing that.

[ThatOneGuy92]

Originally Posted by TarkanAttila

I attended the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon (which apparently is the one St. Vincent's does, not st. Gregory) last Sunday. I do believe it's an improvement on the Ordinary Form (not that I'll leave the Holy Catholic Church for it! ), and that the Western Rite may do much to soften the hearts of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Anglicans and their progeny in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may be pivotal in reuniting Rome and Constantinople. Because, for the first time in 1900 years (100 years ago), the Orthodox have allowed their theology to be explained in Western terms. They may be more understanding of Rome's way of thinking now.

I got a good feeling about this.

You know, I've been curious about St. Vincent's for some time now. Next time I'm in Omaha, I'll have to check it out

[Searching Heart]

"Western-rite Orthodoxy is largely an ecclesiastical anomaly, the creation of a new church which no historic foundation."

Thus it may be according to our understanding, while seeking - whether directly or cloaked within the covering of the Blessed Trinity - unity, for which Christ, Himself, prayed.