In order to be Orthodox you must have the right faith and tradition. Sacred heart, rosary and statuary within the nave are fruits of an unorthodox phronema.
@@UnlikelyLDS People always cherry pick that quote from St. John of San Francisco to justify the innovations I listed above. I doubt Vladika John would approve of Nestorian heart worahip, not to mention the other things. I'm not going to say you are, but its obviously the case with others.
@@Cobruh_Commander Oh I'm not saying those things aren't wrong. What I am saying though is that it is perfectly Orthodox to be western and receive the sacraments in the Latin tradition. When people start going into post schism devotions or practices, I believe that's where the line needs to be drawn.
I am Western Rite Orthodox. I love my parish and am looking forward to being officially Orthodox this Pascha. I attended both Eastern and Western Rite parishes at the recommendation of my priest when I was making a decision of which parish I wished to attend. It was a combination of distance to the parish, love for the community, and a comfort with the liturgy that made me choose the Western Rite. I still have a love for the Eastern Rite, but I am Western, so this made the most sense to me. God bless.
What was Christmation like into the church? There's no Eastern Rite churches, so West is all I have near me, and I'm thinking about attending catechism if my parents aren't offended.
@@FirstNameLastName-is6yb I'll let you know when I go through it. When I became a catechumen with my kids, we stood at the doors to the nave and we were blessed by our priest and anointed with oils. If anything happens to me before I am chrismated I will have a full Orthodox funeral and be buried in our consecrated ground. That's about all I know just yet. My catechism has been mostly about having an Orthodox view. Take your time. Educate yourself on it and answer questions that your parents may have. Let them know that you aren't rejecting them or what they have given you. Go to Ancient Faith Ministries. They have a great app you can download on your phone and listen to music or podcasts. All the best to you on your journey to Orthodoxy.
@@arom219 If you never found out, not all :) My parish is English. Its based off of personal priest preferance, but if it is a Latin Mass, to my knowledge it has an english translation beside each verse/psalm/etc.
First Name Last Name The parish I attend as much as possible, Saint Columba, uses the Rite of Saint Tikhon, which is an ingenious redesign of the Anglican Liturgy. Tikhon took the basic outline of Thomas Cranmer’s High Church liturgy and turned it into a masterpiece of English Orthodoxy, basically an “English Rite” Orthodox liturgy, but we prefer Anglican Rite. Tikhon also translated, verbatim, into English the Ancient Rite of Pope Saint Gregory the Great. He was effectively “duel Rite”, Russian and Latin, but that doesn’t seem to be a thing in Orthodoxy, as far as I know. Thank God he took up doctor Overbeck’s cause! I wish Overbeck had been able to debate Henry Newman, but as far as I can tell, they never even met. Odd, as they moved in similar, tractarian circles until Newman became a cardinal. Newman needed to debate more experts on why the Pope DOES NOT have absolute jurisdiction. We need a degree of confederation in the Church to guard against corruption.
My favorite Era is the pre-schism West, I believe we should reconstruct the western rite as they practiced in, say, 6th century Francia or Ireland. I believe this has already been attempted a little bit but it needs full splendor in my opinion for the sake of the church and believers.
I think that if we had a Pre-Norman, Cædmon-era style of English Catholicism(minus the papacy and celibate priesthood, and a few doctrinal things), we would be pretty well-off.
@Meridionalus Linguisticus You know, that is an excellent idea to discuss with the Archimandrite Phillip. Leave him a comment on his UA-cam channel! I sure would be fascinated to see how that would be reconstructed. I also wonder what liturgy we can reckon from Old English..
How about we go to the way the Last Supper was conducted. In Aramaic, with the settings they would have had, washing the hands and feet after taking off their sandals and sitting on the floor.
Orthodox Europe used Latin before the Schism of 1054 and there’s a Monastery here in Colorado under the Antiochian Archdiocese that uses the Rule of St. Benedict. Several jurisdictions have Western (not Catholic) Rite Parishes that are Theologically strictly Orthodox. You can go to these Parishes because they are authorized by the Metropolitans and Archbishops.
@@antonius3745 well don't be. She is right. The Western Church, which was orthodox before the Great Schism, used the Roman Rite (aka the Gregorian Rite) which was in Latin, in most places. Exceptions such as the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, were also in Latin. None were in Greek.
Yhoshua I’m wondering if Bojan is referencing Catholic Western Rite instead of Eastern Orthodox Western Rite in Communion within Orthodoxy. We have 26 Antiochian Western Rite Parishes (last count)and ROCOR has Western Rite Parishes and a Radio Broadcast Station.
We're currently in Boston while my wife is going to Harvard, so we aren't there regularly (we go when we are visiting though) but we will be moving back to the DFW area when she's graduated Anyway, the Western Rite Orthodox church we go to in DFW is St Peter's Antiochian
I was a mix of Hebrew Roots and PCOG before Orthodoxy grabbed me and hit me in the face with truth like Jesus clearing the temple. The argument against it is because a verse that supports trinity is in brackets because it wasn't added until an ecumenical council and not written in originally. That bamboozled me the most into following it, 13 year olds shouldn't make huge theological decisions lol.
Some Acolyte, I have found that the best I can do regarding these people is to pray that full knowledge of the Trinity is revealed to them and to treat them with respect and, if possible, Agape-type charity. It is almost as if they are "stuck in the birth canal" of spiritual rebirth. In the West, Mormonism (Church of Later Day Saints) and the Jehovah Witnesses (JW's) are variants of Arianism, not just anti-Trinitarianism, in their belief. Then there are the Unitarians and the Unitarian- Universalists. I have heard of some pretty weird things within these groups (such as lectures by Wiccans, etc.) There is an old joke that Unitarianism was invented so that non-believers would have a place to go on Sunday mornings. I am sure that this joke would be considered non-PC in our era. Thomas Jefferson was a de-facto Unitarian. Nobody really knows what Ben Franklin really believed (He was into some pretty sketchy stuff; like the Hell-fire club). Most likely, Sir Isaac Newton was a Unitarian in his heart.
@@homewardbound8327 Unitarian-ism is a perversion of Christianity that holds to Islamic Style monotheism. Unitarian universalists on the other hand don't have any religious belief at all, that's the religion that was created so that atheists had somewhere to go on Sunday. Their name is kind of a misnomer because it implies that they believe that there is one God and that everybody goes to heaven, but they don't in fact believe anything in particular about God or anything in particular about the afterlife.
One of the greatest Byzantine Greek liturgists, St. Nicholas Cabasilas, in his "Commentary on the Divine Liturgy" considered the "Supplices te rogamas" as the "consecrating moment" in the Roman Mass, and did not condemn a lack of Byzantine style epiclesis. We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these to be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the presence of Thy divine Majesty, that as many of us as shall, by partaking at this Altar, receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with all heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Some people don't like Christianity because of how divided we are. That's a sentiment that I certainly understand, and have felt from time to time. However, I believe that sometimes we can choose to go our separate ways over our differences, yet still cheer each other on from a distance(at least those groups that uphold the Trinity and the biblical account, without adding too many mortal heresies which I won't delve into here). Catholics and Orthodox can look at Protestant missionaries in the middle and Africa and say, "I really don't agree with y'all on a lot of stuff, but keep bringing people to Christ!" Likewise, a Protestant can look at the sheer faithfulness that a devout Orthodox has and say, "man, I don't like quite a few of your doctrines, but by the love Christ I wish I had such an *immense* love and application of Christianity into my daily life as you!"
I like calling the three main sects(the main Protestant denominations, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy) it's own Trinity. Each one is its own separate entity, her they are all ultimately the same faith. I have my issues with each one, but I like it when we come together over what we share.
There are no branches or denominations in Christianity. There is only the Orthodox Catholic Church which is Christ’s mystical Body. All others preach a different gospel than that given to the Apostles by Christ.
This. Just this. Ecumenism is the way. Maybe don't go full way, after all we don't agree in everything. But we agree in love for God and Christ, and when we do get together every once in a while, it is gorgeous!
One thing I've noticed in my years of contact with Western Rite Orthodoxy, is that the more jurisdiction and independence the communities have, the more sustainable they are in the long run. This begs the question of whether the 'rite' can be separated from the local 'Church' as it were. While diverse WRO parishes under ROCOR seem to pop up and disappear within a few years, the neo-Gallican Rite French Orthodox Catholic Church has been going now for 70 years or more......sadly not currently in communion with other orthodox churches but that's a separate issue perhaps. Whatever you might have to say about it, ECOF, was founded as a genuine attempt to create a local, national, Western Orthodox Church, and perhaps that's why it's managed to survive much longer than many individual parishes and monasteries in Eastern jurisdictions.....Just a thought (I can't draw my thoughts, like Bojan)
At African masses we dance a lot which is sometimes frowned upon by Europeans. I guess we got to realise that our cultures will always influence the liturgy instead of imposing one culture on everybody: Aside(you don't want to see what the Indians do in my parish) shhhhhhhhh😂😂😂
The Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church of America uses a Western Rite, mainly the Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great. As someone who became Orthodox from a Protestant (Reformed or Lutheran predominantly), I have attended both rites and found them beautiful in their own way, although the issue of mutual communion and jurisdictional power often came up, which as someone has said though, is another totally different matter. Someone else has said here that when an Orthodox parish actually reaches out to its congregation without trying too hard to insist on its 'ethnic Eastern' character at the expense of language, that is when the parish can sustain itself. The Greek and Russian parishes here have virtually not sustained themselves very well, with members being mainly expatriates here in my corner of Southeast Asia and in fact, as someone in one parish told me, the majority of Greek parishioners attending on Paschal week only attend services once a year.
Then it'll be easy then. I think he should use Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists as the Protestants(although some Anglicans don't consider themselves to be Protestant)
@@dontsubscribe3702 Well I'd argue that the only thing that every sect that calls itself Christian can agree on is that there was a historical Jesus. Really, that watered down. Catholics and Orthodox have a similar understanding of the Atonement, but even Protestant doctrines vary widely on this the most basic of dogmas. And if you are going to include Protestants, why stop at Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists? Then you are neglecting other large and influential groups such as the Calvinists and Pentecostals. Not to mention that other historical sects are left out such as the Oriental Orthodox and the Nestorians. May I ask your religious affiliation?
I'm Anglican(of the Continuing Anglican Movement). I was just gonna go with the more traditional Protestant denominations, since it would be hard to find much substantial if you included some of the newer Protestant denominations
In my opinion, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both have historically suffered from a predilection for subsuming the other ritually, both those whose liturgical tradition comes from within or outside each other's respective communions. The Roman Catholic Church's disastrous Uniate projects (both in respect to traditional Latinisations and Novus Ordo-isms) and its proclivity towards centralisation and uniformity in respect to its various Western rites and uses speak for themselves. The Eastern Orthodox Church is historically more guilty in regard to those within its own communion, from the obliteration of the Antiochian and Alexandrian Rites to the actions of Patriarch Nikon. One ought not to make an equivalence with regards to the experiments that are Eastern Catholic ritual and Western Rite Orthodox ritual, given the sheer difference in scale of undertaking of those two respective projects, but nonetheless, slapping an epiclesis on something as ancient as the Roman Canon to me smacks of the same arrogance as that of the Roman Church of shoving in words of institution to the anaphora of a liturgy as old as that of Mar Addai and Mari of the Church of the East. As far as genuine, authentic liturgical co-existence goes, the non-Chalcedonians are the best embodiments of the concept, as I see it. That the various, utterly unique idiosyncracies of the Tewahedo Ethiopians for example persisted even under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Popes of Alexandria is remarkable.
The Latin rite has an Epiklesis, it just takes place before the words "this is my body etc." rather than afterwords like in the Byzantine rite. Catholics typically believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at the words of institution in the Latin rite and at the Epiklesis in the Byzantine rite.
No, it’s the Supplices te rogamus just after the Words of Institution. We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these to be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the presence of Thy divine Majesty, that as many of us as shall, by partaking at this Altar, receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with all heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Coming to this late, but I am somewhat surprised to hear you say all the wonderful things about the WR. I like you more and more every video I stumble across :). My parents were brought into Orthodoxy through the Western Rite and I will be forever thankful. Especially in the online ortho-sphere, it is disheartening to hear overwhelming negative comments about the liturgies. Hopefully, through the Holy Spirit, we can return to a liturgically diverse unified and catholic church for all nations. P.S. is your spiritual Fr. John Whitford?! LOL.
I am old enough to remember when the Roman Catholic Mass of Saint John Chrysostom was the nearly the same as the Orthodox Liturgy today. You had the host (body) dipped into consecrated wine (blood) and the Priest administered it to you. Only the elevation with the breaking of the bread was done. No communion in the hand or other lousy innovations existed before the Novus Ordo that destroyed everything. Back then they used incense and many prayers of consecration just like we Orthodox do. I converted to Orthodoxy thirty-five years ago and I felt more at home the moment I came into Orthodoxy and got away form the Novus Ordo. If you get Roman Catholic Mass books that are very old, you will see that they follow the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom closely and I have a hymnal from the 1800s from the Catholic Church that is dedicated just for the feast of Saint Basil. Again, instead of just implementing the language of the country like the Orthodox did, the Roman Catholic Church did that and all the other unnecessary changes that were bad. When I go to the old rite Catholic Mass, I understand more of what is going on than most of the Roman Catholics attending. Novus Ordo literally translated means “new order”, this is the proper term for the way Mass has been celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church since 1965, Thank God I was born in the 50's so I know better. This link takes you to an article that is written from the Catholic perspective and when you read it, you will see how lucky we are to be Orthodox. The Priest and we the people need to all be facing God, not each other, then there is a long list of other things that Orthodox get right, refer to onepeterfive.com/why-do-people-have-a-problem-with-the-novus-ordo/.
Interesting. Please pray for me, a sinner. I am struggling with this so heavily (Roman Rite bathed in Orthodoxy seems so strange and experimental to me). Maybe this inner fighting is a sign of a conversion to Orthodoxy that I'd like to do God willing.
western rite Orthodox is way more Byzantine then the Eastern rite Catholic is Roman. I like that we have a western rite but sometimes I feel like the Orthodox church has a problem with it
Correct! There is more doctrinal unity among Eastern Rite and Western Rite Orthodoxy than in Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholicism. For example, Eastern Catholics don't have to accept Purgatory, the Filioque, and other post-schism innovations as long as they accept the primacy of the Pope, whereas Western Rite Orthodoxy rejects all the Latin post-schism innovations.
Just wear it! If I were to become WR Orthodox, I probably would. The prayer on the necklace is beautiful and powerful, even having originated in Catholicism.
I do not understand this idea that eastern rite doesn't appeal to western liturgical converts. I was a very high church Episcopalian before I converted to Orthodoxy and I'm very glad there wasn't a western rite church in my city. I converted because Orthodoxy is the true faith, not because it was comfortable or pretty. Orthodoxy is tough, but it should be "the kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force!" I truly believe that western rite only creates problems. I understand completely that saint John Maximovich, one of my favorite saints and a saint I pray to daily, was a proponent of WR but I also understand that even though he was a saint he was not infallible. He wasn't spouting heresy, just something not helpful. Orthodoxy is the true faith, it is complete and perfect, there is no true reason to go sifting through the ashes of the collapses and schismatic west to find treasure when the coffers are already full in the east. If you turn your heart away from the true church because of the music, or the order of worship or God forbid because the east has a stricter rule of fasting then you are not ready to convert anyway. Isn't there some warning about putting your hand to the plow and looking back? This is my opinion. I am not a bishop so my opinion counts as nothing but we shouldn't flirt with Rome and Canterbury because I think there is more chance of them influencing us than the other way if we start to dress like them. A western rite priest has said to me that he thinks we should commemorate the pope of Rome in liturgy, so you tell me who's doing the influencing there?
While he’s a fool to commemorate THIS antipope, if that was what he meant, I must find it tragic that you would abandon the Seat of Peter as a hopeless cause. One and only good thing to come from this Antipope is that he is unambiguously driving home to the West that Peter’s seat is festering with mold. You would simply throw it away, I say it can be reupholstered. One thing that should be tried is to negotiate with the Vacate Sevadists. It annoys me that they can hold on to the notion of Papal supremacy while saying that there has been no valid pope for 61 years. This is nonsense; either Popes cannot teach error or they have been in some constant state or error since 1054, just never as badly in error before 1964 as since. This has been a very hard lesson for me, but the Novis Ordo I was raised in is a False Rite. If it is false I cannot support the error of false supremacy anymore. But I will not abandon the seat once so perfected by Gregory the Great. The other Holy Sees have had heretics sit upon them and were not abandoned. Peter can be rescued and the circumstances in Europe right now will provide opportunities for this in the coming decades.
@Gavin Lane For sure, I'm a Westerner, of hispanic background, and I love the eastern rite. But I also know, my experience is not the same as others. And there are times when I wish the Liturgy I celebrated shared something in common with how I've done worship literally my whole life (coming from a psuedo-high church methodist church). Pretty sure I'll stay eastern, and that's not the issue. I just don't think we should assume everyone will adapt to a liturgical expression that is totally distinct from their own cultural heritage.
I don't think all of the reason is appeal. I prefer the Eastern Rite, but I see the beauty and value in the ancient rule of St Benedict and the liturgy of St Gregory. It would be a shame to lose that as that was part of the Orthodox Church. It is one faith, but until Chalcedon and then again until...well, sometime after (hard to say when the west went weird) the Orthodox Church had many rites expressing that one faith. Again, my personal preference is Eastern Rite, but that's all it is, I think. Personal preference.
I can't figure out if he's talking about the Tridentine Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass ???? Am I missing something? I went to an Ambrosian Mass in Milan (many years ago). It was beautiful.
The Orthodox have a Western Rite. I think it is taken from the Galican Rite. One form of the Galican Rite is the Mozarabic Rite. However while La Ermita recognizes a Protestant version of that rite I don't think that they are aware of the Orthodox Western Rite.
One curiosity (deficiency?) of the modern Western Rite is the priest praying with hands pressed flat together rather than the Biblical way of the priest praying with his hands raised e.g. 1 Tim. 2:8 vis-a-vis Exodus 17:11-13 which foreshadows Christ on the Cross. The priest ought to pray as an icon of the intercessory Crucified Christ (cf. Luke 23:34), especially when liturgically making the offering of His Body. Hands pressed together, I believe -- correct me if this history is incorrect (though the practice is still not Biblical) -- that it is a Carolingian influence where peasant suppliants of their master would put their hands flat together before him. From this, the Carolingian influence on Rome brought it into western liturgical practice.
I think the anti-Germanic sentiment among some Orthodox is way too high. We must thank God for the Germanics, including some of my own acestors, for being such an intelligent and Noble people who frankly invented a lot of things we take for granted.
seronymus Forgive the Arrogance of my Prussian Ancestors in particular. We held the more sensible Germans back and have sown so much heresy across the world. I’m the first of my Paternal Line to have been raised Catholic in Five hundred years; we were Lutherans from the start, now I will be the first to be Orthodox in 950. Ironic as my more recent ancestors had Ukrainian Orthodox neighbors for 200 years until fleeing Lenin’s takeover in 1920, but had stubbornly kept to themselves, never so much as saying “hello”.
Pious opinion. Unnecessary. By the same logic, the Eastern Rite obscures the Consecration from the faithful, implying that God did not condescend to them. Let's not create justifications post hoc.
Whenever there is a Syriac Orthodox liturgy on TV my grandmother feels the smell of incense as if she is standing in the church. I also feel the smell incense at certain times without being near any. Regarding liturgical diversity I think it is very important. It saddens me to see all the eastern Orthodox following basically the same rite everywhere; the Russians even went into schism because patriarch Nikon could not allow his church to have its own tradition. It might unite all orthodox in a sense but for instance the Church of Antioch and Alexandria have lost their Antiochene and Alexandrine rites for the Byzantine one, even though the Antiochene rite is the oldest church liturgy. The Syriac Orthodox church has many anaphoras. Tge most commonly used are the ones of St James the brother of Jesus, and St Jacob bar Salibi, but we also have of St John Chrysostom, St Philoxinos of Mabbug, St Gregory and so on
Being a vanilla Catholic has shaped my understanding of liturgical norms - or rather, dissolved any understanding that might be had. Given the number of times bishops in the Eastern and Western churches have invented, modified, or suppressed different liturgies or elements thereof, I must admit I don't see the rhyme or reason beyond the fiat of the bishops. And although the Orthodox have not had such a dramatic change of liturgy as the Mass of Paul VI, their bishops have made their own, certainly very beautiful and transcendent, but still their own, liturgies. How does an Orthodox - Byzantine, Armenian, Alexandrian, Syriac - understand the development of the liturgy, and who has the right to develop the rites?
@Destynation Z Or what of St. John Chysostom? Or Gregory the Illuminator? And something must have changed for the liturgy used by the St. Thomas Christians to have become what it became.
There is no bishop in the East who ever did create his own liturgy. What are you talking about? You obviously don't understand anything. It is a tradition handend down and has been approved by a bishop like st. John Chrystomos or Basilius or Pope Gregorius the Great. These are the mainstreams in the east with some additions of other liturgies. But liturgy is not a monolithic tradition. The first early Christian liturgy is not the same as the Byzantine liturgy or the western liturgies.
@@antonius3745 "The first early Christian liturgy is not the same as the Byzantine liturgy or the western liturgies." and "There is no bishop in the East who ever did create his own liturgy. " would seem to be two statements that contradict each other. If there are different liturgies, where did they come from?
@@badgerlordpatrick6493 I didn't say its the same. The differences of liturgical traditions came first from language and cultural context. But these differences are not that big. The basic structure or form of the catholic and byzantine liturgy is the same and goes back to the synagogal liturgy of the 1th century. We can see that in the oldest testimonies of early Christian liturgy: the gospel of Luc chapter 24 Emmaus, the Didache of the Apostles and the letter of Paul to the Corinthians (the only real genuine letter of Paul we know for sure) , They all describe that basic ground structure: the initial morning opening-prayer, the recitation of the psalms, the readings of the scripture, the sermon and the Eucharist and communion with agape afterwards. This is the basis of liturgies in the catholic traditions and the orthodox and oriental liturgical families. There was no bishop involved to change that. It just developed out of the Jerusalem liturgy that spread over the communities in the Roman empire and even out there and as i said its culture and language that did change aspects in time. Thats why the Ethiopian church has a typical African-Nubian and also Jewish tradition. They even developed there liturgy with the same basic pattern and added the influence of remnants of the old-Jewish temple service which are even absent in the Jewish synagogal liturgy and therefore also not present in the early Christian basic pattern of liturgy. So its only the basic structure that adapted to the local situation but not in a fundamental way.
It's translated from the Latin. I'm sure it could be done in Latin... don't know the mazorabic rite. Western Rite is either based on the monastic rule of St Benedict and the Liturgy of St Gregory or the reworking of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer by St. Tikhon. I know very little about the St. Tikhon one...
A Greek Orthodox just told me yesterday during a Holy Friday service, "You Western Rite Orthodox celebrated Easter a few weeks ago. You all cannot possibly be canonical or apostolic at all." That really lost me for the most part. Are we worshipping God, or the idea of what a liturgy should be like?
My synod uses the pre-schism Sarum Use of the Roman rite which is native to the British Isles. We celebrate these rites at the Orthodox Cathedral of Our Lady & Saint Ninian. A Eastern epiclesis does not need to be crowbarred in as the Canon of the Mass has the Supplices te rogamus after the Words of Institution. These hotch potch cobbled together “western” rite liturgies are unnecessary as we already have the full material for the Mass and Offices from pre-schism sources. The Sarum Use has too much material as it is let alone adding from Eastern rites. When someone moves from Serbia, Greece etc they should be going to the Western rite as that is our Orthodox patrimony of the British Isles. If I moved to the East I would not expect to have a western rite parish I would attend and receive at the Divine Liturgy of Saint John. These is a very well attested canonical principle and basic common sense. We do provided Eastern memorial services and Akathists as well but we use our native rites and all Orthodox faithful regardless of ethnicity should go to the native rites of the country there are in. If anyone is visiting Dumfries, please come for a visit, we’d love to meet you and have fellowship. As my Patron Saint Saint Ambrose said (paraphrased) “when in Rome do as the Romans do” or “when in Serbia do as the Serbians do” wherever it may be.
I'm not in your synod but I'm considering buying your church's _Old English Primer_ and _Book of the Parochial Use_ - have you used these and do you like them?
Consider this. One of our great Saints, Isaac of Syria, wasn't Byzantine. He was from the Church of the East, which happened still to be Orthodox then, and would have worshipped according to the Chaldean/Assyrian rite. And by the worship of God on that rite, he was sanctified and achieved theosis. So, Byzantine-only gang, why is he a saint? And how can you accept Sts. Gregory the Great, Dunstan of Canterbury, the martyr Cecelia, and other Orthodox Latins while trashing the rites they worshipped God with, the worship that made them saintly? #allritesmatter
I don't think there's anyone thinking that Byzantine rite is necessarily better - it is my dream to attend a Western Orthodox Mass and receive Communion there. :-) Also, I'm not really convinced that St. Isaac of Syria was really... *Eastern* Orthodox. ;-)
You're playing on a strawman. We were never against those ancient and blessed rites, only their modern incarnation with crap like sacred heart, rosary, statuary and other innovations. Next time don't embarrass yourself with silly triumphalism.
@@Cobruh_Commander Statuary was around pretty early...not quite the same as it is currently, but there's records of it. I much much prefer icons, personally (and those are still used a ton, just supplemented with statuary), but I can't argue it's categorically wrong or innovative. The western rite based on the rule of St. Benedict and the liturgy of St. Gregory doesny emphasize the rosary, though all the prayers said using the rosary that I have seen (our father, hail Mary, and glory be) are all pretty old, so I don't see it much different than a wooden prayer rope...(I'm still sitting content with my prayer rope and Jesus prayer, though.) I may be missing something of it's common western rite use, not sure. The sacred heart sounds super weird. I've not seen it and would be very wary of that being a thing... Anyway, I personally prefer Eastern Rite, but the parish near me is Western Rite and in good standing with the diocese and a great community of the faithful and "what I prefer" is part of the American Protestantism in me that needs to die anyway...
@@Cobruh_CommanderSo the Sacred Heart of Jesus is crap...outside of the narrow-minded judgmental bigotry of your statement doesn't this approach blasphemy. Christ is both human and divine. His human heart is as much a part of Him as anything else. That you would dare to insult our Savior because you do not like or understand a particular devotion is a sterling example of the silly triumphalism you so criticize. Moreover, pray tell, when do does a devotion or a practice become modern and what does that even mean? Within Orthodoxy does this mean that any devotions or theological insights or liturgical habits that developed say after the 3rd century are "crap" as you so vulgarly put it because according to the 2nd century, they are modern? You are an example of Alexander Pope's famous quote that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Please open you narrow mind to Christ's admonition given to the apostles who were upset that someone NOT of their GROUP was casting out demons in His name. Christ bluntly stated "do not stop him. because whoever is not against you is for you". Unfortunately, all branches of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodoxy have unpleasant fanatics like you who tarnish our image to the eyes of an unbelieving world.
Alright, time I asked a question, Bojan, though not so much a question as laying a topic before you to comment on, the topic being the Baroque, polyphonic, and choral chants of the Slavic Churches on the one hand, and their mediaeval and more modal and more Byzantine chants such as Znamenny or mediaeval Serbian as typified by the recordings of Dragoslav Pavle Aksentijević. Can you comment perhaps on the history of that musical development, on where the older forms of chant can be found practised today (confined to the monasteries only perhaps?), and offer your own personal opinions and thoughts on the subject? Finally, is Aksentijević Dovahkiin and can he shout down dragons? Enquiring minds want to know.
Western Rite Orthodoxy is made up of Orthodox Christians who are under the authority of the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox bishops, particularly in America. They use special rites approved by the Antiochian and Russian bishops.
Yes. Western Rite, in its current form, essentially is just an Orthodox church that uses a corrected form of a Western style liturgy as opposed to something more Oriental.
Evangelos Diamantopoulos In the glorious event the See Of Peter FINALLY returns to Orthodoxy, they would transfer to that Jurisdiction, as I understand it. I should write an Orthodox version of “A Canticle for Leibowitz” that could describe how that could play out.
Evangelos Diamantopoulos are you implying that in order for an Orthodox Church to be legitimate they must be Eastern? Orthodoxy is in faith, not paperwork.
I assume you realized by now that Alexander Schmemann is not a canonized saint. I mention that because you called him Saint Alexander around 1:20 or so.
It really is only used to convert Anglican / Episcopalian churches so they don't have to make radical to the Liturgy that they've practiced for hundreds of years and it's not even very popular it is fine however long-term it should be phased out
I've never heard St. Tikhon's, but St. Gregory's has a lot of beauty and truth to it. I prefer Byzantine rite, but my personal preference is part of my American Protestantism that kinda needs to die, so it seems providential that my local parish uses St. Gregory's...
What? Reread the canon of the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Numerous explicit references to the Mass as a sacrifice, to the Real Presence, prayers for the dead... It's not Protestant in the slightest.
@@MagnificentFiend "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." -the language of "feed on him in thy heart" reflects receptionism and Calvinism that was introduced during the Elizabethan settlement. "All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) " - This language of "once offered" negates sacrifice because it reduces sacrifice to a past event. It negates sacrifice as a present event and also negates how it's the priest, who is standing in the place of Christ, is offering the sacrifice. All this reflects the ambiguity and nebulous languages that Anglicans use to deceive others. If you fail to see this, you still think like an Anglican and fail to have the Orthodox phronema. This is just typical convert mentality
@@davidahn4358 I'm not Orthodox; I just think you're misrepresenting the text. Re your first quote, if that were the only reference in the Liturgy to what the Eucharist is, I would share your objections. But before then the Liturgy contains numerous explicit references to the Real Presence: - 'vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son' - 'grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood'. Remembering that Christ died for us is something we do _while_ we eat his body and drink his blood. It's not the totality of the act. As for feeding on Him in our hearts by faith, that just reflects that there is a noetic act as well as a physical act going on. The Eucharist only avails those who have faith, after all. It's not magic with equal applicability to anyone. 'Once offered' doesn't negate sacrifice in the least IMO. Each Liturgy is a timeless participation in the one sacrifice which is the life of Christ. We're not "re-sacrificing" Jesus over and over again, are we? In any case, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is replete with sacrificial language: 'Pray brethren, that this my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father almighty,' to give only one example.
Dont EVER let anyone tell you that to be fully Orthodox you must be Eastern
In order to be Orthodox you must have the right faith and tradition. Sacred heart, rosary and statuary within the nave are fruits of an unorthodox phronema.
@@Cobruh_Commander when did I say those were ok? I didnt
@@UnlikelyLDS People always cherry pick that quote from St. John of San Francisco to justify the innovations I listed above. I doubt Vladika John would approve of Nestorian heart worahip, not to mention the other things. I'm not going to say you are, but its obviously the case with others.
@@Cobruh_Commander Oh I'm not saying those things aren't wrong. What I am saying though is that it is perfectly Orthodox to be western and receive the sacraments in the Latin tradition. When people start going into post schism devotions or practices, I believe that's where the line needs to be drawn.
@@Cobruh_Commander what's wrong with the Rosary?
I am Western Rite Orthodox. I love my parish and am looking forward to being officially Orthodox this Pascha. I attended both Eastern and Western Rite parishes at the recommendation of my priest when I was making a decision of which parish I wished to attend. It was a combination of distance to the parish, love for the community, and a comfort with the liturgy that made me choose the Western Rite. I still have a love for the Eastern Rite, but I am Western, so this made the most sense to me. God bless.
What was Christmation like into the church? There's no Eastern Rite churches, so West is all I have near me, and I'm thinking about attending catechism if my parents aren't offended.
@@FirstNameLastName-is6yb I'll let you know when I go through it. When I became a catechumen with my kids, we stood at the doors to the nave and we were blessed by our priest and anointed with oils. If anything happens to me before I am chrismated I will have a full Orthodox funeral and be buried in our consecrated ground. That's about all I know just yet. My catechism has been mostly about having an Orthodox view. Take your time. Educate yourself on it and answer questions that your parents may have. Let them know that you aren't rejecting them or what they have given you. Go to Ancient Faith Ministries. They have a great app you can download on your phone and listen to music or podcasts. All the best to you on your journey to Orthodoxy.
Is Orthodox Western rite served in Latin language?
@@arom219 If you never found out, not all :) My parish is English. Its based off of personal priest preferance, but if it is a Latin Mass, to my knowledge it has an english translation beside each verse/psalm/etc.
First Name Last Name
The parish I attend as much as possible, Saint Columba, uses the Rite of Saint Tikhon, which is an ingenious redesign of the Anglican Liturgy. Tikhon took the basic outline of Thomas Cranmer’s High Church liturgy and turned it into a masterpiece of English Orthodoxy, basically an “English Rite” Orthodox liturgy, but we prefer Anglican Rite. Tikhon also translated, verbatim, into English the Ancient Rite of Pope Saint Gregory the Great. He was effectively “duel Rite”, Russian and Latin, but that doesn’t seem to be a thing in Orthodoxy, as far as I know. Thank God he took up doctor Overbeck’s cause! I wish Overbeck had been able to debate Henry Newman, but as far as I can tell, they never even met. Odd, as they moved in similar, tractarian circles until Newman became a cardinal. Newman needed to debate more experts on why the Pope DOES NOT have absolute jurisdiction. We need a degree of confederation in the Church to guard against corruption.
My favorite Era is the pre-schism West, I believe we should reconstruct the western rite as they practiced in, say, 6th century Francia or Ireland. I believe this has already been attempted a little bit but it needs full splendor in my opinion for the sake of the church and believers.
I think that if we had a Pre-Norman, Cædmon-era style of English Catholicism(minus the papacy and celibate priesthood, and a few doctrinal things), we would be pretty well-off.
@Meridionalus Linguisticus You know, that is an excellent idea to discuss with the Archimandrite Phillip. Leave him a comment on his UA-cam channel! I sure would be fascinated to see how that would be reconstructed. I also wonder what liturgy we can reckon from Old English..
One that sounds really awesome
How about we go to the way the Last Supper was conducted. In Aramaic, with the settings they would have had, washing the hands and feet after taking off their sandals and sitting on the floor.
@PATRICK McShane sounds like a Japanese meal
Orthodox Europe used Latin before the Schism of 1054 and there’s a Monastery here in Colorado under the Antiochian Archdiocese that uses the Rule of St. Benedict. Several jurisdictions have Western (not Catholic) Rite Parishes that are Theologically strictly Orthodox. You can go to these Parishes because they are authorized by the Metropolitans and Archbishops.
Thats is not true. Orthodoxy before 1054 used dominantly Greek but not Latin.
I believe the first commenter meant Orthodox Western Europe used Latin before the Schism.
@@StratKruzer I guess she is mixing up things. I'm quite sure.
@@antonius3745 well don't be. She is right. The Western Church, which was orthodox before the Great Schism, used the Roman Rite (aka the Gregorian Rite) which was in Latin, in most places. Exceptions such as the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, were also in Latin. None were in Greek.
Thats not The case
They all were greek untiill the 5th. Century. Thats why They still have the Kyrie and there music had ison tone system
If you are ever in Texas again, my wife and I would love to have you join us at the Western Rite Orthodox Church we attend in Fort Worth
Yhoshua I’m wondering if Bojan is referencing Catholic Western Rite instead of Eastern Orthodox Western Rite in Communion within Orthodoxy. We have 26 Antiochian Western Rite Parishes (last count)and ROCOR has Western Rite Parishes and a Radio Broadcast Station.
I live in Fort Worth. Where is your church? I'm curious.
We're currently in Boston while my wife is going to Harvard, so we aren't there regularly (we go when we are visiting though) but we will be moving back to the DFW area when she's graduated
Anyway, the Western Rite Orthodox church we go to in DFW is St Peter's Antiochian
Was father Daniel Keller the priest there?
@igor lopes
Sure, if you go back to at least 1203, others would say 1053.
I once smelled incense on the streets of Dubai as I was walking around an Arabic herbs & scents store. It made me really happy.
Yeah, incense is the best!
Can you do a video where you rant about the heresy of non-Trinitarianism? It's a heresy that really grinds my gears
I was a mix of Hebrew Roots and PCOG before Orthodoxy grabbed me and hit me in the face with truth like Jesus clearing the temple. The argument against it is because a verse that supports trinity is in brackets because it wasn't added until an ecumenical council and not written in originally. That bamboozled me the most into following it, 13 year olds shouldn't make huge theological decisions lol.
Some Acolyte,
I have found that the best I can do regarding these
people is to pray that full knowledge of the Trinity
is revealed to them and to treat them with respect
and, if possible, Agape-type charity. It is almost
as if they are "stuck in the birth canal" of spiritual
rebirth.
In the West, Mormonism (Church of Later Day Saints)
and the Jehovah Witnesses (JW's) are variants of
Arianism, not just anti-Trinitarianism, in their belief.
Then there are the Unitarians and the Unitarian-
Universalists. I have heard of some pretty weird
things within these groups (such as lectures by
Wiccans, etc.)
There is an old joke that Unitarianism was
invented so that non-believers would have
a place to go on Sunday mornings. I am
sure that this joke would be considered
non-PC in our era.
Thomas Jefferson was a de-facto Unitarian.
Nobody really knows what Ben Franklin really
believed (He was into some pretty sketchy
stuff; like the Hell-fire club). Most likely,
Sir Isaac Newton was a Unitarian in his heart.
@@homewardbound8327 Unitarian-ism is a perversion of Christianity that holds to Islamic Style monotheism. Unitarian universalists on the other hand don't have any religious belief at all, that's the religion that was created so that atheists had somewhere to go on Sunday. Their name is kind of a misnomer because it implies that they believe that there is one God and that everybody goes to heaven, but they don't in fact believe anything in particular about God or anything in particular about the afterlife.
One of the greatest Byzantine Greek liturgists, St. Nicholas Cabasilas, in his "Commentary on the Divine Liturgy" considered the "Supplices te rogamas" as the "consecrating moment" in the Roman Mass, and did not condemn a lack of Byzantine style epiclesis.
We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these to be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the presence of Thy divine Majesty, that as many of us as shall, by partaking at this Altar, receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with all heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Some people don't like Christianity because of how divided we are. That's a sentiment that I certainly understand, and have felt from time to time. However, I believe that sometimes we can choose to go our separate ways over our differences, yet still cheer each other on from a distance(at least those groups that uphold the Trinity and the biblical account, without adding too many mortal heresies which I won't delve into here). Catholics and Orthodox can look at Protestant missionaries in the middle and Africa and say, "I really don't agree with y'all on a lot of stuff, but keep bringing people to Christ!" Likewise, a Protestant can look at the sheer faithfulness that a devout Orthodox has and say, "man, I don't like quite a few of your doctrines, but by the love Christ I wish I had such an *immense* love and application of Christianity into my daily life as you!"
I like calling the three main sects(the main Protestant denominations, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy) it's own Trinity. Each one is its own separate entity, her they are all ultimately the same faith. I have my issues with each one, but I like it when we come together over what we share.
It's perhaps a little irreverent but I think the imagery works. If you've got a criticism of it, then I'm open to it
There are no branches or denominations in Christianity. There is only the Orthodox Catholic Church which is Christ’s mystical Body. All others preach a different gospel than that given to the Apostles by Christ.
This. Just this. Ecumenism is the way. Maybe don't go full way, after all we don't agree in everything. But we agree in love for God and Christ, and when we do get together every once in a while, it is gorgeous!
One thing I've noticed in my years of contact with Western Rite Orthodoxy, is that the more jurisdiction and independence the communities have, the more sustainable they are in the long run. This begs the question of whether the 'rite' can be separated from the local 'Church' as it were. While diverse WRO parishes under ROCOR seem to pop up and disappear within a few years, the neo-Gallican Rite French Orthodox Catholic Church has been going now for 70 years or more......sadly not currently in communion with other orthodox churches but that's a separate issue perhaps. Whatever you might have to say about it, ECOF, was founded as a genuine attempt to create a local, national, Western Orthodox Church, and perhaps that's why it's managed to survive much longer than many individual parishes and monasteries in Eastern jurisdictions.....Just a thought (I can't draw my thoughts, like Bojan)
lol
I think that the climate in France is much more different than the one in the US, where ROCOR primarily operates. :-)
@@BanterWithBojan Whether you mean the weather or some other kind of climate, I'm sure you're right!
At African masses we dance a lot which is sometimes frowned upon by Europeans. I guess we got to realise that our cultures will always influence the liturgy instead of imposing one culture on everybody: Aside(you don't want to see what the Indians do in my parish) shhhhhhhhh😂😂😂
I presume ECOF = Église Catholique Orthodoxe de France?
@@Frennemydistinction yes
I love the way you say "hands".
The Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church of America uses a Western Rite, mainly the Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great. As someone who became Orthodox from a Protestant (Reformed or Lutheran predominantly), I have attended both rites and found them beautiful in their own way, although the issue of mutual communion and jurisdictional power often came up, which as someone has said though, is another totally different matter. Someone else has said here that when an Orthodox parish actually reaches out to its congregation without trying too hard to insist on its 'ethnic Eastern' character at the expense of language, that is when the parish can sustain itself. The Greek and Russian parishes here have virtually not sustained themselves very well, with members being mainly expatriates here in my corner of Southeast Asia and in fact, as someone in one parish told me, the majority of Greek parishioners attending on Paschal week only attend services once a year.
How about a main channel video about the things that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all agree on?
Which really isn't much...
Then it'll be easy then. I think he should use Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists as the Protestants(although some Anglicans don't consider themselves to be Protestant)
@@dontsubscribe3702 Well I'd argue that the only thing that every sect that calls itself Christian can agree on is that there was a historical Jesus. Really, that watered down. Catholics and Orthodox have a similar understanding of the Atonement, but even Protestant doctrines vary widely on this the most basic of dogmas. And if you are going to include Protestants, why stop at Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists? Then you are neglecting other large and influential groups such as the Calvinists and Pentecostals. Not to mention that other historical sects are left out such as the Oriental Orthodox and the Nestorians.
May I ask your religious affiliation?
I'm Anglican(of the Continuing Anglican Movement). I was just gonna go with the more traditional Protestant denominations, since it would be hard to find much substantial if you included some of the newer Protestant denominations
Meridionalus Linguisticus
Do you follow the Midwest Conservative Journal?
Walking through a saint. I like that. I thought it was just me. I wonder how common it is. 🤔
In my opinion, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both have historically suffered from a predilection for subsuming the other ritually, both those whose liturgical tradition comes from within or outside each other's respective communions. The Roman Catholic Church's disastrous Uniate projects (both in respect to traditional Latinisations and Novus Ordo-isms) and its proclivity towards centralisation and uniformity in respect to its various Western rites and uses speak for themselves. The Eastern Orthodox Church is historically more guilty in regard to those within its own communion, from the obliteration of the Antiochian and Alexandrian Rites to the actions of Patriarch Nikon. One ought not to make an equivalence with regards to the experiments that are Eastern Catholic ritual and Western Rite Orthodox ritual, given the sheer difference in scale of undertaking of those two respective projects, but nonetheless, slapping an epiclesis on something as ancient as the Roman Canon to me smacks of the same arrogance as that of the Roman Church of shoving in words of institution to the anaphora of a liturgy as old as that of Mar Addai and Mari of the Church of the East.
As far as genuine, authentic liturgical co-existence goes, the non-Chalcedonians are the best embodiments of the concept, as I see it. That the various, utterly unique idiosyncracies of the Tewahedo Ethiopians for example persisted even under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Popes of Alexandria is remarkable.
The Latin rite has an Epiklesis, it just takes place before the words "this is my body etc." rather than afterwords like in the Byzantine rite. Catholics typically believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at the words of institution in the Latin rite and at the Epiklesis in the Byzantine rite.
No, it’s the Supplices te rogamus just after the Words of Institution.
We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these to be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the presence of Thy divine Majesty, that as many of us as shall, by partaking at this Altar, receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with all heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Coming to this late, but I am somewhat surprised to hear you say all the wonderful things about the WR. I like you more and more every video I stumble across :). My parents were brought into Orthodoxy through the Western Rite and I will be forever thankful. Especially in the online ortho-sphere, it is disheartening to hear overwhelming negative comments about the liturgies. Hopefully, through the Holy Spirit, we can return to a liturgically diverse unified and catholic church for all nations. P.S. is your spiritual Fr. John Whitford?! LOL.
What do the Orthodox think of Anglo-Catholic liturgy and mass?
It is likely very similar to the Orthodox Mass of St. Tikhon, which is based on the Book of Common Prayer and Sarum Use.
I am old enough to remember when the Roman Catholic Mass of Saint John Chrysostom was the nearly the same as the Orthodox Liturgy today. You had the host (body) dipped into consecrated wine (blood) and the Priest administered it to you. Only the elevation with the breaking of the bread was done. No communion in the hand or other lousy innovations existed before the Novus Ordo that destroyed everything. Back then they used incense and many prayers of consecration just like we Orthodox do. I converted to Orthodoxy thirty-five years ago and I felt more at home the moment I came into Orthodoxy and got away form the Novus Ordo. If you get Roman Catholic Mass books that are very old, you will see that they follow the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom closely and I have a hymnal from the 1800s from the Catholic Church that is dedicated just for the feast of Saint Basil. Again, instead of just implementing the language of the country like the Orthodox did, the Roman Catholic Church did that and all the other unnecessary changes that were bad. When I go to the old rite Catholic Mass, I understand more of what is going on than most of the Roman Catholics attending. Novus Ordo literally translated means “new order”, this is the proper term for the way Mass has been celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church since 1965, Thank God I was born in the 50's so I know better. This link takes you to an article that is written from the Catholic perspective and when you read it, you will see how lucky we are to be Orthodox. The Priest and we the people need to all be facing God, not each other, then there is a long list of other things that Orthodox get right, refer to onepeterfive.com/why-do-people-have-a-problem-with-the-novus-ordo/.
Interesting. Please pray for me, a sinner. I am struggling with this so heavily (Roman Rite bathed in Orthodoxy seems so strange and experimental to me). Maybe this inner fighting is a sign of a conversion to Orthodoxy that I'd like to do God willing.
You are confussing the tridentine mass with the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, they are really different
western rite Orthodox is way more Byzantine then the Eastern rite Catholic is Roman. I like that we have a western rite but sometimes I feel like the Orthodox church has a problem with it
Correct!
There is more doctrinal unity among Eastern Rite and Western Rite Orthodoxy than in Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholicism.
For example, Eastern Catholics don't have to accept Purgatory, the Filioque, and other post-schism innovations as long as they accept the primacy of the Pope, whereas Western Rite Orthodoxy rejects all the Latin post-schism innovations.
That’s not true, Eastern Catholics are required to believe all dogmas defined in the West.
I am Western Rite Orthodox
My dream is to attend one service by you guys
@@seronymus do you live near a Western Rite Parish?
There's a chapel not too far away but I have personal hurdles to overcome to visit like anxiety haha
@@seronymus I see, well I gotta say it's an incredible experience. Gods hand is there, and it's so neat to see.
So am I. My children and I entered the catechumenate 2 Sunday's ago.
In Catholicism, the epiclesis is when the Holy Spirit is called down, the gifts are concerated when the preist puts hits hands 🙌
Does the Western right orthodox use Gregorian Chant?
Yes. WR liturgies and private prayer (Liturgy of the Hours etc.) are replete with Gregorian Chant.
Byzantine rite (Ukrainian and Russian) Catholics do not have the Filioque in the creed. They also use the liturgies of the east.
Not necessarily. In Romania, I know Eastern Catholic parishes who use filioque in their creed (though I'm Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine Rite)).
I got a st Benedikt necklace from my mom and sister I don’t know what to do with it
Just wear it! If I were to become WR Orthodox, I probably would. The prayer on the necklace is beautiful and powerful, even having originated in Catholicism.
I do not understand this idea that eastern rite doesn't appeal to western liturgical converts. I was a very high church Episcopalian before I converted to Orthodoxy and I'm very glad there wasn't a western rite church in my city. I converted because Orthodoxy is the true faith, not because it was comfortable or pretty. Orthodoxy is tough, but it should be "the kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force!" I truly believe that western rite only creates problems. I understand completely that saint John Maximovich, one of my favorite saints and a saint I pray to daily, was a proponent of WR but I also understand that even though he was a saint he was not infallible. He wasn't spouting heresy, just something not helpful. Orthodoxy is the true faith, it is complete and perfect, there is no true reason to go sifting through the ashes of the collapses and schismatic west to find treasure when the coffers are already full in the east. If you turn your heart away from the true church because of the music, or the order of worship or God forbid because the east has a stricter rule of fasting then you are not ready to convert anyway. Isn't there some warning about putting your hand to the plow and looking back? This is my opinion. I am not a bishop so my opinion counts as nothing but we shouldn't flirt with Rome and Canterbury because I think there is more chance of them influencing us than the other way if we start to dress like them. A western rite priest has said to me that he thinks we should commemorate the pope of Rome in liturgy, so you tell me who's doing the influencing there?
While he’s a fool to commemorate THIS antipope, if that was what he meant, I must find it tragic that you would abandon the Seat of Peter as a hopeless cause.
One and only good thing to come from this Antipope is that he is unambiguously driving home to the West that Peter’s seat is festering with mold. You would simply throw it away, I say it can be reupholstered.
One thing that should be tried is to negotiate with the Vacate Sevadists. It annoys me that they can hold on to the notion of Papal supremacy while saying that there has been no valid pope for 61 years. This is nonsense; either Popes cannot teach error or they have been in some constant state or error since 1054, just never as badly in error before 1964 as since. This has been a very hard lesson for me, but the Novis Ordo I was raised in is a False Rite. If it is false I cannot support the error of false supremacy anymore. But I will not abandon the seat once so perfected by Gregory the Great. The other Holy Sees have had heretics sit upon them and were not abandoned. Peter can be rescued and the circumstances in Europe right now will provide opportunities for this in the coming decades.
@Gavin Lane For sure, I'm a Westerner, of hispanic background, and I love the eastern rite. But I also know, my experience is not the same as others. And there are times when I wish the Liturgy I celebrated shared something in common with how I've done worship literally my whole life (coming from a psuedo-high church methodist church). Pretty sure I'll stay eastern, and that's not the issue. I just don't think we should assume everyone will adapt to a liturgical expression that is totally distinct from their own cultural heritage.
I don't think all of the reason is appeal. I prefer the Eastern Rite, but I see the beauty and value in the ancient rule of St Benedict and the liturgy of St Gregory. It would be a shame to lose that as that was part of the Orthodox Church. It is one faith, but until Chalcedon and then again until...well, sometime after (hard to say when the west went weird) the Orthodox Church had many rites expressing that one faith. Again, my personal preference is Eastern Rite, but that's all it is, I think. Personal preference.
When you said Western Rite I thought you meant Mozarabic or Ambrosian.
I can't figure out if he's talking about
the Tridentine Latin Mass or the
Novus Ordo Mass ????
Am I missing something?
I went to an Ambrosian Mass in
Milan (many years ago). It was
beautiful.
The Orthodox have a Western Rite. I think it is taken from the Galican Rite. One form of the Galican Rite is the Mozarabic Rite. However while La Ermita recognizes a Protestant version of that rite I don't think that they are aware of the Orthodox Western Rite.
One curiosity (deficiency?) of the modern Western Rite is the priest praying with hands pressed flat together rather than the Biblical way of the priest praying with his hands raised e.g. 1 Tim. 2:8 vis-a-vis Exodus 17:11-13 which foreshadows Christ on the Cross. The priest ought to pray as an icon of the intercessory Crucified Christ (cf. Luke 23:34), especially when liturgically making the offering of His Body.
Hands pressed together, I believe -- correct me if this history is incorrect (though the practice is still not Biblical) -- that it is a Carolingian influence where peasant suppliants of their master would put their hands flat together before him. From this, the Carolingian influence on Rome brought it into western liturgical practice.
I think the anti-Germanic sentiment among some Orthodox is way too high. We must thank God for the Germanics, including some of my own acestors, for being such an intelligent and Noble people who frankly invented a lot of things we take for granted.
seronymus
Forgive the Arrogance of my Prussian Ancestors in particular. We held the more sensible Germans back and have sown so much heresy across the world. I’m the first of my Paternal Line to have been raised Catholic in Five hundred years; we were Lutherans from the start, now I will be the first to be Orthodox in 950. Ironic as my more recent ancestors had Ukrainian Orthodox neighbors for 200 years until fleeing Lenin’s takeover in 1920, but had stubbornly kept to themselves, never so much as saying “hello”.
Pious opinion. Unnecessary.
By the same logic, the Eastern Rite obscures the Consecration from the faithful, implying that God did not condescend to them.
Let's not create justifications post hoc.
Whenever there is a Syriac Orthodox liturgy on TV my grandmother feels the smell of incense as if she is standing in the church. I also feel the smell incense at certain times without being near any.
Regarding liturgical diversity I think it is very important. It saddens me to see all the eastern Orthodox following basically the same rite everywhere; the Russians even went into schism because patriarch Nikon could not allow his church to have its own tradition. It might unite all orthodox in a sense but for instance the Church of Antioch and Alexandria have lost their Antiochene and Alexandrine rites for the Byzantine one, even though the Antiochene rite is the oldest church liturgy. The Syriac Orthodox church has many anaphoras. Tge most commonly used are the ones of St James the brother of Jesus, and St Jacob bar Salibi, but we also have of St John Chrysostom, St Philoxinos of Mabbug, St Gregory and so on
Pluriformity in unity is an expression of hope and peace and respects the plurifotmity. I never did say anything of uniformity.
Antonius Unity does not equal uniformity.
@@davidfigueroa8188 did i say that? Read again what i did say!
Antonius You were saying that all Churches should use the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom...
@@davidfigueroa8188 o yes? Where did i say that?
Being a vanilla Catholic has shaped my understanding of liturgical norms - or rather, dissolved any understanding that might be had. Given the number of times bishops in the Eastern and Western churches have invented, modified, or suppressed different liturgies or elements thereof, I must admit I don't see the rhyme or reason beyond the fiat of the bishops. And although the Orthodox have not had such a dramatic change of liturgy as the Mass of Paul VI, their bishops have made their own, certainly very beautiful and transcendent, but still their own, liturgies.
How does an Orthodox - Byzantine, Armenian, Alexandrian, Syriac - understand the development of the liturgy, and who has the right to develop the rites?
"Who has the right to develop the rites?" I see what you did there.
@Destynation Z Or what of St. John Chysostom? Or Gregory the Illuminator? And something must have changed for the liturgy used by the St. Thomas Christians to have become what it became.
There is no bishop in the East who ever did create his own liturgy. What are you talking about? You obviously don't understand anything.
It is a tradition handend down and has been approved by a bishop like st. John Chrystomos or Basilius or Pope Gregorius the Great. These are the mainstreams in the east with some additions of other liturgies. But liturgy is not a monolithic tradition.
The first early Christian liturgy is not the same as the Byzantine liturgy or the western liturgies.
@@antonius3745 "The first early Christian liturgy is not the same as the Byzantine liturgy or the western liturgies."
and
"There is no bishop in the East who ever did create his own liturgy. "
would seem to be two statements that contradict each other.
If there are different liturgies, where did they come from?
@@badgerlordpatrick6493 I didn't say its the same. The differences of liturgical traditions came first from language and cultural context. But these differences are not that big. The basic structure or form of the catholic and byzantine liturgy is the same and goes back to the synagogal liturgy of the 1th century. We can see that in the oldest testimonies of early Christian liturgy:
the gospel of Luc chapter 24 Emmaus, the Didache of the Apostles and the letter of Paul to the Corinthians (the only real genuine letter of Paul we know for sure) , They all describe that basic ground structure: the initial morning opening-prayer, the recitation of the psalms, the readings of the scripture, the sermon and the Eucharist and communion with agape afterwards. This is the basis of liturgies in the catholic traditions and the orthodox and oriental liturgical families. There was no bishop involved to change that. It just developed out of the Jerusalem liturgy that spread over the communities in the Roman empire and even out there and as i said its culture and language that did change aspects in time. Thats why the Ethiopian church has a typical African-Nubian and also Jewish tradition. They even developed there liturgy with the same basic pattern and added the influence of remnants of the old-Jewish temple service which are even absent in the Jewish synagogal liturgy and therefore also not present in the early Christian basic pattern of liturgy.
So its only the basic structure that adapted to the local situation but not in a fundamental way.
Is the Western Rite prayed in Latin?
No. It is celebrated in English here in the United States.
It does not matter what language it is celebrated in. Yes, it can be in Latin.
I hear Liturgies in the WR can be celebrated in Latin.
How does the Eastern Orthodox Western Rite compare to the Mozarabic Rite?
It's translated from the Latin. I'm sure it could be done in Latin... don't know the mazorabic rite. Western Rite is either based on the monastic rule of St Benedict and the Liturgy of St Gregory or the reworking of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer by St. Tikhon. I know very little about the St. Tikhon one...
I'm amazed by the some of the antagonism against the Western rite. SMH.
A Greek Orthodox just told me yesterday during a Holy Friday service, "You Western Rite Orthodox celebrated Easter a few weeks ago. You all cannot possibly be canonical or apostolic at all." That really lost me for the most part. Are we worshipping God, or the idea of what a liturgy should be like?
My synod uses the pre-schism Sarum Use of the Roman rite which is native to the British Isles. We celebrate these rites at the Orthodox Cathedral of Our Lady & Saint Ninian. A Eastern epiclesis does not need to be crowbarred in as the Canon of the Mass has the Supplices te rogamus after the Words of Institution. These hotch potch cobbled together “western” rite liturgies are unnecessary as we already have the full material for the Mass and Offices from pre-schism sources. The Sarum Use has too much material as it is let alone adding from Eastern rites. When someone moves from Serbia, Greece etc they should be going to the Western rite as that is our Orthodox patrimony of the British Isles. If I moved to the East I would not expect to have a western rite parish I would attend and receive at the Divine Liturgy of Saint John. These is a very well attested canonical principle and basic common sense. We do provided Eastern memorial services and Akathists as well but we use our native rites and all Orthodox faithful regardless of ethnicity should go to the native rites of the country there are in. If anyone is visiting Dumfries, please come for a visit, we’d love to meet you and have fellowship. As my Patron Saint Saint Ambrose said (paraphrased) “when in Rome do as the Romans do” or “when in Serbia do as the Serbians do” wherever it may be.
I'm not in your synod but I'm considering buying your church's _Old English Primer_ and _Book of the Parochial Use_ - have you used these and do you like them?
There are RC churches in Serbia, so why would WR Orthodoxy be a problem in Serbia? At one time a good number of Serbs were RC.
I searched for the Cathedral and, in a page, it says that it belongs to a Old-Calendarist Synod, is this correct?
Consider this. One of our great Saints, Isaac of Syria, wasn't Byzantine. He was from the Church of the East, which happened still to be Orthodox then, and would have worshipped according to the Chaldean/Assyrian rite. And by the worship of God on that rite, he was sanctified and achieved theosis. So, Byzantine-only gang, why is he a saint? And how can you accept Sts. Gregory the Great, Dunstan of Canterbury, the martyr Cecelia, and other Orthodox Latins while trashing the rites they worshipped God with, the worship that made them saintly? #allritesmatter
I don't think there's anyone thinking that Byzantine rite is necessarily better - it is my dream to attend a Western Orthodox Mass and receive Communion there. :-)
Also, I'm not really convinced that St. Isaac of Syria was really... *Eastern* Orthodox. ;-)
You're playing on a strawman. We were never against those ancient and blessed rites, only their modern incarnation with crap like sacred heart, rosary, statuary and other innovations. Next time don't embarrass yourself with silly triumphalism.
@@Cobruh_Commander Statuary was around pretty early...not quite the same as it is currently, but there's records of it. I much much prefer icons, personally (and those are still used a ton, just supplemented with statuary), but I can't argue it's categorically wrong or innovative. The western rite based on the rule of St. Benedict and the liturgy of St. Gregory doesny emphasize the rosary, though all the prayers said using the rosary that I have seen (our father, hail Mary, and glory be) are all pretty old, so I don't see it much different than a wooden prayer rope...(I'm still sitting content with my prayer rope and Jesus prayer, though.) I may be missing something of it's common western rite use, not sure.
The sacred heart sounds super weird. I've not seen it and would be very wary of that being a thing...
Anyway, I personally prefer Eastern Rite, but the parish near me is Western Rite and in good standing with the diocese and a great community of the faithful and "what I prefer" is part of the American Protestantism in me that needs to die anyway...
@@Cobruh_CommanderSo the Sacred Heart of Jesus is crap...outside of the narrow-minded judgmental bigotry of your statement doesn't this approach blasphemy. Christ is both human and divine. His human heart is as much a part of Him as anything else. That you would dare to insult our Savior because you do not like or understand a particular devotion is a sterling example of the silly triumphalism you so criticize. Moreover, pray tell, when do does a devotion or a practice become modern and what does that even mean? Within Orthodoxy does this mean that any devotions or theological insights or liturgical habits that developed say after the 3rd century are "crap" as you so vulgarly put it because according to the 2nd century, they are modern? You are an example of Alexander Pope's famous quote that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Please open you narrow mind to Christ's admonition given to the apostles who were upset that someone NOT of their GROUP was casting out demons in His name. Christ bluntly stated "do not stop him. because whoever is not against you is for you". Unfortunately, all branches of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodoxy have unpleasant fanatics like you who tarnish our image to the eyes of an unbelieving world.
Alright, time I asked a question, Bojan, though not so much a question as laying a topic before you to comment on, the topic being the Baroque, polyphonic, and choral chants of the Slavic Churches on the one hand, and their mediaeval and more modal and more Byzantine chants such as Znamenny or mediaeval Serbian as typified by the recordings of Dragoslav Pavle Aksentijević. Can you comment perhaps on the history of that musical development, on where the older forms of chant can be found practised today (confined to the monasteries only perhaps?), and offer your own personal opinions and thoughts on the subject? Finally, is Aksentijević Dovahkiin and can he shout down dragons? Enquiring minds want to know.
To be orthodox you shouldn’t be necessarily Greek, Slavic or Eastern as Orthodoxy is for all nations.
Are Western Orthodox churches in communion with the East? Or is this video talking about Roman Catholicism?
Western Rite Orthodoxy is made up of Orthodox Christians who are under the authority of the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox bishops, particularly in America. They use special rites approved by the Antiochian and Russian bishops.
Yes. Western Rite, in its current form, essentially is just an Orthodox church that uses a corrected form of a Western style liturgy as opposed to something more Oriental.
Evangelos Diamantopoulos
In the glorious event the See Of Peter FINALLY returns to Orthodoxy, they would transfer to that Jurisdiction, as I understand it.
I should write an Orthodox version of “A Canticle for Leibowitz” that could describe how that could play out.
Evangelos Diamantopoulos are you implying that in order for an Orthodox Church to be legitimate they must be Eastern? Orthodoxy is in faith, not paperwork.
I assume you realized by now that Alexander Schmemann is not a canonized saint. I mention that because you called him Saint Alexander around 1:20 or so.
Hah, slip of the tongue. Yes, I know he's not canonized. :-)
They pray the rosary like Catholics so that’s awesome
They don't though. They don't follow all that Simon de Montfort mystical teachings surrounding the rosary
@@BellgThe official website of Orthodox West talks about praying the Rosary
I think juniper trees smell like incense
Oh you're right!
I agree
Wish. Anglican would become western rite
Here is a link to information about the Mozarabic Rite.
www.hispanomozarabe.es/
Thank you so much!
It's not working though.
The Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the English Liturgy need to stop; it's still protestant in doctrine.
It really is only used to convert Anglican / Episcopalian churches so they don't have to make radical to the Liturgy that they've practiced for hundreds of years and it's not even very popular it is fine however long-term it should be phased out
I've never heard St. Tikhon's, but St. Gregory's has a lot of beauty and truth to it. I prefer Byzantine rite, but my personal preference is part of my American Protestantism that kinda needs to die, so it seems providential that my local parish uses St. Gregory's...
What? Reread the canon of the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Numerous explicit references to the Mass as a sacrifice, to the Real Presence, prayers for the dead... It's not Protestant in the slightest.
@@MagnificentFiend "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving."
-the language of "feed on him in thy heart" reflects receptionism and Calvinism that was introduced during the Elizabethan settlement.
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) "
- This language of "once offered" negates sacrifice because it reduces sacrifice to a past event. It negates sacrifice as a present event and also negates how it's the priest, who is standing in the place of Christ, is offering the sacrifice.
All this reflects the ambiguity and nebulous languages that Anglicans use to deceive others.
If you fail to see this, you still think like an Anglican and fail to have the Orthodox phronema.
This is just typical convert mentality
@@davidahn4358 I'm not Orthodox; I just think you're misrepresenting the text.
Re your first quote, if that were the only reference in the Liturgy to what the Eucharist is, I would share your objections. But before then the Liturgy contains numerous explicit references to the Real Presence:
- 'vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son'
- 'grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood'.
Remembering that Christ died for us is something we do _while_ we eat his body and drink his blood. It's not the totality of the act. As for feeding on Him in our hearts by faith, that just reflects that there is a noetic act as well as a physical act going on. The Eucharist only avails those who have faith, after all. It's not magic with equal applicability to anyone.
'Once offered' doesn't negate sacrifice in the least IMO. Each Liturgy is a timeless participation in the one sacrifice which is the life of Christ. We're not "re-sacrificing" Jesus over and over again, are we? In any case, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is replete with sacrificial language: 'Pray brethren, that this my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father almighty,' to give only one example.