I shudder to think of any so called "contemporary praise service" in an Orthodox Church. However to put this in proper context, notice that this is occurring in the Antiochian Archdiocese, an Orthodox jurisdiction NOT noted for its liturgical strictness and having somewhat of a tolerance for innovations. That being said, notice also that this "Contemporary Praise" is occurring OUTSIDE the Divine Liturgy, not within it. Being outside the Divine Liturgy, it is considered a paraliturgical devotion and not subject to the same restrictions as the Divine Liturgy is. Be assured that this parish could not alter one word of the Divine Liturgy itself and it would be served there in the traditional manner as it is in all Western Rite congregations.
I am disappointed to see it, but not altogether surprised. I have been uneasy with the existence of Antioch's "Western Rite" for a number of reasons, but particularly because it still seems to be evolving. I don't find the Western Rite to be helpful in bringing about Orthodox unity in America. Before it was introduced, there was only one rite among the Orthodox on this continent, whatever their ethnic make-up was. I don't see adding a diversity of rites as conducive to more Orthodox unity. It only further fragments us. I think allowing the Western Rite is a bad decision pastorally for the Antiochians, because it makes the conversion process from Western Christianity too easy. And it allows converts to bring much of their non-Orthodox "baggage with them into the Orthodox Church. As you know, I was a Lutheran before I converted to Orthodoxy. And while I still have great respect for what I call the "Augustana Catholic" tradition, I had to leave it all behind when I became Orthodox. I didn't bring organs, pews, altar rails, and statues of Jesus into the Orthodox Church with me from Lutheranism. Yet I would never wish for those things to be eliminated from Lutheranism. In fact, I simply cannot imagine the Lutheran liturgy without the pipe organ. It is an intrinsic part of the Lutheran rite and ethos. Yet I never would demand that the Orthodox accept it. I think each rite stands on its own and I don't favor hybrid rites. The so-called Western Rite strikes me as Anglo Catholics with icons. It just seems artifical.
I wish I could say they are Eastern Rite Catholics in union with Rome, then I wouldn't have to claim them as Orthodox. But they ARE Orthodox. Just go to their welcome page. They are a Western Rite parish of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. But perhaps their bishops can wean them off this "contemporary praise" in due time.
The Western Rite should be maintained and preserved as it is a legitimate and time honored expression of worship from Christians in the Latin west. Those who want converts to only have Eastern Rite are confused and, frankly, snobbish people. And I will never go back to the Western Rite.
You're right about the Antiochians not being very strict liturgically, but even that description should not conjure up images of praise bands and other informal practices that we see in mainstream Evangelicalism.
One thing that should also be remembered is that teh WR is struggling to stay alive. MOst missions that are founded as WR fail within a year or two. Why? It's because the WR really doesn't have its own identity in Orthodoxy anymore because it has not been used for a number of centuries and also because a large number of priests (both cradle and convert) as well as laypersons (mainly cradle) look down on the WR as the bastard step child of liturgical rites.
To see this is saddening, but this is the exception which proves the rule. Unlike in contemporary Lutheranism where praise bands and coffee are the rule.
I think I adequately expressed my shock and sadness at such a thing. I looked around on the website for video clips of this in action, but none was to be found.
Scott,
Unfortunately, those things seem to be here to stay unless the confessionalists get hold of the synodal presidency and the seminaries again.
I'm tempted to make the two-hour or so drive over to Warren to check this out. But I can't abide "contemporary" in a Lutheran context, so I don't imagine I would like it any better in an Orthodox context.
I respectfully but firmly disagree with Boris about the Western Rite. If the Western Rite is a hindrance to Orthodox unity, it is only because of Orthodox like Boris who are unwilling to recognize it as "really Orthodox." The definition of a truly Orthodox liturgy is a liturgy served with the blessing of a canonical Orthodox bishop -- full stop.
If the Western Rite was Orthodox enough for Pope St Gregory the Great, St Hilary of Poitiers, Pope St Martin, and Pope St Leo the Great, it's Orthodox enough for me.
Adding a diversity of rites -- a contemporary manoeuver not at all to be confused with the historically unfolding diversity of rites -- is not conducive to more unity among the Orthodox or anyone else.
I should think Leo would be quite astonished to learn he celebrated mass according to an Orthodox rite.
And, while I applaud Brother Boris for arguing for the integrity of the Western and Eastern rites -- just what we need, a Western Orthodoxy to counterbalance Eastern Catholicism -- and, while I recall the words of the Ottaviani Intervention "The apostolic constitution explicitly mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo supposedly borrows from the e Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that it can only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified.", I nonetheless have to chortle as, from my present perspective, the churches of the Roman Empire struggle to maintain any reason for being whatever since the disappearance of the state which they served both East and West.
Yet we Lutherans tap into this approach with Vatican II For Lutherans on the one hand, when we are not chasing after suburban American evangelicalism pn the other, rather than remaining true to the liturgical aims of the BOC.
I should think Leo would be quite astonished to learn he celebrated mass according to an Orthodox rite.
Why ever should he be astonished? The Western Church was Orthodox in his day, and he has always been venerated as a saint by the Orthodox.
For an Orthodox to denigrate the traditional western liturgy or to suggest that it is less than fully Orthodox
Orthodox is not synonymous with Byzantine or Eastern. The West was Orthodox for a thousand years, and the great Western saints of that time are all Orthodox saints. That is why the traditional Western liturgy is every bit as Orthodox as the liturgies of St Chrysostom or St Basil. That was the point of my comment.
For an Orthodox to denigrate the traditional western liturgy, or to suggest that it is less than fully Orthodox, is to cut himself off from the saints of the Orthodox West. Not a good idea.
My thoughts exactly. That's why I roll my eyes when so many cradle Orthodox say that WRs need to adopt the Eastern Rite "so that they may be saved." Whatever.
It is odd how several of my friends who were Eastern Orthodox priests have said the same thing to me: the Western liturgy is "inferior" and somehow lacks the "fullness" of the Eastern liturgy. They see it as a transition to the "fuller" liturgy.
This is at odds with their own understanding of the undivided ancient Orthodox Church that comprised of both Eastern and Western halves.
Well I suppose one of the key voices for the Petrine supremacy of the Roman pope could indeed be Orthodox by Orthodox eyes, in which anything seems possible.
The traditional Western liturgy is quite reductive by Eastern lights. That is why the "reformers" of Vatican II sought to import into it more Eastern influence.
They sure made plenty of noise about how we recovering some of what was lost in the coming to be of the soon to be replaced old Roman rite that was so horribly sparse and inadequate. Or so they said when they taught me. Revisionism may tell another story later, but I ain't buying it, I saw the real thing.
Looks like converts want what they converted to on their own terms, East or West.
So yeah, Leo would be quite astonished to find himself "Orthodox" as distinct from orthodox.
Maybe the Roman Empire will come back and this will all mean something again.
"But I'm quite shocked to see it at all. I read about it on The Oclaphobist blog."
Well that is certainly one of the milder criticisms of Orthodoxy that you will find at Och's. I try to stay away but sometimes it is like a bad accident and I want to look anyway...
20 comments:
I shudder to think of any so called "contemporary praise service" in an Orthodox Church. However to put this in proper context, notice that this is occurring in the Antiochian Archdiocese, an Orthodox jurisdiction NOT noted for its liturgical strictness and having somewhat of a tolerance for innovations. That being said, notice also that this "Contemporary Praise" is occurring OUTSIDE the Divine Liturgy, not within it. Being outside the Divine Liturgy, it is considered a paraliturgical devotion and not subject to the same restrictions as the Divine Liturgy is. Be assured that this parish could not alter one word of the Divine Liturgy itself and it would be served there in the traditional manner as it is in all Western Rite congregations.
Brother Boris
Well is does say it is a 'western-rite' parish, perhaps what they mean by contemporary looks something like the Roman, Lutheran, or Anglican Mass? :)
Brother Boris,
Duly noted and very important points. But I'm quite shocked to see it at all. I read about it on The Oclaphobist blog. I should have Hat Tipped that.
Ryan,
I suspect (perusing the website) that their charismatic background has something to do with it?
Pastor Weedon:
I am disappointed to see it, but not altogether surprised. I have been uneasy with the existence of Antioch's "Western Rite" for a number of reasons, but particularly because it still seems to be evolving. I don't find the Western Rite to be helpful in bringing about Orthodox unity in America. Before it was introduced, there was only one rite among the Orthodox on this continent, whatever their ethnic make-up was. I don't see adding a diversity of rites as conducive to more Orthodox unity. It only further fragments us. I think allowing the Western Rite is a bad decision pastorally for the Antiochians, because it makes the conversion process from Western Christianity too easy. And it allows converts to bring much of their non-Orthodox "baggage with them into the Orthodox Church. As you know, I was a Lutheran before I converted to Orthodoxy. And while I still have great respect for what I call the "Augustana Catholic" tradition, I had to leave it all behind when I became Orthodox. I didn't bring organs, pews, altar rails, and statues of Jesus into the Orthodox Church with me from Lutheranism. Yet I would never wish for those things to be eliminated from Lutheranism. In fact, I simply cannot imagine the Lutheran liturgy without the pipe organ. It is an intrinsic part of the Lutheran rite and ethos. Yet I never would demand that the Orthodox accept it. I think each rite stands on its own and I don't favor hybrid rites. The so-called Western Rite strikes me as Anglo Catholics with icons. It just seems artifical.
Brother Boris
Scott:
I wish I could say they are Eastern Rite Catholics in union with Rome, then I wouldn't have to claim them as Orthodox. But they ARE Orthodox. Just go to their welcome page. They are a Western Rite parish of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. But perhaps their bishops can wean them off this "contemporary praise" in due time.
Brother Boris
No, Scott. They are Antiochian Western Orthodox, as is my friend Fr. John Fenton.
Brother Boris,
I quite understand where you are coming from.
And many would say: "Yes." It is not only present among the Antiochians, but also among ROCOR (both ends of the theological spectrum if you will).
The Western Rite should be maintained and preserved as it is a legitimate and time honored expression of worship from Christians in the Latin west. Those who want converts to only have Eastern Rite are confused and, frankly, snobbish people. And I will never go back to the Western Rite.
You're right about the Antiochians not being very strict liturgically, but even that description should not conjure up images of praise bands and other informal practices that we see in mainstream Evangelicalism.
One thing that should also be remembered is that teh WR is struggling to stay alive. MOst missions that are founded as WR fail within a year or two. Why? It's because the WR really doesn't have its own identity in Orthodoxy anymore because it has not been used for a number of centuries and also because a large number of priests (both cradle and convert) as well as laypersons (mainly cradle) look down on the WR as the bastard step child of liturgical rites.
To see this is saddening, but this is the exception which proves the rule. Unlike in contemporary Lutheranism where praise bands and coffee are the rule.
Chris,
I am shocked to see it at all. And I can't imagine how it is actually carried out. Can you?
I think I adequately expressed my shock and sadness at such a thing. I looked around on the website for video clips of this in action, but none was to be found.
Scott,
Unfortunately, those things seem to be here to stay unless the confessionalists get hold of the synodal presidency and the seminaries again.
Scott,
We can but pray.
I wonder if they have retained any of their old "charismatic" ethos. Hopefully, that was defenestrated (which has nothing to do with Fr. Fenton).
I'm tempted to make the two-hour or so drive over to Warren to check this out. But I can't abide "contemporary" in a Lutheran context, so I don't imagine I would like it any better in an Orthodox context.
I respectfully but firmly disagree with Boris about the Western Rite. If the Western Rite is a hindrance to Orthodox unity, it is only because of Orthodox like Boris who are unwilling to recognize it as "really Orthodox." The definition of a truly Orthodox liturgy is a liturgy served with the blessing of a canonical Orthodox bishop -- full stop.
If the Western Rite was Orthodox enough for Pope St Gregory the Great, St Hilary of Poitiers, Pope St Martin, and Pope St Leo the Great, it's Orthodox enough for me.
Amen, Brother Boris!
Adding a diversity of rites -- a contemporary manoeuver not at all to be confused with the historically unfolding diversity of rites -- is not conducive to more unity among the Orthodox or anyone else.
I should think Leo would be quite astonished to learn he celebrated mass according to an Orthodox rite.
And, while I applaud Brother Boris for arguing for the integrity of the Western and Eastern rites -- just what we need, a Western Orthodoxy to counterbalance Eastern Catholicism -- and, while I recall the words of the Ottaviani Intervention "The apostolic constitution explicitly mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo supposedly borrows from the e Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that it can only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified.", I nonetheless have to chortle as, from my present perspective, the churches of the Roman Empire struggle to maintain any reason for being whatever since the disappearance of the state which they served both East and West.
Yet we Lutherans tap into this approach with Vatican II For Lutherans on the one hand, when we are not chasing after suburban American evangelicalism pn the other, rather than remaining true to the liturgical aims of the BOC.
Past Elder,
I should think Leo would be quite astonished to learn he celebrated mass according to an Orthodox rite.
Why ever should he be astonished? The Western Church was Orthodox in his day, and he has always been venerated as a saint by the Orthodox.
For an Orthodox to denigrate the traditional western liturgy or to suggest that it is less than fully Orthodox
Orthodox is not synonymous with Byzantine or Eastern. The West was Orthodox for a thousand years, and the great Western saints of that time are all Orthodox saints. That is why the traditional Western liturgy is every bit as Orthodox as the liturgies of St Chrysostom or St Basil. That was the point of my comment.
For an Orthodox to denigrate the traditional western liturgy, or to suggest that it is less than fully Orthodox, is to cut himself off from the saints of the Orthodox West. Not a good idea.
@Chris Jones,
My thoughts exactly. That's why I roll my eyes when so many cradle Orthodox say that WRs need to adopt the Eastern Rite "so that they may be saved." Whatever.
It is odd how several of my friends who were Eastern Orthodox priests have said the same thing to me: the Western liturgy is "inferior" and somehow lacks the "fullness" of the Eastern liturgy. They see it as a transition to the "fuller" liturgy.
This is at odds with their own understanding of the undivided ancient Orthodox Church that comprised of both Eastern and Western halves.
Well I suppose one of the key voices for the Petrine supremacy of the Roman pope could indeed be Orthodox by Orthodox eyes, in which anything seems possible.
The traditional Western liturgy is quite reductive by Eastern lights. That is why the "reformers" of Vatican II sought to import into it more Eastern influence.
They sure made plenty of noise about how we recovering some of what was lost in the coming to be of the soon to be replaced old Roman rite that was so horribly sparse and inadequate. Or so they said when they taught me. Revisionism may tell another story later, but I ain't buying it, I saw the real thing.
Looks like converts want what they converted to on their own terms, East or West.
So yeah, Leo would be quite astonished to find himself "Orthodox" as distinct from orthodox.
Maybe the Roman Empire will come back and this will all mean something again.
"But I'm quite shocked to see it at all. I read about it on The Oclaphobist blog."
Well that is certainly one of the milder criticisms of Orthodoxy that you will find at Och's. I try to stay away but sometimes it is like a bad accident and I want to look anyway...
Post a Comment