Hey guys, curious if you're aware of Western Rite Orthodoxy. Pic related is a Western Rite carved icon. Here is a Western Rite Liturgy, which was written in the 6th Century, and was in use until the Latin Rite replaced it (it's being revived): youtube.com
The vanguard of the Western Rite is the Antiochian Church, which is also the vanguard of evangelism, the majority of the Church in America are converts. Very traditionalist as well.
French Rite icon
...
>Western Rite Orthodoxy
Is this just a meme phrase for the Latin Church?
No, Western Rite Orthodox is Orthodox,not Roman Catholic
...
...
...
...
Could you give some kind of explanation as to what you're talking about instrad of just posting pictures
...
>pews
innovator scum
Is it really you, Constantine? Have you finally come back to us?
Western Rite is a restoration of the pre-Schism forms of Western Liturgies.
>Orthodox is the new alt right hipster religion. Ditch Catholicism and join us!
>tfw the only Antiochian Church near me hates pews and my parish has them (but obviously doesn't use them during most of the Liturgy). They hate modernism, though. My friend's wife got denied communion there because even though she had her head covered, her dress was sleeveless. They do the full prostrations and bang their heads on the ground and all the men have beards
I don't post on Veeky Forums during Lent. Most Orthodox probably don't
Does "Western-rite" refer specifically to the restoration effort or is it also the term used to designate the pre-schism period as well?
Orthodox is the original Church. Since it's ancient and remains ancient in mindset, it will differ from fad brands of Christianity.
Both. Although understand that there was no unified pre-Schism Western rite, and there wasn't one today. "Western Rite" refers to a range of Rites, including those existing prior to the mass imposition of Latin Rite in the West, as well old fashioned Latin Rite
holy shit that's the sigil from Conan!!
Two snakes coming together!!
No, both Catholic and Orthodox were essentially different in character if not in law by the fall of the western empire. You guys never agreed on what the councils meant even when they were new and only drifted apart since.
I see. So I finally went to a local Ortho church. Neither of the Antiochian churches responded to my email, but I got a response from the Russian one so I went there. I think I made the right choice. They have English services earlier in the morning before the Russian one so it works out. Speaking of pews, they have chairs there. Would that be considered "non-traditional"?
Today was my second time there. Spoke with the priest about catechism, hopefully we can get started on that soon.
Yes, Conan intentionally uses that symbol to allude to Christianity. The movie draws extensively from Nietzsche, James Earl Jones represents the priestly class against Conan's warrior caste.
Only downside is that the women there are absolutely gorgeous, and it's incredibly distracting.
Western Christianity was not monolithic. The foundations of Roman Catholicism were laid by Tertullian and Augustine, but it took a lot of Popery to create a uniform Roman Catholic heresy.
Their chairs might just be for the elderly or not, but if they are, don't use. them. They're not tradition, but there's not canon against sitting down so long as it's not during the part of the Liturgy which is worship (for instance, the homily/sermon is not worship, so you can sit down for it). But some people strongly dislike pews because they were invented in the West after the Schism, and they hinder movement and prostrations. I personally prefer them, because even though I like the old way of doing things, Orthodox Liturgies, especially on special days or when the bishop comes through, are LONG, really, really LONG, and being able to sit down a few times during it helps a lot.
The priest probably won't make you an official catchment until you've been coming for a while.
Eastern Christianity was not monolithic either, in fact its unlikely Christianity was ever monolithic even during the days of the apostles.
Orthodox women are super pretty, and it's not just you
Monolithic in mindset, yeah. For the Orthodox, dogma is only defended in writing, but dogma itself is something you experience, not read about. There is a particular mindset and plenty of differences within it (for instance, over the issue of evolution), but these differences are not in dogma, they are not in worldview.
>the priest probably won't make you an official catchment until you've been coming for a while.
I hope so, myself. It's a complicated decision, and I don't want to rush it. I don't know if what he referred to was offical catechism, he just mentioned meeting on a weekly basis to discuss different study material he would give me.
>Orthodox women
I figured it was a Russian women thing.
Damn, this is beautiful.
Nice, never seen an icon for Joan of Arc, but I'm happy to see they exist.
There's an Antiochian church pretty close to my house, actually. I'm not sure I want to go, I think liturgy is in English. Any particular reason I should check it out, or should I stick with my Latin Catholic Mass?
I really shouldn't need to mention the many churches which did not consider themselves in communion with you until recently, not to mention the various "heretical" churches that littered the ancient world, some of which were quite large.
But all of this is besides my orignial point that the roman church's origins go as far back as yours, and they also hold like you do that their dogma has always been consistent and councils only clarified it.
I will give you that the orthodox church as been a bit more consistent, at least based on what I know, albeit they achieve that consistency by retroactively declaring early Christians who are not consistent with them heretical.
>Tertullian and Augustine
ironic that both of them (as far as I know) both interpreted the "on this rock" as referring to the confession of faith, not to the person of Peter.
There is no universal, official catechism of the Church. There are numerous approximate catechisms, but, once again, Orthodoxy is something you understand from spiritual experience. Reading can only sift out the heresies to make sure you aren't carrying them with you as baggage. The only dogma of the Church is what Christ passed on, that and only that (there are numerous other canons but they are not dogma and can be changed if there is an extremely good reason to). For this reason, there isn't even a dogmatic Biblical canon in the Church: Christ never passed on a canon of Scripture. NT Scripture is a witness to dogma, and that is the criterion of its sacredness, and so the canon of Scripture, though not dogma, is almost perfectly consistent through all churches of the Church, with some extra OT books here or there.
All of the things you just said are what I really like about the Orthodox. As I heard Father Thomas Hopko say before "The Word of God is a person, not a book".
>Damn, this is beautiful.
It's Romanesque Rite. If you like it, you might try looking up Romanesque icons from the Middle Ages
> Any particular reason I should check it out, or should I stick with my Latin Catholic Mass?
Well, consider that Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran, and he got made a saint. Also consider that he helped protect child rapists, whereas Benedict XVI, who tried more than anyone else to stop the epidemic even before he was Pope, end up getting blamed for it. Benedict XVI also recently said Vatican II was a tremendously blunder.
Take a look at how your present Pope is about homosexuality: cnn.com
Not that we haven't had awful Ecumenical Patriarchs: the one who lifted the anethemas (and was thereafter stricken from Liturgical prayers on Mouth Athos, the monks being disgusted), was later found out to be a Freemason. But on the other hand, we didn't make him a saint, did we?
That is correct. On the other hand, we are an EXTREMELY Scriptural Church, we have ALWAYS urged laypeople who could, to read Scripture, and we never stopped translating it. We never saw Scripture as one source, and Sacred Tradition as another: Scripture is considered the greatest written witness we have of Sacred Tradition. And, think about it, how could any Protestant think the Bread is not really Christ's Body after reading John 6:32-59? If you want a Church that follows Scripture, that right there rules out anyone who doesn't think the Communion is truly Christ's Body and Blood.
here is a doctrinal hymn, written by Emperor Justinian I as sung in an Orthodox parish: youtube.com
Here is the same hymn sung an in "Eastern Rite" Catholic parish: youtube.com
Truly you get to have your cake and eat it too with the Orthodox. The gospels have had a tremendous influence on me. I can't imagine them not playing a major part in my decision to go Orthodox.
Kek do both sides think the other is going to hell? Are the other side's sacraments valid?
We are all obligated to follow the King's laws, but ultimately it is the King who decides who will go to prison and who won't, whose behavior is excusable and whose isn't, on who to show mercy and who not to, and who was merely a hypocrite and who was sincere.
>I really shouldn't need to mention the many churches which did not consider themselves in communion with you until recently
If you mean Oriental Orthodox, he difference between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox is purely a semantic distinction, and does not concern the substance of dogma. This is made clear by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which issued an anathema against the criticisms (not the man himself) made by Theodoret of Cyrus against Saint Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas (in chapter 3 of the work, Saint Cyril of Alexandria uses the term "natural union"--"union" here being "henosin", literally " one"--to describe Christ's Nature: "If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσιkὴν): let him be anathema."). This means that the mia physis formula was approved. The Fifth Ecumenical Council was not uncontroversial, however (since it made the Oriental Orthodox Christology valid), Pope Vigilius refused to attend on the grounds that it conflicted with the Council of Chalcedon, and after it proceeded without him, the Pope refused to accept its conclusions, and excommunicated Patriarch Menas, the Pope protesting that he spoke from Peter's Chair, which was the final authority in all matters; Pope Vigilius was then excommunicated by Patriarch Menas, and imprisoned by Emperor Justinian I, but the Pope eventually recanted and was reinstated. If you want to understand the distinction between miaphysitism (which the Oriental Orthodox subscribe to)
cont
and monophysitism (which both Eastern and Oriental agree is heretical), look as the differences in the prefixes: "mono" means "alone", "solitary", it's used in Luke 4:4 and 4:8. "Mia" is the feminine form of "heis", which just the adjective for "one" ("hen" when used as a noun); see John 17:21 for an example of its use. Not only is this formula acceptable, it is heresy to say it is not, and not just because of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which merely witnessed dogma, it did not create it), but because henosis describes the communion between us and Christ: if we say Christ's humanity does not have henosis with his divinity, then that says his Body and Blood do not have communion with his divinity, and to say such a thing seriously impacts theology of communion, and is ultimately Nestorian. Likewise it is absolutely heretical to suggest that it is invalid to describe Christ as having two natures, insofar as the phrase "two natures" is used strictly and solely to mean that Christ is both fully human and fully divine and that his humanity and divinity are not confused or "mixed", like with a demigod.
Catholics recognize Orthodox sacraments, but Orthodox don't recognize Catholic sacraments, not even baptism (if you are received then your baptism is "made valid" through Chrismation in the Church)
We are not arrogant enough to presume to know who is going to hell and who isn't. You are supposed to assume you are alone condemned, and work from there.
I think it would have come as a great revelation to a 6th century Egyptian that they actually agree with the people in Constantinople and the whole issue is a language problem.
I think calling it a "semantic distinction" is a nice way of solving the conflict without stepping on anyone's toes
No, that's what it literally is, that was literally the point of the Fifth Ecumenical Council is to illustrate that. Did you read my posts?
I read your post, are you claiming that Oriental orthodox of the 6tyh century considered themselves in communion with Constantinople? Because that is the issue.
No. I'm saying they are schismatics, maybe. But not heretics. And since anathemas can be lifted long after the fact, this is really the only issue standing in the way of full communion now. Neither Eastern nor Oriental will unilaterally lift anathemas, but if they do, that will be a wrap. The anathemas of back then can be declared invalid today, meaning the bishops who declared them lacked grounds to do so.
>shittalking St. John Paul the Second
Thanks for giving me a great reason to stick with traditional Latin.
We're coming around to Benedict. He's being rehabilitated, and will be remembered fondly.
Francis is not bad either. Don't believe everything you read in the papers.
I stated facts about him.
>On 6 May 2001 he became the first Catholic pope to enter and pray in a mosque, namely the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria. Respectfully removing his shoes, he entered the former Byzantine era Christian church dedicated to John the Baptist, who is also revered as a prophet of Islam. He gave a speech including the statement: "For all the times that Muslims and Christians have offended one another, we need to seek forgiveness from the Almighty and to offer each other forgiveness."[93] He kissed the Qur'an in Syria, an act that made him popular among Muslims but that disturbed many Catholics.[187]
>John Paul II oversaw the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which makes a special provision for Muslims; therein, it is written, "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in 'the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[192]
Pope Benedict, back when he was just Ratzinger, constantly urged John Paul to look into people who had complains directed against them about sexual abuse, but John Paul told him to piss off
I'm talking about the video in the link
Benedict needs more than rehabilitation, the Catholic Church desperately needs his leadership, but he offends secularists so they won't have it.
It's funny that you disregard JPII when he was the one who ushered in the Church's great return to conservatism and Tradition. That he was polite towards Muslims should not be misunderstood as him acknowledging their religions.
Consider that he appointed numerous conservative priests, bishops, and cardinals, all of whom are the future of the Church. Francis was the last stand of the liberals, really, not any great new wave. Just wait until we get our first pope from Africa or Asia. They're all JPII types.
JP was not remotely conservative, he was a rabid ecumenicist. Sure, he was extremely anti-communism, but so was Propaganda Due.
Bullshit, yes he was. He was polite to the other religions, but he did not endorse them. There is a way to respect other faiths and still think them incorrect.
He venerated the Koran, he treated it like we treat icons of saints. That's more than just polite, since many Muslims don't even approve of doing that with the Koran.
Is there any cardinal that thinks another religion is correct? I really don't know what you're getting at.
I'm responding to this Orthobro who has a wrongheaded notion about St. John Paul the Great. He seems to think that being ecumenical is akin to endorsing the truth of other religions.
When you say their religion can give them salvation, it is.
And when did he say that?
>Propaganda Due
thanks for letting me know someone else knows how that went down.
Have an excellent Pascha, should you be orthodox.
>We are not arrogant enough to presume to know who is going to hell and who isn't.
Yet you are when it comes to getting into heaven
>841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, this part authored by JP
I am and I have, thank you
Χριστός ἀνέστη
Not for oneself. One can never be sure of one's own salvation. We have saints though, if that is what you mean.
And here I was thinking that it was only protestants who loved to abuse cherry picking. Convenient that you would leave out the section that immediately follows and provides context to it.
>843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
>Not for oneself. One can never be sure of one's own salvation. We have saints though, if that is what you mean.
That is what I mean
Er, this doesn't mean Muslims have to convert, understood in the light of Vatican II. It means Muslims will have to be saved through Christ, though
Saints are chosen by the Church by being venerated enough after death, when enough laypeople venerate them, they are canonized. This is after death. Similarly, Judas is certainly condemned, but this is after his death, and that is only because certain facts are dogmatically known.
>Er, this doesn't mean Muslims have to convert, understood in the light of Vatican II. It means Muslims will have to be saved through Christ, though
Its pretty difficult to be saved through Christ when you reject him. The point of those sections is illustrating the value in Abraham roots of Islam which means it is a step closer than religions wholly outside of it.
It in no way means that Islam grants them salvation which you falsely and slanderously assert.
Lumen gentium means that you don't have to be in the Church to be in the Church
As Ratzinger put, in his commentary on it
>Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.
Also, see Nostra aetate
>The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
I think the meaning of this is that one can be in the Church in an eternal sense without currently being an active Catholic, but that one WILL become a member of the Church. It seems to be trying to see a person from a Godly perspective, where past, present, and future are all one instant. I think.
You are moving the goal posts to the idea that there is no Salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church which is a separate point.
Once again it illustrates the value in Abraham roots of Islam whilst not saying that it leads them to salvation which you continue to assert without basis.
Just because the Pope and the Catechism doesn't say horrid things about them does not mean they view their religion as the true path to salvation.
Have you actually considered giving the Catholic Church a fair assessment and look rather than just cherrypicking quotes and statements to comfort your existing biases and false perceptions?
Here is a nice place to start whynotcatholicism.net
>doesn't maintain the ancient tradition of priestly celibacy
>"remains ancient"
I know that feel user.
Kind of worried that it may become a problem for me. My gf is Methodist and rarely comes to church with me. And I see all these nice, pretty girls around my age at church. Before I was a Christian I cheated on my longtime girlfriend a lot, and I'm not sure how to handle myself once those urges start to come back.
I guess this is why we go to church, because deep down we're not good people, but I just wonder how much prayer can help me. There's not exactly much in the Bible about dating.
You are lucky my local parish seems to have an average age of 50+
Our bishops are continent (though even that isn't dogma, it's canonical tradition, but not Sacred Tradition passed directly from Christ), and that is the reason they are generally chosen from monasteries. The reason our priests aren't is because we think it is conducive to their ministering and counseling their flock when they have a family life. They have shared experiences and understand spousal troubles and raising children. Furthermore, the priesthood is not meant to be a career you expect from youth, it is a position you generally get asked to be in by another priest long down the road when you are wiser. Are you supposed to stay unmarried in the hopes of being chosen? Expectation here is wrong. But since the Roman Catholic Church explicitly says that the continence of the priesthood is a rite-based discipline, not dogma, and permits many non-Latin rites to have married priesthood, there is no actual point of contention here. The only point of an improvised tradition (which priestly celibacy is), is for the better functioning of the Church. If it not only does not benefit that, but actually hinders it, it's not going to be kept. Married priests are superior from our perspective, and since you permit it in most non-Latin rites, you have no vantage from which to argue from.
Which jurisdiction is it? By that I mean, what nationality?
Greek
Well my parish is Greek too and there are many young people. Are there any other parishes in your area?
Theres a Romanian one thats probably an hour and half drive away but they dont even have a website or appear to do english services
Its nice how you avoided that point entirely and displayed that same dishonesty you showed when it came to the Catholic Church and Islam.
That user pointed out that its hypocritical to say the Orthodox Church remains ancient when is willing to abandon ancient tradition like clerical celibacy. You then go on a tangent about how the Orthodox innovation is more effective and how since its not dogma for some bizarre self severing reason it doesn't count as a deviation from ancient tradition.
The moment you tried to argue on technicalities and practicalities and not on history you effectively ceded the point
It's not dogma because it's not a teaching Christ passed on, and it wasn't in the early Church, as in, priests/bishops could be married in the early Church. The priestly celibacy was a way of ordering things added much later. You cannot add dogma, and that is the reason why it is, nor can ever be, dogma. Dogma is that which has been with the Church since Christ. The number of canonical rules which have been added and subtracted since then are countless, and there are still many, but they are distinguished completely from dogma. Canonical rules are purely to facilitate administration.
dogma, by the way, is synonymous with Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is not just any tradition, Sacred Tradition is the original Traditions, passed on from Christ, with nothing added or removed.
>priests/bishops could be married in the early Church
See 1 Timothy 3:2-4
Not him but most scholars consider Timothy 1 pseudepigraphical and could have been written as late as the second century.
Didnt say it was dogma. Its alright you can change your canon law stances and adherence to the practice of the early church and their traditions as much as like but don't lie to others and act as if the the Orthodox Church is ancient and not above abandoning practices and law of the early Christians.
Honestly its like Orthodox taqiyya
>Not him but most scholars consider Timothy 1 pseudepigraphical and could have been written as late as the second century.
Most "scholars" also reject the authorship of most of the gospels.
Whether or it is or not is impertinent, since it is accepted by both the Orthodox and Catholic Church as a witness to dogma. Scripture was not the source of dogma, Scripture was approved according to it being an authentic witness to dogma.
Those traditions which are dogma, we keep. The fast days of Wednesday and Friday, for instance, are still kept, and they are attested in the Didache. Canon laws for ordering the Church structure were *never intended* to be immutable. The Pentarchy, for example, was established long after Christ, and obviously wasn't passed on by him, and now it it 14 churches instead of five. No rules innovated beyond those passed down by Christ, can be dogma, and this exact attitude IS THE FOUNDATION of Orthodoxy, in contrast to those who innovate dogma. There are countless early traditions and canons, which often conflicted with each other. If we say these canon laws are to be treated as dogma, how are we any different from the Roman Catholic Church in her "discovering" of new dogma? Canon laws are created by man, not God, we keep the ones that work, and dump the ones that don't. The Church has done that since the first century.
>Scripture was not the source of dogma
What was, then? Not trying to derail the discussion I'm genuinely curious
Nice. Sounds like the best of both worlds: apostolic succession and holy tradition of orthodoxy, but with a familiar western flavor and not having to put up with this cucked judeo-Masonic Marxist pope and church (Roman Catholic).
You also don't catch flack from the inquisition, witch hunting, persecution of science, changing church doctrine, papal infallibility and other bs.
Oriental orthodox here. Agreed that our dogma are the same, but since when were we in communion with eastern orthodoxy?
>being traditional is against modernism
fucking westerners, your culture is the reason orthodoxy will never work in the west.
Christ.
You aren't on an official level, but you are for practical purposes, since we recognize each other's sacraments and allow each other to partake of communion in many dioceses.
But doesn't our knowledge of Christ's teachings come from scripture
Christ passed on teachings to His Apostles and they passed them on to leaders and so on. Scripture was mainly written to facilitate dispersing teachings more easily.
but scripture says that a priest should be married with children
>allow each other to partake of communion in many dioceses
really? never heard of that happening. I go to a greek church when I can't attend my own (which is 1.5 hr drive away) - I never take communion.
bump
How do we know what the apostles taught?
>The Western Rite is a minority liturgical tradition within the Orthodox Church. Western Rite Orthodox Christians hold the full Orthodox faith in common with their brethren of the Byzantine Rite but celebrate Western forms of liturgy. Liturgical diversity, both between and within the East and West, was common before the Great Schism, yet not as diverse as like in today's time. At present, all of the bishops who care for such parishes are themselves followers of the Byzantine Rite.
So basically bishops fully respect universal Orthodox tradition and laws but they lead their perishes by their tradition and laws - which are not against the orthodoxy but have their own flavor, other than that they're perfectly fine.
OP that's very good, learning new stuff everyday. Orthobrother is orthobrother for eternity - best kind of brother.
Also can you clarify what you mean by "passed the teachings on to leaders"