skip to main |
skip to sidebar
(Virtue Online) - An investigation into the practices of recruitment of Anglican clergy by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia's (ROCOR) Western Rite Vicariate (WRV) has uncovered findings that might be a surprise to their own bishops.
"Western Rite Orthodoxy" refers to a project to convert Western Christians, by several different Eastern Orthodox churches, through offering them a "Western Liturgy" to use in worship, while adhering to Eastern Doctrines. Western Orthodoxy has seen rapid growth in recent years, fuelled mainly by Anglican converts, although its history and status is controversial, with a number of Orthodox faithful believing
Western Riters are not true Orthodox.
In 2013 an extraordinary session of the Synod of ROCOR removed the heads of their WRV, and passed a decree that Western Rite communities should be assimilated into their mainstream Eastern Liturgical practices. Although this decision has never been officially reversed, ROCOR's WRV under the leadership of it's latest Vicar General, former Anglican clergyman Archpriest Mark Rowe, continues to expand- while employing some very unorthodox methods.
Rewriting History
Alongside the steady "Orthodox Diaspora" to Western countries, especially those in the Anglosphere where there are increasing numbers of converts to Orthodoxy, a new cult of belief has emerged to legitimise Anglicans entering the Eastern Churches. It is claimed that England remained in union with the East after the Great Schism in 1054, and did so until the Norman Conquests which brought it back under Rome-usually expressed in the phrase "England was Orthodox before 1066!".
What proponents of the position fail to address is why in the 12 year gap between 1054 and 1066 that no Eastern Orthodox sources at the time either record such a notable satellite as the English Church remaining in union with them, or the lack of lamentation of the loss of England to Orthodoxy via Papal conquest. They also fail to address the absence of Western Catholic records that such a notable part of the Western Church was not in communion for over a decade.
A surprising number of Anglican converts cite 'Orthodox England' in their conversion stories while they were exploring the Orthodox faith - believing they have come home to the Church of their ancestors, despite having to adhere to the Eastern school of Christian doctrine. What betrays this position as a modern belief is the lack of a body of work extolling this position. There is no historic paper trail, nor academic work in regard to this claim of Church History.
Nowhere is this lack of a body of work seen more than when ROCOR's WRV is asked for evidence of their claims England was Orthodox before 1066. Enquiries about this claim to ROCOR's WRV Vicar-General Archpriest Mark Rowe-and his recent former assistant Vicar-General, only unearths one book "THE FALL OF ORTHODOX ENGLAND: The Spiritual Roots of the Norman Conquest, 1043-1087" by Dr
Vladimir Moss. The authour, born Anthony Moss, is an English convert to Orthodoxy and whose PhD is in Psychology. Moss used to be a member of ROCOR, but left to join Orthodoxy's schismatic Old Calendarist movement. Moss is renowned for writing alternative church histories, including his work THE LESSONS OF ROCOR'S FALL which contains the following introduction:
"There is no more tragic or traumatic event in recent Church history than the fall of the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) into the hands of the apostate Moscow Patriarchate (MP) in May, 2007. Apart from the horror of the loss of so many souls into the graceless pit of World Orthodoxy, the draining and debilitating effect of the fall on those Churches that continued to remain faithful was immediately felt and continues to be felt to this day. But more surprising -- and still more alarming -- is the lack of analysis of why this spiritual catastrophe took place."
In Moss's book he praises and promotes Old Calendarist churches not in union with mainstream Orthodoxy, as well as attacking Anglicanism and accusing the Catholic Church of genocide against Orthodox Christians.
Various ROCOR WRV media have mentioned this position, one example being the website for Holy Cross Orthodox Church Omaha, Nebraska: "Even after the Great Schism of AD 1054, England remained Orthodox until the Norman Conquest in 1066. The Norman Invasion was seen as a crusade to restore the English Church to Rome."
A source in ROCOR's WRV has alleged although there are Western Rite liturgies based on the Anglican patrimony and the Sarum Use- Archpriest Mark Rowe has a preference for new foundations to use the form of the Roman Georgian liturgy celebrated in England pre-Great Schism, which has been translated into English. This preference would be in line with the "Orthodox England" position.
A number of ROCOR's bishops that were contacted stating an unnamed ROCOR priest was recommending the works of Vladimir Moss- A quarter of the Hierarchy replied condemning this action, with one stating "Yes, that is a mistake on the part of the priest. We definitely should not distribute anything that Vladimir Moss has written.", and another "Vladimir Moss has not been with ROCOR for many years now. He is in schism, so I wouldn't be accepting any materials from him to read...".
It is unknown whether ROCOR's bishops support the position that England was Orthodox before 1066 and the Catholic Church waged a war against Orthodox Christians to win it back, and that the Church of England is ignorant of its own history. If they do hold this position, what this means for the Ecumenical relations between the three communions is unclear.
Not the Only Ones
Yet ROCOR's WRV is not the only one promoting the book and this claim. A search online finds a number of Orthodox priests from a number of canonical Orthodox churches promoting it. The website Orthodox Wiki, which claims to be within the bounds of canonical Orthodoxy, under the page "Timeline of Orthodoxy in the British Isles" lists 1066 as the beginning of the "Roman Catholic Period", citing a link to
Moss's book in the reference section.
The head of the Antiochian Orthodox Church's WRV, the Very Rev Edward Hughes, was contacted asking for information regarding the claim England was Orthodox before 1066. He replied "The only scholar I am aware of that makes this a claim Vladimir Moss. Fortunately, one of his books about this subject is available online.". He then provided a link to the book.
Although different churches have different versions of historic events, the question is raised about ethics in Evangelisation. Is it moral to use such novel and unhistorical narratives to promote your church? When accusing one side of a war of aggression and genocide, should you not have the evidence to back it up? These questions are not rhetorical.
During the jurisdictional dispute concerning the Ukraine, over which the two great Orthodox Sees broke communion, Moscow accused Constantinople of rewriting Church History to further their agenda and indicating that was a very bad thing to do. Perhaps Moscow should have a word with the Bishops of ROCOR about the grave matter of bearing False Witness.
Posts
Fascinating. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThis is an example of getting hoisted on our own petard. If we didn’t confine ourselves to some of these date-based concepts of “when A.D. something ceased being Orthodox” we wouldn’t get painted into these pointless corners.
DeleteOrthodoxy has certain ingredients that are timeless and not date-based. Let’s determine / learn those ingredients and lose the silly and Ill advised date-based approach to doing Orthodoxy! The date doesn’t determine Orthodoxy, the beliefs and the practice does. Apply the ancient ingredients to modern contexts and situations with wisdom and foresight and some common sense, please.
Has the so-called Western Rite "seen rapid growth in recent years?"
ReplyDeleteThe ACNA “western rite” has planted 1000 churches in ten years in the U.S. alone. How’s that for growth? Give something enough freedom and it will flourish, hamstring it, on the other hand, and it will just limp along.
DeleteIf The Western Rite isn’t doing as well as it could or should be, maybe we’re doing some of it wrong!
There is slow, steady growth IMO. First put down deep roots, then grow strong and tall. We have established parishes and Monasteries now.
I think we’ll be okay as long as we’re not moved against by any leaders who dislike us! We have a strong tower in Bishop’s Basil and Vicar Bishop John. They would defend us if someone were inclined to try and take us out. Not to worry!
I think ROCOR will be fine as well, even if there are a few bumps in the road along the way. Such is life everywhere.
"The ACNA “western rite” has planted 1000 churches in ten years in the U.S. alone. "
DeleteSource? There aren't even 1,000 Antiochian parishes in the US period, much less 1,000 western rite parishes. There are roughly 250 parishes total and about 21 of those are western rite. Hardly 1,000.
First off, whatever one thinks of the spiritual wisdom of reading the works of Vladimir Moss, there is nothing in this article that actually speaks to the arguments and evidence offered in his book on the subject. Whether Moss is a heretic or a schismatic, or whether he only has a degree in psychology, addresses nothing of the actual substance of his research, and therefore the above denunciations by the author of this piece are simply the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack. Whether one should approach with caution or avoid entirely the works of Moss due to considerations of spiritual watchfulness is a completely different point from saying the arguments and evidence he offers are inaccurate. One could at least consult his bibliography if they were concerned to avoid his spiritual errors, etc. But a person cannot write off his arguments on the basis of those possible spiritual errors. I think if a person actually consults his bibliography in that work, one finds a list of academic and historical manuscripts that can study himself in order to evaluate the validity of the claim that the author of this piece seems to criticize out-of-hand as he simultaneously slings slander at ROCOR and Antiochian hierarchs and clergy,etc.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, there is also the article by Fr John Romanides, "DO FORCED REPLACEMENTS OF THEIR ORTHODOX PREDECESSORS HAVE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?" (online @ http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.26.en.apostolic_succession.htm#8) in which he also addresses this history. He even offers the 2 volume work of Augustin Thierry (available online) as part of the evidence for the "forced" removal of English bishops by "Franco-Latin" replacements. So the argument/manuscript evidence can at least be traceable through the 19th century scholarship of Thierry, rather than simply claiming as the author of this piece does that there is no historic evidence and that it appears out of "nowhere" with Vladimir Moss's book. (Or they could just consult the sources Moss himself draws on as we said above, which appear substantial from a cursory glance).
Just because you don't like an author, or wouldn't recommend reading him generally, does not mean that his arguments are inaccurate or that they misrepresent the facts. If you're going to do an "investigation" into these things, at least follow the basic tenets of good scholarship and have the decency to read the primary and secondary material being cited as evidence for the position. Sheesh.
It seems the author of the above piece would do better to imitate the careful research of the authors he is criticizing, rather than offering ad hominem and slanderous accusations with no positive evidence that supports his own claims that the "Bishops of ROCOR [are] bearing False Witness" and are guilty or complicit in "rewriting history."
I think the Anglicans' problem is they don't want to go to the back of the canonical line. I have great sympathy for their position, being a former Episcopalian, but how much of the pre-Schism Western Rite even survived to be properly "resurrected?"
ReplyDeleteAlso, the whole "Anglican" concept is artificial in its current iteration. "Anglicanism" is simply the church of the ethnic English nation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as it's the de facto organizing principle for Orthodoxy.
It occurs to me that's another argument for the Anglican "Western Rite": everybody else's Orthodox Church is organized around ethnic nationhood, so why shouldn't that be the case for the ethnic Anglo-Americans?
All of which is only to underscore the ecclesiological mess in which we find ourselves. Imperial ecclesiology has not managed the world's transition post-Westphalia into nation-states, and now the nation-state model is breaking down. Prayers for the first hierarch to actually try and do something.
Right now, perhaps the main thing that helps us transcend our ethnophyletism is our shared Orthodox liturgy, practiced throughout the world, adopted happily by Americans, Africans, East Asians, etc. Apart from the "Western Rite"'s glaring inadequacy to the Orthodox Faith, the value of liturgical unity, *especially* in the face of our foolish nationalism, ought to be a good enough reason not to encourage it.
DeleteWell stated The Anti-Gnostic.
DeleteAbbaMoses,
I wish I shared your confidence that the "shared Orthodox liturgy" is in some way itself sufficient to carry the day against the large cultural and *religious* forces in the modern world. Unfortunately I think it is rather obvious theologically/spiritually that an external liturgical form is itself sufficient (even if liturgy is itself necessary). Liturgy can very easily and quickly be "reformed", and it does not need to even be externally in that if the majority of those within the Church are reformed internally (i.e. essentially converted to another faith - in our current situation secularism) then it's already too late.
So as usual, it's not the external Law (in the form of liturgy, canons, fill_in_the_blank) that matters but the internal heart and spirit. As a convert from Anglicanism (over 20 years ago now) I don't want to "return" to a western rite, but I don't think it's existence is neither here nor there, as long as the spirit is right.
Well said, both Anti-Gnostic and Jake.
DeleteGood points, but the universal liturgy is itself a product of the Empire. Post-Byzantium, there are a number of different iterations. Inevitably, there will be an "American" liturgy--that's just how human culture works.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I'd say the one constant observable over two millennia of Christianity is how everybody wants a Liturgy that reflects their culture.
The whole topic of wether or not the British isles were orthodox for 600 years or 612 tears really has absolutely no bearing on wether or not the Western rite Liturgy is legitimate. Most of the claims I have seen againts the western rite dont hold up to much scrutiny after you get past the initial shock value. None of the arguments I have heard do anything to adress the fact the saints that advocaded the WR liturgy, like St. John Maximovitch or St. Tikhon of Moscow. Nor do they adress the millenium when many churches in the orthodox communion; including Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, etc. Had unique litugies, and church unity was none the worse for it. Church unity is found around mutual communion, submission to our bishops, and acceptance of the truth of Orthodox doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is who is more akin to the Orthodox Church. Moser post reformation Anglicanism or pre Norman Brittain. Truth hurts and while you may not like Moss, I think he is essentially correct.
ReplyDeleteThe best Orthodox comments on a westrn rite for episcopalians is quite old, 1904. The Russians did a very thorough and readable commentary. http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html
ReplyDeleteThe most devastating part is in the conclusion: "The examination of the "Book of Common Prayer" leads to the general conclusion that its actual contents present very little comparatively that clearly contradicts Orthodox teaching, and therefore would not be admissable in Orthodox worship. But this conclusion comes not from the fact that the book is actually Orthodox, but merely from the fact that it was compiled in a spirit of compromise, and that, while skilfully evading all more or less debateable points of doctrine, it endeavours to reconcile tendencies which are really contradictory. Consequently both those who profess protestantism and their opponents can alike use it with a quiet conscience. But worship which is so indefinite and colourless (in its denomination bearing) cannot, of course, be accepted as satisfactory for sons of the Orthodox Church, who are not afraid of their confession of Faith, and still less for sons who have only just joined the Orthodox Church from Anglicanism. If it were, their prayer would not be a full expression of their new beliefs, such as it ought essentially to be."
When you have an ENTIRE system of worship carefully, painstakingly designed to be vague and unclear as to what people ought to believe it is impossible to make it Orthodox. It was never intended to be Orthodox, it was intended to keep people from arguing and killing each other. Two people could sit in the same pew believing completely different things or nothing at all and still be happy anglicans in good standing and conscience. This is why it's simply impossible to use an anglican "rite". It's wrong from the start. To make it "Orthodox"is to deny everything that made it anglican. If you look at proposed western rite texts you will find they try desperately to rethink Zwinglian passages as somehow Orthodox. This trivializes Orthodox faith and insults Zwingli! I left episcopalians in 1983 and simply never missed it for a moment then or now. Now, if the Orthodox would kindly do their own liturgy in a non-insulting and lazy way, burying or completely skipping parts of the liturgy, using execrable music it would be more attractive to people leaving awful liturgcal traditions for the real Tradition. Episcopalians from now who are younger than about 60 have never known anything remotely as good (relatively) as the thing the Russians evaluated in 1904, it has grown worse every few years, they have nothing to miss.
The Orthodox, whether Hughes (whose mdiv thesis was an effort to try to make the Rosary acceptable as an Orthodox devotion!) in the Antiochian or the ROCOR people are wasting a LOT of time with this. It has never got beyond around 25 congregations and likely just won't. I feel sorry for these groups, they are pretty isolated and aren't likely to grow. The usual Orthodox need to make their liturgy understandable and do it WELL. It doesn't help the western rite people to offer no alternative.
Amen. I keep being astonished by arguments that boil down to "What do our liturgical practices matter, as long as they meet minimal standards?" or even "...as long as we subscribe to the right faith?" Lex orandi lex credendi.
DeletePeople come to Orthodoxy from different directions. I came looking for worship worthy of God. That's why this issue concerns me so deeply.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed itself is a compromise document that specifically sidestepped disagreement, i.e., the introduction of homoousios, Jesus suffered and was buried but is not described as dead, and the full divinity of the Holy Spirit is purposefully not stated by refusing to describe him as homoousion, too.
DeleteAs the imperial church became more dominant the political impetus to define the borders of the church for its own purposes became more willing to define out whole chunks and regions of the Church in favor of the (political, cultural) core. The stereotypical Latin tendency to over-define and over-prescribe theology and praxis is seen in germ in the the church as it became more and more a department of the state dominated by the state. As Meyendorff has said, we lost as much or more than we gained with the Empire.
Complaining that the Book of Common Prayer is doctrinally “vague” is odd coming from a tradition that values Apophatic Theology v.s. Western Cataphatic Theology. Arguing what / who God is not is no worse than the peacekeeping vagueness of the BCP.
DeleteIf many of the Orthodox are frustrated with the Western Rite’s use of the Saint Tikhon Liturgy, then work on an alternative Western Rite with the Liturgy of Saint John at the center but paired with Western Hymns, Traditions, Church Architecture, Vestments and Western Collects of the Day.
This could be done, but no one has taken this on, as of yet. The absolute dividing wall between Eastern and Western Liturgy is ill-advised IMO. Think outside of the box and solve the problem! That’s what many of the great Saints did.
If this was done, then all the Orthodox would be praying the same core liturgy, but in their own cultural style and within their own cultural heritage.
I still think, however, that the Orthodox Book of Common Prayer, published by Lancelot Andrewes Press works fine.
Feel free to come up with a great alternative.
The Orthodox Church is strong enough to take on the task of “spoiling the Egyptians” and taking all Western Expressions and reinterpreting them through lens of Orthodox Theology and experience. That makes the Holy Rosary, The Stations of the Cross, the medium of stained glass and statuary and all the rest of it fair game. This is a better approach than just picking an arbitrary date (1054 A.D) and forbidding every thing that comes after that date.
DeleteThe Orthodox Church has continued to recognize / make Saints after that date and this task of cultural appropriation for sake of The Gospel is a worthy endeavor.
Saints Cyril and Methodius created an entire alphabet to help reach the Russians, and here we are quibbling, IMO. Use everything we can, and don’t cut off noses to spite our faces.
Keep everything traditional and leave the Icons the way they should be, but let everything else be fair game. Then see the Western Rite flourish.
If you hamstring the Western Rite, it doesn’t work as well as it might if you would just grant it the freedom of Christ Jesus.
For freedom Christ has set us free, only don’t become entangled again by a yoke of slavery.
Bravo - I am thrilled and much pleased with your thoughts. What would your evaluation of the work of ECOF in France, which was greatly influenced by St. John Maximovitch? Pax et Bonum!
DeleteI think the Western rite experiment has run its course.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion.
The western rite experiment has largely failed because the orthodox church does not understand our western Christian heritage. I have been in the orthodox church these past 25+ years and speak with experience. Eventually all "converts" are forced into eastern rite. We would have done better forming a confessing church using our own liturgical heritage. As for the claim that the western church was orthodox; it's anachronistic. It is better to say we were, east and west, catholic. We have all suffered since the schism. The orthodox church is despotic by nature as is the western church. Whilst preserving and not adding to ancient doctrine it is nevertheless antithetical to western people. I say this from wide experience within the church.
ReplyDeleteAs a Western Christian I'm very happy to embrace Orthodoxy as it has been handed down to us, and I can't help but point out that all this talk about East Vs West; Empire vs post empire, seems to forget or ignore the fact that Christ is in charge of the Church and its development.
ReplyDeleteAnytime we stand in judgment of the Church and claim its acting "despotic" or not treating us the way we "deserve" to be treated or doing things the way we would prefer, we should be quick to realize we're judging Christ. Lord have mercy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNot so Sojourner. If we follow your advice the church would never repent of her shortcomings. Christ is NOT the church. We do not judge Christ but as members of the church are judged by Him. Your advice whilst well intentioned leads us nowhere. The sad fact is that despite any amount of talk the church has gone backwards in our lands. Locked in ethnic ghettoes and forcing converts to conform is not what Christ wants.
DeleteI might also add if you are content to receive orthodoxy as it has been handed down; fine. Please do not stop or accuse others who wish to express their faith within their own culture of judging Christ. It is an unacceptable charge to make. As a pastor of many years experience I am tired of the damage dine by despitic clerics, ethnocentric people and insensitive practices. If you knew the heart breaking stories many of our converts have and those who were pushed away you may be less inclined to dismiss us as judging Christ; a truly disgraceful charge to make. I pray your eyes are opened to the shallowness of your comments.
DeleteWith respect to you as a pastor, you seem to have misread my comment and what I was responding to.
DeleteFirst of all the last commenter literally said "the Orthodox Church is despotic." That's a pretty serious accusation against the body of Christ, which is, again, ultimately headed by Christ.
Also, I'm cradle born, but im not ethnic, I've had to deal with ethnocentrism my whole life. That's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about the liturgical worship of the Church, which has been established and directed by God. Of course there is a human element and influence, but if you want to claim God wasn't involved I'm not interested in further discussion.
So again. Judging the liturgical worship of the Church and saying it's not good enough, doesn't fit our personal preferences, and that the Church has to change its worship to suit our own desires, goes against the principles of Orthodoxy.
That being said, if you feel like you can't be Orthodox as a Westerner without using a different liturgical practice. Its not my place to judge you.
I just think it's going too far to call the Church "despotic" simply because it has an uninterrupted liturgical practice that it has passed down regardless of geography.
Considering we're supposed to be sojourners, in the world but not of the world, and citizens in heaven first and foremost, I just find it odd to classify ourselves as Westerners and insist on doing things differently.
Again, not saying you can't, just saying it's odd to me, and that criticizing the Church's traditional worship on top of that is a bit too presumptuous for me.
We can avoid the charge and the fearful reality of sitting in judgement of Christ by reverently speaking up while remaining loyal to Him. After all, we believe that He still speaks, and that He speaks through all of us who are in Him / in the Church. It depends largely on our attitude. This is a dynamic, living faith while at the same time being changeless. The Orthodox Church keeps making Saints and keeps reaching and ministering to the world. The process keeps going.
DeleteChrist is the head of the Church. The Church is perfect, holy, and unblemished. There is only one true Church....the holy Orthodox Church. And She is a hospital for the sinners who attend.
ReplyDeleteThe Church Triumphant is Perfect, Holy and Unblemished. The Church Militant is still working out her salvation with fear and trembling. There are many devils within her and many angels “outside” of her.
DeleteWe may have doctrinal perfection and the Church is Infallible, but we as her local expressions are not so. Lord Have Mercy!
The Revelation and Our Lord is perfect. We are still The Chief of Sinners down here.
We know where the Church is. We don’t know where she isn’t, because our God is Everywhere and Fills all things.
Jesus even said, from these stones I can raise up true worshippers.
We are Orthodox, but we must NEVER be arrogant about it.
If the Lord didn’t spare the natural branches, He may not spare us, either.
This article, from an Anglican blog, is deeply dishonest on several counts. Firstly, in the years after 1054, there were not two denominations, Orthodox and Catholic, in the modern sense. There was a dispute between two patriarchs, but there was absolutely no notion that the entire church had split into two different entities. Except at the Episcopal level, there was still intercommunion, and, in most countries, it remained this way for centuries. Only after the fall of Constantinople and the rejection of the Council of Florence did the Eastern Christians start thinking of themselves as an entirely separate body from the Latin church. Only then was communion broken at the level of laity, and only then do you see Greek Orthodox parishes, under their own bishops, opening in Italy, for instance.
ReplyDeleteSo in the 11th century, it is quite impossible that the Ecumenical Patriarch could have remarked that England was part of 'his church' or that the Pope could have remarked that England was outside 'his church'. There was still only one church, as far as they understood it at the time, and there was no reason that any other nation would immediately pick sides in the dispute between the two primates.
Thus the question of whether England was still Orthodox until the Conquest cannot be a question of canonical reality at the time. It can only be a question of whether the Orthodox Church of nowadays chooses to consider England at that time to have belonged to the true faith. It is purely an opinion, and given the facts-on-the-ground of those years, it is a very reasonable opinion.
The only practical implications of the question would be liturgical commemoration of saints or holy events that happened in England during those 12 years. And it so happens that the appearance of the Virgin in Walsingham occurred in 1061. There is an Orthodox chapel in Walsingham commemorating this apparition. Orthodox worship at the site has been going on continuously for over a hundred years, and pilgrimage groups led by bishops of every Orthodox jurisdiction go there. So it is clear to me that there already exists a liturgical reality that the Orthodox Church considers the Walsingham apparition to be her own, and by extension, that England at the time participated in the True Faith.
This idea, that England was Orthodox for those 12 years, has been around a great many years, and is promoted in a great many corners of Orthodoxy. The suggestions, in this article, that it is an invention of ROCOR, that it is a tool for recruiting converts, that it is a secret belief of the Western Rite - all this is nonsense, and frankly it is libelous to ROCOR.
Andrew, that was incredibly well said! Thank you for putting the last nail in the coffin of this futile "controversy".
DeleteSeconding the thanks to Mr. Gould. Well said indeed.
DeleteWell said!
DeleteNow we have the 12 years Orthodox English and the 12 years Non Orthodox......
DeleteDoes it matter?
The underlying issue is really one of tradition, and how it is construed in the Orthodox Church. On the one hand, tradition is defined as submission to exactly that which has been received, on the other hand tradition is understood as a return to the original tradition (e.g., Kollyvades). If one believes tradition is the former, the Western Rite is always an aberration. If one defaults to the other, then there is no problem with the Western Rite. The challenge is modern Orthodoxy, both traditionalist and modernist, pick and choose between the two version of tradition when it suits them. As usual, tradition in Orthodoxy is whatever the Orthodox say it is at the time. Economia uber alles!
ReplyDeleteBravo Mr Unknown. Someone who gets it !
DeleteFirst, I have known Fr. Mark Rowe for over 25 years. I knew him when we were in the ACC together before he was a priest. He has a consistent record of good sense and being above reproach.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the author builds his historical case on silence, namely a supposed lack of evidence. But this is not only fallacious but absurd. Here is why. First all one has to do is look at English liturgy at the time to see that they were definitely not Protestant in theological outlook or practice. That means that they were either Catholic or of a more Orthodox disposition.
Now since it was after the Norman invasion that the Papacy gained a more direct control over the archbishopriks of England and thereby enforced more Catholic distinctives, the previous theological outlook was definitely closer to the Orthodox if not isomorphic. This is especially so since Eastern bishops who served as archbishops introduced Eastern liturgical customs among other things to England ( See the case of Theodore of Tarsus in Ekonomou's "Byzantine Rome and Greek Popes" linked below)
Moreover, plenty of high church Anglican literature from the previous two centuries makes fundamentally the same claim, namely that England held to the faith delivered to her prior to Roman inventions, that is, she held no distinctive doctrine of her own but only the faith of the undivided church in common with the Orthodox of the East. There is no shortage of material from the Library of Anglo-Catholic theology on up to the 1930's making and defending this fundamental claim. One doesn't need Moss' work to do it.
And of course all of that material makes a lot of hay out of the fact that the English archbishops of York, Lincoln and Canterbury all resisted Papal prerogatives and that William was given permission by the Pope to invade on that basis and replace them. Again, all of that is written by Anglicans a century or more before Moss. So the author seems completely ignorant of Anglican polemical literature from the 18th to early 20th centuries.
Third, if Australian Anglicans who are of a decidedly Calvinistic bent wish to give up that claim, they are free to do so. But then Anglicanism becomes nothing more than a Calvinistic sect and doesn't represent the faith of the undivided church, nor could it.
Just apply the author's evidential reasoning to the Australian Calvintic Anglicans beliefs. Where is the evidence for any church teaching Calvinism and its distinctives prior to the Reformation? Certainly not in England. All one has to do is read the Sarum liturgy and other documents to see that this is not so.