Analysis of the ROCOR-MP Western Rite

 

Analysis of the ROCOR-MP Western Rite

then Hieromonk Fr. Enoch

(now Vicar Bishop of Apshawa)

Continuing Problems with ROCOR-MP Western Rite: Historical and Modern Perspectives (Originally written in 2010; thus referenced then.)

Ever since the ROCOR-MP approved wholesale the adoption of the 'Western Rite' in the past two years, they have been plagued by a number of problems. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the ROCOR-MP as a whole, not just the Western rite segment, are in grave theological error (that is, to be blunt, heresy) due to their union with and acceptance of the Moscow Patriarchate and all the Patriarchates. This is the overriding issue, which, if not solved, will mean that any further critique will merely be 'academic' at best.

The other problem is that they (ROCOR-MP WR) have no idea what they are doing, as regards the 'Western Rite'. They allow multitudinous different forms, which in itself isn't bad. However they go from bad to worse, to not so bad, to alright, to acceptable in some sense. First of all, their major egregious error is that they have rejected wholesale the principle of return of former captives, as a guiding principle. The Western converts who wish to return and use a 'Western rite', must pick up where their ancestors left off, that is, the 11th century for all intents and purposes. For the most part the MP has completely ignored this, except for the obvious points about no one using the filioque and unleavened bread.

First let me explain, however, what should have been done in the West to avert the Schism. If I can do this, then I can provide the details on what is an appropriate use of Orthodox Christians who pray using the Western Orthodox Prayers from the ancient Fathers of the Orthodox West.

The West bore the responsibility for falling away from the Church during the Schism, because of its obstinate attitude and refusal to make the requisite changes that were in conformity with the Apostolic practices, or Synodal approvals, or plain errors that they had fallen into and that the Eastern Church had not. These errors did not mean the Orthodox in the West immediately lost the grace of salvation, but, they were creeping problems that would eventually explode. These corrections or new policies were all that was asked by the Eastern Church, and thus, the Eastern Church at no time tryed to impose some sort of ecclesiastical or liturgical imperialism on the West, other than those issues of theology and praxis in which the Western Church was beginning to err, or had refused to comply with previous agreements, or newly adopted policies of the Ecumenical Council (mostly issues surrounding the Synod at Trullo).

The principle of a corrective return states that any additions or adaptations to the Western Liturgy, Sacraments, Rites, and Offices, must be built on the already existing and well documented structure that existed at the time of the Schism. Thus, the fundamental complaints that were leveled at the Westerners, that is, those issues that precipitated the Schism must be ended. What are the fundamental complaints? The following:

1. Filioque

2. Papal Overreach

3. Unleavened bread.

4. Mandatory celibacy for all sub-diaconal, diaconal, and priestly candidates.

5. Celebration of full Liturgies during Weekdays in Great Lent.

6. Full fasting (as opposed to plain abstinence) on Saturday as a public Church obligation.

1) The West should have rejected the filioque, which was the obvious and immediate cause of all the problems. Indeed, it was rejected by the Orthodox Church of Rome, but, as an ironic twist, the fact that she, in the person of Pope St. Leo III was commanding her daughter churches not to use it, but they were refusing to obey consistently, is an example of how weak papal authority was. Its later obstinate defense, after it had been condemned, and its dogmatization after the Schism, demonstrated that the Western Church fell into heresy after the Great Schism. Yet, many saints, such as St. Edward the Royal Martyr and others, who lived when the filioque began to be introduced (even before the Schism from the Church), are venerated still as having been (and being) part of the Church. I believe the solution lies in the fact that the filioque as a dogmatically proposed theory of Dual Eternal Processionism INITIALLY only constituted a 'material heresy' (forgive me for lack of a more precise term), that is, a doctrinally wrong teaching, but, one made without the intention of going against the Church. After it was exposed, the right response should have been, "Well, I guess we were wrong. We'll stop using it, so our brethren aren't upset."

2) The West should have rejected the proto-forms of papal authority that were developing. It did to some extent as proven by numerous fights in the West by French and German bishops against the Pope prior to the Schism. One can think of the German synod in the 10th century that called the Patriarch of Rome the antichrist; and again, ironically as shown by the refusal to obey the Popes commands not to use the filioque!

3) Unleavened bread is a major error of praxis, and was of relatively late introduction. It was the result of the level of ignorance in the late 9th and 10th century Christians in France and Germany about the nature of the Last Supper, which was not a Passover meal. This error led to the conclusion that unleavened bread should be used. This does not mean one cannot find examples of someone using unleavened bread in East or West as an isolated, strange, or erroneous custom; but, we should recognize that such customs which contradict the Orthopraxic tradition of the Church should be stopped. Even, however, as late as the 11th century, many places in the West did not use unleavened bread, as demonstrated by the English Church writers calling the bread used for the Eucharist 'fermentum'.

4) The Synod in Trullo already complained about the avoidance of the Roman Church in ordaining married men to the subdiaconate. This was another issue.

5) The issue of celebrating a full Liturgy in Lent during weekdays (with the Annunciation exception) was also in contradiction to Trullo.

6) Full Fasting on Saturdays as a public Church obligation are contrary to the Synod of Trullo, but, also to the Apostolic Canons (all 85 of them). Full fasting is the form of fasting that all able bodied Orthodox Christians are technically obligated to. It means to not eat or drink anything until after the hour of none (roughly three o'clock), or Vespers in some places. To refrain from eating meat or dairy on a day (Wednesdays or Fridays), or a season (Nativity Fast, Geat Lent, Apostles Fast, Dormition Fast, Fast of St. Michael, etc), is an act of abstinence. To fast one must commit abstinence (refrain from meat and dairy), but, to abstain does not necessarily entail (full) fasting. In modern parlance these terms have been obfuscated, and sometimes we hear of mitigated fasts and such. The prohibition on fasting on Saturdays obviously has reference to publicly obligated fasts by Church authorities, and not to merely private observances obligated by spiritual fathers; if this was not so, the the penances outlined in the Rudder, such as 40 days on bread and water for certain sins, would contradict the Canons. But, perceptive persons can decipher this meaning. Thus, the Roman Christians had continued a pious personal observance of St. Peter the Apostle who did fast on Saturdays, and as time continued, they exalted this to something obligatory, which was prohibited by the Apostolic Canons; however, due to the fact that the Latin translation of the Apostolic Canons of Dionysius Exiguus only contained 50 canons, and one omitted was the SAturday fasting prohibition (again, all Saturdays, except Holy Saturday), one can see why there was confusion. But, with the elevation and full recognition of the force of canonical law of all 85 Canons by the Synod of Trullo, this matter should have been quitely resolved.

These 6 problems could have been solved relatively simply. There were no demands to reject the Anaphora of St. Gregory (commonly called the Roman Canon), which dated back even before St. Greogy Dialogus. There were no demands to alter the main structure of the Liturgy, its propers and ordinary. The only area that touched on this was the request to comply with the decision of the Holy Fathers of Trullo, which were agreed to by Pope Adrian and others, but, were never implemented fully in the West. There were no demands to change the prayers of consecration for Baptismal water, or the Prayers for Administration for Chrismation following baptism; there were no criticisms of the Prayers for hte ORdination and Consecration of deacons, priests or bishops. There were no attacks on the vestments or anything of the such.

Furthermore, abolishing the erroneous custom (though not a canon) that was beginning to creep in of only ordaining celibate men, or only ordaining men who promised to live in complete abstinence from marital relations with their wife would not have been detrimental. It is true one does find persons such as St. Epiphanius, and other Holy Fathers who general did not want to ordain married men, but, the pious customs of certain holy fathers can not be made to be obligatory on the Christian faithful.

Nor would the rejection of unleavened bread led to anything of any import. Indeed, unleavened bread was not even universal at the time of the Schism; for example, the Anglo-Saxon writers spoke of the bread used for the Liturgy as 'fermentum' (that is, leavened). And papal authority was not so well established, and was already contested.

Thus, the six major issues were not that insurmountable, and should not have proven to be in any way difficult for the pre-Schism West. Issue 1 was not even honest to the Western Orthodox tradition, neither were 2, nor 3, and nor was 4 for the most part. Point 5 was part of the Western tradition, but, so it was in the many parts of the East, until the authority of the Canons of Laodicea were applied on a universal basis by Synod in Trullo. Point 5 can be further expanded into the complete acceptance of Trullo. Point 6 as well. If the Western Church leaders had proven to be more pliable and concerned with unity, they could have easily solved these issues, and they would not have fallen from Orthodoxy at the Great Schism.

Therefore, any return on the part of descendants of ancient Orthodox in the West to the modern Orthodox Church, assuming the request be granted to resume their station and traditions, must comply with the rejection of these 6 issues.

Furthermore, they must pick up where they left off. These are all relatively simple requests, and had they been done by the early proponents of the restored 'Western Rite', there would be no controversy whatsoever in the Church today.

Complying with these simple requiremets would have also meant not only the rejection of the points, but, also the continuance of the Western Orthodox Liturgical heritage, which, at the time of the 11th century, was devoid of all the post-schism developments that controverted Orthodox spirituality; namely Corpus Christi, Sacred Heart, Immaculate Heart, shortened Liturgies, etc. This follows logically since these developments took place after the Schism of the West from the Orthodox Church.

All of these very simple requirements, that is, the matters that the Eastern brethren asked their Western counterparts to abide by (but, which, sadly they did not, and became obstinate, and then schismated from the Church), are the requirements which those small Western rite Orthodox communities that make up a minority of persons in the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles have already complied with (minority, since the majority of our Metropolia follow the Eastern 'rite').

So, what are the issues in relation to the ROCOR-MP Western rite? Well, obviously they reject the filioque clause as well as papal authority (though, this proves to be seen due to the current intercommunion plans with Rome). As regards mandatory celibacy this can be said to be rejected. As well as unleavend bread. But, as regards the canons of Trullo that prohibit the consecration of the Sacred Mysteries of the Eucharist on weekdays in Great Lent, the MP seems to allow its 'Western Rite' parishes to continue to celebrate full Liturgies then, which decision is contrary to the Ecumenical authority of the Synod in Trullo. I am unsure as to what they do on Saturdays.

However there are other points that are equally important, which hearken back to the principle of return and continuance. As the old ROCOR synodal decision of 1978 states, the current forms of the modern Western rite are totally unsuitable for Orthodoxy, since, as the Church states, they were introduce after the Schism. What were these forms? Well the only two being proposed in ROCOR in the 70s, as well as those being promoted in Antioch were the modified Anglican liturgy (which is a product of the English Reformation, and therefore unsuitable for Orthodox use by all accounts), and the modified Tridentine rite (which is a product of the Renissance and later post-Reformation Roman Catholicism). These are perfectly valid and correct criticism. These forms do not reflect Orthodoxy, and the former Anglican rite being the worse of the two, with the Papist Tridentinism, a degree less, but, both of these erroneous forms having major post-schism non-Orthodox developments attached to them (such as Corpus Christi, Sacred Heart, Immaculate Heart, Rosary meditation and meetings, Statuary, systematic preference for mutilated vestments).

The current ROCOR-MP, has not learned the lessons, and very simple lesson, that have been effectivley implemented with good results, as outlined above. This leads me to the conclusion that they either wish to retain non-Orthodox devotions inspite of the appropriate teachings, or that they are ignorant. I believe that both are true to different extents in different persons and regions.

For example, one of the more important liturgical customs that they have rejected, is the concept of the partition between people and clergy. This is called the iconostas in the East, and was call the rood screen (or sometimes altar screen) in the West; not to mention the Western rite Altar Curtain or veil that was drawn across the Holy Place all during Great Lent (except on Sundays when it was opening just enough to see the celebrant), as well as being drawn on other days. Before the Schism this was the prominent design. This includes also the desire on the part of MP Western Rite to avoid the pre-schism vestments, altar position (free standing like Eastern holy tables), rood screen, altar curtain, as well as the fully developed Propers of the Liturgy that included Tropes, Processions, hundreds of Eucharistic Prefaces and other extremely well documented and incontestable parts of the heritage of countless venerated Orthodox saints in the West. Numerous other examples, such as the Little Office of the Theotokos, as well as the other examples, demonstrates a lack of spiritual maturity and understanding in these fields.

In conclusion, until the ROCOR-MP solves their main theological/spiritual dilemma, which is their adoption of the ecumenical agenda, that is, ecumenism wholesale which is proved most manifestly by their union with Moscow and unabashed communion with all the Patriarchs of World 'Orthodoxy', then there will be little attempts to address these important issues raised in the foregoing opinion piece.

I myself, am quite grateful to God, to realize that I was baptised in the manner that my ancient ancestors were 1,000 years go, prior to Schism, that is, by triple immersion; as well as being chrismated in the same manner, and receiving Holy Communion in the appropriate Orthodox rite. Furthermore, I give thanks to God, that I have the opportunity to chant and pray the Divine Offices, or Hours, both in the canonical (regular) form, as well as the additional Little Office of Theotokos and All Saints (as enunciated by the pre-schism Saints) and to have received monastic tonsure according to the same practices of holy saints of my ancestors. I am also grateful to live in a monastic environment, and have constant access to sacraments and a good confessor, which I believe is something sorely lacking even amongs many True Orthodox brethren. However, I feel great sorrow for those in ROCOR-MP who attempt to use a Western rite under their conditions; for even should they become technically correct in their usages, they would still be under the greater disability of being in the ecumenical heterodox teachings of the Patriarchates. I pray that as times goes on, there would be some who would say to themselves, by the Grace of God working in the hearts, "I must leave this Patriarchate which teaches things contrary to the Gospel, and come to the True Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church, and not the World Orthodox." At that point, the road is clear for salvation, and one only has to pray and struggle like all the Christians of old, and if they struggle after Christ, He will in no way turn them away when they come to their end. For He is not desirous that any should perish, but that they should come to the knowledge of the Truth, and if they believe in the Truth, He will surely set them free.

For additional information on this subject and related topics:

 http://westernorthodoxchristian.blogspot.com/

 http://nftu.net/


Post Script
 Are the Canons of the Council of Trullo, and the local Synods raised to
ecumenical status by them, binding upon all Orthodox Christian as the Church's
teachers have understood these canons for nearly 900 years?
I think this is an important question. For those who profess to use a Western
rite it is very important. Persons who use some form or variation of a western
rite, found particularly in the World Patriarchates, address this by accepting
some and rejecting other canons. For example, they rightly allow married me to
be ordained to the sub-diaconate, diaconate, and priesthood, and to continue to
live with their wives; in this they have accepted the judgement of the Sacred
Synod of Trullo. On the contrary, however, they have disobeyed the Sacred Synod,
which become a Synod without contestation after the schism of the Westerns from
Orthodoxy in the 11th century, by allowing the celebration, as a rule, of full
Holy Liturgies on the Weekdays of Great Lent.
We are not, surely, allowed, to accept part of the canonical understanding of
the Sacred and Ecumenical Synod of Trullo and reject others? Perhaps, it will
be reasoned, that, the Synod of Trullo was ill-received in the West. Yet, while
this is of interest on many levels, it bears no authority upon the body of
Westerns after thy leave the Catholic Church. After the Pope of Rome and
others, departed from the unity of the Catholic Church, during the 11th century,
any practices of theirs that run contrary to the Canons of the Catholic Church,
have no leg to stand on. It is as if a man protests the decisions of his
brothers, and his brothers all agree based upon right reason what should be
done; yet, they tolerate the deviance of this one brother until he becomes
unbearable. At this point he is expelled from the family until such time as he
may come to his sense; when his sense return, he may not return demanding to
continue in certain practices that the whole family has officially rejected.