How You Can be WESTERN and Truly Orthodox: Intro to Western Rite Orthodoxy (w/ Fr. Patrick Cardine) 

Great idea!

Western Orthodoxy works differently than Eastern Catholicism. EC have their own dogmas, contrary to the Latin church. Western Orthodoxy retains the same dogmas as their mother Church jurisdiction.

@@serbskijhristijanin As a Byzantine Catholic seminarian I can tell you that is not true.

@@themorbidmole9247 Is it not true that “Byzantine Rite Catholics” often venerate St. Gregory Palamas, a man anathematized as a “heretic” by the Roman Rite crowd?

@@brotheraugustine Palamas was not anathematized by the Roman church. Barlaam's criticism of him hardly qualifies as an official anathema from the Romans. Palamas is a regional Saint to our church. He hasn't been canonized officially by the Roman church but, just like the various orthodox churches, there are numerous saints exclusive to local churches. I'm not trying to argue, just telling the guy above that we are doctrinally Catholic, not Orthodox and we don't pretend to be otherwise.

Hope you enjoy it!

love it!

Being a member of a club cannot save you, nor any fake rite or tradition!

@@nyagolnyagolov7130 Thank God we're not part of any club but of His Church.

@@no_more_anymore You are a part of the Apostate church - the club of the duped and you have nothing to thank GOD Almighty - (Yehovah Tzveot) for that! The sooner you realize it, the sooner you will turn to the Saviour - Lord Jesus Christ, not to fake manmade rites and traditions accumulated since the 4th century! Even the bible you are reading if you do so, is falsely translated on purpose, to justify fake doctrines of men, not GOD's ones!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Can you tell me what St. John Maximovitch said or did for the statement “he fully blessed them”.

@@michaelmchugh3987 He consecrated Jean-Nectaire of Saint-Denis as the Hierarch of the Orthodox Church of France and supported their endeavor for an autocephalous church in France that used Western liturgics. The OCF had and still has many problems but Saint John fully supported the Western Rite in concept

@@distracted900 And then those WR churches in France all apostatized and left the Church, just as St John warned them before leaving France. What should we make of that?

@@mynameisjeff6516 I don't think you're aware of the history of the OCF, because if you did you wouldn't say they left the church. They were kicked out of the Church of Romania with no warning

@@mynameisjeff6516 They didn't leave the church. They were under the Church of Romania for over 20 years, until the Patriarch of Romania kicked them out due to political disputes with the EP. They were never accused of wrongdoing

Praying for your healing 🙏

Will be praying for you!

As a Catholic, I must say Eastern Orthodoxy’s perception of cremation is missing some core knowledge of Catholic theology so as to get into the honest dialogue. It is NOT implied in the theology of the body and/or the theology of the ressurrection that the deceased body has to be in perfect/undamaged state so as for the faithful to attain resurrection with a glorious perfected body, but the very action of the omnipotent God, in the power of the Holy Spirit, will bring those who resurrect from the dead to glory in the outcome of their bodies despite any of the current limitations. Glorified bodies have some characteristics like impassibilty, subtlety, agility and clarity. I’m not really expanding those explanations, but if a man does not have an arm and a leg he won't resurrect with those defects, either congenital or acquired through life, but as in the perfect “vessel for the Spirit” under the compatible means that assured the flourishment of his soul, of course, but only with a glorious form that will express the incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ in the glorified Lord. The sempiternal prohibition of the Church concerning deceased bodies refers to 1) desecration, 2) profanation, 3) defilement and 4) violation of the human body due to its intrinsic inalienable value. The Ancient Greek perception of burials - hugely influential into Byzantine Christian culture - is represented by the pagan prohibition to leave dead bodies behind in war fields without a funeral as an offense to the gods of the ‘Polis’ like what we see in the very essential discussion inside “Antigone” (Sophocles play). So it’s not that straightforward to simply say bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and nothing more. A document issued by the Catholic Church in 1963 said cremation wasn't opposed “per se” to Christian religion if it doesn’t come to be made or justified for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine, with further specifications. That’s the core point. So under necessity of times (gigantic mass murders, pandemic, World Wars, deaths by forced starvation, poverty and misery), which means under particular conditions (many of them couldn’t clearly be thought of before), burials received formal canonical treatment and cremations were thought to be not ‘a priori’ an act of desecration/profanation, that means, not forbidden in themselves. Notice cremation was not stimulated but discouraged; it was not made an option available but it was said to be admissible under some circunstancial STRICT necessities. And it wasn’t made morally equivalent to burials; even in the hypothesis admissible, cremations were determined to happen according to sacred funerals norms as said by the Catholic Church. In some Oriental religions death is seen as a transition from one form of matter to another, which is an absurd for a Christian to engage in. So it is of course forbidden to engage in on those because a pantheist cremation _”was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine”_ (Code of Canon Law, can. 1176 § 3; cf. CCEC, can. 876 § 3). And the Church is the guardian of the Christian doctrines and the Church is the one that can permit or forbid disciplines in order to maintain the very integrity and integrality of those doctrines. That’s clear for a more educated Catholic. But the Church always emphatically recommends the burial of the dead as proper means to deal with the deceased and she STILL DOES, which doesn’t invalidate the fact that some people simply can’t even afford to own - without compromising their means of subsistence - burial places for them or their family, which would maybe imply the need to bury or be buried in public desecrated spaces if they do not want to be treated as indigent and many of these places simply demand cremation due to the lack of geographical space or due to lack of sanitary means in many cities and regions in the globe. Probably most of us won’t have any idea about what extreme poverty means. I sense some of us - well fed and created with all material luxuries one can get - do not really understand what the world is and how few the ones who could have an authentic Christian burial are. The point is not so much the burial (by the way, the Egyptian Pharaoh was a pagan monarch and had a careful/solemn burial) but the Christian funeral. The Catholic Church is UNIVERSAL and the Church extends from one extreme to the other of the globe and she comforts the poorest of the poorest in areas in which people would need to succeed a lot in order to be even named “poor”. The Catholic Church is never provincial, either geographically or culturally. More objectively speaking: the Church authorized cremation NOT under the mere preference of families but under some conditions (any violation of this would be equivalent to unchristian treatment of the deceased) which are the following: 1) it would be asserted that _“cremation, in and of itself, objectively negates neither the Christian doctrine of the soul’s immortality nor that of the resurrection of the body”,_ and it only would be admissible if by sanitary, economic or social considerations (Cf. Holy Office, Instruction Piam et costantem, 5 July 1963: AAS 56 [1964] 822); 2) it must never violate the explicitly stated or the reasonably inferable wishes of the deceased faithful (idem); 3) and it is never authorized to happen in any appearance of pantheism or nihilism or _“to scatter the ashes of the faithful departed in the air, on land, at sea or in some other way, nor may they be preserved in mementos, pieces of jewelry or other objects”,_ and if that is implied, _"the Christian funeral must be denied to that person according to the norms of the law"_ (Code of Canon Law, can. 1184; CCEO, can.876, § 3). Please check the Instruction “Ad resurgendum cum Christo” regarding the burial of the deceased and the conservation of the ashes in the exceptional case of cremation. In ANY cases, _“the ashes of the faithful must be laid to rest in a SACRED place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area which has been set aside for this purpose, and so dedicated by the competent ecclesial authority”_ (Ad resurgendum cum Christo, CDF, 2016). And if someone has the means to be buried witout cremation, he is morally required to do so. The Catholic Church doesn’t make rules that fit how wordly desires are seen in the latest fashion. That’s just a terrible ideological prejudice that those in schism with us got used to have in their pockets. I’m not saying Eastern Orthodoxy’s mistreatment of Catholic discipline of burials is resultant of bad faith, but it seems to miss the astonishing complexity of the themes discussed, definitely. I’m praying for your healing, brother! 🙏 May God give you the honor to always be with His presence until the definitive encounter yet reestablish your health in the flesh as for now. God bless you and your family!

@a Wow, the Catholic Church must surrender!

@@masterchief8179 Too long, didn't read + you're a heretic. The part with "the ashes of the faithful must be laid to resr in a SACRED place...." defeats all your other arguments.

I think the cult of “progress” within Rome over the centuries has had the subtle Modus Opporandi to have been making all these strategic little (and contradictory) compromises whenever faced with real resistance, such as the unique late medieval allowance of the Dutch Archdiocese of Ultrich to retain their own independent Synods, to allowing Uniates to retain Orthodox ideas that blatantly contradict several Roman Dogmas, and many more. Genuine Orthodox will hit a wall as disagreements with growing error reach an impasse that we will not cross through or over, but in similar circumstances, Rome sometimes digs instead a tunnel under the wall to get to the other side and claims that that “doesn’t count” as crossing the wall! All that’s really changed since Vatican 2 is now they are more blatant about their intentions and are less hypocritical about being obvious modernists. The Progressives have avoided major Traditionalist backlashes by carefully hoodwinking them, not always successfully, but enough to have radically changed Rome over 1000 years by 1960, which has again changed as much since 1970 to now as they had in the previous 1,000.

Fr. Yves Congar was an evil Modernist, he absolutely *hated* true Catholicism, and was one of the top heretics in charge at the Vatican II Robber Council. Yves Congar and his cronies began a Neo-Modernist movement that despised the Neo-Scholasticism which had served the Church so well. Their movement was called the "Nouvelle Theologie" (French for "New Theology"), it liked to call itself ressourcement - (“return to the sources"), because they claimed they were "returning to patristic thought” but in reality these Modernist theologians, Congar including, deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own, and a disguised resurgence of Modernism- hence, they were censured under the reign of Pius XII (the last “true” pope) and in 1950, he responded with his great encyclical Humani Generis which condemned many of their errors, such as rejecting the traditional dogmatic formulations that emerged throughout Church history as a result of scholastic theology, re-interpreting Catholic dogma in a way that was inconsistent with tradition, falling into the error of dogmatic relativism and criticizing biblical texts in a way that deviated from the principles of biblical hermeneutics outlined by his predecessors (namely: Pope Leo XIII). Those anti-Vatican II Traditional Catholics who out of desperation, seek a panacea in Russian/Eastern “Orthodoxy”, should be aware that Russian Orthodox “ressourciement” is the seedbed of Vatican II “Nouvelle théologie” and that both are violent, Bolshevik attacks on St. Thomas Aquinas: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/svsvoices/on_the_mystical_theology_of_the_eastern_church. This is the self-described modernist founder of St Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris which was the epicenter from which Orthodox theologians like Florovsky, Meyendorff, Lossky, Schmemann spread Russian “Orthodox”neo-Palamism in the West, collaborated with the Modernist infiltrators in the Catholic Church, and participated in the schema of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Bulgakov says, “The imprint of our time is stamped vividly on our theological creativity. Since new is the synonym of creativity, we are scolded for our modernism by people...But our modernism is and desires to be a living tradition...”

@John Coolidge Vatican II clearly taught heresy and contradicts previous Catholic, teaching so is clearly not a valid council and not from God, and therefore the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority at all; the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors. It has nothing to do with Sobornost “Reception Theory” which is a completely novel theory and very heretical.

@John Coolidge Will do. 🙏🏻

That sounds like a fascinating conversion story

Why not just go to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Then you'll have the full benefit of the Original Church of Christ.

It's a Catholic Church still... almost like a trans church... it's pretending to be Orthodox even though it's catholic. There is, nor is there a need for a replacement for the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is the Original Church of Christ.

​@@spartanastas5560it's not a Catholic church as it is formally part of a canonical Orthodox church.

@@roytofilovski9530 No, it isn't. It's still Catholic. The Catholic Church can not be a part of the Orthodox Church unless it becomes an Orthodox Church... and it's not.

@@spartanastas5560 It's under the jurisdiction of a canonical Orthodox Bishop of a canonical Orthodox Church. It follows the basic Orthodox theology. That makes it Orthodox. The form of the liturgy itself is not relevant so long as it is approved by their Bishop.

there already is a lovely documentary on the matter ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ueU-Qjp-sRU.html

He talks about it briefly in the documentary "The Orthodox West"

Awesome! Ive gone the other way and find the western rite the place to be for my family.

Why do you prefer eastern rite?

@@dubblwide the liturgy, the services, Byzantine chant, Byzantine iconography, etc. just prefer it all in its entirety and click with it 🤗

@@autisticheadscarf I ❤️ Byzantine chant. To me it was very hard to listen to at first but it grew on me and I LOVE it now. I love the OCA people I’m glad I had the experience there too. I just can’t express how much I LOVE the Greek Orthodox Church!

@@autisticheadscarf how long ago did you convert? :)

My pleasure!

Me too

@@tonyrandall8703 what year? I graduated 2016

@@maxonmendel5757 oh boy. 13 years before you. We never crossed paths but still cool

I try

That's how I felt when I first heard about it!

God bless you! ☦

That would be great fun for me

I second this Ordinariate is very beautiful, reverent and traditional while being in English. Austin if you can attend mass or morning and evening prayer.

@@GospelSimplicity And I would recommend you try to get in contact with Archpriest Emeritus Lester Bundy of Saint Columba Orthodox, Lafayette Colorado. He represents the Orthodox equivalent of the Ordinate that Jean Dotan is talking about, Anglican Rite Orthodoxy, a subset of Western Orthodoxy a bit different from Father Cardine’s direct and plain translation of Saint Gregory The Great’s Divine Liturgy. Instead, Saint Tikhon of Moscow rehabilitated Cranmer’s Anglican mass (itself a simplified version of the venerable Divine Liturgy of Saint Osmond, the “Salisbury/Sarum Rite”), for use by former Anglican priests converted to Orthodoxy who were unable to learn Osmond’s Mass in its original form, for whatever reason. This rehabilitation was much easier to learn. Father Bundy is an expert on the Anglican Rite and a fantastic Iconographer in the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic style of Britannia. Here’s most of a lecture series he did two years ago (I missed part 2) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OMx98TeTKsU.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NapMnT2Rt5k.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mqeBqpdiLRk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GA-R8t0ehHo.html

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks for the kind words!

I’d have to say this is not the experience I’ve had becoming Orthodox in a Western Rite parish. I suppose it happens somewhere. We go to Eastern Rite parishes when on vacation. We have many many Eastern Orthodox books in our parish. We really look to all this for the fullness of the faith.

Father bless, I understand where you are coming from but it's hard to agree when my own personal experience has been opposite of what you described. What I have seen however, is Eastern Rite brothers and sisters in Christ judge those in the Western Rite for having a deficient Orthodoxy just because they have looked at it from the surface and completely diminish the fruits of the Western patrimony in our own lives. It seems like it would be hard to arrive at a certain level of communion and comradery when a lot of the times those on the Western Rite are, from the ourset, treated as second class citizens just because of their liturgical expression of Orthodoxy. I think there is always a conflation between the idea that to be Orthodox, you must have the eastern ethos and therefore anything that deviates from that cannot be Orthodox, but that is clearly not true or else we would have to concede saints such as St. Ambrose, St. Patrick, St. Jerome and Pope St. Leo and Gregory, St. Augustine as less than Orthodox, and I am not ready to do that. I believe that to doubt the genuine Orthodoxy of those in the Western Rite and assume they are disguised Roman Catholics and assume there was never a conversion to begin with every time the topic is brought up does a diservice to the church as a whole, and that is exactly why I don't go around saying that Cradle Greek parishes are not genuinely Orthodox just because I have personally experienced that they tend to have a higher degree of luke-warm Christians.

@@Leo-uq6jp couldn’t have said it better

Fr. Michael, it's my pleasure! I must say, the second sentence of this comment is exemplary of the kind of interaction I hope to see with the content on this channel.

practices after the great schism are very problematic.

Because the West was Orthodox for 1000+ years and deserves to be recognized

I think it’s a good thing that western liturgies are in the canonical Orthodox Church again. They have their own unique appeal.

Tell me you know nothing about the Western rite without telling me you know nothing about the Western Rite. Hopefully this video will open you up a bit.

St John of Shanghai and San Francisco did so much for the western rite. He’s the one that said don’t let anyone tell you that you need to be eastern in order to be Orthodox, that the west was Orthodox for 1000 years.

As a former western rite parishioner, I definitely agree that a westerner would feel very comfortable at an OCA parish.

I'm hoping to visit his church sometime, so maybe we could dive into it then

@John Coolidge Adoration does happen at St. Patrick's. I think it's fine.

@John Coolidge There's an article written by Fr. Patrick himself on the Orthodox West website (link in the description of the video) called "Benediction-Adoration: A Beautiful vision" where he defends Adoration. I would post the direct link but RU-vid keeps deleting my comment even if I try to work around it.

I would also like to see this, but perhaps between fr. Patrick and an lcms or Episcopalian priest about why Orthodoxy is necessary

@John Coolidge To be fair, they don’t usually Consecrate the Eucharist specifically for this, the way modern Romans do, but encourage veneration of surplus. We have a lot of people who have to make long commutes to church and sometimes can’t make it, (SO many are converted from online study and aren’t necessarily close to a parish when they do) so our priests take a lot of pre sanctified Eucharist to people all over throughout the week who couldn’t make it to mass that Sunday. Is the Surplus kept for such circuit preaching and shut-ins not worthy of veneration in the meantime? It is how Rome started Eucharistic veneration to begin with, but they took it a step too far in standardizing it whether or not there was a surplus waiting (or even needed) for travel, instead of letting it happen mostly organically. Also, using a sample of a Meal to advertise a meal is an age old and effective way to promote It.

@@maxonmendel5757 Father Bundy could be both in that debate: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OMx98TeTKsU.html

Thanks for letting me know about this. I will reach out to them and see what's going on

The process is the same. The difference is the One being venerated. Jesus is God. The others in pagan religions are idols and false teachers. It is always about who is being venerated.

@John Coolidge Did I ever criticise the Eastern Rite? I said nothing of the sort. It's not about whether people feel comfortable with the Churches Rites - It's about the recognition that the Orthodox Catholic Church has various patronages, all of which are equal to each other. The reason why there's such a reluctance for people to convert to Orthodoxy is simply because of this obsession with not hatred of the West, its the neglect of the Western Patronage that pushes people away, especially since Saints, Councils, theologians have all endorsed the Western Rite for this purpose.

@John Coolidge also not I never said that you can't criticise the Western Rite. Are there issues that can creep into something? Yes. Its like with anything as Fr Patrick said, Aquinas and Anselm mightve held errors (Aquinas more so) but that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bath water. Saints Mark of Ephesus, Gennadius Scholarius, Gregory Palamas, Dimitri of Rostov, Peter Mogila and many others recognised this, that criticism of something doesn't mean something is inherently bad.

@John Coolidge Notice I said 'Ultimately' and note what I said after. Criticism of Rites isn't what I said was the issue. The reason why it's 'Ultimately' denying the Catholicity is that the arguments against the WR typically boil down to either 1. Eastern Rite Supremacy 2. A belief in the 'Latin Captivity' and general anti-westernism. The Church is Catholic - with multiple patristic and theological traditions that exist and they are equal. Father Georges Florovsky, one of the greatest Orthodox theologians wanted to see all these traditions balance each other. I've yet to see any actual engagement with the points I've made here.

I'd love to do a video just on the topic of merit

@OrthodoxyChloroQuine You didn't watch the video, did you?

Ron, I am Eastern Orthodox but I'm a bit shocked by the tone and language used to put down Lutheranism. Having been raised and baptized in the Southern Baptist Christian community, entering into communion with Roman Catholicism while I was in college and, finally finding my home in Eastern Orthodoxy I am a great proponent of emphasizing our commonalities, which are numerous in our differences but if we can recite the Nicene- Constantinopolitan Creed together and say Amen at the end we are definitely Christian brothers and sisters Asnd as brothers and sisters

As Christian brothers and sisters we engage with one another where we agree and be charitable with honored with one another

Where we disagree. The final post by OrthodoxyChloroQuine was more to my taste and in the spirit of Christian charity. You did not say which scented a Lutheran to which you belong but I have been impressed by a couple of Lutheran ministers on RU-vid. One is from the Lutheran Church of Missouri synod and the other is from the American Association of Lutheran Churches. I know there are significant differences between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy when you get into the weeds and those are significant differences. However I had very little to find issue with from Christian basics with these two Representatives of Lutheranism.

I apologize for the abominable syntax and spelling in the above posts. Please do not judge the Eastern Orthodox by inability to properly proofread the AI before I press the send button. If my senior year English teacher Miss Crater

It’s always interesting to hear what someone emphasizes, because that reveals their priorities.

@John Coolidge Greek tradition has one icon to venerate in the vestibule, at least the one I visited. At our Serbian church, you venerate the central icon, Christ and the Theotokos icons on the iconostasis, then again go up to kiss the central icon at the end of the service, and the cross, and the priest's hand. I know Greeks kiss the cross, too, but there is a lot more of it for a Protestant to adapt to in the Slavic style. My family was really overwhelmed with all the extra bows and kissing things. In our town, the Greek church didn't have as many converts and there were people saying unkind things about their own priest (who is a convert). They did this in the vestibule, complaining he mispronounced something. They also were hard on him on Facebook about an article he sent out about Halloween from a former Satan worshippers perspective. I could just tell many were worldly and didn't want to try, just keep their Greek traditions. It was sad. The Serbian church was full of converts who really wanted to be there, and love our priest. The priest is wonderful at the other congregation, but the parishioners were not very kind. I will shop around if I have two choices. There should only be one church in America-all English, technically, if we were to be like all other Orthodox countries. If the Western Rite was offered, it would be as legitimate as Eastern Rite. St. John Maximovich vouched for it and wanted to convert people using it, right? With Serbian being my choice because I love the people and the singing, and my family thouroughly turned off by various things, I may have to be baptized and chrismated alone. I'm not sure why Orthodox people don't want people to come. Why make it as off putting as possible, and insult Protestants to their faces? It's really strange, but we all know the enemy is working overtime.

@John Coolidge It varies. My brother in law is DEFINITELY more comfortable in the Western Rite, particularly regarding how the Eucharist is distributed. We converted from Trad Catholicism, however, so we’re not bringing all the potential Protestant baggage with us. This was how Orthodox Rome did it from at least the Dialogist’s time as Pope, and it’s in our bones to do it this way for most of us. Your argument’s applicability really depends on what someone wants to be comfortable ABOUT. Believe me, they couldn’t comprehend the spoon at a Uniate liturgy, either, when we were still struggling to believe in the papal dogmas. We considered pulling a “Matt Fradd” but, the spoon was always too strange for them. I don’t mind, but that’s just how some are built. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a lack of faith, per se. They have no doubt in the Eucharist, or at least I have no reason to doubt them. They are just culturally shy of the spoon, is all.

@@OrthodoxInquirer sigh. Many are so anti-ecumenical that they confuse apologetic diplomacy as synonymous with ecumenism.

@@eldermillennial8330 How do they distribute the Eucharist?

Trust me dude, I'm sick of the anti Western bias in Orthodoxy.

Rule one for Orthodoxy (or any other religion): everyone should avoid online religious "advisors" as the highest priority.

Ask your priest. Forget about what people online think.

I read abt a bunch of Assyrians (maybe early 20th century?)... Who were East Syriac rite Christians (Church of the East).... Who when converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, had to fully become Byzantine Rite to be "Orthodox ". Sadly. And they became Eastern Orthodox.

@@Melvin_Thoma :/. I know some aspects of the Nestorian services wouldn’t fly (“The Hallowing of Nestorius” for example), but the overall rite predates the Nestorian schism I think

Very difficult. I know a bit of the Coptic liturgy, and they have very heavy christological content at times that would need to be scrapped or changed.

And remove “Filioque”, the first false accretion. Saint Tikhon also rehabilitated Cranmer’s Anglican mass, a far bigger challenge, but it was easier than having former Anglican priests try to Learn St Osmond’s Divine Liturgy in its pristine form. Some do, but it is the most massive form of High Mass after the Ambrosian.

Does this Western Rite Orthodox Church have the Hail Mary, Stations of the Cross add the Rosary? Does the priest drink the wine only or does he allow everyone else to drink it also? Does he use leaven or unleavened bread? Or those priests allowed to be married?

​@@truckdriver8416 Western Orthodox is literally just 'hey, no pope pls.' But you don't get to therefore import the East into perennial Western customs, rites, liturgies, etc therefore. It doesn't follow. St. Paul wished all could be celibate. The West made this a requirement if you wish to be a presbyter/elder/bishop. Like it or not. If the East differs, good. But don't pretend the West just didn't exist and didn't have its own customs or rules. Did Christ hold the Passover with leavened or unleavened bread? It was literally the fest of unleavened bread on which He instituted the Eucharist. So I wouldn't exactly make that a make or break. Not that I wouldn't be against the Apsostles having instituted leavened bread for the Eucharist.. just that it's not exactly a strong argument, is it.

@@AveChristusRex well you really didn't answer my questions about Mary in the Rosary. The Russian Church wants did a sermon on the Hail Mary that I'll listen to that was really nice. The no marriage thing for the clergy was actually to keep all property and money in the coffers of the church instead of going to the children's inheritance. That's a matter of coveting quite frankly and we all see the sins of homosexuality that came out of that don't we. As for the Upper Room there were two ceremonies that took place not one. The first ceremony was a traditional Passover meal with unleavened bread. The second ceremony was the New Covenant with leavened bread. So does the Western right do the Hail Mary the Rosary and the Stations of the Cross? I figured since you claim to have gone there you would know this much appreciated a response

@@truckdriver8416 "The no marriage thing for the clergy was actually to keep all property and money in the coffers of the church instead of going to the children's inheritance. That's a matter of coveting quite frankly and we all see the sins of homosexuality that came out of that don't we." That. Or, celibacy and virginity was praised by the Fathers in general, but by St. Paul specifically, who wished "all men were as I am, [celibate]." And who taught that those who are not married can better dedicate themselves to the service of God. Think to yourself, who first comes to mind among those who ought to devote their life to the service of God? Hmmm. Who could that be? "As for the Upper Room there were two ceremonies that took place not one. The first ceremony was a traditional Passover meal with unleavened bread. The second ceremony was the New Covenant with leavened bread." This is nowhere in either Scripture or Tradition. "So does the Western right do the Hail Mary" The Hail Mary is DIRECTLY from Scripture, and the "Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death" is, of course, obviously, Orthodox. Both East and West, we object to what is 'foreign' or 'not customaryin our tradition' without a good reason. You'll find a lot of things you're comfortable with come from the Fathers and we in the West are uncomfortable with. But the same applies to us: we're uncomfortable with some of the things in the Fathers that are familiar to you. If you can sing the Agni Parthene, we can sing the Memorare.

Western rite orthodoxy doesn’t do Novus Ordo, also i think they do the liturgy of pope saitn gregory the great

@@mariorizkallah5383 Their "Liturgy of Pope St Gregory the Great" is just the TLM according to rubrics from like the 1950s. They celebrate the feastday of Christ the King as instituted by like Pius XI or XII or something before the feast day was moved to what it is on the 1962 calendar.

"Each other's rites" Both rites belong to Orthodoxy.

@@mariorizkallah5383 "Western rite orthodoxy doesn’t do Novus Ordo" Niether do Catholics ;)

@@KevinTheMetalhead The Pope-Saints disagree.

Hello!

Charismatic movement is heresy

I think it's also rooted in the fact that the main export of the West for the past 30 years has been satanic nonsense. I mean yeah, there's western rite orthodoxy, but almost only in America and really not in meaningful numbers, so it doesn't really change the picture, other than that maybe it provides a vision of something that could be revived.

It began when Doctor Joseph J Overbeck and Father Stephen Hatherly came to cross purposes in the London newspapers during the latter part of the Tractarian debates, wasting time in pitting Orthodox against Orthodox instead of uniting to focus against both Romanism and Protestantism.

I’ve met him; I can confirm he is most certainly a gem…

Liturgy of Gregory the Great I believe

Some use the Sarum Rite.

Also the Liturgy of St Tikhon is used, which is a modified English usage.

My parish is Gregorian rite

"Honor all men." I Peter 2:17

I read somewhere that some byzantine churches (and present day Greek ones) also had statues. Honestly, why does Orthodoxy have to adhere solely to the byzantine aesthetic? Ethiopian churches have their own iconography that differs from the byzantine style.

@@MrSofuskroghlarsen We do have statues, I never made any claim against that. The intention and rule of the western rite is to look like a pre-great schism parish. Therefore, they need far more icons than statues. Ethiopian iconography is acceptable and accurate.

@@MrSofuskroghlarsen We do not use only byzantine style iconography. I don't know why you got that impression. Russian iconography is different, and so is arabic/Antiochian iconography.

​@@MrSofuskroghlarsenBaroque iconography is permissible in Orthodoxy so long as it does not stray from church teaching. There are lots of Ortho churches in Serbia for example with Baroque icons.

Pretty sure that statues existed in the West prior to the schism.

Imagine identifying yourself by what you are not.

@@godfreym3550 It was the last paragraph of multiple paragraphs. I shared it for context sake for people like myself who left the Catholic Church

Bought Augustine’s City of God, confessions (per Fr Seraphim Rose’s praise for the books), and the consolation of philosophy by Boethuis. Look forward to reading them.

St Patrick! There is an icon of him next to door to the Nave.

Saint Tiberieus

I had a look and it is almost identical. Just no Filioque

I go to a Greek parish that is probably 70-80% converts and I have never felt out of place participating in the services. Most if it is done in English and certain prayers are done in multiple languages like the Lord's Prayer. I don't necessarily see an issue with Western Rite but in my experience don't fully understand the need for it either.

The jury has already settled it. It is completely valid and accepted by the Church. The only opposition you find comes from lay internet members "some refer to them as OrthodoxBros" that are ignorant on the subject matter. Also, the faith/theology isn't different compared to the eastern rites. You may find a western rite orthodox pray the rosary but they believe exactly the same as anyone in the eastern Churches.

@a Okay I'm human? Christ citation needed

@John Coolidge It's been slightly modified, but the nuts and bolts are the same. If you are interested or just want to compare, I recommend the Saint Ambrose Prayer book. It is a much better resource than myself. It has everything in it "rosary beads aside"

@John Coolidge Well, without debating when the Rosary originated, the Latins were using beads for the BVM. Those were essentially rosaries without being explicit rosaries. The main thing to examine though is the spirit of the practice. There are various things that occurred in the west post schism that the east does fully/would fully embrace as Orthodox. Not all things from the Roman Catholic Church is bad. The Church, including the eastern Churches, view the WRO Rosary as Orthodox.

@John Coolidge The depictions are not used in our practice. That is one of the modifications

Yep. the Roman Catholics actually take a bit stronger stance than this even. I do not think that part of the video was fair.

@John Coolidge I. The Constantinople Council of 1727 says the 4 Eastern Patriarchs, not just the Patriarch of Jerusalem, have approved and authorized Indulgences, which they call Certificates of Absolution, “The power of the forgiveness of sins, which is termed by the Eastern Church of Christ Absolution Certificates when given in writing, but by the Latins Indulgences, is given to the Holy Church by Christ. These Absolution Certificates are issued in the whole Catholic Church by the four most holy Patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem." This was cited in the OP. Two things are clear from the Eastern Orthodox Synod… (a) the Synod considers absolution certificates to be the same as what Latin Catholics call Indulgences, as shown by the words, "The power of the forgiveness of sins, which is termed by the Eastern Church of Christ Absolution Certificates when given in writing, but by the Latins Indulgences, is given to the Holy Church by Christ." (b) These absolution certificates are considered universal within the Eastern Orthodox Church: “These Absolution Certificates are issued in the whole Catholic Church by the four most holy Patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem" note the words "the whole Catholic Church" i.e. whole Orthodox Eastern Church. II. Patriarch Dositheus confessed this doctrine in an Eastern Orthodox Council in the 17th Century, "And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented - by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction - [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not." From: www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html III. If there is a distinction in Hades between those (1) who can be saved, and those (2) who cannot be saved, well what else is (1) but Hell proper, and what else is (2) but a kind of purgatorial purification state? For if they can be released, it is obvious they are capable of being sanctified, and we call such sanctification Purgatorial. When this was discussed between Latin and Greek Theologians at the Council of Florence, the Catholic Church assured the Orthodox that nothing else had been dogmatically defined but that (1) a Purgatorial state exists and that (2) the souls detained there can be assisted by the suffrage gained by the Faithful. In most of the early Church, there were two views, based on St. Paul's teaching that some would be saved through fire in 1 Cor 3. Either (1) all would be saved through fire, and then we have universalism, as apparently in St. Gregory of Nyssa, or (2) only some, for lesser sins, would be saved through fire, as appears in another St. Gregory, the great Pope of Rome. So if Purgatory is not true, Universalism would be.

@John Coolidge The modern Eastern Orthodox deny purgatory, but are rather inconsistent in their way of putting forth its belief. Because in church history, you’ll see different articulations of purgatory. Sometimes different names to describe it even, in the east and the west. Here’s how Eastern Orthodox metropolitan, Kallistos Ware, describes the current state of orthodoxy on the question of purgatory. He writes: “Orthodox are convinced that Christians here on earth have a duty to pray for the departed. And, they are confident that the dead are helped by such prayers. But, precisely in what way do our prayers help the dead? What exactly is the condition of souls in the period between death and the resurrection of the body at the last day. Here, Orthodox teaching is not in entirely clear and has varied somewhat at different times. In the 17th century, a number of Orthodox writers, most notably Peter of Mogila and Dositheos in his confession upheld the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, or something very close to it.” This is evident in the 1672 Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem. And, it said the following about purgatory, very close to the Catholic view. “The souls of the departed are either at rest or in torment, according to their conduct in life. But, their condition will not be perfect till the resurrection of the body. The souls of those who die in a state of penitence without having brought forth fruits of repentance or satisfactions, depart into Hades. And, there, they must suffer the punishment for their sins. But, they may be delivered by the prayers of the priests and the alms, or giving to the poor, of their kindred. Especially, by the unbloody sacrifice of the mass, which individuals offer for their departed relatives, and which the Catholic and apostolic church daily offers for all alike. The liberation from this intervening state of purification will take place before the resurrection and the general judgment. But, the time is unknown.” In another word, Kallistos Ware says this. “It is true that Orthodox theologians usually express reservations about the doctrine of purgatory as developed in medieval and post medieval Roman Catholic teaching. But, at the same time, most of them allow for some sort of purging or purification after death. Catholic and Orthodox views on the middle state after death are less sharply opposed than appears at first.” P.S. Are you a Protestant convert?

@John Coolidge So does Fr. Josiah Trentham have more authority than an council of Eastern Orthodox patriarchs of 4 of the most ancient sees? Who gave him the authority to speak on behalf of all of Orthodoxy?

@John Coolidge They changed their doctrine?

@@dexteradomini7103 amen brother ! I was EO and saw how modern orthodoxy is not really how orthodoxy was back then and after finding out Council of Florence I could not deny Rome

I hope it proves to be a helpful video for you!

Yeah that is my critique of the WR. Since it seems that the WR doesn’t have a organic concrete history that is from a western heritage that Latin Rite Catholics can claim. It can seem from someone from the outside that the WR came from the hierarchy with just eastern heritage only. An analogy would be: suppose that the Catholic Church was only composed of the Latin Church and no Eastern Catholic Churches. One day Rome decides to allow/support Catholics by adopting and modifying an Eastern Liturgy that was once Catholic, but were corrupted by the Orthodox. So we have This Eastern Catholic Church that doesn’t have a eastern heritage.

@ScottishSlav(formerly Ed of the Dead) This ^

@ScottishSlav(formerly Ed of the Dead) I think the distinction between WR and the Uniates that can be made is: The Uniates were former Orthodox that entered into Communion with Rome, thus they came from an eastern heritage and continued that eastern heritage. Not Catholics that came from a western heritage. The Uniates would be like if the entire patriarchate of Constantinople entered back into union with Rome, or a Bishop and his diocese. Rome didn’t have Catholics establish an Eastern Rite Catholic Church that came from an Western heritage. The eastern Catholics came from an eastern heritage, and not from a western heritage. Hence why they are not under Latin bishops, but their own eastern bishops and canon laws. While the WR came from Eastern hierarchy, and who are still under eastern bishops. Which can seem that we have eastern bishops just claiming another heritage that is different than their own for those orthodox who prefer the western liturgy. It seems odd from a historical standpoint.

@@baoduong2203The Maronites were never Eastern Orthodox. They are 2000 years in unbroken communion with Rome. Besides, there are “uniates” that came to the Church not only from the (Greek/Byzantine) Eastern Orthodox world in schism, but also came from the Assyrian Church of the East (like Syro-Malabar Catholics and Chaldean Catholics) or Oriental Orthodoxy (like Malankara Indian Catholics and Ethiopian Catholics).

Yes

Why would observing the historic Rite of the West in the Western Orthodox church constitute a problem for the Orthodox church?!

Yes

Because in Orthodoxy it is not proper to ban any language. Any language can be used, it all depends on the parish.

Perhaps, but not in a way that would invalidate the liturgy of the West. The differences were mostly political; the Bishop of Rome asserted jurisdiction over the entire world.

I don't think you heard him correctly. He's not talking about cultus as in the culture of a country. He refers to the environment people are spiritually nourished - the western rites are equal to the eastern ones in that regard, Pope St Leo, Pope St Gregory, St Ambrose, St Hilary, St Augustine, St Oswald, St Alban, St Dunstan - all these saints of the church and many many many more were raised and spiritually nourished by solely the western rite. That alone means that East and West are both equal in that regard, so why not want to bring that theological equality to the fore by endorsing the Western Rite, its the liturgy of the Latin Patristic patronage, which again, produced countless Saints of the Church so naturally its something we should desire more of. Its nothing about enculturation if anything he probably (though ill not speak as if I know what he wants!) WANTS enculturation, the significant amount of Orthodox Churches in the US are ran by GOARCH who, while I know many I deeply admire and respect in GOARCH, has a strong 'hellenistic' attitude with very little evangelism going on. The view of Orthodoxy being based along national lines and being cultural club isn't something people hear about for absolutely zero reasoning. If people historically grew up around a Western Liturgical life then suddenly are thrust into an Eastern Liturgical life, which differs quite a bit in their emphasis, its only natural that many people can be and indeed are put off by these foreign practices. They're foreign and people genuinely, whether it's right or wrong, don't like to stick their necks into something foreign to them all of a sudden.