Talk:Western Rite Orthodoxy

Merge

I am suggesting that this article be merged with the new article Western Rite Orthodoxy. The latter is much more comprehensive and already incorporates or expands a significant portion of the material in this article. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and place the redirect on 04 May 2007.

jackturner3 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Romanian official documents about Orthodox Church of France ECOF

Le Patriarcat Roumain Le département des relations ecclésiastiques extérieures Roumanie

423/3.III.1993

A son Excellence l’évêque Germain de St Denis Paris France

VOTRE EXCELLENCE

Nous portons à votre connaissance que le saint Synode de l’Eglise Roumaine, dans sa session de travail du 23 janvier 1993, a de nouveau examiné la situation de Votre Excellence et de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France,

Comme Vous savez, en 1972, ce diocèse Français, à la demande instante de ses représentants, a été reçu par le patriarcat Roumain sous sa juridiction, afin de lui offrir, par économie ecclésiastique, la communion canonique de même que la possibilité de s’intégrer dans l’ensemble de l’Orthodoxie et de progresser spirituellement.

Peu de temps après avoir été reçu sous notre juridiction et après le sacre épiscopal de Votre excellence, au sein du diocèse et dans Votre activité commencèrent à se manifester. diverses erreurs d’ordre dogmatique, liturgique et de discipline canonique, ainsi que des enseignements et des pratiques contraires à l’orthodoxie universelle, qui ne firent que se multiplier avec le temps continuant à présent encore et étant maintes fois portées à notre connaissance.

Au long de toutes ces années, le Saint synode, dans l’Esprit de la charité chrétienne et de la tolérance à l’égard de votre excellence et du clergé et des fidèles de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, a fait de considérables efforts pour vous aider à faire remédier les erreurs et à redresser la vie religieuse de ce diocèse, afin que vous puissiez entrer dans la communion de l’orthodoxie universelle.

Par conséquent vous avez été maintes fois invité par le patriarcat Roumain de participer, accompagné par vos collaborateurs, à des discussions dans le cadre de diverses commissions synodales. Chaque fois ont été dressés des protocoles et vous avez signé des engagements et des déclarations (1974,1976, 1978,1979, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990), stipulant que vous allez vous intégrer dans l’orthodoxie universelle. Vous les avez cependant chaque fois ignorés et transgressés sciemment, faisant preuve de désobéissance et d ‘insoumission.

Etant donné que vous n’avez pas respecté les susdits protocoles, les déclarations et vos propres engagements de vous intégrer effectivement et sincèrement avec le diocèse dans l’orthodoxie universelle ;

Compte tenu de l’attitude permanente de désobéissance et de la transgression délibérée de vos propres engagements quant à l’observation et de la doctrine et de la pratique de la vie religieuse orthodoxe,

Le saint synode de l’Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine a décidé de retirer définitivement la juridiction canonique de l’Eglise orthodoxe roumaine à Votre excellence et à l’Evêché Orthodoxe catholique de France. Par conséquent, l’exercice de toute fonction épiscopale vous est désormais défendu. Toute correspondance reçue de Votre part à ce sujet ne sera plus prise en considération.

Il a été également décidé que les prêtres ou les communautés du respectif diocèse qui souhaiteraient maintenir les liens canoniques avec L’Orthodoxie universelle puissent s’adresser à cet effet aux juridictions canoniques orthodoxes locales.

Les susdites décisions seront communiquées aussi au conseil diocésain de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, aux prêtres appartenant à ce diocèse, au Comité Inter-épiscopal orthodoxe de Paris et aux Eglises Orthodoxes sœurs. Avec le regret que le patriarcat roumain ait été contraint de prendre de telles mesures disciplinaires, nous prions le Seigneur de vous accorder son aide et sa lumière et de vous protéger dans la grâce miséricordieuse ;

Président du saint Synode + Théoctiste Patriarche de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine

Secrétaire du Saint synode, + Evêque Nifon Ploiesteanul Vicaire patriarcal

PATRIARHIA ROMANA CANCELARIA SFANTULUI SINOD SECTORUL PENTRU RELATII EXTERNE BISERICESTI

AVIS D’EXPERTISE CANONIQUE

No 9 /3 Janvier 2001

Après une suite d’erreurs de l’ex-évêque Germain de Saint Denis, le Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine a été obligé de prendre la. décision disciplinaire de lui interdire l’exercice de toutes fonctions épiscopales. Cette décision no. 423 / 1993, ci-après annexée, a été communiquée aux intéressés par une lettre du 3 mars 1993, ci-incluse.

Pour expliciter cette décision du Saint Synode nous précisons que “retirer définitivement la juridiction canonique” et ‘l’exercice de route fonction épiscopale vous est désormais défendu” signifient du point de vue canonique que l’ex-évêque Germain est exclu de l’épiscopat (c’est à dire la déposition), et est réduit â l’état laïc et ainsi n’a plus le droit de célébrer la Sainte Liturgie, ni aucun office religieux, ni de effectuer des ordinations et dispenser les Saints Sacrements, ni de conduire une communauté cultuelle orthodoxe. Par suite il n’est reçu par aucune autre juridiction Orthodoxe.

Contrairement à la décision du Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine, l’ex-évêque Germain, aggrave sa situation ecclésiale en poursuivant l’exercice des fonctions épiscopales, et ainsi tombe sous l’incidence des canons l’excluant de l’Eglise. Tout acte de culte et d’autorité excercé par un évêque après sa déposition sont nuls de fait et de droit (28eme règle apostolique et no. 4 du concile d’Antioche 74ème règle apostolique 9 et 17 du IV concile oecuménique et no. 15 du concile d’ Antioche). Les ordinations pourront être soumises par économie à l’examen de l’autorité canonique.

En continuant ses errements et passant au delà de toutes règles canoniques l’ex-évêque Germain, M. Gilles BERTRAND-HARDY, en se mariant est tombé définitivement de son état épiscopal et conformément aux Saints Canons la sanction appliquée par le Saint Synode pourrait être l’anathème, (no. 6 du VI concile oecuménique, no. I Néocésarée et no 12 et 48 du VI concile oecuménique).

En conclusion, par application des Saints Canons cités qui sont valabLes dans toutes les Eglises orthodoxes, l’ex-évêque Germain, M. Gilles BERTRAND-HARDY non seulement aperdu sa qualité d'évêque mais de plus encourt l’exclusion de l’Eglise orthodoxe,

Le secrétariat du Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine

Evêque Ambrosie Sinaitul Vicaire administratif P. Constantin Parvu Vicaire Patriarcal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glikerie (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a translation of this?

jackturner3 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This has no source and is possibly a hoax (as well as a copyright violation). I have searched far and wide over the internet, and no reliable source contains this alleged "official document". The only place I could find this text is in posts on OrthodoxWiki and on the forum forum-orthodoxe.com. Veverve (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

---

Much of this article is clearly taken from the OrthodoxWiki:Western Rite article. This must be noted, as it is illegal to transfer material from there without attribution. 71.245.5.209 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will admit that I did lift the external links section more or less whole cloth (though I reorgnaized many of them and deleted several more). But, it is of note that I not only reworked most of the material that was on the OrthodoxWiki (which, it should be noted, are poorly written, lacking sources for many quotations, sources that I am having to hunt down for myself), the vast majority of the material is also my own composition. I think its also worth pointing out that there is addtional material included in this article which is not included anywhwere on the Orthodoxwiki site, either in part or in whole. I don't know if this would count as transfer of material without attribution, though I would happily add the main Orthodoxwiki article to the external sources.

jackturner3 11:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that when this article was created in 2007, content was copied from 2007 revision 44571 of OrthodoxWiki:Western Rite at OrthodoxWiki. I added a {{OrthodoxWiki}} with this edit and {{OrthodoxWiki talk}} above to document it. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

28 September Revert

I'm reverting this article because I feel the sections on the WR in the nineteenth century and the EOCF no longer make much sense. Overbeck's life doesn't need to be parred down because Overbeck's life is the WR in the nineteenth century. And, while it is my hope that some day the EOCF will warrant a full scale article, I haven't done enough research on the history of the ECOF (or even Overbeck) to justify that at present. In my opinion, more skillfull editing is necessary if these two sections are to be shortened, so to that end, I'm restoring the sections as they were to allow someone (the original editor, myself, or someone else) to do that. -- jackturner3 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to do any major editing any more, but I do think that this article is seriously overplaying Overbeck and the ECOF. JASpencer 22:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible to overplay Overbeck since his biography really is the history of Western Rite Orhtodoxy in the nineteenth century. Additionally, while the section on the ECOF is given significant press, it's not more than is being paid to the AWRV, which is what most people think of when they hear "Western Rite Orthodoxy." If the articles need to be cut down, I can go with that, but they need to be done in a bit more sophistocated manner. -- jackturner3 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church

It seems to me that the recent edits adding "Antiochian" in front of every instance of "Western Rite Vicariate" created some redundancies in the text. Personally, it would seem to me we only need to say “Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church” or “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate,” but not “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church” since it really is cumbersome. The internal literature of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese doesn’t designate a name for the vicariate other than “Western Rite Vicariate.” However, is someone would prefer that every instance read “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate” rather than “Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church,” they are free to change it to the former (without the redundancies). Personally, I don’t care either way, just so long as “Antiochian” doesn’t show up twice in the same name. -- jackturner3 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GA comments

I saw this at WP:GAC. A few suggestions:

• reduce use of the word specifically and also; they sound repetitive
• the "Orthodox Church of France" section has no citations, and "Criticism" is usually a touchy subject that benefits from clearly indicating who made each criticism
• the "main article" for the France section seems to include everything said in this article, so this article is not quite using WP:Summary style
• there are too many external links in article ("Congregations") and at end. Some at the end should probably be cited as references. If there is a site with a church directory, use that rather than have 20 links in the text.

This looks like a big topic. Might be worth considering a sub-article on the liturgy, development and books. Gimmetrow 03:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. You are correct that this is indeed a large topic, one that I hope to work on my fully as time progresses. At present, I don't think I have enough information to do a full-scale sub-article as you are suggesting, which is why I have contented myself to let it remain in the larger article; that, and becuase any further work I do might cross into a grey area of Original Research (since I am doing original research in the first place), and I neither want to violate policy or make wikipedia my first instance of publication on the subject. However, to your other concerns:

• I will go back through the article and edit the prose a bit.
• I was unaware that there were no citations in this section. I will correct that as well. As to the criticism section, some of these arguments are things I have "absorbed" through my own studies, but I will go back and see if I can provide some citations.
• That's actually something of a touchy subject for me. I think the section as it stands gives the minimum (and I mean bare minimum) of information necessary to actually understand this topic. However, someone else decided that it would be the subject of a great article, so they came through, lifted it out whole, made a new article, and then totally shredded the prose. I reverted to the original form, left the link to the longer article, and prayed that I would eventually have time to expand the sub-article, but thus far I have not.
• I realize the Congregations do have a lot of links. However, I think it's also important to point out that it is also the most comprehensive listing of current links anywhere on the web. Yes, there are other sites that do have links to these congregations, but in many instances the links are broken or the listing is incomplete. As a result, I thought it was better to synthesize research rather than link to four or five other sites.

Again, thank you for your review. I will let you know when I have implemented the changes in the first two sections as you recommended. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi, I'm initiating the article's GA review. I will complete my initial assessment prior to 2/19. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the article is big enough for two reviews. Gimmetrow 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Er ... I assume that you're providing advice as part of an informal review -- which is great that you're providing feedback. The nomination list at GAN indicated that the article had been nominated but still needed a reviewer, so I followed GAN review process and signed up to evaluate it. If it was your intention to initiate a proper GA evaluation, please let me know and I'll be happy to step back and let you handle the evaluation. Either option is fine with me. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there's some doubt about who's conducting the GA review for this article, I'm going to play it safe and resign from the review. I'll make the appropriate changes at GAN and then Gimmetrow or another reviewer can sign up to undertake the GA evaluation. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. You do it. Gimmetrow 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add a map (with places where this is practiced and with some % of the population practicing it) before rating this article as a GA. Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be pointless. Most Western Rite Orthodox are a congregation here, a congregation there. It's estimated anecdotally that there are only 20,000 canonical Western Rite Orthodox in North America (a number which, in my opinion, is probably vastly inflated). That being said, there are nearly 6,000,000 Orthodox of all jurisdictions in North America. Thus, canonical WRO only account for 0.33% of all Orthodox on this continent. You can't put that on a pie chart or show it on a map, in my opinion. Of course, if you have such a map, please upload it and I'll be glad to add it to the article. -- jackturner3 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

After the confusion it appears nobody is reviewing this, so I guess I'll say something. Of 11 online references, three are to a closed blogspot site, and one is to OrthodoxWiki. Another two are to the geocities page of a church in the Orthodox Church of France, which might be OK as a self-published source, but it isn't ideal. The article in the "unofficial" parish newsletter is a similar concern. Another four references are to unpublished Master's theses, and another one to an unpublished paper. The Anson and Ward/Persson/Bain references are fine, but probably fairly limited in content. I believe the article here is probably accurate, but I don't think it is verifiable at present. Let's see what other sources can be found, and you can resubmit the article later. OK? Gimmetrow 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's not "verifiable" right now, then it's not going to be ever. The reason is that there has been little scholarly treatment of the subject aside from a few articles specifically considering the merits/dismerits of the two AWRV liturgies. There was one article published in 1958 which treated the history of the subject to that point, but there has been nothing of significant note published in the last forty plus years. Personally, I don't see why two masters thesises are to be denigrated as a source. Yes, they are not as ideal as a scholarly monograph or journal article, nor even as ideal as a doctoral dissertation, but they are better than self-published web sources becuase they have at least been evaluated by academics. However, if the problem is simply the sources, and thier lack of acceptbility is the issue, then we need to go back through and remove a large number of GA for referening similarly problematic sources. I don't think this article should have been failed; put on hold for additional sources perhaps, but not failed. However, if you really, truly have a problem with the sources of the article's sources (which are the only ones available), will never get to GA becuase the only significant scholarly source is going to be my dissertation on Western Rite Orthodoxy, and I'd feel kind of funny citing myself (considering, of course, that it apparently wouldn't be an acceptable source becuase it would be unpublished), not to mention the problems with OR. So, unless there is any other reason to let this nomination slip beyond the (I'm my opinion, unfounded or at least excessive compared to other GA articles) concerns over verifiability, the nomination should be reinstated in it's original position. -- jackturner3 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I'm willing to help here. I may have some other sources. I have no problem at all with citing a master's thesis, but with citing an unpublished master's thesis. It's obvious you've already put a ton of work into this article; if someone else (like Majoreditor) wants to OK the article, I won't complain. But I would like to look up what I can find about the subject. Are you on a deadline, or will a few weeks matter? Gimmetrow 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do so, that's fine with me...I just don't know where you'll be able to find the sources you're looking for. I've worked pretty hard at digging up sources for the past year, and while I've obviously found more than what are used in this article, it's not a lot more, and some of them are of considerably worse quality. But, I'm kind of giving up on this one becoming GA for a while, I guess. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking Le Soufre & L'Encens would have something on ECOF. Gimmetrow 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, though I suppose I could have eaisly missed something there; I would assume any reference to ECOF would have been brief. -- jackturner3 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if brief, it would be an indepedent reference. Gimmetrow 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Le Soufre & L'Encens has two pages on ECOF. Unless you think that book is biased, I can add a couple refs to the book in the appropriate section. Gimmetrow 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Anything I can do to help? I'm busy for the next couple of weeks but would like to help Jack get this (eventually) to GA. Majoreditor (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's ready now? Gimmetrow 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My humble opinion is that it's not quite ready but it's close. Jack has done a solid job gathering content. The building blocks are there, it's primarily a matter of arranging and packaging the existing material. I share your concern about citing blogs, but most of the other source material is serviceable, if not ideal. Majoreditor (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add some material and citations. Please feel free to tell me if I make some boneheaded edits. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Trimming a paragraph

Somercet expressed concern about on of the paragraphs, which I have trimmed from the article: [1]. Feel free to add part of all of it back if you can provide an in-line citation. Thanks Majoreditor (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity?

The article has the 'Part of the series on Eastern Christianity' box, but surely the point of Western-Rite Orthodoxy is that it is meant to be Western? InfernoXV (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a mystery!

But seriously, the theology is Eastern, but the Rite is Western. So...

The Dogfather (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I corrected several inaccuracies only to see Jackturner3 undo them and replace the errors.

1. "At present, the Western Rite within the canonical Orthodox Church remains uncertain. While a number of congregations have been founded as Western Rite congregations in the past several years, still other parishes have begun to voluntarily convert to the Byzantine rite." This is inaccurate or ineptly worded. The Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate has not had one of its parishes become Eastern Rite in nearly 10 years. ROCOR has had none. Whatever does this comment refer to? — JoeyJoeJoeJr 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

I fail to see how this is inaccurate. Your comment that no parishes have switched to the Byzantine rite within the last decade is incorrect as Christ the Savior in Anderson, SC did so three years ago. St. Barnabas in Lexington, SC has done the same nine years ago, if I am not mistaken. I fail to see how either statement is inaccurate, much less inept. –jackturner3 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

According to its parish history, Christ the Savior changed in 2001, not "three years ago," but I had thought it was even earlier. I don't know about St. Barnabas at all. This time frame does not indicate parishes have "begun" to convert, since "begun" implies it is a recent and continual process rather than increasingly isolated occurrences, especially when the statement is justaposed against a reference to the large number of recent Western Rite missions received within the last two years. To the point, two (or so) voluntary switches in about ten years doesn't equal "uncertainty," especially with explosive recent growth and statements of support from their hierarchs. The new metropolitan of ROCOR, Met. HILARION, is a supporter of the Western Rite, and ROCOR is canonical. I should've added the Moscow Patriarch has had no changes that anyone knows of. –JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So I was mistaken in that point, though when Fr. Gregory Rogers of St. Barnabas informed me of thier switch, he did state that it was recent. That was two years ago. Additionally, it should be remembered that whereas the past two years has seen "explosive" growth in terms of parishes/missions, it was preceded by a period of time in which a number of congregations closed or became Byzantine. Church of the Incarnation in Detroit is a restart of the original parish that was closed in 2001; St. Stephens in New Jersey, at one time mentioned as a leader in the Western Rite Vicariate, is no where to be found as either byzantine or western. Furthermore, while it is in fact true that Met. Hilarion of Syndeny has been a supporter of the Western Rite in the past, that hardly means he will continue to be so. Additionally, simply saying that he is now the first hierarch of ROCOR is insufficient context: tell the reader why this is important to the article, don't assume they already know it. Finally, since "begun" is so problematic for you, how about we simply remove "begun to" from the sentence, rather than deleting the statement altogether. Thereby, it is both factual and complete while not implying that this is a regular occurance. –jackturner3 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

2. "The two most important required changes included the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed and the addition of an epiclesis which specifically invoked the Holy Spirit and a petition for the Spirit to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ." An epiklesis is "a petition for the (Holy) Spirit to change the bread and wine into the (B)ody and (B)lood of Christ." They are not two separate items. — JoeyJoeJoeJr 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Again, I fail to see any reason why the sentence as I have written it is inaccurate. Redundant, perhaps, but certainly not incorrect. –jackturner3 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarity and precision are better than redundancy and inaccuracy, no? This redundancy gives the impression of more changes than were made and is stylistically subpar. Editing 101: shorter is better. Clearer is better too. –JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I don't think you have made your case that it is redundant OR inaccurate. Why is it stylistically subpar? How is it inaccurate, since there were texts which were inserted that more explicity state that the gifts become the body and blood of Christ? –jackturner3 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

3. "Whether the Western Rite will survive in the Orthodox Church and be accepted by the majority who follow the Byzantine Rite remains yet to be seen." I erased the bold words. The number of Western Rite Orthodox churches in ROCOR and in the Antiochian Archdiocese has increased in the last few years, and no one is threatening to shut either Western Rite group down as a whole. There is no threat to their survival, so this is inaccurate. The second half of the sentence is questionable, since all Orthodox who celebrate the Byzantine Rite accept the canonicity of Western Rite churches in ROCOR and Antioch and have to commune Western Rite Orthodox. — JoeyJoeJoeJr 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Certainly, there is threats to thier survival. The Western Rite, while more regular than in the 1950's, is far from entrenched. There is no telling what would happen under another Antiochian Metropolitan, or what would become of the Western Rite if the AANA and the OCA merged (unlikely, but possible). Secondly, acceptance in terms of acknowledgement of licitness is entirely different from acceptance in terms of validity. Certainly, Western Rite Orthodoxy is "valid" because there are Western Rite parishes under canonically valid bishops, but that doesn't mean they would not close them down or severely modify thier liturgical life if the choice were theirs. –jackturner3 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been two Antiochian Metropolitans and three Patriarchs since the Vicariate was founded; additionally, the entire Synod of Antioch has upheld the Western Rite multiple times. Are you familiar with Patriarchal or Metropolitan candidates in Antioch, AND ROCOR, AND Moscow, who want to shut down the WRITE parishes under all three bodies? If not, you are offering speculation, not facts fit for an internet encyclopedia. –JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One bi-ritual parish and two monasteries with small dependanceis worldwide does not a stable movement make (ROCOR). Niether supporting the idea of a Western Rite but not having it in practice or having it in practice but being unwilling to let anyone else know about it (MP). And, while Met. Philip has said that the AWRV will not be byzantinized, that does not that a subsequent hierarch won't or that there won't be a sudden voluntary rush to the Eastern Rite. And, there are plenty of clergy (and even hierarchs) in the GOA and OCA who speak ill of the Western Rite. Should ecclesiastical unity be achieved in North America, there is no guarentee that the AWRV would not be sacrificed to make that unity happen. That's an unfortunate fact, and something that should be stated. –jackturner3 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

4. The Holy Synod of Milan is "non-canonical." Its wiki article mentions this even as it relates the sanitized version of the Synod's creation. It's considered schismatic by ROCOR [2] the Greek Old Calendarists. Vladimir Moss has a tougher view. — JoeyJoeJoeJr 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

"Canonical" and "non-Canonical" are POV and so I elmiinated them on those grounds. Whether it is schismatic is beyond the scope of this article. –jackturner3 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The headline for section 3.5 of this article uses those exact words. As I wrote in my edit and proved here, Milan fits with those "bodies that broke away from Eastern Orthodoxy, or were cut off by Eastern Orthodox hierarchs for irregularities." My version is more accurate and specific. –JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and even though I wrote that section header, I have never been pleased with it. However, whereas the Holy Synod of Milan states that it is canonical, the Ecumenical Patriarchate states they are not. One's stance on the issue of whether or not Milan is canonical is informed by perspective, which is itself different from saying that the HOCAJ is "non-canonical" –jackturner3 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

5. The Old Sarum Rite Missal differs "greatly" from the ROCOR-approved version used by Fr. Michael in Tasmania, according to members of ROCOR's Western Rite. — JoeyJoeJoeJr 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Not having seen either one, I cannot comment on whether the varriations are "great" or not. Furthermore, "great" is a hard word to quantify, so I feel it is better left omitted. –jackturner3 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The two are almost nothing alike. Do you want links to compare? Not stating that there is a difference would improperly conflate ROCOR's version of Sarum with HSOM's "Old Sarum" and indicate are substantially the same liturgy. They are not. –JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state that there was no difference. I said that it was different. I simply think that "greatly" should be avoided because it is a subjective quantifier. –jackturner3 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

6. The links to the Western Rite blog were called redundant, but there are multiple links under the critics' section to the Holy Trinity Cathedral website. There are multiple links under the "apologetics" section to WesternOrthodox.com (a different site than the blog). This Wiki page allows multiple links to other sites, as long as they are on different topics. Seems weird to exclude only this blog. — JoeyJoeJoeJr 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Rather than complain, a better practice would be to consolidate the offending links. –jackturner3 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended by multiple links to these two sites. Noone else should be offended by multiple links to the Western Orthodoxy blog, either, since it responds to the arguments made on the Holy Trinity site or referenced in this article ("Reverse Uniatism"). IOW, I don't object to multiple links but to a double standard. –JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended, and I wish you wouldn't assume that I am. I am simply of the mind that they are unnecessary. The link to "Anti-WR Criticism" on Anderon's blog is inappropriate at least becuase it is addressing a specific conflict between himself and the person who operates the Not Quite Rite blog. The other I have less difficulty with and would be more in favor of leaving in place, but I don't think the first should remain because I don't think it contributes. –jackturner3 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

7. The SASB is a red herring issue; the Antiochians have not allowed any other church to use it. I don't object to noting, once, that the Antiochian Archdiocese allowed it to be published, but anything more would give it too much weight. If you add that paragraph back, please spell "referennce" with only one n. — JoeyJoeJoeJr 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

But there's the problem: the Archdoicese did not allow it to be published: they published it and authorized it's use. As for the misspelling, rather than attempt to provide redherrings about spelling, it is considered common academic courtesey to correct a colleagues misspellings without drawing undue attention to them. It is exceptionally rude to use a misspelled word as an insinuation for doubting the credulity of the researcher. –jackturner3 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Metropolitan's letter in the front of the Orthodox Missal says, "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." I should note Benjamin J. Andersen's thesis and blog, official sources for this article, state the SASB was intended to serve as "a simple parish prayer book" and not "the authoritative, typical text." On a practical level, since the AWRV considers the Orthodox Missal its exclusive use unless permission is given for another rite - and since the AWRV operates the Western Rite for the Archdiocese that means the SASB is a dead-letter.

You're fighting with ghosts. I did not use a misspelled word to doubt your credulity anywhere. If I did, quote it. I didn't even use mistakes in your response to do that. I did that so you would not revert to a misspelled word - which you did, anyway. –JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, it was rude and a low blow. I'm not denying that I misspelled the word, only stating that it was a unnessary shot. –jackturner3 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

That's why I'm reverting to my edits. JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's why I reverted them not once, but twice. -- jackturner3 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to know much on this topic, but I concur with Jack on points 1 through 3. I am unable to comment on the other items. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having made my case above after the Majoreditor's comments, I'd be interested in his opinion now that accurate information has been brought to light on points 1-3, as well as the rest. I believe the case is clear these unhelpful (and inaccurate) edits should be undone (again).--JoeyJoeJoeJr (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the information you have provided as any more accurate than before. I will also be reverting your earlier edit until such time as the dispute is resolved. –jackturner3 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see here that "Non-Canonical" was removed from earlier versions of this article as POV. Why now is it being allowed to impeach the missionary societies set up by Orthodox laity under a canonical Orthodox monastery and bishops? Aristibule (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Parishes, Missions, etc.

I've noted some inconsistency here. The entry for Saint Brendan Orthodox Study Society was removed - while other dependencies of Saint Petroc Monastery were not. Saint Brendan's is canonical, under ROCOR bishops, served by ROCOR clergy. If it is removed, other missions and mission stations / study societies would have to be removed as well. The sources are easily found on the links on the page at present: see the Saint Petroc blog link, the links for the dependencies and whom they list. For Brazil see the Occidental Orthodox directory: Fr. Pedro Oliveira was the WRITE clergy. I believe the url is http://www.occidentalorthodox.org.uk

On a seperate note - there is a bit of bias in claiming that 'most become Byzantine or will' or anything along those lines. The actual statistics for those that have become Byzantine rite is very low compared to those that closed as Western Rite, or still remain as Western Rite. In the case of the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR - no WRITE entity has converted to Byzantine rite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristibule (talk • contribs) 21:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As regards St. Brendan, I submit the following from thier website:

A Society for people in the Panama City, Florida area who wish to study the Orthodox Church both in its Eastern and Western manifestations, its theology and its history, with the hope of being received into the Holy Orthodox Church. The Society is under the direct guidance of an Orthodox Monastery.

The key phrase is "hope of being recieved." Unless there is evidence that they have actually been recieved then they are not a part of canonical Orthodoxy, no matter how much guidance they recieve from any monastic foundation. That is why the listing was removed and why I will remove it again. I have no problem including missions and societies that are a part of canonical Orthodoxy, but they should actually be Orthodox, not just hoping to be Orthodox sometime in the future. The website you provide (which I am familiar with) seems to not have been updated for a very long time (how long has Christminster been in Canada now, two years?), so I hardly thing it is a valid source for parishes, missions, and mission stations. For my part, I've searched the ROCOR, Antiochian, and MP websites and have yet to locate either the parish in Brasil or the one in the UK. While they may have existed at one point, there is certainly no concrete proof that they do any longer.

Secondly, nowhere does the article claim that "most" Western Rite parishes do, have, or will become Byzantine rite. A more careful reading of the article is perhaps in order. Furthermore, if the article does say that, it is not something I have or would have written and would be happy to see it changed. However, as regards the comment concerning ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, it is worth noting, as I have noted before, that the MP has no verrified WR parishes under its direct jurisdiction. As for ROCOR, it currently has one bi-ritual parish in North Ameirca and two monasteries with small dependancies, so that is hardly evidence of an extensive fidelity to rite in this case. Only time will tell whether the WR is able to survivie in the ROCOR. It is also worth remembering that in the 1970's ROCOR declared that none of it's parishes should be WR even though at the time there were WR parishes under thier jurisdiction, and I don't think the situation with ECOF needs to be mentioned here, either. So, while ROCOR parishes may historically be faithful to the rite, the ROCOR hierarchy has been more ambivilant.

jackturner3 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the convener for Saint Brendan's. Every member is a baptized, chrismated, communing member of ROCOR. The phrase 'hope of being received' does not refer to the members of the society, but the mission of the society: teaching and evangelism. (So far our visitors have mainly been other Orthodox and present/former Continuing Anglicans.) You will note the latest news item was about the serving of the Divine Liturgy this past Pascha: that doesn't happen without Orthodox laity present and participating. The same can be said for Saint Eanswythe in the UK - and the English Orthodox Society. Orthodox members doing missionary outreach (and their webpages are not 'out of date'.)

The other matters, such as the 1970s decision by the ROCOR synod, are being misrepresented here (as they were by some before.) The Synod never decided to get rid of Western Rite: and they never did. There was simply a restriction placed on use of the 'modern rites' (meaning the 1970 Roman rite and 1979 BCP.) The Occidental Orthodox website is still valid in any case: the parishes in France listed are UACORO parishes now biritual. I'll bring up the issue of it not being updated with the administrator. - Aristibule —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristibule (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If at all possible, I would recommend that the websites for the study socieites in question be updated to less ambigiously reflect thier status. Once that is done, I can see little point of conflict. However, as long as thier official publications are not directly stating they are Orthodox, they should not be included, or perhaps included with a notice that thier status is ambigious. As for the other website you mention, if that can be addressed with its administrator, that would be well and good, also. It is difficult to rely on a website as a reliable source of information since so many of them are established by zealous administrators and then after a period of time go with important updates decreasing in frequency, thus making them less reliable.

As concerns the decision of the ROCOR Synod on the Western Rite, the statement can be read both ways. On the one hand, you and others are absolutly correct that it does say "the Western rite in its present form," meaning one can infer the Tridentine and BCP rites. On the other hand, the concluding sentence also reads "the Council of Bishops does not recognize it as possible to permit the Western Rite in the Russian Church," which can be interpreted as meaning that there cannot be a Western Rite. As I understand the subsequent events (and I am willing to admit my impression could be mistaken on this point) the Western Rite parishes that did exist in the ROCOR left that communion for a seperate existnece, ultimately coming under the Milan Synod and most use Aidan Keller's Sarum Missal for thier liturgical rite. So, from the history as I know it, the cirucmstance seems to me that the ROCOR Synod, while restricting thier decision in content to the Tridentine rite, intended to supress the Western rite altogether, and that the decision was interpreted that way by thier WR parishes. If I am incorrect in my history, please point me to resources that explain otherwise becuase I would be most excited to see further documentation on this period. I mean that in all sincerity. -- jackturner3 (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll pass along the suggestion about wording. It dates from a time when presence in certain areas had to be more circumspect (no permission for full mission status.) Times change. Regarding the 'ROCOR Decision' - that must be taken in context that the purported English translation was not an official translation. ROCOR only put out documents in Russian (and as often happens in 'Diaspora' Church politics, translations are often skewed.) The context should be understood in the attempt by the HTM-Boston group to takeover English language communications for the Synod and push their agenda (which included de-Russification, and hostility to the Western rite.) The only official text is that in Russian - which should be a simple matter to obtain from Synod (let me know if you are unsure where to write.) The proof is that after HTM published its translation in attempt to intimidate ROCOR's WRITE communities - they continued. The parish pastored by Fr. Cyril in Atlanta, GA only closed down due to his death later in the 1980s. The parish in Connecticut had gone earlier, but not due to any statement by the Synod. Mount Royal continued in ROCOR - in Eastern America, up through HTM-Boston's defection (in fact, through into the 1990s, and was ROCOR in 1999.)The documents have yet to be digitized. Fr. Hieromonk David (Pierce) of Holyrood House is Fr. Augustine (Mount Royal)'s caretaker. He has access to the archival material from Mount Royal and is open to communication with you. Fr. Augustine is in fact typing (on a typewriter) a history which we hope will be completed in time. Fr. David is digitizing material from Mount Royal at Holyrood House as well - but has begun with liturgical material. Fr. Hieromonk Michael (Saint Petroc Monastery) also has a good amount of archival material: much of it coming from Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral)'s collection. I can put you in contact with both - email at the email given on the St Brendan OSS website or send me a message through the Facebook Western Rite Orthodox group.

As for the history of the ROCOR WRITE communities: none of those in Milan Synod were ever in ROCOR. The history begins with St. Dunstan's Abbey of the Old Catholic Church of America, under William H.F. Brothers. He had joined the Living Church back at some point as well. When the community entered the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) in 1962, the monastery was brought in as Mount Royal (Fr. David has photographs from this period that were inscribed as such - including the chapel in Woodstock,NY that burned down later that decade.) Brothers left within a year or so and revived the OCCA and began consecrating Old Catholic bishops (according to Fr. Augustine, nothing to do with KGB, but something to do with 'itchy hands'.) Besides the archives of Mount Royal, there are plenty in the Independent Catholic movement that have the names, dates, etc. verifying that (there is some online.) Mount Royal monastery continued in the Moscow Patriarchate - a few other of the WRITE communities did not last long (such as the Australian mission - there is a retired priest of the British Orthodox Church in Australia with archives from that mission.) Brothers kept the property at Woodstock, and Abbot Augustine moved Mount Royal to the MP Cathedral in NYC where the Offices were chanted in a side chapel, and the Mass celebrated on a temporary altar before the Royal Doors. This continued until the mid-70s when the new dean of the MP Cathedral (in the post-Metropolia atmosphere)'helped' them move to an apartment in Manhattan. They were received into ROCOR in 1975. The Milan Synod Western Rite communities do not date to ROCOR. In Europe they connect with the MP's Italian Mission (origins of the Milan Synod in some of its members joining Old Calendarist Greek groups.) In America they date to the Old Catholic Church of America in its post-Orthodox phase - and a growing relationship with one of the Ukrainian Churches. (During the period that Abp John LoBue was Abbot Raymond LoBue of Sacred Heart Abbey.) Another bishop, Robert Lloyd Williams, came over to the Ukrainians from the Liberal Catholic Church. After Williams death they formed the Synod of Bishops of the Western Rite. That group did not join the Milan Synod until 1998 - the same year Abbot Augustine (retired with ROCOR, but still helping the SOBWR under the canonical Ukrainian church)cut off contact with what became the American dioceses of the Milan Synod. The only ROCOR connection with Milan Synod was in the help given by the retired Abbot Augustine from 1993-1998, and in making his disciple (a ROCOR Reader named David) into a Hieromonk - now received into ROCOR in 2008. According to Fr. David - Fr. Aidan's Old Sarum is not the majority use in Milan Synod, but Abp John LoBue's use. Holyrood for years has used primarily (now entirely) the Mount Royal uses - the Monastic and 'Old English' (Sarum) both which were in use when they were brought into the Russian Church in 1962, and ROCOR in 1975 (which forms the basis of the Christminster use, and the texts in the Saint Colman Prayer Book.)Again - we'd be glad to help. Aristibule (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Book is self published

I believe Arnold Harris Mathew and the Old Catholic movement in England 1908-52 is WP:SELFPUBLISHed. See
www.lulu.com/shop/john-kersey/arnold-harris-mathew-and-the-old-catholic-movement-in-england-1908-52/paperback/product-21136431.html
which is found on Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business. I marked the content (this edit) with {{Self-published inline}} and references with {{Self-published source}}. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Vilatte parish as first Western liturgical rite parish in America

When this article was created in 2007, the following text was included:

In 1890, the very first North American Western Rite Orthodox community, and Episcopal parish in Green Bay, Wisconsin, pastored by Fr. Joseph Vilatte, was received by Bishop Vladimir (Sokolovsky).

It was based, in part, on content was copied from 2007 revision 44571 of OrthodoxWiki:Western Rite at OrthodoxWiki which says:

In 1890 a Swiss Old Catholic parish in Wisconsin, pastored by Fr Joseph Rene Vilatte, was received by Bp Vladimir (Sokolovsky); however, Fr Vilatte soon led the church into Old Catholicism.

OrthodoxWiki:Western Rite does not cite a specific reference for this. The Wikipedia article René Vilatte (this version) does include specific references about this detail. From René Vilatte § Russian Orthodox (this version):

The text of a widely republished and translated 1891 document, purportedly from the Russian Orthodox Church through Bishop Vladimir Sokolovsky of San Francisco and Alaska, announced Vilatte's conversion from an Old Catholic confession of faith to an Old Catholic Orthodox confession of faith under Russian Orthodox Church patronage. It also declared that only the Holy Synod of the Russian Church or Sokolovsky can prohibit or suspend Vilatte's religious functions; and, states that any action contrary to the declaration is null and invalid, based on the liberty of conscience and unspecified United States law but without mention of Russian Orthodox Church canon law.

An {{Elucidate}} asks "What is meant by being under patronage in this context? Several writers quoted Sokolovsky's decree without any explanation of what that patronage meant."

Sokolovsky "appears to have granted him some form of recognition," [...] In 1891, Sokolovsky visited Vilatte at the St. Mary's mission. [...] Sokolovsky intervened, approved Vilatte's confession of faith and his official acts, and referred him to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. He "found himself unable to accept these communities and permit the continued use of the Roman Catholic rites and customs." Sokolovsky was removed, soon after, in the wake of a series of scandals.

The René Vilatte article contains links to both a French language text and a translation into English from that French language text. The René Vilatte article states that Henry Brandreth noted, in Episcopi vagantes and the Anglican Church, that "there exists no evidence that this is a genuine document and, indeed, its phraseology at several points argues against its genuineness". —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

St. Hilarion series name

WorldCat metadata shows that the group was using the name Old Catholic Church in America and not using the name Holy Synod of Milan when parts of the series was first published as "Old Catholic missal & ritual Sarum rite series".[3][4][5]

The publisher name changed over time, e.g. Saint Hilarion Guild Press, Old Catholic Monastery of Saint Hilarion, St. Hilarion press.

Some were contemporary revisions of circa 1909 works by Arnold Harris Mathew and not true translations from Latin. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusing Abbreviations

The vast number of abbreviations are confusing every reader who is not a proffessor in western rite orthodoxy. Is it really necessary to use abbreviations????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Informationskampagne (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You can hover over the abbreviations, e.g. ROC and ROCOR, to see what they abbreviate and they clarify differences that many readers may not be familiar with, like Russian Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria and sourcing

The lists of parishes, missions, monasteries, and hermitages have problems. I have removed the inline external links which are not used in articles. Both sections are wholly without references or citations, which means we have no way to verify information about the communities mentioned, particularly about their status as having Western Rite liturgies. The formerly embedded external links could be added as citations, for a start, but deep links to "About Us" type pages would be preferred, and these are WP:PRIMARY sources; reliable secondary sources are always preferred on Wikipedia. Also, apparently none of the organizations listed are notable, this would be a good inclusion criterion for the list if some were, and had articles, but as it is, we have to be careful about violating WP:NOTDIR. Elizium23 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV

I have observed, and been messaged, that there are some editors wishing to use language that would not be encyclopedic in style. For example, I edited the intro and removed the phrases "___ are blessed to use (liturgy)" or "__ some congregations are blessed to use (liturgy)." While as clergy and a faithful catholic Christian myself, I absolutely believe that these congregations are blessed to use these liturgies, that does not conform to the standards of NPOV. I encourage editors to find other ways to express any peculiarities in terminology. For example, if the Western Rite refers to their liturgical authorizations from their hierarchs as "blessing," a quote from RS can be added to explain that, or, in the section on liturgics and history, it can be added with an RS that blessing is the term used for authorization. I noted that in the section on liturgy it is already addressed to an extent and says that liturgies have to be blessed for use in worship. I think that, then, already accomplishes that need and, therefore, it is not needed in in the intro. However, if it is really important to some editors, I wanted to share that here. That could satisfy NPOV. Oned editor with whom I spoke said they may have some good ideas for how to honor the terms used by the Western Rite in accordance with NPOV. I certainly think that would be great. SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)