By Fr. James Krueger, Saint Herman of Alaska Orthodox Church, Cloud-Bearing Mountain Christian Retreat & Training Center
I’ve recently been introduced to an Orthodox YouTube channel that posts, among other things, the lives of saints.1 Happily, it features a good deal of Western saints, especially those of the British Isles.As Orthodoxy retakes a foothold in Western Europe and the Americas, the Orthodox Church is slowly drawing back the thick curtain of division and rediscovering behind it a long-forgotten citizenship of heaven. Here in the West, however, these faithful saints who lived before the Roman Catholic Church forsook communion with the Orthodox were never forgotten.Those of us who are of Western European descent, even if American mutts, have known of and revered these saints our whole lives. Cities, streets, land features, holidays, family names—their remembrance is everywhere. Their lives are an integral part of our own; their culture a fertile bed out of which our own still draws nourishment. So are the liturgies that they legitimately celebrated, advanced, and enjoyed. These liturgies continue to provide an often unseen source of some of the best of our cultural patrimony.
As a convert to Orthodoxy and a canonical Orthodox priest with a blessing to celebrate the ancient Roman Liturgy, I am often struck by the sheer lack of regard that some Orthodox folks show toward these cultural roots. If Orthodox bishops and priests wish merely to be chaplains to immigrant communities from Eastern Europe or the Middle East, this is fine. Immigrant communities need to keep a strong remembrance of their ethnic and cultural identity so long as the living Christ remains its center.
But so do Western converts to Orthodoxy.
These converts often come into the fullness of the Christian life with coffers of gold gathered from their own rich heritages, heritages that reach back into a time when the West was fully Orthodox (and, on many accounts, Orthodox when the East was not). Even if entirely forgotten, vestiges of Orthodox Christian culture still rumble around the depths of the Western heart.
When the famous missionary Saint Augustine of Canterbury sought advice from then Pope Gregory the Great about the pagan culture he found in Britain, the Pope-Saint replied:
Tell Augustine that he should by no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he has purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God.
Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of the martyrs whose relics are preserved in them, build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the devil, but for the glory of God to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satiated. Thus, if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones.2
Saint Augustine of Canterbury, Evangelizer of England – commemorated on the Orthodox calendar May 26th
It has always been the way of the true Christian faith to transfigure human culture in this manner, as opposed to conversion by the sword. If pagan culture can be so baptized and converted, how much more the Orthodox heritage of the West!
Scroll Down to Continue
When the Holy Orthodox Church rejects the cultural patrimony of its converts, failing especially to bring what is rightfully hers back into her fold, she rejects her catholicity. She cuts herself off from her own rich heritage, robs from herself the adornments that are her own. The gifts of Rome and Salisbury alike will be brought to the King, along with those of Tarshish and Sheba.3 While I understand the concern for liturgical unity among an already confusing and divided Orthodoxy in the West, Orthodox unity never depended on a rigid liturgical, linguistic, or cultural uniformity. Our divisions and problems are the result of our sins. Liturgical conformity will never correct this. Only humility can.
While no Protestant liturgy can and should pass as Orthodox, we have at our disposal the texts, rubrics, and living examples of many of the liturgical rites once celebrated by these adored Western saints. Coming home to the Orthodox Church where these liturgies belong, they are adorned with the finery due to an authentic son. There is no reason why we should reject them simply because they are unfamiliar or “Western.”
I speak foolishly, but I challenge any Orthodox person—laity, clergy, bishop, metropolitan—to attend a liturgy here at Cloud-Bearing Mountain and tell me what is not Orthodox about it; what of it fails to give full expression to the divine and lovely mystery of Christ and his Church. And, because we are missionaries, we do it in a small room with the few accoutrements we can afford! This is not to say that a Western liturgy cannot be celebrated poorly. I have seen it many times. But a bad rendering of a good song is not the fault of the song. It must also be said that the liturgy we celebrate is more ancient and long-standing than that of Saint John Chrysostom (and most all other rites).
Western Rite Orthodoxy is not reverse Uniatism. The Byzantine Rite was never Roman Catholic, while the Roman Rite was for a thousand years fully Orthodox.
If Orthodox clergy are going to do more than be pastors to immigrant communities—if they are to have the mind and heart of missionaries and give back to the West the health she lost close to 1,000 years ago—it would be most fitting for them to reconcile with the Western Rite.
It seems to me that if we Orthodox are to remember and revere the pre-schism saints of the West, we must also remember and perform the liturgies they celebrated. Otherwise, our honor seems a little empty. After all, it is these very rites that inspired, fostered, and formed these most ordinary human beings toward genuine holiness.
-
Gregory I, Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216.
-
See Psalm 71 (LXX; 72 in Masoretic numbering).
Father Krueger, I get your point exactly. Like it or not, America is Britain’s child, and the way it worshiped for the first 2 centuries was first Anglican, then Roman Catholic–the Puritans had fully apostasized before the signed of the Declaration of Independence (now Unitarianism). Producing an “indigenous church” would be better facilitated with a western rite, no doubt about it. St Tihkon knew this to be true and why he had western rites approved my Moscow for use in the US. With the Russian Revolution, St Tihkon was called back to Russia and sencible missions in America largely stopped ending only with an immigrant Church in the lower 48. Alaska is an anomaly in that it once belonged to Russia where the Eastern Rite should continue due to cultural norms.
Classic Anglican Brits point to an indigenous church in England long before St Augustin of Canterbury got there; what could be called a “Celtic Church”. It had liturgy, it had bishops before Augustin set foot there. In my training under Bp. Sutton (REC), they claimed Joseph of Aramithea went there during the first persecution mention in Acts, and started preaching. In their respective history, the British church dates back to the first-second century. One of the things they take note of is Hadrian’s Wall, which was finished during the early 2nd century; that the Gospel had gone where Hadrian’s army could not, north to the blue people (extremely barbarous) into what is modern Scotland. Some of the oldest church buildings in the world are in England from this per-Augustin time frame.
When I read the 1929 BCP (used until 1979 and reflecting back to early America), I see a definite conflict between the Celtic spirituality of the prayers–most approved for Orthodox use–and the 39 Articles of Religion (doctrinal statement formed after the Reformation). The underlying definition of salvation in the prayers is Orthodox, whereas the 39 Articles define it differently.
England processed the Reformation very differently than did continental Europe…for another time.
I would be interested in seeing the verbiage of the Old Catholic Rite that you use; sounds very interesting.
That the OCA failed to approve a Western Rite, makes no sense at all and shows a lot of ignorance regarding what would comprise an “Indigenous Church” in the US consistent with her history going back to Britain which was Anglican and Roman Catholic (there still are many Catholics in Britain).. While the Eastern Rite in a fully orbed temple is a beautiful thing, it really does not mess well with Americana well enough to be indigenous.
Most of the decisions as to who uses Eastern Rite vs Western Rite is not made by the priests–unless they change jurisdictions–, but by the hierarchy, to me the choice would be clear. Go Western Rite or go the way of the dinosaur.
“Anything that is ingrown, becomes inbred and raises crazy children”.
By nature, an immigrant church cannot be otherwise; and often they lose their children altogether either to Protestantism or to the world. Over generations, the immigrant church is unsustainable–always has been, always will be.
.
What were the forms of Western Liturgy in 1054? Do we have any manusripts or “liturgicons” from that time, or ealier? The question in the article’s title may be misleading because it takes for granted that we understand what liturgies were celebrated by the Western Orthodox. The broad structure with Liturgy of the Word followed by the Eucharistic Liturgy is the same it seems; questions arise with the wording in the Eucharistic Canon. Correct me if I should be mistaken! Outside of textual changes are the vestments, some of which really do not fit in with Orthodox “phronema”. Pom-poms on birettas for instance! I once said that we could simply serve the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom with a Rood Screen rather than an Iconostas, entry and exit processions and Western-like vestments (which oddly enough look somewhat Greek). Is this such a silly idea?
Dear Fr Young,
yes, we have so many manuscripts prior to this the arbitrary date of 1054.See here for scans of many: The Digital Collection of Sources. They are so numerous that the oldest surviving liturgical manuscripts are not greek eastern ones but latin and greek western ones. Many Many many examples exist and a consistency in the text of the eucharistic anaphora is astounding. the earliest being the Bobbio Missal, Paris BNF Lat 13246, roughly contemporary with gregory the great. Has the Roman Canon in full very close to what we have today. Manuscript comparisons of text in Carolingian areas in the period right before the schism are actually showing a lot of places have the creed written out without the Filioque, Including places that one would have thought it would already be there. Fulda manuscript, SUB Göttingen, Cod. theol. 231 for example, The Digital Collection of Sources,if you go to the page 347, full creed, no filioque. This manuscript is from the period after Charlemagne so according to the narrative…
The focus in the American context has been to mimic pre vatican 2 tastes and sensibilities in order to make appeal to a certain generation. I think personally this is now a burden not a strength. This also leads to a lot of the later sentimental and honestly covertly erotic spirituality we see in things like the Sacred Heart and divine mercy devotions. These strange things are as foreign to ancient western practice as they are to eastern.
All the tools and sources are there but the leadership finds it more useful to wear french fiddlebacks, dedicate Fridays to the sacred heart, and have corpus christi processions. “Play” chapel in King Louis’s court.
My apologies for being so verbose. Yet, I think I can pinpoint why the Catholic Mass and the Anglican Liturgies are unacceptable in their respective traditions. The key differences are not in the overall structures. All liturgies are in two parts; the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Sacrament; the transition happening after the homily and other structural things are similar as well. And, keep in mind, many old line denominations did liturgy up until the 20th century, eg. the Lutherans.
The “deal breakers” are in the verbiage of the Epiclesis and how the Sacrament is defined. These are easily ironed out and I assume any Western Rite approved by an Orthodox jurisdiction made the adjustments.
Making distinctions with Roman Catholicism, the Reformers came up with the terms, “Transubstantiation” and “Consubstantiation”. In Transubstantiation, the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood and cease to be bread and wine. In Consubstantiation–including Anglicans–the “Real Presence” of God, stands along side the Eucharist. Now, the Orthodox don’t accept either–yet, Catholic is closer.
In Orthodox thinking the bread and wine become the Body and Blood (but, here’s the kicker), it also remains bread and wine; two things are true at the same time. How can it be otherwise? If Christ is “Fully God” and “Fully Man”, then the Sacraments are fully Divine and fully natural/earthy. Inherently, the Catholic view leans toward Nestorianism, and the Protestant/Anglican leans more toward Arianism–its not God. And most Protestant theologies formulated during the 20th century say the “communion” is a “Remembrance” only, nothing special about the Elements themselves.
How about we call the Orthodox view on the Sacraments, just “Substantiation”. Once the Epiclesis is recited, it becomes the Body and Blood, but remains bread and wine: Christ is substantiated as being Fully God and Fully Man at the same time. And this all ties in well with the Orthodox views on the nature of Existence, and the existence of creation being according to the “word of His power” as God’s “Energies” not His “Essence”. .
Now, here is another difference as articulated by theologians in each camp. For the Catholics, the celebration is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ, for the Anglicans–at least the very conservative one’s I knew–its a “reenactment” of the Last Supper (which seems a bit insufficient, but they had to make some kind of distinction). As for the Orthodox, the celebration is the participation in the eternal reality–that transcends all time and space. But, that’s what Holy Mysteries are: participations in eternal realities.
I know this about the Anglican Epiclesis: it was rewritten to reflect “Reformational” views of salvation which have no standing in the east, because “salvation” is viewed very differently by the Orthodox (you all know this). As a historical fact, England processed the Reformation very differently than continental Europe and why their praxis has stood the test of time until they altered it by remaking it in the 1979 BCP.
The biggest factor in the western drift was the “Enlightenment” the “Age of Reason” where human reasoning was applied to dogma. They absolutely had to just figure it out; they don’t know when to stop the cycle of the human brain trying to wrap itself around God and the things of God.
Fr. Krueger: great article with great points. But, more can be said and I know and understand the limitations of this sight, and the limitations of the reading capacity of moderns–keep it short.
Having just submitted a post regarding liturgy and its cosmological import, then reading what you said, I realized, these limitations–we can only digest one side of the coin at at time.
Due to God’s providence–not my planning at all–I have sat under what I consider two of the greatest minds of modern Christianity: Met. Irenei (ROCOR) over England and western Europe in his former Ss. Cyril and Athanasius Institute for distance learning as well as perhaps the greatest mind in the English speaking Anglican world, BP Ray Sutton (Reformed Episcopal Church–which secede from the TEC in 1873). In both studies, there was a module on liturgy and to me the most remarkable thing is how much agreement there was between the two.
Under Met. Irenei, I learned that in the beginning, there was no uniform liturgy as we know it. In the east there were about a dozen differing versions in various locations and the same in the west although they pretty much all contained the same basic elements. Over time, things consolidated largely due to the invention of the printing press, swifter modes of transportation and communication.. Met. Irenei delineated the elements between east and west–between Catholic and Orthodox and for the most part, the components are all there in each. Of course, in the Russian version, nobody passes the peace anymore.
Under Bp. Sutton-he showed the elements of the three liturgies as they came out of the Early Church: The Petrine Rite (Catholic–Tridentine Mass), the Rite of Ss. Paul and John that became the Gallican Rite (Anglican), and the Rite of St James that became the Rite of St. Basil that became the Rite of St John Chrysostom. In that study, each–even from the roots–were very similar, containing the same essentials.
“Episcopalian” is a bit of a misnomer as how it came to be. After the Revolutionary war, the Bishops in London refused to ordain American priests and bishops, so, they went to the Scottish jurisdiction to acquire the “Apostolic Succession”, and in Scotland–the Scots have always had to express themselves outside the British paradigms– who called their version of Anglican Episcopalian.
In reality, from the colonization of America until the 20th century, American Anglicanism was not that far removed from Orthodoxy, nor Roman Catholic. Modern Protestantism has buried some truths most modern Protestants refuse to accept: eg high veneration for the Holy Mother of God, the extended presence of monasteries, following a liturgical calendar.
According to Bp. Sutton, classic Anglicans–not those who have jumped over the cliff–fully embraced the first 4 Ecumenical Councils, and highly value the first 500 years of Anglican expression before Augustin of Canterbury got there; before any connect existed with Rome.
After St Tihkon left America, Orthodoxy in America has been a total flop. By definition, an immigrant church never becomes “indigenous.” How can it be otherwise? Furthermore, in the beginning of the OCA, it was understood it would become an “indiginous” church. But, it too was a total flop, because the OCA never approved a western rite–which was Anglican with the bugs worked out. St. Tihkon had it approved by the Moscow hierarchy.
St Tihkon understood what an “indigenous church” is to look like and if we ever are to have a fully “American” Orthodoxy, it would be a Western Rite embracing the mysticism of the ancient “Celtic” spirituality which is not far removed from Eastern Orthodoxy.
One of the truest expression of the Eastern Rite I’ve ever experienced was in a Malkite Eastern Rite Catholic Church in McLean Virginia. And, when visiting a Latin Mass (twice) I could sense all of the movements in the Russian style Eastern Rite. Go figure.
BTW: the reason ROCOR is less than enthusiastic about the Western Rite is by definition, ROCOR is a mission church–not indigenous–specifically tasked to minister to the Russian diaspora. While in some measure, they are stepping into the gap both in America and Europe due to no indigenous expression of Orthodoxy. So, I don’t blame them there. .
I would very much like to address this, but not in a comment at 2:00am lol.
Years ago, I did bookmarks to give away at the baptism of my grand-kids. Then, i realized that saints, like St. Oliver of Ancona, and St. Bernard of Menton, who lived decades before the Schism are forgotten and, at least, ignored by the Eastern Orthodoxy. Even saints, like St. Edmund the Martyr (of East Anglia), who lived in the 9th century, are now recognized only on Wikipedia. When an Eastern Orthodox diocese is established in the West, they care mostly of their ethnic saints. The Synaxarion reading is including only modern saints after the Schism or early Christian martyrs.
This is a very interesting article and so are the comments. As a cradle Greek Orthodox woman living in Canada, I have never experienced a WR Orthodox church and I don’t even know if there are any up here. I will say this, however: After recent divisive Eucharistic events and the Ecumenist movement among our hierarchy whom we are all watching very closely until the Easter 2025 count down, the average pious Greek Orthodox has become increasingly vigilant and wary of orthodox counterfeits such as Eastern Rite Catholics, and Greek speaking Protestant sects, not to mention carefully checking out Oriental Orthodox churches to ensure they don’t harbour the Monophysite heresy. So, in the name of Orthodox unity within a secular world, sometimes appearances do matter, in so far as reassuring the Orthodox visitor from another jurisdiction that said church is essentially Orthodox. Every jurisdiction doesn’t and shouldn’t have to be a carbon copy of the Greeks, but if appearances are too different it can raise issues of trust. At the very least, WR Orthodox churches should post somewhere who they really are and whose liturgy they celebrate and who they are in communion with. If they could do that much (in fact I think all jurisdictions should do that), then tensions would definitely ease – at least they would for me.
Fantastic suggestions!
The Western Rite would gain greater credibility if its adherents fully embraced the richness of pre-Schism Orthodox traditions, avoiding post-Schism practices such as devotion to the Sacred Heart or the veneration of figures like Francis of Assisi. These elements, which stem from theological developments foreign to Orthodox tradition, conflict with the Orthodox phronema and create confusion about the true nature of Orthodoxy.
The Western Rite should be evaluated by its spiritual fruits, yet challenges often arise when efforts are made to reinvent or adapt practices rather than faithfully preserving the Orthodox ethos as transmitted by the Church Fathers and saints, and as faithfully preserved by our Eastern brethren. Instead of trying to conform Orthodoxy to Western frameworks or personal preferences, one must conform themselves fully to the Orthodox Faith. The example of the Alaskan natives illustrates this beautifully: they wholeheartedly embraced the faith brought to them by the Church without seeking to reshape it. Their simple and devout reception of Orthodoxy is a testament to its transformative power when left unaltered.
Ironically, criticisms that Eastern Orthodoxy is overly “ethnic” are mirrored in the attempts to create a Western Rite that often comes across as an artificial construct—a “skeleton” unearthed and given new flesh, sometimes encumbered with Anglican or Roman Catholic features/baggage. Such efforts can appear more like role-playing than living out an authentic Orthodox ethos. This lack of organic growth is one reason why ROCOR has paused the development of Western Rite projects in the U.S., and why other jurisdictions, such as the Antiochians, may eventually follow suit.
A genuine Orthodox experience is one that adapts organically over time, deeply rooted in the Church’s life and sacramental tradition. In our Antiochian parish, for example, we experience a truly American pan-Orthodox community. Our priest, a second-generation Dutch convert with Greek heritage, leads a diverse congregation that includes Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, Romanian, Albanian, Serbian, and Anglo-American faithful. This remarkable mix of backgrounds exemplifies the universality of Orthodoxy while maintaining the traditions handed down through the centuries. There is no desire to warp Orthodoxy into something it is not. Rather, the faith is allowed to work in us and heal us, naturally and authentically, as we live it out in the context of our lives. This, I believe, is the true strength and calling of Orthodoxy in America.
Have you ever attended a Western Rite liturgy?
Interesting that you bring up the Aleuts:
How the Orthodox Church adapted to Aleutian culture
Learned the native language: Missionaries learned the native language and taught bilingual education.
Allowed natives to participate in church affairs: Missionaries gave natives latitude in conducting church affairs.
Communicated the faith in native terms: Missionaries communicated the faith in terms that the native Alaskans could understand.
How the Orthodox Church became part of the Aleutian cultural identity
Preserved Unangax̂ history: The Orthodox Church played a key role in preserving Unangax̂ history.
Synthesized Orthodoxy with Aleutian culture: The Orthodox Church synthesized Orthodoxy with Aleutian culture, incorporating many native traditions into the church.
Became a multicultural faith: The Orthodox Church became a multicultural faith that the indigenous people could call their own.
Why the Orthodox Church became part of the Aleutian cultural identity?
The Unangax̂ perceived similarities between their religiosity and that of Russian Orthodoxy.
The Orthodox Church’s practice of blessing lakes, oceans, and rivers on Epiphany made sense to the Kodiak Natives.
Just as in the article Pope Gregory gave St. Augustine specific advice on how to adapt the expression of the faith to local needs, thus did the missionaries to the Aleuts do so as well. This is not to say that the Church in America will adopt the Western Rite, or that the Western Rite will even survive. This is to say, however, that Orthodoxy is destined to remain in the U.S. and will, over time, need to redeem what can be redeemed, and supplant what needs to be supplanted in our culture.
Thanks for your reply and for sharing those points about the Aleutian missions. I actually think the example you’ve provided strongly bolsters my argument. The way Orthodoxy adapted to Alaskan culture highlights the transformative power of the Faith when it is brought in its fullness, without compromise or reconstruction.
In Alaska, the missionaries brought the full Orthodox Faith and allowed it to take root in the local culture. They didn’t try to revive or reconstruct pre-Christian religious practices or blend them into the Church. Instead, they preserved what was good—such as the native language and cultural traditions—while introducing Orthodoxy in a way that transformed the people. The result wasn’t a hybrid faith but a truly Orthodox one. This is very different from what’s happening with the Western Rite, where efforts to bring back pre-Schism liturgical forms often come with post-Schism baggage that doesn’t align with Orthodox theology or ethos.
To answer your question, yes, I’ve attended a Western Rite liturgy. It was actually one of the first services I went to when I was exploring Orthodoxy. At the time, I didn’t really know much about the differences, but now that I’ve attended services in the Republic of Georgia, Greece, on Mount Athos, and in the U.S.—including 100% Russian parishes, 50-50 Russian parishes, 100% Arabic parishes, and 100% convert parishes (Serbian, OCA, ROCOR, and Antiochian)—I can say the Western Rite felt entirely disconnected. All the other services, despite being so culturally different, shared a similar thread, look, and feel—they felt like the same thing… they felt Orthodox. The Western Rite, on the other hand, felt like something entirely different, more like an experiment rather than part of the same Church.
I also recently watched the documentary Sacred Alaska, which shows how the Alaskan natives embraced Orthodoxy when it was brought to them. That really stood out to me. They went from being non-Orthodox to fully Orthodox by conforming themselves to the faith they received, not by trying to reshape it. That’s what Orthodoxy in America should be doing, too. This country isn’t Orthodox, and the Christianity here is far from it—some even call America neo-pagan. It’s not an Orthodox country, and therefore it’s not a baptized land. Like the Alaskans, we need to conform to the faith brought to us, not try to conform it to ourselves.
I think Orthodoxy in the U.S. has a lot to offer if we trust in the fullness of the faith and let it transform the culture organically, without trying to rebuild or reshape things like the Western Rite. Thanks again for the discussion—it’s always good to talk about these things.
I can see your concerns. I’ve only ever been to ROCOR Western Rite (WR) parishes and haven’t ran into problems you described since: must have an iconostasis, no instruments, no sacred heart, adoration, must be old calendar, no fiddleback vestments and have one communion chalice with leavened bread+wine. So far lovely parishioners and priests who love *all* of Orthodoxy. Really the only hurdle it presents are those who convert for the wrong reasons- wanting to be externally Western without internally becoming Orthodox. Never attended any Antiochian WR but from the live streams I’ve watched some have organs, give communion with the wafers (I’ve heard it’s technically leavened yet it’s pressed down) so there is where I share your concerns.
Here’s my thought on the WR: Overtime it seems like the church found it right to be of one accord as much as possible- down to who’s liturgy we celebrate and how we even cross ourselves (sorry Old Believers). Yet within the East there are still differences between Greeks, Serbs, Georgians, Romanians and Russians in how things are expressed. So we must ask are we still too immature in the West to go off on our own liturgy, vestments, music, and liturgical practices? Only time will tell if the people keep the Orthodox core or start to drift back into la-la-Latin land. So far I trust the priests to keep the flock in check and help root out the Vatican tares that pop up here and there.