Fr. Anthony Nelson (Archimandrite Benedict, + June 14, 2026) on the Western Rite

 

It is understandable that someone who sought to live as pious a life as possible in whatever religious circumstance he might have been previously to encountering Christ in Orthodoxy might want to hold on to those devotions and ways that gave some kind of comfort in that pre-Orthodox existence. I did, too. But I learned that it's just not possible to have it our way: the Church is *not* Burger-King! When be find that it is time to leave spiritual childhood behind and become a man, we must also leave behind the things of a child and take on the things of a man (slight paraphrase of St. Paul, there, but it seems to work....). If we are to admit that the Church is what she claims to be: the *one*, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, then we either take her for what she is and what she offers to us - as well as the *way* she offers it or, like the rich young man, we go away sorrowfully, unwilling to part with those false "riches" which cannot bring us to God. Frankly, that's part of my discomfort (how's that for gentle) with the whole idea of a so-called "western rite" and it's necessary liturgical archaeology to attempt to put back into service (no pun intended) that which was long abandoned by the Church.

Anyway, our Lord calls us to Himself - to His Church. He says, "Come unto me...," but He does *not* say, "Come unto me and remake me as you will...."

- November 29, 1997, Orthodox Christianity listserv (a.k.a., “the Indiana List).

* * *

Aside from all the problems of liturgical archaeology and attempting to retro-fit a heretical "western rite" to orthodoxify it, the problem of baggage remains: when one insists on holding on to that which is heterodox - in this case a system of worship - can one be considered to have made a conversion of heart and mind to Orthodoxy, or at least not to be bogged down by that baggage in making that conversion? I think not. Running *away* from things like ordained homosexuals and priestesses in someplace like ECUSA is a *lot* different from seeking Orthodoxy. The ECUSA/Anglican folk I know all consider themselves to be already Orthodox, in spite of their heterodoxy. I know of one "western rite" Priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese who, when an old buddy of his was made a bishop in one of the Continuing Anglican groups, went back there and asked for a release from the Archdiocese!

Oh...for those enquiring minds who want to know: he didn't get one, thank God.

Responding to: "I guess the thing that stands out to me is why do we need a 'Western Rite'?"

We don't. It's an effort both to provide a "back-door" into Orthodoxy with a minimum of effort/commitment/acceptance of change and submit to a demand that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom not be "imposed" upon westerners. I was specifically told by the Metropolitan that "We have no right to impose the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on them" in speaking about this matter when I was in the AA.

- July 26, 1997, Orthodox Christianity listserv (a.k.a., “the Indiana List).

* * *

Subject: Re: WR

From: Fr. Anthony Nelson

Date: Friday, November 19, 2010 1:28pm

Dear Chris,

God bless you.

Thanks for the note.

Regarding the messages on the link you sent, about which you wrote:

I'm interested to learn more about how you had such a change of heart.

The best and most direct answer is, "I didn't."

I was writing specifically in regard to the Antiochian AWRV and everything I wrote was and is true. They continue to abuse the W/R and cause consternation among the faithful.

I was ordained in the Antiochian Church and was sent to Oklahoma almost 30 years ago as Missions Coordinator for the Southwest Region of the Archdiocese. At that point I became bi-ritual (Metropolitan Philip said to me, "Bone up on the western-rite...you're going to have to work with them and with those who want to come into the Archdiocese.") While not thrilled, I was not particularly opposed to it, because my only contact with it was with parishes which had come into the AA as W/R, but changed to Byzantine. I had been involved in retraining some of the clergy while I was still in seminary (I was ordained at the end of my second year).

My comments about those fleeing from something rather than particularly seeking Orthodoxy were accurate, and may still be in some cases. But there are few, if any, of those in the RCRO or among Anglicans (at least in N. America) who still want out: by now anyone even slightly interested in the Faith has gone.

In England that's probably not true...but even there one might observe that since there has been a run of sorts by disenchanted Anglicans to Rome's new Vicariate for them, that it's another example of more interest in "smells and bells" than in Faith and Tradition. But now that Fr. Michael is actively promoting Orthodoxy in England, some are finding out that they can actually have something familiar and the fulness of the Faith at the same time.

We began the W/R in Oklahoma City as a two-fold obedience...to test the waters to see if there was any interest locally in a W/R (there wasn't...even the AWRV parish that started up several years later was a group of "Charismatic Episcopalians" who never got out of each others' living rooms until the Antiochians took them in and helped them. It never had more than a few people and they are quite a bit fewer now: some didn't come along to Orthodoxy, some joined the Antiochian Byzantine-rite parish, some fell by the way-side.) The other part of that obedience is polity-related and best left to itself.

We continue to serve the W/R because when done according to the Tradition of the Church it is a good thing...we began it, and there's no particularly pressing reason to quit. I find it a spiritual gift which adds to my own spiritual growth in some ways. But I am not a proponent of the W/R per se. I continue to believe that it is a useful tool if used properly in as fully an Orthodox traditional manner as possible (and it *is* possible). Yet I see some of the same problems with it in our Church as appeared among the Antiochians and, of course, among the multitude of non-canonical and psuedo-Orthodox who practice some form of it.

If I were in a position in which it would be necessary to choose for myself (and for my spiritual children) between the W/R and the Typikon of the Russian Church, it would be no contest: the W/R would fall by the way-side. Like you mentioned about yourself, soon after my conversion I found the existence of a W/R interesting, but none was anywhere near me. When I had to begin to work with the W/R people as I mentioned above, I realized that I had become thoroughly Byzantinized, and had/have no desire to go back.

I could ramble on and on, but I think the above ought to help you understand my earlier comments which you read. Interesting, isn't it, how nothing that shows up on the internet ever really goes away?

Fr. Anthony