Western Rite Critic

A Balance to Contagious Enthusiasm

The threefold anathema on real discussion

So often the proponents of the WR rely on an out and out dismissal of concerns and an appeal to authority, without genuine consideration or discussion. All new discussion is considered out of vogue. All old discussion is swept into the categories of prejudice, fear of change, or misunderstanding. You know, though, this is really part of the way the culture approaches conflict. The theory is that all conflict is a result of:

  • misunderstanding: they disagree, because they don’t get it, they don’t understand that…
  • madness: they’ve obviously got some “deeper” issues, some personal problems with it
  • malice: they’re full of hate and are just trying to sabotage and cause us problems

With this theory, there can be no real, substantive conflict over genuine and honest differences of thought that merit a reasoned discussion. Painting opponents into the three categories indicates it is a culture not of discussion, or even of honest dialogue, but of propaganda. The sad thing is that it means in “American” cultural dialogue and the religious dialogue that draws on its assumptions, a reasoned, thoughtful discussion of concerns, which must credit the other side with intelligence and sincerity, cannot occur. If that is what the Western Rite depends upon, then it actually underscores our reasons for concern.

January 18, 2008 - Posted by | Western Rite Questions | , , , , , , ,


  1. My thoughts on the matter, not to speak for OM, are in [this thread].

    Comment by tuD | January 24, 2008 | Reply

  2. I agree with you Orthodoxmichael about this site being one-sided. Yet, I don’t think the discussion will be truly healthy as long as one, or all parties remain annonymous.

    You asked, “Why they (WRV)chose the liturgy that they did.” Well, there are only 2 approved WR liturgies in the AA. We, out here in the trenches, did not “choose” these liturgies…they have been handed down to us.

    As for WR Mysteriology including St. John of the Cross and St. Francis….from what I understand, don’t count on it. They are post-Schism. But hey, I’m the new kid on the block – so please don’t take my words as having authority.

    You also raised the question of a WR “Pre Vatican II Mass” being said in Latin, since that was universal before 1963. IMO the language a liturgy is said in is immaterial. Language in and of itself is simply a vehicle to communicate. Latin is not true or false, neither is Arabic, Greek, Russian, etc.

    Comment by Father Mark | January 23, 2008 | Reply

  3. This site seems a little one sided I would like to see more defense from the WRV or at least a good dialogue. I would like to know in their words why they chose the liturgy that they did. And will we see Western Rite Mysteriology and asceticism Such as St. John of the cross and St. Francis. If they are using a Pre Vatican II Mass should it not be said in Latin since that was universal before 1963?

    Just Some Thoughts…..

    Comment by orthodoxmichael | January 19, 2008 | Reply

Thoughts, Opinions, Comments?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: