221
edits
Changes
Undo revision 80881 by JosephSuaiden (Talk)
Finally, more historically minded criticisms of the Western Rite usually center around the idea that it is untenable to try to revive a liturgical tradition which was lost centuries ago when the West fell away from the [[Orthodox Church]]. This argument essentially states that, because the Western Rite died out in the Church, and because a continuous living tradition is a necessary element of liturgical practice, the Western Rite ought to be abandoned and only developments from the Byzantine Rite ought to be pursued.
In contrast to this claim, others note that it is not a dogmatic principle of the Church that liturgical traditions can neither be revived nor created. After all, there are whole services even within the Byzantine Rite which are not universally practiced (e.g., the [[molieben]]), so they must have been invented somewhere along the way rather than being part of the [[typikon]] when it first came into the form we now know it. Even then, the rites being used by Western Rite Orthodox Christians are not new, but mainly predate the [[Great Schism]]. The most notable exception to this rule is the [[Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow]], which is commonly accepted to be an adaptation of the Communion service from the 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer and The Anglican Missal in the American Edition.
Bishop [[Jerome (Shaw) of Manhattan]] (ROCOR) also argues the little-known Liturgy of St. Peter, a [[liturgy]] identical to that of the Byzantine rite with the ancient Gregorian canon in its place, never fell out of use within Orthodoxy. The Old Believers and others celebrated this, explicitly endorsing the validity of the Western canon. At present, the historicity of this assertion is not universally accepted.
