That being the case, I am finding it hard to understand how you can have such confidence with an air of “for thus is Holy Orthodoxy!” when a good deal of what you confidently proclaim is still quite up for debate… and I anticipate that will be the case for some time to come…

BTW – as someone who has spent years in Antiochian, Greek, and other ‘ethnic parishes’ – it isn’t like ‘Big Fat Greek Wedding’, anymore than ‘Godfather I/II/II/etc.’

I wouldn’t have thought I would be compelled to really explain this one, the reference was meaning that some people could just as likely go a lifetime never seeing the inside of an Orthodox Church and that would be a pop culture reference… It wasn’t about if all Greeks act like that loveably looney family. I would have thought that obvious – sorry I was not clearer.

Your misunderstanding might be related to this misconception about Orthodoxy as a whole: “autocephalous polyarchy.”

I am trying to understand how this is a misconception on my part. On paper and in praxis the Eastern Orthodox are in fact an autocephalous group of churches and it is a polyarchy with multiple heads of national churches that enjoy autonomy.

“Per Christum” before its WRO post anomaly was an interesting blog with links to Hallowedground, haligweorc, Stony Creek Digest, Shrine of the Holy Whapping, and other long-time favorites. I apologize if de-lurking offended sensibilities.

No apologies needed. Rather we thank you for including us among that venerable list of august bloggers… I hope you have been able to enjoy us since that time.

As a matter of fact – I do know a number of second generation WRO, and know of some who are third and forth generation (though, not in the AWRV.) Then again – every AU parish is first generation, as are some other small ‘ritually different’ entities in the Roman communion (Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is only 18 years old IIRC.)

On the former, that is an impressive feat. On the latter, given that the AU parishes are no older than 25 years or so, I would expect about that… But Saint Marys the Virgin in Texas does have a thriving parochial school attached, so it can’t rightly be said that there is no second or even possible third generation there. Children attending the school and as a result weekday Masses may well end up attending Anglican-use parishes 2x-3x more than your average Anglican!

On the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, that is a religious order and not a church or even distinctive ritual expression (they use the 1962 books without any special alteration specifically for them…)

We do appreciate your comments.

Your misunderstanding might be related to this misconception about Orthodoxy as a whole: “autocephalous polyarchy.”

To understand the ‘why’ of Western rite liturgics (and I speak as one in the Russian rather than Antiochian tradition) you would need to read J.J. Overbeck, and the Russian Observations on the Book of Common Prayer to begin with. The St. Tikhon’s (particular to the Antiochians, and which outsiders seem to think all WRO use), is in fact far closer to the traditional Roman rite in form than the Anglican Use of the Roman church. That has much to do with the history of Anglo-Catholicism, admittedly. The process of canonically admitting the rites (done by Synodal action – befitting Orthodoxy’s position as Conciliar Catholicism) was not all that different than the Tridentine reformation of the Roman rite. That is, both processes looked back at the way the rite was done in the past, and then simplified it of accretions (and in some cases, mistakes that had crept in.) That is to say – the Orthodox Western rites are not yet perfect.

Regarding the issue of ‘anti-Westernism’, part of the understanding we Western Orthodox operate under include:
1) The West was never monolithic in praxis, theology, or culture.
2) Not everything done after the schism in the West is heretical, and like everything must be judged foremost by the Faith itself (the same process used with the Byzantine rite.)
3) The faithfulness we have to the Western patrimony includes things that some Roman Catholics also value: Conciliarity (the Conciliar Movement of the 14th/15th c. we assert was in continuity with the Apostolic tradition), Ultra-Realism, the theology of St. John Cassian, and other matters that were and are perfectly Catholic – no matter how much the more recent triumph of the Schoolmen/Thomism, neo/crypto-Jansenism (over emphasis of an understanding of St. Augustine), and Ultramontanism. The existence of Western Rite Orthodox has something to do with the past-1000 years of Western Catholic dissent with the growing claims of Rome against a tradition held in common with the East.

You are right about the question being moot: for numbers (of which I’ve even given up in exasperation – numbers only count for how much attention a given community gets from its diocesan apparatus.) As a matter of fact – I do know a number of second generation WRO, and know of some who are third and forth generation (though, not in the AWRV.) Then again – every AU parish is first generation, as are some other small ‘ritually different’ entities in the Roman communion (Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is only 18 years old IIRC.)

The question is: why does it garner such interest with certain groups? BTW – “one of which posted here and tends to show up where-ever it is discussed [we all need hobbies]” – it might be simply that a reader you already had was surprised by the topic being brought up on a blog that one would not expect it. “Per Christum” before its WRO post anomaly was an interesting blog with links to Hallowedground, haligweorc, Stony Creek Digest, Shrine of the Holy Whapping, and other long-time favorites. I apologize if de-lurking offended sensibilities.

We Western Rite Orthodox don’t really worry about ‘growth’ – and maybe we are a ‘nice market’. One of our number dubbed us the ‘Orthodox department of waifs and strays’. It reminds me a little of one of the old Byzantine dioceses in the Holy Land ‘Of the Camps’ – which was established for the conversion of those wandering the deserts. For many of us, this was the hope of Western Rite Orthodoxy – and a cure to the Eastern phyletism (which does exist, though officially it should not – both in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.)

BTW – as someone who has spent years in Antiochian, Greek, and other ‘ethnic parishes’ – it isn’t like ‘Big Fat Greek Wedding’, anymore than ‘Godfather I/II/II/etc.’ is a realistic portrayal of American Catholicism. It is also not at all about ‘doing our thing’ and, as I’ve noted elsewhere – not all that ‘ex-Anglican’. There is an argument that the liberalisation of Old Catholicism is related to the reception of the more traditional into WRO bodies (some admittedly much reduced: WWII did a number on our dioceses in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and France.) A good number of us were never Episcopalians/Anglicans.

As for your idea of a Westernized Byzantine rite – it has already been tried as well, and found wanting. We don’t mix rites. Rome has the same rule. There is also, as I mentioned before, no sense of Romaphobia. If we do the Roman rite, we do it in a sense of being faithful to the universal Church. It isn’t for ‘fiddlebacks’ (in which I’m not interested one bit) or ‘organs’ (which I don’t mind as well as they are played well and without novelty.)

And a side note for WRC. LOL! It’s like Jack Chick, but you’re serious.

As my mother would say, “Hey, it keeps them of the streets!”

I am, as I explained, at a loss to understand how the Antiochians can wholesale baptize a NEW (to Orthodoxy!) set of services in this fashion, when schisms have wreaked havoc in Orthodoxy over far smaller matters of revisions & reforms in Byzantine usage (Nikonian, Revised Julian, etc.)

The nature of autocephalous polyarchy being what it is, one would suspect adapting and adopting the BCP would generally be frowned upon as most hierarchs tend to not wish to go “too far off the reservation” on matters that an Ecumenical council might be needed to address.

IT isn’t the services themselves that are as problematic to me (I fully support the efforts of Anglican-use communities in the Catholic Church – all 8/9 of em!)

IT is the claim that this usage is rooted in historic “Western Orthodoxy” combined with the assertion of episcopal prerogatives in approving such a right. Even if Saint Tikhon DID bless it in the fashion pro-WRO suggest, dare I offer that even the blessing of a saint doesn’t make it kosher. (Or maybe it does, in which case certain contradistinctive polemicists need to reconsider their thinking on Scholasticism , Ignation Spiritual Exercises and Saint Thomas Aquinas, as different Orthodox saints CAN be found who much admired and approved of all of the above…)

Perhaps ultimately, in the economy of it, it must be decided what will be traded or sacrificed and what will be saved. Mark Wallace (who I believe was just ordained to the priesthood for the Antiochians) showed up on a forum espousing a strongly anti-western, anti-Augustinian view that presupposes the west “went off the rails” almost 1600 years ago and it is only gotten worse. If one takes that position, it seems REALLY incongruent to wish to serve a Western rite liturgy, which is so rooted in “corrupt western patrimony.”

But considering that question, in the light of the relative non-numbers of WRO in world Orthodoxy, it seems fairly moot. I have heard “10,000 adherents” for a decade and a half, and I certainly DO NOT believe that, anymore than I EVER believed the OCA’s (one time) claim of 1,000,000+!!!!

IF there are even 2,000 (and that is very high!) adherents for 30 parishes (I think that is high too) that would give us parishes of 66 people per.

I am not familiar with more than two parishes (maybe)that large. I am not aware of more than one parish over 25 years old. I have not met a second let alone third generation Western Riter online.

To accommodate them in such a fashion while letting go of certain anti-western distinctives prevalent in the voices of modern Orthodoxy, seems like a bigger sacrifice that a group not well known or widely accepted would warrant.

WRC, while I am fairly sympathetic to your viewpoint – I share some of your conclusions, with different arguments – I am not totally certain this very small group warrants this sort of time effort and attention. While certain pro-WRO seem omnipresent on the net (one of which posted here and tends to show up where-ever it is discussed [we all need hobbies]), I don’t believe they are appreciably growing or sustainable. They appeal to a very limited niche market.

Honestly, it is simply too esoteric.

“Join my church, we are Orthodox!”
“Like in My Big Fat Greek Wedding?”
“No, we are western rite”
“Like Catholics”
“Yes, but Orthodox”
“Using the Catholic Mass?”
“A version of it and/or the Anglican BCP”
“So like Anglicans?”
“But corrected of scholastic error & Protestantism!”
“Oh”

It is too kitschy, too esoteric, too limited to ex-Anglicans wanting a few more years of “doing their thing.”

Think about your average unbaptized, unchurched, American heathen. Once you talk them into Christianity and get to the point where they are ready to accept not just some vague “I accept Jesus” but also His church and his grace-giving sacraments…

Well getting them to affirm and believe that the great big Roman Church – 1.1B strong, growing, on all 7 continents, united under a powerful leader who gets his annual “Christmas special” broadcast around the world live… They got it wrong!! (Fair enough, most of the world is non-Catholic, that opinion is legitimate…) and theirs is not the legitimate patrimony of Western Christianity!

The Orthodox (the ones that accept Chalcedon that is, not those non-chalcedonian heterodox!) DID get it right, and now, using rites formulated by the wrong Romans or the Anglicans that broke off from the wrong Romans but were still wrong… Well you can be right! They are the western orthodox!

All 700 of you!

Simpler still? If they (the heathens) are going to go for fiddlebacks and organs, they are going to pick the cool German bishop who has his own country surrounded by Rome.

(Or Anglican if they are gay.)

Dare I say, offering the DL in Gregorian Chant (its been done, I have heard the music in Russia) with organs and icononstasis removed (the modern icon screen is of recent origin anywho) would be a far more legitimate and practical hat-tip to people of Western patrimony?

No, I don’t dare say that!

Eastern Orthodoxy (Overview)http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp

Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodoxhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

Wonderful Leo
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902fea2.asp

HOW THE POPE CAUGHT A ROBBER
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806eaw.asp

CELESTINE: DEFENDER OF THEOTOKOS
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804eaw.asp

PELAGIUS AND THE POPEhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9803eaw.asp

STRENGTHENING BRETHRENhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801eaw.asp

COUNCIL MINUS PAPACY EQUALS CHAOShttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp

PAPAL PRIMACY AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEAhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

WILL THE REAL ST. CYPRIAN PLEASE STAND?http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704eaw.asp

THE EPIPHANY OF THE ROMAN PRIMACYhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702eaw.asp

PETER AND THE ORTHODOX: A REPRISEhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp

SEEING PETER THROUGH EASTERN EYES http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9604eaw.asp

The Eastern Doctrine of the Catholic Churchhttp://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9510fea1.asp

PAPAL AUTHORITY AT THE EARLIEST COUNCILS
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101fea2.asp

Church & Papacy
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

Contraception
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Permanence of Matrimony
http://www.catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asphttp://members.aol.com/johnprh/marriage.html

Western “Eastern Orthodoxy” as Boutique Religion http://sarabitus.blogspot.com/2007/03/western-eastern-orthodoxy-as-boutique.html

THE HOPKO LETTER
http://www.orthodoxnet.com/redirect-oca.php?url=http://www.ocanews.org/news/Hopkoletter319.html

A CATHOLIC VIEW OF ORTHODOXY
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html

CHOOSING A CHURCH-DIALOGUE WITH AN EASTERN BROTHER
http://unasancta.wordpress.com/choosing-a-church-dialogue-with-an-eastern-brother/

WHY I AM NOT EASTERN ORTHODOX
http://www.likelierthings.com/?p=247

Then let us say Revised Julian calendar. The others seemed to know my meaning on this. Sorry to be confusing.

What makes it a Byzantine beard? Does he describe it as a Byzantine beard? The West *does* have a tradition of bearded clergy (even untrimmed beards.) And, that even before Vatican II. I’m guessing this is Fr. Nicholas Alford being spoken of? See the 15th photo in this post, under ‘Engelbert Dolfuss’ http://hallowedground.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/where-the-bishop-is/ Beards do not equal Byzantine.

“But on the WRO church websites you see the same thing in reverse – adopt some of the externals of your church’s dominant rite to prove your loyalty.”

No – I know you’ve continued to make that accusation over the years, but it still isn’t happening.

“That DC area WRO priest’s church IIRC has icons and ripidia (brass liturgical fans) behind the altar – whatever for? “

We’ve been through this before. The ripidia are not used at that parish. They have them (and display them) because they were a gift. Icons, again, are not particularly Eastern either. I’ve pointed out that especially in our British tradition, iconography was normative – Daniel Rock DD even made much out of that fact.

As for the iconography in the AWRV parishes – calling them Byzantine doesn’t make them Byzantine. They are Romanesque (and, yes – the mural at St. Michael’s is Romanesque.) The Ordo directs the use of Romanesque iconography. Yes, the Ordo also directs a theology of iconography to be taught to converts – but that was because many Episcopalians did not hold to the 7th council, and were not familiar with iconography. Again – it isn’t a Byzantinization.

“The form of Confirmation in WRO has been gutted with the Byzantine form now at the heart of the ceremony.”

I’m looking at the form we use right now, and I don’t see anything Byzantine. In fact, it looks remarkably like the rite of Confirmation in the 1549 BCP (but with an absolution, and the Pontifical blessing at the end, as it is in the Rubric even for the Roman rite – it is, rather, the Western form used when the priest confirms at the direction of his Bishop.)

“This ‘cut-and-paste’ approach to rites …” … isn’t what we do, and won’t be true after you’ve continued to charge us with it. It isn’t Tridentine Roman rite, and it isn’t High Church BCP – but it isn’t ‘cut-and-paste’ either.

Anyway…

I mentioned the phenom of Byzantine and other Eastern Catholics swamped in a sea of Latin Catholicism self-latinising, sometimes beyond recognition. The tiny Russian Catholic Church and the Melkites are among the most Orthodox/least latinised in practice; the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic churches heavily latinised (you even see Eucharistic ministers and altar girls in some places) and the Maronite Church, not a Byzantine Rite church but its own thing, distantly related to the Syrian Church, practically Novus Ordo with westward celebrations and lectors.

I’ve never been to a WRO church or service but have met three real live WRO, a former Anglo-Catholic curate (he wrote the Anglican Service Book that Good Shepherd, Rosemont published) who now has a long Byzantine beard, one of his parishioners in metro DC and a nice priest, former RC layman, very keen on Anglo-Catholic traditions who later lived his dream – he’s now a WRO rector doing Anglo-Catholic services!

But on the WRO church websites you see the same thing in reverse – adopt some of the externals of your church’s dominant rite to prove your loyalty.

Rome COMMANDS the Eastern Catholics NOT to do that but they’ve long disobeyed and done it anyway.

That DC area WRO priest’s church IIRC has icons and ripidia (brass liturgical fans) behind the altar – whatever for? They are not used in either of the two approved Antiochian Western rites. St Mark’s, Denver, an old Anglo-Catholic parish reconstituted in a new building, has Byzantine icons as its reredos. Again, why? St Michael’s, Whittier, California now has Byzantine-like murals. (I know mediæval Western churches had murals but here the byzantinisation is obvious.)

The form of Confirmation in WRO has been gutted with the Byzantine form now at the heart of the ceremony.

This ‘cut-and-paste’ approach to rites gives you something that’s still Catholic, that’s still orthodox, but makes what seems on the surface an acceptance of this tradition really look like an ultimate diss of it rather like Fr Skublics said.

That would have been an innovation though – WRO is a continuity of a tradition which has existed the bulk of its existence inside the Orthodox Church. The Byzantine rite has never been celebrated in Latin vestments (and rarely in Latin, though that has happened in the past – no one is really interested in it.)

“I understand how the folks get to WRV and who they were…. I wanna know where they go.”

They die, some of them have to subsist in Byzantine rite for a period. For the first few decades of the WRV it was primarily monastic in nature (only a handful of small parishes, served by the Clerks Secular of St. Basil out of St. Luke’s Priory.) The first parishes were really the first Tikhonite parishes. It was the same way with our Russian WRO in the US – it was primarily monastic until recently. In Europe, there are still many who are generational (though they now might have mixed use with Romania, Serbia or Moscow, or seek union with ROCOR.)

“I have been reading the same stats for some 10 years… “20 parishes, 10,000 members”

No one has updated that interview – at one period they did. The number has changed, of course, over time. A few missions were too small to survive, or found themselves inundated with confused Eastern immigrants, or lost their clergy (and in a couple of notorious cases, had scandal because a sent priest forcibly Byzantinized them – which their Metropolitan has promised would not happen again.) I think now they are larger than they ever were. 150 years, not just ‘kicked around’, but progressively implemented with all Eastern Orthodox ‘haste’. The Synods have also made some mistakes, and moved on the wiser. I’m guessing you are counting from the incomplete list of 20 on the unofficial St. Mark’s directory? Either way – no problem. There are also Byzantine missions that fluctuate, don’t exist anymore. Whole autocephalous and autonomous churches that are smaller than WRO might be as a whole.

One – no one moved from Julian to Gregorian (except Finland, and that caused no schism, division or stress.) That, and the Antiochians didn’t just ‘declare…service books “as Orthodox”.

“One wonders if they have considereda Maronite, Syriac, or Coptic vicarate as well…”

http://www.roca.org/bishop_john.htm Our Russian church had an Assyrian Orthodox Church, which used East Syriac and the liturgy of the Twelve Apostles (two of my best friends from ORU grew up in this church in northern Iran.) The community had been heavily persecuted, and many that fled to Iraq are now under the Antiochian Patriarch (I believe there they use the Byzantine rite in Syriac.) There was also a mission in North India during the 70s-80s, but I’m not sure what became of it. In any case, I believe that there have not been any Non-Chalcedonians approaching the Orthodox for reception.

“The East had a bit more of a dillemna – if you have strong and pressing concerns about elements of “heterodoxy” in the west after the “abandonment of Orthodoxy”, well that begins to complicate things I suppose.”

There’s the rub – from the outside (or inside a few local cults), there might exist an idea of ‘magic Orthodoxy’. However, with regards to what exactly was heterodox in the West, the East was fully aware as to the particulars. In the evaluation (which originally was not Antioch’s, but began with Russia, and every local Church also evaluated in the late 19th c.), there was a precise list as to what needed purged, what needed clarified, and what needed changed. After all, it had been a matter under theological consideration as to the reception of converts from Western communions previously – what did they have to confess at their baptism/chrismation, what they had to repudiate.

“From there I guess the next best question is “Is that which is not heterodox, Orthodox?” (If the answer to the latter question is “yes”, has the window for all sorts of other innovation been opened? I don’t know.)”

No, because it isn’t a question of innovation. That which is not heretical is allowed, and always has been in *any* rite of Orthodoxy. Only that which creates a problem, by teaching something against the dogma of the Church, is heretical. Both the Russians and Antiochians have taught us that – and surprisingly, every other Church as well (in the majority, there is always a minority that equates their faith with their ethnicity, though officially their ideas are anathema in Orthodoxy.)

Well, not disproven at all, and decidedly odd – having experienced it as well, I’d rather go to an ethnic Byzantine rite parish (of almost any ethnicity .) So, yes – the Byzantine liturgy in and of itself is “ethnic” – Hellenic in its usual form, very East Slavic in the Russian recension. In Georgia it takes on an entirely different character, and in Antioch is Middle Eastern enough to differ from the ‘Hellenic’ version. However, in every case the various recensions of the Byzantine rite came by acculturation with pagan cultures – the Western rite came about by the same process with Western cultures.

If you like the EOC parishes, you join them. I’d rather not. That’s the big problem with the perpetual critics – full of advice about things they’d never do themselves. (Or, thinking that everyone’s salvation is dependent upon following the critic’s path.)

“As to the idea of the WRO being less ethnic? Hardly. Ever notice WHICH saints are made patrons of the WRO parishes & missions?”

If you mean ethnic as in the opposite of ‘deracinated’, no. But, yes – lets look at the patrons of WRO parishes and missions:

For the AWRV we have the ‘oh so ethnic’: St. Augustine, St. Peter, St. Mark, St. Paul, St. Michael, St. Andrew, St.Gregory, St. Vincent, St. Nicholas and St. Benedict. Wait, it gets worse! Our Lady of Grace? Holy Trinity? Holy Apostles? Holy Incarnation? Christ the King! (We have only one St. Columba, and one OL of Walsingham, besides an OL of Glastonbury, and Our Lady of Regla.) That’s just in the USA, not counting their NZ parishes (again, the very ethnic): Ss. Simon & Jude, and St. George!

For the Russians, we have Christ the Saviour, Christ on the Mount, Holyrood, St. Stephen, and St. Petroc (ah, here must be the beef.) It is true there are a few WRO communities in the UK with local saints – but, they are in *England*. Ss. Dunstan, Eanswythe, Bertelin, etc. – their relics are just nearby.

I’d like to know who these WRO are named after Bede and St. Aelred, as I’ve never seen or heard of it.

Just for clarification: In common parlance, Church Slavonic is “ethnic” in England and American (for instance) but not, of course, in Salvic lands, where it is indigenous. Likewise, Anglo-Anglicanism is not “ethnic” in the Angloshepre, where we both reside, but it would in Russia.

* * * *

While you are free to dislike history, the fact of the matter is the claim that Orthodoxy has “fundamental and ontological differences with Western Catholicism” originates with the 19th/20th/21st century Slavophiles & NeoPatristic movement among craddle Orthodox divines such as Lossky, Florovsky, Yannaris, etc. Indeed, the qutoed text is a paraphrase the E.P.’s recent statements on the matter. Finally, the Patristic-Revival (anti-Scholastic) position simply returns to the relatively-short, preWestern-Captivity, perennial, anti-Latinophrone position of Orthodoxy. Rejection of Latinophrones, neo-Latinoprhones or Baralmites & neo-Barlamites is not avant-garde in any way!! Rather, as a matter of historical record, it was Peter the Great’s casearopapism that was exceptional and strongly resented.

Frankly, Kacy is one of the few people I have ever dealt with who has actually met and known a real live “lifer” in the WR.

I have been reading the same stats for some 10 years… “20 parishes, 10,000 members”

The WRO has been kicked around for about 100 years now… The AWRV has been in place for 50. I count about 20 entities – several of them small missions, most of them appearing to be communities not more than 10 years old…

After all the Anglican tradition is extremely ethnic, at least in the Anglosphere. (Worldwide it may be different now: the average Anglican is now a Third World black woman probably not of the theologically liberal persuasion – probably Protestant though.)

No, that doesn’t turn me off. This sort of thing does:

[Claims of] fundamental and ontological differences with Western Catholicism

I’ve heard there can be a kind of anti-Western snobbery among avant-garde Orthodox who may be among Meyendorff’s fans, the kind that looks down on 19th-century Russian incorporation of much that is Western Catholic. Similar to Novus Ordo liberals’ contempt for Tridentine traditionalism.

But I choose not to blame Meyendorff for that.