I am painfully aware that much of what Kosta says would be found both highly inaccurate, factually wrong and perhaps even insulting to some of my western rite friends. I am equally aware that some jurisdictions are almost fanatically opposed to the idea of western rite probably because they have over the past millennium had to compensate for their own loss of territory to invasion by telling themselves that they/their nation alone constitutes the fulness of Orthodoxy and that in order to be Orthodox, incomers must pretend to their nationality as the only proper path into Orthodoxy.
The western rite is, according to my own investigation, a very legitimate expression of the fulness of Orthodoxy - when (and only when) it observes the fulness of its own history and genuine liturgical tradition. I understand that this is best exemplified in the western rite as practiced in ROCOR where there is a fully researched and authorised set of services and careful oversight of what is done.
I have seen it said that the western rite existed for a full thousand years of the first millennium, and that the Orthodoxy of the western church was attested to by Saint John Chrysostom himself.
Dragging the recent events (the failings of one man) in the Orthodox Church of France into the "condemnation" of western rite is specious to say the least. I have detailed personal knowledge of that situation and Kosta's comments display a lack of awareness and were better left unsaid. The fall into gnosticism (and worse) has been well documented many times amongst eastern rite groups (including at least one patriarch) and yet it is not a reason for condemning the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.
Speculation about western rite by those who know little about it is not helpful and it would perhaps be better if it was not offered.
As I understand it, there is a long history of the western rite within Orthodoxy. One ROCOR source has pointed out that the western rite existed within Orthodoxy (both anciently and in modern times), for over 70% of the life of the Church and that for Orthodoxy to be without the western rite is an abberration. It existed, I believe, on mount Athos, in Constantinople and in Jerusalem for several centuries after the Great Schism and has/does exist in modern times under a number of Patriarchates with formal patriarchal/synodical authority for the past 140 years.
Perhaps there are some western rite people here from ROCOR who can correct my facts.
With all due respect, Fr Nikolai, I have to disagree with you, at least in practice, on the point of the current Antiochian WR. I took a class with Fr Paul Schneirla, I was raised Anglican, I have attended WR parishes (Anglican use). I believe my paper on WR written for Professor Paul Meyendorff is here somewhere. The irony is that the Novus Ordo of the RC Church is closer to an ancient western Liturgy than anything practiced in the Antiochian Archdiocese. It is not the theory of a WR that I object to by any means, only what is actually being done. Fr Paul Schneirla handed out WR literature, most of which was comprised of Tridentine era devotionals. There was no study of the Ordo Romanus Primus, or the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Gallican, or Celtic liturgies, even as a basis for more modern practices. The WR in France, at least, attempted to resurrect the Gallican Rite. There are practical problems with that strategy including not having complete texts, and not having a living continuity. The Gallican Liturgy is not really any more familiar to present day Western Christians than the Byzantine Liturgy.
I start out my paper with a premise that I'll repeat here: I don't believe that the WR can be a priori accepted simply because there used to be a WR; nor do I believe that it can be rejected a priori simply because it is not the Byzantine Rite. I remain as convinced as I was 14 years ago that WR is theoretically fine, but is fraught with numerous complications on a practical level that MUST be thoroughly examined and addressed for it to succeed and flourish as a natural expression of the Church's interior life. This is what I do not see being done by Fr Paul Schneirla, and even the great proponent of WR who got me to take the class agreed that Fr Paul had sorely disappointed him. It was too bad because the issue does deserve serious treatment.
P.S. It's been a while, but my recollection is that it was St John of Shanghai and San Francisco who got the WR underway in France - yes, under ROCOR. The Romanians at some point "took over"; that is, I don't think ROCOR has used WR in a long time, the most recent WR communities were under the Romanian Church. I don't know of a direct connection between ROCOR and the Romanian Church in this area. I suspect there is none, but I just don't know.