"Orthodox" novus ordo, from, you guessed it, some folks under damascus, and we don't need no missiology....

American Rumpo takes note of Klinger's visit to the Arab Millionaires clubhouse in Detroit, and refers to an invasion of the Novus Ordo into the AOA. Well, as it turns out there are Antiochian Orthodox who literally follow the Novus Ordo as their rite.

Metropolitan Paul Saliba of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines allows his churches in the Philippines to use a Novus Ordo Mass, right down to the store bought unleavened wafers. Read about this here, from which:

Antioch has established a large presence in the Philippines, under the authority of Met. Paul Saliba, which is distinguished by its use of the 1970 liturgical books of the Roman Catholic Church with standard Filipino liturgical abuses. It has been denounced by Constantinople as uncanonical and un-Orthodox and its chrismations judged invalid by the Greek Orthodox Metropolis in Southeast Asia.

as well as here and here and here.

+PHILIP is not related to +PAUL, by blood anyway.

I suppose the Novus Ordo could be Western Ritualized in a manner that is not that far from the Liturgy of St. Tikhon used by Antiochian Western Riters. But I get the sense that this is not what is happening in this case.

The more I read and hear of Orthodox missions throughout the world, the more it seems to be a collection of extraordinary dysfunction with regard to praxis, teaching, and hierarchical integrity - America included. Par for the course I suppose. But with regard to Asian and African missions, I can't help but wonder about the influence of self-proclaimed experts in "missiology." I once studied under missiologists at a Bible college that only trained prospective missionaries. It seems to me that no matter where one goes, Evangelicalism, the Mainlines, RCism, and Orthodoxy, missiologists follow intellectual models more influenced by 200 level anthropology courses than by their ecclesial group's traditions. An Orthodox friend of mine who lives in Africa got chided by an Orthodox priest with a graduate degree in missiology because of her forthright language concerning an indigenous Orthodox Church in her country that should never have been granted self-rule, and is awash in corruption, systemic institutional malaise, and serious problems of praxis (sometimes it seems the rule is this in the world of Orthodox mission areas - if you have "native Orthodox" and Orthodox from a "foreign ethnicity," power is given to whichever group is the most corrupt). She was being so naughty in her ethnocentricm. I have yet to meet more than three missiologists who did not flirt with a rather crass and unsophisticated syncretism. Missiologists are like church growth experts, the less you have around, the better off you are. They are also like church growth experts in another regard - with some of the social sciences, the intellectual culture is such that the "expert" is never encouraged to "get a life" and move beyond that undergrad-like confidence that this particular social science method is the lens through which to analyze virtually every human phenomenon. For all of the supposed intellectual diversity the social sciences pride themselves for, they tend to be methodologically parochial and totalizing in the manner in which adolescents usually argue. All that said, there is an anomaly to every paradigm - one of the anthropologist/linguist/missiologists who taught me, my first intellectual mentor, was a man whose intellect was of truly astounding and formidable depth and gravitas and charity. But there will never be another man like Tom Correll. Frankly, I sometimes wonder if my adult life has not been one big ethnography intuitively dedicated to Tom.