Author Topic: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"  (Read 743 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« on: October 03, 2017, 12:18:25 AM »
Recently, some have repeatedly insisted the liturgies used by the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate are "Byzantinized" and therefore not authentically Western.  Having studied St. Andrew's Prayer Book, I wish to refute this claim, with these points:

1. The AWRV consists of two liturgies, the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, adopted from the Tridentine mass, but generally celebrated in English, and the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, adopted from the Holy Communion service of the Book of Common Prayer.

2. Aside from the use of the vernacular, and commemorating bishops other than the Pope of Rome, the only substantial changes to the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory are the insertion of an Epiklesis, and the removal of the filioque.  Neither constitutes a "Byzantinization," in that, as is widely known, the Roman Church did not begin to use the Filioque until the reign of Charlemagne; the filioque originated as a Northern European liturgical innovation which was rejected by the historically extremely conservative Roman church.  During the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great, the filioque would have been absent.  The Roman church agreed, following what the Serbian Orthodox count as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, to discontinue use of the filioque, following the so-called "Photian Schism," but a century later, as the political importance of the Byzantine Empire faded, resumed use of the filioque.   Strictly speaking, the Filioque is a "Frankification."

3. There is evidence to suggest the possibility of an epiklesis in the ancient Roman Rite; the Mozarabic Rite has an epiklesis, as do some other Latin Rite liturgies.  What is more, even without the addition of an explicit epiklesis, the Quam Oblationem prayer in the Roman Canon, along with several others, in the offeratory and in the anaphora proper (if we can even draw a distinction between the two), combine to effect an epiklesis.  The doctrine of the Orthodox Church is that the consecration of the gifts has been accomplished at the epiklesis, and at that point, it is proper for the fraction and consumption of the gifts.   Inserting an explicit epiklesis makes this point of liturgical doctrine clearer. What is more, the Roman church in the Novus Ordo Missae has introduced new anaphorae with explicit epikleses, for example, Eucharistic Prayer II, adopted from that of St. Hippolytus.   It would be hypocritical to accuse the Orthodox of Byzantinization by adding an Epiklesis, when the new anaphorae of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass feature this.

4.  The use of the vernacular cannot be considered a Byzantinization, because, although the Orthodox Church tends to use the vernacular alongside various liturgical languages, particularly in a missional context, the Roman church also historically did this with the Tridentine mass; the so-called Galgolithic Mass was authorized for use in the region of Dalmatia, and is essentially the Tridentine mass sung in a language more or less mutually intelligible with Church Slavonic, albeit written using a different alphabet.   In addition, the Roman Church, in creating Sui Juris Eastern Catholic churches, adopted a similiar range of languages as the Orthodox.

5. As for the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, both the Roman church and the Orthodox considered that the Anglican Communion Service and other services were and are, as printed in the 1662 BCP, inadequete.  The modifications made to the Holy Communion service in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate follow the reccommendations of a committee lead by St. Tikhon of Moscow, later to be elected the Patriarch, who was a confessor who died in the brutal conditions of a Soviet prison.  The Anglican Ordinariates of the Roman Catholic Church use a modified version of the Book of Common Prayer, called The Book of Divine Worship, and other liturgical resources, produced under the supervision and according to the guidance of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (which was known as the Sacred Congregation of Rites during the time of St. Tikhon, if memory serves). 

The Orthodox liturgy, not being subject to the kind of frequent revision as the Roman, particularly, the numerous revisions to the Breviary in the Tridentine Rite, and indeed of the missal itself, culminating in the much-needed yet tragically short-lived Missal and Breviary of Pope St. Pius X, generally does not require each autocephalous church to maintain a standing committee on liturgical affairs with the same degree of authority or equivalent workload to the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship; the Council of Trent sought to take control over the liturgy away from the Diocesan ordinaries and consolidate it in Rome, whereas in the Orthodox church, the Bishop of each Diocese remains the primary superintendent of liturgical affairs in his jurisdiction, accountable to his Patriarch and his brother bishops in the Holy Synod.  That said, some churches do maintain organic structures to address various liturgical needs, for example, the production of annual liturgical calendars and simplified liturgical instructions for the choirs, cantors and clergy, and occasionally, to revise the service books or consider questions of translation, et cetera.  In the latter case, these entities are sometimes ad hoc; the committee led by St. Tikhon was certainly ad hoc, as the situation of Anglicans petitioning to enter the Orthodox Church while requesting the continued use of some form of the Book of Common Prayer was entirely extraordinary.   In this respect, St. Tikhon's Committee served a role directly analogous to that of the Congregation for Divine Worship (or indeed, in the Church of England, the Court of Arches, located in the famed church of St. Mary le Bow, and since the Reformation, tasked with ensuring a uniformity in English worship previously lacking, in which respect it is a much more direct analogue to the Congregation for Divine Worship; the maintenance of a sufficient degree of uniformity in Eastern Orthodox parishes generally owes to the extreme fidelity of the laity and clergy to received traditions).

What is more, the modifications made to the Book of Common Prayer communion service are similiar in both the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate and the Anglican Ordinariates.   In both cases, a high-church Protestant liturgy is modified to conform to the doctrine and expectations of the ancient faith as interpreted by the Orthodox and by Rome, respectively. 

It can also be argued that from its inception, the Protestant liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer represented a partial Byzantinization of the Sarum Rite, with the creation of a simplified Mattins and Evensong each consolidating several hours previously celebrated at different times, in a manner not unlike the Slavonic Orthodox (and originally Athonite) practice of All Night Vigils, combining Vespers through Prime, and the related practice of saying Terce and Sext immediately before the Divine Liturgy in Russian Orthodox parishes.  The Great Litany of the Book of Common Prayer tended to be used at the same point in Anglican services where we would use the Litany of Peace, differing only in its considerably greater length; this perhaps being understood as a Protestant reaction both to the Litany of Loretto and the removal of most bidding prayers or Litanies from the Roman Rite (as these tended to be condensed into Collects, analogous to but far more specific than the similiar Qawmo prayers in the West Syriac Rite), the exception being Good Friday.  So, to Cranmer and his party, it doubtless seemed more reasonable to say a litany of petitions than merely invoking a long list of saints names.

The Byzantinization did not stop there: we find the famous Prayer of St. John Chrysostom, turned into a collect placed at the end of Morning and Evening Prayer, and at the end of the Litany if observed as a stand-alone office; this is of course one of the three prayers said silently by the priest during the singing of the three Antiphons in the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great (in the Liturgy of the Presanctified of St. Gregory, the typical psalms change, and the prayers are replaced by three of the Seven Lamp Lighting Prayers, whereas the 1890s recension of the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark prepared for the Pope of Alexandria and All Africa features the Typical Psalms, but three altogether different prayers to be said silently by the priest).

The non-juring Scottish Episcopalians, the first Anglicans on record out of many to seek union with the Orthodox, went a step further, adding into their Holy Communion service an Epiklesis, taken, according to several scholars, from the Greek text of the Divine Liturgy of St. James.   This Epiklesis, in substantially watered down form, survived in the American Protestant Episcopal Book of Common Prayer edition of 1892, which was the version scrutinized by St. Tikhon for possible adoption, and indeed was retained in the subsequent 1928 American Book of Common Prayer, from which the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate takes its Anglican-sourced materials (it also remains in Rite One of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer).   This watered-down Epiklesis of course had to be watered-up and made more explicit; the Episcopalian communion service in the 1892, 1928 and 1979 books allows one to interpret the Real Presence as being merely a spiritual presence, in contrast to the more solid belief we find in the liturgy of the non-juring Scottish Episcopalians.  So, it was a simple matter of reverting to an earlier form of Anglican self-Byzantinization.

Even today, the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics seem to have a major crush on the Orthodox, and self-Byzantinize their holiest and most important churches; for example, Westminster Abbey features Byzantine icons affixed to pillars near the Altar, and Byzantine icons have been popping up in Roman Catholic parishes of all stripes for some time; only Our Lady of Guadalupe, and the slightly peculiar icon of our Lord with the rainbow-like beams of light emiting from behind him, seem more common, in my experience.  The former I consider to be a holy icon completely acceptable from an Orthodox perspective, by the way, and would not be opposed to its use in Western Rite Orthodox parishes; it is that icon which, more than anything else, led to the downfall of the horrid Aztec religion, a religion with a singular fixation on human sacrifice making it the most dreadful heathen superstition encountered anywhere, in my opinion; what is more, the painting was not made in a realistic manner, but rather followed by and large the two-dimensional standards and idioms of Aztec visual art.

The latter icon being three dimensional, realistic and otherwise strange I would hope not to see.

This is of course not a question of Byzantinization, but rather, ultimately, a question of what Orthodox Christians have come to find over the centuries to be most desirable in our churches.  In Russia and elsewhere, we have cathedrals with very substantial Western-style iconography, including the rebuilt Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, which in most respects sought to duplicate its splendid predeccessor.   One could argue that we are guilty of self-Westernization in such parishes, architecturally speaking, that far exceeds the imposed Latinization of Byzantine Rite Catholic parishes, but these Western-style parishes are the exception rather than the rule, primarily built to serve as chapels for the Czar and the aristocracy of the Imperial regime, individuals who under the influence of Peter "the Great" and his successors came to view Russian culture as backwards, and Western civilization as superior.

It is interesting to consider, therefore, that not only have the Orthodox refrained from forced Byzantinization of the Western Rite Orthodox, at least in the Antiochian Vicarate (the actions of His Grace Bishop Jerome Shaw and Archpriest Anthony Bondi in ROCOR's Western Rite community that prompted Metropolitan Hilarion to take personal charge of these parishes, and the language of the announcement to that effect, would suggest that if Byzantinization is to occur, it will occur in that jurisdiction, and not the AWRV), but that in many of our most famous, splendid cathedrals of the 18th and 19th centuries, and also with respect to our liturgical music, in the Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and other churches, voluntarily self-westernized.

In the case of iconography, this was less than successful, but I think the synthesis of old Russian and Byzantine modal chant with the Italian school of polyphony, starting in the Ukraine and spreading throughout most of Slavonic Orthodoxy, except for the Rusyns with their Prostopinije, and the ever-stalwart Old Believers and Old Ritualists, has been a great success, producing the most beautiful church music in the world.

Thus, the charge that we Byzantinize our Western Rite parishes, insofar as the Patriarchate of Antioch is concerned, is utterly baseless; conversely, much of the Orthodox church has self-Westernized. Indeed, I have a recording by Capella Romana of the Divine Liturgy of Michaelides sung in English with an Antiochian priest, and I have visited Antiochian parishes in the US using a mixture of Russian, polyphonic Greek, and Syro-Byzantine chant in their services.   If we take the phenomenon of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate together with the self-Westernization apparent in the Antiochian church, in the architecture and choral music of parishes such as the Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Los Angeles, one can understand why there exists within Orthodoxy a reactionary anti-Western movement, associated with some Athonites, with the Greek Old Calendarists, and with figures such as Fr. John C. Romanides of blessed memory and His Eminence Seraphim, the Metropolitan of Piraeus.

In summary; the Orthodox church has not engaged in Byzantine-chauvinism; we have, owing to cultural intercourse with Western Christendom, to a considerable degree self-Westernized, particularly in the Diaspora, and this self-Westernization is compounded by the existence of the blessed Western Rite Orthodox communities. 

Indeed, one could argue that perhaps one reason why the Western Rite Orthodox community is relatively small is the degree of Westernization already present within the Eastern Rite liturgy in the diaspora; a prospective convert can join an Eastern Rite parish where the liturgy is sung entirely in English, to musical tunes in four part harmony familiar and comforting to the Western ear, and some, such as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia, consider this to be sufficient.  I disagree; I believe the continued cultivation of Western Rite Orthodoxy is vital, and the impending implementation of same-sex marriage in the Church of England, which will probably happen, based on current political pressures, within no more than 15 years, and the current liberal direction the Catholic Church is moving in under Pope Francis, offer enormous opportunities for our Western Rite.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,425
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2017, 12:29:24 AM »
Thanks for the clarification, Alpha. Speaking about Western rites, BTW, I'm still waiting for you to answer my PM.  :P
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 05:40:00 AM by Dominika »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Helladius

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2017, 06:03:52 AM »
As a frequent lurker and occasional poster who has read with bafflement the repeated claims by some posters here that the Western Rite is 'Byzantinized' and to become Orthodox means having to become 'Eastern' (whatever that even means!), this clarification is REALLY helpful! Hence emerging out of lurking to say thank you! Thanks very much for producing all this info :) I have to admit I'm not quite sure what I think of the Western Rite - it's not something I currently know enough about to have a personal viewpoint on whether its cultivation is vital - but it is certainly is something that seems to garner polemic attention (from a range of standpoints), so it's good to have clarification on whether it's a 'Byzantinized' version of Western Rites or not (and your answer seems to demonstrate conclusively that it is not) as well as a succinct summary of its origins. (By the by, I also think Greek/Byzantine Church music has an equal claim to be the most beautiful in the world, but as a Greek I am biased :p Probably most people love their own tradition's music best :) )
'Be extremely careful not to offend anyone in word or deed, for it is a grave sin. When someone is offended, God, who loves the man, is also offended, for there can be no offending man without offending God.'
St Tikhon of Zadonsk

'Where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also' Matt 6:21

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,128
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2017, 06:09:20 AM »
Well, for one thing don't byzantinize the Roman Mass by calling it the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,012
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2017, 07:15:49 PM »
Well, for one thing don't byzantinize the Roman Mass by calling it the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory.

Well, I know of at least one LCMS Church that says "Divine Liturgy," so apparently it's not a completely uneastern thing. Why do you get so hung up on specific words?
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,128
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2017, 07:20:25 PM »
Well, for one thing don't byzantinize the Roman Mass by calling it the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory.

Well, I know of at least one LCMS Church that says "Divine Liturgy," so apparently it's not a completely uneastern thing. Why do you get so hung up on specific words?

Because if you really believe Orthodoxy can be fully Western, there's no need to rename things.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2017, 07:38:40 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 07:39:38 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,128
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2017, 07:46:53 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism.

+1.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2017, 08:21:04 PM »
Well, for one thing don't byzantinize the Roman Mass by calling it the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory.

That is also not a Byzantinization.  Rather, the word Mass or Missae for the Eucharistic liturgy as celebrated in the Roman Church has greatly vernacular origins; literally, Missae means "Dismissal."  Calling the liturgy a Dismissal theologically makes no sense, except in the context of the Roman Rite, which, in the days of the ancient Church, was famous for its extreme brevity. 

So whereas the Byzantine liturgy ends with a benediction asking the intercession of a long list of saints, and the Syriac dismissal is almost as long, and concludes with a humble request from the celebrant that the congregation remember him in his prayers, and the Coptic liturgy concludes with the blessing of the congregation with holy water, analogous to the Asperges Mei that opens the Tridentine solemn mass or missa cantata, the Roman mass ended abruptly with "Ite, missa est."  This was later compensated for through the introduction of the Last Gospel, but for centuries, "Ite, missa est" was the last thing people heard as they left, and was always the last thing heard at a Low Mass.  So calling the Roman liturgy a mass is entirely natural, but also entirely vernacular, and of the different names different denominations use for the Eucharistic liturgy, the one least related to the actual sacramental function of the mass.

Let us compare these names, just as a point of reference, rite by rite:

Byzantine Rite, Coptic Rite: Liturgy, meaning Office of the People
West Syriac Rite: Qurbono Qadisho, meaning Holy Sacrifice
East Syriac Rite: Raza, meaning Mystery
Anglican Rite: Holy Communion, or Eucharist, meaning "Thanksgiving"
Lutheran Rite: Gottesdienst, meaning God's Service or Divine Service
Roman Rite (and some Lutheran and Anglican churches): Missae, Mass, meaning "Dismissal"

If memory serves, Soorp Badarak also means "Holy Sacrifice", in the Armenian Rite (sometimes abbreviated to Badarak, or Patarag in the other dialect; perhaps Brigidsboy can remind me which one is which; I also forget the name of the main setting of the Badarak other than that composed by Komitas (or Gormidas).

I have no objection to any of these terms being used to refer to the Eucharistic liturgy.

However, strictly speaking, the most ancient terminology refers to the Divine Liturgy or Eucharist, or the sacred Mystery or Sacrifice, and this usage predates the Latinization of the Roman Church.  Remember that the Roman Church used Greek liturgically until the reign of Archbishop Victor, who nearly caused a disastrous schism with his unilateral attempt to impose a Paschalion similiar to what the Council of Nicea ultimately accomplished through conciliarity, the means by which such a major decision must be made in the Church (see Acts 15; St. Peter did not unanimously issue an ex cathedra proclamation from Antioch, where he then resided, admitting uncircumcised gentiles to the Church, at the behest of St. Paul, but rather, Sts. Paul, Peter and Titus attended a council in Jerusalem presided over by St. James the Just, which established definitively the criteria for the admission of Gentiles to the Church, which in turn laid the basis for the entire Christian doctrine of our religion in relationship to Judaism.

Thus, the writings of various second century Western saints such as Irenaeus of Lyons or Justin Martyr, or Cyprian, are all in Greek.  But it was fitting, and in accord with the Orthodox principle of evangelism using the vernacular tongue, that as the Roman Church began to grow beyond the relatively well educated and sophisticated elite of society who were fluent in both Greek and Latin (the Roman Church that had a century earlier members of Caesar's household in its flock), and began to expand its reach to the more impoverished classes of Roman society, who could only speak Latin, that the Church embrace Latin liturgically, and thus we have the Latin liturgy, the Vetus Latina, which is in many places more beautiful than the Vulgate (recall that it survives in the hymns of the mass, for example, Gloria in Excelsis Deo vs. the Vulgate's rather more vulgar Gloria in Altissimus Deo), and a steady stream of brilliant Latin theologians beginning with Tertullian, continuing with St. Hippolytus, and reaching its epitome with the sublime works of Sts. Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Ambrose, Vincent of Lerins, Augustine, and of greatest importance, John Cassian and Gregory Dialogos, later Pope Gregory the Great.

Now, I have said that the Byzantine Rite has in recent years Westernized itself considerably.  In ancient times as well, the Eastern Churches also Westernized on several occasions, by deigning to adopt the Roman practices with regards to the timing of Pascha, the separation of the feast of the Nativity from the Holy Theophany (except in Armenia, which to this day celebrates them together, according to the ancient custom of the East), and in other respects.

However, Rome also Easternized itself.  Among practices historically alien to the old Roman mass which were introduced based on the liturgical praxis of Eastern churches, during the great period of the exchange of liturgical ideas that began in the Fourth Century, when Christians could now freely make pilgrimages to holy sites across the Roman Empire (and in which the Paschal Rites in Jerusalem, arranged by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and the related Divine Liturgy of St. James were to prove particularly influential, to the point where, if we disregard the view of a minority of scholars that the Sanctus originated in the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, all traditional liturgies can be viewed as being, at a minimum, a synthesis of the Liturgy of St. James with the local customs and uses of the churches where they originated), we find the following:

- The Kyrie
- The Lectionary for the Pachal Triduum
- The Monastic Structure of a Sevenfold or Eightfold Divine Office
- The Sanctus
- The Recitation of the Creed
- The use of Antiphons
- The Missa Sicca, equivalent to the Orthodox Typika or the Anglican Ante-Communion
- The use of antiphonal music rather than monotone (first introduced into the Latin Rite in Milan by St. Ambrose, based on the Greek practice)
- The consecration of the Eucharist by clergy at each Parish in central Rome, as opposed to the older tradition wherein the Presbyters of those parishes near to the Lateran would serve the Eucharist previously consecrated by the Archbishop
- The eight mode system of Gregorian Chant, a clear derivative of the eight mode system of Byzantine Chant (from which West Syriac Chant, also built around eight modes or tones, was also derived)
- The Mass of the Presanctified

We can attribute the last two to St. Gregory the Great, who is also credited with the current main recension of the Byzantine Presanctified Liturgy.

It was for this reason probably an error for the Antiochians to call the Roman Canon based liturgy the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, simply because many Orthodox liturgikons and other service books use that name to refer to the Liturgy of the Presanctified.  Indeed, having that name available to refer to the Presanctified Vesperal Liturgy as composed by St. Gregory, which is similiar in both the Roman Rite (pre-1955) and the Byzantine Rite (at least as far as the text is concerned, also visually, after the Westernization of black vestments permeated the Orthodox Church), is of particular importance now that Holy Trinity Monastery has revived what they call the "Presanctified Liturgy of St. James", which is really the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Severus, or a variation of it, as it was St. Severus who originated the concept of the presanctified liturgy as we now understand it (perhaps, however, as a Westernization inspired by the distribution of the Eucharist from the Cathedral of St. John Lateran to nearby parishes).

A better name might have been The Divine Liturgy of St. Peter (Western Use).  We have in the liturgical patrimony of the Byzantine Rite a Divine Liturgy of St. Peter, which follows the form of the Divine Liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom; however, the prayers of the Prothesis are different, and the Anaphora is the Roman Canon.  I believe the prayers said by the Priest during the three Antiphons are the same as in St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom.

I believe one or two ROCOR Western Rite parishes used or continue to use an Orthodox-compatible setting of the Ambrosian Rite, called, as one might expect, the Divine Liturgy of St. Ambrose.  This features the insertion of an unambiguous epiklesis, and slightly fewer moving parts than the old Ambrosian Rite, but has not been given the full Paul VI treatment that the Ambrosian Rite has since received (like the Mozarabic Rite, which survives primarily in one chapel at the Cathedral in Toledo, there is one parish in Milan which serves the old pre-1969 Ambrosian Rite).   I believe Fr. Aidan Keller and others were also interested in adapting the Mozarabic Rite, but the missal for that liturgy is quite complex; I think some use of it was made in ROCOR on a limited scale.  One advantage of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rite, pastorally speaking, is that they, along with the East Syriac Rite, have lessons from the Old Testament as well as from the new.  But whereas the East Syriac Rite takes Torah/Haftarah pairings practically from the pages of the Babylonian Talmud (or rather the Mishnah that were compiled into it), something which should surprise no one, as the Catholicos of the Church of the East historically resided in Seleucia-Cstesiphon, in the same city as the Jewish Geonim who compiled the Talmud, and then matches these more or less with epistle and gospel verses, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rite integrate a prophecy with an epistle and gospel with the same poetic elegance with which the Roman Rite combines an epistle and gospel, using a tractus and an alleliuia to tie the three lessons together. 

This would be very desirable, due to the continuing problems of poor attendance at vespers; I think we are more likely in our Western Rite parishes to get high attendance at Evensong on Sunday afternoons or evenings than at either Sunday Mattins or Saturday Evensong.

~

In summary, however, the name "mass" is a vernacular designation; the Western Rite Orthodox do call the divine liturgies masses, and one will find them referred to using both terms in the official service books; beyond that, mass makes the least sense and is the most vernacular of any of the variant names of the Eucharist service, since it literally derives from the same formula of words said by Roman magistrates to release the public from attendance at court held in judicial basillicas or from attendance at mandatory legislative assemblies, et cetera, and does not convey the sense of a benediction, blessing, thanksgiving, divine service or holy sacrifice, or the sacred office of the people mandated for religious observance (the meaning of "leitourgia"; it is an oversimplification to say leitourgia merely means "the work of the people," in that if the people of the city all gathered to erect a levee to protect the city from flooding, unless this work was consecrated to an ancient Pagan deity, and was chiefly a religious observance, the term doesn't quite fit).

Even if we accept your premise that the use of the more traditional phrase Divine Liturgy is a Byzantinization (which is in my opinion, a bit anachronistic; it is much more of a Hellenization if that), and entirely disregard the large extent to which Western Rite communities continue to call their liturgies masses, and how they are even referred to as such in the service books, we would still find this to be utterly trivial compared to the sweeping Byzantinizations that occurred in the First Millenium.

Under Byzantine influence, the Roman mass was transformed from an extremely perfunctory, abbreviated service, without so much as a Creed or Kyrie Eleison recited therein, but only a Psalm, Epistle, Gospel, and the Canon, and the Canon, only if in the presence of the Roman archbishop or Pope or at a parish too far away from his cathedral on the Lateran Hill to receive the Eucharist as consecrated by the Pope directly, and the  "Ite, Missa Est," into the ornate liturgy that exists today with a vestigial litany, the eight modes of the Byzantine-derived chant imported by the august hierarchs St. Ambrose, St. Gregory Diologos, and others, and even a presanctified mass and, until 1955, vesperal services on Saturday morning that were almost identical.   This ornate splendour came from the East, in part from Jerusalem, in part from Antioch, in part from Constantinople and Alexandria; in the West, it was inculturated and latinized, to create the unique beauty of what I like to call the Old Roman Orthodox Church, which is still visible in Romanesque iconography and some cathedrals of Western Europe.

What makes the RCC not the Old Roman Orthodox Church is a string of bad decisions that have in each case made it less like the Eastern Orthodox Church; these include the filioque, Papal supremacy, the efforts of the Jesuits and Dominican and Franciscan friars to do away with rood screens and create an open sanctuary so the faithful could see the action at the altar with greater ease, owing to an excessive focus in the Roman Rite on the Elevation of the Host and the importance of viewing it, an act I regard as fundamentally misguided (I would have no problems with the monstrance or Eucharistic devotion if in addition to the host, there was a clear vessel containing the consecrated blood, or if the host was intincted), Papal infallibility, the reliance on the early works of St. Augustine rather than St. John Cassian and St. Vincent of Lerins with regards to soteriology, the excesses of dreary Scholastic theology, and finally, the ruination of the liturgy beginning with the disastrous reforms Pope Pius XII made to the Paschal Triduum and concluding with the grotesque Novus Ordo Missae.

It is such a tragedy!  For fewer than fifty years, the Roman Church had achieved a state of liturgical excellence that was equal to or greater than that of the Orthodox Church during those same years, thanks to the inspired reforms of Pope St. Pius X to the Roman Missal and Breviary, and the fruits of the great restoration of cathedrals than began with the Romanticist architectural period during the Victorian era, and continued until the 1950s, a time in which rood screens and traditional artwork were gloriously restored, and beautiful new Catholic parishes were built in Northern Europe to replace those confiscated by the Protestants.  For example, the Brampton Oratory or Westminster Cathedral in London, which are church buildings as beautiful as Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's, vastly superior to Southwark Cathedral.  Then, Pius XII ruined your Paschal services by destroying the commonality that existed with the Orthodox, under the guise of "returning the services to their proper time" (he did the opposite of that; instead of moving the Vigil liturgy into the afternoon, he should have moved the Easter Sunday service to Midnight).  Finally, Paul VI simply ruined everything.  And he Byzantinized, too, incompetently.  At least one can say that Pius XII was not Byzantinizing, when he ruined the Paschal Triduum, but Paul VI managed to ruin the Roman Rite by incompetently sprinkling little bits of the Byzanrine Rite on it, like putting pepper on a chocolate doughnut.

Even in those Roman churches which do offer Diocesan Latin Masses, which are still adversely impacted by using the 1962 rubrics and thus the ruined triduum, one still is reminded during such services of the decastation by the presence, in front of the high altar, of what is usually a cheap table, although in some cases a more elaborate outer altar, for services versus populum.  Thus, our view of the priest is impeded, a glaring inconsistency with the Dominican-Fransiscan-Jesuit model favored by Pius V in which we are supposed to be able to see everything.   It would be nice to view the entire chasuble of a priest and not merely his shoulders. 

In contrast, look at our splendid Western Rite parishes: even when the icons are Byzantine due to a shortage of Romanesque iconography, they look like a Catholic Church looked in the 1920s.  One high altar, six candles, a tabernacle in the middle, a seventh candle atop it for pontifical services, and a beautifully vested priest, frequently with a deacon and subdeacon at his side.  Its an experience on a par with what is otherwise available in only the most extreme Traditional Latin Mass breakaway groups, since the SSPX uses the ruined 1962 missal.  However, it is also an experience that is part of a much larger and healthier communion; our western rite parishes may be tiny, but they are a part of the second largest church in the world, after your own.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2017, 08:37:37 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism.

I agree with you in general, in the case of the Roman Rite as used in the Roman Catholic Church, and in the validity thereof.  There is most certainly an implicit epiklesis.

However, the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate must be understood in the context of Anglicanism, and ths Anglo-Catholic movement, for it was originally a breakaway confraternity of Anglo Catholic priests who desired a more authentic, more Orthodox environment than the increasingly liberal Episcopal church of the 1930s, which was following the Methodist lead into the Social Gospel, could provide, and must be viewed as fundamentally, the incorporation of Anglo Catholic worship, rather than Roman Catholic worship, into Orthodoxy.   Specifically, the Book of Common Prayer and the English Missal.

Let us probe this subject:

The epiklesis was first introduced into Western liturgies by the Scottish Episcopalians in the 18th century.  The epiklesis is beautiful and elegant.  One of the pleasing aspects of the AWRV service book is the possibility for a parish to alternate between the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, in this manner continuing the traditions of Anglo Catholics who would variously use or alternate between the 1549 BCP, or certain other BCP derivatives, and the English Missal.   There can be no doubt the BCP requires an explicit epiklesis; the Prayer of Humble Access is in this respect inadequete.  To maintain an optimal compatibility, between the Anglican communion service where an Epiklesis is a certain requirement (I believe St. Tikhon's Committee said as much, although if memory serves their work was most concerned with the Ordinal and the Confirmation services, as one would expect), and the Roman Canon service, the presence of an Epiklesis in the latter is desirable.  It provides continuity between the two, and beautifies the canon, in the same way that, I would argue, the ancient Divine Liturgy of Ss. Addai and Mari has been beautified in the Chaldean tradition by adding an Institution Narrative.

Also, let us remember the Byzantinized Divine Liturgy of St. Peter.   This liturgy is extremely beautiful, and it features a Roman canon with a Byzantine epiclesis.

Finally, the anaphorae of the Gallican and Mozarabic rites, which resemble the Roman liturgy, did in some cases and in some manuscripts feature a clear epiklesis.  I would, on this point, refer you not only to Johnson and Bradshaw, but also to The Eucharistic Epiclesis, ed. John H. McKenna, CM.



"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,128
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2017, 08:38:48 PM »
I like your original post, Alpha60; I knew that the AWRV's texts aren't that byzantinized. But you're off about the word "Mass." Of course I know where it came from. What matters is what it means in Western culture, originally connotatively and now denotatively, which happens to be everything Orthodoxy believes about the Eucharist, so no problem. (The Anglicans and Lutherans who use it do so because they believe in that or in something closer to it than Protestant belief.) It's deep in our culture and it's simple.

Renaming this Western service the Divine Liturgy is Byzantine chauvinism; no, thanks. By the way, that fairness goes both ways; I almost always say "Liturgy" or "Divine Liturgy" about the Byzantine Rite Eucharistic service (like I don't do latinizations at my Byzantine Rite church or in my icon corner). The Russians, by the way, often just say "service" (служба).
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,181
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2017, 08:40:11 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism Orthodox compunction.

T;ftfy.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,128
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2017, 08:49:14 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism Orthodox compunction.

T;ftfy.

So John of Shanghai and San Francisco was wrong? Entirely possible.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2017, 08:49:19 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism Orthodox compunction.

T;ftfy.

What do you mean by that?
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2017, 08:54:35 PM »
Lastly, I think the point must be made, which I have failed to make previously, that Western Rite Orthodoxy, in the Antiochian church at least, is not intended to be the counterpart to the Melkite Catholic Church.  It is not intended to compete with the Roman Catholic Church.  Very few Roman Catholics join the Orthodox Western Rite.    Instead, Western Rite Orthodoxy is much more akin to, if not the direct equivalent of, the Anglican Ordinariates in the Roman Catholic Church.

Rather, from the beginning, Western Rite Orthodoxy has been associated with Anglo-Catholicism and also the very strange world of Old Catholicism.  High church Anglicans who elect to cross the Bosphorus rather than the Tiber are the backbone of Western Rite parishes.

If the Orthodox Church were to restore communion tomorrow with the Roman Catholic Church, I believe the most ideal disposition for the Western Rite Orthodox Vicarates would be to unite them with the Anglican Ordinariates.  As I see it, the two communities would have the most in common, spiritually and liturgically.

~

If the Orthodox Church were to aggressively proselytize Roman Catholics using a Western Rite intended to do that, perhaps aided hy a breakaway archdiocese or two, in a reversal of the process that created the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches, I believe the ideal liturgy for such churches would be the Tridentine Rite using the missal and breviary of Pope St. Pius X, without any modification except to mention the appropriate Patriarch instead of the Roman Pope, unless we created our own Roman Pope, just as the Roman Catholics have their own Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, et cetera, and with a very minor modification to the Good Friday service, the same one made by Pope St. John XXIII, which is to delete the phrase "perfidis iudaeos", which is prone to a horrid anti-Semitic misinterpretation due to new contexts the word "perfidy" has acquired over the centuries.

Although on that last point, I would note frankly that our Orthodox services in some cases come h greater sensitivity.  A  John XXIII-style cleanup of the Orthodox service books would not be a bad idea, in my opinion.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,818
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2017, 09:18:32 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism Orthodox compunction.

T;ftfy.

What do you mean by that?

Something nice and Greek.
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,128
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2017, 09:18:43 PM »
Yes, the AWRV is very much 1950s American Anglo-Catholicism (basically pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism in beautiful classic English, something I like very much, formative for me) under new management. I used to slightly know an Antiochian priest who followed his dream, becoming an AWRV parish priest. Nice man.

Of course ever since Western Rite Orthodoxy started until the Antiochians approved edited Anglican services, of course the traditional Roman Rite was the approved liturgy and, appropriately, still is the approved Roman one there (the only one as far as I know); the analogue of the Byzantine Rite.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,181
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2017, 09:27:03 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism Orthodox compunction.

T;ftfy.

What do you mean by that?

I'm curious why you think mine is the post that confuses. A handful here are able to bandy "Byzantine chauvinism," and I wouldn't doubt this group thinks it means something. As for my point, it's large, but the kernel is that there is understandable spiritual safety in Orthodox hierarchs not merely assuming that an Anglo-Catholic liturgy is theologically sound and efficacious. If you find this concept insulting, what must you think of the schisms and anathemas by which the groups became separate in the first place!

Oh but maybe I got you all wrong and you're asking what "compunction" means.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2017, 09:29:13 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism Orthodox compunction.

T;ftfy.

What do you mean by that?

I'm curious why you think mine is the post that confuses. A handful here are able to bandy "Byzantine chauvinism," and I wouldn't doubt this group thinks it means something. As for my point, it's large, but the kernel is that there is understandable spiritual safety in Orthodox hierarchs not merely assuming that an Anglo-Catholic liturgy is theologically sound and efficacious. If you find this concept insulting, what must you think of the schisms and anathemas by which the groups became separate in the first place!

Oh but maybe I got you all wrong and you're asking what "compunction" means.

I understand now. You think you have a more solid grasp of liturgics than St Nicholas Cabasilas. Good luck with that.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,181
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2017, 09:47:48 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism Orthodox compunction.

T;ftfy.

What do you mean by that?

I'm curious why you think mine is the post that confuses. A handful here are able to bandy "Byzantine chauvinism," and I wouldn't doubt this group thinks it means something. As for my point, it's large, but the kernel is that there is understandable spiritual safety in Orthodox hierarchs not merely assuming that an Anglo-Catholic liturgy is theologically sound and efficacious. If you find this concept insulting, what must you think of the schisms and anathemas by which the groups became separate in the first place!

Oh but maybe I got you all wrong and you're asking what "compunction" means.

I understand now. You think you have a more solid grasp of liturgics than St Nicholas Cabasilas. Good luck with that.

Yes I'm the synod that's to blame. You've caught me. Gosh.

Maybe you could synopsize for us St. Nicholas's affirmations of Anglo-Catholicism. Not all of us are learned.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,128
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2017, 09:59:22 PM »
Of course I'm fine with Catholic and Orthodox bishops having the Episcopal Prayer Book edited.

I'm not fine with changing a perfectly good rite (I'm not talking about the filioque; of course you edit that out), the traditional Roman one, which John of Shanghai and San Francisco called "venerable." Granted, he wasn't necessarily right all the time but he's nothing to sniff at either.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2017, 10:11:02 PM »
So you think the Anglo-Catholics wrote the Roman canon. Amazing!
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,181
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2017, 10:19:01 PM »
So you think the Anglo-Catholics wrote the Roman canon. Amazing!

Did I ask too much?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2017, 10:30:29 PM »
So you think the Anglo-Catholics wrote the Roman canon. Amazing!

Did I ask too much?

The Roman canon is the Eucharistic prayer found in the Roman mass. It is ancient and was used by many saints whose sanctity I imagine even you would recognize. They did not have this Byzantine epiclesis being inserted into the Western Rite. The Anglo-Catholics who use the Roman canon basically translated the Roman missal into English. They did not remove an epiclesis that wasn't there to begin with. So when you snarkily remark that this is some heretical Anglo-Catholic liturgy to be treated with contempt, your snark and contempt are actually directed  at countless holy men of the ancient Weatern church. Now, perhaps, in your ignorance you did not mean to do this, which is why I assumed you thought the Anglo-Catholics wrote the Roman canon. It was the most charitable way to frame your blsphemy.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 10:33:49 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2017, 10:33:11 PM »
Now, if you care to know, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas considered the prayer "Supplices the rogamus..." in the Roman canon to constitute an epiclesis.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,181
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2017, 10:34:15 PM »
So you think the Anglo-Catholics wrote the Roman canon. Amazing!

Did I ask too much?

The Roman canon is the Eucharistic prayer found in the Roman mass. It is ancient and was used by many saints whose sanctity I imagine even you would recognize. They did not have this Byzantine epiclesis being inserted into the Western Rite. The Anglo-Catholics who use the Roman canon basically translated the Roman missal into English. They did not remove an epiclesis that wasn't there to begin with. So when you snarkily remark that this is some heretical Anglo-Catholic liturgy to be treated with contempt, your snark and contempt are actually directed  at countless holy men of the ancient Weatern church. Now, perhaps, in your ignorance you did not mean to do this, which is why I assumed you thought the Anglo-Catholics wrote the Roman canon. It was the most charitable way to frame our blsphemy.

Maybe you could synopsize for us St. Nicholas's affirmations of Anglo-Catholicism. Not all of us are learned.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,181
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2017, 10:36:40 PM »
Now, if you care to know, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas considered the prayer "Supplices the rogamus..." in the Roman canon to constitute an epiclesis.

Thanks.

And you find his argument irrefutable, to the extent you find other approaches mere chauvinism?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2017, 10:38:46 PM »
Now, if you care to know, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas considered the prayer "Supplices the rogamus..." in the Roman canon to constitute an epiclesis.

Thanks.

And you find his argument irrefutable, to the extent you find other approaches mere chauvinism?

Writing off the orthodox Roman liturgical deposit as deficient because it doesn't contain a Byzantine epiclesis strikes me as pretty chauvinistic.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2017, 10:46:59 PM »
...I believe the ideal liturgy for such churches would be the Tridentine Rite using the missal and breviary of Pope St. Pius X, without any modification ...

Why the Pius X books? They introduced some innovations of their own, not least of which was replacing the traditional schema by which the Roman Church prayed the Psalter.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,425
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2017, 10:47:24 PM »
What is this Divine Liturgy of St. Peter? When and where is/was it used?
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,181
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2017, 10:50:46 PM »
Now, if you care to know, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas considered the prayer "Supplices the rogamus..." in the Roman canon to constitute an epiclesis.

Thanks.

And you find his argument irrefutable, to the extent you find other approaches mere chauvinism?

Writing off the orthodox Roman liturgical deposit as deficient because it doesn't contain a Byzantine epiclesis strikes me as pretty chauvinistic.

What in your opinion is the difference between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy?

If only our holy fathers had access to your piercing
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,128
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2017, 11:00:31 PM »
Quote
What is this Divine Liturgy of St. Peter? When and where is/was it used?

A Byzantine Divine Liturgy with the traditional consecration prayer of the Roman Catholic Mass, rendered in Slavonic. A Russian Old Believer book had it.

Quote
What in your opinion is the difference between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy?

It's as clear as the Thirty-Nine Articles: Anglicanism is Protestant, and I used to not believe that, and then I didn't want to believe it.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,425
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2017, 11:00:58 PM »
I wouldn't tell any opinion about it unless we could know exactly why and how this epiclesis was inserted. ISTM a too simple and inoffensive addition that could prevent a lot of theological crap-throwing at the WRO.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2017, 11:28:47 PM »
The insertion of a Byzantine epiclesis into the Roman canon is indeed a Byzantinization and it is indefensible. Even if we want to superimpose a Byzantine liturgical sense on the West, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas already opined that the Roman canon had an implicit epiclesis. It's at best superfluous to put it in there and at worst displays Byzantine chauvinism Orthodox compunction.

T;ftfy.

What do you mean by that?

I'm curious why you think mine is the post that confuses. A handful here are able to bandy "Byzantine chauvinism," and I wouldn't doubt this group thinks it means something. As for my point, it's large, but the kernel is that there is understandable spiritual safety in Orthodox hierarchs not merely assuming that an Anglo-Catholic liturgy is theologically sound and efficacious. If you find this concept insulting, what must you think of the schisms and anathemas by which the groups became separate in the first place!

Oh but maybe I got you all wrong and you're asking what "compunction" means.

I understand now. You think you have a more solid grasp of liturgics than St Nicholas Cabasilas. Good luck with that.

Yes I'm the synod that's to blame. You've caught me. Gosh.

Maybe you could synopsize for us St. Nicholas's affirmations of Anglo-Catholicism. Not all of us are learned.

The Roman Canon predates Anglo-Catholicism and indeed Roman Catholicism as a separate non-Orthodox communion; manuscript evidence places it well within the period of Orthodox-Catholic unity, when the Bishop of Rome would have been looked to as one of the two leading hierarchs of the Chalcedonian Orthodox communion, together with the Ecumenical Patriarch.  And we have hints, in he writings of St. Ambrose, that it even existed back then.

What has become less certain is the historical provenance of the "Liturgy of Hippolytus" from the Apostolic Tradition, attributed to St. Hippolytus, which is the oldest complete anaphora in Latin.  We don't know if the Roman church ever used it, however; structurally, it looks like an Antiochene anaphora, particularly if you compare it with other surviving liturgical texts from the same period, such as the unmistakably Alexandrian liturgy in the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis.  What we do know, however, is that a variant form of this liturgy, called the Anaphora of the Apostles, is one of the most heavily used anaphorae in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.   The Hippolytus liturgy features an explicit epiklesis, but it is not what scholars call a "hard epiklesis" like that of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or St. James or St. Mark.  Neither is it a "soft epiklesis" like those found in Rite II of the 1979 BCP.  It rather occupies a middle ground together with the epiklesis from the Byzantine recension of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil.

The Romans, under the assumption that this was the most ancient of their liturgies, inserted it into the Novus Ordo Missae as Eucharistic Prayer II, with modifications and additions, like a sanctus, resulting in something like the Ethiopian version, albeit with a different configuration.

The existence of this prayer might cause some Orthodox to incorrectly assume the Roman Canon dates from the era of the Filioque, the Great Schism and other bad things, but the manuscript evidence suggests otherwise, particularly in light of comments by certain saints which appear to refer to it.

We can safely assume the Roman Canon to be an ancient and traditional Anaphora.  Now, I do wonder why it exists; what caused it to come into being vs. the Antiochene Anaphora of Hippolytus.  There are many theories and past a certain point we start reaching into the territory where people begin to speculate that the Gallican Rite, a more elaborate cousin of the Roman Rite, must have been written by St. John the Apostle, because he ordained St. Ignatius who ordained St. Polycarp who ordained St. Irenaeus of Lyons.  I find this to be unlikely, and this is where we depart liturgical scholarship for hagiographical speculation.

~

Conversely, we do know that the Roman Canon was also approved for use in the Byzantine Rite, albeit with the presence of an explicit epiklesis, in the form of the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter.  So from a Byzantine Rite perspective, I believe a case can be made that the Roman Canon when used with other Byzantine Rite liturgies is beautified by an epiklesis, but I would not favor the Orthodox mandating an explicit epiklesis being added to it as a precondition to reunion with the Roman church, or if we, for example, actually created a Roman Rite Orthodox jurisdiction along the lines of the Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions, with an Orthodox Bishop of Rome (and there is a point where I would advocate us doing exactly that: if Rome starts ordaining women or performing gay marriages, etc, basically making a restoration of communion improbable or impossible, like what happened with the Episcopalians; see The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, current edition).
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,181
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2017, 12:22:51 AM »
Quote
What is this Divine Liturgy of St. Peter? When and where is/was it used?

A Byzantine Divine Liturgy with the traditional consecration prayer of the Roman Catholic Mass, rendered in Slavonic. A Russian Old Believer book had it.

Quote
What in your opinion is the difference between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy?

It's as clear as the Thirty-Nine Articles: Anglicanism is Protestant, and I used to not believe that, and then I didn't want to believe it.

As hard as you may find it to believe, I wasn't asking you or about you.

My question, Iconodule, which somehow got cut off before I could finish it, is what do you think the holy fathers should have done to accept an Anglo-Catholic parish? Your unhappiness with what they did do seems to imply they should have accepted the parish precisely as it was already constituted, but I doubt you think that. Or perhaps you do, in which case you'd be raising many questions. But I was hoping to induce you to clarify.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2017, 12:34:52 AM »
Now, at this point, Iconodule or Porter would be right to ask me why I say it is acceptable to add an epiklesis to the Roman Canon in a WRO-Anglo Catholic or Byzantine Rite context, where it is used alongside the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon or the Byzantine liturgies, which have explicit epikleses, yet at the same time I agree with Iconodule to the extent that in the context of the Roman Rite.

I must first stress that the Roman Rite traditionally has only ever had one anaphora, prior to Vatican II, throughout recorded history (although there were a large number of similiar rites used in different regions which are very similiar to the Roman Rite and which usually used the Roman Canon or a minor variant on it as their anaphora; five of these remain in use in the Roman Church: the Rite of Braga, which is critically endangered, the Carmelite Rite, which was recently brought back from extinction, the Carthusian Rite, the Dominican Rite, and of course, the Ambrosian Rite; in the past century the distinctive Rite of Lyons and the Norbertine Rite became extinct, tragically; we also have several ancient disused forms of it abandoned due to the Protestant Reformation or the Council of Trent preserved in antique missals, such as the Sarum Rite, beloved of Anglo Catholics, from which the BCP was adopted, the Rite of York, the Rite of Paris, and others; all of these variant forms of the Roman Rite however had just one Anaphora; of the Latin Rites, the only one we might possibly say had more than one anaphora is the Mozarabic Rite, although in its case, it is not so much a case of having multiple discrete anaphorae in the Eastern tradition, as having propers for each Sunday which make changes, occasionally, radical changes to the liturgy as the year progresses; nearly all of the prayers in the Mozarabic anaphora are "propers", so there is no single "common of the mass" authoritative all year round).

Now, having established that, that ordinarily, and historically, the Roman Canon in its native habitat would not appear in a Euchologion with one or two other liturgies, as it has in both the Antiochian Western Rite and in the Byzantine Rite (where Edinovertsie in Turkey used a liturgikon with it, along with the liturgies of St. Mark and St. James, into the 1960s when persecution forced them to flee and the Church Slavonic book was seized; fortunately a Greek liturgikon containing the same three anaphoras arranged the same way turned up in an Athonite library, and thus we have the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter), to demonstrate why the Roman Canon needs an epiklesis when the other liturgies it is bundled with have them, I would direct your attention to my own communion.

As you may know, one of the three liturgies, the oldest of the three, in fact, used by the Coptic Orthodox Church, is a variant on the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark we call The Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril.  The text for this is readily available online.

The Syriac Orthodox Church also has essentially the same prayers in the Anaphora of St. Cyril.  Now, the Coptic Anaphora of St. Cyril follows the classic Alexandrian model, which we also find attested in the Greek texts of the Liturgy of St. Mark, and in the structure of the liturgy cntained in the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, which was recently celebrated by His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.  This model, as described by Dom Gregory Dix and others, has a distinctive layout, featuring not one but two epikleses, one before the Institution Narrative, connected with the Offeratory, and one in the usual position after the Institution Narrative. 

Now, none of the Syriac Orthodox anaphorae share this configuration; neither, strictly speaking, do the other two Coptic anaphorae, although they are otherwise laid out in a very similiar manner.  The Syriac Orthodox version of the Anaphora of St. Cyril takes the same prayers, and rearranges them following the standard West Syriac order of worship.  The pre-Institution Narrative epiklesis is omitted.

Conversely, the Coptic Rite takes the standard Syriac Orthodox Fraction Prayer, expands it and reorders it slightly, and includes it in the Euchologion as the "Syrian Fraction," which is one of a large number of fraction prayers which can be used at the discretion of the priest (some of them are proper to particular occasions, some are addressed to the Father, and some to Jesus Christ, just as thr Anaphora of St. Gregory Nazianzus is addressed to Jesus Christ).

Now, returning to the Byzantine Rite, if we take a look at liturgies of St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Mark and St. Peter, we will find they all follow the same basic pattern; in the liturgy of the Catechumens, they are indistinguishable (except the silent prayers said in the St. Mark liturgy are different from those said in the other three, and the liturgies of St. Mark and St. Peter have slightly different prayers during the Prothesis than St. Basil or St. John Chrysostom).   As it presently stands, the only very obvious clue to the laity that the liturgy of St. Basil is being celebrated, and not that of St. John Chrysostom, is the use of the hymn "All of Creation" instead of "It is truly meet."

I believe there is an edition of the Liturgy of St. James which has a standard liturgy of the catechumens, although I haven't found an English translation of it yet; that liturgy, if celebrated in lieu of the others, would differ only in the use of the hymn "Let all mortal flesh keep silent" instead of the Cherubic Hymn, and I have seen two videos on YouTube of Russian Orthodox bishops celebrating it in this manner, ad orientem, rather than versus populum, outside the iconostasis, in the peculiar and disruptive avante-garde manner favored by some users of the St. James liturgy.

Thus, my point is that the liturgy should structurally always follow a common pattern, even where there are multiple anaphoras.

If you look at the AWRV prayer book, the BCP derived liturgy has been made as close to the Roman mass as possible; vice-versa, since from an Orthodox dogmatic perspective, the BCP liturgy positively does require an epiklesis as per the St. Tikhon Committee, a defect recognized as early as 1710 by the non-juring Scottish Episcopalians, who inserted the Epiklesis of the Liturgy of St. James, ensuring maximum compatibility and harmony between the two liturgies requires the Tridentine-derived Liturgy of St. Gregory to also be modified with an anaphora, similiarly placed within the structure of the liturgy.

Now, you might argue, the case of the Byzantine liturgies is a red herring, since the use of St. Basil vs. St. John Chrysostom is prescribed by the Typikon.   Well, to that I would say, all of the Coptic anaphoras and fraction prayers use a similiar structure, despite being used at the discretion kf the priest, and in like manner, the anaphorae of the Syriac Orthodox Church all follow an identical, harmonious structure, with the same communion hymn, fraction hymn, liturgy of the catechumens, and so on; the use of the Anaphora of St. James is mandated on some occasions, but ohterwise the choice of anaphora is discretionary, and many of the anaphora are sufficiently similiar so that the laity might not notice a different anaphora is being used (except for the fact we tend to sing more of it aloud).

In publishing the St. Andrews Service Book, the AWRV was implementing standards and order to the notirously chaotic realm of Anglo Catholic liturgics, where, even in the Established Church of England, in the 1920s there were parishes serving the Tridentine Mass in Latin, and other parishes serving the 1549 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, while still others used the 1662 book theoretically mandated by the Act of Uniformity but augmented it with various supplemental prayers.  You had the competing rubrical instructions of the Directorum Anglicanorum and its rival, Ritual Notes.  And you had the Scottish Episcopal liturgies, where all of this originally began.

Thus, the AWRV service book should be appreciated as a harmonization of Anglo Catholic praxis, conducted in a manner fully aligned with Orthodox doctrine, and featuring the two liturgies most popular among the Anglo Catholic converts who joined the Antiochian church in a mass-conversion in 1958.  It should not be viewed as an attempt to Byzantinize the Roman Canon or in any way to challenge the assesment of the holy and venerable St. Nicholas Cabasilas.

If the Roman Canon were to be used in isolation, as the sole anaphora, I would, as stated before, want to leave it alone.

"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2017, 12:58:50 AM »
Quote
What is this Divine Liturgy of St. Peter? When and where is/was it used?

A Byzantine Divine Liturgy with the traditional consecration prayer of the Roman Catholic Mass, rendered in Slavonic. A Russian Old Believer book had it.

Quote
What in your opinion is the difference between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy?

It's as clear as the Thirty-Nine Articles: Anglicanism is Protestant, and I used to not believe that, and then I didn't want to believe it.

As hard as you may find it to believe, I wasn't asking you or about you.

My question, Iconodule, which somehow got cut off before I could finish it, is what do you think the holy fathers should have done to accept an Anglo-Catholic parish? Your unhappiness with what they did do seems to imply they should have accepted the parish precisely as it was already constituted, but I doubt you think that. Or perhaps you do, in which case you'd be raising many questions. But I was hoping to induce you to clarify.

I think you're reading the wrong thing from St. Andrews Service Book.  Accepting an Anglo Catholic parish, or rather an entire confraternity of them, the Anglo Catholics would agree, first and foremost requires some standardization, because since their second emergence in the 19th century Oxford Movement, the Anglo Catholics managed to employ a dizzying array of liturgies and variant uses, so that practically no two Anglo Catholic parishes were the same.

The AWRV service book provides for some of this flexibility, while at the same time bringing about a certain coherence.

Also, I think you should be aware that St. Andrew's Service Book was not developed by a council of saintly Orthodox bishops scrutinizing the Western rites from an external perspective; rather, it was prepared by the AWRV, submitted to the AOCNA for approval, and thus approved; ultimately, this means that Metropolitan Philip Saliba and his liturgical advisors signed off on it (the AWRV dates from the era or Metropolitan Anthony Bashir, but the St. Andrews Service Book is much newer; I think it was first published around 1992 or 93).

In contrast, it is correct to attribute the list of required changes to the Book of Common Prayer to make it suitable for Orthodox use, which are reflected in St. Andrew's Service Book, to the Holy Fathers, since those changes were enumerated by a committee tasked with studying the book, led by St. Tikhon of Moscow, a Confessor, and populated by other clergy who in one way or the other, wound up experiencing the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution.  This I think provides us a compelling reason to have a Western Rite that implements their considerations; to the extent the BCP was the product of a monstrous heresiarch, it has been purged with hyssop and made cleaner than snow through the blood of St. Tikhon the Confessor, and what is more, in making their recommendations concerning what needed to be implemented to make the BCP usable in an Orthodox context, I would also argue that St. Tikhon and his colleagues provided us an extremely valuable commentary on what they, the last bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church before Communism and the diaspora, towards the end of an era one might call "the Third Rome", thought was particularly important in Orthodox liturgics on a broader scale, since many of the problems posed by the BCP can be analyzed from a different perspective in order to draw further insight from the Holy Fathers who produced that famed report, for the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Tridentine Liturgy on the other hand is functionally Orthodox, at least in its missa cantata or solemn forms (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware objects to the idea of a Low Mass or Said Service as inimical to Orthodoxy, although I disagree, in part because Rome had these services before the Great Schism).   

From an Anglo Catholic perspective, the trick is just to take these two very different liturgies and make them sufficiently compatible in layout and structure, so that the same congregation could use either/or.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2017, 01:00:45 AM »
Now, if you care to know, Saint Nicholas Cabasilas considered the prayer "Supplices the rogamus..." in the Roman canon to constitute an epiclesis.

There are several others which also come across as "epiclestic."  Its a bit like how the Institution Narrative is implied through the sequence of benedictions that comprise the Anaphora of Ss. Addai and Mari.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2017, 01:08:13 AM »
What is this Divine Liturgy of St. Peter? When and where is/was it used?

The Byzantine Rite liturgy, with the Roman Canon as the anaphora.

I have heard rumors of it being used in the ROCOR western rite.  Historically, it was most recently used around 1960 by a small community (or large single parish) of Russian Old Ritualists who had emigrated to Turkey and were under the Omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Their liturgical books were seized when persecution in the mid 1960s forced them to flee Turkey, as "historic artifacts," but providentially, a Greek translation of the same liturgy turned up on Mount Athos.

It is amazing by the way, the treasures, presumed lost, which have been discovered over the years on the shelves of Athonite libraries.  The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, for instance.   And yet the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia felt compelled to berate the Athonite libraries on the lack of interesting or consequential materials kept therein...
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,719
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2017, 02:32:59 AM »
Alpha you state: "Now, having established that, that ordinarily, and historically, the Roman Canon in its native habitat would not appear in a Euchologion with one or two other liturgies, as it has in both the Antiochian Western Rite and in the Byzantine Rite (where Edinovertsie in Turkey used a liturgikon with it, along with the liturgies of St. Mark and St. James, into the 1960s when persecution forced them to flee and the Church Slavonic book was seized; fortunately a Greek liturgikon containing the same three anaphoras arranged the same way turned up in an Athonite library, and thus we have the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter), to demonstrate why the Roman Canon needs an epiklesis when the other liturgies it is bundled with have them, I would direct your attention to my own communion."

It was a Slavonic manuscript not a Greek Liturgicon that was found at Hilander Monastery and it did not contain the inserted Byzantine Epiclesis.  The insertion of the Byzantine Epiclesis was ordered by the Russian Synod in 1870 in response to Overbeck.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,465
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2017, 04:35:30 AM »
Yes, Western Rite Church is called the Western Orthodox Mass.
Learn meditation.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2017, 06:38:38 AM »
Quote
What is this Divine Liturgy of St. Peter? When and where is/was it used?

A Byzantine Divine Liturgy with the traditional consecration prayer of the Roman Catholic Mass, rendered in Slavonic. A Russian Old Believer book had it.

Quote
What in your opinion is the difference between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy?

It's as clear as the Thirty-Nine Articles: Anglicanism is Protestant, and I used to not believe that, and then I didn't want to believe it.

As hard as you may find it to believe, I wasn't asking you or about you.

My question, Iconodule, which somehow got cut off before I could finish it, is what do you think the holy fathers should have done to accept an Anglo-Catholic parish? Your unhappiness with what they did do seems to imply they should have accepted the parish precisely as it was already constituted, but I doubt you think that. Or perhaps you do, in which case you'd be raising many questions. But I was hoping to induce you to clarify.

Porter, my entire argument on this thread has been limited to the Byzantine epiclesis being wrongfully inserted into the Roman canon. The Roman canon is far older than Anglicanism and was in fact rejected by the Anglicans in their mutilated liturgy until some- not all- Anglo-Catholics began using it in the 19th century. So your interpretation of my words as an implicit defense of Anglicanism is just bizarre.

My argument is simply this: the WR orthodox liturgy should not contain a Byzantine epiclesis interpolated into the Roman canon because many holy Western fathers did just fine without it and one of our greatest Eastern liturgists agreed.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,117
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: The AWRV Liturgies are not "Byzantinized"
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2017, 09:35:15 AM »
Alpha you state: "Now, having established that, that ordinarily, and historically, the Roman Canon in its native habitat would not appear in a Euchologion with one or two other liturgies, as it has in both the Antiochian Western Rite and in the Byzantine Rite (where Edinovertsie in Turkey used a liturgikon with it, along with the liturgies of St. Mark and St. James, into the 1960s when persecution forced them to flee and the Church Slavonic book was seized; fortunately a Greek liturgikon containing the same three anaphoras arranged the same way turned up in an Athonite library, and thus we have the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter), to demonstrate why the Roman Canon needs an epiklesis when the other liturgies it is bundled with have them, I would direct your attention to my own communion."

It was a Slavonic manuscript not a Greek Liturgicon that was found at Hilander Monastery and it did not contain the inserted Byzantine Epiclesis.  The insertion of the Byzantine Epiclesis was ordered by the Russian Synod in 1870 in response to Overbeck.

Right. You can find a translation of this liturgy by Bishop Jerome Shaw here. The Roman canon has some notable differences from the usual Latin one, but the interpolation of a Byzantine epiclesis isn't one of them.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum