OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Liturgy => Western Rite Discussion => Topic started by: Jennifer on July 31, 2005, 07:10:36 PM

Title: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jennifer on July 31, 2005, 07:10:36 PM
I've been told that many of the more 'eastern' Byzantine Catholics attend liturgy at an Orthodox church instead of a Roman Catholic church if no Eastern Catholic parish is available. 

It got me to thinking what I would do in a similar situation.  If I only had a choice between a Western Orthodox church and an Eastern Catholic church I'd definitely choose to the Orthodox church because I could receive Communion.  (Of course this is hypothetical as there are no places in the US where the only Orthodox parishes are Western Orthodox.)

What would you do? 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: choirfiend on July 31, 2005, 07:13:31 PM
Attend the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: FrChris on July 31, 2005, 07:20:22 PM

From my way of looking at this there is no choice in this matter. I would attend the Orthodox parish, and observe the Western Rite (and probably get thoroughly lost while doing so).
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hesychios on July 31, 2005, 07:28:46 PM
If I had the options only of attending a Western Orthodox church or a Byzantine Catholic church I guess I would attend the Western rite Orthodox church because I am expected to as an Orthodox Christian. But I don't expect that I would be very satisfied with that decision.

I have to admit that I am curious about these Western rite Orthodox churches, I have always wanted to visit one. I'm pretty sure that the "Mass" there would be an improvement over what I am already familiar with.  ;D

Michael
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Veniamin on July 31, 2005, 07:38:07 PM
Attend the Western-Rite parish.  I'm sure it would be a lot like when I was Episcopalian, except the Eucharist would be real.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jennifer on July 31, 2005, 07:39:51 PM
I'd love to attend a Western Orthodox parish but unfortunately there aren't any close to me. 

I figured most of you would agree with me.  I find it strange that many Eastern Catholics think differently about this.  I've observed a lot of discussions about this on Catholic and Eastern Catholic boards and it almost seems like the ECs who would go to an RC Mass are seen as being somehow less 'eastern.' 

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Landon77 on July 31, 2005, 08:03:57 PM
Quote
(Of course this is hypothetical as there are no places in the US where the only Orthodox parishes are Western Orthodox.)

What would you do? 


Tyler, Texas.  Western Rite mission- Holy Apostles.  Nearest Orthodox parish practicing the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox, about two hours away.   :D
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on July 31, 2005, 08:26:03 PM
I'd have to ask my Metropolitan, I'm glad I'm not faced with this problem, it would seem like a Choice between bad and worse, and I dont know which is which. I have no inclination as to what my current Metropolitan may say, but my former Metropolitan, His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony of Blessed Memory, might very well have prefered that I attend an Eastern Catholic Parish, or possibly even a Latin Rite Catholic Parish, to one of the Antiochian's Western Rite Parishes; he did, in one of his Encyclicals against the Western Rite forbid his Clergy from Concelebrating with Western Rite Priests, and strongly discouraged the laity from having any commerce with them.

Landon,
But are there any Eastern Rite Catholic Parishes in Tyler, TX?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Nigula Qian Zishi on July 31, 2005, 09:13:49 PM
O know a number of ROCOR members, when in Rhode Island would go to the Western Rite Monastery outside ofProvidence, asit was the only ROCOR parish in the state.

Of course, the ROCOR does not use the Anglican Service with some slight changes and call it Western Orthodox, but uses the pre-schism Sarum Rite Divine Liturgy, Hours, Matins and Vespers.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr. David on July 31, 2005, 09:37:23 PM
...my former Metropolitan, His Eminence Metropolitan Anthony of Blessed Memory, might very well have prefered that I attend an Eastern Catholic Parish, or possibly even a Latin Rite Catholic Parish, to one of the Antiochian's Western Rite Parishes...

WHAT?!  If this were the case, I'm sorry, but there would be some SERIOUS priority problems going on there.  You're telling me that an Orthodox Metropolitan would prefer that someone would be better off going to a parish with heretical beliefs JUST because the liturgy was eastern?  Moreover, that he would even prefer the western expression of said heretical Church over a western-rite parish which holds no heretical beliefs?!

I have never heard something so brazenly outlandish in my life.  Then there's this:

Quote
...he did, in one of his Encyclicals against the Western Rite forbid his Clergy from Concelebrating with Western Rite Priests, and strongly discouraged the laity from having any commerce with them.

He is therefore the cause of the beginning of a schism within the Church.  To say that a parish which is under the care of a canonically ordained Orthodox bishop is somehow "unworthy" of recognition as an Orthodox parish is outrageous.  The western-rite parishes are under legit Orthodox bishops, full stop, and are therefore immediately worthy of recognition as such...and are definitely to be preferred as family over ANYTHING in the Roman Catholic community.

Landon,
But are there any Eastern Rite Catholic Parishes in Tyler, TX?

As he himself is a western-rite Orthodox Christian, his answer is probably this: Who cares?!  They are NOT in the family, and to say that the western-rite Orthodox parishes are somehow not to be preferred to these other, heretical parishes is incomprehensible.

The hellenic axe-grinding against canonical western Orthodoxy continues in the GOA, I see...  >:(  :-\ :'(

[quote author=Νικολάος Διάκονος link=topic=6789.msg89003#msg89003 date=1122858829]Of course, the ROCOR does not use the Anglican Service with some slight changes and call it Western Orthodox, but uses the pre-schism Sarum Rite Divine Liturgy, Hours, Matins and Vespers. [/quote]

True, the AOAA western-rite would be better off using Saurum/York.  But, the Rite of St. Tikhon (which was approved for use by the MP Synod more than once) is what they use, they have the approval of their bishop to do so, and are therefore also a part of the western Orthodox movement.  While their choice of liturgy is not the best, nothing therein even remotely warrants their being ostracized to the point of having RC and EC parishes preferred over them!

This is just like some British Orthodox priests who've told interested converts from Anglicanism to just "stick with the Anglican Church."  The idea of being told to go outside the Orthodox communion for fellowship merely because of rite is not only spitting in the face of one's Orthodox brothers and sisters, but also the bishops of said parishes, with whom they claim to be in communion.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr. David on July 31, 2005, 09:54:07 PM
First, here (http://westernorthodox.com/greekdenver) is an article from the Greek Archdiocese of Denver; thankfully (lest we be accused of Greek-bashing again), not all Greek bishops are so tied to rite that they forget about episcopal intercommunion.

Second, the apologia "Lux Occidentalis (http://westernorthodox.com/Lux-Occidentalis)": click on the link to go to the PDA document, then scroll down to the bottom of page 8, to the heading, "Western Rite Texts: Ancient and Modern."  An excellent dissection of the Rite of St. Tikhon is offered as a rebuttal to the statement that it is "not in direct continuity with the worship of the early Church of the West."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jennifer on July 31, 2005, 10:19:55 PM

I have never heard something so brazenly outlandish in my life.

I don't think it's any more outlandish than other things GiC has written here. 

It'll will be interesting to see what he's like after a few years in Thessaloniki.  I suspect he'll grow up a lot and hope that he'll be much better suited for the priesthood than he is now. 

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on July 31, 2005, 10:35:49 PM
The hellenic axe-grinding against canonical western Orthodoxy continues in the GOA, I see...ÂÂ  >:(ÂÂ  :-\ :'(

Firstly, again, GiC is not an hellene.

Secondly, the only concerns I've heard from liturgists and theologians of the GOA of America is that the Sarum Rite may be based only on fragments of manuscript rather than a complete text of the Liturgy and Office- their concerns are not that it's "western", but that it may not completely be "pre-schism."

Thirdly, "Canonical" according to whom? At the moment, ROCOR is of doubtful canonical status as far as the GOA is concerned until it is reconciled and in full Communion with Moscow. ROCOR's pronouncements of canonicity do not reflect the GOA's position yet. The GOA has every right (and in fact, a duty) to proceed cautiously.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on July 31, 2005, 10:47:04 PM
Pedro,
How outlandish of me to refer to the Instructions that my former Metropolitan, of Most Blessed Memory, gave on the matter. Heaven forbid I would have sought the advoce of my Bishop. To quote the Late Metropolitan on the issue,

'We are thus placed in the awkward position of having to accept the "western rite" vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese as belonging to the canonical Orthodox Church while at the same time recognizing that this is a foreign element within the Body of Christ, analogous to the creation of the Unia by the Roman Catholic Church.'

We are in a difficult pastoral posistion of having to deal with Priests and Parishes who, while under the Great and Ancient Patriarchate of Anitoch, have divorced themselves from the Tradition of the said patriarchate. The ideal solution to this problem would be for the Patriarchate of Antioch to condemn this 'foreign element within the Body of Christ' and rectify the problem of having Parishes under her Omophorion not adhear to the Traditional Practices of the Patriarchate. But baring action by the Patriarchate of Antioch, it is necessary for our Blessed Metropolitans to take Actions to Protect the Orthodox Faithful under their Omophorion. Thus, the decrees of the Metropolitan directed HIS Priests not to involve themselves in this radical departure from the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Churches (Strange how people will be up in arms about the removal of a few prayers to shorten a service, but will openly support a complete and utter destruction of the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Church), forbade Priests who did not dress themselves in the Vestments of the Church from Celebrating in HIS Churches (Heaven forbid we require priests to dress like priests, wouldn't it just be great if we could have Clown Liturgies instead?), and sought to protect the Faithful under HIS Omophorion from this departure from Orthodox Tradition.

As I am opposed to the Unia in the Latin Church, consistancy requires me to hold a similar view of the so-called 'western rite,' for me to take a more sympathetic posistion would require that either I accept the intrusion of the Unia as legitimage or embrace the hypocracy of conflicting posistions, neither of which I find acceptable. The easiest solution would be for the so-called 'western rite' parishes to start acting Orthodox, and embrace the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church.

Jennifer,
Fortunately, you are not my Metropolitan; the person I quoted, who was far more competant on the issue, was actually, while he was yet alive, my Metropolitan. And frankly, I do not see how he would have considered my agreeing with his views as somehow demonstrating my unsuitability for the priesthood.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on July 31, 2005, 10:57:02 PM
Hear, hear!  :)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Anastasios on July 31, 2005, 10:58:51 PM
GisC,

How many Western Rite people are you personally friends or acquaintances with, to the extent that you have realized that some people simply cannot get past the Byzantine Rite, but have an Orthodox faith, and their parish en masse converted to Orthodoxy, retained its liturgical rite, and thus brought in hundreds of people into Orthodoxy? It seems you are adept at theoretical argumentation but short on the pastoral implications.  To me, the several thousand Orthodox who are Orthodox because of the WR far outweighs the problem of having "reverse uniatism."

It seems to me uniatism is only wrong insofar as it is forced.  So if people want to be Eastern Rite Catholics or Western Rite Orthodox in 2005, who cares? It's their choice, and we shouldn't worry about them.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jennifer on July 31, 2005, 11:03:28 PM
GiC, you're unsuitable for the priesthood because of your attitude, not because of your opinion about Western Orthodoxy.  I suspect (and hope) that the reason you weren't ordained upon your graduation from seminary was that the 'powers that be' in the GOA know of your unsuitability for the priesthood.  Regardless, I believe that your sojoun in Thessaloniki will do you much good. 

BTW, I too am glad that I'm not your metropolitan.  I wouldn't want to explain your 'prickly' personality to a parish. 

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on July 31, 2005, 11:07:45 PM
So if people want to be Eastern Rite Catholics or Western Rite Orthodox in 2005, who cares? It's their choice, and we shouldn't worry about them.

To me this smacks a bit of "McOrthodoxy" or "Burger King Orthodoxy."
Should the Western Right also be introiduced to Russia, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria etc. in order to give people more choice?
What will it be today? Sarum Rite? Do you want fries with that?

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SeanMc on July 31, 2005, 11:12:15 PM
If I ever decided to fully schismate from Catholicism and join the Orthodox Church, I would love a Western rite parish.

It is the faith and tradition of my Irish and English ancestors who used a Mass basically the same as the pre-Vatican II Mass. Rome and the West have always had unique rites separate from the East. As long as they are ancient and have nothing contrary to the Orthodox faith, what would the problem be in having a Western rite liturgy?

Now the Anglican Mass was an innovation, but the pre-Vatican II Mass was not. The reform of Pius V was basically the unification of the Western rites into one Roman rite; it was not an innovation, but sought to reclaim lost traditions.

Here is what Quo Primum said about the Roman Missal: "They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Anastasios on July 31, 2005, 11:14:03 PM
To me this smacks a bit of "McOrthodoxy" or "Burger King Orthodoxy."
Should the Western Right also be introiduced to Russia, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria etc. in order to give people more choice?
What will it be today? Sarum Rite? Do you want fries with that?



LOL

No way, it shouldn't be introduced anywhere.  It is only allowed when a previously-existing group comes into unity with Orthodoxy, just like how in the 19th century the Russian Church allowed the Assyrians coming into union with Orthodoxy to use their liturgical tradition sans references to "St" Nestorius and the like.  In other words, we shouldn't be in the business of setting up new liturgical rites but if a body with an ancient liturgical tradition becomes Orthodox en masse then let the parish retain this usage.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Asteriktos on July 31, 2005, 11:22:15 PM
George,

Are you saying that if a parish of people place themselves under an Orthodox bishop, they should be made to conform to the liturgical norms of the bishop that they are under, even if their own liturgics are perfectly orthodox? I've been told that the practices of some parishes in this situation (e.g., former Carpatho Russians under Rome) have even more ancient practices than the Church under which they have placed themselves. So by what right do we make them chuck their liturgy and everything they've known for decades as individuals, and centuries as families, and force them to use liturgical practices alien to them?

I think you are seeing this from the wrong side of the issue. It's not about choice, it's about the exact opposite: it's about continuity. I don't think that people should have to make a choice in such situations. There should be no choice allowed. They should keep their liturgical practices, minus any small unorthodox deviations that crept in (e.g., kneeling on Sundays). Forcing someone to change to meet some subjectively perceived Orthodox standard would be the real scandal, not a bunch of Carpatho Russians (or whoever) using the same practices that their families have been using for centuries.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on July 31, 2005, 11:26:35 PM
GiC, you're unsuitable for the priesthood because of your attitude, not because of your opinion about Western Orthodoxy.ÂÂ  I suspect (and hope) that the reason you weren't ordained upon your graduation from seminary was that the 'powers that be' in the GOA know of your unsuitability for the priesthood.ÂÂ  Regardless, I believe that your sojoun in Thessaloniki will do you much good.ÂÂ  

BTW, I too am glad that I'm not your metropolitan.ÂÂ  I wouldn't want to explain your 'prickly' personality to a parish.ÂÂ  

Slightly more too it than that, like my graduating with an M.T.S. instead of an M.Div., but I'm sure that you wish to hear the details of my personal life just about as much as I like discussing them...I never claimed to be anything more than an academic (possibly a partial answer to your question Anastasios). And keep in mind, my style of debate is designed to provoke, it's just my style that I developed over the years; if someone is upset they are less likely to think rationally and more likely to make a rhetorical mistake that can be exploited; but as a lawyer, I'm sure you've spent much time studying and practicing this art, as it would probably be even more useful before an impressionably jury or passionate opposing lawyer than in an academic context.

GisC,

How many Western Rite people are you personally friends or acquaintances with, to the extent that you have realized that some people simply cannot get past the Byzantine Rite, but have an Orthodox faith, and their parish en masse converted to Orthodoxy, retained its liturgical rite, and thus brought in hundreds of people into Orthodoxy? It seems you are adept at theoretical argumentation but short on the pastoral implications.  To me, the several thousand Orthodox who are Orthodox because of the WR far outweighs the problem of having "reverse uniatism."

It seems to me uniatism is only wrong insofar as it is forced.  So if people want to be Eastern Rite Catholics or Western Rite Orthodox in 2005, who cares? It's their choice, and we shouldn't worry about them.

Anastasios

I do confess that, try as I might, I cannot possibly conceive of a reason for which it would be difficult to 'get past the Byzantine Rite,' it is the Universal Rite of our Church and an inseperable element of our Faith, if one is convinced of the Truth of the Orthodox Faith, why would they not also embrace the Tradition in which this truth was preserved? The Tradition of the west lead to heresy, as so many here are happy to point out, so why would we encourage a Liturgical Rite, which, as we can see from Historical Example, lead to Heresy?

Pastoral implications are exactly what I am taking into consideration. And they were exactly what Metropolitan Anthony took into Consideration when He instructed His Priests on how to deal with this unfortunate phenomena of the introduction of a foreign element into the Orthodox Church.

Concerning the Unia, I find the very existance of these Rites in the Latin Church to be insulting, and while you may disagree, most the leaders of the Orthodox Church have a similar view of t hem; Rome has introduced foreign elements into her communion for no reason beyond proselytizing, the 'Western Rite' is our version of this unfortunate and insulting institution. And as I said before, for reasons of Consistancy, I have little choice by to view the 'Western Rite' as nothing more than 'Orthodox Unia.'
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on July 31, 2005, 11:29:30 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to to the Sarum Rite, provided we have an assurance that it is a complete pre-schism Liturgy and Office. If the Sarum Rite in use today is merely based on fragments of pre-schism texts with post-schism "gap fillers", I think it should be rejected. As should post schism trappings like "Our Lady of Grace", statues, etc. Otherwise, it's clearly just a "Catholic trap"- the Orthodox equivalent of the Unia. I can imagine that at the televised funeral of Patriarch Alexis (many years), beardless Bishops with mitres will be chanting the Requiem in latin, and the Catholics will be up in arms accusing us of "deception".
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on July 31, 2005, 11:36:31 PM
Are you saying that if a parish of people place themselves under an Orthodox bishop, they should be made to conform to the liturgical norms of the bishop that they are under, even if their own liturgics are perfectly orthodox?
Absolutely. The Bishop is solely responsible for how the Liturgy is to be celebrated in his diocese. This is why the Bishop signs the Antimension, and can withdraw it.

I've been told that the practices of some parishes in this situation (e.g., former Carpatho Russians under Rome) have even more ancient practices than the Church under which they have placed themselves. So by what right do we make them chuck their liturgy and everything they've known for decades as individuals, and centuries as families, and force them to use liturgical practices alien to them?
What Bishop has made them "chuck their liturgy out"? As far as I know, they have retained it.

I think you are seeing this from the wrong side of the issue. It's not about choice, it's about the exact opposite: it's about continuity.
There is no continuity in the Sarum Rite. Not only was it a dead liturgy with no living tradition, we only have fragments of the original pre-schism rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jennifer on July 31, 2005, 11:37:21 PM
Slightly more too it than that, like my graduating with an M.T.S. instead of an M.Div., but I'm sure that you wish to hear the details of my personal life just about as much as I like discussing them...I never claimed to be anything more than an academic (possibly a partial answer to your question Anastasios). And keep in mind, my style of debate is designed to provoke, it's just my style that I developed over the years; if someone is upset they are less likely to think rationally and more likely to make a rhetorical mistake that can be exploited; but as a lawyer, I'm sure you've spent much time studying and practicing this art, as it would probably be even more useful before an impressionably jury or passionate opposing lawyer than in an academic context.


It's inappropriate for someone in your position to employ a debating style that is designed to provoke.  First, we are your fellow Christians, not someone to 'exploit' in a debate so you can 'win.'  Second, you're open about your affiliation with the GOA and that you are a graduate of Holy Cross.  When you come here, you represent the GOA, which you do a very poor job of, btw. 

This is an example of your current 'unsuitedness' for the priesthood.  A priest should not employ a particular 'debating style' with his parishioners or other Orthodox Christians.  The faith is not a debating society. 

BTW, this has nothing to do with your opinion of Western Orthodoxy.  Rather it has to do with your way of expressing your opinion of Western Orthodoxy.  Your underlying contempt for those who disagree with you is apparent. 

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on July 31, 2005, 11:37:44 PM
I think you are seeing this from the wrong side of the issue. It's not about choice, it's about the exact opposite: it's about continuity. I don't think that people should have to make a choice in such situations. There should be no choice allowed. They should keep their liturgical practices, minus any small unorthodox deviations that crept in (e.g., kneeling on Sundays). Forcing someone to change to meet some subjectively perceived Orthodox standard would be the real scandal, not a bunch of Carpatho Russians (or whoever) using the same practices that their families have been using for centuries.

And if the Entire Church of England or Latin Church were to enter into Communion with Orthodox they would be more than welcome to keep their Liturgical Customs, minus obviously heretical elements such as the filioque or the use of azymes. However, if a small handful of parishes, more likely than not for reasons of political disgust at their current communion, want to enter into the Orthodox Church, they should take upon themselves the Liturgical Customs of the Church towhich they submit themselves. If the inisitance that they use an Orthodox Liturgy is enough to prevent them from Entering the Communion of the Church, then how fully have they become Orthodox? Have they truly become Orthodox in anything more than name alone?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on July 31, 2005, 11:54:22 PM
This is an example of your current 'unsuitedness' for the priesthood.ÂÂ  A priest should not employ a particular 'debating style' with his parishioners or other Orthodox Christians.ÂÂ  The faith is not a debating society.ÂÂ  

Last I checked, this is not a Parish, rather it is a forum for debate and discussion, this is an academic context, and I conduct myself accordingly. I dont debate in a parish setting, it serves no point and only causes damage; in an academic setting, however, it is the best and most healthy type of discourse.

BTW, this has nothing to do with your opinion of Western Orthodoxy. Rather it has to do with your way of expressing your opinion of Western Orthodoxy. Your underlying contempt for those who disagree with you is apparent.

Actually I am quite tolerant of disagreement, perhaps you could ask SonofAslan about that, despite the fact that he disagrees with nearly every one of my ideas about Hellenism and the Church, and we have debated the issue for endless hours, I'm quite confident that even he'll give that to me. I think you confuse two things with a contempt for those who disagree with me. First of all, while I do have a contempt for the absurd, I do believe that you confuse my stylistic preference for reductio ad absurdum with contempt. Reducing someone's argument to absurdity, inorder that it may be dismissed as absurd, is not a demonstration of contempt for a person, but rather an effective style of debate that both sides should appreciate, allowing everyone to see the argument in a different light.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Anastasios on August 01, 2005, 12:01:57 AM
For the record it is both a place for academic discussion and for community interaction.  But even if it were purely academic, you don't have an excuse to be rude.  I find academics who are deliberately haughty to be quite boring and overlooking of the broader picture.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jennifer on August 01, 2005, 12:06:46 AM
Last I checked, this is not a Parish, rather it is a forum for debate and discussion, this is an academic context, and I conduct myself accordingly. I dont debate in a parish setting, it serves no point and only causes damage; in an academic setting, however, it is the best and most healthy type of discourse.

Yes, but like it or not, you're not an "ordinary" poster here.  You have 'outed' yourself as a seminarian so you're held to a higher standard.  Furthermore, while this is not a parish setting, it is not an academic setting either.  It has elements of both. 

Quote
Actually I am quite tolerant of disagreement, perhaps you could ask SonofAslan about that, despite the fact that he disagrees with nearly every one of my ideas about Hellenism and the Church, and we have debated the issue for endless hours, I'm quite confident that even he'll give that to me. I think you confuse two things with a contempt for those who disagree with me. First of all, while I do have a contempt for the absurd, I do believe that you confuse my stylistic preference for reductio ad absurdum with contempt. Reducing someone's argument to absurdity, inorder that it may be dismissed as absurd, is not a demonstration of contempt for a person, but rather an effective style of debate that both sides should appreciate, allowing everyone to see the argument in a different light.

You have a very offensive way of expressing yourself and I believe it to symptomatic of disdain for others.  If you had respect for people with you, you wouldn't write the way you do here.  I'm reminded of your comment about how people who believe that all women should cover their heads in church would be happier as Muslims.  That was an absurd statement and extremely insulting to all traditional Christians.  And, btw, to clarify, I know the comment was not personally directed at me.  But it was offensive because it demonstrated a disdain for traditional Christians.  I'm also reminded of your assertions that those in the GOA who want a vernacular liturgy hate their ethnicity.  Now you 'rush in' to assume you know why Western Orthodox became Orthodox.  You minimize their reasons for becoming Orthodox to being "political disgust."  You can't even give them the benefit of the doubt.  Then you go on to question their Orthodoxy.  It's very obvious that you have a real contempt for these people. 

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 01, 2005, 12:17:26 AM
Quote
And keep in mind, my style of debate is designed to provoke, it's just my style that I developed over the years;

Where I come from, that style of debate is called being a jerk, and if someone persisted in it, they would like as not be taken out back by a coupla good old fellas and had their ass quietly kicked. I hope you're not this much of an asshole in real life, cos if you were, you might find yourself in an unpleasant situation one of these days.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 01, 2005, 12:18:27 AM
Jennifer,
Don't judge what is in GiC's heart too harshly. Both a man and woman's heart is "an ocean of secrets" (cf: Titanic )
I think you and GiC are the ying and yang of OCnet.
With a bit of luck, you may both be single..... ;)
"Presbytera Jennifer" has a nice ring, and God knows someone has to keep GiC in line! :D
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 01, 2005, 12:19:10 AM
I'm reminded of your comment about how people who believe that all women should cover their heads in church would be happier as Muslims.ÂÂ  That was an absurd statement and extremely insulting to all traditional Christians.ÂÂ  And, btw, to clarify, I know the comment was not personally directed at me.ÂÂ  But it was offensive because it demonstrated a disdain for traditional Christians.

That I freely admit included contempt, not so much for the people who believed it (well, perhaps for the Church leaders who insist on it, but not the laity), but rather for the absurdness and legalistic nature of the concept. That I would classify as my 'contempt for the absurd' previously mentioned.

Quote
I'm also reminded of your assertions that those in the GOA who want a vernacular liturgy hate their ethnicity.

That was not contempt, I know people like this, some of whom I quite like, but it was a statement from experience and observation (though it should be noted that you're misquoting me, I refered to those who fairly radically opposed the use of their Ethnic Language, and insisted on 'English-Only,' not those who were merely favourable towards such a change).

Quote
Now you 'rush in' to assume you know why Western Orthodox became Orthodox.ÂÂ  You minimize their reasons for becoming Orthodox to being "political disgust."ÂÂ  You can't even give them the benefit of the doubt.ÂÂ  Then you go on to question their Orthodoxy.ÂÂ  It's very obvious that you have a real contempt for these people.ÂÂ  

Actually I believe I asked a quite legitimate question. If someone is unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy if they must accept the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church, can they be said to have truly Converted? Ultimately, how strong is their conviction of the truth of the Orthodox Church?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 01, 2005, 12:22:05 AM
Quote
The Tradition of the west lead to heresy, as so many here are happy to point out, so why would we encourage a Liturgical Rite, which, as we can see from Historical Example, lead to Heresy?

The Byzantine rite alone is far from sufficient to guard against heresy; your patriarchate is living proof of that.

Quote
If someone is unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy if they must accept the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church, can they be said to have truly Converted? Ultimately, how strong is their conviction of the truth of the Orthodox Church?

If some are unwilling to accept those who believe in the Orthodox faith fully but still wish to maintain their own ancient and venerable and orthodox traditions, can they be said to be truly Orthodox, or have they made an idol out of a particular rite and culture?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Asteriktos on August 01, 2005, 12:32:40 AM
This is getting old. Debate for the sake of debate, or for whatever academic reason, is not even Christian.

It is not Scriptural. It is certainly not patristic. Some reading...

St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 27 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-42.htm#P4178_1277213)
St. John Chrysostom, Treatise on the Priesthood, 5 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-10.htm#P525_261240)
St. John Chrysostom, Homily 30 on Acts (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-37.htm#P1184_1140094)
Bl. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 4 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-35.htm#P5285_2800951)

Bl. Augustine put it well: "To strive about words is not to be careful about the way to overcome error by truth, but to be anxious that your mode of expression should be preferred to that of another. The man who does not strive about words, whether he speak quietly, temperately or vehemently, uses words with no other purpose than to make the truth plain, pleasing, and effective; for not even love itself, which is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling of the law, can be rightly exercised unless the objects of love are true and not false...To speak eloquently, then, and wisely as well, is just to express truths which it is expedient to teach in fit and proper words, words which in the subdued style are adequate, in the temperate, elegant, and in the majestic, forcible. But the man who cannot speak both eloquently and wisely should speak wisely without eloquence, rather than eloquently without wisdom."

To put the last sentence into modern lingo, if you can't articulate truth in a sophisticated manner, then you should speak simply but truthfully; rather than trying to win debates by much talking, while losing the spirit of the truth somewhere along the way.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 01, 2005, 12:40:37 AM
If some are unwilling to accept those who believe in the Orthodox faith fully but still wish to maintain their own ancient and venerable and orthodox traditions, can they be said to be truly Orthodox, or have they made an idol out of a particular rite and culture?

Or perhaps they simply want to see the Ancient and Venerable Liturgy of the Orthodox be preserved from Foreign Elements derived from the less than venerable liturgies of western heretics. My ancestors were Germans and Scotts-Irish, the vast majority of whom were protestant by the end middle of the 16th century, in short, they were heretics, why would I possibly wish to maintain their liturgical customs? If I wanted to do that I would have remained in the German Reformed Church, instead I became Orthodox and took upon myself the Customs of the Orthodox, rather than trying to force the customs of my Heretical ancestors on the Orthodox.

Paradosis,
I would love to just speak the truth simply, 'The Western Rite intorduces a Liturgical Rite that is foreign to the Body of Christ, and is inconsonant with the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox.' However, this forum, like most forums, require more than a simple statement of truth, it also requires a defence thereof. But in those polemics one can often see arguments in different manners, that he can either become convicted of the truth of the opposistion, or become more convicted of the truth of his argument and let his faith be strengthened, in either case truth is advanced.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 01, 2005, 12:45:56 AM
Quote
My ancestors were Germans and Scotts-Irish, the vast majority of whom were protestant by the end middle of the 16th century, in short, they were heretics, why would I possibly wish to maintain their liturgical customs?

Fsck if I know. Just because you cannot understand why some people may be attached to a liturgy that is just as venerable and orthodox as the Byzantine rite, doesn't mean that attachment isn't valid and shouldn't be accomodated by the Church.

Quote
I would love to just speak the truth simply, 'The Western Rite intorduces a Liturgical Rite that is foreign to the Body of Christ, and is inconsonant with the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox.' However, this forum, like most forums, require more than a simple statement of truth, it also requires a defence thereof.

So please, defend this statement of "truth". With, you know, actual argumentation, not just handwaving and rhetorical wankery.

Postscript: bobby (big bird, jim beam), if you could somehow hack this board so that it automatically modified GiC's writing to adhere to sane capitalization rules, I would love you forever and ever and give you much alcohol.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 01, 2005, 12:48:34 AM
So please, defend this statement of "truth". With, you know, actual argumentation, not just handwaving and rhetorical wankery.

But if you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have. It is simply that people seem to prefer to criticize my rhetorical style instead of the meat of my argument.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 01, 2005, 12:52:11 AM
Quote
But if you go back and read my posts, you will see that I have.

No you haven't. You've simply made an assertion, and when called on it, essentially said you were right because you were right. If you disagree with this characterization and wish to point out where you've made an actual argument in this thread against the validity of the western rites, please do so.

Quote
It is simply that people seem to prefer to criticize my rhetorical style instead of the meat of my argument.

Your argument has no substance. You don't even have an argument. You just say "the western rite is foreign to the Church, therefore it's bad" without offering a shred of evidence showing that this is so. This is not a meaty argument; it is a stick-thin, animal-rights-protesting, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, 100% vegan argument.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 01, 2005, 12:59:26 AM
No you haven't. You've simply made an assertion, and when called on it, essentially said you were right because you were right. If you disagree with this characterization and wish to point out where you've made an actual argument in this thread against the validity of the western rites, please do so.

I have not pretended to argue against the 'validity' of the Western Rites, only against their appropriateness. I have only argued that they are liturgically foreign and inconsonant with the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church, that they are, at best, pastorally problematic, and that they are nothing more than 'Orthodox Unia.' Ah, yes, and I asked the question, if one is unwilling to Convert to Orthodox on account of our Liturgical Traditions, how convicted of the Truth of Orthodoxy can they truly be? Which, while yet unanswered, seems to me to be a very fair and legitimate question that is most relevant to the discussion at hand.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SeanMc on August 01, 2005, 01:14:20 AM
Quote
I have only argued that they are liturgically foreign and inconsonant with the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church, that they are, at best, pastorally problematic, and that they are nothing more than 'Orthodox Unia.'

They are liturgically foregin to the East: is that a bad thing? The old Roman rite is basically the same as it was in 600 AD unless you can point out some parts that are unacceptable (filioque, of course, but besides that). The West and the East had different liturgies, it was a part of Christianity until the schism.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Landon77 on August 01, 2005, 01:16:31 AM
Quote
Ah, yes, and I asked the question, if one is unwilling to Convert to Orthodox on account of our Liturgical Traditions, how convicted of the Truth of Orthodoxy can they truly be? Which, while yet unanswered, seems to me to be a very fair and legitimate question that is most relevant to the discussion at hand.

Well, many of us knew we wanted to be Orthodox before we even knew about the WR.  But I guess they are no more convicted of Truth than those that convert to Orthodox because of the exoticness of the eastern liturgies- and we know that happens far more often, don't we.
And to get back to something you were talking about earlyer, I want to know the difference between Anglicans in mass converting and keeping their western liturgies and a few parishes converting and keeping their western liturgy.  What is the difference?  I honestly don't see it.  It's like you're saying, "as long as X amount of people are on board it's OK."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 01, 2005, 01:20:23 AM
They are liturgically foregin to the East

No, the Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
Where was it maintained as a living tradition after the Schism?
And where is there even a complete pre-schism manuscript of the Sarum Rite missal and beviary?
Don't turn this into East vs. West.
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SeanMc on August 01, 2005, 01:35:59 AM
Quote
Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.

What about the Ambrosian rite? We (scholars at least) have full manuscripts of this rite and it's quite similar to the Roman rite at that (mind you, there are some minor Romanizations after the Council of Trent).

Back to the Roman rite: it is basically the same as the Roman rite of Gelasius. The reforms of the Council of Trent removed the additions that came in from the Middle Ages, especially the additions from Gallic and Spanish rites.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 01, 2005, 01:43:07 AM
Well, many of us knew we wanted to be Orthodox before we even knew about the WR.ÂÂ  But I guess they are no more convicted of Truth than those that convert to Orthodox because of the exoticness of the eastern liturgies- and we know that happens far more often, don't we.

I actually dont know anyone who converted to Orthodoxy because of the 'exoticness of the eastern liturgies,' I'm sure there are some out there, but it would be far from the most common reason for conversion.

Quote

And to get back to something you were talking about earlyer, I want to know the difference between Anglicans in mass converting and keeping their western liturgies and a few parishes converting and keeping their western liturgy.ÂÂ  What is the difference?ÂÂ  I honestly don't see it.ÂÂ  It's like you're saying, "as long as X amount of people are on board it's OK."

It really doesn't have anything to do with the number of People. If the Bishop of Rome (or Archbishop of Canterbury) became Orthodox and only 20 people followed him, I would be more than happy to let him keep his Liturgical Customs, minus the heretical parts (kneeling on Sundays, azymes, filioque, etc.), of course. But if a million Latin laity decided to convert to Orthodoxy I'd probably insist on them adopting the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. The difference between the two cases is that in the first an ancient Episcopal See is Converting back to Orthodoxy, and retains all the Rights and privlidges of an autonomous Church, which includes the maintaining of that Church's ancient Liturgical Customs; infact, I would probably disapprove if such a Church tried to establish an Eastern Rite, they are a Western Church, there is no place for an Eastern Rite, let the Eastern Rite be celebrated by the Eastern Churches. The second case is a million individuals, rather than One Church or Ancient Episcopal See converting, these individuals may have become accustom to the Mass of the Latins (or Anglicans), but they are no longer under that Bishop/Patriarch, they are under an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch, and hence should conform to the Liturgical norms of that Patriarch, just as they conformed to the Liturgical norms of their Previous Bishop when they were Latins/Anglicans.

It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.

Very true and to the point.

What about the Ambrosian rite? We (scholars at least) have full manuscripts of this rite and it's quite similar to the Roman rite at that (mind you, there are some minor Romanizations after the Council of Trent).

Not exactly living tradition though, is it?

Quote
Back to the Roman rite: it is basically the same as the Roman rite of Gelasius. The reforms of the Council of Trent removed the additions that came in from the Middle Ages, especially the additions from Gallic and Spanish rites.

The Tridentine may be a living Tradition to the Latins, but is not Living amongst the Orthodox Churches, it is the Liturgical practice of a Church that has been separated from us for nearly a thousand years, for we as Orthodox to use this Liturgy would not be a continuing of a Living Tradition, but an artifical resurrection of a long dead liturgical custom, and when it was alive, over a thousand years ago, it was foreign to us even then.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: choirfiend on August 01, 2005, 01:45:52 AM
I do confess that, try as I might, I cannot possibly conceive of a reason for which it would be difficult to 'get past the Byzantine Rite,' it is the Universal Rite of our Church and an inseperable element of our Faith, if one is convinced of the Truth of the Orthodox Faith, why would they not also embrace the Tradition in which this truth was preserved? The Tradition of the west lead to heresy, as so many here are happy to point out, so why would we encourage a Liturgical Rite, which, as we can see from Historical Example, lead to Heresy?

So, now you're disregarding the first 1000 years of western Christianity and retroactively concluding that the liturgy that was served there in 400 AD and later was somehow not REALLY Orthodox? We didn't have an Universal Rite in the entire church--we had several during most times. That because of later developments, their service was not REALLY Orthodox, despite the fact that there was no disunity between the East and West at this time? That the exact wording of their worship (not espousing anything heretical) somehow contributed to heresy? Why didnt the Divine Liturgy stave off all those heresies that we had to deal with, then? The argument is ludicrous.

I'm not a fan of Western Rite, and I think those parishes that are will eventually become more eastern over time, but your arguments dont make any sense and just again and again lead back to some greek worship prejudicial approach.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 01, 2005, 02:33:41 AM
For the record it is both a place for academic discussion and for community interaction.  But even if it were purely academic, you don't have an excuse to be rude.  I find academics who are deliberately haughty to be quite boring and overlooking of the broader picture.

Anastasios

Ditto.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 01, 2005, 02:46:25 AM
Quote
When you come here, you represent the GOA, which you do a very poor job of, btw.

Please keep in mind, Jennifer, that I am also in the GOA and have a blessing to study Theology from my Metropolitan (ironicly the same one as GiC) and I more or less agree with you and much of what has been said. ÂÂ

Regarding the western rite I think there is a lot of room for discussion on the topic.  I am not a big fan of the concept for a few reasons.  The biggest is that you need living links to the fathers in Orthodoxy, you can't simply reconstruct something that was dead for 1000 years and expect it to be the same.  Also it creates liturgical disunity where there is already enough within the church between calendars and overlapping jurisdictions.  Still the western rite had the blessing of St. John Maximovitch, so I wouldn't completely write it off either.  Personally I think the same purpose (of reaching out to those from Western nations that desire Orthodoxy) could be served just as well by an emphasis on pre-schism western saints and other such things within the existing Byzantine rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 01, 2005, 02:47:12 AM
It really doesn't have anything to do with the number of People. If the Bishop of Rome (or Archbishop of Canterbury) became Orthodox and only 20 people followed him, I would be more than happy to let him keep his Liturgical Customs, minus the heretical parts (kneeling on Sundays, azymes, filioque, etc.), of course.

That doesn't make any sense.  Since they are "heretics" (to be blunt and uncharitable), we don't recognize the Abp of Canterbury or Pope of Rome as Bishops anyways.

Whether any of us like it or not, the Western Rite has been "living" (even if as an infant or on "life support" so to speak) for several decades now and is continuing to live.  Some type of new Tradition has been revived and it may just be here to stay.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: sin_vladimirov on August 01, 2005, 05:05:12 AM
The point is that majority of the Church has not formulated her oppinion. I would not be inclined to run and parade myself as member of either party, because once the Church speaks out, I might be in the party that is wrong, and for reasons of egoism, that can bring upon the schismatic nature.

Either way, I see good points and bad in both of the arguments, wisdom will be in using all the good ones and managing the bad.

After all, may it be done for the glory of God and salvation of the souls.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 01, 2005, 09:44:10 AM
Quote
Not exactly living tradition though, is it?

The Ambrosian rite is celebrated to this day in parishes of Milan and the surrounding areas.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jennifer on August 01, 2005, 07:37:05 PM
Actually I believe I asked a quite legitimate question. If someone is unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy if they must accept the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church, can they be said to have truly Converted? Ultimately, how strong is their conviction of the truth of the Orthodox Church?

But (sorry to burst your bubble) it's not your place to question the strength of their conviction. That is between them and the bishops who bought them into the Church.

 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 01, 2005, 08:27:55 PM
Quote
If someone is unwilling to convert to Orthodoxy if they must accept the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church, can they be said to have truly Converted?

The western rites are also part of the liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 01, 2005, 09:58:25 PM
So, now you're disregarding the first 1000 years of western Christianity and retroactively concluding that the liturgy that was served there in 400 AD and later was somehow not REALLY Orthodox?

If we haven't practiced something for a thousand years, how can we really consider it to be part of the LIVING Tradition of our Church? The point is that the so-called 'Western Rite' is not part of our Living Tradition, is Foreign to the Orthodox Church (even the rites that pretend to be pre-schism, as has already been said in this thread, are not based on academic reconstructions of the Liturgies with obvious post-schism latinizations), and historically lead to no good, but rather the evils of Heresy and Schism, and not simply a small break from the Church for a few years, but rather a Sustained Schism/Heresy, which has been propagated for nearly a millenium, the Western Liturgy is an inseperable element of this; just as the Eastern Liturgy is an inseperable element of the Orthodox Church.

That doesn't make any sense. Since they are "heretics" (to be blunt and uncharitable), we don't recognize the Abp of Canterbury or Pope of Rome as Bishops anyways.

Whether any of us like it or not, the Western Rite has been "living" (even if as an infant or on "life support" so to speak) for several decades now and is continuing to live. Some type of new Tradition has been revived and it may just be here to stay.

But we have made it clear that if they do convert to Orthodoxy we will recognize their Episcopal Sees, and accordingly will recognize the Ancient Rights of these Sees. Granted it is an act of Economy, but no doubt would be, if the opportunity presented itself, a prudent one. Furthermore, a hand full of converts engaging in practices inconsonant with the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox Church hardly constitutes a living Tradition. And Even IF it did, you are ignoring the 900+ years where this tradition was non-existant in the Orthodox Church. Try as some might, the Western Rite and their Liturgy is not, and will never be, a part of the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition and will continue to be nothing more than a foreign element artificially maintained amongst a small segment of the population.

The point is that majority of the Church has not formulated her oppinion. I would not be inclined to run and parade myself as member of either party, because once the Church speaks out, I might be in the party that is wrong, and for reasons of egoism, that can bring upon the schismatic nature.

Either way, I see good points and bad in both of the arguments, wisdom will be in using all the good ones and managing the bad.

After all, may it be done for the glory of God and salvation of the souls.

A majority of the Church does not even know this phenomena exists, never mind formally decreeing on it. However, with that said, I would quite enjoy to see this issue formally brought up in an endimousa synod, as I feel fairly confident of what side the Synod would come down on. The Oecumenical Patriarchate and others closer to here for reasons of ecumenism, the Russians and other Slavic Churches on account of the current vision of the West as a threat.

But (sorry to burst your bubble) it's not your place to question the strength of their conviction. That is between them and the bishops who bought them into the Church.

But it is my place, as well as the place of all the faithful of this Metropolis, to consider the points our former Metropolitan made on the Issue, inorder that the faithful of the Greek Orthodox Church may be Protected from this Phenomena; and in assessing the level of threat to the Church from this phenomena, this is a more than valid question. So while I am not these people spiritual father, and hence not to be concerned with their conviction for their own sake, it is certainly understandable that I would be concerned about it from the perspective of desiring to see the well-being of the Church as a whole maintained. Thus, while it may be inappropriate for me to ask about the personal conviction of Western Rite Parishioners John and Jane from All Saints of the West Antiochian Orthodox Church; it is far from inappropriate for me to inquire as to whether or not this method of proselytism is benificial to the Orthodox Church, and the potential conviction and devotion to the Church of potential converts is certainly a variable that should be taken into account in such an analysis.

The western rites are also part of the liturgical traditions of the Orthodox Church.

Even if they were part of some tradition a thousand years ago, they are not part of the Living Tradition of the Church, and thus it is inappropriate for them to be used in our Liturgical Celebrations, just as it is inappropriate for us to resurrect some ancient eastern rite liturgy which has fallen into disuse for our current liturgical devotion.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 01, 2005, 10:56:05 PM
The Ambrosian rite is celebrated to this day in parishes of Milan and the surrounding areas.

.......together with the changes made to the Ambrosian Breviary and Missal introduced by St. Charles Borromeo, who, as a Tridentine Bishop, sought to bring it closer to the Roman Rite.

There is no Living Tradition of a pre-schism Western Liturgy....anywhere..
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SeanMc on August 01, 2005, 11:24:53 PM
Quote
If we haven't practiced something for a thousand years, how can we really consider it to be part of the LIVING Tradition of our Church?

Which Father mandated that liturgy must be a "living tradition"? (<-----not just rhetorical question)

Is there some kind of time limit on what is considered to be a part of tradition? Take the Liturgy of St. James. It's mostly out of use except for a few days of the year (well, I read that it is used regularly by an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox Church, but EO and OO are out of communion with each other).

Can something that's used a few days a year really be considered a living tradition?

What we delve into is a mess of illogical relativism.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 01, 2005, 11:48:00 PM
Which Father mandated that liturgy must be a "living tradition"? (<-----not just rhetorical question)

Is there some kind of time limit on what is considered to be a part of tradition? Take the Liturgy of St. James. It's mostly out of use except for a few days of the year (well, I read that it is used regularly by an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox Church, but EO and OO are out of communion with each other).

Can something that's used a few days a year really be considered a living tradition?

What we delve into is a mess of illogical relativism.

It is a liturgy that has been maintained specifically in the Liturgical Conscienceness of the Church of Jerusalem. Yes, it may only be used a couple times a year, but it is used consistantly every year...our Holy Week services are only used once a year, but are used consistantly. These are Liturgical Traditions that we have maintained over the Centuries, unlike the Western Rite. The Western Rite is nothing more than radical liturgical reform, an academic curiosity that has no place in the Liturgical Devotion of the Church, it is a change on a scale that dwarfs what the Latins did in Vatican II. In the end it's simply not part of the Orthodox Church, it is a foreign, namely protestant, element within the Church, we have a Perfectly Good Liturgical Tradition there is no need to corrupt and pervert it with protestant and latin influence. If we allow a 'western rite' the next logical step is the Clown and Guitar 'Liturgy,' you're right, who needs living tradition, as long as it's fun.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SeanMc on August 02, 2005, 12:02:08 AM
Again, what Father talked about the necessity of a "living [liturgical] tradition"?

Quote
If we allow a 'western rite' the next logical step is the Clown and Guitar 'Liturgy,' you're right, who needs living tradition, as long as it's fun.

What is the purpose of the liturgy?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 02, 2005, 12:39:28 AM
Which Father mandated that liturgy must be a "living tradition"? (<-----not just rhetorical question)

The answer is: "All of 'em."

L: Traditio and Gr: Paradosis both literally mean "handing down" from one generation to the next.
St. Vincent of Lerins remarks (as do many other Fathers) that the first thing the heretic will say to affirm his position is: "It is written....."
'When anyone asks one of these heretics who presents arguments: Where
are the proofs of your teacing that I should leave behind the
world-wide and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He will jump in
before you have finished with the question: "It is written" He follows
up immediately with thousands of texts and examples...'
   Commonit 1,26

For this reason St. Vincent says that the Traditional Teaching of the Church is that which is held "always and everywhere and by all".
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SeanMc on August 02, 2005, 12:51:10 AM
Quote
For this reason St. Vincent says that the Traditional Teaching of the Church is that which is held "always and everywhere and by all".

I would think that you are taking that quotation out of context, for the Apostolic faith is held "always and everywhere and by all," but the liturgical traditions aren't.

The above quotation talks about faith (Sacred Tradition), not liturgy.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Friarmoo32 on August 02, 2005, 12:57:41 AM
If we allow a 'western rite' the next logical step is the Clown and Guitar 'Liturgy,' you're right, who needs living tradition, as long as it's fun.

With all due respect I find that to be a poorly thought out idea. ÂÂ You cannot deny that the Western Rite was apart of the Christian church in the first 11 centuries. ÂÂ Now, what the Roman Catholic Church did with it is unapplicable because that does not say anything about the Orthodox Church right? ÂÂ I can definetly see where you would be concerned and all, but one thing you may be forgetting, Catholicism is without the fullness of truth so wouldnt that mean that complete 'protection' by the Holy Spirit would not be there? ÂÂ What I'm saying is that Western Rite Orthodoxy should not be confused with Western Rite Catholicism. ÂÂ So if the Orthodox Church found that returning the Western Rite to be suitable, then what concern could there be right? ÂÂ Clown and Guitar "Liturgy" has no real place when thinking about the Western Rite, only if you are referring to Catholicism. ÂÂ It's pretty obvious that the Orthodox church would never allow that disgusting thing to go on. ÂÂ So even if you don't prefer the Western Rite Liturgy, you can't say that the same thing can happen in the Orthodox Church that happened in the Catholic Church...not by a long shot! ÂÂ  Just a thought.


Ian.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 02, 2005, 02:24:26 AM
With all due respect I find that to be a poorly thought out idea.  You cannot deny that the Western Rite was apart of the Christian church in the first 11 centuries.

There seems to be this artificial approach to Church History, everything that was done for the first 1054 years in the West was Orthodox, then all of a sudden they became heretics. Thus everythign before 1054=good and everything (well considering some 'western rite' parishes use a modified version of the BCP, not Everything) after=bad. It doesnt work that way, and you can not just pick up where everyone left off in 1054, if one wants to look for a genuinely Orthodox western pre-schism liturgy, why dont they go back to say the 6th Century west? Hey, we even have a 6th Century Western Liturgy in the Living Tradition of the Church, it's called the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, why not use that for their 'western liturgy'?

Furthermore, The liturgy is part of the daily life and expression of the people of that time, the fullness of its meaning can only exist in the culture of that time. Simply throw it into a modern context trying to be 'historically accurate' it becomes meaningless, it is not a viable liturgical experience; this is because it is not a Living Tradition, it is a dead academic curiosity that has been resurrected for the sake of nostalgia.

And finally, while the West did have a rite that was distinct from that of the East, I fear it was not any of the so-called western rites that the so named parishes use today, they all have at least some medieval latin influence, for the manuscripts we have from that era are simply not complete. Not only are these Liturgies not part of our Living Tradition, they're not even part of some Historical Tradition, they may have elements from that, but so does the clown mass.

Quote
It's pretty obvious that the Orthodox church would never allow that disgusting thing to go on.

If it wasn't for the fact that some jurisdictions tolerate it, I would never have dreamed that the Orthodox Church would allow something as absurd as a 'Divine Liturgy' with priests dressed in the costumes of the latins and the prayers taken almost entirely from a protestant prayer book...but it does happen, I really fail see how the clown mass is either that different or that far off; but what the heck, compared to a so-called 'Divine Liturty' where most the Prayers are taken from the BCP, perhaps a clown mass would be an improvement.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 02, 2005, 10:41:34 AM
GiC,

According to your theory on living tradition you should not be insulted by Byzantine Catholics as the Church of Rome has always had Byzantine Christians in its jurisdiction, the Italo-Greeks and Grottaferrata Monastery, just as Constantinople once had Latin Chrisitans within its jurisdiction, as well as Amalfion on Mt. Athos.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 02, 2005, 11:17:53 AM
Quote
Hey, we even have a 6th Century Western Liturgy in the Living Tradition of the Church, it's called the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, why not use that for their 'western liturgy'?

The Liturgy of the Presanctified is not a western liturgy, and you know it. It's Byzantine, through and through.

Quote
Furthermore, The liturgy is part of the daily life and expression of the people of that time, the fullness of its meaning can only exist in the culture of that time.

It's still part of the daily life and expression of plenty of people in our time.

Quote
And finally, while the West did have a rite that was distinct from that of the East, I fear it was not any of the so-called western rites that the so named parishes use today, they all have at least some medieval latin influence, for the manuscripts we have from that era are simply not complete.

Good for them. We should not be digging through old manuscripts, but practicing the western liturgies handed down to us, after they have been cleansed of any unorthodox elements.

Quote
priests dressed in the costumes of the latins

I will thank you not to refer to the sacred vestments of the western church, worn by Orthodox priests, as "costumes".

Quote
I really fail see how the clown mass is either that different or that far off;

If you really fail to see how the clown mass is that far off from a western liturgy, I have to wonder about your intelligence, and how you ever managed to complete seminary. A relative in high places, perhaps? Surely it could not be because of the sharpness of your intellect.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 02, 2005, 11:47:18 AM
...an academic curiosity...

Sorry, but until you demonstrate otherwise, YOU are only an academic curiousity.

If this Western Rite stuff keeps on surviving, you will have no choice but to recognize it, as it will become a Living Tradition.  (To quote the Russian from Rocky IV) If it dies, it dies.  But if these parishes keep on surviving, another Living Tradition have we will. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 02, 2005, 11:58:25 AM
According to your theory on living tradition you should not be insulted by Byzantine Catholics as the Church of Rome has always had Byzantine Christians in its jurisdiction, the Italo-Greeks and Grottaferrata Monastery, just as Constantinople once had Latin Chrisitans within its jurisdiction, as well as Amalfion on Mt. Athos.

That was just one of my arguments that the Western Rite is Foreign to the Orthodox Church and our Tradition, another, equally valid concern, is that it is nothing more than shameless proselytism and simply uncalled for, for reasons of civility. This applies both to the 'Western Rite' of the Orthodox and the 'Eastern Rite' of the Latins. Both are a mockery and an insult and neither should exist.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 02, 2005, 12:01:27 PM
GiC,
What really bothers me about your arguments is how you fail to given those Western Rite parishes any benefit of the doubt - as if it is not possible and they are all in some kind of prelest.  How arrogant and uncharitable!  Most of us arguing against you even agree that they would prefer the usual St. John/Basil Rites, but we aren't so stubborn that we don't consider the possibility.  It is as if you doubt the work of the Holy Spirit here.  Whatever happened to Baptizing other peoples/cultures?  Maybe this could be a case, even if it takes time to make it fully Orthodox/restore the rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Augustine on August 02, 2005, 12:22:38 PM
I think more than debating the matter, it would be better to see what happens (with time) with Western Rite parishes under Orthodox hierarchs.  If it flies, it won't need to be argued - if it doesn't, it'll go away on it's own.  I think all that is really needed, is for the phyletists and cultural-romanticists to just have the patience/open-mindedness to let people who are obviously of good will to make a go of it.  That much, IMHO isn't going to cost them anything.  It's not as if such persons don't tolerate any number of "alien" or "innovative" things in their midst (where do I begin?) - as far as "alien" things go, I would figure this is pretty tame, and of much better pedigree.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Friarmoo32 on August 02, 2005, 01:27:39 PM
GreekisChristian, your prejudice against the Western Rite astounds me.  From what I have read you are studying to be a priest no?  I thought a priest was supposed to support his church.  Have you ever even been to a Western Rite Mass?  BTW, the prayers from a "Protestant" handbook idea is not even true.  A lot of the prayers are taken from what is called the Tridintine Rite but you should know as someone who is studying for the priesthood that the Tridintine Mass was only CODIFIED after the schism, but was in use before the schism.  I also don't think that the church was absolutely perfect before 1054, either.  My point with that was only to say that if the Western Rite was apart of the original Christian chuch and Orthodoxy claims to be the original Christian church, then I don't see why you should have such a huge problem with Orthodoxy allowing it.  I do have one question.  I respectfully ask this, but have you ever attended a Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy?  Just a thought becuase if you haven't then I wouldn't understand how you could refer to the Sacred Vestments as "Costumes" (very disrespectful and unbecomming from a future priest) or say it's basically a Protestant service.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 02, 2005, 01:59:24 PM
I tend to disgree with the expressed statement that if the western rite, survives as it is now then it becomes a living tradition.  Idiorrythmia survived for a very long time on the Holy Mountain, but it was never considered traditional.  The filioque existed for hundreds of years before the church once and for all expelled it.  So the Church has a level of tolerance for the sake of economy, hoping to to correct a mistake with love before excomunication.  That being said, I am NOT saying that is the case with western rite, only that prolonged existence does not always equal traditional. 

Some of the problems associated with the western rite are the modern practice of it - I have seem western rite supporters that are ardent defenders of the rosary or other post schism and un- Orthodox devotions.  Also there seems to be a non standardness to the western rite in practice, with different tyica in use creating a definite dis-unity.  Perhaps with some cleaning up and codification the western rite will thrive (and I hope this is the case), but only time will tell. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jakub on August 02, 2005, 02:06:30 PM
Some people are just plain arrogant...be they rooted in the East or West...the Lord is the sole Judge...from my observations and experience, the W.O. worship in the Spirit and Truth and will survive...GIC, it is His call not yours...thank you.

St. John Maximovitch, please intercede and enlighten the people who are clueless and in the dark...


james
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 02, 2005, 03:01:27 PM
Quote
I have seem western rite supporters that are ardent defenders of the rosary or other post schism and un- Orthodox devotions.

Does the fact that the origin of a practice postdates the schism mean that it is ipso facto unOrthodox?

Quote
there seems to be a non standardness to the western rite in practice, with different tyica in use creating a definite dis-unity.

There also seems to be a non-standardness to the Byzantine rite in practice, with different typika in use creating a definite disunity.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 02, 2005, 03:13:23 PM
Quote
Does the fact that the origin of a practice postdates the schism mean that it is ipso facto unOrthodox?

No, that is why I said post schism AND un-Orthodox.  The rosary is about using the imagination during prayer, which the fathers never supported - thus my objection to it.  But the issue is deeper than simply the rosary - IME many of the Western rite Orthodox that I have come into contact with are not willing to let go of that which is post schism, i.e "St" Francis of Assisi etc.  So I think the concerns of some on the issue are valid.  Granted such things are not limited to the WR - some wacky groups like the OCA New Skete do the same thing.

Quote
There also seems to be a non-standardness to the Byzantine rite in practice, with different typika in use creating a definite disunity.

The byzantine rite disunity is realatively minor.  In the western rite some parishes use an adaptation of the BCP, other of the Sarum Rite, others from some Tridentinish. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 02, 2005, 03:41:34 PM
Quote
The rosary is about using the imagination during prayer, which the fathers never supported - thus my objection to it.

The rosary is about saying a fixed set of prayers. The meditation on the mysteries were a later accretion, and there are plenty of people (my mother is one) who don't visualize them, but simply say the prayers.

Quote
The byzantine rite disunity is realatively minor.  In the western rite some parishes use an adaptation of the BCP, other of the Sarum Rite, others from some Tridentinish.

And if you compared these three rites, you would see that the differences between them are not much greater than those between a Greek, Antiochian, Russian, and Carpatho-Rusyn Divine Liturgy.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Landon77 on August 02, 2005, 03:55:43 PM
I don't use my imagination while saying the rosary.  The rosary came about because most of the populas was illitarate and so couldn't read the pslams.  That is why there are fifteen decades, with ten "Hail Marys" in each decade.  It isn't that different than the prayer beads ER monks use.  And I've never met a WR person that venerates St. Francis.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 02, 2005, 04:11:33 PM
The vast majority of those who say the rosary use the mysteries.  And even taking away the mysteries from the rosaries there are still the other atachments to heretical/schismatic things in the WR.

I'm not opposed to the idea of letting people use ancient western liturgies as an ecomny - I just think the current practice of it needs to be shaped up a little bit. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 02, 2005, 04:16:37 PM
Quote
And even taking away the mysteries from the rosaries there are still the other atachments to heretical/schismatic things in the WR.

Like what?

And a "thing" cannot be schismatic, only people can be schismatic.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 02, 2005, 04:47:22 PM
A lot of the prayers are taken from what is called the Tridintine Rite but you should know as someone who is studying for the priesthood that the Tridintine Mass was only CODIFIED after the schism, but was in use before the schism.

That the Tridintine Mass is derived from a Pre-Schism Liturgy I have no doubt, that it survived the middle ages without change or evolution, that I seriously doubt and would be interested in evidence to support such a statement. But that was not even what I was refering to in my statement, I was refering to what I believe is called the 'Liturgy of St. Tikhon,' which is composed largely of prayers from the Book of Common Prayer.

Quote
My point with that was only to say that if the Western Rite was apart of the original Christian chuch and Orthodoxy claims to be the original Christian church, then I don't see why you should have such a huge problem with Orthodoxy allowing it.

Because it's a historical curiosity to the Church, not part of our Living Liturgical Tradition.

Quote
I do have one question.ÂÂ  I respectfully ask this, but have you ever attended a Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy?ÂÂ  Just a thought becuase if you haven't then I wouldn't understand how you could refer to the Sacred Vestments as "Costumes" (very disrespectful and unbecomming from a future priest) or say it's basically a Protestant service.

No, but I have been to Tridentine High Masses and the Masses of the Anglo-Catholics, and while they may be beautiful services (Especially the Latin Tridentine High Mass), they are not part of the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition, and are Foreign to our Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 02, 2005, 05:08:48 PM
Quote
Because it's a historical curiosity to the Church, not part of our Living Liturgical Tradition.

For all your love and pomp towards semi-archaic English it should be "it's an historical" not "a historical"


Also GiC, the GOA has introduced its fair share of foriegn elements into the Church, so this is argument you may wish to make with caution...
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 02, 2005, 05:28:45 PM
For all your love and pomp towards semi-archaic English it should be "it's an historical" not "a historical"

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that 'an' was only used before an unvoiced 'h,' thus while we have 'an honourable,' we would have 'a house' or 'a historical.'

With that said, whether or not the 'h' in 'historical' is voiced would be dependent on dialect. Using an BBC English dialect, you're probably correct, it would be unvoiced, and hence 'an historical' using a western American dialect 'a historical' would be more correct.

Quote
Also GiC, the GOA has introduced its fair share of foriegn elements into the Church, so this is argument you may wish to make with caution...

I'm not too terribly fond of those either, and while I think such things as Choirs and Organs should be removed from the Churches, they are not a liturgical abuse on the scale of using a completely foreign rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 02, 2005, 05:31:28 PM
Quote
That the Tridintine Mass is derived from a Pre-Schism Liturgy I have no doubt, that it survived the middle ages without change or evolution, that I seriously doubt and would be interested in evidence to support such a statement.

It survived without substantive change, as is obvious by even a cursory examination of manuscripts. Unless you think the Last Gospel or the arrangement of psalms in the divine office are faith-altering modifications...

Quote
Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that 'an' was only used before an unvoiced 'h,' thus while we have 'an honourable,' we would have 'a house' or 'a historical.'

It is correct British English to use "an historical".
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 02, 2005, 05:33:50 PM
It survived without substantive change, as is obvious by even a cursory examination of manuscripts. Unless you think the Last Gospel or the arrangement of psalms in the divine office are faith-altering modifications...

It is correct British English to use "an historical".

Yes, you would be correct, I realized that just as I posted, and you posted before I could modify my post.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 02, 2005, 05:48:37 PM
I'm not opposed to the idea of letting people use ancient western liturgies as an ecomny - I just think the current practice of it needs to be shaped up a little bit.ÂÂ  

Nothing to diagree with here.  I've never been to one myself, but don't see what the hubub about bashing it is.  A Saint approved it, current Bishops support it, doesn't matter if I don't really like it, 'nuff said.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 02, 2005, 05:56:17 PM
I'm not too terribly fond of those either, and while I think such things as Choirs and Organs should be removed from the Churches, they are not a liturgical abuse on the scale of using a completely foreign rite.

Ahem...choirs and Organs are vastly different and you know it.  Just because you may prefer a couple of Psaltis, doesn't invalidate a choir.  Organs are not people and thus don't fly period. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Friarmoo32 on August 02, 2005, 09:30:39 PM
That the Tridintine Mass is derived from a Pre-Schism Liturgy I have no doubt, that it survived the middle ages without change or evolution, that I seriously doubt and would be interested in evidence to support such a statement. But that was not even what I was referring to in my statement, I was referring to what I believe is called the 'Liturgy of St. Tikhon,' which is composed largely of prayers from the Book of Common Prayer.

OK first of all, I never said that the Tridintine Mass didn't under go change in the Middle Ages, thats common knowledge that it did!  As a matter of fact the whole point of it being codified was to say no more changed could happen..thus many changes occurred up until that time. (And YES there were other reasons too before I get nailed for that)  The majority of it was pre-schism though.


No, but I have been to Tridentine High Masses and the Masses of the Anglo-Catholics, and while they may be beautiful services (Especially the Latin Tridentine High Mass), they are not part of the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition, and are Foreign to our Church.

In that case I REALLY don't understand why you talk down the Western Rite by referring to the Vestments as "costumes" if you found it so beautiful.  True, they are not part of the Orthodox Tradition, if you think of it as the Orthodox church came to be in 1054 but I thought the Orthodox Church has been here since the Resurrection of Christ?  So actually the Western Rite IS Orthodox but hasn't been seen for centuries, hence IS apart of Liturgical Tradition I would say.  But of course, you would have to remove all the post-schism stuff, but that does not at all in any way shape or form say that the Western Rite is not Orthodox.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 02, 2005, 10:43:11 PM
In that case I REALLY don't understand why you talk down the Western Rite by referring to the Vestments as "costumes" if you found it so beautiful.

For the same reason I would call a uniate priest's vestments a 'costume,' they may be Holy Vestments of the Priesthood when worn by Orthodox Priests, but when worn by the Unia they are nothing more than constume, inorder that the Liturgy of the Orthodox, with whom they are divorced, may be preformed like the theater.

Quote
True, they are not part of the Orthodox Tradition, if you think of it as the Orthodox church came to be in 1054 but I thought the Orthodox Church has been here since the Resurrection of Christ?ÂÂ  So actually the Western Rite IS Orthodox but hasn't been seen for centuries, hence IS apart of Liturgical Tradition I would say.ÂÂ  But of course, you would have to remove all the post-schism stuff, but that does not at all in any way shape or form say that the Western Rite is not Orthodox.

And there are many ancient Eastern Liturgies that have fallen into disuse (such as the Cathedral Rites that were replaced by the Monastic Rites), and it would be equally inappropriate to try and resurrect them. The fact that we did something at one point in our History does not mean it is acceptable to reinvent it. Take the agape meal for instance, once a standard part of the Liturgical life of the Church, today it is forbidden by canon. Whether or not a 'western rite' once existed in the Church (and the ones that did are Not the same ones the so-called western rite uses today, rather they use latinized or even protestantized versions thereof) is not so much the point as the fact that a 'Western Rite' is not part of the Living Tradition of the Church, it is rather something forced that was artifically resurrected a few decades ago.

Ahem...choirs and Organs are vastly different and you know it. Just because you may prefer a couple of Psaltis, doesn't invalidate a choir. Organs are not people and thus don't fly period.

The Choir, like the Organ, amongst the Greek Orthodox Church at least, was a foreign concept that was introduced into the Church here in America.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on August 02, 2005, 11:48:15 PM
GiC,

Let's try and remain a bit more civil here. Referring to the Eastern Rite's vestments as "costumes" for theatrical purposes is, in my opinion, unnecessary, and getting pretty close to stepping outside the bounds of common civility which we try to maintain here.

Still a section Mod,
Me.

P.S. I visited the Phanar a couple of weeks ago. Kind of depressing way up on a hill with no one but a couple of tourists and security guards around. Not to mention the Turkish flag flying high atop.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: FrChris on August 03, 2005, 01:02:32 AM
Quote
P.S. I visited the Phanar a couple of weeks ago. Kind of depressing way up on a hill with no one but a couple of tourists and security guards around. Not to mention the Turkish flag flying high atop.

Could I have explained to me why this 'observation' of how one of the great figures of the Orthodox church is currently being denigrated by a foreign power is combined with an admonition to avoid taunting?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on August 03, 2005, 01:17:50 AM
I wasn't taunting. I was describing what I saw and how it was really depressing.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: FrChris on August 03, 2005, 01:59:22 AM
Oh, it was my misunderstanding then.

See, we all know many people get on GiC's case regarding his devotion to the 'Oecumenical Patriarch', who of course resides in the Phanar.

Your mention of the Phanar in the way described could have been read as indicating that this place really wasn't as important as GiC makes it out to be.

Especially when combined with a lack of emoticons or other indication that you felt sorrow over the plight of the Patriarch had me wondering just what was going on.

 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on August 03, 2005, 02:33:49 AM
Understood!
I have probably commented negatively here on the EP, or maybe it was just a critique of the modern EP by St. John of San Francisco that I posted. Either way, with the hits that the EP has been known to take here and on some other Orthodox forums, it's no wonder you thought I was being a jerk.  ;)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ania on August 03, 2005, 04:37:34 AM
What I want to know is what you all are doing online when its past your bed times... 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Keble on August 03, 2005, 09:43:05 AM
For the same reason I would call a uniate priest's vestments a 'costume,' they may be Holy Vestments of the Priesthood when worn by Orthodox Priests, but when worn by the Unia they are nothing more than constume, inorder that the Liturgy of the Orthodox, with whom they are divorced, may be preformed like the theater.

OK, that's it. If "Monophysite" is bad, this is worse. Saying that other people are just pretending to do the liturgy is, to me, at the top of the list of slanders that gets tossed out by Ortho-partisans. Call it false religion if you must, but implying that it is deliberate pretense isÂÂ  malicious. I know that you know better than that. It's about time the moderators starting quashing people who say things like this.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 03, 2005, 10:02:51 AM
I'm really getting tired of seeing GiC's words twisted on this forum to mean anything other than what he intended.
I don't agree with some of his views, and have said so.
Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.
And why bring up the race/ethnicity card? GiC certainly didn't. He made a valid point about a foreign concept, and you reply with the concept of "foreigners" in your country.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on August 03, 2005, 10:04:21 AM
I'm really getting tired of seeing GiC's words twisted on this forum to mean anything otherthan what he intended.

HEAR, HEAR ! ! !
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 03, 2005, 10:28:05 AM
Quote
Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.

But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass. This is an astoundingly disrespectful way to speak of the mysteries and the liturgy of the Church. If he doesn't believe that WR liturgies are true liturgies, and that the mysteries are not present in them, then he should have the courage of his convictions to say it, rather than making insulting comments about liturgies of the Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Landon77 on August 03, 2005, 10:34:37 AM
  I did go back and read what GiC said.  He called the vestments that my ORTHODOX priest wears costumes.  :-[  Well GiC, my priest has devoted his life to this wearing of "costumes."  The things I want to say to you right now are so unChristian.  Well, GiC, if it bothers you so much, maybe you should joing the True Orthodox Church?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 03, 2005, 10:37:24 AM
But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass.

No he didn't. Nowhere did he question whether they were valid Mysteries. This is the kind of word twisting I'm talking about!
What he said was that the Western Rite is a Liturgical reform which surpasses even the Novus Ordo of Vatican II- and should not have taken place. The Novus Ordo was at least based on an existing Liturgy which was in use. That was his point.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 03, 2005, 10:38:48 AM
OK, that's it. If "Monophysite" is bad, this is worse. Saying that other people are just pretending to do the liturgy is, to me, at the top of the list of slanders that gets tossed out by Ortho-partisans. Call it false religion if you must, but implying that it is deliberate pretense isÂÂ  malicious. I know that you know better than that. It's about time the moderators starting quashing people who say things like this.

How soon people forget the other threads that go on here when convenient. Remember I'm the one who is condemned as the 'Ecumenist' and as a supporter of the 'Ecumenist Patriarch,' I'm probably one of only a small handful of Orthodox here who would argue for the Validity of the Latin Eucharist, and yes, this would Include the Liturgy of the Unia. But with that said, their Liturgy is still Play-Acting, it is pretending to be of a Tradition from which they are Divorced, they are people subject to a Western Patriarch pretending to be part of the Eastern Church. Same goes for the Western Rite, sure the Eucharist is valid, but they're still play-acting, pretending to be part of a Tradition they are divorced from.

Quote
"Foreign?" What could be more foreign in America than Greek Orthodoxy? Sheeeeeeesh.

Exactly my point, America and Greek Orthodoxy are Foreign to each other, and thus to avoid foreign influence, the Orthodox Church should avoid American influence.

I'm really getting tired of seeing GiC's words twisted on this forum to mean anything other than what he intended.
I don't agree with some of his views, and have said so.
Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.
And why bring up the race/ethnicity card? GiC certainly didn't. He made a valid point about a foreign concept, and you reply with the concept of "foreigners" in your country.

THANK YOU!

But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass. This is an astoundingly disrespectful way to speak of the mysteries and the liturgy of the Church. If he doesn't believe that WR liturgies are true liturgies, and that the mysteries are not present in them, then he should have the courage of his convictions to say it, rather than making insulting comments about liturgies of the Church.

Clown masses are a mockery of tradition, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are invalid; same goes for the Western Rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Friarmoo32 on August 03, 2005, 10:44:29 AM
The Novus Ordo was at least based on an existing Liturgy which was in use. That was his point.

Really?  I was unaware of this.  I had heard that the Eucharistic Canons were previous ones in the early church of the West but I was unaware the rest was based on an existing Liturgy.  That's interesting ozgeorge, I had always thought Paul VI practically made it up himself! :D  What Liturgy is the Novus Ordo taken from?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 03, 2005, 10:53:38 AM
Really? I was unaware of this. I had heard that the Eucharistic Canons were previous ones in the early church of the West but I was unaware the rest was based on an existing Liturgy. That's interesting ozgeorge, I had always thought Paul VI practically made it up himself! :D What Liturgy is the Novus Ordo taken from?

Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Keble on August 03, 2005, 10:57:46 AM
Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.

Uniate churches appear Eastern because they are. To say that Eastern==Orthodox is to beg the question.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 03, 2005, 11:05:44 AM

<sigh>...."They have ears and hear not....."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 03, 2005, 11:10:25 AM
Quote
No he didn't. Nowhere did he question whether they were valid Mysteries. This is the kind of word twisting I'm talking about!

He implied it with this quote:

Quote
For the same reason I would call a uniate priest's vestments a 'costume,' they may be Holy Vestments of the Priesthood when worn by Orthodox Priests, but when worn by the Unia they are nothing more than constume, inorder that the Liturgy of the Orthodox, with whom they are divorced, may be preformed like the theater.

I see now that he has clarified that he believes the mysteries do exist in western liturgies, which makes his insulting comments about "costumes" and "play-acting" all the worse. He is talking about Orthodox priests serving at the altar of God at the most holy Divine Liturgy! Even if one thinks it pastorally unwise to continue using the WR, it is still unacceptable to refer to the mysteries as "play acting" and the vesments as "costumes".
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 03, 2005, 11:16:03 AM
Quote
Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.

Incorrect. Even ignoring the issue of the anaphora, the Novus Ordo liturgy is a radical departure from the Tridentine. The entrance rites were cut down severely, the Kyrie abbreviated, another reading added, the gradual replaced by a responsorial psalm, the prayer before the Gospel cut down (in fact, pretty much all of the priest's silent prayers were eliminated or radically shortened), a litany added after the creed, the offertory prayers completely removed and replaced by two short blessings, the Mysterium Fidei removed from the words of institution and made into a responsorial, the last Gospel removed...

You can see a comparison of the two missals here (http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html). It is obvious that much stuff other than the anaphora was removed or changed.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 03, 2005, 12:38:57 PM
The website refered to does not give a fair comparison as it omits many silent prayers still taken by the priest, such as the prayer brfore the Gospel.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SeanMc on August 03, 2005, 12:41:29 PM
Quote
Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.

You may find this article about the "development" of the "Eucharistic Prayers" interesting: http://www.adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Asteriktos on August 03, 2005, 12:47:13 PM
Quote
It got me to thinking what I would do in a similar situation.  If I only had a choice between a Western Orthodox church and an Eastern Catholic church I'd definitely choose to the Orthodox church because I could receive Communion.  (Of course this is hypothetical as there are no places in the US where the only Orthodox parishes are Western Orthodox.)

For me, there wouldn't be a doubt in my mind. Even if I wasn't allowed to take communion, I'd still go to the Orthodox Church. I think people get too hung up on liturgy, and seem to think that a right liturgy somehow magically transforms a non-Orthodox group into a group that is Orthodox (if only marginally). There are cafeteria Christianity people doing liturgies in their basement that are problably more perfectly executed than what you'd see in your normal parish. They have all the right clothes, they do all the right movements, they say all the right words. But that doesn't make them Eastern Orthodox. Now, I don't mean to compare Eastern Catholics to cafeteria Christians, I'm just bringing it up to show the extremes that one might go to if one buys into the orthodox liturgy = orthodox group mindset. Every person in an Eastern Catholic parish might be more pious than me, might be more liturgically knowledgable than me, might even do everything perfectly and according to traditional custom. But if they are under the Pope of Rome, then they are not Orthodox and I would not attend their parish (as an active, ongoing member).
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Thomas on August 03, 2005, 12:56:54 PM
Beloved in the Lord,

Both Metropolitan Philip and Bishop Basil, Antiochian  hierarchs who have the responsibilities fro Western Rite parishes have gone on record noting that a man is ordained an Orthodox Priest and not a western rite or byzantine rite priest. They both make the clear point that a man is called to the PRIESTHOOD by Christ and ordained a PRIEST by the Bishop.  What makes them Orthodox is not their "Rite" but rather the beliefs they hold and their communion with other Orthodox Bishops. On this forum, I frequently read  that we all hope that the Latin/Roman catholic Church will repent of its false doctrine and return to the Orthodox Church Teachings and communion with the Orthodox Christian Church. It seems that the bishops who administer the western rite parishes understand this, is it possible that there are Laity members who forget that it is not "rite" that makes one orthodox but rather beliefs and doctrine---otherwise we could be Eastern Rite Catholics and still be in the Orthodox Church. Let us honor and support the return to Orthodox Beliefs that our Western Rite parishes have embraced and greet them as the prodigal son was greeted---with joy and celebration!

In Christ,
Thomas
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Keble on August 03, 2005, 01:03:35 PM
I don't have time now to really deal with this, but I still find it remarkable that, having gotten the correct answer to the question out in like the first three posts, we now have this rambling "right rite" thread.

Or maybe I should just find it depressingly familiar. The root problem with these sorts of discussions is this: if rites have an objective, intrinsic validity, then the major differences between Western and Eastern rites are immaterial to their validity, because these differences tend not to be found in older rites. If the rite of the Diddache is valid, then we need not trouble ourselves with this nitpicks.

Validity of rite is far more often about the authority of those who approve it-- which isn't wrong, either, but it's also patently not intrinsic.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Friarmoo32 on August 03, 2005, 01:42:25 PM
Well the Tridintine Rite Mass and Pauline Rite Mass are COMPLETELY different.ÂÂ  The Eucharistic Prayer I is only based off the Traditional Canon, and even then cut down A LOT.ÂÂ  As someone else pointed out, all the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone, much of the penitential rites are deleted, it's a different Mass.ÂÂ  A what used to be Pontifical Mass (Bishop or higher), is pretty much the same as any other mass...I've seen some where there was absolutely no difference at all.ÂÂ  I for a long time wanted to become a priest in the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) which is a Traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity, but I found the priesthood is not for me.ÂÂ  So it's so unfortunate that the "Mass" promulgated by Paul VI and the Mass of the Tridintine Rite under Pius IV (or V, not sure) are so different and one you can tell has parts of Ancient Rites while the other...well....
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 03, 2005, 01:52:29 PM
The Choir, like the Organ, amongst the Greek Orthodox Church at least, was a foreign concept that was introduced into the Church here in America.

Irrelevant.  Choirs are a different version of a capella, while organs are fundamentally different (canonical violation?).  If "foreign concept" and "introduced...in America" are problems, then you and all other non-ethnic Greeks should leave the GOA...as well as forcing all parishes to only use Greek (even if no one speaks any) and force all remaining ethnic Greeks to learn it. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Jakub on August 03, 2005, 01:57:52 PM
Keble,

What made you think that people would stay on topic ?

james
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 03, 2005, 02:28:49 PM
Quote
The website refered to does not give a fair comparison as it omits many silent prayers still taken by the priest, such as the prayer brfore the Gospel.

You are, of course, correct. I should have looked at that more closely before I posted it.

Here (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/TextContents/Index/4/SubIndex/67/TextIndex/9) is the text of the 1970 missal, in (as far as I can tell) full. From the same site, here (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/TextContents/Index/4/SubIndex/66/TextIndex/17) is the 1962 missal. Unfortunately they're not laid out side by side, but you can still compare the two.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Veniamin on August 03, 2005, 02:52:22 PM
I'm sure one of our Serbian brethren will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Slava originally a pagan custom that the Church baptized, replacing all the pagan influences with Orthodox ones?  If so, that sounds just like a "foreign concept" to me, albeit one introduced in Serbia rather than America.  Yet there's no problem with that.  Maybe I missed the council that decided it, but when exactly was the cutoff date for "foreign concepts" to be baptized into Orthodoxy?  And if a pagan celebration can be redeemed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit, why not a liturgy used by heterodox Christians?  Seriously, could someone explain to me why one's okay and the other isn't?  If we're against introducing "foreign concepts," why do we use the Cross so much?  Come on, we all know that was a Roman invention, not something the Church came up with.  That seems like the chief of "foreign concepts" baptized by the Church!

Let's call GiC's argument what it is, another expression of contempt, if not outright hatred, for anything not directly tied to the Greek church, as evidenced by the backhanded insult directed at the Slavic tradition of choirs.  I really want to read the argument for why Greek culture is the only one the Holy Spirit could baptize and why all others aren't really Orthodox.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 03, 2005, 05:26:00 PM
Well the Tridintine Rite Mass and Pauline Rite Mass are COMPLETELY different.ÂÂ  The Eucharistic Prayer I is only based off the Traditional Canon, and even then cut down A LOT.ÂÂ  As someone else pointed out, all the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone, much of the penitential rites are deleted, it's a different Mass.ÂÂ  A what used to be Pontifical Mass (Bishop or higher), is pretty much the same as any other mass...I've seen some where there was absolutely no difference at all.ÂÂ  I for a long time wanted to become a priest in the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) which is a Traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity, but I found the priesthood is not for me.ÂÂ  So it's so unfortunate that the "Mass" promulgated by Paul VI and the Mass of the Tridintine Rite under Pius IV (or V, not sure) are so different and one you can tell has parts of Ancient Rites while the other...well....

But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.

Irrelevant. Choirs are a different version of a capella, while organs are fundamentally different (canonical violation?).

I want to say that I remember a patristic canon forbiding the use of devices to amplify the voice during Chanting, but I dont know that I've come accross one against using musical insturments, though I've come accross fathers speaking against their use in Church. I dont know that either Choirs or Organs are uncanonical.

Quote
If "foreign concept" and "introduced...in America" are problems, then you and all other non-ethnic Greeks should leave the GOA...as well as forcing all parishes to only use Greek (even if no one speaks any) and force all remaining ethnic Greeks to learn it.

Last I checked I wasn't a concept, though some here may view me as such...lol. But with that said, while I certainly understand the concern of having Converts in the Church, we all come with our baggage, I think you're trying to twist what I'm saying. Nothing inherently wrong with Converts to the Faith, but we should leave our heritage, culture, and other baggage behind and conform ourselves to the Church, rather than expect the Church to conform to us.

I'm sure one of our Serbian brethren will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Slava originally a pagan custom that the Church baptized, replacing all the pagan influences with Orthodox ones? If so, that sounds just like a "foreign concept" to me, albeit one introduced in Serbia rather than America.

I am not certain as to the origin of Slava, but it's hardly a practice comprable to radically altering the entire Liturgical Tradition of the Church. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Serbians do use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom instead of the religious ceremonies they used before their people Converting to Orthodoxy? Now something the 'western rite' could do comprable to the Serbian practice of Slava, provided it is of pagan origin, would be to use the Typika of the Orthodox Churches, while still saying the rosary at home as a private devotion, or perhaps naming their Church after St. Patrick or St. Leo the Great or St. Ambrose of Milan, while using the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church...this is comparing apples and apples, instead of apples and oranges like you are trying to.

Quote
Yet there's no problem with that. Maybe I missed the council that decided it, but when exactly was the cutoff date for "foreign concepts" to be baptized into Orthodoxy?

Slava is a good example of baptizing an a cultural Element and making it Orthodox, adopting all the customs of the Culture you are converting while destroying all the traditions of the Orthodox is a bad example; I mean that's comprable to having kept all the traditions and rites of the pagans, but when Zeus or Athena was supposed to me mentioned, we could simply cross it out and insert 'Christ' or 'Mary,' keeping all the same rites and practices. This is basically what we did with the western rite, we crossed out the filioque, threw a little yeast into the bread, changed the wording in a couple prayers, and there you go.

Quote
Let's call GiC's argument what it is, another expression of contempt, if not outright hatred, for anything not directly tied to the Greek church, as evidenced by the backhanded insult directed at the Slavic tradition of choirs. I really want to read the argument for why Greek culture is the only one the Holy Spirit could baptize and why all others aren't really Orthodox.

LOL, let's turn this debate about the western rite into a Greek vs. Slavic debate, sorry that doesn't work; the Slavic peoples accepted the Liturgical Rites of the Orthodox when the converted and incorporated them into their Culture, a true baptizing of Cultures, that's not what's being suggested with the so-called western rite, but rather what is demanded is a complete abrogation of the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox, so that it may be replaced with heterodox liturgical rites.

And, btw, my comment about Choirs refered to the Greek Churches, the Slavic Churches are free to maintain their Choirs, as they regard them as part of their Liturgical Customs (granted, it's western influence, but oh well)...however, in the Greek Church they are foreign innovations, generally only found in the diaspora, and should be done away with.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 03, 2005, 06:21:08 PM
And, btw, my comment about Choirs refered to the Greek Churches, the Slavic Churches are free to maintain their Choirs, as they regard them as part of their Liturgical Customs (granted, it's western influence, but oh well)...however, in the Greek Church they are foreign innovations, generally only found in the diaspora, and should be done away with.

1.  Choirs being "western influenced" - it depends how you define a "choir".  >1 solo chanter?  >1 chanter + a few isoners?  Znammeny is the oldest Russian chant, and you know what, it's original notation is that same as the original Byzantine.  Should we throw out any Byzantine with western notation?  Any type of polyphony constitutes a choir?  Btw, my priest is probably one of the more qualified people in the USA Orthodox world - even though he is in the OCA and 100% Carpatho-Russian, and he says that there is actually no (known) historical proof of an ison existing - it is more recent than most think.

2.  Got news for you buddy - as we've told you before, the diaspora IS the flock of the Church of Constantinople.  You don't have much of local flock.  Whether you like it or not, choirs have become part of your tradition.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 03, 2005, 09:18:07 PM
2.ÂÂ  Got news for you buddy - as we've told you before, the diaspora IS the flock of the Church of Constantinople.ÂÂ  You don't have much of local flock.ÂÂ  Whether you like it or not, choirs have become part of your tradition.

The New Territories as well as the Church of Crete also fall under the Oecumenial Throne. I wouldn't say that Choirs (by which everyone knows what I mean, regardless of how they try to redefine it, trying to equate two psaltes to a Choir) have become part of our tradition, they are just a relatively popular perversion of the Tradition of the Great Church, hopefully we can eliminate them, it will take time to eliminate all the episcopalian influences on the Church in America, but it is far from impossible.

P.S. Why would we use Byzantine music with Western notation when it's all readily available in Byzantine notation?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SouthSerb99 on August 03, 2005, 09:29:03 PM
I'm hardly an expert on the subject, so I won't puport to act as one, I'll offer a couple of comments though.

About Slava I've heard the "pagan" past story before and I've even read some literature on it, however, I've discussed it both with my parish priest and Bishop, and both insist it does not have pagan roots.  Not entirely sure to be honest.

As for the issue of Choir... I am a Slavic Serb and my grandfather happened to be one of the founders of the first Serbian Orthodox Church in Canada.  I can tell you that when the Church opened it was sans choir, but the choir came as the parish evolved.

I say this because it is kind of consistent with what GiC is saying.  Not that I necessarily agree that a choir is a bad thing, but I do think (at least as far as this particular parish is concerned), it was something that developed from being in the west.  My father insists they had choirs "back home", although my grandfather disputed this consistently. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 03, 2005, 09:36:48 PM
The New Territories as well as the Church of Crete also fall under the Oecumenial Throne. I wouldn't say that Choirs (by which everyone knows what I mean, regardless of how they try to redefine it, trying to equate two psaltes to a Choir) have become part of our tradition, they are just a relatively popular perversion of the Tradition of the Great Church, hopefully we can eliminate them, it will take time to eliminate all the episcopalian influences on the Church in America, but it is far from impossible.
Sorry, but this is just utter and complete denial.

P.S. Why would we use Byzantine music with Western notation when it's all readily available in Byzantine notation?
Because you can probably count on your hands the number of Psaltis in the "new territories" and "diaspora" who can actually read it.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Friarmoo32 on August 03, 2005, 11:47:07 PM
But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.

That is your own personal opinion and my own, as a Catholic, the Eastern and Western Rites are completely differnet but the Pre-Vatican II Mass and Post-Vatican II Mass are NOT 'infinetly close together' by any means.  Even the words of consecration are changed, along with almost everything else.  Also, your statement would only be true if the Orthodox Bishops tore out the Eastern style type of church and made it Western, otherwise there is no liturgical reform in your church.  Catholicism was affected world wide, and there was no choice for anyone who wasn't Pope.  Your talking about the SAME church but different Rites.  Many of us "Latins" know the Eastern Rite and Western Rite are very different, but we also know the Novus Ordo is not anywhere near close to Tridintine Rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GiC on August 04, 2005, 12:12:44 AM
That is your own personal opinion and my own, as a Catholic, the Eastern and Western Rites are completely differnet but the Pre-Vatican II Mass and Post-Vatican II Mass are NOT 'infinetly close together' by any means.ÂÂ  Even the words of consecration are changed, along with almost everything else.ÂÂ  Also, your statement would only be true if the Orthodox Bishops tore out the Eastern style type of church and made it Western, otherwise there is no liturgical reform in your church.ÂÂ  Catholicism was affected world wide, and there was no choice for anyone who wasn't Pope.ÂÂ  Your talking about the SAME church but different Rites.ÂÂ  Many of us "Latins" know the Eastern Rite and Western Rite are very different, but we also know the Novus Ordo is not anywhere near close to Tridintine Rite.

Last I checked the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden, the Novus Ordo just seems to be the prefrence of most modern Catholics, from the Laity all the way up to the Pope (I know it's not forbidden because I've been to them celebrated by Latin Priests, not SSPX). Even if the new Liturgy is not forced on everyone, the fact that a new Liturgy is created, and permitted to be used, is in and of itself Liturgical Reform.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SeanMc on August 04, 2005, 12:53:07 AM
Quote
Last I checked the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden, the Novus Ordo just seems to be the prefrence of most modern Catholics, from the Laity all the way up to the Pope (I know it's not forbidden because I've been to them celebrated by Latin Priests, not SSPX). Even if the new Liturgy is not forced on everyone, the fact that a new Liturgy is created, and permitted to be used, is in and of itself Liturgical Reform.

The new Liturgy IS forced on everyone. The Missal of 1962 (aka, Tridentine Mass) is only allowed by epsicopal indult per the norms of the Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei.

The only way the Missal of 1962 is usually only allowed in a diocese if there is a SSPX mission in that same diocese or near it. And if it is allowed, the Bishop places it in a small parish in the middle of nowhere: that's how it is in my archdiocese, Vancouver. It's in a hard to get to place, in the smallest church that I know of in the diocese.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 04, 2005, 02:52:41 AM
Quote
you can probably count on your hands the number of Psaltis in the "new territories" and "diaspora" who can actually read it.

I'd say all (or at least a very high percentage) of the psaltes in the new territories can read byzantine notation.  In the diaspora I'd agree that very few can really read it well. 

But as usual I'll add the disclaimer that what GiC is saying doesn't represent the GOA nor the traditional Greek sentiments on the issue.  Regarding European notation for Byzantine Chant St. Athony's Monastery has released a massive work putting much chant into western notation.  http://stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Index.html 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Keble on August 04, 2005, 06:54:48 AM
But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.

Well, no. The Western rites are the more primitive; the main reason why the rite of Chrysostom is so different from a western rite is that it has been elaborated immensely since Chrysostom's day. The differences which first strike the naive viewer are also the most recent innovations.

I have no experience with Greek liturgies, and I have experience with only one Antiochian parish, which, being mostly converts, uses a mixture of Byzantine and Russian music. Frankly, the Byzantine stuff sounds like space noise to me, since it is preharmonic. Everyone else? I've sung for over a dozen weddings where I came as part of a hired choir. Slavic churches seem to take for granted that there will be a choir.

And the alternative to having a choir is not having a cantor; it is having the congregation sing all the responses, or having no singing at all. A cantor is a choir of one.

Quote
LOL, let's turn this debate about the western rite into a Greek vs. Slavic debate, sorry that doesn't work; the Slavic peoples accepted the Liturgical Rites of the Orthodox when the converted and incorporated them into their Culture, a true baptizing of Cultures, that's not what's being suggested with the so-called western rite, but rather what is demanded is a complete abrogation of the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox, so that it may be replaced with heterodox liturgical rites.

But that begs the question, doesn't it? Because if heterodoxy is the problem, then the Tikhonian solution of modifying the text to make it theologically acceptable is sufficient.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: t0m_dR on August 04, 2005, 07:44:01 AM
First, here (http://westernorthodox.com/greekdenver) is an article from the Greek Archdiocese of Denver; thankfully (lest we be accused of Greek-bashing again), not all Greek bishops are so tied to rite that they forget about episcopal intercommunion.

It is not "Greek-bashing". It is "Heresy-bashing"...Either the views derived from a Greek or from a Russian or an American, it doesn't really make a difference for a (real) Orthodox
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 04, 2005, 08:41:18 AM
Well, no. The Western rites are the more primitive; the main reason why the rite of Chrysostom is so different from a western rite is that it has been elaborated immensely since Chrysostom's day. The differences which first strike the naive viewer are also the most recent innovations.

I may be a naive viewer, but if the Western Rite, (unlike the Byzantine) hasn't been elaborated, and is not simply an attempt to make Orthodoxy look Roman Catholic, then why does the bread used in the Western Rite have to be flattened to resemble an azyme? What is the point of leavened bread being made to look unleavened?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Keble on August 04, 2005, 09:13:08 AM
I may be a naive viewer, but if the Western Rite, (unlike the Byzantine) hasn't been elaborated, and is not simply an attempt to make Orthodoxy look Roman Catholic, then why does the bread used in the Western Rite have to be flattened to resemble an azyme? What is the point of leavened bread being made to look unleavened?

I wouldn't say that it hasn't been elaborated; it simply hasn't been elaborated to the same degree.

As far as the bread is concerned: there is no special Anglican praxis about the bread. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Anglican circles in this country pita bread has been the preferred element for some decades. But this is simply a matter of convenience.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 04, 2005, 09:26:04 AM
As far as the bread is concerned: there is no special Anglican praxis about the bread. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Anglican circles in this country pita bread has been the preferred element for some decades. But this is simply a matter of convenience.

I think you missed my meaning.
My question is:
"Why is the Host used in the Western Rite Orthodox Eucharist made to resemble a Roman Catholic Communion wafer?"ÂÂ  
Orthodoxy requires the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, but the Western Rite Orthodox flatten the leavened bread so that it looks like an unleavened (azyme) Communion wafer. I can't see the point of this, particularly if the Western Rite is reaching back to it's pre-schism Orthodox past- why make the Host look unOrthodox?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 04, 2005, 10:02:46 AM
Ozgeorge,

The pre-schism West used unleavened bread, at least form the 4th century.  However, while flat the Western Rite Host does not look really like a Latin Catholic Host in my experience.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 04, 2005, 10:34:14 AM
Quote
Orthodoxy requires the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, but the Western Rite Orthodox flatten the leavened bread so that it looks like an unleavened (azyme) Communion wafer. I can't see the point of this, particularly if the Western Rite is reaching back to it's pre-schism Orthodox past- why make the Host look unOrthodox?

The host being flattened and rounded is the more primitive tradition -- look at the prosphora used by the Coptic or Syrian rites. The pre-schism Western rites used a host of this sort as well. The thick cube used by the Byzantine rite is the odd one out.

It would make no sense for the Western rite to use a Byzantine-style cube, as there is no elaborate prothesis rite in which it is cut out. It would also make an extreme mess at the elevations, as the host itself is being lifted up, and crumbs would go everywhere.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Keble on August 04, 2005, 10:47:23 AM
I've not seen an Orthodox western rite eucharist, so maybe there's some failure of communication here. I'm simply going by contemporaneous Anglican practice. But again, to echo the form issue: what rules exist are extremely minimal. Leavening, shape, even the grain involved do not matter for Anglicans; the only rules for Roman Catholics are (a) wheat and (b) unleavened. I've seen matzo used, and it's perfectly legitimate. It's preferred to have something that doesn't crumb too easily but (if wafers aren't used) is easily broken up for distribution.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 04, 2005, 11:50:35 AM
I'd say all (or at least a very high percentage) of the psaltes in the new territories can read byzantine notation.ÂÂ  In the diaspora I'd agree that very few can really read it well.ÂÂ  

But as usual I'll add the disclaimer that what GiC is saying doesn't represent the GOA nor the traditional Greek sentiments on the issue.ÂÂ  Regarding European notation for Byzantine Chant St. Athony's Monastery has released a massive work putting much chant into western notation.ÂÂ  http://stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Index.htmlÂÂ  

You don't get it - western notation for Byzantine chant is "bad" and an "innovation"! ::)

What are the "new territorties" vs the "diaspora"?

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on August 04, 2005, 12:01:00 PM
You don't get it - western notation for Byzantine chant is "bad" and an "innovation"! ::)

To be exact, western notation is not an exact copy of Byzantine. The music/chant cannot be completely rendered faithful to that intended. That said, western IS better than NO notation and the loss of the total art.

Quote

What are the "new territorties" vs the "diaspora"?


"New territories" are the bishropics in Greece which have been under the EP for centuries, if not always. ozgeorge gave a good explanation as to how these are now administered for the EP by the Church of Greece (thank those wonderful Turks).
"Diaspora" - outside lands under no prior authority, I believe.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr. David on August 04, 2005, 12:41:47 PM
Let me say that I've enjoyed this thread.  GiC, I want to commend you for bringing up the contrast between living tradition vs. "reconstructed" tradition; it's about the only point folks have made that could stand against the current western rite experiment.  It's still apparent to me, though, that this is a legitimate move on behalf of Antioch and ROCOR.  My comments below will attempt to explain why.

Pedro,
How outlandish of me to refer to the Instructions that my former Metropolitan, of Most Blessed Memory, gave on the matter. Heaven forbid I would have sought the advoce of my Bishop.

Yes, yes, you even reply as he did to the Rev. Paul Schneider, Vicar of the Western Rite.  Allusion noted.   ;)

Quote
We are in a difficult pastoral posistion of having to deal with Priests and Parishes who, while under the Great and Ancient Patriarchate of Anitoch, have divorced themselves from the Tradition of the said patriarchate.

Divorced?  Hardly, as Antioch has allowed them to do this.  It's not as if they came in, then went western rite!

Quote
Thus, the decrees of the Metropolitan directed HIS Priests not to involve themselves in this radical departure from the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Churches

Again, departure?  Divorce?  First, this is not an originally Eastern-Rite (ER) parish network that decided to strip down the ER so they could be something else.  They are western in character.  Secondly, I can completely understand his saying, "no concelebration with them," as you'd have to be bi-ritually ordained by your bishop to concelebrate; I don't know of anyone who's ever been qualified to do that since Ss. Cyril and Methodius (maybe St. John Maximovitch?).  But to say "no contact with them, don't attend their services" is to turn a blind eye to the diversity that's always existed within the Church for various reasons.

Quote
(Strange how people will be up in arms about the removal of a few prayers to shorten a service, but will openly support a complete and utter destruction of the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Church),

No one's attempting to destroy the Eastern Rite.  Calm down and stop overreacting.  This, as I've said, is western in character, and in no way is set up to effect change within ER parishes.  We are, however, affirming that which is already Orthodox within the anglican and RC rites and filling in the rest as Orthodox.  You're right in saying that it's not the same as what Episcopalians and Catholics do, as are you right in saying that what any western rite parish is doing is not the same as what happened pre-schism.  But liturgies have always had give-and-take throughout the centuries, with this region pulling from that region's liturgy to put this prayer here or there, etc.  No, it's not done willy-nilly--much deliberation and prayer should go into this--but it has been done.  Often.

Quote
forbade Priests who did not dress themselves in the Vestments of the Church from Celebrating in HIS Churches (Heaven forbid we require priests to dress like priests, wouldn't it just be great if we could have Clown Liturgies instead?), and sought to protect the Faithful under HIS Omophorion from this departure from Orthodox Tradition.

I know this was already addressed, but why the jump from western rite (a venerable practice which has had its place in the Church) from necessarily making the way for Clown Liturgies (a joke which is a mere innovation with no apostolic support)?

Quote
As I am opposed to the Unia in the Latin Church, consistancy requires me to hold a similar view of the so-called 'western rite,' for me to take a more sympathetic posistion would require that either I accept the intrusion of the Unia as legitimage or embrace the hypocracy of conflicting posistions, neither of which I find acceptable.

Pardon me, but bull.  The Unia was set up as a direct effort to pull Orthodox parishes into communion with Rome (and, thus, heresy, divorcing them from the Church's dogma).  The Unia is based on prosetylization, while the WRO are groups of western Christians who have themselves, of their own volition, come over to the Church.  None of this "Episcopalians in communion with Antioch," identity crisis nonsense.

Quote
The easiest solution would be for the so-called 'western rite' parishes to start acting Orthodox, and embrace the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church.

Eastern.  For western rite parishes to start acting eastern and embrace the traditions of the Byzantine Rite.  This is what should be said.  As has been mentioned, rite means absolutely nothing in terms of belief.  Correct doctrine, along with apostolic, eucharistic worship which has been approved by a canonically recognized Orthodox bishop is what makes one Orthodox.  Period.

why make the Host look unOrthodox?

As yBeayf correctly stated, the more ancient (and still extant) tradition was the wafer-esque style.  It's just that it doesn't look Byzantine.  Byzantine =/= Orthodox.

Finally, to address GiC's comments about accepting the rites of heterodox bishops (i.e., the Archbishop of Canterbury) who return with their flocks to the Church, well, I'd say that'll never happen short of a miracle, but let's say it did.  You'd still wind up with something FAR removed from the Eastern traditions and something that, really, would only be about a step away from what the AOAA WR is doing now.  So I ask: apart from the formality that the WRO would (in this hypothetical situation) now have their own, WR bishop to be WR (in almost the exact same way) under, how would the problem which the late Metr. Antony perceived be any different?  We'd still have a western "foreign element" within a Church that has long been exclusively eastern (really, exclusively monoritual, thanks to the 13th Century decree that wiped out all other eastern liturgies in favor of the imperial one) worshipping in a way that is distinct (not divorced) from the eastern liturgies, and that is almost identical to what the AOAAWRV is doing now.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Ebor on August 04, 2005, 03:01:23 PM
Thank you, Pedro. 

The Orthodox-is-only-Byzantine idea could possibly lead to what was posted on GEnie back in the dim times, that the *only* acceptable music to worship God was Byzantine Chant.  God, I think, can hear worship in many ways that Humanity has come up with.

If both St. Tikhon and St. John of San Francisco did not think ill of "Western" worship in general as being Orthodoxible (to mangle the language) I should think that their thoughts  count for much more then some random laypeople.

Ebor

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 04, 2005, 03:05:57 PM
Quote
That said, western IS better than NO notation and the loss of the total art.

Indeed. ÂÂ The Saint Anthony's project has made the traditional music of the Divine Liturgy much more accesible to those who do not know Greek nor Byzantine notation. ÂÂ But I think more steps have to be taken before Byzantine chant really catches on in English - primarily good liturgical translations are desperately needed. ÂÂ Many of the ones in use today that strive to be uber modern and ridiculously banal, IMO. ÂÂ They may capture the meaning, but they have neither the flow nor spirit of the Greek. ÂÂ So until something that is more or less the standard translation in English speaking countries that flows and is memorized easily is used, Orthodox worship in English will just grow more and more chaotic. ÂÂ  
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 04, 2005, 03:20:48 PM
Quote
that the *only* acceptable music to worship God was Byzantine Chant.

I don't think that anyone has really said that here.  But if you look at the various musical traditions within the ancient rites they are are fairly similar.  i.e. there are no instruments and a great deal of simplicity.  Legitimate diversity in chanting traditions (Byzantine, Coptic, Gregorian, Znameny etc) is a far difference between the highly developed choral system that Russians sometimes employ or Guitar masses.   
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Ebor on August 04, 2005, 03:52:37 PM
I don't think that anyone has really said that here.ÂÂ  

No, as I wrote, a person on GEnie (a text only place from over a decade ago) wrote that *only* Byzantine Chant was acceptable to God. It wasn't here on OC.net.  I've been on-line for a good while.

Quote
But if you look at the various musical traditions within the ancient rites they are are fairly similar.  i.e. there are no instruments and a great deal of simplicity.  Legitimate diversity in chanting traditions (Byzantine, Coptic, Gregorian, Znameny etc) is a far difference between the highly developed choral system that Russians sometimes employ or Guitar masses.  ÃƒÆ’‚  

And how would not God hear worship and praise from Human Beings while using polyphony or instruments, I wonder.  There is a myriad of musics in the world.  Why should that of only one time/place/group be the only one?

Ebor

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Silouan on August 04, 2005, 04:46:15 PM
I didn't say God wouldn't hear such people or music.  I said that the traditional music of the church is chant in its various forms, thus that is what should be used for liturgical music. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 04, 2005, 05:53:17 PM
The pre-schism West used unleavened bread, at least form the 4th century.ÂÂ
I'm obviously not making myself clear.
The filioque also predates the schism- that doesn't make it Orthodox and worth including in the Western Rite.

 
However, while flat the Western Rite Host does not look really like a Latin Catholic Host in my experience.
Well then you disagree with the Western Rite's website and the GOA Church in Denver:
Quote
The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he recieved these parishes into Orthodoxy. http://westernorthodox.com/greekdenver

And so my question remains unanswered.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 04, 2005, 06:34:47 PM
Quote
And so my question remains unanswered.

No it doesn't. The leavened, round, and flattened loaf is the more ancient form, still found in some of the non-Chalcedonian rites, and used in the West before the schism. A Byzantine-style cube would be utterly impractical for use in the Western rite, as the host itself (not the host and paten, like in the BR) is elevated, and so it must not shed crumbs when it is picked up.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Elisha on August 04, 2005, 09:46:44 PM
Legitimate diversity in chanting traditions (Byzantine, Coptic, Gregorian, Znameny etc) is a far difference between the highly developed choral system that Russians sometimes employ or Guitar masses.   
From what I've heard, my parish does the most Znammeny of any OCA parish, among other forms of chant.  We only do the more complex modern choral type pieces on rare occasions.  I find it interesting that many parishes do a lot of modern choral-like pieces, as I was unaware by seeing my parish as a reference point.  I hope chant really makes a resurgence, since it really is beautiful.  I also find it interesting how many Russians like the modern stuff and think of it as the norm.....as if liturgical music was always that way.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 05, 2005, 05:33:36 AM
A Byzantine-style cube would be utterly impractical for use in the Western rite, as the host itself (not the host and paten, like in the BR) is elevated, and so it must not shed crumbs when it is picked up.

Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post about this.
Isn't the Body broken prior to it's elevation in the Western Rite? Is the Body elevated first and then broken?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Keble on August 05, 2005, 05:53:55 AM
Well then you disagree with the Western Rite's website and the GOA Church in Denver:

"The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he recieved these parishes into Orthodoxy."

And so my question remains unanswered.

It also says, as a preface to this article: "This short piece, while containing some incorrect information, is presented on WesternOrthodox.com to show that not all bishops and clergy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) hold the same unfavourable views on the Antiochian Western Rite that Greek Orthodox Bishop Anthony of San Francisco does."

(The emphasis is mine.) Nor is it anything more than the website of one particular parish. What exactly it means in terms of genuine praxis is quite unclear, and I think the question will have to go unanswered even so far as it not being at all clear what any particular parish actually uses.

Quote
Isn't the Body broken prior to it's elevation in the Western Rite? Is the Body elevated first and then broken?

The answer is-- there IS no answer! Elevations aren't rubricated in the western rite service book.

Michno (std. modern Episcopal praxis) has up to four elevations: at the offertory, during the institution narrative, at the doxology (the big elevation), and at "gifts of God". Only the last comes after the fraction. To confuse matters, older BCPs rubricate the fraction during the institution narrative. The WR service book, however, puts it in the modern location.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 05, 2005, 06:20:53 AM
The WR service book, however, puts it in the modern location.
Is that before or after the breaking?
And yes, that is a leading question of sorts....I think the idea of flattening the Host to prevent fragments falling at elevation is a pretty crumby (  ;) !)  reason if the Body is elevated after fraction anyway.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 05, 2005, 08:34:04 AM
The Host is elevated at the Institution Narrative, the concluding Doxology, and the Agnus Dei.  Only the Agnus Dei occurs after fraction.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ozgeorge on August 05, 2005, 08:44:09 AM
The Host is elevated at the Institution Narrative, the concluding Doxology, and the Agnus Dei.ÂÂ  Only the Agnus Dei occurs after fraction.

Can the Host be elevated in the Paten? Do the rubrics absolutely rule this out?
Also, how is the Body broken in the Western Rite? Is a Lance used or is it broken by hand?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 05, 2005, 08:47:18 AM
"I'm obviously not making myself clear.
The filioque also predates the schism- that doesn't make it Orthodox and worth including in the Western Rite."

The Filioque was introduced by the Spanish and was resisted by Rome until 1008.  Unleavened bread was used by St. Sylvester, St. Gregory Dialogos, St. Leo, St. Ambrose, St. Isidore, etc.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  One was a practice the Orthodox always rejected, the other was one the Orthodox not only accepted but practiced if one accepts that pre-schism Latin saints were Orthodox. ÂÂ

"Well then you disagree with the Western Rite's website and the GOA Church in Denver:

'The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he recieved these parishes into Orthodoxy.'"

Resembles in that it is flattened and round.  One can easily distinguish between a Western Rite Host and Roman Rite Host.  The WR Host is light brown with obvious thickness in comparison to the completely flat and white RR Host.

Fr. Deacon Lance


Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on August 05, 2005, 09:01:24 AM
The purpose of the elevation is to show it to the people and rubrics (at least the Roman Rite rubrics state the Host is to be elvated alone with both hands.  The Host is broken by hand as well.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: yBeayf on August 05, 2005, 02:08:26 PM
Quote
Isn't the Body broken prior to it's elevation in the Western Rite? Is the Body elevated first and then broken?

I'm mainly familiar with the Roman rite, not having had much exposure to the Anglican usage. It's elevated at roughly the same points as Keble mentioned.

The crumb problem would mainly come about if one insisted on a Byzantine-style cube, that had been cut out of a larger loaf of bread. It would be possible to have a tall, prosphora-looking host, but what would be the point? Just to make it look a little bit Eastern? It would be foreign to the right, which has always used a round, flat bread.

Quote
Can the Host be elevated in the Paten? Do the rubrics absolutely rule this out?
Also, how is the Body broken in the Western Rite? Is a Lance used or is it broken by hand?

In the Roman rite, during the anaphora, the host is not sitting on the paten. The paten is either laid aside or held by the subdeacon with a humeral veil, while the host lays on the altar itself. At the doxology, the priest makes the sign of the cross with the host over the chalice, and when the host is held up before communion it is also being held by the priest directly. The only time it is elevated with the paten is at the offertory. Because the priest touches the host so much directly, there is a rubric that from the time of consecration to the ablutions after communion, the priest is not allowed to separate his thumbs and forefingers except while touching the host.

It would of course be possible to change the service so the host is always elevated with the paten, but that would be introducing a foreign element into the rite, and also taking away one of the major functions of the subdeacon.

When the host is broken, it is done by hand.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on February 22, 2010, 03:06:36 AM

I'd love to attend a Western Orthodox parish but unfortunately there aren't any close to me.  

I figured most of you would agree with me.  I find it strange that many Eastern Catholics think differently about this.  I've observed a lot of discussions about this on Catholic and Eastern Catholic boards and it almost seems like the ECs who would go to an RC Mass are seen as being somehow less 'eastern.'  

What they are is anti-dogmatists. Unfortunately. Their "union" with Rome is as false as it can get. Most of them are in belief Eastern Orthodox, but for some reason think it right for them to be united with Rome.  :-\

[EDIT]: Oops. Can someone delete this post if possible?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 23, 2010, 02:47:52 PM
I can't really imagine putting myself in this situation. I would never attend a Byzantine-Rite Catholic church for religious reasons (I might go for a social reason, such as the wedding of a friend, but not take part). But the liturgy is such a huge part of my spiritual experience that I can't imagine trying to satisfy that profound need with anything else--however Orthodox the Western-Rite believers may be.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 23, 2010, 02:49:40 PM
A Byzantine-style cube would be utterly impractical for use in the Western rite, as the host itself (not the host and paten, like in the BR) is elevated, and so it must not shed crumbs when it is picked up.

Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post about this.
Isn't the Body broken prior to it's elevation in the Western Rite? Is the Body elevated first and then broken?

Yes, broken before elevation. It's broken over the chalice, so none of the crumbs are lost.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 23, 2010, 03:31:00 PM
Quote
There is no continuity in the Sarum Rite. Not only was it a dead liturgy with no living tradition, we only have fragments of the original pre-schism rite.

This is what I was wondering about, too. Any rererence to a pre-schism rite must be highly speculative. Nothing really conclusive is known even about the forms of the late Middle Ages. One of the reasons for local variants, such as the Sarum Rite (or the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Beneventan Rite in France, or the Ambrosian Rite in Italy), had to do with the scarcity of source materials--books, in other words. Music was notated without fixing either pitch or rhythm accurately (non-diastematic notation), and the scarcity of books meant monks had to memorize most of what they sang; so liturgical traditions depended to a very high degree on oral transmission and local custom. Anything at all complete and purporting to be an "orthodox" Sarum-Rite liturgy must be based on some quite debatable claims. There is no substantive agreement among scholars as to what might have constituted "standard" liturgical practice in the West in any period or in any locale before the Council of Trent (and very little such agreement afterwards). The sources are simply too scanty, and their meaning too unclear.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 23, 2010, 06:21:31 PM
Quote
There is no continuity in the Sarum Rite. Not only was it a dead liturgy with no living tradition, we only have fragments of the original pre-schism rite.
This is what I was wondering about, too. Any rererence to a pre-schism rite must be highly speculative. Nothing really conclusive is known even about the forms of the late Middle Ages. One of the reasons for local variants, such as the Sarum Rite (or the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Beneventan Rite in France, or the Ambrosian Rite in Italy), had to do with the scarcity of source materials--books, in other words. Music was notated without fixing either pitch or rhythm accurately (non-diastematic notation), and the scarcity of books meant monks had to memorize most of what they sang; so liturgical traditions depended to a very high degree on oral transmission and local custom. Anything at all complete and purporting to be an "orthodox" Sarum-Rite liturgy must be based on some quite debatable claims. There is no substantive agreement among scholars as to what might have constituted "standard" liturgical practice in the West in any period or in any locale before the Council of Trent (and very little such agreement afterwards). The sources are simply too scanty, and their meaning too unclear.

Your post is completely incorrect.  The Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are not local variants but totally seperate Rites from the Roman.  They are also both well documented and attested to by manuscripts from before the late Middle Ages.  The oldest Manuscript Latin Missal still around is a one Mozarabic ca. 1100s
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 23, 2010, 08:50:28 PM
Quote
There is no continuity in the Sarum Rite. Not only was it a dead liturgy with no living tradition, we only have fragments of the original pre-schism rite.
This is what I was wondering about, too. Any reference to a pre-schism rite must be highly speculative. Nothing really conclusive is known even about the forms of the late Middle Ages. One of the reasons for local variants, such as the Sarum Rite (or the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, the Beneventan Rite in France, or the Ambrosian Rite in Italy), had to do with the scarcity of source materials--books, in other words. Music was notated without fixing either pitch or rhythm accurately (non-diastematic notation), and the scarcity of books meant monks had to memorize most of what they sang; so liturgical traditions depended to a very high degree on oral transmission and local custom. Anything at all complete and purporting to be an "orthodox" Sarum-Rite liturgy must be based on some quite debatable claims. There is no substantive agreement among scholars as to what might have constituted "standard" liturgical practice in the West in any period or in any locale before the Council of Trent (and very little such agreement afterwards). The sources are simply too scanty, and their meaning too unclear.

Your post is completely incorrect.  The Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are not local variants but totally seperate Rites from the Roman.  They are also both well documented and attested to by manuscripts from before the late Middle Ages.  The oldest Manuscript Latin Missal still around is a one Mozarabic ca. 1100s

Nonsense. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites both follow the same general outline as the Roman rite. They are differ musically and in some of the rubrics, but they are very recognizable versions of the Latin Mass, as distinct from the Byzantine liturgies. You may be correct about the date of the earliest Missal (there was no established norm for what a Missal ought to contain in 1100 in order to be complete), but only in the narrowest and most literal sense of a Missal, vs., say, a Graduale. However, the two earliest St. Gallen manuscripts date from the end of the Ninth Century. 1100 is quite late, for the purposes of this discussion. In any case, I would very much doubt any two experts would agree on how the liturgies in that missal ought to be celebrated, any more than they agree on the interpretation of the St. Gallen Mss. "Documented and attested to" is a very long way indeed from "complete and performable." Such is the state of our understanding. But I mentioned these two rites only as an aside.

As to the Sarum Rite, which was the topic of discussion, I would simply inquire: Do Mss. exist of (more or less) complete texts of the Sarum-Rite liturgy, including rubrics, from before the middle of the 11th Century? A Sarum Missal is known to have been complied by St. Norbert in 1078 (he was a Norman bishop who came over with the Conqueror), and there are still extant an Antiphonale and Graduale from the 13th Century, as well as a monastic Antiphonary, F. 160, also 13th Century (from Worcester cathedral), reprinted in Paléographie Musicale, v. 12. Those are very thin sources upon which to base an assertion of orthodoxy. And that was my whole point.

Of course, earlier references to a Sarum Rite abound. But that is all they are: references.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 25, 2010, 10:33:46 PM
Nonsense. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites both follow the same general outline as the Roman rite. They are differ musically and in some of the rubrics, but they are very recognizable versions of the Latin Mass, as distinct from the Byzantine liturgies.

Yes, they use Latin and are in the Western family of Rites as opposed to Eastern but they are quite distinct.  I will concede the Roman and Ambrosian Masses are very close.  However, besides the Mass, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites have recognizably different Divine Offices and Sacrament rituals.

The Byzantine and Armenian Rites also follow the same general outline but that does not make them one Rite.

For Comparison:

The Ordinary of the Mozarabic Missal
http://www.mercaba.org/LITURGIA/Mozarabe/ordinario_latin.htm#RITUS INITIALES

The Ordinary of the Roman Missal
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html

The Ordinary of the Ambrosian  Missal
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Ambrosian%20Liturgy.pdf
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 26, 2010, 03:05:47 AM
Nonsense. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites both follow the same general outline as the Roman rite. They are differ musically and in some of the rubrics, but they are very recognizable versions of the Latin Mass, as distinct from the Byzantine liturgies.

Yes, they use Latin and are in the Western family of Rites as opposed to Eastern but they are quite distinct.  I will concede the Roman and Ambrosian Masses are very close.  However, besides the Mass, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites have recognizably different Divine Offices and Sacrament rituals.

The Byzantine and Armenian Rites also follow the same general outline but that does not make them one Rite.

For Comparison:

The Ordinary of the Mozarabic Missal
http://www.mercaba.org/LITURGIA/Mozarabe/ordinario_latin.htm#RITUS INITIALES

The Ordinary of the Roman Missal
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html

The Ordinary of the Ambrosian  Missal
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Ambrosian%20Liturgy.pdf

I am familiar with Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites, and I am familiar with the ways in which they differ from Roman usage. My comments on those rites was an aside in my original post, and not the main point. The main point was my belief that any claims for the existence of an orthodox Sarum rite as a basis for an orthodox Western liturgy could not be substantiated. I had understood this thread was more to do with liturgical theology and practice than with philology or musicology.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 26, 2010, 12:55:36 PM
Well as the Sarum is a variant of the Roman Rite, it depends on how legitimate you find the Roman Rite.  Given that the Sarum use came from France with the Normans and some Orthodox claim England was Orthodox until the William the Conquerer, I imagine some would find it objectionable.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Michał on November 26, 2010, 03:24:14 PM
. . .the Sarum use came from France with the Normans. . .

This is a very unfair simplification.

Quote
Re: Norman Additions to Sarum
From:   Fr. Aidan


This is an excellent question. The short answer is that there is not a single known change or discrepancy between the liturgy of pre-Conquest Sarum and post-Conquest Sarum. According to some scholars, there was zero change. But, that said, the Use of Sarum as it comes down to us looks very suspiciously like the Use of Rouen. Of course we don't know of any change in the liturgy of Rouen from pre-May 1054 to post-May 1054, nor for the following century. Those were the days of not much change in the spirituality and content of the Western liturgy.

The real changes that would impact on the theology of the Liturgy, people's experience of it, really are found in the late 12th century and 13th century: the insertion of an elevation at the "Words of Institution," and so forth.

These latter, changed features are not in the Sarum service books I am familiar with, which have been blessed for celebration in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 26, 2010, 04:00:48 PM
I believe it is fair.

"...it is found that the Use of Rouen and that of Sarum were almost identical in the 11th century. A curious and interesting illustration of this will be found in an extract of a Rouen manuscript missal, assumed to be 650 years old... The Rouen Pontifical, of about 1007 A.D., quoted in the same work, shows a like affinity of that of Sarum and Exeter in later days."

http://books.google.com/books?vid=08I4RhaJDeU0z2Dt&id=cyUBAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA20-PA615&lpg=RA20-PA615&dq=Rouen+Missal&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=Rouen%20Missal&f=false

Further, Fr. Aidan has been proved unreliable as to his scholarship concerning the Sarum Rite, as several Western Rite members of this forum can confirm.  Please note his version of the SArum Missal has not been approved for use in ROCOR which received him in 2008.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 26, 2010, 04:28:13 PM
. . .the Sarum use came from France with the Normans. . .

This is a very unfair simplification.

Quote
Re: Norman Additions to Sarum
From:   Fr. Aidan


This is an excellent question. The short answer is that there is not a single known change or discrepancy between the liturgy of pre-Conquest Sarum and post-Conquest Sarum. According to some scholars, there was zero change. But, that said, the Use of Sarum as it comes down to us looks very suspiciously like the Use of Rouen. Of course we don't know of any change in the liturgy of Rouen from pre-May 1054 to post-May 1054, nor for the following century. Those were the days of not much change in the spirituality and content of the Western liturgy.

The real changes that would impact on the theology of the Liturgy, people's experience of it, really are found in the late 12th century and 13th century: the insertion of an elevation at the "Words of Institution," and so forth.

These latter, changed features are not in the Sarum service books I am familiar with, which have been blessed for celebration in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis

What this leaves out is that there are NO extant sources for Sarum rite liturgy before the Conquest. The earliest (incomplete) texts date from the 12th-13th centuries. What is needed to qualify, according to the criteria laid out at the beginning of this thread, is a liturgy that is orthodox, recognizably "like" the liturgy now being put forth as "Western Orthodox," and dating  from before the Great Schism. Proponents of the Western Rite are saying enough authentic primary sources exist to produce such a liturgy. Skeptics disagree. That's not to say the Sarum Rite isn't a beautiful liturgy, or the 1549 Cranmer/Edward VI prayer book, for that matter. They're just not Orthodox, without some editing.

But--the Carpatho-Rusyn metropolis did exactly that when its adherents became Orthodox in the 1930s. They made the few changes the EP required and kept the rest.

What's most surprising to me about this thread is the number of people, devoutly Orthodox, who actually prefer the Western Rite. In my arrogance, I had always thought use of the Western rite would be some kind of transition until a person could learn to appreciate "real" Orthodox liturgy. Anyone who liked the Western rite simply couldn't have been exposed enough to the glories of Byzantine worship.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Michał on November 26, 2010, 04:49:13 PM
I believe it is fair.

I've just made a little research and came accros a message from one of the WR members of this forum:
Quote from: Aristibule
The Sarum, of course, is not 'pre-schism' though it is essentially the same as pre-schism British and French liturgy of the Roman rite. According to Dr. David Chadd , musicologist, Oxford; ( in the 1988 essay 'Beyond the Frontiers: Guides for uncharted territory' from the symposium 'Frontiers of Research in Medieval music' Dartmouth College, NH) we have in the medieval period (post-schism) an early Sarum and a late Sarum. The early Sarum according to some rubrics is based on the early use of the Royal Chapel and Sherbourne Abbey (so, when speaking of pre-schism - Sherbourne or Wessex Royal would be more historically accurate). Dr. Sara Gibbs Casey (U. Pittsburgh), also a musicologist, traces a tradition from the Stowe (late Celtic, mostly Roman), into the Drummond (transitional Celtic-Roman, proto-Sarum) to early Sarum (see the essay 'Through a glass darkly: steps towards reconstructing Irish chant from the neumes of the Drummond Missal', Early Music, OUP, May 2000.)
Source: http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2006/04/tridentine-mass-why-do-orthodox-care.html

If this is accurate than saying that "the Sarum use came from France with the Normans" and that "there was zero change" are both oversimplifications.



Further, Fr. Aidan has been proved unreliable as to his scholarship concerning the Sarum Rite, as several Western Rite members of this forum can confirm.  Please note his version of the SArum Missal has not been approved for use in ROCOR which received him in 2008.

Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
Quote
Fr. Aidan has been blessed by Metr. Hilarion (Sept. 26, 2008) to celebrate services according to the Sarum use of the Roman rite, using the full line of liturgical books published by St. Hilarion Press and which are due for re-issue under the aegis of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Source: http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-news-for-sarum-use-of-roman-rite.html
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 26, 2010, 04:56:28 PM
What's most surprising to me about this thread is the number of people, devoutly Orthodox, who actually prefer the Western Rite. In my arrogance, I had always thought use of the Western rite would be some kind of transition until a person could learn to appreciate "real" Orthodox liturgy. Anyone who liked the Western rite simply couldn't have been exposed enough to the glories of Byzantine worship.

I've experienced both Eastern and Western rites, and all I can say is that I just find the Western Rite (Tikhon specifically) to be much more beautiful and meaningful to me than the Byzantine.  But that's because it is from my own heritage and lineage, my own culture and tradition.  It feels natural and authentic and like my worship is coming from a genuine place.  I think I could feel that way in the Byzantine, but it would take some hard to work.  I'm very thankful that Orthodoxy has provided a way for those of us with a more Western mindset to have a fulfilling and authentic form of worship.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 26, 2010, 08:34:19 PM

Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
Quote
Fr. Aidan has been blessed by Metr. Hilarion (Sept. 26, 2008) to celebrate services according to the Sarum use of the Roman rite, using the full line of liturgical books published by St. Hilarion Press and which are due for re-issue under the aegis of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Source: http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-news-for-sarum-use-of-roman-rite.html

Yes, he has a habit of claiming that. 
http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/sigha-response-to-derek-fr-aidan.html

Perhaps, he finally got approval.  That does not mean his scholarship is accurate.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 26, 2010, 09:57:20 PM

Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
Quote
Fr. Aidan has been blessed by Metr. Hilarion (Sept. 26, 2008) to celebrate services according to the Sarum use of the Roman rite, using the full line of liturgical books published by St. Hilarion Press and which are due for re-issue under the aegis of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Source: http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-news-for-sarum-use-of-roman-rite.html

Yes, he has a habit of claiming that. 
http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/sigha-response-to-derek-fr-aidan.html

Perhaps, he finally got approval.  That does not mean his scholarship is accurate.

I recall, sadly only too well, the hostility against Fr Aidan which was both deep-seated and long-running.  It was not widespread though, and was confined to just five people.  Within ROCA - **********.  Among the Antiochians -**********  The latter uses his blog to denigrate Fr Aidan and misrepresent what he says. 

The anti-Fr Aidan campaign was well organised. It went back several years both in public messages on blogs and e-lists as well as in private mailings to Church authorities.  It has been a very illuminating example of the pettiness which can posses some of the souls in the WR world when their hegemony is challenged.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 26, 2010, 10:00:53 PM

  Please note his version of the SArum Missal has not been approved for use in ROCOR which received him in 2008.


It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Michał on November 26, 2010, 10:20:07 PM
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.

But it also has to be noted that in the ROCOR Fr. Aidan's Sarum is used only by himself, when he occasionally serves according to WR at St. Nicholas Monastery, Ft. Myers, Florida.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 26, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.

But it also has to be noted that in the ROCOR Fr. Aidan's Sarum is used only by himself...

Your point?

What priests in ROCA use Dom James Deschene's Black Benedictine books and his form of the Tridentine Mass?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use Abbot David Pierce's form of the Sarum (Achbp John LoBue's) cum Dom Augustine's Mt Royal preferences?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use the Gallican forms of Fr Allyne Lev Smith?  Only himself.

 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 26, 2010, 11:16:18 PM

  Please note his version of the SArum Missal has not been approved for use in ROCOR which received him in 2008.


It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.

I stand corrected. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 26, 2010, 11:33:21 PM
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.

But it also has to be noted that in the ROCOR Fr. Aidan's Sarum is used only by himself...

Your point?

What priests in ROCA use Dom James Deschene's Black Benedictine books and his form of the Tridentine Mass?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use Abbot David Pierce's form of the Sarum (Achbp John LoBue's) cum Dom Augustine's Mt Royal preferences?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use the Gallican forms of Fr Allyne Lev Smith?  Only himself.

The point it would seem is the ROCOR Western Rite is subjected to the personal preferences and idiosyncrasies of the few priests it has.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Michał on November 27, 2010, 09:57:25 AM
Your point?

Just wanted to make it clear for those who don't know that in this case "approved for use in ROCA" does not neceserily mean that it is used by more than one priest-monk.

What priests in ROCA use Dom James Deschene's Black Benedictine books and his form of the Tridentine Mass?  Only himself.

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory included in St. Colman Prayer Book, used by St. Petroc Monastery's missions, is the one of the Christminster. I also guess that St. Patrick chapel, Northville, Michigan, as a dependency of Christminster, is in some kind of liturgical uniformity with its mother-monastery. I also assume that the WR Liturgy of the bi-ritual St. Benedict church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, isn't that different from the one of Christminster as both communities have the Benedictione element in common.

What priests in ROCA use Abbot David Pierce's form of the Sarum (Achbp John LoBue's) cum Dom Augustine's Mt Royal preferences?  Only himself.

As for the Mt. Royal, Archimandrite Anthony (Bondi) wrote recently in his open letter that he and his clergy "will
. . . be able to keep [their] Liturgy which is based on the Dom Augustine Liturgy."

What priests in ROCA use the Gallican forms of Fr Allyne Lev Smith?  Only himself.

Yes, but there used to be a whole ROCA diocese, with its own WR bishop, which was using it, and we can hope that after Fr. Allyne Lev Smith's reception more Gallican rite parishes will come back home.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Michał on November 27, 2010, 09:58:56 AM
The point it would seem is the ROCOR Western Rite is subjected to the personal preferences and idiosyncrasies of the few priests it has.

I'm sure a greater uniformity will be worked out with time.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 27, 2010, 11:55:04 AM
Quote
I'm very thankful that Orthodoxy has provided a way for those of us with a more Western mindset to have a fulfilling and authentic form of worship.

I don't think that I could have a more Western mindset. I am English, and then British, and proud to be so going back to unrecorded history. I don't think it is fair to suggest that people with a 'Western mindset' become WR. I am very happy being Western and Orthodox and I don't find the Western liturgical tradition immediately makes a connection with me because I was never Anglican. In my experience most WR enthusiasts are Anglican. (That is not a criticism, but an observation).

If it was required that I learn Arabic and/or Coptic to be able to worship I would not be as comfortable in my situation as I am. But in fact as a small missionary diocese of mostly British people in the Coptic Patriarchate I find myself under no pressure to become an Egyptian, and find that the forms of worship we use are entirely accessible to English people. Indeed our diocese has been tasked with sharing our Orthodoxy in a British ethos. As an entirely British person this has NEVER meant being Anglican to me, nor do I consider that to be British means becoming in some manner an Anglican, or adopting Western Catholic forms.

Even the Anglicans who did become Orthodox with the Antiochians became Eastern Rite, and I am not in a position to know whether or not they feel that they need to become Eastern Orthodox as well as Eastern Rite. But for my own community, we are, as I described, Western Orthodox using Eastern Rites, very comfortably, and without diminishing our sense of being entirely British. Perhaps it is because I was never an Anglican that I am not very concerned about which rites I am instructed to use by my bishop. It seems much more important to me that I enter into the prayers as much as possible, and I believe that this depends on the quality of the prayers rather than their origin. I am sure that in other circumstances I would be as content to pray as a Western Orthodox priest using an Armenian Rite in English, or a Syriac in English, or St John Chrysostom in English, while I actually use St James. As far as my experience goes, the process of translating the liturgy (of St James) into good, liturgical English makes it a Western Rite.

I am entirely British, even English. I love the heritage of my own country. My patron saint is buried 20 miles from where I am typing. There are the remains of Christian churches within 20 miles of my home which date back to the 4th century. But in my experience, and this is just my experience, I feel no need to use liturgical forms from the distant past in the West to validate my Western Orthodoxy. I wonder if that is one reason (I know there are others) for the lack of success in the UK for the Western Rite? That is, that since we ARE British and English we don't need to prove it, and whatever we do in our own language, unless we are trying to become a pretend Russian , Greek or Egyptian, is already Western and Orthodox. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 12:08:48 PM
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.

But it also has to be noted that in the ROCOR Fr. Aidan's Sarum is used only by himself...

Your point?

What priests in ROCA use Dom James Deschene's Black Benedictine books and his form of the Tridentine Mass?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use Abbot David Pierce's form of the Sarum (Achbp John LoBue's) cum Dom Augustine's Mt Royal preferences?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use the Gallican forms of Fr Allyne Lev Smith?  Only himself.

The point it would seem is the ROCOR Western Rite is subjected to the personal preferences and idiosyncrasies of the few priests it has.

I always thought the whole Western Orthodox idea was to remove a stumbling block to Protestants becoming Orthodox. If they were attached to their liturgy, OK, clean up the parts that are doctrinally heterodox and you can still use the Coverdale prayer book. I can't imagine individual priests have that much latitude, even with the Western rite. I mean, the Antiochian archdiocese just suspended a priest for wearing his cassock in public, in defiance of Metropolitan Philip's orders. How much leeway is he gonna give on liturgy?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 12:26:15 PM
Quote
I'm very thankful that Orthodoxy has provided a way for those of us with a more Western mindset to have a fulfilling and authentic form of worship.

I don't think that I could have a more Western mindset. I am English, and then British, and proud to be so going back to unrecorded history. I don't think it is fair to suggest that people with a 'Western mindset' become WR. I am very happy being Western and Orthodox and I don't find the Western liturgical tradition immediately makes a connection with me because I was never Anglican. In my experience most WR enthusiasts are Anglican. (That is not a criticism, but an observation).

If it was required that I learn Arabic and/or Coptic to be able to worship I would not be as comfortable in my situation as I am. But in fact as a small missionary diocese of mostly British people in the Coptic Patriarchate I find myself under no pressure to become an Egyptian, and find that the forms of worship we use are entirely accessible to English people. Indeed our diocese has been tasked with sharing our Orthodoxy in a British ethos. As an entirely British person this has NEVER meant being Anglican to me, nor do I consider that to be British means becoming in some manner an Anglican, or adopting Western Catholic forms.

Even the Anglicans who did become Orthodox with the Antiochians became Eastern Rite, and I am not in a position to know whether or not they feel that they need to become Eastern Orthodox as well as Eastern Rite. But for my own community, we are, as I described, Western Orthodox using Eastern Rites, very comfortably, and without diminishing our sense of being entirely British. Perhaps it is because I was never an Anglican that I am not very concerned about which rites I am instructed to use by my bishop. It seems much more important to me that I enter into the prayers as much as possible, and I believe that this depends on the quality of the prayers rather than their origin. I am sure that in other circumstances I would be as content to pray as a Western Orthodox priest using an Armenian Rite in English, or a Syriac in English, or St John Chrysostom in English, while I actually use St James. As far as my experience goes, the process of translating the liturgy (of St James) into good, liturgical English makes it a Western Rite.

I am entirely British, even English. I love the heritage of my own country. My patron saint is buried 20 miles from where I am typing. There are the remains of Christian churches within 20 miles of my home which date back to the 4th century. But in my experience, and this is just my experience, I feel no need to use liturgical forms from the distant past in the West to validate my Western Orthodoxy. I wonder if that is one reason (I know there are others) for the lack of success in the UK for the Western Rite? That is, that since we ARE British and English we don't need to prove it, and whatever we do in our own language, unless we are trying to become a pretend Russian , Greek or Egyptian, is already Western and Orthodox. 

Wonderful post, but honestly, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise!  See my reply to you in the other thread you commented on. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 12:28:59 PM
I always thought the whole Western Orthodox idea was to remove a stumbling block to Protestants becoming Orthodox.

That's part of it, but not anywhere near the whole of the idea.  First and foremost is for those who love and treasure the ancient Western expression of the Faith to participate in bringing it back home to Orthodoxy and redeeming it.  It would be done whether there is was a missionary opportunity or not.  It's for the glory of God.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 12:35:22 PM
I always thought the whole Western Orthodox idea was to remove a stumbling block to Protestants becoming Orthodox.

That's part of it, but not anywhere near the whole of the idea.  First and foremost is for those who love and treasure the ancient Western expression of the Faith to participate in bringing it back home to Orthodoxy and redeeming it.  It would be done whether there is was a missionary opportunity or not.  It's for the glory of God.

But the issue, amply argued on this thread, is that the "ancient" Western expressions have not been preserved in any form we really understand. There's nothing like the continuity of the Eastern rite. The Dark Ages ensured that books would be scarce to begin with. The reformation and Counter-Reformation ensured that most of the primary sources would be damaged or destroyed and institutional memory mostly wiped out. Our understanding of pre-Tridentine forms is sketchy and fragmentary at best, which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to construct a coherent liturgy. It's a nice idea, but there's just no practical basis on which to realize it.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 12:50:04 PM
Sure, I can understand that.  However (and I realize many won't agree with this, or like it) but the ancient Western rites have been preserved; they've just been preserved by heterodox churches.

The Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate gets a ton of vehement flack for taking the approach they take, but there was actually a rationale behind it, believe it or not (and it wasn't one of pandering to people who refused to change, or any other charge that gets thrown around willy-nilly).  The fact is that the Rites of St. Gregory and St. Tikhon are adapted/corrected versions of the ancient rites that have survived and have been preserved by those who continued to use them.

Yes changes were made and things reflected the results of the Schism (which is why corrections were needed) but this seemed to be the best approach precisely because they are the rites that have continued to exist amongst the Western people.

It is correct that the ancient rites, as they were then, can be difficult to figure out as far as rubrics and such.  Which is why the AWRV chose the path of adapting the existing rites, rather than insist on a pre-Schism liturgy, which would ultimately amount to a "living museum" of sorts, or an historical reenactment.

In Bishop BASIL's words, “You are the inheritors of a precious treasure: the authentic and Orthodox rites that nourished thousands now in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Orthodox Church thanks you for preserving this tradition all these years, so that it could be restored to her through Western Rite Orthodox parishes."

Yes, from an Orthodox perspective, these Western rites were "lost" in that they ceased to be a part of the Undivided Church; but in a practical and literal way, they weren't lost at all but were continued to be used by those bodies that got swept away in the Schism.

Again, I realize this won't satisfy many people, but to me it's a sane and reasonable approach.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 01:12:14 PM
Sure, I can understand that.  However (and I realize many won't agree with this, or like it) but the ancient Western rites have been preserved; they've just been preserved by heterodox churches.

The Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate gets a ton of vehement flack for taking the approach they take, but there was actually a rationale behind it, believe it or not (and it wasn't one of pandering to people who refused to change, or any other charge that gets thrown around willy-nilly).  The fact is that the Rites of St. Gregory and St. Tikhon are adapted/corrected versions of the ancient rites that have survived and have been preserved by those who continued to use them.

Yes changes were made and things reflected the results of the Schism (which is why corrections were needed) but this seemed to be the best approach precisely because they are the rites that have continued to exist amongst the Western people.

It is correct that the ancient rites, as they were then, can be difficult to figure out as far as rubrics and such.  Which is why the AWRV chose the path of adapting the existing rites, rather than insist on a pre-Schism liturgy, which would ultimately amount to a "living museum" of sorts, or an historical reenactment.

In Bishop BASIL's words, “You are the inheritors of a precious treasure: the authentic and Orthodox rites that nourished thousands now in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Orthodox Church thanks you for preserving this tradition all these years, so that it could be restored to her through Western Rite Orthodox parishes."

Yes, from an Orthodox perspective, these Western rites were "lost" in that they ceased to be a part of the Undivided Church; but in a practical and literal way, they weren't lost at all but were continued to be used by those bodies that got swept away in the Schism.

Again, I realize this won't satisfy many people, but to me it's a sane and reasonable approach.

A reasonable approach, at any rate.

I think one reason I find the whole debate puzzling is that the Eastern liturgy is so deeply moving to me. I can't imagine my spiritual life without it.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 01:17:22 PM
A reasonable approach, at any rate.

I think one reason I find the whole debate puzzling is that the Eastern liturgy is so deeply moving to me. I can't imagine my spiritual life without it.

Change Eastern to Western and you've got the exact reason for why the Western Rite exists at all!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 01:31:46 PM
A reasonable approach, at any rate.

I think one reason I find the whole debate puzzling is that the Eastern liturgy is so deeply moving to me. I can't imagine my spiritual life without it.

Change Eastern to Western and you've got the exact reason for why the Western Rite exists at all!

But in that case, I'm not sure why I'd have left my original church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 01:36:28 PM
Because you found the Byzantine Rite to speak to your heart more than anything else.  It won't be the same for everyone.  Praise God we're all different and can still find a home!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 01:52:11 PM
Because you found the Byzantine Rite to speak to your heart more than anything else.  It won't be the same for everyone.  Praise God we're all different and can still find a home!

If an Anglican were so attached to their liturgy that they couldn't conceive of their spiritual life without it, why would they even consider becoming Orthodox? That's what I don't get. That seems like a person who would be more likely to try to work within the Anglican church for any change they thought was necessary. And it seems like someone who may be trying to have things all ways. It's like a name change.

Well, this is why they pay bishops the big bucks, I guess, to figure these things out.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 27, 2010, 02:35:44 PM
I don't have an issue with people doing whatever they want with the permission of their bishop.

But...

One of the great blessings for me in becoming Orthodox was laying aside the sense that what I wanted came before what the Church expected of me? Indeed although I am fully engaged in discussion of ortho-praxis with my bishop, other priests and laity, nevertheless in the end we all seek to abide by the informed instructions of our bishop.

I can understand that it is proper for an enquirer to seek a community where they can comprehend, participate and find a welcome. And this is why liturgy in English seems to me to be central to the development of Orthodoxy in the UK. But I do find it harder to support the view which seems to be saying - I will become Orthodox but only if we get to use the liturgy I prefer. We are not talking about language. I chose not to become involved with the Greek Church in the UK for a variety of reasons including the fact that the worship was conducted in Greek. I understand the language issue.

But we are (it seems) talking about deciding to become Orthodox or not based on choosing the liturgy that is used. I don't feel entirely comfortable with that. What if I prefer the Lorrha Missal to the Sarum rite? Should I hold out for an authentic Western Rite according to my own opinion? The Oriental Orthodox are very comfortable with liturgical diversity and it seems to me to be a necessary aspect of Orthodoxy. I would not ever criticise an Armenian Orthodox priest for celebrating in a different manner to a Coptic Orthodox, or an Indian Orthodox. But there would be something wrong if an Armenian priest started agitating to be allowed to celebrate according to the Coptic Orthodox tradition. Indeed the Coptic Orthodox Church has legislated to forbid the use of the wide variety of Ethiopian fractions in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, not because they are not appropriate in a liturgical historical sense, but because there is an order in the Church, and it is not for priests to determine for themselves what liturgical forms they will adopt.

I am not entirely suggesting this is the case with the WR. But it does seem to me that it is the case that there are those who have a legitimate interest in the Western liturgical tradition and seem to then insist that their interest must be supported in the Church. I am not convinced that is the case, apart from an organic development within and by the Church. I have experienced 16 years of happiness in following and participating in a 'given' tradition, and being able to forget about choosing what I like. I am not sure that I buy the argument that if there were only one WR congregation in the world it would be worth it. I don't see thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of people in the UK clamouring for the Western Rite. Indeed I know plenty of 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans who cannot even bring themselves to become Catholic and wouldn't consider Orthodoxy at all, whatever the Rite.

I entirely accept that language can be, and indeed IS an obstacle to people becoming Orthodox but I really do not believe, as an English person who has sought Orthodoxy himself, that the Rite is an issue at all, as long as it is served in English. It is certainly not an issue, as far as I can see, for anyone who is not an Anglican. And Anglicans will not be becoming Orthodox, or Catholic in very great numbers, having had decades of living with a very compromised situation, and finding ways to do so. I have had enquirers say that they could not become Orthodox because we used incense, or because we prostrated in prayer, or because we had open coffins at funerals. I am not at all sure that the issues preventing them becoming Orthodox were those they identified themselves.

Likewise I am not convinced that an enquirer who WOULD become Orthodox only if there were a Western Rite, if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English, really wants to become Orthodox. I am not an advocate of the 'I had to learn Church Slavonic and it didn't do me any harm' school of evangelism, but I really and truly do not think that the Rite should be an issue with a genuine enquirer. I am convinced that Western Orthodoxy is what is required, and that this means the authentic Orthodox life being lived by people who remain genuinely British (or Western). And to be a little critical - what does an ancient Western form of liturgy have to do with Australia or New Zealand? The Lorrha Missal form of worship was never, ever used in the US. It is as alien as the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, or St Basil, or in fact just as appropriate or just as inappropriate.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 03:31:14 PM
If an Anglican were so attached to their liturgy that they couldn't conceive of their spiritual life without it, why would they even consider becoming Orthodox? That's what I don't get. That seems like a person who would be more likely to try to work within the Anglican church for any change they thought was necessary. And it seems like someone who may be trying to have things all ways. It's like a name change.

Well, this is why they pay bishops the big bucks, I guess, to figure these things out.

One simple answer would be:  The Anglican Communion is not the Church.  People convert because they believe that the Body of Christ is the Holy Orthodox Church.

Perhaps the way I've been speaking is causing a misunderstanding, but it's not simply out of love and blind attachment to a particular liturgy that the Western Rite has been blessed, but because people love the whole of the Western tradition and want to continue in it, if they may.  

Anyone I know who has converted did so because they fell in love with the Orthodox Church, and if the Byzantine Rite was all that was available to them, they would've done so anyway.  But now there is another possibility and they are happy to join the One Church and yet retain much of the tradition that they love.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 03:40:07 PM
I don't have an issue with people doing whatever they want with the permission of their bishop.

But...

One of the great blessings for me in becoming Orthodox was laying aside the sense that what I wanted came before what the Church expected of me? Indeed although I am fully engaged in discussion of ortho-praxis with my bishop, other priests and laity, nevertheless in the end we all seek to abide by the informed instructions of our bishop.

I can understand that it is proper for an enquirer to seek a community where they can comprehend, participate and find a welcome. And this is why liturgy in English seems to me to be central to the development of Orthodoxy in the UK. But I do find it harder to support the view which seems to be saying - I will become Orthodox but only if we get to use the liturgy I prefer. We are not talking about language. I chose not to become involved with the Greek Church in the UK for a variety of reasons including the fact that the worship was conducted in Greek. I understand the language issue.

But we are (it seems) talking about deciding to become Orthodox or not based on choosing the liturgy that is used. I don't feel entirely comfortable with that. What if I prefer the Lorrha Missal to the Sarum rite? Should I hold out for an authentic Western Rite according to my own opinion? The Oriental Orthodox are very comfortable with liturgical diversity and it seems to me to be a necessary aspect of Orthodoxy. I would not ever criticise an Armenian Orthodox priest for celebrating in a different manner to a Coptic Orthodox, or an Indian Orthodox. But there would be something wrong if an Armenian priest started agitating to be allowed to celebrate according to the Coptic Orthodox tradition. Indeed the Coptic Orthodox Church has legislated to forbid the use of the wide variety of Ethiopian fractions in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, not because they are not appropriate in a liturgical historical sense, but because there is an order in the Church, and it is not for priests to determine for themselves what liturgical forms they will adopt.

I am not entirely suggesting this is the case with the WR. But it does seem to me that it is the case that there are those who have a legitimate interest in the Western liturgical tradition and seem to then insist that their interest must be supported in the Church. I am not convinced that is the case, apart from an organic development within and by the Church. I have experienced 16 years of happiness in following and participating in a 'given' tradition, and being able to forget about choosing what I like. I am not sure that I buy the argument that if there were only one WR congregation in the world it would be worth it. I don't see thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of people in the UK clamouring for the Western Rite. Indeed I know plenty of 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans who cannot even bring themselves to become Catholic and wouldn't consider Orthodoxy at all, whatever the Rite.

I entirely accept that language can be, and indeed IS an obstacle to people becoming Orthodox but I really do not believe, as an English person who has sought Orthodoxy himself, that the Rite is an issue at all, as long as it is served in English. It is certainly not an issue, as far as I can see, for anyone who is not an Anglican. And Anglicans will not be becoming Orthodox, or Catholic in very great numbers, having had decades of living with a very compromised situation, and finding ways to do so. I have had enquirers say that they could not become Orthodox because we used incense, or because we prostrated in prayer, or because we had open coffins at funerals. I am not at all sure that the issues preventing them becoming Orthodox were those they identified themselves.

Likewise I am not convinced that an enquirer who WOULD become Orthodox only if there were a Western Rite, if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English, really wants to become Orthodox. I am not an advocate of the 'I had to learn Church Slavonic and it didn't do me any harm' school of evangelism, but I really and truly do not think that the Rite should be an issue with a genuine enquirer. I am convinced that Western Orthodoxy is what is required, and that this means the authentic Orthodox life being lived by people who remain genuinely British (or Western). And to be a little critical - what does an ancient Western form of liturgy have to do with Australia or New Zealand? The Lorrha Missal form of worship was never, ever used in the US. It is as alien as the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, or St Basil, or in fact just as appropriate or just as inappropriate.

Excellent points!  And I think you're right.  As I posted in the post prior to this, perhaps I may have caused some confusion in how I worded things, but the Western Rite does not exist because potential converts threw a hissy fit and demanded that they not be required to change.  That's not what it is at all.

Anyone who converts, regardless of rite, must be doing so for the right reasons.  The goal is not to get people from other traditions to become Orthodox nominally whilst requiring as little change as possible.  And as you get to know Western Rite folks and attend their liturgies I think you'll find that these are truly Orthodox people and nothing less.  They aren't Anglican holdouts who begrudgingly join the Church because there's nowhere else to go.  They convert for the same reasons anyone else does; they believe Orthodoxy to be the Church of Christ.

The Orthodox Church has seen fit to provide a means for those who have been nourished and formed by the Western tradition to come into the Church and continue in that tradition, preserving all that is life-giving.

Much of the contention seems to be around the issue of converts and outreach, and that is certainly a hope of the Western Rite, but it is not at all its primary purpose.  It's really nothing more than the simple fact that the ancient Western rites rightfully belong to the Orthodox Church and She has had the wisdom and grace to bless people who love those rites the opportunity to participate in their redemption and restoration.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 03:42:28 PM
I don't have an issue with people doing whatever they want with the permission of their bishop.

But...

One of the great blessings for me in becoming Orthodox was laying aside the sense that what I wanted came before what the Church expected of me? Indeed although I am fully engaged in discussion of ortho-praxis with my bishop, other priests and laity, nevertheless in the end we all seek to abide by the informed instructions of our bishop.

I can understand that it is proper for an enquirer to seek a community where they can comprehend, participate and find a welcome. And this is why liturgy in English seems to me to be central to the development of Orthodoxy in the UK. But I do find it harder to support the view which seems to be saying - I will become Orthodox but only if we get to use the liturgy I prefer. We are not talking about language. I chose not to become involved with the Greek Church in the UK for a variety of reasons including the fact that the worship was conducted in Greek. I understand the language issue.

But we are (it seems) talking about deciding to become Orthodox or not based on choosing the liturgy that is used. I don't feel entirely comfortable with that. What if I prefer the Lorrha Missal to the Sarum rite? Should I hold out for an authentic Western Rite according to my own opinion? The Oriental Orthodox are very comfortable with liturgical diversity and it seems to me to be a necessary aspect of Orthodoxy. I would not ever criticise an Armenian Orthodox priest for celebrating in a different manner to a Coptic Orthodox, or an Indian Orthodox. But there would be something wrong if an Armenian priest started agitating to be allowed to celebrate according to the Coptic Orthodox tradition. Indeed the Coptic Orthodox Church has legislated to forbid the use of the wide variety of Ethiopian fractions in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, not because they are not appropriate in a liturgical historical sense, but because there is an order in the Church, and it is not for priests to determine for themselves what liturgical forms they will adopt.

I am not entirely suggesting this is the case with the WR. But it does seem to me that it is the case that there are those who have a legitimate interest in the Western liturgical tradition and seem to then insist that their interest must be supported in the Church. I am not convinced that is the case, apart from an organic development within and by the Church. I have experienced 16 years of happiness in following and participating in a 'given' tradition, and being able to forget about choosing what I like. I am not sure that I buy the argument that if there were only one WR congregation in the world it would be worth it. I don't see thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of people in the UK clamouring for the Western Rite. Indeed I know plenty of 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans who cannot even bring themselves to become Catholic and wouldn't consider Orthodoxy at all, whatever the Rite.

I entirely accept that language can be, and indeed IS an obstacle to people becoming Orthodox but I really do not believe, as an English person who has sought Orthodoxy himself, that the Rite is an issue at all, as long as it is served in English. It is certainly not an issue, as far as I can see, for anyone who is not an Anglican. And Anglicans will not be becoming Orthodox, or Catholic in very great numbers, having had decades of living with a very compromised situation, and finding ways to do so. I have had enquirers say that they could not become Orthodox because we used incense, or because we prostrated in prayer, or because we had open coffins at funerals. I am not at all sure that the issues preventing them becoming Orthodox were those they identified themselves.

Likewise I am not convinced that an enquirer who WOULD become Orthodox only if there were a Western Rite, if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English, really wants to become Orthodox. I am not an advocate of the 'I had to learn Church Slavonic and it didn't do me any harm' school of evangelism, but I really and truly do not think that the Rite should be an issue with a genuine enquirer. I am convinced that Western Orthodoxy is what is required, and that this means the authentic Orthodox life being lived by people who remain genuinely British (or Western). And to be a little critical - what does an ancient Western form of liturgy have to do with Australia or New Zealand? The Lorrha Missal form of worship was never, ever used in the US. It is as alien as the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, or St Basil, or in fact just as appropriate or just as inappropriate.

Exactly! If I am coming to Orthodoxy from another church, it is because(one hopes) of an awareness that Orthodoxy better embodies the teachings of Our Lord. I am not the best judge of God's will, my own life choices have demonstrated this simple fact time and again. So it seems to me I ought to take what I find at my new destination instead of trying to hold on to what didn't work.

The arguments here seem to present the two liturgies as different approaches to the same spiritual action. But I don't believe the two liturgies are equal in the way they embody our Lord's commandment to "do this in memory of Me." The Western and Eastern churches do not describe the function of the liturgy in the same way. When I attend a Western liturgy,it does not feel as if I am doing the same thing as at my regular parish. If the differences were merely linguistic or cultural, it wouldn't matter. As you say, I could join the local Antiochian (Arabic) or ROCOR (Slavonic) parish as it suited me. I feel the differences are much more profound than that.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 03:54:27 PM
If you really believe that, then you have some explaining to do to the thousands of Orthodox saints now in Heaven who were nourished and formed by the Western tradition.  It is not inferior to the Byzantine Rite.  The ancient Western Rite was guided by the Spirit of God every bit as much as the Byzantine was.  I don't know how anyone could say otherwise.

And I apologize if I'm giving a false impression of what the WR is.  I must be doing a poor job because these posts seem to just be missing the point entirely...

The Western Rite does not exist because people came to the Orthodox Church, didn't like what they saw, and demanded something different.  It does not exist because converts refuse to change and are desperate to cling to anything and everything they can from their past.  Everyone seems to get so hung up on the idea of converts and some false idea that they refuse to participate in a Byzantine liturgy.  It's just a fact that some people find it a difficult transition, and now, a wholly unnecessary one.

And I must ask, Hermogenes, was it an Orthodox Western liturgy you attended?  Because if not, I wouldn't be surprised that you feel this way.  What has become of the Western liturgy in the heterodox world is not what it once was.  That's the point...
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 27, 2010, 04:19:51 PM
Sleeper, I hope that I do not come across as dismissive of the Western Rite when it is celebrated. I am not dismissive of any Orthodox worship, and if you lived near me and invited me to attend a Western Rite liturgy I would do so with pleasure and interest. I am also not one of those who think that only a liturgy which has an unbroken history of Orthodox use can be authorised. To a great extent I believe that appropriate forms of worship are those which bishops authorise, whatever they are. Even a completely new form drawing on the liturgical Tradition as all liturgical developments have done in the past. I guess my personal view is that a priest serves the liturgy authorised by his bishop.

But I still have an issue with the 'primary purpose' of the Western Rite which you describe....

It's really nothing more than the simple fact that the ancient Western rites rightfully belong to the Orthodox Church

because this can be extended to every Rite which has ever existed and has fallen into disuse. Should ALL of these rites be revived? Why? I cannot see that the Church has EVER been concerned about Rites in this way. Liturgical forms have developed. As far as I can see there has never been in the life of the Coptic Orthodox Church an 'Old St Basil Liturgy' movement trying to revive an older form of the liturgy. I don't sense that the in the Byzantine World there is a movement (beyond academia) to restore a more primitive form of worship. Surely the life of the Church moves on and we join the stream. We are where we are, and as far as I can see, we are not called to live out an earlier period of the history and life of the Church. For myself, I do not honour my patron by trying to worship according to forms he may have used 1400 years ago, but by emulating his life. I love St Severus more than any other saint, but surely I do not express my devotion by trying to live as if in 6th century Antioch?

I was a member of a group called Tha Engliscan Gesithas, which was a great way of furthering an interest in all things Old English. I once helped with some suggestions for an Anglo-Saxon Matins which they organised in an old Anglo-Saxon church. But though I still have a great interest in this period, I do not think that reconstructing it is an option. I don't think that dressing up as Anglo-Saxons is the same as respecting and studying the Anglo-Saxon period. It can be part of it, but it is not the same as it. (Nor am I suggesting that the Western Rite is dressing up). But I am not convinced that reconstruction is the same as understanding, respecting, valuing and learning from that tradition.

So I guess my question is, if the Western Rite is to be preserved/restored because it belongs/belonged to the Church, the why not ALL those Rites which have disappeared for one reason or another, and why not all those Rites which have been superceded by another? Why only one or two Western Rites, and especially those that the advocates prefer? Why are there so few advocates of the Lorrha Missal for instance? Why is the Nubian liturgy not being reconstructed? Why not the Carthaginian? Surely if it is NECESSARY to preserve the/a Western Rite, then it is NECESSARY to preserve ALL, otherwise we are really back to the fact that some people like some Western forms and want to be allowed to use them. That is a different situation.

At one point I used Western forms of prayer, studied the ancient Western liturgies, and hoped that there might be a possibility to use a variety of Rites. But actually without any pressure, I have come to see that this is just not (in my opinion) sensible, especially in regard to being part of a small community in which multiple rites would be a weakness and not a strength, and because I have not found that there is a demand for the Western Rite (I appreciate that your mileage may well vary). I have been on retreat with the Anglican Society of St Francis in the distant past. I used their prayer book. I have used the Roman Catholic missal. I have used the Monastic Diurnal. In my own congregation we sometimes sing some of the ancient Western hymns in English translation. We venerate the British saints. My Church is dedicated to St Alban and I have his relics in the altar. At the moment I am reading Bonaventure's Life of Francis of Assisi. I am profoundly appreciative of being English. But I am not convinced that this sense of being English requires that I use a restored or modified Western liturgy. And more, I am not convinced that it is a necessity of any sort that liturgical forms be restored for any reason.

How do you view all of the Western forms? Should they ALL be restored? If not, why not? And what of the redundant Eastern forms? Is it not God honouring that ALL be restored? I guess my question is why should only one or two Western forms be restored, and then only the ones that the people in question prefer? It does all seem to come down to personal preferences, and I do have a problem associating that with Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 04:40:32 PM
If you really believe that, then you have some explaining to do to the thousands of Orthodox saints now in Heaven who were nourished and formed by the Western tradition.  It is not inferior to the Byzantine Rite.  The ancient Western Rite was guided by the Spirit of God every bit as much as the Byzantine was.  I don't know how anyone could say otherwise.

And I apologize if I'm giving a false impression of what the WR is.  I must be doing a poor job because these posts seem to just be missing the point entirely...

The Western Rite does not exist because people came to the Orthodox Church, didn't like what they saw, and demanded something different.  It does not exist because converts refuse to change and are desperate to cling to anything and everything they can from their past.  Everyone seems to get so hung up on the idea of converts and some false idea that they refuse to participate in a Byzantine liturgy.  It's just a fact that some people find it a difficult transition, and now, a wholly unnecessary one.

And I must ask, Hermogenes, was it an Orthodox Western liturgy you attended?  Because if not, I wouldn't be surprised that you feel this way.  What has become of the Western liturgy in the heterodox world is not what it once was.  That's the point...

I understand that there are thousands of Western saints. I also understand that for more than 900 years East and West haven't been in communion with one another. And I also understand that the Western liturgy of 900 years ago was quite different than any Western liturgy being celebrated today.

As I read through it, the Western Rite feels to me like a high-church Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) liturgy with a couple of Orthodox elements grafted on to make it conform canonically. I don't understand the point of all the work that has been put into creating (or re-creating, if you insist) a Western-style liturgy that conforms to our canons. I haven't heard an explanation yet that didn't refer to things like personal preference, and I haven't seen a Western liturgy that embodies a living connection with the church of a thousand years ago. What I see is the 1928 Prayer Book, combined with the Anglican Missal in the American Edition, with some Orthodox elements added on.

I'm not an expert on this particular aspect of liturgy (I was at one time a specialist in the area of Gregorian chant). This amalgam may be OK, signed off on by professional theologians or even saints. Maybe I am blind here. I don't understand why we're offering this--forgive me--mishmash. I'm sorry. Maybe I shouldn't post to this thread any more.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 27, 2010, 06:00:00 PM

Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
Quote
Fr. Aidan has been blessed by Metr. Hilarion (Sept. 26, 2008) to celebrate services according to the Sarum use of the Roman rite, using the full line of liturgical books published by St. Hilarion Press and which are due for re-issue under the aegis of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Source: http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-news-for-sarum-use-of-roman-rite.html

Yes, he has a habit of claiming that. 
http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/sigha-response-to-derek-fr-aidan.html

Perhaps, he finally got approval.  That does not mean his scholarship is accurate.

I recall, sadly only too well, the hostility against Fr Aidan which was both deep-seated and long-running.  It was not widespread though, and was confined to just five people.  Within ROCA - ********.  Among the Antiochians -********  The latter uses his blog to denigrate Fr Aidan and misrepresent what he says. 

The anti-Fr Aidan campaign was well organised. It went back several years both in public messages on blogs and e-lists as well as in private mailings to Church authorities.  It has been a very illuminating example of the pettiness which can posses some of the souls in the WR world when their hegemony is challenged.


This is NOT TRUE. There is no hostility against Fr. Aidan. Certainly not from me. There is certainly no cabal amongst those being accused here. There was no campaign either. There *was* a defense of the ROCOR Western rite against false claims being made from those in the Milan Synod. But, this horrible accusation above is certainly NOT TRUE!!!!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 27, 2010, 06:27:06 PM
Because you found the Byzantine Rite to speak to your heart more than anything else.  It won't be the same for everyone.  Praise God we're all different and can still find a home!

If an Anglican were so attached to their liturgy that they couldn't conceive of their spiritual life without it, why would they even consider becoming Orthodox? That's what I don't get. That seems like a person who would be more likely to try to work within the Anglican church for any change they thought was necessary. And it seems like someone who may be trying to have things all ways. It's like a name change.

Well, this is why they pay bishops the big bucks, I guess, to figure these things out.

Hermogenes - the reason why is because the Anglican church is not the Church. Neither is Old Catholicism, or Old Rome. Orthodoxy IS the Church. It is the theology as well. You can speak of a 'Western captivity' in Eastern Orthodoxy. We've had our own captivity in the West as well. We're ready to be liberated, and to once again be in union the Mother Church. However, for many of us as well - we see no reason to throw the Baby out. The Church has agreed, and said we may enter the Church - and remain Westerners, use our own tongue, venerate our local saints, and use the prayers our local church used from the beginning.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 27, 2010, 06:45:34 PM
Hi Ari,

but again it seems to be being said (it feels that way) that only those who use the Western Rite..

Quote
remain Westerners

and that isn't so. Indeed out of this sentence,

Quote
..remain Westerners, use our own tongue, venerate our local saints, and use the prayers our local church used from the beginning.

it is only the liturgical form that is (perhaps) particularly restricted to the Western Rite.  I am entirely a Westerner, I am English for goodness sake (not a colonial :-)), and I worship in my own language and venerate our local saints. And I pray the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and many other aspects of the liturgy which are universal to all liturgical traditions.

And I am not entirely convinced by the idea that the Western Rite uses the prayers used in the West from the beginning. Surely the revised BCP rite is not ancient? And is even the Sarum rite ancient in comparison to most Eastern ones?

I have no problem with the Western Rite, it is not my business. But I do object to the sense that comes over (even unwittingly) that only the Western Rite can produce and nourish a Western Orthodoxy. As I have said, I'd be happy and interested to attend a Western Rite liturgy.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 27, 2010, 07:11:32 PM
Hi Ari,

but again it seems to be being said (it feels that way) that only those who use the Western Rite..

Quote
remain Westerners

and that isn't so. Indeed out of this sentence,

Quote
..remain Westerners, use our own tongue, venerate our local saints, and use the prayers our local church used from the beginning.

it is only the liturgical form that is (perhaps) particularly restricted to the Western Rite.  I am entirely a Westerner, I am English for goodness sake (not a colonial :-)), and I worship in my own language and venerate our local saints. And I pray the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and many other aspects of the liturgy which are universal to all liturgical traditions.

And I am not entirely convinced by the idea that the Western Rite uses the prayers used in the West from the beginning. Surely the revised BCP rite is not ancient? And is even the Sarum rite ancient in comparison to most Eastern ones?

I have no problem with the Western Rite, it is not my business. But I do object to the sense that comes over (even unwittingly) that only the Western Rite can produce and nourish a Western Orthodoxy. As I have said, I'd be happy and interested to attend a Western Rite liturgy.

Fr. Peter - having been Eastern rite, I can say that an attempt was being made to 'wipe out' my Westerness. I do understand the position of the BOC, though I find it inconsistent as they do not use the same liturgy as the Orthodox in Britain. If the BOC is serious about uniform liturgy, then why not adopt Chrysostoma in ritual, office, calendar, vestments and customs? (Does the rest of the Coptic church hold to the same idea? Any consideration there of adopting the Byzantine forms in lieu of the Coptic?) If there is a 'sense' you object to, please consider that that 'sense' might come explicitly from the presence of an entrenched anti-Westernism amongst some Easterners. It certainly is not a game of 'We're the only Westerners'. There are probably a billion Westerners - most being heterodox, or even non-Christian in the majority. That does not make them less Western either; it does make them in conflict with their true Western heritage though - a rebellion that can be reversed. So - let us rather speak of the sense in which we mean (wittingly and unwittingly): that those who enter the Church in the Western rite *do* remain Westerners, but fully Orthodox ones.

So, yes - there is a sense where being Western rite does affirm that we are Westerners by Providence, and that the Church is open to all. The BOC has its ministry - we have response to those who cannot be reached by the BOC. I'm honoured that I was asked to come witness the life of the English converts through the Western rite. It is filling a need - and is an opportunity that was missed by others over 15 years ago (an observation made even by other clergy in the UK in my presence this past month.) It certainly does not represent a threat to the other Eastern Orthodox (nor the BOC.) However, there is some paranoia present in Eastern Orthodoxy - probably a relic of the Soviet days. I don't know that the Oriental churches have to deal with it. We can see it in the manufacture of supposed cabals, violent opposition to anything perceived as 'Western', or in the perceived need to send 'spies' to our Western Orthodox meetings (we all had a good laugh about that in London. And - I even discovered the spy! ;) )
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 08:35:15 PM
To be clear, the St. Tikhon Mass is nothing more than the Roman Rite that was brought to the British Isles.  It's extremely close to the Sarum Mass.  But in either case these weren't just conjured out of thin air.  They were adaptations of existing pre-Schism material, much like the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was.  To say it's simply the 1928 BCP with Orthodox elements grafted on doesn't really mean anything, because the content of the BCP was, in large part, pre-Schism content.  It sounds like it should be a shocker ("An Anglican Mass?!"), but it isn't.

I realize, Hermogenes, that you don't understand why the work went into the St. Tikhon Mass, but you're unaware of the cultural circumstances of its creation.  When St. Tikhon sent it to Moscow to be looked over, it was really his only option.  Because, how many Orthodox churches in North America were in any position to accept converts?  They were all diaspora churches who brought their cultural heritage with them, offered no services in English and weren't able to take on new converts.  What was Tikhon supposed to do, say "Sorry"?  Fortunately, he had the wisdom to not do such a thing!

Having spent a great many years amongst the Episcopalians, St. Tikhon knew the ancient Orthodox stock from which her liturgy came and didn't think twice about sending it off for corrections and ultimate approval.

This touches on the questions you asked, Peter.  Should we restore all the ancient liturgies?  Well, if there's a practical reason to do so and there are bodies of people who would desire such a thing, I'd say absolutely, why not?  What problem would you have with that, anyway?

I think far too big a deal is made of the falling out of usage of certain elements of the Church's worship and history, far too big a deal is made of the supposed importance of "continuity" when it comes to these things, as if disuse or misuse completely destroys something.  That is not the Orthodox spirit.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 10:14:01 PM
To be clear, the St. Tikhon Mass is nothing more than the Roman Rite that was brought to the British Isles.  It's extremely close to the Sarum Mass.  But in either case these weren't just conjured out of thin air.  They were adaptations of existing pre-Schism material, much like the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was.  To say it's simply the 1928 BCP with Orthodox elements grafted on doesn't really mean anything, because the content of the BCP was, in large part, pre-Schism content.

This is inaccurate. The Cranmer prayer book of 1549, on which all subsequent revisions are based, was a new document altogether. Some bits and pieces of the Catholic rites were kept, of course; but the entire meaning of the Mass was redefined in a Protestant way. Read the 39 Articles if you want a clear overview of what the reformers thought they were doing. (The articles were approved in the reign of Elizabeth I.) Compare the 1549 communion service with the pre-Tridentine mass, and you will see very significant differences. It is far from being just a translation of the Latin. The other services--Matins, Evensong, etc.--Cranmer mostly wrote from scratch. King Edward VI was a strong reformer, as they were then known, and wanted no vestiges of popery in his chapel.

People on this blog write about the time before 1054 as though the libraries are full of primary source material. In fact, material is extremely scarce. Non-existent, in fact. For the Sarum Rite, there are no primary sources before the 13th century. None at all. So all the references on this thread to pre-schism this and and pre-schism that frankly surprise and amaze me. The sum total of what we know definitively about Western liturgical practices before 1054 could probably fit on a single CD.

One final note: The majority of non-Psalm texts and nearly all their musical settings used in the Latin Rite are post-schism. You see some bits here and there from the 10th Century, and the oldest chants, such as the chants for Pascha, must surely go back much earlier. But we really don't know too much about any of this--not so we can say for sure when things were written or how they were performed. There are simply no sources. A few books in the monastery at St. Gallen and a couple of Northern French Mss. form the most significant corpus of our knowledge about pre-schism Western liturgy, and we have no idea how normative the contents of those books might have been. Even then, we can only speculate as to how the liturgy would have been celebrated. We can't read the music (it doesn't show precise pitch or rhythm)--we can only guess, using some of the tools philologists use. We don't know what the abbreviations in some of the texts mean. The problems are that basic. The tradition relied to such a high degree on oral transmission that it's simply not possible to say anything with 100% certainty.

That is the state of our knowledge of liturgy in the pre-schism West.

The  situation in the East, of course, was quite different. The Eastern Empire underwent nothing comparable to the Dark Ages, so this highly literate society preserved many more of its primary documents. Where in the West we might have one incomplete version to work off of, in the East we might have numerous editions to compare. To take one small but significant illustration: Musicians in the Eastern church had developed a notation system that could accurately show pitch and rhythm by the Ninth Century. The West didn't have anything that clearly showed pitch until the 12th century, and it's only with music the 16th Century that we are reasonably certain we are deciphering the rhythm the way it was meant.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 27, 2010, 10:29:41 PM
To be clear, the St. Tikhon Mass is nothing more than the Roman Rite that was brought to the British Isles.  It's extremely close to the Sarum Mass.  But in either case these weren't just conjured out of thin air.  They were adaptations of existing pre-Schism material, much like the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was.  To say it's simply the 1928 BCP with Orthodox elements grafted on doesn't really mean anything, because the content of the BCP was, in large part, pre-Schism content. 

This is inaccurate. The Cranmer prayer book of 1549, on which all subsequent revisions are based, was a new document altogether. Some bits and pieces of the Catholic rites were kept, of course; but the entire meaning of the Mass was redefined in a Protestant way. Read the 39 Articles if you want a clear overview of what the reformers thought they were doing. (The articles were approved in the reign of Elizabeth I.) Compare the 1549 communion service with the pre-Tridentine mass, and you will see very significant differences. It is far from being just a translation of the Latin. The other services--Matins, Evensong, etc.--Cranmer mostly wrote from scratch. King Edward VI was a strong reformer, as they were then known, and wanted no vestiges of popery in his chapel.

People on this blog write about the time before 1054 as though the libraries are full of primary source material. In fact, material is extremely scarce. Non-existent, in fact. For the Sarum Rite, there are no primary sources before the 13th century. None at all. So all the references on this thread to pre-schism this and and pre-schism that frankly surprise and amaze me. The sum total of what we know definitively about Western liturgical practices before 1054 could probably fit on a single CD.

One final note: The majority of non-Psalm texts and nearly all their musical settings used in the Latin Rite are post-schism. You see some bits here and there from the 10th Century, and the oldest chants, such as the chants for Pascha, must surely go back much earlier. But we really don't know too much about any of this--not so we can say for sure when things were written or how they were performed. There are simply no sources. A few books in the monastery at St. Gallen and a couple of Northern French Mss. form the most significant corpus of our knowledge about pre-schism Western liturgy, and we have no idea how normative the contents of those books might have been. Even then, we can only speculate as to how the liturgy would have been celebrated. We can't read the music (it doesn't show precise pitch or rhythm)--we can only guess, using some of the tools philologists use. We don't know what the abbreviations in some of the texts mean. The problems are that basic. The tradition relied to such a high degree on oral transmission that it's simply not possible to say anything with 100% certainty.

That is the state of our knowledge of liturgy in the pre-schism West.

There was no Cranmer Prayer Book of 1549. Convocation made the translation of the 1549, including a few bishops who were still of Catholic faith. The liturgy they had already started using was the Sarum rite with references to the Pope and post-schism saints removed. The 1549 was intended as a common parish liturgy in English following that rite. Cranmer's first prayer book is the 1552, when he pushed through the changes he had wanted in 1548-9 and was unable to get (and Rome still recognized the 1549 as a Catholic liturgy even in that day.) The 1549 continued in use long after - the 1552 never was distributed fully, and was replaced by the Sarum rite again under the reign of Mary. The 39 Articles have no bearing on the 1549 - as they date from 1563. The 1549 must be considered in the light of the Six Articles and King's Book, which immediately preceded it (and was the reigning doctrine at the time.) The 1552 followed the 1552 Forty-Two articles, which repudiated the Six Articles and King's Book. The 39 Articles are an Elizabethan revision that post-date the Elizabethan prayer book of 1559. The only prayer book in England that the 39 Articles might have had influence on is the 1662 (and later, the American Prayer Book tradition.) They clearly were not the religious impulse behind the 1928 English Prayer Book (different than the 1928 American Prayer Book.)

Pre-Schism Western rite material is plenteous, and not sparse. The Sarum rite is quite complete, and even the Roman Catholic scholar Daniel Rock DD could say that at most six or seven words had changed in the rite from before the Norman Conquest until after. I'll quote him, from "The Church Of Our Fathers" 1866:
Quote
"Protestant writers upon the history and antiquities of the Church in this country, have often allowed themselves to be easily misled into no small error concerning changes imagined to have been wrought by St. Osmund in our national ecclesiastical services.

Not for a moment must it be thought that this holy man either took away one smallest jot from the text of the liturgy for offering up the sacrifice of the mass, or altered a word of the ritual of administering any of the seven sacraments. Both the Sacrifice and the Sacraments were hallowed things, which the Normans looked upon with the like deep reverence and holy feeling as the Anglo-Saxons: for each nation's belief upon these articles of Christian faith was identical, flowing as it did out of the self-same well-spring of truth -- the apostolic see, the chair of St. Peter."

....

Now it should be asked: " In What did the Sarum ritual vary from that of Rome, and of the Anglo-Saxons?", the question is readily answered by replying, that the difference was neither much nor important. On comparing the Breviary, the Missal, and the Manual of Salisbury, with such of the service-books as have come down to us from Anglo-Saxon times, and those books now in use at Rome [1849], we shall find that they agree with one another almost word for word; so much so, indeed, as to show that St. Osmund did nothing more than to take the Roman liturgy as he found it at the time, ingraft upon it some slight unimportant insertions, and draw out its rubrics in such a way as to hinder the ordinary chances of falling into any mistakes about them from happening. He seems to have invented nothing of himself in these matters, but to have chosen out of the practices he saw in use around him, among the Anglo-Saxons here, and more especially among his own countrymen in Normandy; and it would appear he undertook nothing more than to arrange the church-offices in such sort that his clergy -- composed as they must have been of Normans and Anglo-Saxons -- might have one known uniform rule to lead them while going through their respective functions within the sanctuary, and their several duties amid their flocks."

....

Such, reader, are the chief though not all the beauties of our dear old Sarum rite, which, after all, was so very Anglo-Saxon in its leading features. To love those olden ways in which our fathers for ages trod, is what has been told us and taught us by some of the highest holiest men who have lived at different times and various places in God's one catholic everlasting Church. How St. Charles Borromeo strove and wrought successfully to keep up the liturgy and ritual as they were left by hid predecessor, the great St. Ambrose; how Cardinal Ximenes preserved, at Toledo, the Mozarabic service - are fact well known. ... The Holy See, nay the Church herself, has always acknowledged the lawfulness of keeping up local rites and praiseworthy customs in different countries. The council of Trent, Sess. XXIV., in its Decretum de Reformatione Matrimonii cap. i., says: - Si quae provinciae aliis, ultra praedictas, laudabilibus consuetudinibus et caeremoniis hac in re utuntur, eas omnino retineri sancta Synodus vehementer optat. For the holy See, and the Roman Congregation of Rites, Gavanti, than whom a more trustworthy witness could not be found, assures us that: - Proprios mores unaquaeque habet ecclesia et laudibiles consuetudines, quas non tolli a caeremoniali Romano, neque a rubricis Breviarii, saepius declaravit Sacra rittum Congregatio.

....

Between the Anglo-Saxon and the Sarum rite there was but small difference: this latter bore about it a strong sister likeness to the first, so that, while looking upon the one, we, after a way, behold both. In its features and its whole stature, we gaze, as it were, upon our fathers in their religious life; we read their ghostly annals, through a thousand years and more, as a Catholic people. It tells us what men and women, old and young, high and low, then did and must have done to have got for this land of England that sweet name, among the nations, of "The island of Saints." When we take a remembrance of this liturgy with us into the tall cathedral and the lowly parish church, those dear old walls that catholic hands built are again quickened into ritual life; we see the lighted tapers round the shrine, or circling about the Blessed Sacrament hung above the altar; we catch the chant, we witness the procession as it halts to kneel and pray beneath the rood-loft; to the inward eye, the bishop with his seven deacons and as many subdeacons, is standing at the altar sacrificing, and as he uplifts our divine Lord in the Eucharist, for the worship of the kneeling throng, we hear the bell toll forth slowly, majestically. From the southern porch-door, to the brackets on the eastern chancel wall for the B.V. Mary's and the patron saint's images, every thing has its own meaning and speaks its especial purpose, as intended by the use of Sarum. Can these rites never again be witnessed in England? They may. Let us hope then - let us pray for their restoration, so that England may once more gaze upon her olden liturgy; let us hope and pray that her children, in looking upon, may all acknowledge their true mother, and love and heed the teaching the while they study the ritual of the Church of our Fathers."

Osmund didn't change the rite, it was simply codified from the books that they had brought from Sherborne and Ramsbury (which have a connection to St. David's - Menevia and Caerleon through Bishop Asser, whom St. Alfred the Great brought to be the bishop of Sherborne.)

There are more than pre-schism texts in Northern France (which had ecclesiastical contact with Anglo-Saxon England long before the Conquest, hence Rouen being like Sarum.) The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is one, as is the old Cornish Mass in the Bodleian. There is more - if one digs.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 10:32:48 PM
To be clear, the St. Tikhon Mass is nothing more than the Roman Rite that was brought to the British Isles.  It's extremely close to the Sarum Mass.  But in either case these weren't just conjured out of thin air.  They were adaptations of existing pre-Schism material, much like the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was.  To say it's simply the 1928 BCP with Orthodox elements grafted on doesn't really mean anything, because the content of the BCP was, in large part, pre-Schism content.

This is inaccurate. The Cranmer prayer book of 1549, on which all subsequent revisions are based, was a new document altogether. Some bits and pieces of the Catholic rites were kept, of course; but the entire meaning of the Mass was redefined in a Protestant way. Read the 39 Articles if you want a clear overview of what the reformers thought they were doing. (The articles were approved in the reign of Elizabeth I.) Compare the 1549 communion service with the pre-Tridentine mass, and you will see very significant differences. It is far from being just a translation of the Latin. The other services--Matins, Evensong, etc.--Cranmer mostly wrote from scratch. King Edward VI was a strong reformer, as they were then known, and wanted no vestiges of popery in his chapel.

People on this blog write about the time before 1054 as though the libraries are full of primary source material. In fact, material is extremely scarce. Non-existent, in fact. For the Sarum Rite, there are no primary sources before the 13th century. None at all. So all the references on this thread to pre-schism this and and pre-schism that frankly surprise and amaze me. The sum total of what we know definitively about Western liturgical practices before 1054 could probably fit on a single CD.

One final note: The majority of non-Psalm texts and nearly all their musical settings used in the Latin Rite are post-schism. You see some bits here and there from the 10th Century, and the oldest chants, such as the chants for Pascha, must surely go back much earlier. But we really don't know too much about any of this--not so we can say for sure when things were written or how they were performed. There are simply no sources. A few books in the monastery at St. Gallen and a couple of Northern French Mss. form the most significant corpus of our knowledge about pre-schism Western liturgy, and we have no idea how normative the contents of those books might have been. Even then, we can only speculate as to how the liturgy would have been celebrated. We can't read the music (it doesn't show precise pitch or rhythm)--we can only guess, using some of the tools philologists use. We don't know what the abbreviations in some of the texts mean. The problems are that basic. The tradition relied to such a high degree on oral transmission that it's simply not possible to say anything with 100% certainty.

That is the state of our knowledge of liturgy in the pre-schism West.

There was no Cranmer Prayer Book of 1549. Convocation made the translation of the 1549, including a few bishops who were still of Catholic faith. The liturgy they had already started using was the Sarum rite with references to the Pope and post-schism saints removed. The 1549 was intended as a common parish liturgy in English following that rite. Cranmer's first prayer book is the 1552, when he pushed through the changes he had wanted in 1548-9 and was unable to get (and Rome still recognized the 1549 as a Catholic liturgy even in that day.) The 1549 continued in use long after - the 1552 never was distributed fully, and was replaced by the Sarum rite again under the reign of Mary. The 39 Articles have no bearing on the 1549 - as they date from 1563. The 1549 must be considered in the light of the Six Articles and King's Book, which immediately preceded it (and was the reigning doctrine at the time.) The 1552 followed the 1552 Forty-Two articles, which repudiated the Six Articles and King's Book. The 39 Articles are an Elizabethan revision that post-date the Elizabethan prayer book of 1559. The only prayer book in England that the 39 Articles might have had influence on is the 1662 (and later, the American Prayer Book tradition.) They clearly were not the religious impulse behind the 1928 English Prayer Book (different than the 1928 American Prayer Book.)

Pre-Schism Western rite material is plenteous, and not sparse. The Sarum rite is quite complete, and even the Roman Catholic scholar Daniel Rock DD could say that at most six or seven words had changed in the rite from before the Norman Conquest until after. I'll quote him, from "The Church Of Our Fathers" 1866:
Quote
"Protestant writers upon the history and antiquities of the Church in this country, have often allowed themselves to be easily misled into no small error concerning changes imagined to have been wrought by St. Osmund in our national ecclesiastical services.

Not for a moment must it be thought that this holy man either took away one smallest jot from the text of the liturgy for offering up the sacrifice of the mass, or altered a word of the ritual of administering any of the seven sacraments. Both the Sacrifice and the Sacraments were hallowed things, which the Normans looked upon with the like deep reverence and holy feeling as the Anglo-Saxons: for each nation's belief upon these articles of Christian faith was identical, flowing as it did out of the self-same well-spring of truth -- the apostolic see, the chair of St. Peter."

....

Now it should be asked: " In What did the Sarum ritual vary from that of Rome, and of the Anglo-Saxons?", the question is readily answered by replying, that the difference was neither much nor important. On comparing the Breviary, the Missal, and the Manual of Salisbury, with such of the service-books as have come down to us from Anglo-Saxon times, and those books now in use at Rome [1849], we shall find that they agree with one another almost word for word; so much so, indeed, as to show that St. Osmund did nothing more than to take the Roman liturgy as he found it at the time, ingraft upon it some slight unimportant insertions, and draw out its rubrics in such a way as to hinder the ordinary chances of falling into any mistakes about them from happening. He seems to have invented nothing of himself in these matters, but to have chosen out of the practices he saw in use around him, among the Anglo-Saxons here, and more especially among his own countrymen in Normandy; and it would appear he undertook nothing more than to arrange the church-offices in such sort that his clergy -- composed as they must have been of Normans and Anglo-Saxons -- might have one known uniform rule to lead them while going through their respective functions within the sanctuary, and their several duties amid their flocks."

....

Such, reader, are the chief though not all the beauties of our dear old Sarum rite, which, after all, was so very Anglo-Saxon in its leading features. To love those olden ways in which our fathers for ages trod, is what has been told us and taught us by some of the highest holiest men who have lived at different times and various places in God's one catholic everlasting Church. How St. Charles Borromeo strove and wrought successfully to keep up the liturgy and ritual as they were left by hid predecessor, the great St. Ambrose; how Cardinal Ximenes preserved, at Toledo, the Mozarabic service - are fact well known. ... The Holy See, nay the Church herself, has always acknowledged the lawfulness of keeping up local rites and praiseworthy customs in different countries. The council of Trent, Sess. XXIV., in its Decretum de Reformatione Matrimonii cap. i., says: - Si quae provinciae aliis, ultra praedictas, laudabilibus consuetudinibus et caeremoniis hac in re utuntur, eas omnino retineri sancta Synodus vehementer optat. For the holy See, and the Roman Congregation of Rites, Gavanti, than whom a more trustworthy witness could not be found, assures us that: - Proprios mores unaquaeque habet ecclesia et laudibiles consuetudines, quas non tolli a caeremoniali Romano, neque a rubricis Breviarii, saepius declaravit Sacra rittum Congregatio.

....

Between the Anglo-Saxon and the Sarum rite there was but small difference: this latter bore about it a strong sister likeness to the first, so that, while looking upon the one, we, after a way, behold both. In its features and its whole stature, we gaze, as it were, upon our fathers in their religious life; we read their ghostly annals, through a thousand years and more, as a Catholic people. It tells us what men and women, old and young, high and low, then did and must have done to have got for this land of England that sweet name, among the nations, of "The island of Saints." When we take a remembrance of this liturgy with us into the tall cathedral and the lowly parish church, those dear old walls that catholic hands built are again quickened into ritual life; we see the lighted tapers round the shrine, or circling about the Blessed Sacrament hung above the altar; we catch the chant, we witness the procession as it halts to kneel and pray beneath the rood-loft; to the inward eye, the bishop with his seven deacons and as many subdeacons, is standing at the altar sacrificing, and as he uplifts our divine Lord in the Eucharist, for the worship of the kneeling throng, we hear the bell toll forth slowly, majestically. From the southern porch-door, to the brackets on the eastern chancel wall for the B.V. Mary's and the patron saint's images, every thing has its own meaning and speaks its especial purpose, as intended by the use of Sarum. Can these rites never again be witnessed in England? They may. Let us hope then - let us pray for their restoration, so that England may once more gaze upon her olden liturgy; let us hope and pray that her children, in looking upon, may all acknowledge their true mother, and love and heed the teaching the while they study the ritual of the Church of our Fathers."

Osmund didn't change the rite, it was simply codified from the books that they had brought from Sherborne and Ramsbury (which have a connection to St. David's - Menevia and Caerleon through Bishop Asser, whom St. Alfred the Great brought to be the bishop of Sherborne.)

There are more than pre-schism texts in Northern France (which had ecclesiastical contact with Anglo-Saxon England long before the Conquest, hence Rouen being like Sarum.) The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is one, as is the old Cornish Mass in the Bodleian. There is more - if one digs.

Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source. I cannot find any references to any extant primary source for Sarum Rite from that period. I'd be happy to be wrong.

The "Missal" of Robert de Jumièges is 13 pages of miniatures. It is a fragment.

I'm not gonna quibble on the 1549-52 prayer book thing. You may be right, although I frankly find it highly unlikely that Edward VI and Mary Tudor would or could use the same prayer book. Edward was himself strongly for reform, and the head of his council and his guardian, Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, even more so. My recollection reading the 1549 book (and this was a few years back, so my memory may be faulty) was that it read like the 1660 book, just in older language. The point in any case is, the BCP is a new book, not a reworking of an older book. It constitutes a break with the past, not a link to it.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 27, 2010, 10:40:01 PM
Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.

Lets have your short list first.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 10:59:49 PM
Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.

Lets have your short list first.
I'm asking for your reference. You say there's a primary source for a complete Sarum Rite liturgy. I don't know of any attested Sarum Rite Mss. before the 12th Century. There is mention of the Sarum Rite in other Mss. as early as the Eighth Century, but no primary sources I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 27, 2010, 11:09:47 PM
Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.

Lets have your short list first.
I'm asking for your reference. You say there's a primary source for a complete Sarum Rite liturgy. I don't know of any attested Sarum Rite Mss. before the 12th Century. There is mention of the Sarum Rite in other Mss. as early as the Eighth Century, but no primary sources I'm aware of.

You made the initial claim - so ante up. There are multiple primary sources for the local English use of the Roman rite that came to be called Sarum. That is a counter-claim. So, as it goes with these things: show me yours first, and I'll show you mine. (I'm especially interested in this mention of a Sarum Rite in an 8th c. MSS. - first I've heard of it, and would go counter to the history of the Sarum rite as we know it. Again: that Sarum is a post-schism name given to the rite already being celebrated in Wessex - such as at Sherborne and Ramsbury - and essentially the same as that being served across the channel before the Conquest, and in South Wales before the Conquest. And that such was as it had been since the Synod of Cloveshoe II.)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 27, 2010, 11:30:21 PM
Aristibule is correct.  "The First Prayer Book, though bearing some traces of foreign influence, was, in fact, a revision of the old Service-books of the English Church…But the First English Book of Common Prayer was formed, not by a composition of new materials, but by a reverent, and on the whole conservative, handling of the earlier services, of which large portions were simply translated and retained." - A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, Frances Proctor

But, in reality, that's beside the point. The 1928 American Book of Common Prayer is not, and has never been, an approved text for use in Western Rite parishes. To be sure, certain elements have been adapted from the 1928 Prayer Book for use in Western Rite parishes (or, more correctly, from the earlier 1892 American Book of Common Prayer): the Daily Office, the Coverdale Psalter, and the (heavily) adapted Communion Service.

However, there are also huge chunks of the 1928 Prayer Book that would never be used in a Western Rite parish: the Calendar (which essentially contains some of the major feasts of Our Lord and only New Testament saints); the Anglican sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Matrimony; the Anglican offices of Communion of the Sick or Burial of the Dead; the Ordinal; the Catechism; and (obviously) the Articles of Religion that you mentioned. Instead, these elements are replaced in the Western Rite with a much fuller Western calendar of feast days, earlier Roman forms of sacraments and services, the Byzantine services for Ordinations, and Orthodox catechisms for religious instruction.

As such, it would probably be more fair to describe the Western Rite, at least on a textual basis, as having been inspired, in part, by the 1928 Prayer Book, but that there are other significant portions of the Rite adapted from other, non-Prayer Book Western sources, most notably the old Roman Rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 27, 2010, 11:58:30 PM
Aristibule is correct.  "The First Prayer Book, though bearing some traces of foreign influence, was, in fact, a revision of the old Service-books of the English Church…But the First English Book of Common Prayer was formed, not by a composition of new materials, but by a reverent, and on the whole conservative, handling of the earlier services, of which large portions were simply translated and retained." - A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, Frances Proctor


I stand corrected. I must have been reading the 1552 edition.

In reality, the issue isn't even the 1928 BCP. It is that the liturgy in use in England at the time of the Dissolution would not itself have been considered orthodox by the Orthodox.

To take the best-known case: The Filioque was introduced several centuries before the Schism. I know, some eastern churches used it too, so nobody needs to jump down my throat. At some point, it became standard usage in the West and was declared heretical in the East. It was a process over hundreds of years. I expect we'd find the same thing with some of the other issues. In the East, the bishops reined in those of heterodox views. In the West, those views became doctrine. Now, a thousand years down the road, someone wants to claim there is an ancient orthodox tradition in the West. Certainly, the Western liturgical tradition has very ancient roots--as ancient as the Eastern tradition. The question is, at what point that tradition stopped being orthodox. Some people writing here apparently feel the answer is: Never. Others (I among them) feel the answer is: a very long time ago--at least as far back as the Schism. If these people are correct, then any Western Orthodox Rite in use today would of necessity be a new construction.

Time for sleep. Good night all--God bless! ("And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest...")
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 28, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Oh there's no question at all that, for the most part, these rites ceased "being Orthodox" by the time of the Schism with the accretions and deletions that you've already mentioned.  But that does not completely ruin them and I think you'd find that their structural integrity remained largely intact.  There was not much that had to be changed about them, when it all gets boiled down.

I think what many have a problem with is that the Western Rite, as a whole, was continued to be preserved by heterodox believers and that's just unacceptable to many.  They think it becomes suspect, or "lost" at that point.  But others of us don't want to give up on it, and want to see it restored to its former glory whilst not pretending that nothing ever happened.  This is why I believe the Antiochian approach, while controversial, makes the most sense.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 28, 2010, 12:28:58 AM
I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: biro on November 28, 2010, 12:37:30 AM
I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.

A very good point.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 28, 2010, 09:26:03 AM

The "Missal" of Robert de Jumièges is 13 pages of miniatures. It is a fragment.


The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is more than 13 pages of miniatures. It is in fact 228 leaves, 13 1/4 by 8 3/4 in size, and forms a sacramentary (meaning it has more than a Missal.) It was kept at Rouen, but is English in origin - most likely from Winchester. It contains a Kalendar and Paschal Tables (beginning at the year 1000), the Canon and Temporale, the Sanctorale, Votive Masses, Benediction, Visitation, Unction, Burial and Missa pro defunctis. It was published by the Henry Bradshaw Society in facsimile, and the Monastery of Mount Royal holds a copy. (I've also read through one via Inter-library Loan, a wonderful program.)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: podkarpatska on November 28, 2010, 09:40:57 AM
I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.

Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 28, 2010, 01:56:47 PM

The "Missal" of Robert de Jumièges is 13 pages of miniatures. It is a fragment.


The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is more than 13 pages of miniatures. It is in fact 228 leaves, 13 1/4 by 8 3/4 in size, and forms a sacramentary (meaning it has more than a Missal.) It was kept at Rouen, but is English in origin - most likely from Winchester. It contains a Kalendar and Paschal Tables (beginning at the year 1000), the Canon and Temporale, the Sanctorale, Votive Masses, Benediction, Visitation, Unction, Burial and Missa pro defunctis. It was published by the Henry Bradshaw Society in facsimile, and the Monastery of Mount Royal holds a copy. (I've also read through one via Inter-library Loan, a wonderful program.)

I've browsed it, not read it closely. I was counting the Sacramentary as a separate volume.

I haven't had the chance to have a discussion like this for several years, and I wanted to thank you. It's been very stimulating. I used to work with these works professionally as a performing musician specializing in music of the period. It's been fun blowing the dust off and seeing how much I remember (and ruing how much I've forgotten).
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 28, 2010, 03:56:21 PM
Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.

It was gradual leading up and it was gradual afterward.  There were still several churches in communion with one another well after 1054.  There was a Wester Rite Benedictine monastery on Holy Mount Athos until the 13th century.  I think 1054 is completely arbitrary.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 28, 2010, 04:59:41 PM
Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.

It was gradual leading up and it was gradual afterward.  There were still several churches in communion with one another well after 1054.  There was a Wester Rite Benedictine monastery on Holy Mount Athos until the 13th century.  I think 1054 is completely arbitrary.

Sure, except for the actual anathemae. For instance, the Council of Toledo took place in 589, but the Filoque wasn't adopted permanently by the church at Rome until 1014. The idea of papal supremacy took many centuries to gain something like universal acceptance by Western ecclesiastical authorities, with a number of twists and turns, even at the top level of papal approval.

I think we've wandered from the original topic, however. As I recall it, it was whether enough primary source material exists to assert the existence of an orthodox Western Sarum liturgy prior to 1054. Of course, there's enough other material to cobble together a gradual of some kind (as the Solesmes monks did in the 1960s from San Gallensis 359, Laudunensibus 239, and Einsidlensis 121 in preparing their very interesting Graduale Triplex). A few people have said there's plenty of pre-Schism primary source material--the Sacramentary or Robert de Jumièges, for example. I can't get any closer to an answer with the resources I have available here of a holiday weekend. The Orthodox hierarchy recognized the West's ancient traditions, and I think they are clear and obvious; but  I still do not feel there's a basis for suggesting an unbroken orthodox Sarum tradition.

In any case, from what I know of the origin of the liturgies currently in use under the title Western Orthodox, they were adapted from a variety of sources in the middle of the last century. The people who worked on them were some of them quite knowledgeable. I personally remain confused as to the reason for the efforts of Frs. Schmemann, Meyendorff, et al., but then, I don't really have to understand it. I've never been a member of a Western Rite parish and am not likely to be. I'd like personally to see one church, with a single unified approach to liturgical practice--unified, at least, to the extent we can all worship comfortably in each other's churches. The Western Orthodox Rite, so-called, does not seem to contribute to that. But I'd be happy to understand more about it.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 28, 2010, 05:12:25 PM
I can understand that, but as you noted, it's just a personal preference of yours. Each his own!

I'm curious what confuses you about the involvement of Frs Schmemann and Meyendorff? Are you confused by the labors of Ss Tikhon, John Maximovitch, Nicholas, Rafael as well?

Also, you must remember that liturgical uniformity is not the natural state of the Church. Why should one trump all the others? Just because geography and history made it so that it was the dominant form in Orthodoxy for so long?

One other thing I'm curious about; why is the Orthodox Western Rite "so-called"? Do you not believe such a thing exists?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 28, 2010, 05:13:45 PM
I can understand that, but as you noted, it's just a personal preference of yours. Each his own!

I'm curious what confuses you about the involvement of Frs Schmemann and Meyendorff? Are you confused by the labors of Ss Tikhon, John Maximovitch, Nicholas, Rafael as well?

Also, you must remember that liturgical uniformity is not the natural state of the Church. Why should one trump all the others? Just because geography and history made it so that it was the dominant form in Orthodoxy for so long?

I don't understand why they undertook it in the first place. It doesn't appear to have been in response to a large groundswell of demand.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 28, 2010, 05:16:26 PM
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 28, 2010, 05:29:45 PM
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 28, 2010, 06:18:23 PM
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?

Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

As far as Meyendorff is concerned, his wonderful book The Orthodox Church gives some great insight into his thoughts on the Western Rite as well as the Byzantine Rite.

A favorite quote of mine, from this book, says: “Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many.”  The Western Rite isn't really much more than this.  Long ago it lead to the salvation of many, and now that it has been restored to the Church it can once again be a beautiful witness to the Orthodox Faith and lead to the salvation of many.

I am a case and point.  I was an atheist and converted to the Orthodox Church, in large part because the beauty of the Rite of St. Tikhon captured my heart and I couldn't imagine worshiping in any other way.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 28, 2010, 07:07:09 PM
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?

Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

As far as Meyendorff is concerned, his wonderful book The Orthodox Church gives some great insight into his thoughts on the Western Rite as well as the Byzantine Rite.

A favorite quote of mine, from this book, says: “Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many.”  The Western Rite isn't really much more than this.  Long ago it lead to the salvation of many, and now that it has been restored to the Church it can once again be a beautiful witness to the Orthodox Faith and lead to the salvation of many.

I am a case and point.  I was an atheist and converted to the Orthodox Church, in large part because the beauty of the Rite of St. Tikhon captured my heart and I couldn't imagine worshiping in any other way.

It might be easier for me to understand if I were one of those people who find the long liturgies boring or not meaningful. But the opposite is true. I find the liturgy intensely moving an important. I worked in the Catholic church as a musician for many, many years, and my mother is an Anglican; so I'm very familiar with the Western forms. They are beautiful. But this isn't really about beautiful or pleasing or what I prefer, is it? It's about what's true. I apologize for how priggish that sounds. But I'm asked to do lots of things in my spiritual life that aren't fun or immediately enjoyable. I'm not conceptually opposed to a separate Western rite, but I am opposed if the basis for it is simply that people LIKE it. They prefer it. (You get why this word is such a burr under my saddle, eh? LOL) It's not a relevant value, it wouldn't be worth the effort if that were the only reason for it. In terms of my spiritual growth, nobody cares--or should care--if I'm enjoying myself or having a "good time."

Having spent literally decades at close quarters with both the Tridentine and Pauline masses, I don't believe the Catholics are doing the same thing when they worship as we are. I don't believe that Western liturgy conveys true (or at any rate complete) teaching. It is a commemoration, with the focus on Calvary. The Orthodox liturgy is a re-living of the entire experience, from Bethany to Bethany, as it were. That's how I experience it. I am inside it, it's something I live.

Anyway, I'll check out the sources. Thanks!

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 28, 2010, 07:13:16 PM
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?

Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

As far as Meyendorff is concerned, his wonderful book The Orthodox Church gives some great insight into his thoughts on the Western Rite as well as the Byzantine Rite.

A favorite quote of mine, from this book, says: “Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many.”  The Western Rite isn't really much more than this.  Long ago it lead to the salvation of many, and now that it has been restored to the Church it can once again be a beautiful witness to the Orthodox Faith and lead to the salvation of many.

I am a case and point.  I was an atheist and converted to the Orthodox Church, in large part because the beauty of the Rite of St. Tikhon captured my heart and I couldn't imagine worshiping in any other way.

It might be easier for me to understand if I were one of those people who find the long liturgies boring or not meaningful. But the opposite is true. I find the liturgy intensely moving an important. I worked in the Catholic church as a musician for many, many years, and my mother is an Anglican; so I'm very familiar with the Western forms. They are beautiful. But this isn't really about beautiful or pleasing or what I prefer, is it? It's about what's true. I apologize for how priggish that sounds. But I'm asked to do lots of things in my spiritual life that aren't fun or immediately enjoyable. I'm not conceptually opposed to a separate Western rite, but I am opposed if the basis for it is simply that people LIKE it. They prefer it. (You get why this word is such a burr under my saddle, eh? LOL) It's not a relevant value, it wouldn't be worth the effort if that were the only reason for it. In terms of my spiritual growth, nobody cares--or should care--if I'm enjoying myself or having a "good time."

Having spent literally decades at close quarters with both the Tridentine and Pauline masses, I don't believe the Catholics are doing the same thing when they worship as we are. I don't believe that Western liturgy conveys true (or at any rate complete) teaching. It is a commemoration, with the focus on Calvary. The Orthodox liturgy is a re-living of the entire experience, from Bethany to Bethany, as it were. That's how I experience it. I am inside it, it's something I live.

Anyway, I'll check out the sources. Thanks!



We are in agreement!  Please rest assured that the Orthodox Western Rite does not exist solely because people like it and prefer it.  It is absolutely about the truth, 100%.  And the Church has approved these rites for our use because they are convinced that they do, in fact, proclaim nothing but the fullness of the Faith.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 28, 2010, 07:19:47 PM
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?

Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

As far as Meyendorff is concerned, his wonderful book The Orthodox Church gives some great insight into his thoughts on the Western Rite as well as the Byzantine Rite.

A favorite quote of mine, from this book, says: “Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many.”  The Western Rite isn't really much more than this.  Long ago it lead to the salvation of many, and now that it has been restored to the Church it can once again be a beautiful witness to the Orthodox Faith and lead to the salvation of many.

I am a case and point.  I was an atheist and converted to the Orthodox Church, in large part because the beauty of the Rite of St. Tikhon captured my heart and I couldn't imagine worshiping in any other way.

It might be easier for me to understand if I were one of those people who find the long liturgies boring or not meaningful. But the opposite is true. I find the liturgy intensely moving an important. I worked in the Catholic church as a musician for many, many years, and my mother is an Anglican; so I'm very familiar with the Western forms. They are beautiful. But this isn't really about beautiful or pleasing or what I prefer, is it? It's about what's true. I apologize for how priggish that sounds. But I'm asked to do lots of things in my spiritual life that aren't fun or immediately enjoyable. I'm not conceptually opposed to a separate Western rite, but I am opposed if the basis for it is simply that people LIKE it. They prefer it. (You get why this word is such a burr under my saddle, eh? LOL) It's not a relevant value, it wouldn't be worth the effort if that were the only reason for it. In terms of my spiritual growth, nobody cares--or should care--if I'm enjoying myself or having a "good time."

Having spent literally decades at close quarters with both the Tridentine and Pauline masses, I don't believe the Catholics are doing the same thing when they worship as we are. I don't believe that Western liturgy conveys true (or at any rate complete) teaching. It is a commemoration, with the focus on Calvary. The Orthodox liturgy is a re-living of the entire experience, from Bethany to Bethany, as it were. That's how I experience it. I am inside it, it's something I live.

Anyway, I'll check out the sources. Thanks!



We are in agreement!  Please rest assured that the Orthodox Western Rite does not exist solely because people like it and prefer it.  It is absolutely about the truth, 100%.  And the Church has approved these rites for our use because they are convinced that they do, in fact, proclaim nothing but the fullness of the Faith.
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia....
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Keble on November 28, 2010, 11:02:07 PM
There was no Cranmer Prayer Book of 1549. Convocation made the translation of the 1549, including a few bishops who were still of Catholic faith.

That would be news to pretty much everyone. All the sources I can find say that there is no definite evidence of who wrote the 1549 rite, but that the assumption/belief through the years has been that Cranmer was the principal author. And the general view is that Cranmer's theology shifted considerably between the first two books.

That said, one need not resort to the words of the learned (or supposedly so) in considering the text of the rites, for one may read of the 1549 book here (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/HC.pdf) and of the 1892 book (which is what PECUSA was using at the time of Tikhon's American sojourn) here (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1892Standard/hc.pdf). At the moment I do not have at hand my copy of the western rite service book, but from what I recall it follows the 1892/1928 American pattern, so I don't see what point there is to discussing 1549 in the first place.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 28, 2010, 11:06:55 PM
Because portions of the 1549 have been used in the English rite of the Russian Church for use in converting Anglican congregations.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 29, 2010, 09:19:47 AM
Because portions of the 1549 have been used in the English rite of the Russian Church for use in converting Anglican congregations.

I believe it is the 1660 prayer book that was the basis for most succeeding editions, although it may be more complicated a picture than that. (And I may have the date slightly wrong, too.) The point I had wanted to make earlier is that the BCP is intentionally meant as a break with the past, not a conscious link to it. Extreme Protestants of the period wanted to wipe out every trace of popery. They would have been deaf to appeals for the consideration of tradition. Sola scriptura!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 29, 2010, 10:16:57 AM
Do you have a good source for this Hermogenes?  I haven't read much on the intentions of those who worked on the BCP, but I haven't heard this notion that it was a deliberate break from the past.  Everything I have read indicates it was more of a compilation work, rather than an entirely new construction.  I'm interested in where you discovered this.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 29, 2010, 10:49:47 AM
Do you have a good source for this Hermogenes?  I haven't read much on the intentions of those who worked on the BCP, but I haven't heard this notion that it was a deliberate break from the past.  Everything I have read indicates it was more of a compilation work, rather than an entirely new construction.  I'm interested in where you discovered this.

Aristibule (on this thread) is more knowledgeable on this than I. Perhaps he could share his sources? I didn't remember the sequence of events leading up to the first book as well as he does.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on November 29, 2010, 11:05:54 AM
I'm afraid, Deacon Lance, that I must go back to your post of several days ago:

"Further, Fr. Aidan has been proved unreliable as to his scholarship concerning the Sarum Rite, as several Western Rite members of this forum can confirm."

First, why this overweening snideness and smugness? What impels you to write in a disrespectful, boorish, dismissive tone, about someone you've never even met?

Second, what specifically is "unreliable" about any aspect of my scholarship? This statement is not only snide, spiteful, and ill-mannered, it is also not backed up by any sort of factual content. If you feel there actually is something specific to sniff at, please tell what it is.

I have little experience on discussion fora where Eastern Catholic clergy take part. I'm hoping all Eastern Catholic clergy are not so rude.

I look forward to your reply.

Fr. Aidan+  sinner
Holy Protection Russian Orthodox Church, Austin, Texas
http://www.orthodoxaustin.org
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 29, 2010, 11:08:48 AM
Dear Father Aidan, may I welcome you to this forum, and greet you as someone who was in contact with you many years ago.

Father Peter
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on November 29, 2010, 11:31:04 AM
Thank you for your kind welcome, Fr. Peter. I do remember you from our previous discussions and I hope all is well with you and with your people.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: John Larocque on November 29, 2010, 01:13:12 PM
Michael Davies compared the 1549 BCP to the Novus Ordo Mass, with respect to the changes Cranmer and company made to the traditional English liturgy. Or put another way, the 1970 Novus Ordo mass was something of a Roman Catholic "Anglicanization" of the traditional Roman Missal

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

I'm curious about how much pre-1549 is in the various Western Rite services. There's a Traditional Anglican Communion priest in France (former SSPX) who celebrates a variation of the Sarum Rite, but I don't know much about the version he uses.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 29, 2010, 01:23:02 PM
Father Aidan,

I would be very interested, if you have time, to read a description of the reasoning behind your commitment to a Western Rite, the reason you decided to work with the Sarum tradition, and the process you followed in producing the texts which you use.

I purchased your edition of the Western Rite some years ago and have benefited from it.

Father Peter
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: John Larocque on November 29, 2010, 02:33:53 PM
Fr. Chadwick was the Anglo-Catholic/TAC priest I mentioned from an earlier post. There's a whole bunch of stuff at his site and TheAngloCatholic.com blog. Elements of TAC seem focused on reviving a pre-1549 Sarum liturgy.

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/05/the-use-of-sarum-explained/

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/05/sarum-answers-to-a-few-difficulties/

Quote
Everything, from the rood screen to the three-level sedelia and apparelled amices and albs, were restored at St Mary's Primrose Hill except the rite itself. It was never forgotten, but the Prayer Book was compulsory on pain of severe sanctions to the exclusion of any other rite. We should not forget that the English Missal was totally illegal in the Church of England and still is. It is not an Anglican rite, and is just as illegal as reviving Sarum. We in the TAC no longer suffer from those constraints, and there will be other constraints to "get round" or negotiate in the Ordinariates.

What about the translations? As I say, they exist. The Pearson version of 1868 is in print, but in a cheap paperback with the page edges glued to the spine. It cannot be used at the altar without breaking up after a short period of use. The Warren translation of 1911 is available here - Part 1 and Part 2. I found mine in a second-hand bookshop in England, but paid a steep price, more than L100. It can be OCR'ed and printed, and the readings can be copied in from the King James Bible. Everything is therefore as available as the English Missal (as a reprint). These translations are in Prayer Book language. Therefore, all the music com
posed for the Prayer Book Communion Service can be used with Sarum. There are no incompatibilities with traditional Anglican culture.

The greatest argument against the Use of Sarum is that of its having become obsolete, and therefore its revival would be an act of "archaeologism" and against the sound principles of liturgical tradition. I have already alluded to this above. It has not been in total disuse, since it has been celebrated occasionally in the nineteenth century. Why else would a book be published in 1868 that is not a purely academic critical edition like the Wickham Legg version of the early twentieth century? Within living memory, Fr. Sean Finnegan has done it in Oxford, Bishop Conti has done it in Glasgow. Some ACA parishes use it occasionally on a fairly regular basis (they use the English Missal the rest of the time), and I use it daily in my insignificant chapel...

Another serious misconception is the idea that the 1549 Prayer Book was simply a translation of the Sarum Use. It is not. The two rites simply need to be found here and compared: Sarum - 1549 Prayer Book. If you have any doubts, print them out and compare them side by side. A Prayer Book Eucharist is not Sarum because it is done "Dearmer style" or with "English" trappings.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 29, 2010, 02:52:03 PM
Father Aidan,

I would be very interested, if you have time, to read a description of the reasoning behind your commitment to a Western Rite, the reason you decided to work with the Sarum tradition, and the process you followed in producing the texts which you use.

I purchased your edition of the Western Rite some years ago and have benefited from it.

Father Peter

One thing that seems confusing from all the discussions and comments on this thread is the degree to which Sarum Rite differs from other local variants, as well as how it differs. As I understand it--and this could be mistaken, which is why I'm asking--the main difference is in the rubrics. The basic text of the Mass was more or less the same, right? Maybe someone could give us a couple of examples of how the Catholic Mass would have differed if I'd attended St. Paul's in London in 1520 or Notre Dame in Paris or the Lateran in Rome in the same year?

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 29, 2010, 06:30:06 PM
Hermogenes - I think you mean the 1662 - and it hasn't been the case that any editions have followed it: it is still the BCP in use by the CoE and approved by Parliament. An attempt was made by the Protestant faction to produce a prayer book in 1689 following the 'Comprehension' party - they wanted to make it safe for the Dissenters as well. The 'Toleration' party won out, and the BCP was not changed - the Dissenters were tolerated in their separate congregations. There was a second attempt in 1928 - which was led by the Anglo-Catholic wing - including the Little Hours, a 'retooled' liturgy (which the editors had tried to follow the Observations of the Russian Church for). This is the Book of Common Prayer of which is referred to in this passage by Fr. Michael Protopopov:
Quote
"During the 1920’s, the Anglicans were writing the New Book of Common Prayer; it was very Orthodox in its approach. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed memory had even said that if the Anglicans were to accept the New Book of Common Prayer there would be very little separating the Orthodox and the Anglicans, and perhaps they could even be recognized as equal to ourselves. Unfortunately, they never did accept the New Book of Common Prayer, and therefore the unity between the two Churches never went ahead. However, the Anglicans still retained a great fondness for the Orthodox and supported us all the way through until Warrnambool 10 years ago."
The 1928 English BCP was accepted by the CoE (the last BCP in fact), but it was rejected by Parliament - an argument, I think, for getting government out of religion.
Since then, an 'Alternative Service Book', and 'Common Worship' have come out - but the 1662 remains the last one sanctioned by the CoE and Parliament both - in 1662. The 1928 is the last to be sanctioned by the CoE. I expect that will change.
There have been no attempts by the Orthodox to correct the 1662; only the 1928 American (which is from the Scottish tradition of BCPs) by the Antiochians, and the English liturgy largely of Sarum with portions borrowed from both the 1549 and 1718 Non-Jurors liturgy. The Russian version is primarily for congregations of converting Anglicans  - and leads to the Sarum and Mount Royal uses of the Roman rite (which we follow.)

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 29, 2010, 06:39:55 PM

One thing that seems confusing from all the discussions and comments on this thread is the degree to which Sarum Rite differs from other local variants, as well as how it differs. As I understand it--and this could be mistaken, which is why I'm asking--the main difference is in the rubrics. The basic text of the Mass was more or less the same, right? Maybe someone could give us a couple of examples of how the Catholic Mass would have differed if I'd attended St. Paul's in London in 1520 or Notre Dame in Paris or the Lateran in Rome in the same year?


That is because there is some confusion by academics regarding what is Sarum. The Sarum rite (ritum) refers to the books produced at Sarum and celebrated in that cathedral - and which was adopted wholesale in some places (such as Lichfield.) The Sarum use refers to books which follow the Sarum pattern, but which were adapted for local diocesan use: such as Aberdeen. It can also refer to how the Sarum liturgy was celebrated in attenuated form in English parish churches - which can differ to a great degree: from county to county, and from village to village. The term English use includes Sarum, and other English local uses which are markedly not Sarum: Durham or York, for instance - or Exeter. However, all of the English use rites and uses are simply part of a larger family in Northwest Europe: it is also how the liturgy was followed in France, the Low Countries, Germany and Scandinavia. This is due in no small part to the missionaries from Britain who evangelized the Continent, and continued contact after.

The whole of what makes a rite includes the ritual (the text), the ceremonial (how the rubrics are carried out), ornaments (vestments, fabric of the church), and music. As to details: the Sarum and other English and Northwest European rites were more conservative than their Southern European counterparts: older forms were retained. There was also a difference in life for the clergy: what eventually produced the Missal & Breviary in Rome. The busy life of Italian urban priests did not apply in Britain; which was primarily small village parish churches - more like our present missionary situation.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on November 29, 2010, 07:31:18 PM
Fr. Peter, I can easily do what you ask. I originally joined a monastic parish which used the Sarum for its regular worship. It wasn't so much that I decided to "go Sarum" (the farthest thing from my mind at the time!), but that I joined a parish, then the nearby monastery of several monastics, which happened to use the Sarum services. I found the worship to be uplifting, heavenly, and carried out by very sincere people, which appealed to me greatly. The parish and monastery were using the Sarum because they had been convinced this was a good thing, by Fr. John Shaw of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. He provided initial impetus and occasional translations. Perhaps more importantly, it was he who convinced us not to do certain things which were of later Roman Catholic provenance--the use of the Eucharist in processions; the later-added elevations during the Canon; etc.

When at one point we had no one to read Latin or to be a "go-to" for historical liturgical process, I threw myself into the Latin language and began to acquaint myself with the original manuscripts. The more I learned, the more I realized what tremendous potential this Use of the Roman rite had, for missionary work. It must be borne in mind that the situation on the ground there, was never a "hothouse" in conception. I never had free rein in producing anything, many of my preferences were not blessed to be done, etc. Liturgical materials were evaluated in terms of historicity but with an eye to real and present pastoral concerns. At its height the parish there had over 50 attendees on a Sunday, and the whole congregation joined in on the main chants. The effect was quite powerful, the faith of the people quite sincere. Nothing was carried out for the sake of experiment. It was done soberly. As prior of the monastery, I introduced daily services, at first just Compline. Then we went to Vespers. Then Vespers and Compline. Then we added Matins. We sang Mass with full chant three to five times a week on average. We chanted the offices. The monastic life was carried out sincerely, if a bit in isolation from mainstream monastic centres of the Orthodox world. And the efforts to get canonical--which lasted years and years--form an entire story besides.

I saw that to do Sarum services every day was Orthodox, beautiful, practical, well-respected by those attending, ... it was everything that a Western rite in Orthodoxy should be. Of course, we had a "constituency" which was an even mix of converts from Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, other Protestant bodies, other religions, and little or no religion. There was no "base" to cater to, so we never had to tried to please anybody's BCP, or Tridentine, or other, predilections.

Almost all the objections well-meaning, pious Eastern Orthodox might have against the Western rite, were and are resolved by use of the Sarum services. Orthodox folk who could never have accepted a Protestant rite service or a Tridentine rite service as genuinely Orthodox, as natively Orthodox, found it easy to so accept the Sarum as it was preserved and celebrated in the old community. A GOA monk recently had a spirited discussion with another Greek monk who was dead-set against Western rite. When the first monk was able to show the second monk the treasures of the West's Orthodox period, from "Orthodox Prayers of Old England," the second monk checked it out and within about 15 minutes was persuaded that this Sarum rite Orthodoxy was a great and good thing. That's typical.

It should be pointed out that the Sarum Use had an Orthodox origin and ended up, historically, in the domain of heresy after the Schism of Rome. It is not a difficult task to correct for all the (very few) changes which occurred in the rite as a result of its contact with post-Schism currents in the Roman Catholic church. Once you do that, the result is something easily digestible to, acceptable by, venerable by, Orthodox folk as a whole. So I think the Sarum Use or something akin to it, is the future of WR in Orthodoxy. I am content to let it prevail by a process of natural selection (if you will) which may take centuries, rather than by wheedling anyone to use it or trying to get authorities to force anyone to use it.

About editorial process, I simply decided on the most rigorous historically-rooted editorial process that has ever been used for any Orthodox Western rite: only liturgical texts which were Sarum or from neighbouring dioceses, prior to the Reformation, could be considered for inclusion. Thus anything that came from continental uses was strictly excluded, as well as everything post-Reformation. In preparing new books for publication under the aegis of the ROCOR, my editorial methods have become even stricter and the documentation will be absolutely meticulous. Careful documentation of sources was impossible in some of the books I published as St. Hilarion Press, because of ecclesiastical obediences to the contrary. But now I can be as meticulous as I wish. This will be helpful, since some people, being ignorant of the liturgical manuscripts themselves, imagined all kinds of rite-mixing was going on. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Well, it may be that my toothache is preventing me from focusing and I'm rambling. I'll stop for now and resume the rambling later.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 29, 2010, 07:37:37 PM
Hermogenes - I think you mean the 1662 - and it hasn't been the case that any editions have followed it: it is still the BCP in use by the CoE and approved by Parliament. An attempt was made by the Protestant faction to produce a prayer book in 1689 following the 'Comprehension' party - they wanted to make it safe for the Dissenters as well. The 'Toleration' party won out, and the BCP was not changed - the Dissenters were tolerated in their separate congregations. There was a second attempt in 1928 - which was led by the Anglo-Catholic wing - including the Little Hours, a 'retooled' liturgy (which the editors had tried to follow the Observations of the Russian Church for). This is the Book of Common Prayer of which is referred to in this passage by Fr. Michael Protopopov:
Quote
"During the 1920’s, the Anglicans were writing the New Book of Common Prayer; it was very Orthodox in its approach. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed memory had even said that if the Anglicans were to accept the New Book of Common Prayer there would be very little separating the Orthodox and the Anglicans, and perhaps they could even be recognized as equal to ourselves. Unfortunately, they never did accept the New Book of Common Prayer, and therefore the unity between the two Churches never went ahead. However, the Anglicans still retained a great fondness for the Orthodox and supported us all the way through until Warrnambool 10 years ago."
The 1928 English BCP was accepted by the CoE (the last BCP in fact), but it was rejected by Parliament - an argument, I think, for getting government out of religion.
Since then, an 'Alternative Service Book', and 'Common Worship' have come out - but the 1662 remains the last one sanctioned by the CoE and Parliament both - in 1662. The 1928 is the last to be sanctioned by the CoE. I expect that will change.
There have been no attempts by the Orthodox to correct the 1662; only the 1928 American (which is from the Scottish tradition of BCPs) by the Antiochians, and the English liturgy largely of Sarum with portions borrowed from both the 1549 and 1718 Non-Jurors liturgy. The Russian version is primarily for congregations of converting Anglicans  - and leads to the Sarum and Mount Royal uses of the Roman rite (which we follow.)



I didn't think it could be exactly 1660, but I knew it was around then.

How do the 1662 and 1928 differ, besides in modernizing the language? Do they have different rites, or are the rites themselves much different?

There's also the Prayer Book of St. Augustine, which was approved by nobody I'm aware of (except the people who used it), and was basically a Catholic prayer book for Anglicans. Well, maybe more like the way an Eastern-Rite Catholic prayer book ressembles an Orthodox one. Very similar, but not identical. I had one as a kid.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 29, 2010, 07:49:11 PM
Fr. Peter, I can easily do what you ask. I originally joined a monastic parish which used the Sarum for its regular worship. It wasn't so much that I decided to "go Sarum" (the farthest thing from my mind at the time!), but that I joined a parish, then the nearby monastery of several monastics, which happened to use the Sarum services. I found the worship to be uplifting, heavenly, and carried out by very sincere people, which appealed to me greatly. The parish and monastery were using the Sarum because they had been convinced this was a good thing, by Fr. John Shaw of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. He provided initial impetus and occasional translations. Perhaps more importantly, it was he who convinced us not to do certain things which were of later Roman Catholic provenance--the use of the Eucharist in processions; the later-added elevations during the Canon; etc.

When at one point we had no one to read Latin or to be a "go-to" for historical liturgical process, I threw myself into the Latin language and began to acquaint myself with the original manuscripts. The more I learned, the more I realized what tremendous potential this Use of the Roman rite had, for missionary work. It must be borne in mind that the situation on the ground there, was never a "hothouse" in conception. I never had free rein in producing anything, many of my preferences were not blessed to be done, etc. Liturgical materials were evaluated in terms of historicity but with an eye to real and present pastoral concerns. At its height the parish there had over 50 attendees on a Sunday, and the whole congregation joined in on the main chants. The effect was quite powerful, the faith of the people quite sincere. Nothing was carried out for the sake of experiment. It was done soberly. As prior of the monastery, I introduced daily services, at first just Compline. Then we went to Vespers. Then Vespers and Compline. Then we added Matins. We sang Mass with full chant three to five times a week on average. We chanted the offices. The monastic life was carried out sincerely, if a bit in isolation from mainstream monastic centres of the Orthodox world. And the efforts to get canonical--which lasted years and years--form an entire story besides.

I saw that to do Sarum services every day was Orthodox, beautiful, practical, well-respected by those attending, ... it was everything that a Western rite in Orthodoxy should be. Of course, we had a "constituency" which was an even mix of converts from Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, other Protestant bodies, other religions, and little or no religion. There was no "base" to cater to, so we never had to tried to please anybody's BCP, or Tridentine, or other, predilections.

Almost all the objections well-meaning, pious Eastern Orthodox might have against the Western rite, were and are resolved by use of the Sarum services. Orthodox folk who could never have accepted a Protestant rite service or a Tridentine rite service as genuinely Orthodox, as natively Orthodox, found it easy to so accept the Sarum as it was preserved and celebrated in the old community. A GOA monk recently had a spirited discussion with another Greek monk who was dead-set against Western rite. When the first monk was able to show the second monk the treasures of the West's Orthodox period, from "Orthodox Prayers of Old England," the second monk checked it out and within about 15 minutes was persuaded that this Sarum rite Orthodoxy was a great and good thing. That's typical.

It should be pointed out that the Sarum Use had an Orthodox origin and ended up, historically, in the domain of heresy after the Schism of Rome. It is not a difficult task to correct for all the (very few) changes which occurred in the rite as a result of its contact with post-Schism currents in the Roman Catholic church. Once you do that, the result is something easily digestible to, acceptable by, venerable by, Orthodox folk as a whole. So I think the Sarum Use or something akin to it, is the future of WR in Orthodoxy. I am content to let it prevail by a process of natural selection (if you will) which may take centuries, rather than by wheedling anyone to use it or trying to get authorities to force anyone to use it.

About editorial process, I simply decided on the most rigorous historically-rooted editorial process that has ever been used for any Orthodox Western rite: only liturgical texts which were Sarum or from neighbouring dioceses, prior to the Reformation, could be considered for inclusion. Thus anything that came from continental uses was strictly excluded, as well as everything post-Reformation. In preparing new books for publication under the aegis of the ROCOR, my editorial methods have become even stricter and the documentation will be absolutely meticulous. Careful documentation of sources was impossible in some of the books I published as St. Hilarion Press, because of ecclesiastical obediences to the contrary. But now I can be as meticulous as I wish. This will be helpful, since some people, being ignorant of the liturgical manuscripts themselves, imagined all kinds of rite-mixing was going on. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Well, it may be that my toothache is preventing me from focusing and I'm rambling. I'll stop for now and resume the rambling later.

Fr. Aidan--where can I find a copy of the liturgy you do? Are they currently available? Is there a missal or breviary? Unfortunately, I have kind of a knee-jerk response when it comes to the Western Rite, but maybe I would have a similar experience to the GOA priest. Your post here is so reasonable and measured as to make me wish I knew more.

Sorry to hear about your tooth--I had a couple of hot teeth myself recently. May I presume to include you in my prayers?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 29, 2010, 08:09:23 PM
^ I am interested in something, Hermogenes.  In light of knowing a tree by the fruit it produces, what is it exactly about the Western Rite in practice that causes the knee-jerk reaction?  Have you seen its use produce bad fruit somewhere along the way?  Have the people you encountered who worship according to the Western Rite seemed less than Orthodox or spiritually malnourished?

I know its a generalization, but I've yet to have a conversation with someone who has said, "You know, I've spent the last 6 months attending a Western Rite parish and I've got to say, it's just missing the mark.  They're missing out on a lot and I'm concerned about their spiritual well-being.  I myself have noticed a marked shift in my spiritual welfare as a result of attending.  I can't wait to get back to the Byzantine Rite."

I know that's extreme, but so much energy is spent dealing with misinformation and misunderstandings and unfounded accusations (none of which I'm accusing you of!) and I just quite honestly don't think that's fair.

We can talk about the Western Rite in theory until our faces turn blue, but is that really going to accomplish anything?  In what other circumstances is it fair to pass judgment upon something, having never experienced it for oneself?

I don't mean to derail this thread.  Please carry on, but if anyone wants to add their thoughts to this, or their own personal experiences with the Western Rite (or even start a new thread if necessary) I'd be highly interested.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 29, 2010, 08:20:19 PM
I'm afraid, Deacon Lance, that I must go back to your post of several days ago:

"Further, Fr. Aidan has been proved unreliable as to his scholarship concerning the Sarum Rite, as several Western Rite members of this forum can confirm."

First, why this overweening snideness and smugness? What impels you to write in a disrespectful, boorish, dismissive tone, about someone you've never even met?

Second, what specifically is "unreliable" about any aspect of my scholarship? This statement is not only snide, spiteful, and ill-mannered, it is also not backed up by any sort of factual content. If you feel there actually is something specific to sniff at, please tell what it is.

I have little experience on discussion fora where Eastern Catholic clergy take part. I'm hoping all Eastern Catholic clergy are not so rude.

I look forward to your reply.

Fr. Aidan+  sinner
Holy Protection Russian Orthodox Church, Austin, Texas
http://www.orthodoxaustin.org


Fr. Aidan,

Forgive me.  One can disagree with another’s scholarship without intending rudeness.  You were invoked as an authority which I do not believe you to be.  May I ask what University has granted you a degree in Liturgics?  As to what is unreliable, first would be the fact that your version is different from every other I have seen , second, I think Fr. Ben has already dealt with that here:

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/unserious-criticisms-of-tridentine.html

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/unserious-criticisms-of-tridentine_19.html

That is not to say your version is not beautiful or prayerful.

Fr. Deacon Lance  
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 29, 2010, 08:51:55 PM

 As to what is unreliable, first would be the fact that your version is different from every other I have seen , second, I think Fr. Ben has already dealt with that here:

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/unserious-criticisms-of-tridentine.html

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/unserious-criticisms-of-tridentine_19.html

That is not to say your version is not beautiful or prayerful.

Fr. Deacon Lance  



These articles are written by (the now Father) Benjamin Johnson.   Is he able to offer scholarly critiques of the Sarum Rite?  The Western Rite scholar Aristibule Drake Adams who writes on the forum questions whether Fr Ben Johnson is able to speak knowledgeably about the Sarum.

See his comments here:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sarum_Use/Archive_2

"The citations are provided. The English Liturgy is primarily based on the Sarum rite (including the Sarum canon) with some items from one BCP - the 1549 'Catholic' version, as well as the 1718 Non-Juror Usager liturgy (not a BCP liturgy), the York rite, the Gothic Missal - but not from any other BCP besides the original 1549. Those who do follow the BCP do not see it as a BCP or 'Anglican service'. The Roman rite was approved twice by the Russian Synod (and also by Constantinople) - no specific Use was required, and thus various local or monastic uses of the Roman rite have been used in the Russian Orthodox Church - all adapted according to the rules put forth by the Holy Synod (for that matter, not only is adaptation of the Roman rite and some BCP services - but also the Gallican/Celtic rite.) Any problem with it - take it up with Vladyka Hilarion whose project it was, and whose blessing it has. Or, with all sobriety: do contact Bishop Elect Fr. John R. Shaw and ask him the basis for the Western Rites in the Russian Orthodox Church (specifically the Sarum.) Fr. John R. Shaw is a valuable resource - and soon one of the Metropolitans vicar bishops. I do not think Fr. Benjamin Johnson and I agree often (nor have I heard from him in nearly a year), but I would not attack him as he is a member of the true Orthodox clergy. --Ari 11:35, August 26, 2008 (UTC) "

You will notice that Aristibule Adams mentions that Fr John Shaw, now Bishop Jerome of ROCA, is a valuable Sarum resource and of course it was Bishop Jerome who mentored and assisted Fr Aidan.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: John Larocque on November 29, 2010, 09:03:23 PM
Interesting history at that blog. I was scanning material hosted on Fr. Chadwick's site, which stated that it was Henry VIII and Edward who retired the York and Hereford in favour of Sarum. There was a Sarum-rite revival by Queen Mary. Most Anglo-Catholic historians will tell you that the 1549 BCP is not the Sarum rite, but Cranmer's revision of the rite in a Protestant direction.

Subsequent monarchs then obliterated all the older rites in favour of various flavours of the Book of Common Prayer. Anglo-Catholics had to make do with dressing up the existing BCP, because they were forbidden from celebrating from the actual pre-Cranmer text (Latin or translated  English).

Fr. Chadwick uses this reconstruction:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Sarum.html

This web page of his links to a bunch of  resources including a Russian Orthodox version.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070208083242/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm

There's also a bunch of stuff on Wikipedia as well.
http://civitas.dei.pagesperso-orange.fr/sarum_index.htm


Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 29, 2010, 09:08:34 PM
^ I am interested in something, Hermogenes.  In light of knowing a tree by the fruit it produces, what is it exactly about the Western Rite in practice that causes the knee-jerk reaction?  Have you seen its use produce bad fruit somewhere along the way?  Have the people you encountered who worship according to the Western Rite seemed less than Orthodox or spiritually malnourished?

I know its a generalization, but I've yet to have a conversation with someone who has said, "You know, I've spent the last 6 months attending a Western Rite parish and I've got to say, it's just missing the mark.  They're missing out on a lot and I'm concerned about their spiritual well-being.  I myself have noticed a marked shift in my spiritual welfare as a result of attending.  I can't wait to get back to the Byzantine Rite."

I know that's extreme, but so much energy is spent dealing with misinformation and misunderstandings and unfounded accusations (none of which I'm accusing you of!) and I just quite honestly don't think that's fair.

We can talk about the Western Rite in theory until our faces turn blue, but is that really going to accomplish anything?  In what other circumstances is it fair to pass judgment upon something, having never experienced it for oneself?

I don't mean to derail this thread.  Please carry on, but if anyone wants to add their thoughts to this, or their own personal experiences with the Western Rite (or even start a new thread if necessary) I'd be highly interested.

When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant. In some cases, the people I've talked with had only ever attended the Western Rite.

I should say, I've been a member of a 12-step program for many years, and I remember in the beginning being told quite clearly that no one cared what I preferred or what I liked. They pointed out that I didn't have a very good record of preferring or liking things that were good for me. The same is true of all areas of my spiritual life. I need a guide, a director (or sponsor) who can help me see the good things I would do better to like and prefer.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 29, 2010, 09:43:14 PM
^ I am interested in something, Hermogenes.  In light of knowing a tree by the fruit it produces, what is it exactly about the Western Rite in practice that causes the knee-jerk reaction?  Have you seen its use produce bad fruit somewhere along the way?  Have the people you encountered who worship according to the Western Rite seemed less than Orthodox or spiritually malnourished?

I know its a generalization, but I've yet to have a conversation with someone who has said, "You know, I've spent the last 6 months attending a Western Rite parish and I've got to say, it's just missing the mark.  They're missing out on a lot and I'm concerned about their spiritual well-being.  I myself have noticed a marked shift in my spiritual welfare as a result of attending.  I can't wait to get back to the Byzantine Rite."

I know that's extreme, but so much energy is spent dealing with misinformation and misunderstandings and unfounded accusations (none of which I'm accusing you of!) and I just quite honestly don't think that's fair.

We can talk about the Western Rite in theory until our faces turn blue, but is that really going to accomplish anything?  In what other circumstances is it fair to pass judgment upon something, having never experienced it for oneself?

I don't mean to derail this thread.  Please carry on, but if anyone wants to add their thoughts to this, or their own personal experiences with the Western Rite (or even start a new thread if necessary) I'd be highly interested.

When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant. In some cases, the people I've talked with had only ever attended the Western Rite.

I should say, I've been a member of a 12-step program for many years, and I remember in the beginning being told quite clearly that no one cared what I preferred or what I liked. They pointed out that I didn't have a very good record of preferring or liking things that were good for me. The same is true of all areas of my spiritual life. I need a guide, a director (or sponsor) who can help me see the good things I would do better to like and prefer.

I see.  Thanks for responding.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 29, 2010, 10:19:51 PM
When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant.

And yet that is why St. Vladimir chose Byzantine Christianity.

"Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendour or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty." Slav envoys to St. Vladimir

"Beauty will save the world." from The Idiot by Dostoyevsky
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 30, 2010, 12:34:45 AM
When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant.

And yet that is why St. Vladimir chose Byzantine Christianity.

"Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendour or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty." Slav envoys to St. Vladimir

"Beauty will save the world." from The Idiot by Dostoyevsky

Ah!  The Red Sun-Prince!   I believe he rejected Islam and Judaism and also the Western Rite, for various reasons.  The Western Rite was rejected for the reason you give from Dostoyevsky,  IIRC.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on November 30, 2010, 01:07:36 AM
Ah!  The Red Sun-Prince!   I believe he rejected Islam and Judaism and also the Western Rite, for various reasons.  The Western Rite was rejected for the reason you give from Dostoyevsky,  IIRC.

The envoys reported: "When we journeyed among the Bulgars, we beheld how they worship in their temple, called a mosque, while they stand ungirt. The Bulgarian bows, sits down, looks hither and thither like one possessed, and there is no happiness among them, but instead only sorrow and a dreadful stench. Their religion is not good. Then we went among the Germans, and saw them performing many ceremonies in their temples; but we beheld no glory there.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Iconodule on November 30, 2010, 08:28:46 AM
Ah!  The Red Sun-Prince!   I believe he rejected Islam and Judaism and also the Western Rite, for various reasons.  The Western Rite was rejected for the reason you give from Dostoyevsky,  IIRC.

The envoys reported: "When we journeyed among the Bulgars, we beheld how they worship in their temple, called a mosque, while they stand ungirt. The Bulgarian bows, sits down, looks hither and thither like one possessed, and there is no happiness among them, but instead only sorrow and a dreadful stench. Their religion is not good. Then we went among the Germans, and saw them performing many ceremonies in their temples; but we beheld no glory there.

Don't forget alcohol, "the joy of the Rus."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 30, 2010, 08:34:47 AM
When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant.

And yet that is why St. Vladimir chose Byzantine Christianity.

"Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendour or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty." Slav envoys to St. Vladimir

"Beauty will save the world." from The Idiot by Dostoyevsky

There's quite a bit in the statement you quote besides "I like it" and "It's beautiful."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 30, 2010, 09:07:27 AM
How do the 1662 and 1928 differ, besides in modernizing the language? Do they have different rites, or are the rites themselves much different?

You can check it out here: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/CofE1928/CofE1928.htm (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/CofE1928/CofE1928.htm), as the menu at the bottom shows what was the same from 1662, what was entirely new and what was edited: you can see the changes were substantial. Of course, that matters only in the context of the former comments of our Metropolitan of blessed memory. No one is using the 1928 Proposed English BCP amongst the Western Orthodox. The liturgies we do have are all substantially *more*, and far less ambiguous.

There's quite a bit in the statement you quote besides "I like it" and "It's beautiful."

We have our own story encouraging the use of the Orthodox Roman rite (in the English use) which pertains to the local councils of Cloveshoe, specifically Cloveshoe II, which directed that amongst those who spoke the English tongue, the Roman rite was to be followed in all things. (It also directed that those who did not know Latin were to be taught prayers in the English tongue, and to join in by 'intention' with the Latin prayers.) This council was presided over by St. Cuthbert of Canterbury, and at it letters were read from the Patriarch of the West, Pope St. Zachary (the last of the Byzantine Papacy.)

So, there is a very solid, Orthodox, canonical reason to use the Western rite - *especially* the Roman rite in an English use (of which Sarum is the most preeminent) within the Anglosphere.

Other things which the Council of Cloveshoe II encouraged were frequent communion for the laity, that the clergy keep themselves in a state of readiness to partake of the Holy Body & Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that clergy and monks should not wear the dress of the laity.

And, of course - a late quote from the mid-13th c.: "Among the churches of the whole world, the Church of Salisbury shines like the sun in full orb in respect of its divine service and ministries, so far that she spreads her beams on every side, and so corrects the shortcomings of other churches." - Giles de Bridport, Bishop of Salisbury (Sarum)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 30, 2010, 09:30:58 AM

We have our own story encouraging the use of the Orthodox Roman rite (in the English use) which pertains to the local councils of Cloveshoe, specifically Cloveshoe II, which directed that amongst those who spoke the English tongue, the Roman rite was to be followed in all things. (It also directed that those who did not know Latin were to be taught prayers in the English tongue, and to join in by 'intention' with the Latin prayers.) This council was presided over by St. Cuthbert of Canterbury, and at it letters were read from the Patriarch of the West, Pope St. Zachary (the last of the Byzantine Papacy.)

So, there is a very solid, Orthodox, canonical reason to use the Western rite - *especially* the Roman rite in an English use (of which Sarum is the most preeminent) within the Anglosphere.



Clovesho (I cannot recall which one of them, was it II?) also formulated a canon that the Romen Rite in use at the time was never to be superceded in Britain.  This canon is ignored by the English Orthodox.

Dr Winch Winch emphasizes:  "The canons of Clovesho II have never been rescinded, either by proper authority of the English Church or by any higher magisterium. We English Orthodox are bound to them exactly as churches of the East are bound by their canonically established traditions."

Here is "The Canonical Mass of the English Orthodox"

http://civitas.dei.pagesperso-orange.fr/winch.pdf
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 30, 2010, 09:41:25 AM
The canon is: "That all the most sacred Festivals of Our Lord made Man, in all things pertaining to the same, viz.: in the Office of Baptism, the celebration of Masses, in the method of chanting, shall be celebrated in one and the same way, namely, according to the sample which we have received in writing from the Roman Church. And also, throughout the course of the whole year, the festivals of the Saints are to be kept on one and the same day, with their proper psalmody and chant, according to the Martyrology of the same Roman Church."

The Canon that the received did remain the same, and was that found in the later books of the English uses - it is simply the Roman canon.

So - the Roman Canon, and other matters, required by the Council of Cloveshoe II are indeed followed by the English Orthodox. We also follow the further directives of the Russian Synod in the 1860s which were carried out with England specifically in mind.

Dr. Raymond Winch's work has some things that fall short. There is some worth in the book, some that is questionable. It reminds me much of the Non-Jurors approach. We have a pdf that was made of the original work without the TAC foreward that was done by Eadmund Dunstall.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on November 30, 2010, 10:02:52 AM
/\  Clovesho II formulated 30 canons (or more?).  I especially remember the one about the demand to maintain the liturgy in Britain forever and a day as it was then because Dr Winch made quite a point of it in his correspondence over several years with Fr Jack Witbrock.

Do you know where to find the Canons, on the Net on in a written work?  I suppose that they do not apply to you in the States but they would to people engaged in WR worship in the UK.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 30, 2010, 10:15:56 AM
They would apply to the States, as we are a colony of England, and specifically speak the English tongue - most of us know no other. (We are the fruit of St. Olaf's mission.)  And - I am engaged in worship in the UK as well.

The acts of Cloveshoe II were recorded in a Cottonian manuscript that is now lost, though Spelman had recorded them from that manuscript. Haddan & Stubbs have it in their Councils & Ecclesiastical Documents, though they edited with a bias.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on November 30, 2010, 10:38:49 AM
When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant.

And yet that is why St. Vladimir chose Byzantine Christianity.

"Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendour or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty." Slav envoys to St. Vladimir

"Beauty will save the world." from The Idiot by Dostoyevsky

There's quite a bit in the statement you quote besides "I like it" and "It's beautiful."

And there is quite a bit more to what myself and others have shared besides "I like it" and "It's beautiful."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 30, 2010, 10:57:28 AM
Father Aidan,

Thank you very much for such an engaging and interesting account of your own WR activity. Have you written any of this in more detail anywhere?

I used to have an audio tape of some of your material, but unfortunately it is lost, and I still have the beautiful and comprehensive blue book of prayers.

Do you have any current mp3s of your worship? Or even video? What is the best way to keep up to date with you WR activities?

In Christ

Father Peter
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 30, 2010, 11:50:20 AM
They would apply to the States, as we are a colony of England, and specifically speak the English tongue - most of us know no other. (We are the fruit of St. Olaf's mission.)  And - I am engaged in worship in the UK as well.

The acts of Cloveshoe II were recorded in a Cottonian manuscript that is now lost, though Spelman had recorded them from that manuscript. Haddan & Stubbs have it in their Councils & Ecclesiastical Documents, though they edited with a bias.

The state where I was born and raised was never a colony of England. It was a colony of Spain, and then of Mexico. It was independent for a very brief period in 1848. But gold had been discovered the same year, so ... Now, it is a colony of the United States.

Has anyone else noticed this, the way Brits have a habit of referring to Americans as colonials (sometimes even as "stroppy colonials")? I mean, a small part of the current territory of the US was a British colony until it won its independence 234 years ago, but they refer to the entire country as a colony, like Hong Kong. Because they must know how much people love being talked down to and patronized by the inhabitants of a drizzly little island where they drink warm beer and weak tea and eat food that is classified according to color ("It is my favorite, sir; it is brown").
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 30, 2010, 11:59:32 AM
Who refers to the Americans as colonials? Ari is an American not English.

I don't know anyone who calls Americans colonials.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 30, 2010, 12:01:22 PM
Who refers to the Americans as colonials? Ari is an American not English.

I don't know anyone who calls Americans colonials.

Sorry, it was a non-specific rant. I'll try to get a hold of myself.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 30, 2010, 12:05:38 PM
Apology accepted. Now Americans are criminals and rebels against God ordained authorities. I'll allow that.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shanghaiski on November 30, 2010, 01:39:36 PM
Apology accepted. Now Americans are criminals and rebels against God ordained authorities. I'll allow that.

Well, not ALL of us, Father! However, there are too many rivals for the Imperial Throne. I prefer the Lascarids myself. Less disappointing than the Paleologoi.  ;D
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 30, 2010, 02:57:38 PM
Apology accepted. Now Americans are criminals and rebels against God ordained authorities. I'll allow that.

If we are, we have quite a lot of company.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on November 30, 2010, 03:37:32 PM
If we are, we have quite a lot of company.

It's not a sin if everybody does it.

On a related note, it's nice how an authority is ordained by God if they kill the current king and take his throne, but if you kill the king and burn the throne then you are somehow Godless.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on November 30, 2010, 03:50:34 PM
They would apply to the States, as we are a colony of England, and specifically speak the English tongue - most of us know no other. (We are the fruit of St. Olaf's mission.)  And - I am engaged in worship in the UK as well.

The acts of Cloveshoe II were recorded in a Cottonian manuscript that is now lost, though Spelman had recorded them from that manuscript. Haddan & Stubbs have it in their Councils & Ecclesiastical Documents, though they edited with a bias.

The state where I was born and raised was never a colony of England. It was a colony of Spain, and then of Mexico. It was independent for a very brief period in 1848. But gold had been discovered the same year, so ... Now, it is a colony of the United States.

Has anyone else noticed this, the way Brits have a habit of referring to Americans as colonials (sometimes even as "stroppy colonials")? I mean, a small part of the current territory of the US was a British colony until it won its independence 234 years ago, but they refer to the entire country as a colony, like Hong Kong. Because they must know how much people love being talked down to and patronized by the inhabitants of a drizzly little island where they drink warm beer and weak tea and eat food that is classified according to color ("It is my favorite, sir; it is brown").

Depending on where you are from, it was part of the Russian Empire.

Doesn't matter. Calfornia, for instance, has adopted the English Common Law, and doesn't go by either the Spanish or Mexican codes, except in case law.
Quote
California Civil Code Section 22.2 "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 30, 2010, 04:01:33 PM
Those who killed King Harold were not doing God's will. Those who killed King Charles were not doing God's will. I don't think it matters if Presidents are removed. But Kings are icons in some sense, and certainly the incarnation of the national family. To kill the King is patricide.

Father Peter
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on November 30, 2010, 04:03:59 PM
^ oh, royalism.  ;D Well, I am with  ya there. I still pray for the King of Spain because I live in New Mexico.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: lubeltri on November 30, 2010, 04:36:36 PM
They would apply to the States, as we are a colony of England, and specifically speak the English tongue - most of us know no other. (We are the fruit of St. Olaf's mission.)  And - I am engaged in worship in the UK as well.

The acts of Cloveshoe II were recorded in a Cottonian manuscript that is now lost, though Spelman had recorded them from that manuscript. Haddan & Stubbs have it in their Councils & Ecclesiastical Documents, though they edited with a bias.

The state where I was born and raised was never a colony of England. It was a colony of Spain, and then of Mexico. It was independent for a very brief period in 1848. But gold had been discovered the same year, so ... Now, it is a colony of the United States.

Has anyone else noticed this, the way Brits have a habit of referring to Americans as colonials (sometimes even as "stroppy colonials")? I mean, a small part of the current territory of the US was a British colony until it won its independence 234 years ago, but they refer to the entire country as a colony, like Hong Kong. Because they must know how much people love being talked down to and patronized by the inhabitants of a drizzly little island where they drink warm beer and weak tea and eat food that is classified according to color ("It is my favorite, sir; it is brown").

Them's fightin' words!

British beer happens to be some of the best in the world, and they have tea brewing down to an art form. As for their food, it can be very good if freshly prepared. "Good plain food," as Tolkien liked to say.

I just had a steak and ale pie with a pint of Fullers today for lunch :)

-

As a native of New York and a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I do pray for Her Magisty the Queen.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 30, 2010, 04:40:29 PM
Ahhhh. Steak and Ale pie and a pint of Fullers.

Yes, you are right. There is nothing better than English beer. And there are more and more micro-breweries opening all the time. In my own area we have the oldest brewer in the country - Shepherd Neame. And there are so many other great brewers and great beers.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: lubeltri on November 30, 2010, 04:41:38 PM
From my Roman Missal:

    (P) O Lord, save Elizabeth our Queen.

     (R) And hear us in the day when we call upon Thee.

    (P) Let us pray.— Almighty God, we pray for thy servant Elizabeth our Queen, now by thy mercy reigning over us. Adorn her yet more with every virtue, remove all evil from her path, that with her consort, and all the royal family, she may come at last in grace to thee, who are the way, the truth, and the life. Through Christ our Lord.

    (R) Amen
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Schultz on November 30, 2010, 04:45:09 PM
Ahhhh. Steak and Ale pie and a pint of Fullers.

Yes, you are right. There is nothing better than English beer. And there are more and more micro-breweries opening all the time. In my own area we have the oldest brewer in the country - Shepherd Neame. And there are so many other great brewers and great beers.

I absolutely love Shepherd Neame, so much so that my old band was named after one of their ales.  Sadly, it's now near impossible to find their beers now in my area.


BUT we are getting off topic here.  Let's try to focus on the OP. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 30, 2010, 05:02:29 PM
Sorry, but it was Hermogenes fault for starting to diss the British!  ;)

May I re-iterate that I would like to hear or read much more from Father Aidan about his sources and methodology.

Father Peter
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on November 30, 2010, 05:10:23 PM
^ oh, royalism.  ;D Well, I am with  ya there. I still pray for the King of Spain because I live in New Mexico.
Then why don't you pray for the Emperor of Mexico?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shanghaiski on November 30, 2010, 05:46:32 PM
If we are, we have quite a lot of company.

It's not a sin if everybody does it.

On a related note, it's nice how an authority is ordained by God if they kill the current king and take his throne, but if you kill the king and burn the throne then you are somehow Godless.

Actually, from what I have read, usurpers were not viewed kindly in Christian Roman history. Phocas, for example, did not appear to have public adulation as the God-crowned emperor after killing St. Maurice. And what did we get after/because of Phocas? Why, a disastrous war with Persia that created a power vacuum for Islam to emerge. Then there was Michael VII Paleologos who had the rightful emperor, the boy John IV Doukas Laskaris blinded and shipped to a monastery. He exiled Patriarch St. Arsenius who denounced him for this and for his disastrous Church policy following the misnamed "Council" of Lyons, and created a schism that was to last nearly 100 years together with many martyrs who gave their lives for the love of Jesus Christ at the hands of his troops. While these impious men and usurpers made images of themselves with halos (as was the custom) and were seen and prayed for at multiple church services, I doubt very much  if their pious contemporaries and subjects thought them to be the "elect" of God rather than the scourge of God. Same goes for all the heretical emperors.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on November 30, 2010, 06:56:09 PM
America *is* an English country, and yes - many in the UK do call it 'the Colonies'. Every time I go to the UK, I am guaranteed that at some point I'll hear America referred to as 'The Colonies', Americans and myself as 'Colonials' - which includes Canadians (I being UEL and a quarter Canadian ancestry).  And they have a point - we're the big one that got away - which explains some of the US/Canadian 'love-hate' thing. Not surprising for a colony that was primarily settled by non-inheriting second sons of English gentry, English debtors looking for opportunity to repay, 'excess population' of the British Isles, and those who were considered dangerous by the new regimes in England of Cromwell or the House of Hanover. But, regardless of anti-Americanism, or the more novel theories of American origins - we are still basically a 17th/18th c. product of English (and Scottish, Welsh, Cornish) society. All our early immigrants underwent the same process of Anglicization as their relatives who had migrated to Great Britain. The Huguenots, Palatine Germans - most of the non-English groups who migrated to America had also migrated to England during the same period. Some of them assimilated so well (such as the German Tolkien) that people think of them as English. This is nothing radical to admit (and, having been a radical once, it took me years to accept): we use the English tongue, though based upon older county dialects of England. We use English common law - everywhere but in Louisiana. The majority population is still English ancestry (even if they claim Irish or German primarily.)

Which is why a return to England feels so normal for Americans. It's 'Grandma's House'. We'd still be connected if it wasn't for the usurpation of a German king who didn't care, and an oligarchy who didn't care about their countrymen, not even in their own countryside or cities...let alone those who had ventured over the sea (or been shipped there.) For rural Southerners or rural New Englanders - it just isn't all that strange. Not like a visit to Mexico or Panama. For that matter: from a Southern perspective, Canada is stranger than England.

One can read American cultural historians such as David Hackett Fischer for more of the above: see "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America." He could even explain why our elections have gone the way they have due to transplanted English cultures.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on November 30, 2010, 07:13:31 PM
Lol! You must spend a lot of time with Anglicans or ex-Anglicans as I don't know anyone else who would speak of the US as the colonies. And not many of them now either as the CofE becomes different to what it was.

Father Peter
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on November 30, 2010, 09:17:48 PM
Lol! You must spend a lot of time with Anglicans or ex-Anglicans as I don't know anyone else who would speak of the US as the colonies. And not many of them now either as the CofE becomes different to what it was.

Father Peter

When I lived in Vienna virtually every Brit referred to me either as a Yank or a colonial, even though, technically, I'm neither.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on December 01, 2010, 03:39:03 AM
I have to say I find that very odd too because I have never referred to an American as a Yank and can't recall anyone else doing so either except perhaps an 80 year old talking of the war.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: lubeltri on December 01, 2010, 05:01:22 AM
My great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and namesake, a veteran of the Seven Years' War, fought on the Loyalist side in the Battle of Bennington in 1777. Alas the Patriot rebels won that battle, and after capture and a period of imprisonment, he fled to Canada, later returning to Vermont after the war. The family moved to northern New York State not long after, where I was born. My family originally came from Devon, southwest England.

So, yes, I consider myself a colonial  ;)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 01, 2010, 08:39:24 AM
I was affectionately called a Colonial in Devon just earlier this month by someone undeniably British.  I am also a United Empire Loyalist - and a descendant of Revolutionaries (many of whom were Jacobites.) I'm pretty average as far as the American population is concerned.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on December 01, 2010, 09:07:05 AM
I was affectionately called a Colonial in Devon just earlier this month by someone undeniably British.  I am also a United Empire Loyalist - and a descendant of Revolutionaries (many of whom were Jacobites.) I'm pretty average as far as the American population is concerned.

"Let's Give Ourselves Back to England"?  LOL
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 01, 2010, 09:11:01 AM
Don't tempt us.  ;) I'd think England should find itself first.

"Haul away boys, let them go. Out in the wind and the rain and snow. We've lost more than we'll ever know 'Round the rocky shores of England" - Roots, Show of Hands
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 02, 2010, 03:31:02 AM
I'll try to combine responses. First of all, the Liturgical Texts Project at Occidentalis has a lot of the items which were inquired into. It's here: http://tinyurl.com/rmp9q. Note especially the latest draft of the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass (awaiting publication as part of the full Missal) which is here: http://tinyurl.com/4acoa9.

Deacon Lance, I accept your apology. I don't have time to go into the extremely polemic site you quoted, but I would only point out that many of the statements which are lampooned or "shot down" in those polemical articles, are statements I never made, positions I've never held. I could go through the hatchet jobs sentence by sentence, but just no time.

There are .mp3 files of Sarum chants from my old parish's choir, here: http://tinyurl.com/2fbc5jj.

The reaction of St. Vladimir's emissaries to the liturgy at Constantinople, which impressed them so extremely favourably, is remarkably similar to the impression the Sarum Use made on people from other parts of the Christian West. If he had sent emissaries to Sarum, Russia might have wound up being Western rite. Actually, Western rite was used in early Rus', and the oldest Slavonic liturgical manuscript in existence, from Kiev, is a fragment of a WR Missal. Sts. Cyril and Methodius used Western rite as well as Eastern, in their work, and early Slavonic WR Missals which survive from the 12th century, are notably similar to the Sarum.

Pictures from a Sarum Mass of the form now approved for use in the Russian Church, may be viewed in Section 6 here: http://tinyurl.com/24knbov.

Because the few changes made between the earliest stage of the Sarum rite and its first appearance in books (early 13th c.) are so well-documented and clearly known, adjusting the Sarum use of the later books to reflect its original customs, is not much work and does not require any guesswork reconstruction. So although the books themselves are post-Schism, the rite as preserved and blessed in the Russian Church does in fact represent an intact Orthodox liturgy from the West, and one eminently suited, among other such intact Western liturgical forms, for Orthodox usage. "Eminently suited" because of its theological distinctives; practical for such usage due to its having full and clear rubrics, something distinctive of the Sarum.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 02, 2010, 04:28:27 AM
I forgot to mention that certain fonts need to be installed, for the Missal pages to view correctly. The fonts in question can be obtained here: http://tinyurl.com/gs5w6. There is a group for discussion of these liturgical matters and WR Orthodoxy in general, here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis/. Someone asked how to keep up with developments, and one way is by following my blog: http://www.sarisburium.blogspot.com/.

Things are moving very quickly these days, regarding Western Rite in the Russian Church. A new monastery is indeed in formation in the U.S., and formation of a second new WR monastery, in the U.S., is under discussion. One thing it looks like I may be doing, is training some of the new WR clergy in how to serve. It remains to be seen what will result from it all. I'm watching history happen. I am grateful to God.

Perhaps one more point about Western rite: While at least one great Orthodox Saint of modern times has favoured it, no Saint has disapproved of it. "A Saint said so" is not exactly a watertight "proof" in Orthodoxy, but is does compel our prayerful consideration and/or re-consideration. Especially when that Saint (St. John Maximovitch) is an accomplished theologian.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 02, 2010, 01:25:36 PM
St. Tikhon the Enlightener of America, St. Raphael of Brooklyn and St. Nicholas of Japan have all favored the Western Rite as well.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on December 02, 2010, 02:29:17 PM
^ oh, royalism.  ;D Well, I am with  ya there. I still pray for the King of Spain because I live in New Mexico.
Then why don't you pray for the Emperor of Mexico?
Which one?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shanghaiski on December 02, 2010, 02:49:53 PM
St. Tikhon the Enlightener of America, St. Raphael of Brooklyn and St. Nicholas of Japan have all favored the Western Rite as well.

What is the connection with St. Nicholas of Japan?

In addition, St. Gorazd the New Martyr, was a bishop over Western and Eastern Rite churches. Before the Nazis, Western Rite was fairly widespread in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on December 02, 2010, 03:18:48 PM
In addition, St. Gorazd the New Martyr, was a bishop over Western and Eastern Rite churches. Before the Nazis, Western Rite was fairly widespread in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Did St. Gorazd himself celebrate a mass? Has there been any attempts or interest to revive Western rite in these local churches?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Michał on December 02, 2010, 03:31:17 PM
Did St. Gorazd himself celebrate a mass?

Yes.

Has there been any attempts or interest to revive Western rite in these local churches?

No, not really.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on December 02, 2010, 04:49:23 PM
Fr. Aidan, is it true that the prayer book you all put out has sacred heart devotions in it?

By the way, the Sarum chant links were very nicely done. Care if I maybe use one to make a video for YouTube?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Michał on December 02, 2010, 04:55:11 PM
Fr. Aidan, is it true that the prayer book you all put out has sacred heart devotions in it?

Quote from: Fr. Aidan
Many in America are converts to the Orthodox Faith and may keep Sacred Heart images in their homes, as literal baggage from their pre-Orthodox days. Also, well-meaning friends may give Sacred Heart prayers or images as gifts. The faithful should replace all such images with genuine Orthodox icons. They should not place Sacred Heart images, or any other non-Orthodox images, in their icon corners.
Source: http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SacredHeart.html
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shanghaiski on December 02, 2010, 05:27:04 PM
Fr. Aidan, is it true that the prayer book you all put out has sacred heart devotions in it?

By the way, the Sarum chant links were very nicely done. Care if I maybe use one to make a video for YouTube?

Orthodox Prayers from Old England which Fr. Aidan put out does not have any Sacred Heard devotions--such things were not done in pre-schism England.

There is a prayer book put out by Lancelot Andrewes Press, the St. Ambrose Prayerbook (not to be confused with the St. Ambrose Hymnal) which has a sort of "edited/corrected" devotion to the Sacred Heart, IIRC. I can't remember if this publication is intended for Orthodox use in its entirety since the press publishes things for a wide audience of traditional Western Christians--Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. There has yet to me, to my knowledge, an available Western Rite Orthodox prayerbook comparable to an ER horologion or Jordanville prayerbook. The ones I have are from Roman Catholic or Anglican sources and need a bit of editing. Some LAP books need more editing than others.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 02, 2010, 07:09:36 PM
There is indeed a Western rite Orthodox prayer book comparable to, except far more complete than, the Jordanville Prayerbook. It contains no Sacred Heart devotions; that would be an Antiochian book. Here is the information on the Prayer Book, from a recent post to the Orthodox Indiana list:

"We're approaching pre-Christmas, so I'm offering a discount on "Orthodox Prayers of Old England"--a hardbound prayer book of Western rite prayers and services approved by Metr. Hilarion for use in the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008. Discount expires Jan. 7, 2011.

To acquire a copy please send a cheque/money order for $35 (postpaid), payable to St. John Cassian Press, to St. John Cassian Press, P.O. Box 10692, Austin, TX 78766 USA. Multiple copies are $35 apiece. Contact me privately if it's an international order; postage is higher.

Orthodox Prayers of Old England is an amazingly complete and traditional Western rite Orthodox prayer book with 440 6" x 9" pages Smythe-sewn and hardbound in imitation blue leather with gold stamping on the front and spine.

CONTENTS
- Basic Prayers, Morning Prayers, and Evening Prayers
- Table Blessings
- Reverences in Church
- Preparation for Holy Communion
- Vespers for Sat., Sun., Mon., Tues., Wed., Thur., Fri.
- Compline (for reg. days and feasts of the Mother of God)
- Sunday Matins
- Third, Sixth, Ninth Hours
- Sun. Water Blessing, Sprinkling, and Procession with Bidding Prayers
- Divine Liturgy (Sarum Liturgy, incl. Hierarchical items) + Bread
Blessing
- Thanksgiving after Holy Communion
- Notes About the Liturgy (patristic sources of the prayers, spiritual
interpretation)
- Presanctified (for Lenten weekdays)
- Missa Sicca (Western Rite Typika or Obednitsa)
- Litanies of the Virgin Mother of God and of the Saints
- Salutations Before the Holy Cross
- Prayers of Remembrance (memoriser or intercession)
- Seven Penitential Psalms and Fifteen Gradual Psalms

- Little Office of the Virgin
- Little Office of the Guardian Angel

- Blessing of New Mothers (churching)
- Order of the Catechumenate / Holy Baptism / Chrismation / Tonsure
- Repentance (explanations)
- Guide to Confession (extremely complete examination of conscience)
- Order of Confession
- Betrothals (wedding service)
- Service for Travellers
- Holy Unction (20 pages long)
- Prayers for the Dying
- Vigils of the Dead (Vespers & Matins)
- Commendation of Souls (sung before every Requiem)
- Requiem Liturgy
- Burial of the Dead

- Prayers for Various Occasions
1. Prayers for Those in the Church
Prayer of a Pastor and for a Pastor and Archpastor
Prayer for the Faithful (2)
Prayer for a Monastery
Prayer for Unity
Prayer for Catechumens

2. Prayers for Family & Friends, including:
For Those in Heresy / Schism; in Judaism; in Paganism
Prayer for a Living Friend
Prayer for God's Guidance
Prayer for One Sick or Afflicted
Prayers for the Sick and for Taking Medicine
Prayer for a Pregnant Woman

3. Prayer for Benefactors
4. Prayers for Prisoners
5. For All Living & Dead

Prayers in Time of Trouble
- Against Evil Thoughts and Against Temptations of the Flesh
- Against Thunderstorms, Tornadoes, Lightning, and Gossip
- Against Destroyers of the Church and for the Holy Land
- In Time of War and For Peace & Reconciliation

Prayers for Travel
Prayers for Good Death
Prayers for Fasting Days

Occasional Prayers
- For the Kingdom of Heaven (describes heaven - beautiful!)
- For True Love; for Faith, Hope, and Charity; for Chastity
- For Wisdom; for True Peace; for the Virtues; for Spiritual Life
- For Indwelling of the Holy Spirit; for Courage at Night
- For Rain; for the Crops; for Animals; for Sick Animals
- For God's Protection—the Breastplate Prayers

Missa Sicca of Thanksgiving
Prayers to the Holy Trinity

Prayers to the Mother of God (many); Holy Angels (many); Patriarchs & Prophets (many); Holy Apostles (many); Holy Martyrs (many); Holy Confessors (many); and Holy Women of the Lord

Prayer When One is Sick
Prayer for Protection from Enemies
Prayers of Repentance
Prayer of Exorcism of Pope St. Leo III

Order of Reading the Holy Scriptures (prayers before reading)
Abbreviations for Books of Scripture
Read the Whole Bible in a Year (schedule with deuterocanonicals)
Weekly Psalter Readings (150 psalms per week, includes the canticles)
- compares Massoretic and Vulgate/Septuagint numbering in a clear
way
How to Make Singing Breads (prosphora recipe, prayers)
Fasts and Feasts (explains the fullness of the old Western traditions)
Little Calendar (gives a Saint for each day of year, Western cycle)
Eight Tones (gives psalm tones and musical notation)
Very Complete Indices, etc., etc.

With two exceptions (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and Jesus Prayer), everything is from the old tradition of the Western church.

In 2002, a copy of this beautiful volume sold for over $300 on eBay.

The publication is thanks to the generosity of an anonymous benefactor in the OCA. The project which resulted in this book was fostered, inspired, and guided by Bishop Jerome of Manhattan, Russian Church Outside Russia.

Fr. Hieromonk Aidan+  cell 512 696 6890
Holy Protection Church (ROCOR), Austin, Texas
http://www.orthodoxaustin.org "
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 02, 2010, 07:12:19 PM
Oops, forgot to include the graphic of the book. One of these sold a few years ago on eBay for over $300. But they really are on sale for $35 postpaid.

(http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/images/OPOE.jpg)

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 02, 2010, 07:20:43 PM
Alveus, thank you. You are welcome to use those music files for your Youtube. If you can work in an attribution, it would be good. I guess St. Xenia Choir, Fr. Aidan Keller directing, or... I don't know. Not picky. The parish doesn't exist anymore, its people having been absorbed into canonical Orthodoxy.

Oh, one more point. There actually is no connection between St. Nicholas of Japan and the Western rite, except for some vague statement the Saint once made, that the obstacle to the Anglicans being Orthodox is not so much their liturgy as their mindset, or some such. He never endorsed, approved, or favoured Western rite, as far as anyone can tell. It's a myth, like the concept that the Russian Orthodox Church approved the Book of Common Prayer rite for worship some time early in the 20th century. The first approval actually came in 1997.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 02, 2010, 11:15:25 PM

What is the connection with St. Nicholas of Japan?


St. Nicholas (Archbishop Nickolai) "Equal to the Apostles" of the Haristos Sei Kyo Kwai (The Orthodox Church in Japan) was Vice President of the "Anglican and Eastern-Orthodox Churches Union" in Japan and was very supportive of making adaptations of the Book of Common Prayer for Orthodox usage.

Contrary to what Fr. Aidan says ;)

Also, Fr. Aidan, to my knowledge the Antiochian church has issued no such prayer book containing the Sacred Heart devotions.  The only one that I know of is the St. Ambrose prayer book already mentioned, which is put out by Lancelot Andrewes Press.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 03, 2010, 01:23:29 AM
Sleeper (sorry, I don't know what your Christian name is), how do you come by this information? Since St. Nikolai lived so long ago, and you can't have known him personally, who or what informed you of his supportiveness? If it was an oral transmitter of history, what is the person's name who transmitted? If it was from some written documentation, what is that documentation and how could someone like myself obtain it and read it?

The distinction between an Antiochian prayer book, and a prayer book published by Antiochians, is duly noted, with my apologies.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 03, 2010, 10:40:15 AM
I gleaned this information from an article written in 1912 (the year of St. Nicholas' death) about the events of 1909 written by the Secretary of the "Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union," the Rev. Charles Filkins Sweet, which you can read online here: http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/sweet_attempt1912.html (http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/sweet_attempt1912.html)

It explains that St. Nicholas (Nicolai) was convinced that the Anglican-Episcopal Church was seeking "corporate submission" to the Orthodox Church and so he wrote up a response on what would need to be done to achieve this goal.  And to me, the most telling part, is that just as St. Tikhon, St. Nicholas did not outright object to some use of the Book of Common Prayer.  Sweet says, "I was aware that the objections he made towards Anglican teaching gathered around the sacramental system; and they were quite practical, relating not so much to to the language or meaning of the English Prayer Book as to the practical apprehension in daily life by Anglicans of the need of sacramental grace."  The issue, for St. Nicholas was not the Book of Common Prayer, but was the fact that Anglicans did not recognize the sacraments.  Sweet goes on to say, "It is astonishing to see that the sole reason advanced for not making this recognition is the fact that the English Church does not teach unqualifiedly that there are seven sacraments."

In fact, St. Nicholas goes on to directly approve of the Book of Common Prayer's rite for Ordination.  When asked if the Orthodox response to Ordination should be to reject it because of its different wording, St. Nicholas says, "No, I believe that such a conclusion would not be free from blame as a hasty judgment..." and went on to say, "We do not find that according to this discussion upon the general subject that there is any reason to disapprove the Holy Orders of the Sei Ko Kwai from the point of the external aspect of anshurei (ordination), or as regards the outward ceremony, which is the first part of the fundamental or necessary property of Ordination."

The trouble with it all was that, just as the Holy Russian Synod found, the Prayer Book's "39 Articles" were of no use whatsoever, and the Sei Ko Kwai could not let them go.

You might reject this as a "vague" attempt at saying St. Nicholas of Japan was supportive of some form of Orthodox use of the Book of Common Prayer (and the Western Rite in general), but I think it's quite telling that he did not demand these Western converts become Byzantine Orthodox and actually took the time to examine their book. People say the same thing about St. Tikhon as well, as if because of the fact that we don't have a written record of a deliberate statement of approval, we should just ignore his actions and the trouble he went through to have the Prayer Book analyzed and to even note the simple fact that he wasn't opposed to it at all.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on December 03, 2010, 11:17:13 AM
Oops, forgot to include the graphic of the book. One of these sold a few years ago on eBay for over $300. But they really are on sale for $35 postpaid.




It's amazing how often that happens on eBay. "Let the buyer beware!" I've seen the Old Orthodox Prayer book being offered at an $80 initial bid--more than double its new price; the same with the Antiochian Liturgikon; and a volume of the Holy Apostles Convent edition of the Great Synaxaristes was being sold for an opening bid of more than $100 (it costs $45-55 per volume from a number of sources), to name just a couple of recent examples. It always pays to check other sources before bidding. (On the other hand, there was a recent auction of the HTM Horologion for just $30.)

Sorry for the detour from the discussion.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on December 05, 2010, 09:14:11 PM
There is indeed a Western rite Orthodox prayer book comparable to, except far more complete than, the Jordanville Prayerbook. It contains no Sacred Heart devotions; that would be an Antiochian book. Here is the information on the Prayer Book, from a recent post to the Orthodox Indiana list:

"We're approaching pre-Christmas, so I'm offering a discount on "Orthodox Prayers of Old England"--a hardbound prayer book of Western rite prayers and services approved by Metr. Hilarion for use in the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008. Discount expires Jan. 7, 2011.

To acquire a copy please send a cheque/money order for $35 (postpaid), payable to St. John Cassian Press, to St. John Cassian Press, P.O. Box 10692, Austin, TX 78766 USA. Multiple copies are $35 apiece. Contact me privately if it's an international order; postage is higher.

Orthodox Prayers of Old England is an amazingly complete and traditional Western rite Orthodox prayer book with 440 6" x 9" pages Smythe-sewn and hardbound in imitation blue leather with gold stamping on the front and spine.

CONTENTS
- Basic Prayers, Morning Prayers, and Evening Prayers
- Table Blessings
- Reverences in Church
- Preparation for Holy Communion
- Vespers for Sat., Sun., Mon., Tues., Wed., Thur., Fri.
- Compline (for reg. days and feasts of the Mother of God)
- Sunday Matins
- Third, Sixth, Ninth Hours
- Sun. Water Blessing, Sprinkling, and Procession with Bidding Prayers
- Divine Liturgy (Sarum Liturgy, incl. Hierarchical items) + Bread
Blessing
- Thanksgiving after Holy Communion
- Notes About the Liturgy (patristic sources of the prayers, spiritual
interpretation)
- Presanctified (for Lenten weekdays)
- Missa Sicca (Western Rite Typika or Obednitsa)
- Litanies of the Virgin Mother of God and of the Saints
- Salutations Before the Holy Cross
- Prayers of Remembrance (memoriser or intercession)
- Seven Penitential Psalms and Fifteen Gradual Psalms

- Little Office of the Virgin
- Little Office of the Guardian Angel

- Blessing of New Mothers (churching)
- Order of the Catechumenate / Holy Baptism / Chrismation / Tonsure
- Repentance (explanations)
- Guide to Confession (extremely complete examination of conscience)
- Order of Confession
- Betrothals (wedding service)
- Service for Travellers
- Holy Unction (20 pages long)
- Prayers for the Dying
- Vigils of the Dead (Vespers & Matins)
- Commendation of Souls (sung before every Requiem)
- Requiem Liturgy
- Burial of the Dead

- Prayers for Various Occasions
1. Prayers for Those in the Church
Prayer of a Pastor and for a Pastor and Archpastor
Prayer for the Faithful (2)
Prayer for a Monastery
Prayer for Unity
Prayer for Catechumens

2. Prayers for Family & Friends, including:
For Those in Heresy / Schism; in Judaism; in Paganism
Prayer for a Living Friend
Prayer for God's Guidance
Prayer for One Sick or Afflicted
Prayers for the Sick and for Taking Medicine
Prayer for a Pregnant Woman

3. Prayer for Benefactors
4. Prayers for Prisoners
5. For All Living & Dead

Prayers in Time of Trouble
- Against Evil Thoughts and Against Temptations of the Flesh
- Against Thunderstorms, Tornadoes, Lightning, and Gossip
- Against Destroyers of the Church and for the Holy Land
- In Time of War and For Peace & Reconciliation

Prayers for Travel
Prayers for Good Death
Prayers for Fasting Days

Occasional Prayers
- For the Kingdom of Heaven (describes heaven - beautiful!)
- For True Love; for Faith, Hope, and Charity; for Chastity
- For Wisdom; for True Peace; for the Virtues; for Spiritual Life
- For Indwelling of the Holy Spirit; for Courage at Night
- For Rain; for the Crops; for Animals; for Sick Animals
- For God's Protection—the Breastplate Prayers

Missa Sicca of Thanksgiving
Prayers to the Holy Trinity

Prayers to the Mother of God (many); Holy Angels (many); Patriarchs & Prophets (many); Holy Apostles (many); Holy Martyrs (many); Holy Confessors (many); and Holy Women of the Lord

Prayer When One is Sick
Prayer for Protection from Enemies
Prayers of Repentance
Prayer of Exorcism of Pope St. Leo III

Order of Reading the Holy Scriptures (prayers before reading)
Abbreviations for Books of Scripture
Read the Whole Bible in a Year (schedule with deuterocanonicals)
Weekly Psalter Readings (150 psalms per week, includes the canticles)
- compares Massoretic and Vulgate/Septuagint numbering in a clear
way
How to Make Singing Breads (prosphora recipe, prayers)
Fasts and Feasts (explains the fullness of the old Western traditions)
Little Calendar (gives a Saint for each day of year, Western cycle)
Eight Tones (gives psalm tones and musical notation)
Very Complete Indices, etc., etc.

With two exceptions (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and Jesus Prayer), everything is from the old tradition of the Western church.

In 2002, a copy of this beautiful volume sold for over $300 on eBay.

The publication is thanks to the generosity of an anonymous benefactor in the OCA. The project which resulted in this book was fostered, inspired, and guided by Bishop Jerome of Manhattan, Russian Church Outside Russia.

Fr. Hieromonk Aidan+  cell 512 696 6890
Holy Protection Church (ROCOR), Austin, Texas
http://www.orthodoxaustin.org "
Father bless,

I noticed on the All Merciful Savior website the book is listed as being available there, too. Is that still the case and can it be ordered for $35? I really would like to order a copy of it some time soon. Sorry to detract from the topic any further!

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: stashko on December 06, 2010, 02:04:19 AM
Curious..... ???
Why would anyone want to resurrect these dead Western rites,They didn't work then for the people ,why would they work now..I say they should be buried deeper and cemented over to never see the light of day ...These western Rite Orthodox Churches are schisms just waiting to happen.....Eastern Orthodoxy is the way to go, not these western rites......
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on December 06, 2010, 02:19:59 AM
Eastern Orthodoxy is the way to go, not these western rites...

I also think the resurrection of dead liturgies concept seems a bit ridiculous; too constructed for comfort. However, I disagree about Western rites in general. The Western liturgical tradition is beautiful and should not be destroyed. If Holy Orthodoxy can utilize many pagan features in converting the Serbian people, such as house gods being replaced with slavas or house patron saints, then surely she can make a few modifications to Western liturgies which survive and welcome them into the Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: stashko on December 06, 2010, 02:31:38 AM
Eastern Orthodoxy is the way to go, not these western rites...

I also think the resurrection of dead liturgies concept seems a bit ridiculous; too constructed for comfort. However, I disagree about Western rites in general. The Western liturgical tradition is beautiful and should not be destroyed. If Holy Orthodoxy can utilize many pagan features in converting the Serbian people, such as house gods being replaced with slavas or house patron saints, then surely she can make a few modifications to Western liturgies which survive and welcome them into the Church.

Why did they die out, if they were that good ..... ???Why did the Catholic Church kept changing these rites to newer ones they must of known the older ones weren't working....As a eastern Orthodox i admit im biased, can't see anything beyond eastern orthodoxy...
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on December 06, 2010, 03:39:58 AM
Why did they die out, if they were that good ..... ???Why did the Catholic Church kept changing these rites to newer ones they must of known the older ones weren't working....As a eastern Orthodox i admit im biased, can't see anything beyond eastern orthodoxy...

No, I'm talking about the Western rites that didn't die out and are still in use. Besides, they were not "changed" in the way you're thinking, but many were suppressed and done away with for the sake of uniformity. Holy Orthodoxy is equally guilty of suppression and alterations or "changes" to the liturgy over the centuries. Modifications are typical, but the fundamental form remains. The same is true in the West. I believe it was our beloved St. John of San Francisco who said that the beautiful and venerable liturgies of the West and of Rome were far older than Rome's heresies. It doesn't take much modification to make them fully Orthodox, but I digress...
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: stashko on December 06, 2010, 03:55:57 AM
Why did they die out, if they were that good ..... ???Why did the Catholic Church kept changing these rites to newer ones they must of known the older ones weren't working....As a eastern Orthodox i admit im biased, can't see anything beyond eastern orthodoxy...

No, I'm talking about the Western rites that didn't die out and are still in use. Besides, they were not "changed" in the way you're thinking, but many were suppressed and done away with for the sake of uniformity. Holy Orthodoxy is equally guilty of suppression and alterations or "changes" to the liturgy over the centuries. Modifications are typical, but the fundamental form remains. The same is true in the West. I believe it was our beloved St. John of San Francisco who said that the beautiful and venerable liturgies of the West and of Rome were far older than Rome's heresies. It doesn't take much modification to make them fully Orthodox, but I digress...

These rites that are in use ,who's celebrating or serving them ,,is it just a  few in monastery's..And which of the Catholic Countries or country is it that are serving them 24/7 365.....Or is it only on rare ocassions there served....Sorry im asking stupid questions i don't know much about them....The real reason i don't like them is they look to latin romanish....
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on December 06, 2010, 04:20:48 AM
America *is* an English country, and yes - many in the UK do call it 'the Colonies'. Every time I go to the UK, I am guaranteed that at some point I'll hear America referred to as 'The Colonies', Americans and myself as 'Colonials' - which includes Canadians (I being UEL and a quarter Canadian ancestry).  And they have a point - we're the big one that got away - which explains some of the US/Canadian 'love-hate' thing. Not surprising for a colony that was primarily settled by non-inheriting second sons of English gentry, English debtors looking for opportunity to repay, 'excess population' of the British Isles, and those who were considered dangerous by the new regimes in England of Cromwell or the House of Hanover. But, regardless of anti-Americanism, or the more novel theories of American origins - we are still basically a 17th/18th c. product of English (and Scottish, Welsh, Cornish) society. All our early immigrants underwent the same process of Anglicization as their relatives who had migrated to Great Britain. The Huguenots, Palatine Germans - most of the non-English groups who migrated to America had also migrated to England during the same period. Some of them assimilated so well (such as the German Tolkien) that people think of them as English. This is nothing radical to admit (and, having been a radical once, it took me years to accept): we use the English tongue, though based upon older county dialects of England. We use English common law - everywhere but in Louisiana. The majority population is still English ancestry (even if they claim Irish or German primarily.)

Which is why a return to England feels so normal for Americans. It's 'Grandma's House'. We'd still be connected if it wasn't for the usurpation of a German king who didn't care, and an oligarchy who didn't care about their countrymen, not even in their own countryside or cities...let alone those who had ventured over the sea (or been shipped there.) For rural Southerners or rural New Englanders - it just isn't all that strange. Not like a visit to Mexico or Panama. For that matter: from a Southern perspective, Canada is stranger than England.

One can read American cultural historians such as David Hackett Fischer for more of the above: see "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America." He could even explain why our elections have gone the way they have due to transplanted English cultures.

 I don't know which segment of the Southron population you polled, but the hill folk of Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scot ancestry would disagree with you about England feeling like "Grandma's House".  You may find the book Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America by James Webb helpful.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 06, 2010, 05:00:01 AM
America *is* an English country, and yes - many in the UK do call it 'the Colonies'. Every time I go to the UK, I am guaranteed that at some point I'll hear America referred to as 'The Colonies', Americans and myself as 'Colonials' - which includes Canadians (I being UEL and a quarter Canadian ancestry).  And they have a point - we're the big one that got away - which explains some of the US/Canadian 'love-hate' thing. Not surprising for a colony that was primarily settled by non-inheriting second sons of English gentry, English debtors looking for opportunity to repay, 'excess population' of the British Isles, and those who were considered dangerous by the new regimes in England of Cromwell or the House of Hanover. But, regardless of anti-Americanism, or the more novel theories of American origins - we are still basically a 17th/18th c. product of English (and Scottish, Welsh, Cornish) society. All our early immigrants underwent the same process of Anglicization as their relatives who had migrated to Great Britain. The Huguenots, Palatine Germans - most of the non-English groups who migrated to America had also migrated to England during the same period. Some of them assimilated so well (such as the German Tolkien) that people think of them as English. This is nothing radical to admit (and, having been a radical once, it took me years to accept): we use the English tongue, though based upon older county dialects of England. We use English common law - everywhere but in Louisiana. The majority population is still English ancestry (even if they claim Irish or German primarily.)

Which is why a return to England feels so normal for Americans. It's 'Grandma's House'. We'd still be connected if it wasn't for the usurpation of a German king who didn't care, and an oligarchy who didn't care about their countrymen, not even in their own countryside or cities...let alone those who had ventured over the sea (or been shipped there.) For rural Southerners or rural New Englanders - it just isn't all that strange. Not like a visit to Mexico or Panama. For that matter: from a Southern perspective, Canada is stranger than England.

One can read American cultural historians such as David Hackett Fischer for more of the above: see "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America." He could even explain why our elections have gone the way they have due to transplanted English cultures.

 I don't know which segment of the Southron population you polled, but the hill folk of Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scot ancestry would disagree with you about England feeling like "Grandma's House".  You may find the book Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America by James Webb helpful.

Any person of Irish stock wanting to get a feel of the way the Irish see those across the Irish Sea should read through Leon Uris' "Trinity."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Michał on December 06, 2010, 08:28:13 AM
As a eastern Orthodox i admit im biased, can't see anything beyond eastern orthodoxy...

Do you reject the Latin Orthodox Church Fathers and other Western Orthodox saints? And what do you make out of the fact that at some points in history Rome was the only orthodox patriarchate in the world?

These rites that are in use. . . The real reason i don't like them is they look to latin romanish....

Well, that's what they are: Latin rites and, most of them, variations of the Roman one.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Ebor on December 06, 2010, 09:21:13 PM
Lol! You must spend a lot of time with Anglicans or ex-Anglicans as I don't know anyone else who would speak of the US as the colonies. And not many of them now either as the CofE becomes different to what it was.

Father Peter

Well, this American Anglican has never referred the the US as "the colonies" I assure you. 


Ebor
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 07, 2010, 07:06:38 PM
Sleeper, in what you provided, there is absolutely nothing which indicates St. Nicholas favored, approved of, or authorized the use, as an Orthodox liturgy, of the Protestant Book of Common Prayer eucharist. His having advanced only one objection to corporate merging or union/submission, that the Anglicans did not accept seven sacraments, need not imply that there were not other objections in his mind or which would have had to be discussed had negotiations actually progressed. He was simply being economical.

If one concludes, from St. Nikolai's concentration on the one topic of believing in seven sacraments, that he therefore approved of the Book of Common Prayer, then we must likewise conclude that St. Nikolai approved of married bishops, approved of making the sign of the cross left to right, approved venerating post-schism Western saints, approved the idea that the monarch is the head of the church... all of the above is quite a stretch!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 07, 2010, 07:23:31 PM
In fact, we should also have to conclude that St. Nikolai favored having parishes where icons are never venerated and where confession need never be made, of one's sins, to a priest (since believing in that sacrament's existence and availability is distinct from requiring confession be made).

But St. Nikolai seems never to have actually stated any of these things. St. John Maximovitch certainly loved and favored the establishment of Western rite, himself celebrated it, and, according to Archimandrite Alexey Young, wished to deepen the orthopraxis of the liturgical life of the Western rite churches as this became possible. One way in which this vision of Western rite can be actualised, is through the Sarum Use of the Roman rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 07, 2010, 08:12:45 PM
Interesting.  There actually seems to be quite a bit demonstrating his interest in, and support of, a rite based off the BCP.  And no mention of Sarum or other rites at all...
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 08, 2010, 02:41:20 AM
Sleeper, if you have something which would show that St. Nikolai was interested in having a BCP rite in the Orthodox Church, by all means share it with us here. Certainly in what you posted previously, there is nothing of that sort.

I am puzzled at the statement that St. Nikolai made "no mention of Sarum or other rites." No one has implied he did. And why would he have? I don't understand the point being made.

Several websites have propounded a mythology or two, with the apparent aim of giving the Western rite a boost. One mythology relates to St. Nikolai (although, I admit, something may surface at some point which DOES reveal that he endorsed this very thing; I'm not denying the possibility, just pointing out the absence of any reason to believe it). Another mythology revolves around claims that in 1907 the Russian Orthodox Church approved the BCP rite for Orthodox usage. There is no more objective evidence for the second, than there is for the first. I suppose another mythology which could be named is the one which posits that St. Tikhon approved of using the BCP (adjusted) as an Orthodox rite. There's zero evidence for that one as well. And yet these things are believed in and repeated by a substantial number of unwitting people. I hope the creation of unneeded mythologies to help the Western rite along, will not in the end serve to hurt it.

I should expand on what I said about the Sarum Use of the Roman rite, which is blessed for celebration in the Russian Orthodox Church. It's Fr. Ambrose Young, who knew St. John Maximovitch, who states that St. John wished to deepen the orthopraxis of the Western rite communities over time, as circumstances would allow. Fr. Augustine, a monk of the Greek Archdiocese and spiritual son of Fr. Ambrose, has often spoken publicly about this. Fr. Augustine has said that Fr. Ambrose is appreciative of the Sarum fullness as representing one way in which St. John's vision for Western rite can be realised today. That does not, of course, mean it's the only way St. John's vision can be realised. I hope I've put this clearly.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 08, 2010, 07:22:41 AM
Sleeper, if you have something which would show that St. Nikolai was interested in having a BCP rite in the Orthodox Church, by all means share it with us here. Certainly in what you posted previously, there is nothing of that sort.

I am puzzled at the statement that St. Nikolai made "no mention of Sarum or other rites." No one has implied he did. And why would he have? I don't understand the point being made.

Several websites have propounded a mythology or two, with the apparent aim of giving the Western rite a boost. One mythology relates to St. Nikolai (although, I admit, something may surface at some point which DOES reveal that he endorsed this very thing; I'm not denying the possibility, just pointing out the absence of any reason to believe it). Another mythology revolves around claims that in 1907 the Russian Orthodox Church approved the BCP rite for Orthodox usage. There is no more objective evidence for the second, than there is for the first. I suppose another mythology which could be named is the one which posits that St. Tikhon approved of using the BCP (adjusted) as an Orthodox rite. There's zero evidence for that one as well. And yet these things are believed in and repeated by a substantial number of unwitting people. I hope the creation of unneeded mythologies to help the Western rite along, will not in the end serve to hurt it.

I should expand on what I said about the Sarum Use of the Roman rite, which is blessed for celebration in the Russian Orthodox Church. It's Fr. Ambrose Young, who knew St. John Maximovitch, who states that St. John wished to deepen the orthopraxis of the Western rite communities over time, as circumstances would allow. Fr. Augustine, a monk of the Greek Archdiocese and spiritual son of Fr. Ambrose, has often spoken publicly about this. Fr. Augustine has said that Fr. Ambrose is appreciative of the Sarum fullness as representing one way in which St. John's vision for Western rite can be realised today. That does not, of course, mean it's the only way St. John's vision can be realised. I hope I've put this clearly.

Father bless.  I understand that there is a richness and diverseness of use in the Western-rite but for me I have some questions which I respectfully hope you can assist with.
[]
[/list]With the Western rite being so small, isn't the multiplicity of rites - of liturgies or in western terminology masses used counter-productive to having some uniform standards?  

Sorry for so many questions, but as an ex-Anglican with a pretty clear understanding of the history of the English Church, and as a history major in medieval English history, the Sarum claims of the twenty-first century in some contemporary websites etc. seem more like the claims of 19th century romanticist  Anglo-Catholics.

I think it perfectly OK to revive the western-rite for those who want that particular tradition, but it needs to be done acknowledging the reality of the Schism, the reality of post-Schism heterodoxy in England and should be grounded in historical evidence-based proofs. From the Sarum rite to the different Latin rites extant before the Schism is diversity, and much of it was - and remains to this day continental and not English.

  Is it not possible to simply pick up a pre 1054 Latin missal and breviary and translate into English - liturgical or modern rather than write new prayer-books, some of which are substantially based on English Reformation masses and offices written and re-formed hundreds of years after the Great Schism?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 08, 2010, 10:52:18 AM
Sleeper, if you have something which would show that St. Nikolai was interested in having a BCP rite in the Orthodox Church, by all means share it with us here. Certainly in what you posted previously, there is nothing of that sort.

Agree to disagree I guess...

Quote
I am puzzled at the statement that St. Nikolai made "no mention of Sarum or other rites." No one has implied he did. And why would he have? I don't understand the point being made.

The point is that the conversation and meetings took place.  I'm not so easily convinced, as you are, that this means absolutely nothing.  If you agree to meet with a group of people to discuss specific issues, it in the very least shows that you are willing to consider certain things.  The question is, why wouldn't St. Nicholas have just said, "Look, we'd love to discuss unity, but you have to understand that there's no way we can take your Prayer Book seriously.  If you desired to continue in some form of Western worship, it'd have to be pre-Schism, otherwise our Byzantine Rite is your only other option."

I realize, Father, that there is nothing explicitly saying, "I approve."  But we just differ on the fact that I think St. Nicholas' words (few as they may be) and actions actually say a lot about the matter.

Quote
Another mythology revolves around claims that in 1907 the Russian Orthodox Church approved the BCP rite for Orthodox usage. There is no more objective evidence for the second, than there is for the first.

I've not encountered this one before, that's interesting.  In any research or reading I've done I think it's safe to say that the BCP has never been, and never will be authorized for Orthodox usage.  The closest thing would be the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is sort of "inspired by" the BCP's eucharistic rite, but that's all that I'm aware of.  Are there parishes actually using the BCP?

Quote
I suppose another mythology which could be named is the one which posits that St. Tikhon approved of using the BCP (adjusted) as an Orthodox rite. There's zero evidence for that one as well.

I have the same thing to say about this as I did with St. Nicholas.  I believe actions speak louder than words, and that what was not explicitly spoken can often be just as clear as what was.  And the approach you take, I'm sorry to say, really seems to me to be based on nothing but bias and prejudice.  The way that I would look at the facts (and what most have concluded) is that there is every reason in the world to believe St. Tikhon was supportive of this, and no reason to think otherwise.

You might not be comfortable with asserting anything unless it has been spelled out for you, but that's not the way the world works.

Quote
I hope the creation of unneeded mythologies to help the Western rite along, will not in the end serve to hurt it.

Here, we are in agreement.

Quote
I should expand on what I said about the Sarum Use of the Roman rite, which is blessed for celebration in the Russian Orthodox Church. It's Fr. Ambrose Young, who knew St. John Maximovitch, who states that St. John wished to deepen the orthopraxis of the Western rite communities over time, as circumstances would allow. Fr. Augustine, a monk of the Greek Archdiocese and spiritual son of Fr. Ambrose, has often spoken publicly about this. Fr. Augustine has said that Fr. Ambrose is appreciative of the Sarum fullness as representing one way in which St. John's vision for Western rite can be realised today. That does not, of course, mean it's the only way St. John's vision can be realised. I hope I've put this clearly.

That's wonderful!  I'm grateful to God that you have a Western Rite that you love and find fulfilling. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 08, 2010, 11:18:18 AM
With the Western rite being so small, isn't the multiplicity of rites - of liturgies or in western terminology masses used counter-productive to having some uniform standards?

The early church enjoyed a great multiplicity of rites/liturgies and, I could be wrong, but was there really a concern over uniform standards?  What would really be accomplished by that anyway?

Quote
  • You have ROCOR WR clergy who quite disagree with you about St. Tikhon and the place of the Orthodox-ised BCP.  Can you assist the debate by pointing to the sources of why these are fiction rather than fact?
Oh, don't you know?  We don't have any statement from St. Tikhon that says, "I approve of an adjusted BCP for Orthodox usage."  We can't make informed, prayerful decisions based on anything less than explicit statements.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: bogdan on December 08, 2010, 11:43:39 AM
With the Western rite being so small, isn't the multiplicity of rites - of liturgies or in western terminology masses used counter-productive to having some uniform standards?

The early church enjoyed a great multiplicity of rites/liturgies and, I could be wrong, but was there really a concern over uniform standards?  What would really be accomplished by that anyway?

There wasn't for the first few centuries, but the Church was under persecution and had bigger issues to deal with. But yes, after the Church was able to operate freely, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom became the universal standard, and the local rites (except for St James' in Jerusalem) were suppressed in favor of uniformity.

I'm not personally against having a Western Rite, but I do think it needs to be uniform. For one thing, clergy can't easily concelebrate and the visitors can't easily participate if there is a multiplicity of Western Rites floating around out there. (Unfortunately, the modern ideal of "diversity" fragments society and caters to every little whim, when real strength comes through uniformity.)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 08, 2010, 12:35:33 PM
There wasn't for the first few centuries, but the Church was under persecution and had bigger issues to deal with. But yes, after the Church was able to operate freely, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom became the universal standard, and the local rites (except for St James' in Jerusalem) were suppressed in favor of uniformity.

This didn't happen until the 13th century though.  Even if we go up until the Schism, that's over 1,000 years of liturgical variety.

Quote
I'm not personally against having a Western Rite, but I do think it needs to be uniform. For one thing, clergy can't easily concelebrate and the visitors can't easily participate if there is a multiplicity of Western Rites floating around out there. (Unfortunately, the modern ideal of "diversity" fragments society and caters to every little whim, when real strength comes through uniformity.)

I can get behind this.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 08, 2010, 01:36:40 PM
To answer Subd. David,

> ... Father bless. 

The Lord bless.

> ... With the Western rite being so small, isn't the multiplicity of rites - of liturgies or in western terminology masses used counter-productive to having some uniform standards?

It is counter-productive to that specific goal, but honestly, until we have a way to consider the various options from an Orthodox point of view, critically, and before we have had a chance to really consider the various usages in comparison to one another, it's not bad that we have some variety as a way of ensuring that eventually the best option can be picked. Right now, if we were to select an option, we'd be whistling in the dark or taking a majority vote--neither approach has much precedence in Orthodox Church history.

> ... * You have ROCOR WR clergy who quite disagree with you about St. Tikhon and the place of the Orthodox-ised BCP.  Can you assist the debate by pointing to the sources of why these are fiction rather than fact?

My point is that there is zero evidence for the claims. If there exists a basis for claims, why not let the public know what it is? I'm not overstating my case; I'm pointing out that Sts. Tikhon and Nikolai did not express their rejection of the BCP eucharistic rite for Orthodox worship, and they did not express their approbation of the BCP eucharistic rite for Orthodox worship. So I'm saying what are the facts of the case: there is no evidence that they approved it for use, all "purple prose" notwithstanding.

> ... How does the BCP 1549/1662 which to my ex-Church of England, Anglican eyes looks remarkably like the English and Sarum rites of the St. Colman Prayer Book/'Shorter' St. Colman Prayer Book in both the mass and matins and evensong be pre-schism? 

It's not pre-Schism in origin, it is Protestant in origin.

> ... I understand that one can add an Orthodox epiclesis etc but do you believe that the BCP mass in any version is very close to the pre-schism English/Sarum mass rite?

No, not at all. It is crafted by Protestant Reformers in order to destroy, from amongst the English people, their firm belief in Orthodox doctrines such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, their veneration of the Mother of God and other saints, their devotion to the Precious and Life-giving Cross of the Lord, and so forth. I have never cast any doubt upon the faith and good intentions of those using such a rite, and I have no desire that they be forced to abandon what they have come to love. On the contrary, I consider them equal brothers in Christ, of greater virtue than myself, and that we are all working in the same vineyards of Christ our great high priest. But the fact of how the various rites originated is something that must be transparent and is something that can be discussed. I am no purist in such matters of origination, by the way. I have simply been trained up in the atmosphere of the Russian Church and its conservatism, so I wind up more conservative / traditional in looking at these questions. At least I don't think I'm correct about everything in advance. Pardon me for being rude by talking about myself, but I do want my motives to be clear from the start.

> ... Certainly the amalgamation of offices to form the English Matins and Evensong - combining Lauds and Prime and Vespers and Compline is clearly a Reformation innovation, again unless I am wrong?

Yes, it is a Protestant innovation. It has some faint analogue or precedent in the joining together of offices in actual practice, a la Byzantine praxis of today regarding the little hours, etc. But to actually meld them together, discarding 80% of the divine office--that is, historically, the design of Protestant Reformers.

> ... Some WR say that the WR persisted in Jerusalem, on Mt Athos and in Constantinople (maybe in the English guard of the Byzantine Emperor) until well after the Schism - maybe another 300 years plus.  Is this your understanding, and can you point to some sources?

I would go much farther than that to suggest that the WR persisted in some form in the East CONTINUOUSLY from 1054 to the 20th century. While the historical record is full of lacunae, the fact is that the Roman Canon of the Mass was celebrated in a somewhat byzantinised Greek form in the middle middle ages, on Mt. Athos in Latin dress up to 1287 or so, in a somewhat byzantinised form in Slavonic at Hilandari on Athos, through the middle ages, and was preserved amongst Russian Old Believers, in Slavonic, up to the year 1963. And, of course, by 1963 the rite as an Orthodox-approved day-in-and-day-out observance, was well-established already. So there are historical suggestions that the WR never at any time died out completely in the Orthodox Church. Plenty of seminarians in the 20th century have been taught otherwise, but that is because the ground-breaking scholarship on this was done only in the last decade of the 20th century, so the meme that "WR died out in Orthodoxy after the Schism" is still in place amongst many of the less-aware clergy. As for the survival of Western rite on Athos till 1287, see my monograph at http://tinyurl.com/24tnc32.

> ... Do you believe the WR will be a homogeneous rite for those westerners of any land who want to be Orthodox but do not want to follow the majority rite, the Byzantine rite or do you believe that there will be National WR Churches - as in the French WR Orthodox Church, the English etc?.

The trend so far points to the former rather than the latter. However, if there were a particularly strong movement, it would be capable of forming even a national Orthodox Church, at some hypothetical future point.

> ... Sorry for so many questions, but as an ex-Anglican with a pretty clear understanding of the history of the English Church, and as a history major in medieval English history, the Sarum claims of the twenty-first century in some contemporary websites etc. seem more like the claims of 19th century romanticist  Anglo-Catholics.

I don't know which specific claims you're referring to, so I don't know how to intersect with this comment.

> ... I think it perfectly OK to revive the western-rite for those who want that particular tradition, but it needs to be done acknowledging the reality of the Schism, the reality of post-Schism heterodoxy in England and should be grounded in historical evidence-based proofs.

I think you have just enunciated my approach with a fair degree of precision.

> ... Is it not possible to simply pick up a pre 1054 Latin missal and breviary and translate into English - liturgical or modern rather than write new prayer-books, some of which are substantially based on English Reformation masses and offices written and re-formed hundreds of years after the Great Schism?

Certainly.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 08, 2010, 02:07:28 PM
Sleeper wrote:

> ... The point is that the conversation and meetings took place.  I'm not so easily convinced, as you are, that this means absolutely nothing.

Whoa, whoa! I never stated this means absolutely nothing. I think it means a lot of great import. It bespeaks openness, a willing to look at heterodox Christians' Christianity through their own eyes and not only through the eyes of Russian Orthodoxy. That speaks volumes. It bespeaks a willingness to work with heterodox Christians pastorally and not peremptorily, to help them towards the fullness of Orthodoxy. It does not form a basis for stating that St. Nikolai approved of the BCP eucharistic rite for use by Western rite Orthodox. Yet that is what the unwary are being led to believe.

> ... I've not encountered this one before, that's interesting.  In any research or reading I've done I think it's safe to say that the BCP has never been, and never will be authorized for Orthodox usage.  The closest thing would be the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is sort of "inspired by" the BCP's eucharistic rite, but that's all that I'm aware of.  Are there parishes actually using the BCP?

I would say that the St. Tikhon is the BCP eucharistic rite, as penned by Protestant Reformers, retrofitted with additions from the Byzantine and Roman rites. I often mention the St. Tikhon and the BCP as the same because they are the same essential eucharistic rite, just as the Tridentine and Sarum are two forms of the same essential eucharistic rite. I notice that this allows the St. Tikhon to be presented either as a totally new-created rite, to justify it to Orthodox Christians, and to be presented as the very BCP to Anglicans, so that they may like, approve of, and be drawn to, it. But one could speak to both audiences accurately, by calling it the BCP eucharistic rite with additions for Orthodox usage (most of which additions, Anglo-Catholics commonly make).

> ... And the approach you take, I'm sorry to say, really seems to me to be based on nothing but bias and prejudice. The way that I would look at the facts (and what most have concluded) is that there is every reason in the world to believe St. Tikhon was supportive of this, and no reason to think otherwise.

Then you can justifiably state there are hints, indications, that St. Tikhon was favourable to a modified BCP rite for Orthodox usage. What cannot justifiably be stated, is "St. Tikhon approved a modified BCP rite for Orthodox usage." Yet this latter is being repeated, stated, and claimed, and I am simply calling for sobriety and historicity. There's nothing biased or mean about it.  Look, I and many other Orthodox Christians have a great love of the Sarum rite. I would be similarly unjustified, if I deduced from what Fr. Ambrose Young has relayed, and his own comments, that "St. John Maximovitch was wanting to eventually upgrade to the Sarum rite." Yes, you could say there are gleanings, some basis for the POSSIBILITY he would have approved the Sarum, but no EVIDENCE for it. And what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

> ... You might not be comfortable with asserting anything unless it has been spelled out for you, but that's not the way the world works.

Scholars have to back up their statements. I'm not holding anyone's claims up to a standard I don't also apply to my own work and the work of yet others. I have to be able to give a presentation on such topics not only to a gaggle of ROCOR laity and clergy, but to a round table of liturgical scholars at Oxford--in which precise milieu I have been known to present parts of my work (I refer to the 2000 Oxford Conference on Anglo-Saxon Ritual, where I was an active participant though not a presenter).

It's not an overly lofty standard.

> ... I'm grateful to God that you have a Western Rite that you love and find fulfilling.

I and many other faithful Orthodox Christians. This is a movement within the Russian Orthodox Church, and not confined to the Russian Church. It's definitely not a personal matter, a mere predilection. And just for the record, I am not saying, and have never said, that the Sarum is the only way to go for Western rite Orthodoxy. I say only that it is a particularly compelling path for theological, pastoral, practical-ascetic, aesthetic, ecclesiological, and ethnico-cultural reasons.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 08, 2010, 02:28:59 PM
Fair enough.  I can actually get behind most of that to be honest.  I apologize if I was misunderstanding you in any way.  I suppose I don't run in enough WR circles/message boards to know what is being "thrown around" as fact or myth or whatever.  I was catechized in a WR parish and was never, ever told "St. Tikhon approved the BCP for Orthodox Use."  In fact, I'd say it was always explained in the way that you did, that he was open to the conversation, that he was supportive enough to go through the great lengths it took to send the BCP back to Moscow, etc.  And I guess it's that openness and effort that is telling.  And it's that same openness I found in St. Nicholas of Japan.  If people are misconstruing that as blatant approval, then yes, that would be false.  If I implied that, I apologize, I was mainly speaking in regards to the WR in general and that the BCP came up in his consideration and conversation and that he was open to the possibility.  I call the supportive, you don't, fair enough. :)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 08, 2010, 05:34:02 PM
Well, it sounds like we are more on the same page than we thought at first. That's always comforting!

I think that the openness to Western rite which I find now characterises the clergy of the ROCOR (10 years ago, that was NOT the case) probably stems 90% from the continuing witness and sheer presence of the many parishes of the AWRV. I think that the AWRV prepared a path, in some sense, for the things currently being done with Western rite in ROCOR. Thus I am not only respectful of the Western rite faithful in the Antiochian jurisdiction as equal brothers and sisters in Christ, I am grateful as well.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 08, 2010, 06:00:12 PM
That's great to hear!  I have a question for you.  I've read through a version of the Sarum Rite that I found online, and I'd have to say that there was a HUGE similarity to the Rite of St. Tikhon.  What would you say the biggest differences are? 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 09, 2010, 11:21:36 PM
I would be interested to compare and contrast, but I would need to know what the text is that you read online. If you have a url, that would be great.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 10, 2010, 01:19:56 AM
Here is the site where I read it: http://www.liturgies.net/Liturgies/Historical/sarum.htm (http://www.liturgies.net/Liturgies/Historical/sarum.htm)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 10, 2010, 09:37:04 PM
I would be interested to compare and contrast, but I would need to know what the text is that you read online. If you have a url, that would be great.

Father could you comment please on the St. Petroc Paruchia prayer book, the St. Colman Prayer Book, also out I believe as The Shorter St. Colman Prayer Book. I would appreciate your analysis of the liturgy rites - 'Sarum' and 'English' and the  Matins and Evensong offices that are very similar to the BCP offices.

The many blogs of the St. Petroc missions appear to argue that St. Tikhon and the Russian Church did authorise a BCP based liturgy: "The Orthodox Church re-introduced the Western Rite in 1870  and has a hundred year old authorisation for services being taken from the BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER and adapted for Orthodox use - "traditional Anglican" if you like - services that you, as a Church of England person would be very familiar with - not Italian or Irish or Greek but English. And it uses the complete Bible - not the truncated (fourteen books missing) version so common today.  The Western Rite had existed within Orthodoxy from AD 37 until the 1300s - the official re-authorisation of Western Rite within Orthodoxy in 1870, was specifically intended for us here in England."
http://forwardinorthodoxfaith.blogspot.com/ (http://forwardinorthodoxfaith.blogspot.com/)  I'd appreciate your views.

Does liturgical diversity within the WR have any negatives for the Church Father? Within ROCOR alone the lack of uniformity is amazing. It is a pity that the
Orthodox Prayers of Old England could not be made uniform within ROCOR.  I am about to order a copy online.http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Bookstore.html (http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Bookstore.html)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on December 11, 2010, 05:00:59 AM
I am about to order a copy online.http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Bookstore.html (http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Bookstore.html)

Hope you succeed better than me. I tried to order it a while back ago but got zero response after placing an order. :P
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 12, 2010, 02:22:00 AM
I can't comment on the St. Colman Prayer Book, in any form, because my efforts to obtain one have thus far proven fruitless.

> ... The many blogs of the St. Petroc missions appear to argue that St. Tikhon and the Russian Church did authorise a BCP based liturgy.

The Russian Church did authorise a BCP liturgy in 1997, but that was the first time it had been done. If the blogs claim otherwise, they are factually incorrect.

> ... Does liturgical diversity within the WR have any negatives for the Church Father? Within ROCOR alone the lack of uniformity is amazing. It is a pity that the Orthodox Prayers of Old England could not be made uniform within ROCOR.  I am about to order a copy online.http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Bookstore.html

About ordering online from the All-Merciful Savior / St. John Cassian Press website, I don't recommend it. There are difficulties with the PayPal mechanism on that page. I would just send a cheque in the amount of $35 (that's the postpaid amt.) to St. John Cassian Press, P.O. Box 10692, Austin, TX  78766.

Such a high level of diversity does have negatives, but I prefer those negatives to many things which could result from a hastily-imposed uniformity, especially if the criteria for selecting what's imposed were based on popularity or extra-Orthodox values. And so it goes.

I have been meaning to compare/contrast the Sarum and BCP, but I want to do it carefully and time fails. The new church is a-building, and I am preparing some liturgical materials for a new series and doing a parish. And working full-time slaving over a hot computer for the godless State. Just can't do it all.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 12, 2010, 03:05:25 AM


I can't comment on the St. Colman Prayer Book, in any form, because my efforts to obtain one have thus far proven fruitless.



From the websbite
http://forwardinorthodoxfaith.blogspot.com/

BUY THE SAINT COLMAN PRAYER BOOK!
gmeal@tiscali.co.uk

However, I have been told by people who wished to buy copies that they were told that its distribution is restricted to members of the WR approved by the Metropolitan's assistant in the UK.   Presumably this is a restriction asked by the Metropolitan?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 12, 2010, 07:23:53 AM


I can't comment on the St. Colman Prayer Book, in any form, because my efforts to obtain one have thus far proven fruitless.



From the websbite
http://forwardinorthodoxfaith.blogspot.com/

BUY THE SAINT COLMAN PRAYER BOOK!
gmeal@tiscali.co.uk

However, I have been told by people who wished to buy copies that they were told that its distribution is restricted to members of the WR approved by the Metropolitan's assistant in the UK.   Presumably this is a restriction asked by the Metropolitan?

I cannot comment Fathers on the issues in relation to the St. Colman Prayer Book.  I have indeed seen a copy in the University of Tasmania ecumenical chapel which the Petrochian Paruchia use on Sundays as St. Dyfan's mission, serving WR Matins and St. Colman mass.  The copy I saw appeared however to be a stapled photocopy rather than a printed proper book, however it may have been a photocopy I guess. It was real however.  I will ask the mission priest, Fr. Barry if I can scan a copy and I will be happy to share it with you Fr. Aidan and Fr. Ambrose. 

Perhaps they can use modern internet technology and sell it on E Bay or set up their own online store in one of the Petrochian websites?  It is so easily done.That would be a useful missionary endeavour for them to consider.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 12, 2010, 02:15:08 PM
I am the American contact for the Saint Colman Prayer Book. We are a 'cottage industry' so do not supply them on the open market, but only within the circle of inquirers who want to worship within the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church. We have limited copies available, and no great funding towards producing them. (In fact, at present I am in need of a few pieces of equipment.)

Liturgical universalism in the ROCOR Western rite would make no sense, as the Russian tradition has included more than one form in its canonical rulings. The majority usage is that of Mount Royal, which follows the Russian Synod's ruling. It is still the use of Holyrood chapel in Mount Royal monastery, and in local form at Christminster in Ontario, and by the new fellowship of St. Gregory - and is included in the Saint Colman Prayer Book (the Shorter one as well.)

Fr. Hieromonk Michael (Wood) of Saint Petroc is a liturgical scholar, specializing in the Sarum rite and having a Licentiate in liturgical studies.  The Metropolitan has appointed him the assistant for Western rite affairs in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. All of his use was developed inside ROCOR under the leadership of Metropolitan Hilarion, following the Russian directives and synodal decisions. Furthermore - he has decades of experience in serving the Sarum in churches that were designed for the use. Many misunderstandings derive from an approach to texts that does not have the context of how the text is practically employed, and the liturgical context of a rite. A rite is more than just the Mass book. The offices he uses are not derived from the BCP tradition, but are an English translation of the Sarum diurnal following the Clewer translation (the Orthophile John Mason Neale was involved with that.) There is also a Sarum use arranged for missions (the main use of the paruchia), the Mount Royal liturgy, and the English rite - which is a shorter Sarum use liturgy arranged for familiarity to converting Anglicans. The latter liturgy does rest upon a Russian Synodal document produced by the Dept. of Anglican and Old Catholic relations in the first decade of the 20th c. This was in response to a letter asking for an analysis for use of the 1892 BCP in modified form - which was not only signed by St. Tikhon, but St. John Kochurov and others. (And, St. Tikhon did have Western rite here in America - in NYC no less. Later Mount Royal would celebrate in the same cathedral, but in front of the Royal Doors. There was also a mission in Connecticut in the 1970s using a BCP derived liturgy - part of Bp Gregory Grabbe's short-lived attempt at WRITE - and I think directly responsible for his own views on the matter, as well as his production of the 1979 extract - which in any case would have only abolished the Novus Ordo and 1979 BCP.)  The Anglican 'Alcuin Club' produced an overview of that document - the original of which was followed within ROCOR in the development of the English liturgy. The language employed is that of John D. Cosin. There is also the Celtic rite - which has yet to be employed (though it has precedent.)

There is a reason that Dom James and Fr. Michael were made the assistants for Western rite in ROCOR. There are reasons - solid canonical reasons - why each liturgical use is employed (the Celtic rite is the only one that we have not yet been able to celebrate.) There are also no fictions regarding the uses ROCOR employs - I would hope that neophytes would hold good faith on Church matters and those involved, rather than jumping to negative conclusions or believing gossip. Playing out the same drama on multiple forums does little good either. I had hoped after reunion that we would leave all this sort of hyper-Orthodox conspiracy-culture stuff behind. It certainly has never been the norm for ROCOR WRITE.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Father Peter on December 12, 2010, 02:26:10 PM
Hi

If you want to make them available at no cost and with an income for your mission then visit http://www.lulu.com and create a paperback and/or hardback edition and then anyone can buy it and you get a revenue.

This is how I made my book Orthodox Christology (http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/orthodox-christology/10969273) available.

Father Peter
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 12, 2010, 02:38:19 PM
Lulu.com has been under consideration. But there are other factors involved - and multiple people. I simply follow the lead of those who are in charge of publication in TAS and the UK. I'm just duplicating their efforts here, though with a little more difficulty: A4 anything is rare.

Funny story though - I bought one of Fr. Michael Keiser's books on Western Rite Orthodoxy once from lulu.com - and received a grammar for the German language! I had a good laugh with him about it.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 12, 2010, 03:55:10 PM
7.08.2009
Shorter Saint Colman Prayer Book Available
 
A belated notice - copies of the Shorter Saint Colman Prayer Book can be ordered through the Orthodox Christian West blog maintained by Novice Edward. Paypal is accepted and the price is 18 US dollars at this time.

Posted by Ari at 7/08/2009 10:26:00 PM 

http://paruchia.blogspot.com/2009/07/shorter-saint-colman-prayer-book.html
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 12, 2010, 04:02:07 PM
Yes - that is quite old - I should have changed it. I'm friends with Subdeacon Edward Waters - and he is not the contact anymore for that. He has returned to the heritage of his Russian ancestors, and is busy with academia and directing choir. Dr. John Ward is the contact for AUS/NZ, Dr. Gildas Meal for the UK and Europe. I'm the contact for the US.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 13, 2010, 07:15:03 AM
I am the American contact for the Saint Colman Prayer Book. We are a 'cottage industry' so do not supply them on the open market, but only within the circle of inquirers who want to worship within the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church. We have limited copies available, and no great funding towards producing them. (In fact, at present I am in need of a few pieces of equipment.)

Liturgical universalism in the ROCOR Western rite would make no sense, as the Russian tradition has included more than one form in its canonical rulings. The majority usage is that of Mount Royal, which follows the Russian Synod's ruling. It is still the use of Holyrood chapel in Mount Royal monastery, and in local form at Christminster in Ontario, and by the new fellowship of St. Gregory - and is included in the Saint Colman Prayer Book (the Shorter one as well.)

Fr. Hieromonk Michael (Wood) of Saint Petroc is a liturgical scholar, specializing in the Sarum rite and having a Licentiate in liturgical studies.  The Metropolitan has appointed him the assistant for Western rite affairs in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. All of his use was developed inside ROCOR under the leadership of Metropolitan Hilarion, following the Russian directives and synodal decisions. Furthermore - he has decades of experience in serving the Sarum in churches that were designed for the use. Many misunderstandings derive from an approach to texts that does not have the context of how the text is practically employed, and the liturgical context of a rite. A rite is more than just the Mass book. The offices he uses are not derived from the BCP tradition, but are an English translation of the Sarum diurnal following the Clewer translation (the Orthophile John Mason Neale was involved with that.) There is also a Sarum use arranged for missions (the main use of the paruchia), the Mount Royal liturgy, and the English rite - which is a shorter Sarum use liturgy arranged for familiarity to converting Anglicans. The latter liturgy does rest upon a Russian Synodal document produced by the Dept. of Anglican and Old Catholic relations in the first decade of the 20th c. This was in response to a letter asking for an analysis for use of the 1892 BCP in modified form - which was not only signed by St. Tikhon, but St. John Kochurov and others. (And, St. Tikhon did have Western rite here in America - in NYC no less. Later Mount Royal would celebrate in the same cathedral, but in front of the Royal Doors. There was also a mission in Connecticut in the 1970s using a BCP derived liturgy - part of Bp Gregory Grabbe's short-lived attempt at WRITE - and I think directly responsible for his own views on the matter, as well as his production of the 1979 extract - which in any case would have only abolished the Novus Ordo and 1979 BCP.)  The Anglican 'Alcuin Club' produced an overview of that document - the original of which was followed within ROCOR in the development of the English liturgy. The language employed is that of John D. Cosin. There is also the Celtic rite - which has yet to be employed (though it has precedent.)

There is a reason that Dom James and Fr. Michael were made the assistants for Western rite in ROCOR. There are reasons - solid canonical reasons - why each liturgical use is employed (the Celtic rite is the only one that we have not yet been able to celebrate.) There are also no fictions regarding the uses ROCOR employs - I would hope that neophytes would hold good faith on Church matters and those involved, rather than jumping to negative conclusions or believing gossip. Playing out the same drama on multiple forums does little good either. I had hoped after reunion that we would leave all this sort of hyper-Orthodox conspiracy-culture stuff beh ind. It certainly has never been the norm for ROCOR WRITE.


Aristobule I do hold faith with what ROCOR has decided with the western-rite.  That does not however preclude scholars like Hieromonk Aidan (Keller) who is a noted Sarum expert to from disagreeing with those who argue that the Russian Church approved a BCP based mass rite for Western-rite Orthodox use in the way argued on a number of WR blogs and websites i.e. that the Holy Synod approved it and it stayed that way.  Hieromonk Aidan (Keller) in particular says that this claim cannot be proven.

I can't comment on the St. Colman Prayer Book, in any form, because my efforts to obtain one have thus far proven fruitless.

> ... The many blogs of the St. Petroc missions appear to argue that St. Tikhon and the Russian Church did authorise a BCP based liturgy.

The Russian Church did authorise a BCP liturgy in 1997, but that was the first time it had been done. If the blogs claim otherwise, they are factually incorrect.


I have been meaning to compare/contrast the Sarum and BCP, but I want to do it carefully and time fails. The new church is a-building, and I am preparing some liturgical materials for a new series and doing a parish. And working full-time slaving over a hot computer for the godless State. Just can't do it all.

In relation to the Petrochian S. Colman Prayer Book and Shorter S. Colman Prayer Book, I would have thought that the widest possible dissemination would be beneficial to the mission of the Paruchia, especially in reaching out to heterodox groups.  Could you at least place it online in PDF format to allow people to access it if there are no actual bound copies for sale?   If there are actual non=photocopy hard copies please, sell them via lulu or ebay or Amazon.

t I am not trying to enter the polemic on the veracity of claims in relation to Western-rite history or liturgical probity in relation to the BCP, however for those with scholastic knowledge in this area like Hieromonk Aidan (Keller) and Hieromonk Ambrose, I think respectful debate, the sharing of texts and resources, and developing a greater shared understanding of mission is preferable.

I also think that it is appropriate to accept that the Western-rite has its critics and defenders, and that the history of the Western-rite has not been a honeymoon experience since the 19th century. The Western-rite may be indeed beginning to blossom in Orthodoxy but it has many challenges to achieve the success that Byzantine-rite missionary endeavour has achieved in the West, not the least being a lack of proper parish churches, a lack of married priests, the age of many Western-rite clergy, and the lack of organic connection between ROCOR and AWRV Western-rite in the US and elsewhere. Despite what esteemed priests like Hieromonk Aidan (Keller) and Hieromonk Michael (Mansbridge-Wood) /(Wood?) say, I think that having a different rite, and different mass rite in particular in places like Christ the Savior Monastery, St. Petroc weakens their endeavor. Have the WR in ROCOR and the AWRV got together to try and agree on liturgy?

How much should Orthodox Western-rite draw on the liturgical history and praxis of heterodox or vagante traditions? While they may call themselves "Catholic", "Orthodox" or even "Celtic" if they come from a tiny area of the United Kingdom, what counts is scholarship and understanding within the Holy Orthodox Church. Much as I love the beauty of the Church of England's BCP - having grown up in Australia with it, it was produced by heterodox divines with a clear Reformation agenda, and was written hundreds of years after England became a nation of apostates from the faith of the Orthodox Church and is clearly not a Sarum pre-schism Orthodox mass or breviary or rituale. Indeed the emphasis on Sarum as opposed to Latin or Celtic as opposed to Roman is emphasising a very small rite, predominantly from the British Isles, albeit with a little continental spin off  or is the rest of the Western world supposed to adopt Celtic socio-cultural norms or the norms of the Diocese of Salisbury (Sarum)?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 13, 2010, 10:27:36 AM
SubdeaconDavid, have you ever read Lux Occidentalis by Fr. John Connely?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 13, 2010, 10:47:11 AM
No I haven't read it.  I'll google it and check it out.  I am NOT any authority on the western-rite - just an ex Anglican with a healthy knowledge of traditional Anglo-Catholicism, an admiration for some in traditional continuing Anglicanism i.e. some in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) and a healthy disregard for the vagantes, would be bishops and other fringe dwellers.  My scepticism with western-rite Orthodoxy is that I know the idiosyncratic and eccentric and Anglo-centric nature of many within continuing Anglicanism and I am fearful for the Church of what these types can do, but then again, I also know that there are sincere and prayerful men of God in the western-rite like Dom David and others, and the gates of hell won't prevail.

I am also grateful for the shelter of "Eastern" Orthodoxy.  When I joined the Orthodox Church at age 17, in 1978, after the Epsicopal Church in the US ordained women 'priests', my Anglican confessor said it would never happen here, but it did.  Thankfully through the missionary grace filled Russian Orthodox Church Abroad as we called ROCOR then, I was received into the Church and since then western-Christianity has continued to fracture and fall apart.  My own journey has not been easy, but by the grace of God I finally at age 49 feel secure in the faith. 

Here is a very positive aspirational piece from a priest of the Antiochian Church in the USA:  I like it because it shares with the reader that you can embrace the "Eastern" and remain "Western" and frankly I'd rather concentrate on these positives than fight  the western-rite people - even if I can and will continue to disagree with them.

 Here are my reactions...TEN YEARS LATER.

What I hoped to find in the Orthodox Church
I was seeking stability in the faith. I sought the Church that St. Irenaeus had described, which "carefully preserves" apostolic teachings and "proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down with perfect harmony", throughout the world and from generation to generation. By process of elimination, I had concluded that only the Orthodox Church fit this description. I came to the Orthodox Church demoralized and exhausted, war-weary from the losing battle of trying to maintain traditional doctrinal, liturgical and moral standards in western Christianity.

In ten years in the Orthodox Church, I have encountered not one disbelieving bishop, priest, theologian or layperson. Certainly there are Orthodox who don't take the faith seriously or who are lax in their practice, but so far as I can see no one denies it or is trying to change it. Orthodox unity in the faith still astounds me. I found what I was seeking.

What I feared as I came to the Orthodox Church
(1) That I would never fit in. Those who have grown up Orthodox cannot imagine how forbidding the Orthodox Church can appear to an outsider. I now find it hard to believe that ten years ago people with Middle Eastern and Greek backgrounds seemed very exotic to me. Orthodoxy felt "foreign" and "ethnic" to this German/Welsh/Irish-American. Partly I was a prisoner of my own ethnic background. But also I was afraid I would break some eastern cultural or religious taboo and cause great offense. Orthodox worship appeared very difficult to master, and I was afraid "cradle" Orthodox would laugh at me as I struggled to learn it. I was wrong. Yes, I have encountered some ethnic differences - which have caused me to grow. I have learned to hug and kiss a lot more, and also to express myself more forcefully. (I have had to abandon Anglican subtlety. There's no point in "beating around the bush" with Orthodox people!) I have eaten things I never ate before. The wonderful ethnic diversity of Orthodoxy has been broadening to me in a number of ways. (Ah, the food at our church suppers!)
But my fears were unfounded. Though I still make mistakes (just ask the bishops...), Orthodox worship has not been as difficult as I anticipated. Furthermore, once you learn it, it holds still: no national liturgical commission is trying to revise and modernize Orthodox worship - thank God! The "cradle" Orthodox who have come to Saint Nicholas have, with almost no exceptions, been sweet and tolerant as I have learned Orthodoxy. Indeed I have never felt so loved in my life. And as for the Antiochian Archdiocese... surely the Middle-Easterners who welcomed us into their Archdiocese must sometimes find us converts and our mistakes and peculiar ways hard to take, but I have found only the warmest of welcomes. There has been not the slightest pressure to become anything ethnically other than what I am. After ten years, I feel far more at home in this "foreign" Orthodox Church than I ever felt in my former denomination.

(2) I was afraid I would starve to death. I feared Khouria Dianna and I would have to live in poverty, being supported only by a struggling little mission in a "poor immigrant Church". I was wrong. I can't speak of all Orthodox jurisdictions and parishes - but I am amazed at the amount of money that flows through the Antiochian Archdiocese and through this congregation. My former supposedly wealthy denomination had nothing to compare to Antiochian Village and Conference Center, or to the style of our Archdiocese Conventions and Conferences, or to the proportion of money that goes to good works outside the Archdiocese. I could never have imagined that in ten years our own small congregation would have a fine temple, mostly paid off, and would have given away well over $100,000. The people of Saint Nicholas have supported me more than generously. Khouria Dianna has found it good to work full time, because her health insurance is so good. But we have got our children through college, for the first time in our life we own a home, my automobile allowance allows me to pay cash for my cars, and we have traveled more and farther than ever before in our lives. This has been a great faith-builder: we have far more trust in the power of God to provide. And I was afraid of going hungry!

What else I have found in the Orthodox Church
(1) The Kingdom of God. I have shared this with many of you before: About the fourth Sunday after I became Orthodox, as I stood at the altar at Divine Liturgy, the presence of God and the saints and angels became Real to me. It was not an intellectual discovery (I had believed it before), nor was it a new feeling. The Kingdom was just Present, almost palpable. That was how I began to encounter the common Orthodox experience of worship as "heaven on earth". It has continued at every service since then. At worship in my former denomination, I tried hard to concentrate my mind on God and the saints. Now I don't have to. They concentrate on me; they surround me; they encompass me. Words are inadequate. I can't describe the indescribable. But most Orthodox know from their own experience what I'm trying to say.

(2) That Orthodoxy has the power to change lives, beginning with my own: My despair and weariness have turned to hope and and energy. Inside, I feel younger than I did ten years ago. And I have seen so many in my congregation turn to God in a new way. Again, I don't deny that there are many nominal Orthodox, and none of us practice Orthodoxy as we should. But I see that the Orthodox doctrine of theosis (that God makes us like himself, makes us holy) is not theory: it is a description of what actually happens to people in the Orthodox Church. In my former denomination I always felt that I had to change people by my own words and efforts. Here God and the Church do it, and I'm simply one of those being changed.

(3) Not only great joy but also lots of fun! Starting a new mission was hard work on the part of all of us, and just conducting Orthodox worship is exhausting. (Western services now seem so short.) But I have never enjoyed myself or laughed so much in my life. This has been a delight.

(4) That the outside world looks odder and odder. Partly this is because American culture has kept changing since I became Orthodox, while Orthodoxy has held still. Things which seemed unconscionable in our culture even ten years ago are now commonplace. But also the world seems stranger to me because Orthodoxy is even more counter-cultural than I ever imagined. In the western denominations, radical theology, pop worship, women's ordination and "gay" rights are ever more the order of the day - while in Orthodoxy these things are still not even being debated, nor is there any sign that they will be. The western secular world continues to think that politics and economics and education can solve our problems, and that a just society can be created by man without reference to God and his truth - while Orthodoxy is God and his truth. I watch the evening news and read non-Orthodox religious publications and just shake my head: what ever do these people think they're doing? As an Orthodox I feel far less threatened by what's going on outside the Church, and I find that now it makes me sad instead of angry - but the non-Orthodox world looks ever more peculiar to me.

Has there been any down side?
Scarcely any. Becoming Orthodox has been overwhelmingly a positive experience for me. However...
(1) For some of the reasons mentioned above, I've discovered that Orthodoxy is more difficult to communicate to our society than I would have guessed. At first I felt that if Americans could only be to exposed to Orthodoxy, they would rush into the Church. Certainly Orthodoxy is growing in the world - and our Antiochian Archdiocese has grown by leaps and bounds during the past ten years - but I also now see that many modern Americans find it hard to understand Orthodoxy. They are so accustomed to human-centered, man-made religion that they find it difficult even to grasp the concept of God-centered, revealed religion. Many do not see the purpose of worship. More than a few have come to our Orthodox services (even in English) and have no idea what's going on. "Making America Orthodox" is not as easy as I thought.

(2) As I moved into Orthodoxy and discovered how good it is, for a while I felt unhappy that I had waited so long to become Orthodox. Why did I waste so much time in western Christianity trying to reinvent the wheel, when the real Church was here waiting for me all the while? I could have spent my whole ministry in the Church; we could have raised our children in the Orthodox faith. I'm still sad about this, but I've come to accept that God has his own timing, that he can use even my slowness and stupidity and stubbornness for good.

Would I do it all over again?
Yes! Yes! Yes! These past ten years in Orthodoxy have been the best and happiest and most fulfilling of my life. Thanks to God and thanks to Saint Nicholas for bringing me home.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 13, 2010, 11:25:12 AM
Ari, how may we who are involved in this discussion, go about ordering a copy of the shorter and longer St. Colman Prayer Books? Let me know the physical address and the price, and I will send a check tomorrow.

You have stated what to me is very surprising news: that in the 1970s there was a BCP eucharistic rite in use in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, in a mission in Connecticut. What was the name of this mission? Who was the priest? Was it actually Bp. Gregory Grabbe who approved the BCP eucharistic anaphora? What Alcuin Club volume?

Regarding the one comment that the Sarum is a geographically limited use, I couldn't disagree more. It is notable not for its eccentricity or narrow distribution, but for having been the most widely-used form, across all Europe, of the old Roman rite. It was typical. It was standard (well, as standard as things got back in those days, which was not very standard by our standards). It was highly respected at Rome, where the Pope would keep, as his master of ceremonies, a Sarum clergyman. Its service books were published at Venice, Basle, Paris... it was used in Portugal. But "quid multa?" (Why multiply examples?)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on December 13, 2010, 12:58:27 PM
I'm sorry to start yet another sidenote, but was it Sarum use which was used in the Scandinavian churches before the Schism?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 14, 2010, 03:18:47 AM
Ari, how may we who are involved in this discussion, go about ordering a copy of the shorter and longer St. Colman Prayer Books?

You have stated what to me is very surprising news: that in the 1970s there was a BCP eucharistic rite in use in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, in a mission in Connecticut. What was the name of this mission? Who was the priest? Was it actually Bp. Gregory Grabbe who approved the BCP eucharistic anaphora? What Alcuin Club volume?

Father, you would have to contact Fr. Michael directly about that. As I suggested some years ago ('02-'03) you might reciprocate with him - and with Dom David, Dom James. The issues of distribution are partly economic, and partly guarded because of experiences with those who have acted in bad faith. We had one clergyman in a group outside the mainstream ask for the SCPB, and immediately upon receiving it began lying that it was just a 'Book of Common Prayer'. Fires had to be put out over that - and we still have negative impact from that one person's act (ignorant or malicious.) We've had attempts by those in groups that practice homosexual unions and women's ordination to get the book - some of which had even claimed already on their websites or to others that they did liturgy the ROCOR Western rite way. There is no interest in our sacred rites being used to legitimize such things. Hence it is expected that those who get the books use them, and use them *without modification* - especially helpful for those coming from Anglican or Independent backgrounds that are used to DIY liturgy. (We also don't tend to the liberal/libertarian side of the spectrum - but traditional and conservative. So there is going to be resistance to such an idea as 'open source liturgy'. "The doors, the doors....")

For history - I believe the parish using the BCP was St. Anthony's in Greenwich, and was in ROCOR from the late '60s until Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) was elevated to the Episcopate. The story was passed on to me in '00-'01 by an Oblate of Christminster who in those days was with HTM-Boston. The group had been received with the help of Bp Gregory when he was Chancellor, and then disappeared around '75. From what I understand, his experience with that group soured him on WRITE: according to the Oblate, the parish had experimented with an unadapted BCP.  That, and the changes of the RCC and PECUSA in their 1970 missal and 1979 BCP all prompted the 1979 ukase on modern rites not being used. (I would hope that just because a Blanco exists, that some wouldn't blame Orthodox monasticism.)  Out of curiosity - do you remember the ROCOR Western Rite parish that used to exist in Atlanta in the 1980s?

The Alcuin Club volume is the 'Russian Observations upon the American Prayer Book, translated imperfectly and selectively by Wilfrid J. Barnes. Though the general gist of that translation is correct: "The committee, after reviewing these "Observations," allowed in general the possibility that if Orthodox parishes, composed of former Anglicans, were organized in America, they might be allowed, at their desire, to perform their worship according to the "Book of Common Prayer," but only on condition that the following corrections were made in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. " It was not carried out - nor is the English liturgy of ROCOR a full realization of that Synodical directive, but only the English eucharistic rite is based on the directives of the original Russian document (and, it was an act of the Holy Synod - as it had been set up for that purpose. 'Committee' is a poor translation on Barnes' part.) You might want to ask Vladyka about the documents surrounding this issue.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the rest of the material in the Saint Petroc books developed by Vladyka, Fr. Michael, and others - which are not based on the BCP, but on the Sarum Missal and Breviary (the English rite, again, is also not an adaptation of the BCP rite - though it shares some material with the 1549 and Non-Juror's liturgy.) The Great Litany is not BCP, nor are the offices used (Matins, Prime, Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, Evensong, Compline), nor are the Occasional Services. The language will be familiar to former Anglicans, as it is the language of Cosin and the Douai-Rheims - and the general form is familiar, as the BCP - especially the non-Reformed ones - have similarity to the Rites of the Western tradition from whence they derive.

****

Alpo - the Sarum rite did influence the uses of the Scandinavian churches, and even further afield. There was a general 'body' of uses that were proper to the Northwest: Britain, Ireland, France, the Low Countries, Germany, Scandinavia, and Portugal - all having shared features in rite (the ritual text, ceremonial, ornaments, etc.) Not surprising as the missions in most of those areas largely came out of England.

****

David -  I would point out that your views of the Western rite and our clergy in particular *are exactly the same* as they were when you were a vagante Anglican earlier this year. So just who is importing just what? Yes, many vagantes have joined the Orthodox Church in both Eastern and Western rites. Many of them good clergy and laity - some not. We've received clergy from Old Catholics, Milan Synod, Exarchate of Alexandria, French Orthodox - all sorts. We even have now liturgy being used in ROCOR now that was brought in from vagante groups in the past three years. We're not Puritans. One could remember St. Gregory the Great's advice to St. Augustine of Canterbury - to Christianize what was outside the church (even the pagan temples), and to use what he found in the Gallican rites that were 'pious', of 'religion', and 'upright' or 'true'. St. Gregory the Great's advice certainly applies to our present mission. That being said - the majority of us in ROCOR WRITE do use one or other of the rites found in the SCPB. Some have brought in versions with more modern translations (e.g. 'ages of ages', rather than 'world without end' - the latter of which Dom Augustine argued for the retention of, and which all the original Mount Royal books retain.) The uses we have in the SCPB (Mount Royal, Sarum, English - and even Celtic) have canonical reasons for their use, and a tradition of use in the Russian church, and thus fit in with what has been done before. It would be ridiculous though to overthrow long-standing ROCOR Western rite tradition to force a use on everyone that has been imported from a separated body - and for what? It would be foolish, if not only because those who might wish so are simply not aware *what* ROCOR and the Russian Church has done with Western rite over the past century and a half.

The problem with modern scholarship is that it just as easily operates from modernist or post-modernist assumptions. Scholarship rarely agrees, rarely reaches a consensus, and is fluid in that it changes with the decades. Theories rise and fall, schools co-exist and vacillate in their importance. If we make 'scholarship' the requirement for our use - then we *have* become the modern Anglicans. That is exactly the impulse that has produced the modern 'Common Worship' or even the Novus Ordo mass. Scholarship is limited by the scholar - what he is able to perceive by his experience, by mental mistakes he makes. Even the 'peer review' process can be flawed, particularly where several minds pass around a flawed meme. There will be then some resistance against ideologies being imported into the Western rite of ROCOR that derive from something else than Orthodoxy. That being said - we do need cooperation in mission. But, respectful debate cannot happen when it begins on false premises. Spreading false tales, playing 'secret agent', and stirring up trouble are certainly not the way to get our clergy 'out of their shell'. (And, some of us have tried to drag them out of their cells into the 21st c. fields - there's work to be done.)

Fr. Michael is definitely not in danger of importing any Anglican attitudes: that is all just a straw-man employed by those who wanted to remake ROCOR's Western rite in their own image (a vagante attitude if there ever was one.) He is quite critical of those Anglican and vagante attitudes, which often show up in a virulent anti-Westernism, or a desire to Reform the Orthodox Western rite - without having spent any time in it. Fr. Michael is a sincere, prayerful, and most Orthodox man of God. So is Fr. Barry. They are much loved and respected by those who truly know them.

I can appreciate the zeal of the convert as well - but a little realism is called for. The Byzantine rite missionary outreach to Westerners has not achieved all that great of success in the West. In the South, it is as old a mission as the Western rite: and still lacks proper parish churches, lacks vocations, has aging clergy population, and a lack of connection between the other jurisdictions (I shouldn't have to point out the obvious - ROCOR, MP-ROCUSA, OCA, UOCUSA, ACROD, etc.) It has never been a major concern through most of Orthodox presence in the modern West. A few attempts at an English language Byzantine rite were abject failures (the Toombs affair, for instance.) English speaking Byzantine rite can be found in all sorts of camps as well - there is no unity to it, partisanship for all sorts of jurisdictions, spiritual fathers, translations, adopted national customs and identities. There has been no major impact on our societies - not yet. In fact, in some parts it is precisely 'dropping out, and tuning in'.  So it is quite a bit premature to speak of it as a 'success' in those terms... we're just not there yet.

 There might also be more connection with AWRV than you or others realize. We maintain a close relationship with some in the AWRV. Dom James does as well - particularly with others in the AWRV or pro-Western rite AOC Byzantine clergy. I do not think that imposing one liturgical use or another would help mission at all. For someone in the Eastern rite to suggest it? I would counter with 'you first'. See if you can get your parish to switch to doing liturgy in the Greek mode - or even if they would want to merge with St. George, Hobart so as not to duplicate efforts? How successful has the Russian mission in Hobart been in producing/keeping stable and pious clergy candidates for their parish? See if the Old Rite folk are willing to convert over to Nikonian now as well - I doubt most would consider that a helpful suggestion. Within a day's drive of myself are a handful of different Byzantine rites: Greek, Antiochian, Ukrainian. Those that use English rarely ever use the same translation. The ordering of the services are different, what services they have, the chant, rubrics, ceremonies, customs.  The irony of that being - even with the small differences in the Western rite, they are still less different from each other than the differences one has in the Byzantine rite.

PS - I'm not Aristobule. That is someone else - Aristobulus is also someone else (and on this forum.) I am Aristibule - but I'll answer to Arwystli Og, Aethelraed/Aelred, or Ari.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 14, 2010, 07:44:11 AM
"Aristibule" you have a remarkable knowledge of the Church in Tasmania for an American - or perhaps I am incorrect in assuming that you are American. You also do NOT know my attitude from earlier in the year and you do not know me. One could be excused for thinking that someone else - who also does not know my mind was writing this under your name. But,"Ari", let me say in all sincerity that I regret any offences given in the debate with the Western-rite advocates.

What made you qualified to judge the ACC which in Anglican terms at least was formed out of the 1978 Congress of St. Louis by Episcopalian bishops who consecrated new bishops opposed to the ordination of women? Vagante in whose terms?  All Anglicans are heterodox - outside the Church, but to conservative Anglicans the ACC is not vagante, and ROCOR has dialogue with the ACC. The ACC is undoubtedly heterodox but it has some worthy men in it's ministry, some of whom want reconciliation with Orthodoxy. It espouses at least all 7 Ecumenical Councils, 7 sacraments and the full canon of the Bible. It rejects abortion, despairs like Orthodoxy of divorce, and is liturgically not so distant from your own rite.

Yes like some Byzantine rite Orthodox coming from an Anglican background I chose after becoming Orthodox to seek to rediscover my English and Anglican roots, but I have also repented of that sinful error of judgement.  That exploration did not occur in a vacuum.  It occurred in the context of an Orthodox parish shattered by pastoral events that left it with no resident priest to this day. Thank God for the ministry of our Dean who preserved the parish!

It occurred influenced by my personal history of having been raped as an altar boy  from the age of 11 and abused by 4 Anglican priests - one of whom as an adult I helped send to prison for his crimes against me and 10 other boys, one of whom committed suicide.  And that is just one pedophile 'priest'.  For some the damage is lifelong, and for all life is never the same as if it never happened.  

So Aristibule my spiritual journey was not a model one, nor were the life-shattering experiences that led to it. It is a continuous story of challenging one's narrative, of understanding where blame lies and identifying the collateral damage in one's life.

Pray God that your children never endure this pain, and pray that if you encounter this in your Church, that you treat the survivors as just that - survivors of trauma and not as sinful or worse as complicit. Abuse shatters trust, breaks relationships and can destroy lives.

One thing my experience gave me is a keen sense of ethics and justice which is why I forced the Anglican Church in Tasmania to hold an Inquiry into child abuse in the Church and why to this day I have a keen sense of what is morally disingenuous and why I work with homeless people, many of whom suffer from trauma, mental-illness and marginalisation.

I might add that throughout my 10 years in the wilderness my Orthodox wife stuck by me - I cannot add having multiple wives or abandoning the spouse that I married in the temple to my sins like Henry VIII and company, and at least in this I complied with the Orthodox canons for a subdeacon not to remarry.

I prayed and fasted long and hard about coming back home to Orthodoxy and my struggle was with my own sense of immense sinfulness, at having walked away from the absolute Truth of God's revelation in Christ and His Holy Orthodox and Catholic and Apostolic Church.  I have had to live with the knowledge that what I did was harmful for me and for my family and the last months have been about building relationships anew. I am eternally grateful for the mercy of Vladyka and our Dean, Mitred Archpriest Mikhail Protopopov in all of this in bringing me home to Orthodoxy and for blessing me to serve again in the subdiaconate.  I am also grateful for the ministry of your own Father Michael (Mansbridge-Wood) in encouraging my return home.

Regrettably, my experience of western Christianity makes me a very nuanced judge of the Western-rite because I guess the Western-rite which has so much Anglican-ness about it pushes buttons about my own history and trauma.  Little wonder that I prefer the security of a Byzantine temple to the Western-rite. I also know that sexual abuse has occurred in Orthodox Churches and in the Byzantine rite. Again for any offences, please forgive me.

I agree the Byzantine rite has it's challenges but it has produced perhaps 100fold the number of priests and thousands of converts, many of whom are not geriatrics.  The rejuvenation of my own parish is chief issue with me these days.  That we have no resident priest saddens me as much as it saddened me when Hieromonk Michael (Mansbridge-Wood) told me that the Launceston WR consisted now of pretty well only Father Barry and his matushka, or when I saw that the mean age at St. Dyfans WR was between about 50 and 70 and then only 4 people for Matins when Fr. Barry was sick and could not come - although my own parish has an ageing congregation and our Typika numbers vary from about 8 to 20 at best. Pastoral incompetence cost us one aspiring Western convert nun, several families, both Russian and Australian converts and 10 years later, not all the scars have healed for some.

I am aware that there are differences in liturgical practice even in the Byzantine rite but within ROCOR is remarkable consistency, at least in Australia. In relation to the WR I am not in any sense an expert or a liturgical "scholar", possessing a Licentiate (?) like Hieromonk Michael (Mansbridge-Wood) and I do not wish anything but success for the Petrochian Paruchia.  It is no easy thing at nearly three-score years and ten after a lifetime of labour to be doing what he is doing trying to get the WR off the ground here in Tasmania, in Australia and elsewhere. It is also a far harder task without the financial backing of the Church, without proper parish churches (in Australia) and few parochial clergy.  Frankly it is too much of a podvig for me.

One of the blessings of many years in ROCOR before my fall from grace was getting relatively comfortable with the Slavic rites and Church Slavonic.  In coming home to the Slavonic rite is a genuine coming home, a relief to be in the safe and familiar, and a blessing from God to have so much love and pastoral care of my undeserving self.

I respectfully do think that western scholastic rigour can enhance the understanding that we have of the western-rite, western-rite liturgy and history.  Otherwise what do we have - oral tradition, a lack of evidence-based proof for decisions and a whole lot taken on faith and trust?  I think it absurd that a missionary organisation like the St. Petroc Paruchia does not disseminate it's prayer book far and wide, accepting that while some nutters might claim to be using it in their heterodox situation, that there must be many more for whom the book would be a useful tool in evangelism.  Byzantine rite liturgical books are freely available to buy on the web and in stores, and there a free prayer book downloads.  Why can't you do the same or at least have an online store selling it on one of your many websites?

For heavens sake send one to Fr. Adrian and Fr. Ambrose and be done with it and allow two clearly insightful minds to contribute to the debate. I challenge you to share it with them, as a gesture of brotherly sharing. For myself Ari I am weary of the debate and invective and know that I am better employed in weeding my soul of sins and cleaning the altar nicely in my parish church than in trying to make sense of the place of the western-rite in God's scheme for His Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 14, 2010, 08:37:49 AM
Yes, please don't assume - and no, you don't have to use "scare quotes" with my name. It isn't a psuedonym - I don't, and never have used such a thing as psuedonyms.

I've had long contacts with the ACC and other Continuing groups: attended for years. Came close to joining them as well as the Anglicans themselves at an earlier time - was in 'intercommunion' with the Anglicans as an Old Catholic. From the Anglican perspective, the ACC are vagantes and schismatics. Yes - ROCOR has dialogue with the ACC - and other Continuing groups, some closer to Orthodoxy than the ACC (such as the HCC-AR.) We have dialogue with other vagante groups as well - Old Catholic, even some deriving from the Eastern tradition. I've never really been isolated from the English tradition - not in the sense that some want to consider it 'theirs' and the rest of us nothing to do with English Christendom and its heritage.

So - on the contrary, your experience does not make you a nuanced judge of the western rite in Orthodoxy. Your victimhood in the Protestant Anglican Church has *nothing* at all to do with Western Orthodoxy. What the Anglicans do doesn't reflect on the Western rite Orthodoxy - or vice versa for that matter.

I've been involved with the Western Rite ROCOR folk in Tasmania for over a decade now (and, I know for a fact there are more than 4 in Hobart. Sometimes you have low attendance. Sometimes you don't - but I happen to know a number of the people there - more than I've had here, and we've been a dozen at our highest.)

And, yes - I'm party to what you've written for quite awhile. I was initially in the Society of Saint Tikhon (then kicked out, then added back in - gave up finally.) My wife is still friends with you, and often voices her frustrations to me over your conversations. ;-)

However - and I am aware of your history with the sexually abused - and came across your media interview long before I met you online. I'm very sorry for your suffering. I'm very glad your marriage survived as well. I'm happy to say I'm still married to the only one I've ever been married to - and have never had relations with any other. My children have not been abused, and I'm very watchful for that. All parents should be vigilant - even in churches. But - it creates more problems to project onto innocent people faults that they do not own. I too have a keen sense of justice - not from trauma, but as part of my personality.

As for the Byzantine rite having produced 'more' than the Western rite: apples and oranges. The largest Orthodox communities are still ethnic chaplaincies in the diaspora. There are signs that might be changing - hopeful sings - and the Western rite is one of them. There certainly is not any evidence that the Byzantine rite is more successful for converting Westerners. We have clergy in the UK and US lamenting how many converts simply fall away - and that all in the Byzantine rite. Very few are able to do as you do, and come back yet again. We're losing the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation 'cradle' Orthodox as well.

I am aware of the struggles of the Russian community in Hobart. You cannot rejuvenate it by tearing down other's communities. (I know about the nun too - traded emails too a long time ago. You are not the only one to mention her to me within the past few months.)

As for scholastic rigor - we do have that. There is solid scholarship behind our uses - Dom Augustine had multiple degrees in theology. His work provides the basis for the rest of our work. But, it is scholarship *within* Tradition - not mere 'faith and trust'. But - we *do* have tradition - we are not Protestants. Our scholarship, however, disagrees with the scholarship of others who want to change our use. We don't need to send books to whom you request - for the sake of Heaven, their sakes, or your sake. There is more going on there than you are privy too - and it is a 'trust issue'. That will take some work .. and that won't happen on a public forum. There is no reason to engage with everyone who considers themselves the 'greatest expert either' - certainly not with the ecclesiastical equivalents of Time Cube. I do think that we have had two great problems: no officially moderated direct communication between all parties in the Western rite, and secondly - nothing done to counter the bad-PR created by external campaigns against some in the Western rite. That, again, isn't going to be solved on this forum either.

You definitely don't have to get your head in "Sarum world" (wherever that might be. We could start a Wiltshire amusement park maybe?) But - you do realize that you are doing all this prodding and cajoling in forums dedicated to the Western rite? My head is in my heart - my heart is in the heart of the Church - and I exist in the 21st c. Anglosphere. That's where my 'head' is. Sarum is just a town some of my ancestors are from - where the pre-schism uses of Wessex were codified into a rite that would have an importance in the West that rite of Constantinople would come to have in the East.

Ari

"Aristibule" you have a remarkable knowledge of the Church in Tasmania for an American - or perhaps I am incorrect in assuming that you are American. What made you qualified to judge the ACC which in Anglican terms at least was formed out of the 1978 Congress of St. Louis by Episcopalian bishops who consecrated new bishops opposed to the ordination of women? Vagante in whose terms?  All Anglicans are heterodox - outside the Church, but to conservative Anglicans the ACC is not vagante, and ROCOR has dialogue with the ACC. You also do NOT know my attitude from earlier in the year - one could be excused for thinking that someone else - who also does not know my mind was writing this under your name. But,"Ari", let me say in all sincerity that I regret any offences given in the debate with the Western-rite advocates.
...
My experience of western Christianity makes me a very nuanced judge of the Western-rite because I guess the Western-rite which has so much Anglican-ness about it pushes buttons about my own history and trauma.  Little wonder that I prefer the security of a Byzantine temple to the Western-rite. I also know that sexual abuse has occurred in Orthodox Churches and in the Byzantine rite. Again for any offences, please forgive me.
...
For heavens sake send one to Fr. Adrian and Fr. Ambrose and be done with it and allow two clearly insightful minds to contribute to the debate. I challenge you to share it with them, as a gesture of brotherly sharing. For myself Ari I am weary of the debate and invective and know that I am better employed in weeding my soul of sins and cleaning the altar nicely in my parish church than in trying to get my head in your Sarum world.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 14, 2010, 10:01:29 AM
Yes, please don't assume - and no, you don't have to use "scare quotes" with my name. It isn't a psuedonym - I don't, and never have used such a thing as psuedonyms.
What is a scare quote Ari?  No idea what you mean.

Quote
I've had long contacts with the ACC and other Continuing groups: attended for years. Came close to joining them as well as the Anglicans themselves at an earlier time - was in 'intercommunion' with the Anglicans as an Old Catholic. From the Anglican perspective, the ACC are vagantes and schismatics. Yes - ROCOR has dialogue with the ACC - and other Continuing groups, some closer to Orthodoxy than the ACC (such as the HCC-AR.) We have dialogue with other vagante groups as well - Old Catholic, even some deriving from the Eastern tradition. I've never really been isolated from the English tradition - not in the sense that some want to consider it 'theirs' and the rest of us nothing to do with English Christendom and its heritage.

So - on the contrary, your experience does not make you a nuanced judge of the western rite in Orthodoxy. Your victimhood in the Protestant Anglican Church has *nothing* at all to do with Western Orthodoxy. What the Anglicans do doesn't reflect on the Western rite Orthodoxy - or vice versa for that matter.
Ari when you are seeking to bring ANGLICANS to Orthodoxy as in your Forward in Orthodox Faith blogspot page, Anglican history, culture and people do impact on Orthodoxy. You say that Byzantine rite jurisdictions in the West are only ethnic chaplaincies.  In part this is true but it denies the reality that Greeks in Australia are Greek AUSTRALIANS, Russians are Russian AUSTRALIANS and Anglos are Anglo-AUSTRALIANS.  The Australian Diocese of ROCOR is in Australia, prays for HM the Queen and is as Australian in essence as it is Russian.  We have Anglo-Australian priests, English liturgies, English books...... Going to an English ROCOR service is culturally Australian to me. 

Quote
I've been involved with the Western Rite ROCOR folk in Tasmania for over a decade now (and, I know for a fact there are more than 4 in Hobart. Sometimes you have low attendance. Sometimes you don't - but I happen to know a number of the people there - more than I've had here, and we've been a dozen at our highest.)

A
However - and I am aware of your history with the sexually abused - and came across your media interview long before I met you online. I'm very sorry for your suffering. I'm very glad your marriage survived as well. I'm happy to say I'm still married to the only one I've ever been married to - and have never had relations with any other. My children have not been abused, and I'm very watchful for that. All parents should be vigilant - even in churches. But - it creates more problems to project onto innocent people faults that they do not own. I too have a keen sense of justice - not from trauma, but as part of my personality.
Thank you.  May the Lord preserve your family from such traumas.

Quote
As for the Byzantine rite having produced 'more' than the Western rite: apples and oranges. The largest Orthodox communities are still ethnic chaplaincies in the diaspora. There are signs that might be changing - hopeful sings - and the Western rite is one of them. There certainly is not any evidence that the Byzantine rite is more successful for converting Westerners. We have clergy in the UK and US lamenting how many converts simply fall away - and that all in the Byzantine rite. Very few are able to do as you do, and come back yet again. We're losing the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation 'cradle' Orthodox as well.

I am aware of the struggles of the Russian community in Hobart. You cannot rejuvenate it by tearing down other's communities. (I know about the nun too - traded emails too a long time ago. You are not the only one to mention her to me within the past few months.)
Tearing down is very strong Ari.  I wish the WR well.  I hope Hieromonk Michael (Mansbridge-Wood) gets to hang up his bags and be a monk in a monastery in his remaining years, to write, to pray and to be a living monastic witness, because younger priests have taken up the missionary work.  It seems such a pity that your monasteries in the main are really like mission stations, not places for the laity to come and pray the monastic cycle with a monastic community

Quote
As for scholastic rigor - we do have that. There is solid scholarship behind our uses - Dom Augustine had multiple degrees in theology. His work provides the basis for the rest of our work. But, it is scholarship *within* Tradition - not mere 'faith and trust'. But - we *do* have tradition - we are not Protestants. Our scholarship, however, disagrees with the scholarship of others who want to change our use. We don't need to send books to whom you request - for the sake of Heaven, their sakes, or your sake. There is more going on there than you are privy too - and it is a 'trust issue'. That will take some work .. and that won't happen on a public forum. There is no reason to engage with everyone who considers themselves the 'greatest expert either' - certainly not with the ecclesiastical equivalents of Time Cube. I do think that we have had two great problems: no officially moderated direct communication between all parties in the Western rite, and secondly - nothing done to counter the bad-PR created by external campaigns against some in the Western rite. That, again, isn't going to be solved on this forum either.
"Ecclesiastical time cube?" What on earth do you mean.  I am not asking to know the great politics to which you are privy to - Fr. Aidan asked for a St Colman Prayer Book and I think you should be courteous enough to a brother-priest and a scholar to send him one.

Quote
You definitely don't have to get your head in "Sarum world" (wherever that might be. We could start a Wiltshire amusement park maybe?) But - you do realize that you are doing all this prodding and cajoling in forums dedicated to the Western rite? My head is in my heart - my heart is in the heart of the Church - and I exist in the 21st c. Anglosphere. That's where my 'head' is. Sarum is just a town some of my ancestors are from - where the pre-schism uses of Wessex were codified into a rite that would have an importance in the West that rite of Constantinople would come to have in the East.
What is the Anglosphere?  Western culture is not homogeneous.  Continental Europe is culturally very different to the British Isles and all of it is very different to the US which is very diffreent from Australia and the British Commonwealth Anglo nations.  Surely what you need is local WR Churches - a British WR Church, an American WR Church, an Australian WR Church, with your own bishops, under our First Hierarch, but nonetheless distinctive WR local Churches that reflect that Tulsa Arizona is as alien to Hobart as you may  claim Ekaterinberg is to both of us.

The WR needs to be careful lest it take on Anglo-ethnocentrism because I am sure the French WR, the Italian WR are not in any way in the Anglosphere.  Moreover the English and Americans have a lot of people in Europe and the Near East feeling that we retain Anglo-ethnic superiority, a residue of colonial days when we looked down on "continentals" and Slavs what to speak of what used to be called "Levantines".
Quote
Ari

"Aristibule" you have a remarkable knowledge of the Church in Tasmania for an American - or perhaps I am incorrect in assuming that you are American. What made you qualified to judge the ACC which in Anglican terms at least was formed out of the 1978 Congress of St. Louis by Episcopalian bishops who consecrated new bishops opposed to the ordination of women? Vagante in whose terms?  All Anglicans are heterodox - outside the Church, but to conservative Anglicans the ACC is not vagante, and ROCOR has dialogue with the ACC. You also do NOT know my attitude from earlier in the year - one could be excused for thinking that someone else - who also does not know my mind was writing this under your name. But,"Ari", let me say in all sincerity that I regret any offences given in the debate with the Western-rite advocates.
...
My experience of western Christianity makes me a very nuanced judge of the Western-rite because I guess the Western-rite which has so much Anglican-ness about it pushes buttons about my own history and trauma.  Little wonder that I prefer the security of a Byzantine temple to the Western-rite. I also know that sexual abuse has occurred in Orthodox Churches and in the Byzantine rite. Again for any offences, please forgive me.
...
For heavens sake send one to Fr. Adrian and Fr. Ambrose and be done with it and allow two clearly insightful minds to contribute to the debate. I challenge you to share it with them, as a gesture of brotherly sharing. For myself Ari I am weary of the debate and invective and know that I am better employed in weeding my soul of sins and cleaning the altar nicely in my parish church than in trying to get my head in your Sarum world.


Fixed quotes and color, please follow the typical forum posting styles.
-Arimethea
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 14, 2010, 10:37:18 AM
Scare quotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

No need for them with my name - I am quite literally me.

Forward in Orthodox Faith is for Western Christians in general - part of it addresses questions that Anglicans have fielded to us, some to Catholics, and the rest to others. But, no - converting Anglicans to Western rite Orthodox does not mean that we are bringing in Anglican Protestantism, sexual abuse, or any other number of negative things. There is a process of *conversion* there. It isn't bringing anything into the Church but people. Even people like me - sons of John Wesley and Arnold Harris Mathew.

I'm not too worried about the Australian question. My experience is more with the UK, Canada, and US. Many Tasmanians (and even some in other parts of Australia) are indeed Anglo-Celtic: many Australians have deep and close ties to the British Isles. Sure you're Australian, they're Australian - everyone is Australia is Australian. I know Cypriot Australians. Australia isn't America - we know that full well in the US. Some Australians tell me that many Australians tend to forget that they are not Americans. Not every American is an American - its not all that clear, because the two countries are not analogous - even if some parts have similarity to some in the other country. However - there is still a cultural familiarity across the Anglosphere (the English speaking countries deriving from Britain.) Something that Extreme Nationalism with its Anglophobia (or Amerophobia) cannot erase. And parts of the US are more like Canada, parts are more like the UK, parts are like Australia.

That some of us in the Western rite *are* English does not automatically mean some sort of 'Anglocentrism' is involved. ROCOR WRITE is also involved in Latin America, the East Indies, the Continent of Europe ... we have Portuguese, Hispanics, Italians, French, and more. Just because some of us are English or Anglo doesn't automatically mean that we are somehow 'too ethnic'. We in the paruchia don't represent all of the WRITE, have never intended to - we have our 'area of focus' - which is our home. Some convert through Byzantine rites because of Russophilia, Hellenophilia, or other 'philias' - some have other reasons to convert: theological reasons are good. I find Anglophilia rather rare in the Western rite - so no danger of Anglocentrism. Being Anglo means that Anglophilia just isn't going to happen. Anglo-culture is simply what we're in - with all its good points, and bad points. No more than Russians have to be 'Russophiles' to be Orthodox. They are simply Russian Orthodox.

Time Cube: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

Surely what you need is local WR Churches - a British WR Church, an American WR Church, an Australian WR Church, with your own bishops, under our First Hierarch, but nonetheless distinctive WR local Churches that reflect that Tulsa Arizona is as alien to Hobart as you may  claim Ekaterinberg is to both of us.


Agreed - though I am not aware that there is a Tulsa, Arizona. We're talking 'Church time' though - that might take awhile to get there. Though I doubt Hobart is all that alien. I don't find most of the US alien - and it immense and extremely diverse, nor Canada, nor Southern England and South Wales. Ireland was more foreign than the UK or Canada - but I'd still move to Dublin in a flash. Mexico - yeah, that was a little alien - and Panama as well (though I think Panama is one of the most beautiful places in the world.) What I do find alien is liberalism/modernism - that's something else entirely though.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 14, 2010, 04:46:06 PM

No need for them with my name - I am quite literally me.

I hope you are you and not someone else.  Powerful things names and their meaning.  Aristibule is a statement of faith in Orthodox history and I imagine extremely rare today.  I imagine you get lots of people in the States saying "how do you spell that?" 

I notice in some of the Paruchian blogs and websites that there is both Hieromonk Michael (Mansbridge-Wood), and that is what Vladyka used in his Ukaze allocating the UK and Australia to him and the US and Canada to Dom David, but there is also Fr. Michael (Wood) or Hieromonk Michael (Wood).  Now I assume that the use of the "Mansbridge" is something that one can drop if one wants to be culturally more relevant to Americans, rather than using the double-hinged moniker.  What indeed is in a name?

I don't think that Anglicans coming to WR or to the Byzantine rite bring with them child abuse - although in my view eternal vigilance is required and I would hope that the Church in every diocese has National police checks on all clergy, employees and volunteers.

Again fixing quotes, please quote properly. Please refer to the http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20616.0.html to learn how to quote.
-Arimethea


 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 14, 2010, 09:56:31 PM

I am the American contact for the Saint Colman Prayer Book.


I was very surprised by what seems to be your refusal (in your subsequent messages) to supply a copy to Fr Aidan, surely a man whose credentials in working to restore WR worship to the Church are impressive.

What on earth is it about the Saint Colman Prayer Book that makes you refuse to let him see a copy?  You seem ashamed of it?  I see from reading a subsequent message that you say it is the work of Metropolitan Hilarion and Hieromonk Michael and the responsibility for the SCPB falls upon the shoulders of the Metropolitan.  Surely the Metropolitan would not have headed a liturgical project which is at all shonky and surely he has not instructed you not to allow it to be seen by the rest of the WR clergy of the Russian Church Abroad  !?  What you are writing is decidedly odd and I am sure you have misunderstood the Metropolitan.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 14, 2010, 11:00:38 PM
Its not my place to give or refuse. And I'll not argue about it. I just find it hard to imagine that Christians can dream up so many negative implications to something so simple. Bullying someone to steal a copy of a book? *conversation over*   ???
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 14, 2010, 11:20:49 PM
Its not my place to give or refuse. And I'll not argue about it. I just find it hard to imagine that Christians can dream up so many negative implications to something so simple. Bullying someone to steal a copy of a book? *conversation over*   ???
Who is being bullied to STEAL a copy of the St. Colman Prayer Book (SCPB) or even the Shorter St. Colman Prayer Book (SSCPB)?  You are claiming Ari that the Western-rite is deserving of restoration to a place of honour in the Church, and in the lives of Western Europeans, British and others. I assume that Hieromonk Michael (Mansbridge-Wood) very genuinely believes that the SCPB and SSCPB is a better or more appropriate WRO prayer book than what is being used by Dom David and others in the United States, although I assume that the new St. Petroc  US 48 acre monastery will use the SCPB.  If it has the imprimateur of His Eminence the First Hierarch then it ought to be available not only to the Petrochian Paruchia, but to the wider Western-rite in the US in ROCOR and the Antiochian WR Vicariate and yes, to us in the Byzantine rite too. Frankly it should be sold through the St. John of Kronstadt press and other Russian Orthodox web-sales sites.

If it is a superior prayer book then please share it with a scholar like Fr. Aidan whose only interest is liturgics and the Orthodox faith and is not into the politics that you clearly imply is the motive of those who want to see your prayer book. Please note I am not in any way impugning the SCPB or SSCPB or it's chief author or anyone else who collaborated on it. So I am asking that you share it in Christian charity.

Personally I'd like the opportunity to appreciate the SCPB and the SSCPB on their merits.  Who knows - I might feel a greater connection with the Western-rite but none of us can appreciate the liturgical gem if the book is not available to all but initiates in the Paruchia.  I'd actually welcome the chance to attend the St. Petroc Monastery and pray the hours with the WRO community on a quiet day or retreat, but the defensiveness in regard to the SCPB and SSCPB is not even ecumenical to the Byzantine rite. Did the Church of England folk who attended the Petrochian Western-rite Mass in St. Magnus the Martyr get to see a copy, or buy one?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 14, 2010, 11:22:16 PM
Its not my place to give or refuse. And I'll not argue about it. I just find it hard to imagine that Christians can dream up so many negative implications to something so simple.

Why did you say "I am the American contact for the Saint Colman Prayer Book" and now say that you cannot supply it to a Western Rite priest of the same Church as yourself?  

If anything is negative it is your refusal to carry through with what you said you were able to do.

There is something very interesting about this particular prayer book when it creates such secrecy and mystery.

By way of contrast the prayer books and service books created by Far Aidan for the WR are all on public sale with the blessing of Metropolitan Hilarion and he has blessed their reprinting.

Quote
Bullying someone to steal a copy of a book? *conversation over*   ???

I don't know who, if anybody, has been bullied into stealing a copy.  I think you may be fantasising?  But the very fact that you have such fears confirms what we are starting to think, that there is something decidedly odd about this prayer book.  Has the Metropolitan had second thoughts about having led the liturgical group which created it and has he forbidden its distribution?

You don't have to answer any of that.  We are beginning to realise that you wish to shroud the Saint Colman Prayer Book in secrecy.  Most odd!

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aristibule on December 15, 2010, 12:18:26 AM
The Metropolitan has blessed the Saint Colman Prayer Book for distribution - and it is quite public. That is not what I can distribute. It isn't forbidden in any case. However, there are limited copies of the Shorter SCPB and a list of who gets them already. Those who have already judged it without seeing it - they don't need a copy. Clergy not on the list are referred to Fr. Michael, as he can find easier ways of getting the material to them.

And - no secrecy and mystery. By way of contrast - no one is making money off of these books, no one is promoting them as 'the greatest thing ever'. It is just quite clear who is working to destroy Western rite. They'll say evil things if they don't have the book - and evil things if they do have the book. The difference is that those who don't know better are more likely to believe someone who says 'I have the book, and X is wrong with it' - even when that is a lie. So, certain people are not going to be sent the book. Then at least we can say 'How would they know? Here's the book.' It wouldn't be a help to anyone to do otherwise. Especially when those demanding a copy admit to having never served Western rite, and not knowing enough to serve it - but want to claim expertise in judging it? Or giving spiritual advice unasked on a forum, interfering in spiritual matters between a bishop and his people? Or when they have proven over time that anything they get ahold of will be twisted into a negative presentation?

The conversation always comes down to this point - the usual suspects clamoring for blood, and the end of Western rite. IF they have to set Western rite against Western rite, they'll do it. Take one down, then they can turn on the other. I think some will be surprised when they find themselves next for 'dinner'.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 15, 2010, 12:55:55 AM
The Metropolitan has blessed the Saint Colman Prayer Book for distribution - and it is quite public. That is not what I can distribute. It isn't forbidden in any case. However, there are limited copies of the Shorter SCPB and a list of who gets them already. Those who have already judged it without seeing it - they don't need a copy. Clergy not on the list are referred to Fr. Michael, as he can find easier ways of getting the material to them.

And - no secrecy and mystery. By way of contrast - no one is making money off of these books, no one is promoting them as 'the greatest thing ever'. It is just quite clear who is working to destroy Western rite. They'll say evil things if they don't have the book - and evil things if they do have the book. The difference is that those who don't know better are more likely to believe someone who says 'I have the book, and X is wrong with it' - even when that is a lie. So, certain people are not going to be sent the book. Then at least we can say 'How would they know? Here's the book.' It wouldn't be a help to anyone to do otherwise. Especially when those demanding a copy admit to having never served Western rite, and not knowing enough to serve it - but want to claim expertise in judging it? Or giving spiritual advice unasked on a forum, interfering in spiritual matters between a bishop and his people? Or when they have proven over time that anything they get ahold of will be twisted into a negative presentation?

The conversation always comes down to this point - the usual suspects clamoring for blood, and the end of Western rite. IF they have to set Western rite against Western rite, they'll do it. Take one down, then they can turn on the other. I think some will be surprised when they find themselves next for 'dinner'.


So you weren't joking !!  The only way for most people to see a copy does seem to be to send someone to steal one!!  LOL!  I take it from your earlier message that this has been happening already.  I suppose it is a compliment in a way.  Maybe they could be electronically tagged for recovery by the book police.  :laugh: :police:

It's kind of weird when you say that people in possession of a copy can use it to destroy Western Rite.  Hundreds of people have copies of Fr Aidan's Prayer Book and there have been no reports to date of attempts to sabotage WR with it. 

Coming to a parish near you.....
(http://www.visionaustralia.org/images/services/The-Book-Thief-box-cover.jpg)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 15, 2010, 01:04:47 AM

Especially when those demanding a copy admit to having never served Western rite, and not knowing enough to serve it -


I believe I am still quite capable of celebrating a Missa pro Defunctis, and in Latin, if you would ever like me to do that (and if the Metropolitan blesses it.)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 15, 2010, 01:10:51 AM
The Metropolitan has blessed the Saint Colman Prayer Book for distribution - and it is quite public. That is not what I can distribute. It isn't forbidden in any case. However, there are limited copies of the Shorter SCPB and a list of who gets them already. Those who have already judged it without seeing it - they don't need a copy. Clergy not on the list are referred to Fr. Michael, as he can find easier ways of getting the material to them.

And - no secrecy and mystery. By way of contrast - no one is making money off of these books, no one is promoting them as 'the greatest thing ever'. It is just quite clear who is working to destroy Western rite. They'll say evil things if they don't have the book - and evil things if they do have the book. The difference is that those who don't know better are more likely to believe someone who says 'I have the book, and X is wrong with it' - even when that is a lie. So, certain people are not going to be sent the book. Then at least we can say 'How would they know? Here's the book.' It wouldn't be a help to anyone to do otherwise. Especially when those demanding a copy admit to having never served Western rite, and not knowing enough to serve it - but want to claim expertise in judging it? Or giving spiritual advice unasked on a forum, interfering in spiritual matters between a bishop and his people? Or when they have proven over time that anything they get ahold of will be twisted into a negative presentation?

The conversation always comes down to this point - the usual suspects clamoring for blood, and the end of Western rite. IF they have to set Western rite against Western rite, they'll do it. Take one down, then they can turn on the other. I think some will be surprised when they find themselves next for 'dinner'.


Ari I am neither clamouring for blood or having a go!  Let me say again.  I do not want the Western-rite to fail and I wish the missionary work of Hieromonk Michael (Mansbridge-Wood) and his confreres every success and blessing from God.  I do not prefer the Western-rite because my heart and soul and intellect are drawn to the Apostolic traditions of the Byzantine rite.  I also accept that sometimes I and others could be less confrontational and more demonstrably respectful of the very sincere efforts of the St. Petroc spiritual tradition and spiritual family to share Orthodoxy in a western way.  

Wanting to understand source material like the St. Colman Prayer Book is not oppositional.  One cannot understand what one has not seen or read or experienced.  I understand also that the SCPB and SSCPB fit into the wider schema of WRO liturgical life, but I stand by what I said.  I assume that the author(s) of the SCPB and SSCPB are happy with the work, happy with it's authenticity (with the imprimateur of the First Hierarch) and I cannot understand why you think that it is automatically going to be challenged, misconstrued or used by opponents of the WR and of the St. Petroc Paruchia.

Perhaps it would be more useful to put on the table the fact that the WR is not universally well-regarded, whether in error or not, and to work at building bridges, of selling the message of the WR to the Byzantine-rite, of concelebrating with Byzantine-rite clergy, in inviting the Byzantine faithful to come and pray and get a blessing.  A priest is a priest and the Liturgy (or mass in western language) is equally valid in both rites for Byzantine and Western-rite priests and faithful. Build bridges rather than withdraw.

In life we value relationships. It is clearly regrettable that there is so much distrust between Byzantine and WR.  If the Western-rite is separate, especially in a defensive way, no positive relationships are built.  Good-will is required from both sides. Mutual prayer is required from both sides of the debate.  Access to material such as the SCPB and SSCPB should be a given even to those who are inimical.  I have an Anglican Breviary, a Benedictine Monastic Diurnal, St. Dunstan's Plainsong Psalter, a number of editions of the Book of Common Prayer, the Lancelot Andrewes WR BCP and more.  Not everything in them is Orthodox but while there may be things I disagree with, I value the piety with which they were written, crafted and prayed, and I treasure having them. I would extend the same respect to the St. Colman Prayer Book, and hope one day to actually have one.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: stashko on December 15, 2010, 01:15:31 AM


Fr. Bless, Which Of the rites eastern or western do you prefer now ...I could understand  you  being Irish, and raised into the western rite, that it could be more nearer to your heart....



Especially when those demanding a copy admit to having never served Western rite, and not knowing enough to serve it -


I believe I am still quite capable of celebrating a Missa pro Defunctis, and in Latin, if you would ever like me to do that (and if the Metropolitan blesses it.)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 15, 2010, 01:27:44 AM
St. John of Shanghai & San Francisco blessed l'Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe de France or ECOF.  That it largely fell over into schism was perhaps because it was before it's time in the neophyte world of a western-rite revival.  Nonetheless I think that establishing national jurisdictions of the western-rite in individual countries with their own diocese and deaneries, with their own bishops sitting under the omophor of the Chief Hierarch will be the way of the future.  Ultimately that may mean an autocephalous or autonomous Church, maintaining a connection with the Mother Russian Church, rather like than North American Metropolia aka OCA but clearly and uniquely reflecting the western-rite tradition and local cultures of their own countries. It is impossible for example to imagine a Western-rite in which Latin does not have some place, as it does at Christminster in the US.  Latin is part of the soul of Western Christianity.

Do I think that the WR will overtake the missionary endeavours of the Russian and Greek and other Orthodox Churches?  Not at all.  Nonetheless let me be on the record of saying that I believe that the western-rite fulfils a place in the schema of Orthodoxy, albeit to a very small and niche market, but one that is clearly growing, especially in the United States. Do I think that there is rivalry between Byzantine and Western-rite for converts?  Certainly, there is.  The undoubted success of the Byzantine-rite in many ways is a model for the neophyte and very small, but growing Western-rite.  No doubt there are mistakes made by the Byzantine that can be avoided.

Do I think that the Western-rite is the natural place for Western Orthodox Christians?  For some yes, but the very successes of the Russian, Antiochian and Greek Churches, and the Serbs too predicates that there is a very real synergy between Western people who are spiritually seeking, and the Byzantine rite.  What worked for Prince Vladimir in Constantinople will continue to win souls to Byzantine rite Orthodoxy.  
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on December 15, 2010, 03:21:03 AM

Especially when those demanding a copy admit to having never served Western rite, and not knowing enough to serve it -


I believe I am still quite capable of celebrating a Missa pro Defunctis, and in Latin, if you would ever like me to do that (and if the Metropolitan blesses it.)

Just out of curiosity, have you ever asked your Metropolitan if he'd allow you to celebrate a (WR) mass sometimes? I know, services of the Church are not something to be played with. But if I was a priest and grown up with Latin tradition I certainly had a temptation to try WR sometimes. Fortunately I'm not a priest. :angel:
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 15, 2010, 03:33:01 AM

Especially when those demanding a copy admit to having never served Western rite, and not knowing enough to serve it -


I believe I am still quite capable of celebrating a Missa pro Defunctis, and in Latin, if you would ever like me to do that (and if the Metropolitan blesses it.)

Just out of curiosity, have you ever asked your Metropolitan if he'd allow you to celebrate a (WR) mass sometimes? I know, services of the Church are not something to be played with. But if I was a priest and grown up with Latin tradition I certainly had a temptation to try WR sometimes. Fortunately I'm not a priest. :angel:


Years ago I asked him about serving the Lorrha Liturgy for a few major Irish Saints' days of the year and he was agreeable.  Of course I am a purist and would have done this in Latin.  But I confess I was overwhelmed by the logistics of arranging it and so it has never come to pass. 

Speaking of things Irish, I have a copy of Saint John Chrysostom in Irish, translated by Archimandrite Sergei Keleher who serves it at Saint Kevin's pro-cathedral in Dublin. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on December 15, 2010, 10:56:10 AM
The Metropolitan has blessed the Saint Colman Prayer Book for distribution - and it is quite public. That is not what I can distribute. It isn't forbidden in any case. However, there are limited copies of the Shorter SCPB and a list of who gets them already. Those who have already judged it without seeing it - they don't need a copy. Clergy not on the list are referred to Fr. Michael, as he can find easier ways of getting the material to them.

And - no secrecy and mystery. By way of contrast - no one is making money off of these books, no one is promoting them as 'the greatest thing ever'. It is just quite clear who is working to destroy Western rite. They'll say evil things if they don't have the book - and evil things if they do have the book. The difference is that those who don't know better are more likely to believe someone who says 'I have the book, and X is wrong with it' - even when that is a lie. So, certain people are not going to be sent the book. Then at least we can say 'How would they know? Here's the book.' It wouldn't be a help to anyone to do otherwise. Especially when those demanding a copy admit to having never served Western rite, and not knowing enough to serve it - but want to claim expertise in judging it? Or giving spiritual advice unasked on a forum, interfering in spiritual matters between a bishop and his people? Or when they have proven over time that anything they get ahold of will be twisted into a negative presentation?

The conversation always comes down to this point - the usual suspects clamoring for blood, and the end of Western rite. IF they have to set Western rite against Western rite, they'll do it. Take one down, then they can turn on the other. I think some will be surprised when they find themselves next for 'dinner'.


I haven't followed this thread for a week or so. What happened? Suddenly, it's become a dark place of paranoia and ad personam accusations.

There are a number of sources for the shorter St. Colman's Prayer Book. But I can't understand how a person can advocate for something and then refuse to make it available. The book edited by Fr. Aidan, for example, is quite readily available. So anyone with a reasonably open mind can make his own judgment. Why not do the same for the other Western Rite material? Surely, the scarcity of service books would work against anyone forming a clear idea of it, or even of coming to love it, as many of you obviously do?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 15, 2010, 04:58:59 PM

I haven't followed this thread for a week or so. What happened? Suddenly, it's become a dark place of paranoia and ad personam accusations.

There are a number of sources for the shorter St. Colman's Prayer Book. But I can't understand how a person can advocate for something and then refuse to make it available.


The reason for the very restricted distribution may be because the dominant place in this Prayer Book is given to the Book of Common Prayer,  In recent years there has been a strong move among Western Rite people to go back to pre-schism forms of liturgy and possibly the Saint Colman is now a little embarrassing and too BCP for modern taste?

Fr Michael, who is the assistant to the Metropolitan for WR mission in the UK and Australia, appears to confirm that the Saint Colman Prayer Book is an adaptation of the Book of Common Prayer.

He writes...

"In the aftermath of the Church of England's General Synod decision to go right ahead
with bishopesses, and of the shambles that Rowan Williams has managed to make of
Lambeth, it is timely to say out loud to Church of England laity, that there is an alternative
to the pseudo-leadership of the papacy. The Pope is neither the only nor the best way
for members of the Church of England to go!! How many Church of England people realise
that the Western Rite was first authorised for Orthodox use specifically IN ENGLAND over
a hundred and thirty years ago (just after the Primus of Scotland had visited Russia and
discussed unity with Church authorities there - and reported his conversations to the
Convocation of Canterbury)? How many realise that services extracted from the Book of
Common Prayer were authorised for adaption for Orthodox use over a hundred years ago?
Embryo Western Rite parishes/missions can be formed immediately in England (or Scotland
or Wales) and seek immediate Orthodox oversight while they prepare themselves for
formal reception. A Western Rite Orthodox Prayer Book already exists - it is just a matter
of them making contact with us."

This is taken from what Fr Michael wrote on
 http://westernorthodoxchristian.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-letter-to-fr-michael-wood-rocor.html

Other contributors confirm that the Saint Colman Praeyer Book is BCP

"...what you don't mention is that your "English liturgy" is no more than a modified Book of Common Prayer; a sort of "Liturgy of St Tikhon, 2nd Edition".

and

"Some fascinating historical claims made here! My personal favorite claim was "How many realise that services extracted from the Book of Common Prayer were authorised for adaption for Orthodox use over a hundred years ago?" I DEFY YOU, FATHER, TO SHOW ME ONE SERVICE BASED ON THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER THAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE RUSSIAN SYNOD OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. You will not, because they do not exist. If any does, it is certainly not in use now. You can cite the observations, but even those observations are not services, nor are they even being followed."
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on December 16, 2010, 09:18:09 AM

I haven't followed this thread for a week or so. What happened? Suddenly, it's become a dark place of paranoia and ad personam accusations.

There are a number of sources for the shorter St. Colman's Prayer Book. But I can't understand how a person can advocate for something and then refuse to make it available.


The reason for the very restricted distribution may be because the dominant place in this Prayer Book is given to the Book of Common Prayer,  In recent years there has been a strong move among Western Rite people to go back to pre-schism forms of liturgy and possibly the Saint Colman is now a little embarrassing and too BCP for modern taste?

Fr Michael, who is the assistant to the Metropolitan for WR mission in the UK and Australia, appears to confirm that the Saint Colman Prayer Book is an adaptation of the Book of Common Prayer.

He writes...

"In the aftermath of the Church of England's General Synod decision to go right ahead
with bishopesses, and of the shambles that Rowan Williams has managed to make of
Lambeth, it is timely to say out loud to Church of England laity, that there is an alternative
to the pseudo-leadership of the papacy. The Pope is neither the only nor the best way
for members of the Church of England to go!! How many Church of England people realise
that the Western Rite was first authorised for Orthodox use specifically IN ENGLAND over
a hundred and thirty years ago (just after the Primus of Scotland had visited Russia and
discussed unity with Church authorities there - and reported his conversations to the
Convocation of Canterbury)? How many realise that services extracted from the Book of
Common Prayer were authorised for adaption for Orthodox use over a hundred years ago?
Embryo Western Rite parishes/missions can be formed immediately in England (or Scotland
or Wales) and seek immediate Orthodox oversight while they prepare themselves for
formal reception. A Western Rite Orthodox Prayer Book already exists - it is just a matter
of them making contact with us."

This is taken from what Fr Michael wrote on
 http://westernorthodoxchristian.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-letter-to-fr-michael-wood-rocor.html

Other contributors confirm that the Saint Colman Praeyer Book is BCP

"...what you don't mention is that your "English liturgy" is no more than a modified Book of Common Prayer; a sort of "Liturgy of St Tikhon, 2nd Edition".

and

"Some fascinating historical claims made here! My personal favorite claim was "How many realise that services extracted from the Book of Common Prayer were authorised for adaption for Orthodox use over a hundred years ago?" I DEFY YOU, FATHER, TO SHOW ME ONE SERVICE BASED ON THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER THAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE RUSSIAN SYNOD OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. You will not, because they do not exist. If any does, it is certainly not in use now. You can cite the observations, but even those observations are not services, nor are they even being followed."

Which BCP are we talking about?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 16, 2010, 09:25:39 AM

I haven't followed this thread for a week or so. What happened? Suddenly, it's become a dark place of paranoia and ad personam accusations.

There are a number of sources for the shorter St. Colman's Prayer Book. But I can't understand how a person can advocate for something and then refuse to make it available.


The reason for the very restricted distribution may be because the dominant place in this Prayer Book is given to the Book of Common Prayer,  In recent years there has been a strong move among Western Rite people to go back to pre-schism forms of liturgy and possibly the Saint Colman is now a little embarrassing and too BCP for modern taste?

Fr Michael, who is the assistant to the Metropolitan for WR mission in the UK and Australia, appears to confirm that the Saint Colman Prayer Book is an adaptation of the Book of Common Prayer.

He writes...

"In the aftermath of the Church of England's General Synod decision to go right ahead
with bishopesses, and of the shambles that Rowan Williams has managed to make of
Lambeth, it is timely to say out loud to Church of England laity, that there is an alternative
to the pseudo-leadership of the papacy. The Pope is neither the only nor the best way
for members of the Church of England to go!! How many Church of England people realise
that the Western Rite was first authorised for Orthodox use specifically IN ENGLAND over
a hundred and thirty years ago (just after the Primus of Scotland had visited Russia and
discussed unity with Church authorities there - and reported his conversations to the
Convocation of Canterbury)? How many realise that services extracted from the Book of
Common Prayer were authorised for adaption for Orthodox use over a hundred years ago?
Embryo Western Rite parishes/missions can be formed immediately in England (or Scotland
or Wales) and seek immediate Orthodox oversight while they prepare themselves for
formal reception. A Western Rite Orthodox Prayer Book already exists - it is just a matter
of them making contact with us."

This is taken from what Fr Michael wrote on
 http://westernorthodoxchristian.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-letter-to-fr-michael-wood-rocor.html

Other contributors confirm that the Saint Colman Praeyer Book is BCP

"...what you don't mention is that your "English liturgy" is no more than a modified Book of Common Prayer; a sort of "Liturgy of St Tikhon, 2nd Edition".

and

"Some fascinating historical claims made here! My personal favorite claim was "How many realise that services extracted from the Book of Common Prayer were authorised for adaption for Orthodox use over a hundred years ago?" I DEFY YOU, FATHER, TO SHOW ME ONE SERVICE BASED ON THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER THAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE RUSSIAN SYNOD OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. You will not, because they do not exist. If any does, it is certainly not in use now. You can cite the observations, but even those observations are not services, nor are they even being followed."

Which BCP are we talking about?

Although he is a native Australian Fr Michael has a great love of things English and when he came into Orthodoxy he held the high position of Archdeacon of Lambeth for the ARJA, so I imagine he used the 1662.  Others here will have more certain knowledge.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 16, 2010, 09:19:59 PM
I just want to let people know of a question posed in another thread which ties in with this thread but could be easily overlooked.

See message 19

"Orthodox revised Book of Common Prayer"

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24362.msg507791.html#msg507791

The question is posed to Michal but it could well be answered most ably by other WR listmembers, either Fr Michael or Arisitibule.   Fr Michael made a couple of contributions to "Western Rite ROCOR?" a couple of months ago.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 17, 2010, 08:59:12 AM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.

What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so. There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter. Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on December 17, 2010, 09:37:41 AM
So modern WR is against Holy Spirit's guidance. So, is it pastorally unwise, heresy, liturgical abuse or something else? One cannot attain theosis through WR? Bread and wine remain Bread and wine in WR masses?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on December 17, 2010, 11:30:53 AM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.

What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so. There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter. Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.


I agree with this very strongly. In a few days we'll sing at Great Compline the text from Isaiah: "God is with us! Understand all ye nations, and submit yourselves!" Our liturgy isn't simply a nice way of observing the Lord's supper. Besides being very beautiful (for whatever my aesthetic opinion may be worth), we're taught that it is "true theology." But I also feel when a person seeks God's truth in the Orthodox faith, there should be no sense of trying to have one's own way about anything. Many of the posters on this thread seem to be honest and humble people, and I don't want to presume to know their motives. I just can't imagine asking or expecting the church to give me something different from the liturgy it's been serving for all these long centuries.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 17, 2010, 04:34:30 PM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.

What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so. There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter. Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.


I agree with this very strongly. In a few days we'll sing at Great Compline the text from Isaiah: "God is with us! Understand all ye nations, and submit yourselves!" Our liturgy isn't simply a nice way of observing the Lord's supper. Besides being very beautiful (for whatever my aesthetic opinion may be worth), we're taught that it is "true theology." But I also feel when a person seeks God's truth in the Orthodox faith, there should be no sense of trying to have one's own way about anything. Many of the posters on this thread seem to be honest and humble people, and I don't want to presume to know their motives. I just can't imagine asking or expecting the church to give me something different from the liturgy it's been serving for all these long centuries.
This idea of submitting to God and doing so through the Church is fundamental to the Orthodox faith.  There is in my view a huge difference between eastern and western in both rite and culture especially the level of understanding that liturgy equals true theology.  The liturgy as the vehicle for disseminating the faith is critical and the weakness of the western-rite liturgical movement is that it focuses on local preferences.  Almost every Western-rite monastery use different liturgical rites - some more Latin in tone, others call it Sarum, others Orthodox-ise the BCP.  One has to ask why so many versions of the Western-rite? 

Hieromonk Ambrose (Young) wrote: T"the great challenge for Orthodoxy in the near future is not to find new and better ways of adapting to the dominant culture by assimilation and thus becoming "relevant"; the challenge is to establish and maintain genuine continuity with the Saints and Fathers of the past. This means more education, for ignorance of the Faith among many Orthodox today is appalling and is the single greatest factor in the crisis we are now facing."


It seems to me that our task needs to be not to demand rites that suit our version of our western history - especially if those versions sanitise the Great Schism - the separation of all of Western Europe from the faith through their schism and slide into heterodoxy. Surely we western converts need to distrust our own attraction to the history of our nations, of our western-culture which produced heterodoxy and has become spiritually bankrupt?

Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna wrote: We see that the psychology of the Orthodox Fathers, far more complex and expansive than the psychologies of contemporary social scientists, frightfully challenges the limitations of the Western intellect, truncated as that intellect is by its mentalistic and spiritualistic poverty. This is especially true for Western converts to Eastern and for Christians born into the Orthodox Church but raised in the West. They intuitively realize, when they are painfully honest with themselves, that the Orthodox world of the spirit, in the Orthodox theological system, is integrally bound up with the world of the Orthodox mind. To be Orthodox is not just to hold a belief; it is to have a psychology, a peculiar psychology which blends what one believes with the way that one behaves and thinks. It becomes suddenly apparent, In the process of honest self-analysis, that Orthodox belief and Western behavior and patterns of thinking are not fundamentally compatible.

The Westerner, whether Orthodox or not, must come finally to understand that an acceptance of Orthodox belief is an acceptance of an Orthodox way of thinking, of an Orthodox psychology which formed the great Orthodox empires of Byzantium and Holy Russia, among others. He must come to the sometimes disconcerting conclusion that, despite the inevitable limitations of these Orthodox societies (which polemical heterodox writers have exploited at the cost of the tremendous accomplishments of the empires), they represent the blending of spirit and mind, lifted to the level of the blending of religion and culture, which is the psychology of the Fathers. With this realization there often comes an immediate repulsion, the Westerner musing: "Must I give up my own culture to be Orthodox?" And as often as not, this repulsion gives way to an accusation of philetism against those who properly exalt the classical model of Orthodox society epitomized in the Byzantine and Russian empires. The repulsion prompts a distorted understanding of the principle of accommodation to diverse cultures which is a touchstone of the Orthodox missionary tradition.

This misunderstanding is a further failure to grasp the psychology of the Fathers. Just as the mind and the spirit cannot be separated, so religion and culture, in the Orthodox Weltanschauung, cannot be separated. Virtues are formed by the harmonious interaction of the mind and the spirit, guided by the Divine Will. So, too, a worldly society is exalted and transformed when its culture and religion reflect the Divine Will. As alien as such a concept may be to those whose not on of theocracy is limited to the Papacy or Calvin's Geneva, this reflection is, after all, the triumph towards which every Orthodox society has striven. This reflection is the image of the icon of the earthly realm ascending toward the archetype of the heavenly city. The cultures of the Orthodox Fathers were the joint expressions of their minds, just as the Church, in the great Orthodox empires, was the joint expression of their spirits, the true ekklesia.

Where this psychology prevails, whether among Greeks, Russians, Serbs, or I (perhaps eventually) Americans, it transcends nationality and culture as we commonly understand them. It is a deep expression of Orthodoxy itself, and it is incumbent upon us that we honor and emulate this cultural psychology. It calls us to a vision of the heavenly homeland, moving us away from the mundane into conformity with the spiritual. We give up a culture which is not truly a culture for an internal spiritual sense, for a transformed view of society, for a spiritual culture, as it were. And this is not for us philetism, for philetism exalts the worth of the societies of man, seducing us, in our love for them, to ask if we "must give up our own culture to be Orthodox." To know 'the psychology of an Orthodox society is to know an elemental force in the spiritual evolution of all mankind. It is to enter a realm where philetism cannot be.

It is to no small extent that we see in contemporary Orthodoxy in the West—and, one might venture to say, even to a limited degree in the East, as in the xenophilous fervor of many young intellectuals in Greece today – not only a misunderstanding of the encompassing psychology of the Fathers, but a vehement resistance to it. A new convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, for example, finding little significance in some of the "externals" of more traditional Orthodox worship, recently wrote a friend referring to these liturgical traditions as a preoccupation with "bells and smells." Undoubtedly the writer's feelings were expressed with sincerity and honesty. However, they betray an internal resistance to the notion that the ritualistic practices of the Church transmit, through the transformation of the mind (indeed, of the senses, even the olfactory and acoustic senses), a spiritual perception; i.e., an awareness of a psychology of ritual, of a psychology in this realm too (that of worship), formed in classical Orthodox societies and passed down by them to those of us in the West.


The Orthodox mindset has culturally been lost in the West with the slide into heterodoxy.  One cannot separate the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Cromwell's Commonwealth and the French and American Revolutions from the ongoing slide of Western society and Christianity away from the Fathers of the East, away from the traditions of Orthodox monarchy and of society that was albeit fallible, but nonetheless focused on holiness in obedience to the Holy Orthodox Church.  It is also little wonder that the Bolsheviks forced the Orthodox monarchies of Russia, Serbia, Rumania to become republics because the very notion of a republic is contrary to the Orthodox order and mindset of the Byzantine Christian Empire.

The bottom line is we in the West need to distrust our own intellects and attraction for our own post-Schism ecclesial history and seek to acquire an Orthodox mindset.  Archbishop Chrisyostomos sums up:
or is the process of relegating the Christian East to the annals of pedantic history unintentional. Much of the memory loss is self-serving, a defense mechanism. This is because, in its ascendancy in the last few centuries, Western society has developed a certain smugness (particularly a religious smugness), to which the East is a living challenge. The East lays claim to an authenticity to which the West cannot. Their complacency challenged, many Westerners respond with a telling enmity for all that is Eastern. Thus it is that a theologian much involved in the ecumenical movement, ironically enough, recently decried the irritant presence of Eastern Orthodoxy in the modern ecclesiastical picture. He bemoaned the fact that one fifth of the world's some billion Christians have survived as a kind of institutional fossil that by all rights, irrelevant as it is to modern Christianity, should not have survived. Claiming to be the genuine Church of the Apostles, with an historical witness matched by no other Christian body, the Eastern Orthodox Church is both a challenge and a threat to modern Christianity, which has been pulled from its roots and which apparently is not anxious to find them, save on its own terms.

Ultimately, the Patristic mind calls the West to a psychology which it has lost, which it knows only in part. The Westerner is scarcely able to grasp this expansive psychology, let alone to acknowledge and correct his own spiritual and intellectual misapprehensions. He finds it difficult to Imagine that, as far as the East is from the West, as the Psalmist intones, so far too is Western Christianity from the Christianity of the ancient Church, which, as Mary Chitty once remarked, "the Eastern Orthodox Church of to-day preserves in continuity from the monks of old." It is only by an immense act of will that the Westerner can come to realize that the wisdom of the Orthodox East is not an "alternative" knowledge, not a cognitive system engendered by a strange and foreign culture, but that it is the true light from the East, dawning over "the paradise of God planted toward the East"—an East existing not geographically, but noumenally and ontologically. It is therefore appropriate that we should begin our series on this Patristic wisdom, on the psychology of the Orthodox Fathers, with a volume on humility. For it is only through humility, with a meek spirit, that the West can ever rise to that act of willful submission by which the Patristic mind will be revealed to it.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on December 17, 2010, 05:29:20 PM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.

What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so. There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter. Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.


I agree with this very strongly. In a few days we'll sing at Great Compline the text from Isaiah: "God is with us! Understand all ye nations, and submit yourselves!" Our liturgy isn't simply a nice way of observing the Lord's supper. Besides being very beautiful (for whatever my aesthetic opinion may be worth), we're taught that it is "true theology." But I also feel when a person seeks God's truth in the Orthodox faith, there should be no sense of trying to have one's own way about anything. Many of the posters on this thread seem to be honest and humble people, and I don't want to presume to know their motives. I just can't imagine asking or expecting the church to give me something different from the liturgy it's been serving for all these long centuries.
This idea of submitting to God and doing so through the Church is fundamental to the Orthodox faith.  There is in my view a huge difference between eastern and western in both rite and culture especially the level of understanding that liturgy equals true theology.  The liturgy as the vehicle for disseminating the faith is critical and the weakness of the western-rite liturgical movement is that it focuses on local preferences.  Almost every Western-rite monastery use different liturgical rites - some more Latin in tone, others call it Sarum, others Orthodox-ise the BCP.  One has to ask why so many versions of the Western-rite?
 
And the different usages of the rite of Constantinople? And the Eastern Rites of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, suppressed?

Quote
Hieromonk Ambrose (Young) wrote: T"the great challenge for Orthodoxy in the near future is not to find new and better ways of adapting to the dominant culture by assimilation and thus becoming "relevant"; the challenge is to establish and maintain genuine continuity with the Saints and Fathers of the past. This means more education, for ignorance of the Faith among many Orthodox today is appalling and is the single greatest factor in the crisis we are now facing."


It seems to me that our task needs to be not to demand rites that suit our version of our western history - especially if those versions sanitise the Great Schism - the separation of all of Western Europe from the faith through their schism and slide into heterodoxy. Surely we western converts need to distrust our own attraction to the history of our nations, of our western-culture which produced heterodoxy and has become spiritually bankrupt?
Romanticism of the East is not genuine continuity withteh Saints and Fathers of the past.

Quote
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna wrote: We see that the psychology of the Orthodox Fathers, far more complex and expansive than the psychologies of contemporary social scientists, frightfully challenges the limitations of the Western intellect, truncated as that intellect is by its mentalistic and spiritualistic poverty. This is especially true for Western converts to Eastern and for Christians born into the Orthodox Church but raised in the West. They intuitively realize, when they are painfully honest with themselves, that the Orthodox world of the spirit, in the Orthodox theological system, is integrally bound up with the world of the Orthodox mind.
The Turkokratia? The Holy Governing Synod of St. Petersburg?

Quote
To be Orthodox is not just to hold a belief; it is to have a psychology, a peculiar psychology which blends what one believes with the way that one behaves and thinks. It becomes suddenly apparent, In the process of honest self-analysis, that Orthodox belief and Western behavior and patterns of thinking are not fundamentally compatible.
The Westoxification of the East would show that holding such views raises more problems that it dispenses with.

Quote
The Westerner, whether Orthodox or not, must come finally to understand that an acceptance of Orthodox belief is an acceptance of an Orthodox way of thinking, of an Orthodox psychology which formed the great Orthodox empires of Byzantium and Holy Russia, among others. He must come to the sometimes disconcerting conclusion that, despite the inevitable limitations of these Orthodox societies (which polemical heterodox writers have exploited at the cost of the tremendous accomplishments of the empires), they represent the blending of spirit and mind, lifted to the level of the blending of religion and culture, which is the psychology of the Fathers. With this realization there often comes an immediate repulsion, the Westerner musing: "Must I give up my own culture to be Orthodox?" And as often as not, this repulsion gives way to an accusation of philetism against those who properly exalt the classical model of Orthodox society epitomized in the Byzantine and Russian empires. The repulsion prompts a distorted understanding of the principle of accommodation to diverse cultures which is a touchstone of the Orthodox missionary tradition.
which is not purely free of suppression of cultures, in particular those cultures to which they are indepted.

Quote
This misunderstanding is a further failure to grasp the psychology of the Fathers. Just as the mind and the spirit cannot be separated, so religion and culture, in the Orthodox Weltanschauung, cannot be separated. Virtues are formed by the harmonious interaction of the mind and the spirit, guided by the Divine Will. So, too, a worldly society is exalted and transformed when its culture and religion reflect the Divine Will. As alien as such a concept may be to those whose not on of theocracy is limited to the Papacy or Calvin's Geneva, this reflection is, after all, the triumph towards which every Orthodox society has striven. This reflection is the image of the icon of the earthly realm ascending toward the archetype of the heavenly city. The cultures of the Orthodox Fathers were the joint expressions of their minds, just as the Church, in the great Orthodox empires, was the joint expression of their spirits, the true ekklesia.
"My Kingdom is not of this World."
Quote
Where this psychology prevails, whether among Greeks, Russians, Serbs, or I (perhaps eventually) Americans, it transcends nationality and culture as we commonly understand them. It is a deep expression of Orthodoxy itself, and it is incumbent upon us that we honor and emulate this cultural psychology. It calls us to a vision of the heavenly homeland, moving us away from the mundane into conformity with the spiritual. We give up a culture which is not truly a culture for an internal spiritual sense, for a transformed view of society, for a spiritual culture, as it were. And this is not for us philetism, for philetism exalts the worth of the societies of man, seducing us, in our love for them, to ask if we "must give up our own culture to be Orthodox." To know 'the psychology of an Orthodox society is to know an elemental force in the spiritual evolution of all mankind. It is to enter a realm where philetism cannot be.
Yeah, they tried peddling this a while back:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html

Quote
It is to no small extent that we see in contemporary Orthodoxy in the West—and, one might venture to say, even to a limited degree in the East, as in the xenophilous fervor of many young intellectuals in Greece today – not only a misunderstanding of the encompassing psychology of the Fathers, but a vehement resistance to it. A new convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, for example, finding little significance in some of the "externals" of more traditional Orthodox worship, recently wrote a friend referring to these liturgical traditions as a preoccupation with "bells and smells." Undoubtedly the writer's feelings were expressed with sincerity and honesty. However, they betray an internal resistance to the notion that the ritualistic practices of the Church transmit, through the transformation of the mind (indeed, of the senses, even the olfactory and acoustic senses), a spiritual perception; i.e., an awareness of a psychology of ritual, of a psychology in this realm too (that of worship), formed in classical Orthodox societies and passed down by them to those of us in the West.[/b][/i]

The Orthodox mindset has culturally been lost in the West with the slide into heterodoxy.  One cannot separate the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Cromwell's Commonwealth and the French and American Revolutions from the ongoing slide of Western society and Christianity away from the Fathers of the East, away from the traditions of Orthodox monarchy and of society that was albeit fallible, but nonetheless focused on holiness in obedience to the Holy Orthodox Church.  It is also little wonder that the Bolsheviks forced the Orthodox monarchies of Russia, Serbia, Rumania to become republics because the very notion of a republic is contrary to the Orthodox order and mindset of the Byzantine Christian Empire.
I'm a staunch monarchist, and even I have to admit that this is nonsense.

Quote
The bottom line is we in the West need to distrust our own intellects and attraction for our own post-Schism ecclesial history and seek to acquire an Orthodox mindset.  Archbishop Chrisyostomos sums up:
or is the process of relegating the Christian East to the annals of pedantic history unintentional. Much of the memory loss is self-serving, a defense mechanism. This is because, in its ascendancy in the last few centuries, Western society has developed a certain smugness (particularly a religious smugness), to which the East is a living challenge. The East lays claim to an authenticity to which the West cannot. Their complacency challenged, many Westerners respond with a telling enmity for all that is Eastern. Thus it is that a theologian much involved in the ecumenical movement, ironically enough, recently decried the irritant presence of Eastern Orthodoxy in the modern ecclesiastical picture. He bemoaned the fact that one fifth of the world's some billion Christians have survived as a kind of institutional fossil that by all rights, irrelevant as it is to modern Christianity, should not have survived. Claiming to be the genuine Church of the Apostles, with an historical witness matched by no other Christian body, the Eastern Orthodox Church is both a challenge and a threat to modern Christianity, which has been pulled from its roots and which apparently is not anxious to find them, save on its own terms.
In an ethnic ghetto it is no threat.

Quote
Ultimately, the Patristic mind calls the West to a psychology which it has lost, which it knows only in part. The Westerner is scarcely able to grasp this expansive psychology, let alone to acknowledge and correct his own spiritual and intellectual misapprehensions. He finds it difficult to Imagine that, as far as the East is from the West, as the Psalmist intones, so far too is Western Christianity from the Christianity of the ancient Church, which, as Mary Chitty once remarked, "the Eastern Orthodox Church of to-day preserves in continuity from the monks of old." It is only by an immense act of will that the Westerner can come to realize that the wisdom of the Orthodox East is not an "alternative" knowledge, not a cognitive system engendered by a strange and foreign culture, but that it is the true light from the East, dawning over "the paradise of God planted toward the East"—an East existing not geographically, but noumenally and ontologically. It is therefore appropriate that we should begin our series on this Patristic wisdom, on the psychology of the Orthodox Fathers, with a volume on humility. For it is only through humility, with a meek spirit, that the West can ever rise to that act of willful submission by which the Patristic mind will be revealed to it.[/i][/b]
New Rome and her daughters have not be the shining example of meekness that is made out here.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on December 17, 2010, 05:39:26 PM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.
TThis is a characature of what actually happened in history. No individial parish had its own rite, and no WRO are arguing for that.

Quote
What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.


If it is so similar, no one should complain that the WRO use the DL of St. Gregory, for instance, and not the DL of St. John.

Quote
Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so.
Yes, it has.  There was nothing of the Holy Spirit, for instance, in the abolition of the patriarchate of Moscow and its substition by the state apparatus.


Quote
There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter.
Unity based on conformity in every extermal is a weak unity indeed.

Quote
Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.
(http://brian.hoffert.faculty.noctrl.edu/HST263/Meiji.ImperialDiet.png)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 17, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.

What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so. There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter. Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.


I agree with this very strongly. In a few days we'll sing at Great Compline the text from Isaiah: "God is with us! Understand all ye nations, and submit yourselves!" Our liturgy isn't simply a nice way of observing the Lord's supper. Besides being very beautiful (for whatever my aesthetic opinion may be worth), we're taught that it is "true theology." But I also feel when a person seeks God's truth in the Orthodox faith, there should be no sense of trying to have one's own way about anything. Many of the posters on this thread seem to be honest and humble people, and I don't want to presume to know their motives. I just can't imagine asking or expecting the church to give me something different from the liturgy it's been serving for all these long centuries.

Here's the thing though:  we aren't asking for anything.  The Western Rite in Holy Orthodoxy is a done deal.  It's not something we're "shooting for" or "expecting" or any other such thing.  It has happened and is now as much a part of the Orthodox Church as anything else.  As a convert, I entered the Church through the Western Rite and it has been my sole liturgical experience thus far.  It was the liturgy that is "true theology" which was given to me by the Orthodox Church.  I sought the Orthodox Faith and this is what She has given me.

Sure, it started as a bottom-up thing but in order for it to be valid and blessed, it is ultimately a top-down thing.  The Western Rite is given by the Orthodox Church to her people as a means for them to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 17, 2010, 07:28:31 PM
There's much to be said, but my time is so short. I will respond to only one point.

It was said that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and that Western rite died out in process of time, in the course of the Church's history. The conclusion was drawn that this was therefore the will of God for His Church.

First, if the very disappearance of Western rite would betoken it was the will of God, then therefore the re-appearance of Western rite must also indicate that such is the will of God and such is the influence of the Holy Spirit. Western rite has been blessed, in modern times, by the prerevolutionary Russian Church, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Church Abroad, the Antiochian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Church of Poland, the Alexandrian Patriarchate, the Jerusalem Patriarchate, Ukrainian jurisdictions, and old calendarists, so it's not like someone is doing it without authority or a blessing, "on the sly." It represents sanctioned Church practice.

Besides, the Western rite never died out in the Eastern Orthodox Church. New scholarly research proves it was practiced in Slavonic on Mt. Athos, in Greek in the Empire, in Slavonic in Russia (certain Russian Old Believers maintained the Western rite Mass-rite, in Slavonic, up to the year 1963).

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 17, 2010, 08:14:05 PM
The Ship of Fools, the Book of Common Prayer and the Western Rite of the Russian Church Abroad

The Ship of Fools did a report on a WR Liturgy in Sydney presided over by Metropolitan Hilarion and celebrated by Hieromonk Michael and the Priest Barry Jefferies.  The "Mystery Visitor" made these comments...

"The monastery [Saint Petroc] was granted permission to use a modified form of the Book of Common Prayer with the explicit intent of attracting people of Anglo-Celtic ancestry to Orthodoxy. They produced their own prayer book, known as the Saint Colman Prayer Book, based on the Sarum rite. In terms of Western Rite presence in Australia, I believe – and this experience did nothing to challenge this – that it is still very much a minority presence, and confined primarily to ex-Anglicans."

"The service was a special commemoration of the 1907 decision of the Holy Synod of Russia, at the request of Bishop Tikhon (later St Tikhon, Patriarch and Confessor of Moscow and Enlightener of North America), to permit the Book of Common Prayer to be adapted for use by the Orthodox faithful."

This would seem to confirm what Michal said at "Orthodox revised Book of Common Prayer"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24362.msg507791.html#msg507791

Here is the link to the report from the Ship of Fools
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2007/1473.html


Personal thoughts:  While the approach that using an adapted Book of Common Prayer will attract Anglicans into the Orthodox Church appears very sensible, it does not seem to be working out in real life.  After 13 years labouring in the mission field of Australia there is one small mission of about 6 people which makes use of makeshift premises for its worship.   I am more inclined to agree with Fr Aidan that the use of pre-schism rites will be more attractive although I admit that to date that theory has not been proven either.



Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 17, 2010, 08:19:12 PM

Besides, the Western rite never died out in the Eastern Orthodox Church. New scholarly research proves it was practiced in Slavonic on Mt. Athos, in Greek in the Empire, in Slavonic in Russia (certain Russian Old Believers maintained the Western rite Mass-rite, in Slavonic, up to the year 1963).


Should it be the Russian Old Believer version which ought to be promoted and used within the Russian Church Abroad?  Action should be taken immediately to study it, establish exactly what it was and how it was celebrated.

Father Aidan, why did the Old Believers cease to use it in 1963?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on December 17, 2010, 09:07:30 PM
My experience is unusual in that I was priest, for over ten years, at a parish much larger than any WR parish ROCOR's ever had in an English-speaking country. Sometimes people say, "But, Father, our mission is too small to do this or that." Well, you adapt. I have had some interesting experiences in small missions, of the size which characterises our ROCOR WR. And in those small missions, I saw useful shortcuts and clever ideas, musical and otherwise. Everything from how to chant the Gloria when no one can hold a tune in a bucket, to how to set up a row of icons in four minutes when there's no roodscreen in a borrowed space and your'e rushed for time before the Anglican ladies of the host congregation will arrive and start setting up their tea.

I note several things about congregations faced with a modern versus ancient form of WR. Using the ancient form was readily accepted, as long as the important spiritual reasons for using it were well-explained and there was confidence in the spiritual qualities of the clergy responsible. Quickly, it becomes something the congregation loves and is "held fast" by. At that point, they can't any longer be satisfied with the heterodox forms having plainer ritual, less theological content, less visual and ceremonial appeal, less ascetic sense. Attending an Orthodox liturgy SHOULD feel different than attending a Protestant liturgy. It SHOULD be richer, more difficult to do, take longer, and bear in itself a greater intensity. My point was, a parish can come to love a fuller, more Orthodox liturgical form (by which I mean a form much closer to the Byzantine liturgy because pre-Schism in origin, ethos, authorship). Then they're stuck to it and can never go back to how they were prior. This is a good and natural process.

St. John Maximovitch showed us the way to do these things. He took in WR communities and then he held them to gradually higher and higher standards. He allowed things at first which he did not allow later in time. His goal was to raise the standards of orthopraxis to their original, Orthodox levels--all within the framework of historic Western rite liturgy.

 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 17, 2010, 10:09:36 PM
Ari, how may we who are involved in this discussion, go about ordering a copy of the shorter and longer St. Colman Prayer Books? Let me know the physical address and the price, and I will send a check tomorrow.


The bottom line, Father Aidan, after I have perused these many messages from Aristibule, is that they refuse to allow you to have a copy.  You're not going to get one.  Aristibule said originally that he was the American supplier but now he says that he cannot give you a copy without Fr Michael's permission.  So the prohibition against you would appear to come from the Assistant to the Metropolitan in the UK.  Presumably Aristibule is allowed to send copies to enquirers from the Episcopalian Church and the Continuing Anglican Churches and Roman Catholic Church but you are judged as persona non grata.  It's all very odd, indeed a little suspicious.

It does seem, forgive me for saying this, very discourteous that you are refused a copy when you hold an eminent position in the Western Rite scholarly field and have worked with Bp Jerome.  There is, perhaps, something in the Saint Colman which would fall over if exposed to your scholarly view?  Perhaps the Metropolitan who headed the production of this book is withholding it from wider distribution and examination by scholars until errors are corrected?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 18, 2010, 12:12:36 AM
My experience is unusual in that I was priest, for over ten years, at a parish much larger than any WR parish ROCOR's ever had in an English-speaking country. Sometimes people say, "But, Father, our mission is too small to do this or that." Well, you adapt. I have had some interesting experiences in small missions, of the size which characterises our ROCOR WR. And in those small missions, I saw useful shortcuts and clever ideas, musical and otherwise. Everything from how to chant the Gloria when no one can hold a tune in a bucket, to how to set up a row of icons in four minutes when there's no roodscreen in a borrowed space and your'e rushed for time before the Anglican ladies of the host congregation will arrive and start setting up their tea.

I note several things about congregations faced with a modern versus ancient form of WR. Using the ancient form was readily accepted, as long as the important spiritual reasons for using it were well-explained and there was confidence in the spiritual qualities of the clergy responsible. Quickly, it becomes something the congregation loves and is "held fast" by. At that point, they can't any longer be satisfied with the heterodox forms having plainer ritual, less theological content, less visual and ceremonial appeal, less ascetic sense. Attending an Orthodox liturgy SHOULD feel different than attending a Protestant liturgy. It SHOULD be richer, more difficult to do, take longer, and bear in itself a greater intensity. My point was, a parish can come to love a fuller, more Orthodox liturgical form (by which I mean a form much closer to the Byzantine liturgy because pre-Schism in origin, ethos, authorship). Then they're stuck to it and can never go back to how they were prior. This is a good and natural process.

St. John Maximovitch showed us the way to do these things. He took in WR communities and then he held them to gradually higher and higher standards. He allowed things at first which he did not allow later in time. His goal was to raise the standards of orthopraxis to their original, Orthodox levels--all within the framework of historic Western rite liturgy.

 
I don't disagree with any of this Father, and I agree that the Holy Spirit has blessed the resurrection of the western-rite.  Nonetheless, the caveat is that this exposes those in the western-rite to considerable risk, if it consists of tiny missions, generally in isolation from their Byzantine brethren, without the priestly and episcopal wisdom of their Byzantine brothers so easily available, and often separated by hundreds or in the case of Australia, thousands of miles from each other.

I think Vladyka Hilarion has shown considerable mercy in bringing the WR back to life in ROCOR, and it is a mercy that the ROCOR WR is under his omophor.  I also agree that for all of us, Eastern or Western that growing in holiness and deepening our sense of an Orthodox mindset and value-set is an incremental journey.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on December 18, 2010, 12:14:50 AM

Besides, the Western rite never died out in the Eastern Orthodox Church. New scholarly research proves it was practiced in Slavonic on Mt. Athos, in Greek in the Empire, in Slavonic in Russia (certain Russian Old Believers maintained the Western rite Mass-rite, in Slavonic, up to the year 1963).


Should it be the Russian Old Believer version which ought to be promoted and used within the Russian Church Abroad?  Action should be taken immediately to study it, establish exactly what it was and how it was celebrated.

Father Aidan, why did the Old Believers cease to use it in 1963?
It fascinates me that the Old Believers maintained a western-rite, and I would appreciate pointing to some source material and like Hieromonk Ambrose, I wonder why it ended so recently?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on December 18, 2010, 10:58:21 AM
My experience is unusual in that I was priest, for over ten years, at a parish much larger than any WR parish ROCOR's ever had in an English-speaking country. Sometimes people say, "But, Father, our mission is too small to do this or that." Well, you adapt. I have had some interesting experiences in small missions, of the size which characterises our ROCOR WR. And in those small missions, I saw useful shortcuts and clever ideas, musical and otherwise. Everything from how to chant the Gloria when no one can hold a tune in a bucket, to how to set up a row of icons in four minutes when there's no roodscreen in a borrowed space and your'e rushed for time before the Anglican ladies of the host congregation will arrive and start setting up their tea.

I note several things about congregations faced with a modern versus ancient form of WR. Using the ancient form was readily accepted, as long as the important spiritual reasons for using it were well-explained and there was confidence in the spiritual qualities of the clergy responsible. Quickly, it becomes something the congregation loves and is "held fast" by. At that point, they can't any longer be satisfied with the heterodox forms having plainer ritual, less theological content, less visual and ceremonial appeal, less ascetic sense. Attending an Orthodox liturgy SHOULD feel different than attending a Protestant liturgy. It SHOULD be richer, more difficult to do, take longer, and bear in itself a greater intensity. My point was, a parish can come to love a fuller, more Orthodox liturgical form (by which I mean a form much closer to the Byzantine liturgy because pre-Schism in origin, ethos, authorship). Then they're stuck to it and can never go back to how they were prior. This is a good and natural process.

St. John Maximovitch showed us the way to do these things. He took in WR communities and then he held them to gradually higher and higher standards. He allowed things at first which he did not allow later in time. His goal was to raise the standards of orthopraxis to their original, Orthodox levels--all within the framework of historic Western rite liturgy.

 
I don't disagree with any of this Father, and I agree that the Holy Spirit has blessed the resurrection of the western-rite.  Nonetheless, the caveat is that this exposes those in the western-rite to considerable risk, if it consists of tiny missions, generally in isolation from their Byzantine brethren, without the priestly and episcopal wisdom of their Byzantine brothers so easily available, and often separated by hundreds or in the case of Australia, thousands of miles from each other.

I think Vladyka Hilarion has shown considerable mercy in bringing the WR back to life in ROCOR, and it is a mercy that the ROCOR WR is under his omophor.  I also agree that for all of us, Eastern or Western that growing in holiness and deepening our sense of an Orthodox mindset and value-set is an incremental journey.

You're equating the Byzantine Rite with the Orthodox theology and faith, again.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on December 18, 2010, 11:15:00 AM

Besides, the Western rite never died out in the Eastern Orthodox Church. New scholarly research proves it was practiced in Slavonic on Mt. Athos, in Greek in the Empire, in Slavonic in Russia (certain Russian Old Believers maintained the Western rite Mass-rite, in Slavonic, up to the year 1963).


Should it be the Russian Old Believer version which ought to be promoted and used within the Russian Church Abroad?  Action should be taken immediately to study it, establish exactly what it was and how it was celebrated.

Father Aidan, why did the Old Believers cease to use it in 1963?
It fascinates me that the Old Believers maintained a western-rite, and I would appreciate pointing to some source material and like Hieromonk Ambrose, I wonder why it ended so recently?

Yes. The time-frame would be important, as well as location.

I'd like to know more about the Mt. Athos claim, as well. For instance, if this took place during the period the Duchy of Athens and the Duchy of Naxos were appendages of the Venetian Republic it would be a quite different thing than if it took place substantially earlier. There were Franciscans at the court of the Great Khan in China, too. Doesn't prove anything particular, except that they were skillful travelers  and exceptionally lucky to have kept their heads.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on December 18, 2010, 11:16:16 AM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.

What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so. There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter. Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.


I agree with this very strongly. In a few days we'll sing at Great Compline the text from Isaiah: "God is with us! Understand all ye nations, and submit yourselves!" Our liturgy isn't simply a nice way of observing the Lord's supper. Besides being very beautiful (for whatever my aesthetic opinion may be worth), we're taught that it is "true theology." But I also feel when a person seeks God's truth in the Orthodox faith, there should be no sense of trying to have one's own way about anything. Many of the posters on this thread seem to be honest and humble people, and I don't want to presume to know their motives. I just can't imagine asking or expecting the church to give me something different from the liturgy it's been serving for all these long centuries.
This idea of submitting to God and doing so through the Church is fundamental to the Orthodox faith.  There is in my view a huge difference between eastern and western in both rite and culture especially the level of understanding that liturgy equals true theology.  The liturgy as the vehicle for disseminating the faith is critical and the weakness of the western-rite liturgical movement is that it focuses on local preferences.  Almost every Western-rite monastery use different liturgical rites - some more Latin in tone, others call it Sarum, others Orthodox-ise the BCP.  One has to ask why so many versions of the Western-rite? 

Hieromonk Ambrose (Young) wrote: T"the great challenge for Orthodoxy in the near future is not to find new and better ways of adapting to the dominant culture by assimilation and thus becoming "relevant"; the challenge is to establish and maintain genuine continuity with the Saints and Fathers of the past. This means more education, for ignorance of the Faith among many Orthodox today is appalling and is the single greatest factor in the crisis we are now facing."


It seems to me that our task needs to be not to demand rites that suit our version of our western history - especially if those versions sanitise the Great Schism - the separation of all of Western Europe from the faith through their schism and slide into heterodoxy. Surely we western converts need to distrust our own attraction to the history of our nations, of our western-culture which produced heterodoxy and has become spiritually bankrupt?

Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna wrote: We see that the psychology of the Orthodox Fathers, far more complex and expansive than the psychologies of contemporary social scientists, frightfully challenges the limitations of the Western intellect, truncated as that intellect is by its mentalistic and spiritualistic poverty. This is especially true for Western converts to Eastern and for Christians born into the Orthodox Church but raised in the West. They intuitively realize, when they are painfully honest with themselves, that the Orthodox world of the spirit, in the Orthodox theological system, is integrally bound up with the world of the Orthodox mind. To be Orthodox is not just to hold a belief; it is to have a psychology, a peculiar psychology which blends what one believes with the way that one behaves and thinks. It becomes suddenly apparent, In the process of honest self-analysis, that Orthodox belief and Western behavior and patterns of thinking are not fundamentally compatible.

The Westerner, whether Orthodox or not, must come finally to understand that an acceptance of Orthodox belief is an acceptance of an Orthodox way of thinking, of an Orthodox psychology which formed the great Orthodox empires of Byzantium and Holy Russia, among others. He must come to the sometimes disconcerting conclusion that, despite the inevitable limitations of these Orthodox societies (which polemical heterodox writers have exploited at the cost of the tremendous accomplishments of the empires), they represent the blending of spirit and mind, lifted to the level of the blending of religion and culture, which is the psychology of the Fathers. With this realization there often comes an immediate repulsion, the Westerner musing: "Must I give up my own culture to be Orthodox?" And as often as not, this repulsion gives way to an accusation of philetism against those who properly exalt the classical model of Orthodox society epitomized in the Byzantine and Russian empires. The repulsion prompts a distorted understanding of the principle of accommodation to diverse cultures which is a touchstone of the Orthodox missionary tradition.

This misunderstanding is a further failure to grasp the psychology of the Fathers. Just as the mind and the spirit cannot be separated, so religion and culture, in the Orthodox Weltanschauung, cannot be separated. Virtues are formed by the harmonious interaction of the mind and the spirit, guided by the Divine Will. So, too, a worldly society is exalted and transformed when its culture and religion reflect the Divine Will. As alien as such a concept may be to those whose not on of theocracy is limited to the Papacy or Calvin's Geneva, this reflection is, after all, the triumph towards which every Orthodox society has striven. This reflection is the image of the icon of the earthly realm ascending toward the archetype of the heavenly city. The cultures of the Orthodox Fathers were the joint expressions of their minds, just as the Church, in the great Orthodox empires, was the joint expression of their spirits, the true ekklesia.

Where this psychology prevails, whether among Greeks, Russians, Serbs, or I (perhaps eventually) Americans, it transcends nationality and culture as we commonly understand them. It is a deep expression of Orthodoxy itself, and it is incumbent upon us that we honor and emulate this cultural psychology. It calls us to a vision of the heavenly homeland, moving us away from the mundane into conformity with the spiritual. We give up a culture which is not truly a culture for an internal spiritual sense, for a transformed view of society, for a spiritual culture, as it were. And this is not for us philetism, for philetism exalts the worth of the societies of man, seducing us, in our love for them, to ask if we "must give up our own culture to be Orthodox." To know 'the psychology of an Orthodox society is to know an elemental force in the spiritual evolution of all mankind. It is to enter a realm where philetism cannot be.

It is to no small extent that we see in contemporary Orthodoxy in the West—and, one might venture to say, even to a limited degree in the East, as in the xenophilous fervor of many young intellectuals in Greece today – not only a misunderstanding of the encompassing psychology of the Fathers, but a vehement resistance to it. A new convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, for example, finding little significance in some of the "externals" of more traditional Orthodox worship, recently wrote a friend referring to these liturgical traditions as a preoccupation with "bells and smells." Undoubtedly the writer's feelings were expressed with sincerity and honesty. However, they betray an internal resistance to the notion that the ritualistic practices of the Church transmit, through the transformation of the mind (indeed, of the senses, even the olfactory and acoustic senses), a spiritual perception; i.e., an awareness of a psychology of ritual, of a psychology in this realm too (that of worship), formed in classical Orthodox societies and passed down by them to those of us in the West.


The Orthodox mindset has culturally been lost in the West with the slide into heterodoxy.  One cannot separate the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Cromwell's Commonwealth and the French and American Revolutions from the ongoing slide of Western society and Christianity away from the Fathers of the East, away from the traditions of Orthodox monarchy and of society that was albeit fallible, but nonetheless focused on holiness in obedience to the Holy Orthodox Church.  It is also little wonder that the Bolsheviks forced the Orthodox monarchies of Russia, Serbia, Rumania to become republics because the very notion of a republic is contrary to the Orthodox order and mindset of the Byzantine Christian Empire.

The bottom line is we in the West need to distrust our own intellects and attraction for our own post-Schism ecclesial history and seek to acquire an Orthodox mindset.  Archbishop Chrisyostomos sums up:
or is the process of relegating the Christian East to the annals of pedantic history unintentional. Much of the memory loss is self-serving, a defense mechanism. This is because, in its ascendancy in the last few centuries, Western society has developed a certain smugness (particularly a religious smugness), to which the East is a living challenge. The East lays claim to an authenticity to which the West cannot. Their complacency challenged, many Westerners respond with a telling enmity for all that is Eastern. Thus it is that a theologian much involved in the ecumenical movement, ironically enough, recently decried the irritant presence of Eastern Orthodoxy in the modern ecclesiastical picture. He bemoaned the fact that one fifth of the world's some billion Christians have survived as a kind of institutional fossil that by all rights, irrelevant as it is to modern Christianity, should not have survived. Claiming to be the genuine Church of the Apostles, with an historical witness matched by no other Christian body, the Eastern Orthodox Church is both a challenge and a threat to modern Christianity, which has been pulled from its roots and which apparently is not anxious to find them, save on its own terms.

Ultimately, the Patristic mind calls the West to a psychology which it has lost, which it knows only in part. The Westerner is scarcely able to grasp this expansive psychology, let alone to acknowledge and correct his own spiritual and intellectual misapprehensions. He finds it difficult to Imagine that, as far as the East is from the West, as the Psalmist intones, so far too is Western Christianity from the Christianity of the ancient Church, which, as Mary Chitty once remarked, "the Eastern Orthodox Church of to-day preserves in continuity from the monks of old." It is only by an immense act of will that the Westerner can come to realize that the wisdom of the Orthodox East is not an "alternative" knowledge, not a cognitive system engendered by a strange and foreign culture, but that it is the true light from the East, dawning over "the paradise of God planted toward the East"—an East existing not geographically, but noumenally and ontologically. It is therefore appropriate that we should begin our series on this Patristic wisdom, on the psychology of the Orthodox Fathers, with a volume on humility. For it is only through humility, with a meek spirit, that the West can ever rise to that act of willful submission by which the Patristic mind will be revealed to it.



This is a lot to digest, but I can only say Amen, amen, and amen.

I sometimes have the feeling, particularly with former Anglicans, that their voyage to Orthodoxy is being propelled by issues having to do with the the Anglican church's struggles and scandals of the past few decades. They want a church without women priests and without the whole debate about gays, but they don't want to give up the things they love about Anglicanism. They are not so much joining the Orthodox world as they are leaving the Anglican Communion. It's a huge difference.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on December 18, 2010, 11:17:00 AM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.

What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so. There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter. Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.


I agree with this very strongly. In a few days we'll sing at Great Compline the text from Isaiah: "God is with us! Understand all ye nations, and submit yourselves!" Our liturgy isn't simply a nice way of observing the Lord's supper. Besides being very beautiful (for whatever my aesthetic opinion may be worth), we're taught that it is "true theology." But I also feel when a person seeks God's truth in the Orthodox faith, there should be no sense of trying to have one's own way about anything. Many of the posters on this thread seem to be honest and humble people, and I don't want to presume to know their motives. I just can't imagine asking or expecting the church to give me something different from the liturgy it's been serving for all these long centuries.

Here's the thing though:  we aren't asking for anything.  The Western Rite in Holy Orthodoxy is a done deal.  It's not something we're "shooting for" or "expecting" or any other such thing.  It has happened and is now as much a part of the Orthodox Church as anything else.  As a convert, I entered the Church through the Western Rite and it has been my sole liturgical experience thus far.  It was the liturgy that is "true theology" which was given to me by the Orthodox Church.  I sought the Orthodox Faith and this is what She has given me.

Sure, it started as a bottom-up thing but in order for it to be valid and blessed, it is ultimately a top-down thing.  The Western Rite is given by the Orthodox Church to her people as a means for them to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

I hear this, and yet it seems so strange that a person's entire experience of Orthodoxy could be WR. I live in one of the largest Orthodox population centers in the US, and if there's more than one WR church, I am unaware of it. But there are seven other Orthodox churches of various jurisdictions within 10 minutes of my house. In other words, it would be impossible to be aware only of the Western Rite. The one parish I do know is a good stone's throw from a Greek Orthodox cathedral. So if a person were seeking the Orthodox faith here, they would have to choose WR in particular, and be rather aggressive about it, since it's not easy to find.

I don't think I'll ever really understand this, but I've ordered a copy of the prayer book Fr. Aidan's community uses, so perhaps the light of understanding will begin to shine. As to anything based on BCP, my mind is considerably less open, not that that would matter to anyone who cares.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: mike on December 18, 2010, 11:26:59 AM
I'd like to know more about the Mt. Athos claim, as well. For instance, if this took place during the period the Duchy of Athens and the Duchy of Naxos were appendages of the Venetian Republic it would be a quite different thing than if it took place substantially earlier. There were Franciscans at the court of the Great Khan in China, too. Doesn't prove anything particular, except that they were skillful travelers  and exceptionally lucky to have kept their heads.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29094.0.html
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on December 18, 2010, 12:39:06 PM
I hear this, and yet it seems so strange that a person's entire experience of Orthodoxy could be WR. I live in one of the largest Orthodox population centers in the US, and if there's more than one WR church, I am unaware of it. But there are seven other Orthodox churches of various jurisdictions within 10 minutes of my house. In other words, it would be impossible to be aware only of the Western Rite. The one parish I do know is a good stone's throw from a Greek Orthodox cathedral. So if a person were seeking the Orthodox faith here, they would have to choose WR in particular, and be rather aggressive about it, since it's not easy to find.

Well, when I was looking to join the Orthodox Church, I emailed every parish in my city (there are 7 here as well) that spoke English, and only one wrote back.  So, I started a dialogue with this priest and he invited me to attend the services there and to join the catechumen class they were in.  So I did, I joined, and the reason it has been my sole experience thus far is because I have found absolutely everything I had wanted from Orthodoxy.  Basically, there has been no need for me to go anywhere else, other than curiosity.  I have been to a handful of Vespers services at Byzantine Churches and you probably won't believe me when I say this, but it made me miss my Western Rite Church all the more.

You've said you find it hard to believe, but I'm telling you, with no agenda in mind, that there are many of us who find the Western Rite provided for us by our Holy Orthodox Church to be the utmost of fulfilling worship experiences and thank God every day that He has given it to us for our benefit.

You might also find it hard to believe that most of us would also stay in the Orthodox Church if it was somehow decided that the Western Rite would be no longer.  I was never an Anglican or any sort of "high church" Protestant, and I do not like the Western Rite for the reasons you assume so many who love it do.  It wasn't an escape from something, but a journey to something, and every convert in my Western Rite parish would tell you that.  There might be converts out there for whom this is not the case, but please stop judging this God-given rite based on that.

Quote
I don't think I'll ever really understand this, but I've ordered a copy of the prayer book Fr. Aidan's community uses, so perhaps the light of understanding will begin to shine. As to anything based on BCP, my mind is considerably less open, not that that would matter to anyone who cares.

Fortunately, Ss Tikhon & Raphael had far more open minds than you! ;)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 01, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
Fr. Aidan, are there still copies of the prayerbook available for us to purchase at the reduced price?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Fr.Aidan on January 01, 2011, 10:34:23 PM
The short answer is "yes."

There is no long answer.

 :)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Thomist on January 05, 2011, 08:06:43 PM
As a Latin-rite Catholic my answer is perhaps not particularly applicable; but I'd attend an Eastern Rite Catholic Church over a Western Rite Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on January 06, 2011, 12:40:33 AM
And Western Rite Orthodox would attend an Eastern Rite Orthodox Church over a Latin Rite Catholic Church.  Is this surprising?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on January 06, 2011, 01:18:29 AM
And Western Rite Orthodox would attend an Eastern Rite Orthodox Church over a Latin Rite Catholic Church.  Is this surprising?

No, but it makes a point.

Ultimately, the faith of your church is more important than the "glass that holds it". So polemics against a rite are asinine.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on January 06, 2011, 02:13:23 AM
Agreed!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Thomist on January 06, 2011, 02:43:53 AM
And Western Rite Orthodox would attend an Eastern Rite Orthodox Church over a Latin Rite Catholic Church.  Is this surprising?

Oh sorry, I was just replying to the question. It wasn't meant as any kind of dig against Western Rite Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on January 06, 2011, 07:37:11 AM
The short answer is "yes."

There is no long answer.

 :)

I'd like to have one but I don't know how to get it since I happen to live on the other side of the Globe. Do you still have problems with PayPal?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on January 06, 2011, 08:01:30 PM
The short answer is "yes."

There is no long answer.

 :)

I'd like to have one but I don't know how to get it since I happen to live on the other side of the Globe. Do you still have problems with PayPal?

I got mine through Amazon.com. There are many other sources, it's not that hard to find.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on January 07, 2011, 04:14:43 AM
I got mine through Amazon.com. There are many other sources, it's not that hard to find.

I've seen it in Amazon.com but from what I can remember it costed a lot more than those available through Fr. Aidan. I'm ready to pay rather good price but 130$ (http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Prayers-England-Prayer-Book-Christians/dp/0923864172/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294387897&sr=8-1) is a bit too much for me. With that kind of prices I have to stick with my regular Finno-Byzantine prayerbooks.

What are the other sources you had in mind?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on January 07, 2011, 06:07:43 AM
This written earlier in 2010 is a great summation of the views of those of us who are challenged by the arguments advanced by the western proponents of a 'western-rite' Orthodoxy: (by Iconodule:) It is quoted without any editing by me:

The arguments for Western Rite are often phyletistic. They suggest that, on the basis of his culture or ethnicity, an Orthodox believer should be able to have a rite that most conforms to his background. The supporters of WR on this thread have not offered any reason why each little subculture in the church, or even each individual parish, should not be allowed to devise its own rite. In fact, they seem to be indicating that this would be a desirable situation. Maybe you have a different point of view- I'd be curious to hear it, if so.

What is so hard to adapt to in the Eastern rite? Is it the language? We have many parishes offering services in English and other Western languages. Is it the iconography? Well, the art of the Orthodox West wasn't that profoundly different- in fact, many WR parishes simply use Byzantine icons. Is it the hymnody? Western Orthodox hymns sound just as strange to modern Western ears. And besides, many Russian parishes have very westernized music. If you want to hear the Orthodox answer to Palestrina or Handel you can probably find it in a Russian church.

Yes, the Orthodox Church had many rites before. Their passing/ suppression is perhaps lamentable. Nevertheless, the Church, which we all confess to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has allowed this to happen and has not in any way compromised the integrity of the faith and Holy Tradition in doing so. There is something to be said for diversity, but there is also something more to be said about unity and the Church has leaned toward the latter. Now the Church has one rite (let's face it, WR will never be a major force unless Anglicans or RC's convert en masse). It is not really the Eastern rite anymore. It's not the "Byzantine rite". It's the Orthodox rite that we have today. It's the same rite celebrated by Aleuts, Chinese, Greeks, Russians, Kenyans, Romanians, Georgians, Japanese, Haitians... It's not a Greek rite or a Russian rite now- it's our rite. I'm sure this rite, along with the rest of the faith, seemed very strange to the Aleuts or Chinese Orthodox when they first encountered it. Nevertheless, they made it their own. Why can't some Westerners do the same? I say "some Westerners" because more Western converts do not have such liturgical hang-ups and have come to love the liturgy deeply.


I agree with this very strongly. In a few days we'll sing at Great Compline the text from Isaiah: "God is with us! Understand all ye nations, and submit yourselves!" Our liturgy isn't simply a nice way of observing the Lord's supper. Besides being very beautiful (for whatever my aesthetic opinion may be worth), we're taught that it is "true theology." But I also feel when a person seeks God's truth in the Orthodox faith, there should be no sense of trying to have one's own way about anything. Many of the posters on this thread seem to be honest and humble people, and I don't want to presume to know their motives. I just can't imagine asking or expecting the church to give me something different from the liturgy it's been serving for all these long centuries.

Here's the thing though:  we aren't asking for anything.  The Western Rite in Holy Orthodoxy is a done deal.  It's not something we're "shooting for" or "expecting" or any other such thing.  It has happened and is now as much a part of the Orthodox Church as anything else.  As a convert, I entered the Church through the Western Rite and it has been my sole liturgical experience thus far.  It was the liturgy that is "true theology" which was given to me by the Orthodox Church.  I sought the Orthodox Faith and this is what She has given me.

Sure, it started as a bottom-up thing but in order for it to be valid and blessed, it is ultimately a top-down thing.  The Western Rite is given by the Orthodox Church to her people as a means for them to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

I hear this, and yet it seems so strange that a person's entire experience of Orthodoxy could be WR. I live in one of the largest Orthodox population centers in the US, and if there's more than one WR church, I am unaware of it. But there are seven other Orthodox churches of various jurisdictions within 10 minutes of my house. In other words, it would be impossible to be aware only of the Western Rite. The one parish I do know is a good stone's throw from a Greek Orthodox cathedral. So if a person were seeking the Orthodox faith here, they would have to choose WR in particular, and be rather aggressive about it, since it's not easy to find.

I don't think I'll ever really understand this, but I've ordered a copy of the prayer book Fr. Aidan's community uses, so perhaps the light of understanding will begin to shine. As to anything based on BCP, my mind is considerably less open, not that that would matter to anyone who cares.
The quote from Iconodule says it all!  Yes, the WR has come down from the top, but it is simply not in my view necessary.  Orthodoxy is lived by generation after generation.  We have had Western Orthodox now worshipping in what the Western rite sometimes call the Eastern-rite for generations now.  We have the transmission of Byzantine Orthodoxy in Japan, Korea, Alaska and elsewhere for more than 100 years.  What was Byzantine is now simply "the Orthodox rite" and it is as much the birth-rite of English, Japanese, Korean and many others as it is for the Greeks or Slavs.

Today in my Russian Church in Tasmania we had our Nativity Liturgy - served in Slavonic, Serbian and English, by a Serbian priest with a Russian and Australian choir, with Australian, Russian, Greek and Ethiopians and Serbs in the congregation.  Nothing foreign for us there at all.  It was simply Orthodox faithful sharing the timeless Byzantine liturgy celebrating together the Nativity. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on January 07, 2011, 10:03:03 AM
Fortunately, Orthodoxy is not about what's "necessary."  It's about the fullness of the Faith.  The Western liturgical tradition and spiritual heritage are part of Holy Tradition and they rightfully belong to Orthodoxy.

SubdeaconDavid, forgive me, but you just appear so...shifty and fickle in regards to the Western Rite.  One day you'll make posts about how you have no problem with it at all and want to see it thrive, and another day you'll say its "just not necessary."  I don't understand it.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Rafa999 on January 07, 2011, 03:34:21 PM
Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics , and to a significant extent oriental orthodox as well are Western Churches. I just wanted to remind everybody of that. Nothing Eastern about Greeks or Russians. Keep the Eastern thing and the question of Orthodoxy (of a rite or Church) seperate please. The ACOE is a true Eastern Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2011, 03:37:36 PM
Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics , and to a significant extent oriental orthodox as well are Western Churches. I just wanted to remind everybody of that. Nothing Eastern about Greeks or Russians. Keep the Eastern thing and the question of Orthodoxy (of a rite or Church) seperate please. The ACOE is a true Eastern Church.
The Patirarch of Antioch (EO/OO) is Patriarch of All the East.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2011, 03:53:53 PM
The quote from Iconodule says it all!  Yes, the WR has come down from the top, but it is simply not in my view necessary. 
Then don't go to a WRO Church. That's simple.

Orthodoxy is lived by generation after generation.  We have had Western Orthodox
You mean Eastern Orthodox in the West?
now worshipping in what the Western rite sometimes call the Eastern-rite for generations now.
Everyone calls it the Eastern-rite, or more correctly the Constantinopolitan rite.

And we have had Western Orthodox worshipping in the Western rite for 3-6 generations now.

We have the transmission of Byzantine Orthodoxy in Japan, Korea, Alaska and elsewhere for more than 100 years.
And the WRO for nearly a 140 years.

What was Byzantine is now simply "the Orthodox rite"
No, even the most vehement bishops opposing the WRO admit that if you are Orthodox, you can commune in the DL of SS. Gregory or Tikhon.

and it is as much the birth-rite of English, Japanese, Korean and many others as it is for the Greeks or Slavs.
No, it is not, any more than the Common Law, haikus and Daeboreum are the birth-rite of Greeks or Slavs.

Today in my Russian Church in Tasmania we had our Nativity Liturgy - served in Slavonic, Serbian and English, by a Serbian priest with a Russian and Australian choir, with Australian, Russian, Greek and Ethiopians and Serbs in the congregation.  Nothing foreign for us there at all.  It was simply Orthodox faithful sharing the timeless Byzantine liturgy celebrating together the Nativity. 
You are aware that the Ethiopians have their own liturgy, and it's not "byzantine," no?

And why wasn't it in Tasmanian?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Rafa999 on January 07, 2011, 03:58:05 PM
Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics , and to a significant extent oriental orthodox as well are Western Churches. I just wanted to remind everybody of that. Nothing Eastern about Greeks or Russians. Keep the Eastern thing and the question of Orthodoxy (of a rite or Church) seperate please. The ACOE is a true Eastern Church.
The Patirarch of Antioch (EO/OO) is Patriarch of All the East.


The Catholicos Patriarch of the ACOE is and was acknowledged as Patriarch of all the East for generations. Even the RCC gave a bull stating this under Pope Nicholas IV.  ACOE Bishops in Edessa were even called "Western bishops" for you to have an idea. The ACOE is the only Church to not have been under the Roman-Byzantine ecclesiastical structure. It is interesting to note that the "Chaldean" and Malankara rites were the first u-bodies to be formed. The ACOE episcopacy extended all the way to Tibet and China, there was no other Church in India before it as you know as well.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2011, 05:23:57 PM
Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics , and to a significant extent oriental orthodox as well are Western Churches. I just wanted to remind everybody of that. Nothing Eastern about Greeks or Russians. Keep the Eastern thing and the question of Orthodoxy (of a rite or Church) seperate please. The ACOE is a true Eastern Church.
The Patirarch of Antioch (EO/OO) is Patriarch of All the East.
The Catholicos Patriarch of the ACOE is and was acknowledged as Patriarch of all the East for generations.
The title "Catholicos" indicates an exarch of the Patriarch of Antioch, which is why the primates of Georgia, Armenia and India bear the title.

Even the RCC gave a bull stating this under Pope Nicholas IV.
A bulll with no authority in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to back it up.

ACOE Bishops in Edessa were even called "Western bishops" for you to have an idea.
That is as far west as it got until recently. Rome is still in the Eastern Hemisphere.

The ACOE is the only Church to not have been under the Roman-Byzantine ecclesiastical structure.
No, the Armenian, Georgian and Albanian (Caucasian) Churches were not within the Roman Empire, nor the Irish Church. Of course, being under Antioch, the Catholicoi of Mesopotamia, Armenia, Georgia and Alabania were within the Roman ecclesiastical structure.

It is interesting to note that the "Chaldean" and Malankara rites were the first u-bodies to be formed.
No, that would be the Italo-Greeks.

The ACOE episcopacy extended all the way to Tibet and China, there was no other Church in India before it as you know as well.
The Orthodox Church, as much of Mesopotamia, Iran, Arabia and India remained Orthodox.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Rafa999 on January 07, 2011, 05:45:34 PM
Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics , and to a significant extent oriental orthodox as well are Western Churches. I just wanted to remind everybody of that. Nothing Eastern about Greeks or Russians. Keep the Eastern thing and the question of Orthodoxy (of a rite or Church) seperate please. The ACOE is a true Eastern Church.
The Patirarch of Antioch (EO/OO) is Patriarch of All the East.
The Catholicos Patriarch of the ACOE is and was acknowledged as Patriarch of all the East for generations.
The title "Catholicos" indicates an exarch of the Patriarch of Antioch, which is why the primates of Georgia, Armenia and India bear the title.

Even the RCC gave a bull stating this under Pope Nicholas IV.
A bulll with no authority in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to back it up.

ACOE Bishops in Edessa were even called "Western bishops" for you to have an idea.
That is as far west as it got until recently. Rome is still in the Eastern Hemisphere.

The ACOE is the only Church to not have been under the Roman-Byzantine ecclesiastical structure.
No, the Armenian, Georgian and Albanian (Caucasian) Churches were not within the Roman Empire, nor the Irish Church. Of course, being under Antioch, the Catholicoi of Mesopotamia, Armenia, Georgia and Alabania were within the Roman ecclesiastical structure.

It is interesting to note that the "Chaldean" and Malankara rites were the first u-bodies to be formed.
No, that would be the Italo-Greeks.

The ACOE episcopacy extended all the way to Tibet and China, there was no other Church in India before it as you know as well.
The Orthodox Church, as much of Mesopotamia, Iran, Arabia and India remained Orthodox.

Quote
The Orthodox Church, as much of Mesopotamia, Iran, Arabia and India remained Orthodox.

The EO or OO was never in India, Iran, mesopotamia and for the most part Arabia since :

1) There is no recorded Church other than the ACOE in India before the portuguese arrived. People in India will tell that to you. The existence of a Westernized oriental orthodox church in India is the product of the Indians seeking an ACOE bishop accidentally receiving an OO bishop since the ACOE was not in the region the asked anymore due to persecution.

2) The only OO or EO in Persia were the enslaved captives the Sassanids brought back who built a few churches. They were not indigenous though.

3) The only indigenous Church in Persia and Edessa was the ACOE before the Syriac orthodox broke away from it a long time later (they adopted the doctirne of Cyril).

4) Some Arabians adopted Eastern Orthodoxy but not many since this was the "Roman" Church and they preferred a Church at better terms and not in continuos conflict with their Sassanid overlords. Even the Quran talks about tons of ACOE monks walking about in Mecca (a center for the ACOE actually before Islam).

Quote
No, that would be the Italo-Greeks.

Ok, they beat the others a little bit sooner. Still it is strange that these far away u-bodies were formed so early. Makes me think if the possibly last remaining force capable of squashing without mercy the "throne of Peter" heresy (since it was never part of the Roman or Byzantine sphere, ecclesiastical structure) needed to be eliminated.

Quote
No, the Armenian, Georgian and Albanian (Caucasian) Churches were not within the Roman Empire, nor the Irish Church. Of course, being under Antioch, the Catholicoi of Mesopotamia, Armenia, Georgia and Alabania were within the Roman ecclesiastical structure.

All of these Churches were influenced by, under the territory of , or at war with, and accepting the councils signed by the Roman-Byzantine emperors or the pope. The ACOE alone never faced any of that. It was deep in the Sassanid empire, later deep into the Caliphate, so nobody could force it to accept anything it did not agree to.

Quote
The title "Catholicos" indicates an exarch of the Patriarch of Antioch

Ridiculous to assert that the ACOE was ever the suffragan of a faraway western bishop. This is an attempt to find the closest Westerners to somehow connect the ACOE to. A fiction :

(http://www.peshitta.org/forum/download/file.php?id=21)
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2011, 06:50:23 PM
The Orthodox Church, as much of Mesopotamia, Iran, Arabia and India remained Orthodox.

The EO or OO was never in India, Iran, mesopotamia and for the most part Arabia since :

1) There is no recorded Church other than the ACOE in India before the portuguese arrived. People in India will tell that to you. The existence of a Westernized oriental orthodox church in India is the product of the Indians seeking an ACOE bishop accidentally receiving an OO bishop since the ACOE was not in the region the asked anymore due to persecution.[/quote]
Read Eusebius.

2) The only OO or EO in Persia were the enslaved captives the Sassanids brought back who built a few churches. They were not indigenous though.
The Armenian royal house-who established the first Christian kingdom (on earth)-were the former Imperial house of Iran, overthrown by the Sassanids. Besides them, and the Georgians and Albanians, there were many Iranian converts, and many Orthodox in Mesopotamia and the areas of Arabia-all natives of the Iranian empire, Parthian and Sassanid.

3) The only indigenous Church in Persia and Edessa was the ACOE before the Syriac orthodox broke away from it a long time later (they adopted the doctirne of Cyril).
The dogma of Pope St. Cyril is what the Apostles preached when they came to Edessa, and St. Rabbula upheld it against the perversion in the Letter Attributed to Ibas.

4) Some Arabians adopted Eastern Orthodoxy but not many since this was the "Roman" Church and they preferred a Church at better terms and not in continuos conflict with their Sassanid overlords. Even the Quran talks about tons of ACOE monks walking about in Mecca (a center for the ACOE actually before Islam).
The Quran doesn't distinquish between monks.  The Christians it does identify (the Romans, the martyrs of Najran, Syrian monks etc.) were Orthodox.

Quote
No, that would be the Italo-Greeks.
Ok, they beat the others a little bit sooner.

Couple centuries. Next were the Maronites.

Still it is strange that these far away u-bodies were formed so early. Makes me think if the possibly last remaining force capable of squashing without mercy the "throne of Peter" heresy (since it was never part of the Roman or Byzantine sphere, ecclesiastical structure) needed to be eliminated.
There was a "u-"patriarch for Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem before they reached the Assyrians. And Georgia was in better shape.

Quote
No, the Armenian, Georgian and Albanian (Caucasian) Churches were not within the Roman Empire, nor the Irish Church. Of course, being under Antioch, the Catholicoi of Mesopotamia, Armenia, Georgia and Alabania were within the Roman ecclesiastical structure.

All of these Churches were influenced by, under the territory of , or at war with, and accepting the councils signed by the Roman-Byzantine emperors or the pope. The ACOE alone never faced any of that. It was deep in the Sassanid empire, later deep into the Caliphate, so nobody could force it to accept anything it did not agree to.
And stll there was plenty of Orthodox running around there.

Quote
The title "Catholicos" indicates an exarch of the Patriarch of Antioch

Ridiculous to assert that the ACOE was ever the suffragan of a faraway western bishop.

Mesopotamia was next door. Armenia, Georgia, Albania and India were further away, and under Antioch.

This is an attempt to find the closest Westerners to somehow connect the ACOE to. A fiction
Just stating facts recorded in Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic...

(http://www.peshitta.org/forum/download/file.php?id=21)
Quote
During the first five centuries Seleucia in Mesopotamia, subsequently the see of the Nestorian catholicos, was under the Patriarchate of Antioch. In the fifth century, as can be seen in the "Synodicon Orientale" (ed. Chabot), almost all the bishops of Seleucia-Ctesiphon bore the title of catholicos, without, however, severing their relations with Antioch; hence, originally, the word catholicos was not synonymous with patriarch. Owing to the political separation of the East from the West and to theological disputes, several attempts were made during the fifth century to secure religious independence. In the synod held at Seleucia under Dadjesus in 424 (cf. Synodicon, 51, text and 296. tr.) it was forbidden to appeal from the Catholicos of Seleucia to the Patriarch of Antioch.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03454a.htm
St. Ephraim of Nisibis came to the Council of Nicea, his bishop Jacob signing the Definition.  The bishops of Nisibis and Edessa came to the Ecumenical Councils, some even signing their names to the Acts in Syriac. St. Jacob, the second bishop of Nisibis, founded the school there on the model of Diodore of Tarsus' school in Antioch.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on January 08, 2011, 02:35:10 AM
Fortunately, Orthodoxy is not about what's "necessary."  It's about the fullness of the Faith.  The Western liturgical tradition and spiritual heritage are part of Holy Tradition and they rightfully belong to Orthodoxy.

SubdeaconDavid, forgive me, but you just appear so...shifty and fickle in regards to the Western Rite.  One day you'll make posts about how you have no problem with it at all and want to see it thrive, and another day you'll say its "just not necessary."  I don't understand it.
Hmmm forgive me for sounding "shifty".  If I look at the WR overall I have no problem with the rejuvenation of Western Christian Orthodoxy - as like S. John of Shanghai, I accept the validity of it.  What I struggle with is the disingenuous position of those who try and pretend the Great Schism never happened, or those who think that by calling Anglican BCP Matins "Sarum" that it is OK even when BCP Matins is clearly a child of the Reformation.  

I struggle with the fact that you have WR groups with their own prayer books and a determination not to even let scholars in Western liturgy access them.  I struggle with the fact that you have a tiny congregation of Western riters with a priest in  an ecumenical meeting room my own city and my own 60 year old Russian Orthodox temple has no resident priest and we do not even celebrate feasts together.  That simply saddens me.

I am NOT inimical to Western Christendom.  I grew up an Anglican.  I made my confession believing them valid as an Anglican.  I made my communion, having fasted, said preparation prayers and believing tbem valid and the mass that I was attending valid.  However the bottom line is I was wrong about the validity of western orders and western Christian history post 1054.  

Western-rite not necessary?  If you understand that we can worship in English, using the same rite as 99% of Orthodoxy, then NO it is not necessary.  It is a liturgical relic - the DNA has been taken by WR clerics and people and brought back to life - of sorts, but it is not the same as the Orthodox experience of unbroken bishops and priests, unbroken community of believers worshipping and living the Orthodox rite of the 'East'.  

Western culture has never been homogeneous.  Rites based on Anglican worship have little cultural validity in Continental Europe, let alone in the East.  The Russian Church in China baptised thousands and ordained many priests - native Chinese, who learned Slavonic, used Chinese as well in worship and for whom the rite was simply 'the Orthodox rite'.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on January 08, 2011, 02:39:31 AM
The quote from Iconodule says it all!  Yes, the WR has come down from the top, but it is simply not in my view necessary. 
Then don't go to a WRO Church. That's simple.

Orthodoxy is lived by generation after generation.  We have had Western Orthodox
You mean Eastern Orthodox in the West?
now worshipping in what the Western rite sometimes call the Eastern-rite for generations now.
Everyone calls it the Eastern-rite, or more correctly the Constantinopolitan rite.

And we have had Western Orthodox worshipping in the Western rite for 3-6 generations now.

We have the transmission of Byzantine Orthodoxy in Japan, Korea, Alaska and elsewhere for more than 100 years.
And the WRO for nearly a 140 years.

What was Byzantine is now simply "the Orthodox rite"
No, even the most vehement bishops opposing the WRO admit that if you are Orthodox, you can commune in the DL of SS. Gregory or Tikhon.

and it is as much the birth-rite of English, Japanese, Korean and many others as it is for the Greeks or Slavs.
No, it is not, any more than the Common Law, haikus and Daeboreum are the birth-rite of Greeks or Slavs.

Today in my Russian Church in Tasmania we had our Nativity Liturgy - served in Slavonic, Serbian and English, by a Serbian priest with a Russian and Australian choir, with Australian, Russian, Greek and Ethiopians and Serbs in the congregation.  Nothing foreign for us there at all.  It was simply Orthodox faithful sharing the timeless Byzantine liturgy celebrating together the Nativity. 
You are aware that the Ethiopians have their own liturgy, and it's not "byzantine," no?

And why wasn't it in Tasmanian?
Yes, I know the Ethiopians have their own liturgy but in the absence of an Ethiopian church here, some go to the New Calendar Greeks and some come to us. Church Slavonic and Serbian as well as English are part of the cultural languages of Tasmania and they still prayed for HM the Queen as well as for the Crown prince of Serbia!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on January 08, 2011, 01:28:46 PM
Fortunately, Orthodoxy is not about what's "necessary."  It's about the fullness of the Faith.  The Western liturgical tradition and spiritual heritage are part of Holy Tradition and they rightfully belong to Orthodoxy.

SubdeaconDavid, forgive me, but you just appear so...shifty and fickle in regards to the Western Rite.  One day you'll make posts about how you have no problem with it at all and want to see it thrive, and another day you'll say its "just not necessary."  I don't understand it.
Hmmm forgive me for sounding "shifty".  If I look at the WR overall I have no problem with the rejuvenation of Western Christian Orthodoxy - as like S. John of Shanghai, I accept the validity of it.  What I struggle with is the disingenuous position of those who try and pretend the Great Schism never happened, or those who think that by calling Anglican BCP Matins "Sarum" that it is OK even when BCP Matins is clearly a child of the Reformation.  

I struggle with the fact that you have WR groups with their own prayer books and a determination not to even let scholars in Western liturgy access them.  I struggle with the fact that you have a tiny congregation of Western riters with a priest in  an ecumenical meeting room my own city and my own 60 year old Russian Orthodox temple has no resident priest and we do not even celebrate feasts together.  That simply saddens me.

I am NOT inimical to Western Christendom.  I grew up an Anglican.  I made my confession believing them valid as an Anglican.  I made my communion, having fasted, said preparation prayers and believing tbem valid and the mass that I was attending valid.  However the bottom line is I was wrong about the validity of western orders and western Christian history post 1054.  

Western-rite not necessary?  If you understand that we can worship in English, using the same rite as 99% of Orthodoxy, then NO it is not necessary.  It is a liturgical relic - the DNA has been taken by WR clerics and people and brought back to life - of sorts, but it is not the same as the Orthodox experience of unbroken bishops and priests, unbroken community of believers worshipping and living the Orthodox rite of the 'East'.  

Western culture has never been homogeneous.  Rites based on Anglican worship have little cultural validity in Continental Europe, let alone in the East.  The Russian Church in China baptised thousands and ordained many priests - native Chinese, who learned Slavonic, used Chinese as well in worship and for whom the rite was simply 'the Orthodox rite'.

When I joined this thread it was mostly out of curiosity. The whole notion of a Western Orthodox church has always seemed unnecessary to me as well, not that my opinion on the subject really matters. It seemed to me Patriarch St. Tikhon, and perhaps others, were looking for a way to reach out to Protestant Americans in particular, and they thought the long services in Slavonic were perhaps something of a hindrance. Since the common language of Orthodoxy in the US is now English, even as various jurisdictions continue to worship in other languages, it would seem the context has changed rather radically from St. Tikhon's time.

After reading the comments and participating in the discussion, I've learned to respect my Western Rite brothers and sisters (as well as fathers and mothers) in a new way. I bought one of the prayer books--the one prepared by Fr. Aidan--and have been going through it. I have both Anglicans and Roman Catholics in my family and was a professional church musician for many, many years, so the content of this particular book is fairly familiar. I believe anyone who feels at home in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, or even, perhaps, in the pre-conciliar Latin church, would be comfortable with the liturgies in that book.

But the issues remain. First, it feels like something that was assembled, rather than something that evolved. Once in awhile I find myself with a little bit of a "greatest hits" feeling. Second, I return to some of the debates I participated in a couple of months back: There is simply no basis for asserting that we know how liturgy was celebrated in any Western church before 1054 (or even long after 1054), and there are no extant primary sources for the Sarum Rite before the 12th Century. I know many proponents of the rite disagree with this assertion, but so far no one has offered any actual primary sources to refute it. Certainly, references exist, even individual texts and musical "settings." But nothing like the volume of material that would be needed to put together a Rituale with rubrics for a single liturgy, let alone the entire church year. Now, of course it is reasonable to assume that the material from the 12th-Century sources would reflect earlier practices, so the challenge might be valid if these slightly later sources were missals, for instance, or a complete set of all the material used by an 11th-Century English monastic choir. But these later sources are one Gradual and two Antiphonaries. None of those books is meant, even today, to be used as a stand-alone source for all liturgical practice, and nor do the two books combined contain everything necessary.

So, without in any way questioning either Fr. Aidan's bona fides or his scholarly qualifications, which are far, far superior to my own, I do, nevertheless, feel the question of provenance is a valid one that requires more study.

The other thing in my view is the need for the rite itself. I understand it's been authorized in some jurisdictions, so in a sense my comments are superfluous and irrelevant. But I come back to the feeling I had before I started reading the comments here. I've been deeply moved and inspired by the faith and sincerity of the people here who've shared their love for the Western Rite. But I can't get past the nagging little voice that says loving it isn't enough. The Tridentine Mass is a beautiful liturgy, too, and if one experiences it being celebrated, whether in all the splendor of a European Gothic cathedral or in the simplicity of a rustic mountain chapel, it can be truly awe-inspiring. An Anglican Evensong, sung of a summer evening, perhaps at Ely (or Salisbury itself), is another beautiful spiritual experience. When I open the Western Orthodox prayer book and see the great hymn Veni Creator Spiritus, it is like being greeted by an old, old friend. But we are not talking about a spiritual experience, even less of an aesthetic one. We are talking about "true theology," as the Canon before Communion calls it. We have an ancient liturgy that embodies, expresses, IS this true theology. I'm not persuaded (not that anyone needs to persuade me) that anything other than this ancient liturgy is needed or even desirable, however much one may love this "other," or however beautiful it may be.

Anyway, as many have pointed out, wiser heads than mine have already ruled, and since those heads also wore miters, their decisions bind. LOL
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 08, 2011, 03:10:57 PM
Fortunately, Orthodoxy is not about what's "necessary."  It's about the fullness of the Faith.  The Western liturgical tradition and spiritual heritage are part of Holy Tradition and they rightfully belong to Orthodoxy.

SubdeaconDavid, forgive me, but you just appear so...shifty and fickle in regards to the Western Rite.  One day you'll make posts about how you have no problem with it at all and want to see it thrive, and another day you'll say its "just not necessary."  I don't understand it.
Hmmm forgive me for sounding "shifty".  If I look at the WR overall I have no problem with the rejuvenation of Western Christian Orthodoxy - as like S. John of Shanghai, I accept the validity of it.  What I struggle with is the disingenuous position of those who try and pretend the Great Schism never happened, or those who think that by calling Anglican BCP Matins "Sarum" that it is OK even when BCP Matins is clearly a child of the Reformation.  

I struggle with the fact that you have WR groups with their own prayer books and a determination not to even let scholars in Western liturgy access them.  I struggle with the fact that you have a tiny congregation of Western riters with a priest in  an ecumenical meeting room my own city and my own 60 year old Russian Orthodox temple has no resident priest and we do not even celebrate feasts together.  That simply saddens me.

Why is their fortune your misfortune?

I am NOT inimical to Western Christendom.


You just want to deny its existence, and replace it with Eastern Christendom, sort of like the Latin Empire of Constantinople being the same as the Roman Empire of the East.

I grew up an Anglican.  I made my confession believing them valid as an Anglican.  I made my communion, having fasted, said preparation prayers and believing tbem valid and the mass that I was attending valid.  However the bottom line is I was wrong about the validity of western orders and western Christian history post 1054.


The correct date is 1009, btw., if not 867.

Western-rite not necessary?  If you understand that we can worship in English, using the same rite as 99% of Orthodoxy, then NO it is not necessary.  It is a liturgical relic - the DNA has been taken by WR clerics and people and brought back to life - of sorts, but it is not the same as the Orthodox experience of unbroken bishops and priests, unbroken community of believers worshipping and living the Orthodox rite of the 'East'.
In the East. What you advocate would argue for chucking the Patrimony of the Patriarchate of the West-indeed, for chucking the patrimonies of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem,  and Georgia, as that of Constantinople has been imposed on them-rites, saints, patristics and all.

You don't seem to concerned by the transplants of the Nikonian reformation. Defintely not an organic growth.

And look at the apostolic succession at Constantinople, the line with which you anchor the whole ark of the Church. EP Eusebius of Nicomedia didn't try to reverse Nicea I?  EP Macedonius I preached Orthodoxy and the Fathers of Constantinople I-and hence Our Creed-were mistaken?  The schism during EP Arcacius' patriarchate didn't happen?  EP Nestorius (who established, its seems, the DL of St. John Chrysostom at Constantinople) a link in that "Orthodox experience of unbroken bishops and priests, unbroken community of believers worshipping and living the Orthodox rite"? Which do you side over the Henotkon, with EP Acacius, or EP John I?  EP Sergius I save you from the liturgical relics of Popes SS. Martin and Agatho?  EP Anastasios protect you from the heterodox statues of Pope SS. Gregory II and III?

No, the Orthodoxy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not survive on the merits of Constantinople, but because the Orthodox episcopate is one, and what was strong elsewhere (including at Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) strengthed and healed what was infirm at Constantinople. Why the divine grace, which always heals what is weak and makes up for what is lacking was able to do so in Constantinople, but powerless in the West, you have yet to explain.

It's not like taking DNA a la Jurassic Park. It's like a skin graft, which restores healthy tissue.

Western culture has never been homogeneous.


But it has always been Western. And since the East have never been homogenous, what was your point?

I have no use for Ultramontanism, whether across the Alps or across the Taurus.

Rites based on Anglican worship have little cultural validity in Continental Europe, let alone in the East.
That leaves still leaves a lot
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Commonwealth_games_1962_countries_map.PNG)(http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/03/3/8/0/35131151611106662.png)

The Russian Church in China baptised thousands and ordained many priests - native Chinese, who learned Slavonic, used Chinese as well in worship and for whom the rite was simply 'the Orthodox rite'.
Gee, why doesn't Russia just annex China?  Btw, the Jesuits did far better embracing Chinese culture. And with a western Rite.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on January 08, 2011, 05:08:49 PM
Jesuits vs. Russian Orthodox?  I don't think so.  For the Chinese Orthodox, nationality became of less consequence to them than their Orthodoxy.  Nothing in that about being annexed by Russia or necessarily losing their Chinese identity.  Jesus Christ and the Holy Orthodox faith was of greater importance than notions of race and nation.  This is the story of Orthodoxy.  National identity is less important than Orthodox identity.  This happened for the Chinese Orthodox.  It happened for the Aleutian-Alaskan Orthodox.  It happened for the Japanese Orthodox and it is happening now for the Indonesian Orthodox, the Western Orthodox converts and so many more. 

Eastern Orthodox life has been an organic development always - imperfect at times in application, but arguably nurtured by so many saints and holy people of God.  Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.  It is only Eastern Orthodoxy that has breathed the Spirit of God into the spiritually bankrupt West.  We western converts owe our spiritual lives on those saints and missionaries from Greece, Russia and the Middle East.  The Western-rite itself is the product of the benevolence of Eastern Orthodoxy. 

Of course the negatives of the West have hugely impacted on Orthodox societies and contemporary culture.  That Orthodox Christian kingdoms like Greece and Serbia are now secular republics is a product of the anti-monarchical and anti-Orthodox spirit of modern post French Revolution western thinking. Even Russia today is yet to make peace with God in the restoration of the Orthodox Tsars.  The New Calendarist modernism owes much to the spirit of contemporary Western pseudo-scientific and entirely secular thinking. That is why the Julian calendar itself is so important because it serves as a signal separation of the Orthodox from non-believers.

That the English monarchy has preserved albeit via a heterodox Church of England so much Orthodox notions of the relationship between the monarchy and God is a sign of the residue of Orthodoxy in some places of the Western psyche. May God grant that Orthodoxy, Eastern and Western will convert the West anew.



Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 08, 2011, 06:22:13 PM
Jesuits vs. Russian Orthodox?  I don't think so.  For the Chinese Orthodox, nationality became of less consequence to them than their Orthodoxy.  Nothing in that about being annexed by Russia or necessarily losing their Chinese identity. Jesus Christ and the Holy Orthodox faith was of greater importance than notions of race and nation.  This is the story of Orthodoxy.  National identity is less important than Orthodox identity.  This happened for the Chinese Orthodox.  It happened for the Aleutian-Alaskan Orthodox.  It happened for the Japanese Orthodox and it is happening now for the Indonesian Orthodox, the Western Orthodox converts and so many more.

Before we go into that, are you Chinese? Have you met any Chinese Orthodox?

Eastern Orthodox life has been an organic development always-
The Novella of Justinian, the Byzantinization of Pat. Balsamon "of Antioch," the Reformation of Nikon, the Spiritual Regulation of Czar Peter....you skip over, or have substantial gaps in, significant parts of the history of the Orthodox Church.

mperfect at times in application, but arguably nurtured by so many saints and holy people of God.  Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

This assertion has been made before, and it has failed yet, as far as I have seen, to be substantiated.

As for not producing saints, what you should mean is that the Orthodox Church cannot, at least at present, glorify saints that the West produced after the schism. What you have said is that virtue evaporated from the West

Do get your facts straight, and state straightforward what you mean by "that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas ."

It is only Eastern Orthodoxy that has breathed the Spirit of God into the spiritually bankrupt West.

Oh, the East hasn't been the land of plenty you are portraying.  Had it been, we would not have experienced the Western Captivity of the Church.

We western converts owe our spiritual lives on those saints and missionaries from Greece, Russia and the Middle East.  The Western-rite itself is the product of the benevolence of Eastern Orthodoxy.


Your point?

Of course the negatives of the West have hugely impacted on Orthodox societies and contemporary culture.  That Orthodox Christian kingdoms like Greece and Serbia are now secular republics is a product of the anti-monarchical and anti-Orthodox spirit of modern post French Revolution western thinking.

The Spiritual Regulation of the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Empire was issued long before the French Revpolution.

Even Russia today is yet to make peace with God in the restoration of the Orthodox Tsars.


As much as I am a monarchist, Russia is under no obligation of God to elect a Tsar nor restore the Romanovs.

The New Calendarist modernism owes much to the spirit of contemporary Western pseudo-scientific and entirely secular thinking. That is why the Julian calendar itself is so important because it serves as a signal separation of the Orthodox from non-believers.

So you have to disavow science to reject secularism?  I prefer to follow the Fathers, and accept that the spring equinox occurs on March 21, Revised Julian Calendar.

That the English monarchy has preserved albeit via a heterodox Church of England so much Orthodox notions of the relationship between the monarchy and God is a sign of the residue of Orthodoxy in some places of the Western psyche. May God grant that Orthodoxy, Eastern and Western will convert the West anew.
And in the process convert the East anew.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on January 08, 2011, 06:57:55 PM


Quote
 Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on January 08, 2011, 07:48:15 PM
Our Lord did indeed show love for the most fallen.  I have met an Anglican monk, the late Dom Anthony Damron from the Benedictine Abbey at Three Rivers in Michigan whom  I would consider a man with many saintly qualities, recognised I imagine by God Himself.  Nonetheless, Dom Anthony was outside the Body of Christ and this separation colours everything as it does for all in every country who are outside the Orthodox Christian faith. Fr. Anthony has long left his body, however I cannot imagine God not welcoming him into Paradise: a monk who prayed the hours and lived the Benedictine Rule most of his adult life.

Indeed I am sure Dom Anthony had much less need of the mercy of God than me.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 10, 2011, 12:10:21 PM
Our Lord did indeed show love for the most fallen.  I have met an Anglican monk, the late Dom Anthony Damron from the Benedictine Abbey at Three Rivers in Michigan whom  I would consider a man with many saintly qualities, recognised I imagine by God Himself.  Nonetheless, Dom Anthony was outside the Body of Christ and this separation colours everything as it does for all in every country who are outside the Orthodox Christian faith.
No country is outside the Orthodox Christian Faith.  Were the smallest country outside it, the Orthodox Christian Faith would not be that of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Do you include Tamania/Australia as inside the Orthodox Christian Faith, or outside it?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 10, 2011, 12:20:04 PM


Quote
Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 10, 2011, 12:29:50 PM


Quote
Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.

Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on January 10, 2011, 12:46:48 PM


Quote
Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.



If you ever want to have an interesting experience, hang out for awhile with a group of monks from a variety of different traditions and religions. What is interesting is that the monks all seem to have more in common with one another, no matter what path they are treading, than they do with the lay people of their own denominations. An Anglican Franciscan, a Zen Buddhist sensei, and a Greek Orthodox Hieromonk seem to have a bond that goes beyond boundaries.

The early Fathers learned from all kinds of sources.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on January 10, 2011, 01:19:02 PM


Quote
Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.



If you ever want to have an interesting experience, hang out for awhile with a group of monks from a variety of different traditions and religions. What is interesting is that the monks all seem to have more in common with one another, no matter what path they are treading, than they do with the lay people of their own denominations. An Anglican Franciscan, a Zen Buddhist sensei, and a Greek Orthodox Hieromonk seem to have a bond that goes beyond boundaries.

The early Fathers learned from all kinds of sources.
Yes. If you read their writings, you seem then winnowing the wheat from the chaff, following the Apostolic injunction "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." Phil. 4:8. If they could do so from pagan and heathen Rome, why not Ultramontanist Rome?

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.
Care to quote me on that?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 10, 2011, 01:41:30 PM


Quote
Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.


Wow. Isa basically commented your church and saints and you took it as an opportunity to spit back in his face? Classy. :(

I agree with both Isa and Hermogenes. There are very holy men and women after the schism, but from the Orthodox perspective, they if they are to be read, it should be done under the direction of a spiritual father (as should all spiritual reading, from what I understand).

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on January 10, 2011, 01:58:40 PM


Quote
Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.


Wow. Isa basically commented your church and saints and you took it as an opportunity to spit back in his face? Classy. :(

I agree with both Isa and Hermogenes. There are very holy men and women after the schism, but from the Orthodox perspective, they if they are to be read, it should be done under the direction of a spiritual father (as should all spiritual reading, from what I understand).

In Christ,
Andrew

And many people have benefitted from writers such as Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day, Teillhard de Chardin, Henri Nouwen, etc., Just as Westerners have benefitted from "post-Schism" our saints.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on January 10, 2011, 05:17:30 PM


Quote
Even the fact that for the Western European peoples that Orthodox saints stopped after the Schism - that Western society produced no saints once Western society was outside the Church has had a huge impact on the spiritual lives of Europe, the Americas etc.

I am Orthodox and consider myself devout, yet I cannot tell you how disturbing I find this statement. We are all imperfect children of the Triune God, but the West has produced many godly and holy people since 1054, whether or not they have been glorified by Orthodoxy. To see it otherwise is to impoverish our own spiritual life. Naturally,the writings of people like Meister Eckhart, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross need to be used with much discretion and under the direction of a spiritual advisor. But to consider them worthless, or the many other spiritual classics of the West, seems very, very myopic. Our Lord sat, discussed, and broke bread with everyone, and He did so in love.

Were the West totally bereft of God, how is it that the Latin/Venetian Lorenzo Scupoli wrote his "Spritual Combat," such that St. Theophan the Recluse took it up and adapted it to Orthodoxy while translating it into Russian as "Unseen Warfare," whence it became a classic of Orthodox spirituality?

It is only one of many borrowings before and after the schism, and not the only good borrowing either.

So yes, I'm as disturbed as you are about the statement.

Bad logic.

Where there are no sacraments, there is no genuine spiritual life possible.

What you are adapting is chaff.  In fact according to the logic you have used elsewhere, these adaptations will open doors to the demonic.



If you ever want to have an interesting experience, hang out for awhile with a group of monks from a variety of different traditions and religions. What is interesting is that the monks all seem to have more in common with one another, no matter what path they are treading, than they do with the lay people of their own denominations. An Anglican Franciscan, a Zen Buddhist sensei, and a Greek Orthodox Hieromonk seem to have a bond that goes beyond boundaries.

The early Fathers learned from all kinds of sources.

I know that very well.

However there is a breach in the logic of the on-going approach that I mentioned above and I was noting it. 
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 17, 2011, 01:17:08 PM
Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 27, 2011, 06:51:12 PM
Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew
Bump!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on January 27, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
This seems to be a common occurrence...
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 27, 2011, 06:53:36 PM
This seems to be a common occurrence...
Did it happen to you as well? Did you get your money back? I hope it wasn't a scam. :(

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on January 27, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
No, not to me, but I was very interested in obtaining one until I found several others who had never received their book. It's not a scam as much as, I don't know, perhaps laziness or an inability to fulfill the order for some reason? I hope it works out for you...
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on January 28, 2011, 05:22:45 PM
Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 28, 2011, 06:03:36 PM
Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?
The Old English prayerbook that Hieromonk Aidan compiled and is put out by his printing press under the ROCOR. I sent away for it over 4 weeks ago and I even contacted Hieromonk Aidan by email to see what the story was. No word. I'd rather it be negligence as Sleeper said and not a scam.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on January 29, 2011, 02:27:49 PM
Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?
The Old English prayerbook that Hieromonk Aidan compiled and is put out by his printing press under the ROCOR. I sent away for it over 4 weeks ago and I even contacted Hieromonk Aidan by email to see what the story was. No word. I'd rather it be negligence as Sleeper said and not a scam.

In Christ,
Andrew

How odd. I got mine in about a week. I bought it in November, I think.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on January 31, 2011, 07:01:22 AM
They are liturgically foregin to the East

No, the Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
Where was it maintained as a living tradition after the Schism?
And where is there even a complete pre-schism manuscript of the Sarum Rite missal and beviary?
Don't turn this into East vs. West.
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.
This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: SubdeaconDavid on January 31, 2011, 07:03:26 AM
Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?
The Old English prayerbook that Hieromonk Aidan compiled and is put out by his printing press under the ROCOR. I sent away for it over 4 weeks ago and I even contacted Hieromonk Aidan by email to see what the story was. No word. I'd rather it be negligence as Sleeper said and not a scam.
I know the St. John of Kronstadt Press have the book listed in stock and they are an excellent and efficient mailer.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on January 31, 2011, 09:23:20 AM
Has anyone who ordered their copy of the prayerbook received it yet? I sent away for it 2 weeks ago and no word yet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Which prayer book?
The Old English prayerbook that Hieromonk Aidan compiled and is put out by his printing press under the ROCOR. I sent away for it over 4 weeks ago and I even contacted Hieromonk Aidan by email to see what the story was. No word. I'd rather it be negligence as Sleeper said and not a scam.
I know the St. John of Kronstadt Press have the book listed in stock and they are an excellent and efficient mailer.

Amazon usually has it available, too.

I've been making the argument you made about Sarum rites since I joined this thread. Prepare to be--well, not  shouted down, people here are pretty kind anf respectful. "Corrected" might be the word. LOL
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: podkarpatska on January 31, 2011, 10:12:26 AM
They are liturgically foregin to the East

No, the Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
Where was it maintained as a living tradition after the Schism?
And where is there even a complete pre-schism manuscript of the Sarum Rite missal and beviary?
Don't turn this into East vs. West.
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.
This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

The DNA point is interesting and calls up a recent anecdote. My son is a microbiologist and we exchanged emails the other week about a report on Japanese researchers attempting to 'recreate' a mammoth from DNA strands of a frozen mammoth found in Siberia and other DNA aspects from modern elephants, a species closely related to the extinct mammoth. I observed to my son that while they might end up with an animal from this process, while it might be an animal, it surely would really be neither mammoth nor elephant. It might be worth the effort to try, but the scientists would not end up with that which they started to seek.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: mike on January 31, 2011, 02:08:52 PM
This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Why the Bishops dead 1000 years ago are wiser that those alive now? Why aren't we allowed to start new tradition or new rite?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 31, 2011, 02:28:12 PM
This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Why the Bishops dead 1000 years ago are wiser that those alive now? Why aren't we allowed to start new tradition or new rite?
Well, technically the Sarum liturgy/rites are not new at all. :)

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on January 31, 2011, 05:53:10 PM
They are liturgically foregin to the East

No, the Sarum Rite is also liturgically foreign to the West.
Where was it maintained as a living tradition after the Schism?
And where is there even a complete pre-schism manuscript of the Sarum Rite missal and beviary?
Don't turn this into East vs. West.
It's about Living Tradition vs. re-inventing tradition.
This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

This is only an issue if one insists an authentic Western Rite has to be pre-Schism. The Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate would say (correctly, IMHO) that this is not so. Hence their reasoning behind adapting existing Western liturgies which have been kept alive.

The issue then would be whether or not we should "reject" something simply because it was not maintained by the Orthodox Church. And if you're going to take this line of reasoning, you're going to run into some problems.

The fact is, there wasn't nearly as much "damage" to the Western Rites as some like to think and they were quite easily adjusted to once again live as authentically ancient Western expressions of the Holy Catholic Faith.

There is no "resurrecting" going on within the AWRV. Restoration would be more accurate.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: James2 on February 11, 2011, 01:50:04 PM
This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Sarum is a use of the Roman rite, not a rite itself.  There is no pre-schism Sarum use, because it developed following the Norman conquest.  The pre-schism Anglo-Saxon church also used the Roman rite.  By the time of the Norman conquest the Roman rite had already evolved to a point that it strongly resembled what later became known as the "Tridentine" rite.  Sarum and other medieval uses were fairly minor variations on the Roman rite.  Thus, the AWRV Liturgy of St. Gregory is an appropriate adaptation of the historic Western liturgy for use in present-day Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on February 11, 2011, 01:53:40 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: James2 on February 11, 2011, 02:06:28 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

Sure, as long as they dropped the Novus Ordo!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Monk Vasyl on February 11, 2011, 02:16:35 PM
This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Why the Bishops dead 1000 years ago are wiser that those alive now? Why aren't we allowed to start new tradition or new rite?

I agree with you 100%, Michal.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on February 12, 2011, 02:37:09 PM
This is one of the best succinct arguments in favor of the Byzantine rite.  If we do not have a complete pre-Schism Sarum mass rite and breviary, then those who rely on Sarum elements in the 1549 Anglican Book of Common Prayer are relying on fragments 490 years after the West had departed from the Orthodox Church into schism.  This is not an issue of the superiority of East over the West.  It is about living tradition, guarded by the episcopal wisdom of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit vs. a well-meaning attempt to take the DNA of pre-Schism Western Orthodoxy and revive it in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Why the Bishops dead 1000 years ago are wiser that those alive now? Why aren't we allowed to start new tradition or new rite?

I agree with you 100%, Michal.

It seems to me--I hope this doesn't sound grandiose--that the goal is to lead us to God through Christ.If the Western Rite can help do that within a valid Orthodox liturgical theology, then I don't see any reason to oppose it. I doubt it would be for me, but it might be just the job for someone else.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on February 12, 2011, 05:21:18 PM
It was good enough for St. Benedict, St. Patrick, St. Columba, St. Dunstan, St. Etheldreda and countless others, why wouldn't it be good for us today?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on February 12, 2011, 05:41:41 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?
no, they would have to adopt the rite of St. Gregory.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Shiny on February 12, 2011, 06:41:24 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

I look forward to the day when you become Orthodox, in fact it's predicted in Revelation. Wouldn't that be something if the Pope of Rome decided that his church became Orthodox, I couldn't imagine the uprise it would cause for the Catholic faithful.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: James2 on February 13, 2011, 11:04:32 AM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

I look forward to the day when you become Orthodox, in fact it's predicted in Revelation. Wouldn't that be something if the Pope of Rome decided that his church became Orthodox, I couldn't imagine the uprise it would cause for the Catholic faithful.

It would upset their many modernists even more.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on February 24, 2011, 10:16:20 AM
I just received a copy of the Western Rite Service Book, for use in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I don't know what I was expecting, but after all the passionate defense of its uniqueness I certainly wasn't expecting what I got. This is for all purposes, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The so-called Liturgy of St. Tikhon is the Anglican service of Holy Communion, with a few things tossed in to make it conform theologically. The book also includes such "Orthodox" rites as the Stations of the Cross and the Adoration of the Blessed Sacramment--which appear to have been adapted from the Prayer Book of St. Augustine (a prayer book published early in the last century for high-church Anglicans). Even the order of services in the book follows the Anglican format. The Matins and Vespers services appear to be lifted from BCP nearly word for word.

My one response is--why? What is the point of this? Why is an Orthodox church using a Protestant prayer book, even assuming certain corrections for the sake of theological uniformity? The Anglican Eucharist isn't simply different theologically: The entire intent of the service is explicitly different. Anglicans aren't simply Orthodox waiting to be liberated from their Protestant disguise, who once thus liberated can continue as before but under new management. The books published by Fr. Aidan are at the least quite different. They present a unique perspective on the liturgy.

This Western Rite book is a Protestant prayer book in Orthodox clothing.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on February 24, 2011, 10:30:06 AM
 ,,,
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on February 24, 2011, 10:58:11 AM
The books published by Fr. Aidan are at the least quite different. They present a unique perspective on the liturgy.

In your opinion, what makes Fr. Aidan's books different?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on February 24, 2011, 05:55:17 PM
I just received a copy of the Western Rite Service Book, for use in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Congrats!

Quote
I don't know what I was expecting, but after all the passionate defense of its uniqueness I certainly wasn't expecting what I got.

That happens.

Quote
This is for all purposes, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

It certainly feels that way, true.

Quote
The so-called Liturgy of St. Tikhon

It's no so-called, that's its official title ;)

Quote
is the Anglican service of Holy Communion, with a few things tossed in to make it conform theologically.

Some things were removed too, but yes, it has been supplemented from the Rite of St. Gregory and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Quote
The book also includes such "Orthodox" rites as the Stations of the Cross and the Adoration of the Blessed Sacramment--which appear to have been adapted from the Prayer Book of St. Augustine (a prayer book published early in the last century for high-church Anglicans).

Those aren't rites, they're devotions.

Quote
Even the order of services in the book follows the Anglican format. The Matins and Vespers services appear to be lifted from BCP nearly word for word.

Indeed!

Quote
My one response is--why?

Because all things true and beautiful belong in the bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Quote
What is the point of this?

Taken from http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/wrv_history.pdf (http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/wrv_history.pdf):

Quote
The purpose of the Western Rite Vicariate, as originally conceived in 1958, is threefold. First, the WRV serves an ecumenical purpose. The ideal of true ecumenism, according to an Orthodox understanding, promotes “all efforts for the reunion of Christendom, without departing from the ancient foundation of our One Orthodox Church.”  Second, the WRV serves a missionary and evangelistic purpose. There are a great many non-Orthodox Christians who are “attracted by our Orthodox Faith, but could not find a congenial home in the spiritual world of Eastern Christendom.” Third, the WRV exists to be witness to Orthodox Christians themselves to the universality of the Orthodox Catholic Faith – a Faith which is not narrowly Byzantine, Hellenistic, or Slavic (as is sometimes assumed by non-Orthodox and Orthodox alike) but is the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for all men, in all places, at all times. In the words of Father Paul Schneirla, “the Western Rite restores the normal cultural balance in the Church. The pre-schismatic condition is restored between East and West in symbol and potentiality. A primary result of this reunion is that the Church proclaims her catholicity. She demonstrates that the is the Oecumenical Church, not a tribal religion.”  The WRV, while existing within the bosom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, has an entirely “Western Catholic” liturgical life, as it includes translated and adapted Latin liturgical texts for the Divine Office, the Mass (Divine Liturgy), the Sacraments, and various Blessings; forms for the observance of the Western Church Year and the old Roman sanctoral kalendar; the use of Gregorian chant as well as other forms of traditional Western church music and hymnody; ceremonial acts, vestments, architecture, ecclesiastical arts, popular piety and ethos. The basis for the WRV’s eucharistic texts may be found in two seminal documents: (1) the Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis (drawn up by J. J. Overbeck and approved by the Russian Synod in 1869, and by Constantinople in 1882), and (2) the 1904 response of the Russian Synod to Archbishop (now Saint) Tikhon concerning the 1892 American Book of Common Prayer.

Sums it up nicely.

Quote
Why is an Orthodox church using a Protestant prayer book, even assuming certain corrections for the sake of theological uniformity?

In the words of one wise man:

Quote
No honest human being could describe this as "The Book of Common Prayer." Although Anglo-Catholics would recognize it, and most Western Christians feel an instant and familiar sense of worship while praying it, St. Tikhon's Liturgy far exceeded any edition of the BCP...

Much less could it be called "Protestant." It is a liturgy compiled according to the instructions of the Orthodox Church, at the behest of Orthodox saints, by distinguished Orthodox theologians, blessed within the Orthodox Church, and celebrated within multiple patriarchates of the Orthodox Church for decades. No Protestant would be comfortable with the liturgy's fervent supplication of the saints and the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. He would not appreciate its commemoration of Orthodox hierarchs. He would find no "Zwinglian" content in its outspoken profession of the Real Presence. And no Calvinist -- the British variety of which paid thugs to smash church pictures and stained glass windows with a hammer -- would feel comfortable in a church that visibly expresses its acceptance of the seventh ecumenical council.

In giving its approval, the Church adoped the liturgy's every word and turn-of-phrase -- whatever its provenance -- as Her own. One is inescapably led to believe as the Orthodox Church does about this liturgy, and the Western Rite in general: that it conveys the fulness of Orthodox faith, worship, and devotion to those, of whatever ethnic background, privileged to share in its celebration.
- Benjamin Anderson, westernorthodox.blogspot.com

Quote
The Anglican Eucharist isn't simply different theologically: The entire intent of the service is explicitly different.

Texts don't have "intent," people do. If you'd like to know what those of us Orthodox worshipping with this beautiful liturgy "intend" you should come to one of our services ;)

Quote
Anglicans aren't simply Orthodox waiting to be liberated from their Protestant disguise, who once thus liberated can continue as before but under new management.

Indeed!

Quote
The books published by Fr. Aidan are at the least quite different. They present a unique perspective on the liturgy.

We aren't looking for "different" or "unique" liturgies; we want the authentic and venerable traditions of our forefathers.

Quote
This Western Rite book is a Protestant prayer book in Orthodox clothing.

I've emailed Patriarch Ignatius IV of the Holy See of Antioch to let him know this. Expect a response be E.O.B. on Friday. I'd email those who played the largest role in ushering this venerable and holy liturgy into the bosom of the Mother church, but they're in Heaven right now being honored as Saints.

All kidding aside, I'd like to leave with one more quote:

Quote
We are simply Orthodox Christians (because we believe the Orthodox Catholic Faith) who, with the blessing of the Church, worship, pray and live out our Christian existence according to the authentic and venerable traditions of the Western Church, as they have come down to us. That's it, and all of it. Let the great internet theologians say whatever they want; we're just here trying to live out our Christian lives, rejoicing in the communion of the Orthodox Catholic Church, and thankful for the gift of our Western Rite expression.
- Benjamin Andersen, westernorthodox.blogspot.com

On another note, I'm probably not the only one interested in those portions of this liturgy that you find so repugnant, or miss the mark, or are blatantly false, or any other thing that causes you to dislike it.  Let's talk about some specifics!
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on February 24, 2011, 06:29:48 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Melodist on February 24, 2011, 08:13:12 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day. The radings prayers for Palm Sunday seem to be more centered on Holy Friday than they do on Palm Sunday, it's a difference but I'm not sure if it's worth drawing a line in the sand over, even though I find it odd.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on February 24, 2011, 08:14:31 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.
What are those implications?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Melodist on February 24, 2011, 08:18:38 PM
Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

The only real differences between the latin and AWRV is the insertion of an extra epiclesis and the precommunion prayer of St John Chrysostom.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Melodist on February 24, 2011, 08:29:26 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.
What are those implications?

I know it's not written from a modern perspective, but from a modern perspective, the "for us" sounds too much like "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me". I think "that it may become the Body and Blood" conveys a more concrete reality of what we are asking for and what is happening in the consecration. But then again I suppose it could be understood in a context of "it's for us because we are who it is promised to and can't be found anywhere else". Like I said, just my personal opinion.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on February 24, 2011, 09:16:20 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.
What are those implications?

I know it's not written from a modern perspective, but from a modern perspective, the "for us" sounds too much like "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me". I think "that it may become the Body and Blood" conveys a more concrete reality of what we are asking for and what is happening in the consecration. But then again I suppose it could be understood in a context of "it's for us because we are who it is promised to and can't be found anywhere else". Like I said, just my personal opinion.
You actually raise an interesting point.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on February 24, 2011, 09:32:18 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.
What are those implications?

I know it's not written from a modern perspective, but from a modern perspective, the "for us" sounds too much like "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me". I think "that it may become the Body and Blood" conveys a more concrete reality of what we are asking for and what is happening in the consecration. But then again I suppose it could be understood in a context of "it's for us because we are who it is promised to and can't be found anywhere else". Like I said, just my personal opinion.

This reminds me about the current word fight over "for many" and "for all".
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on February 24, 2011, 09:34:26 PM
Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.
What are those implications?

I know it's not written from a modern perspective, but from a modern perspective, the "for us" sounds too much like "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me". I think "that it may become the Body and Blood" conveys a more concrete reality of what we are asking for and what is happening in the consecration. But then again I suppose it could be understood in a context of "it's for us because we are who it is promised to and can't be found anywhere else". Like I said, just my personal opinion.

This reminds me about the current word fight over "for many" and "for all".
It's actually exaclty like that. It doesn't affect that actual substance of what the Liturgy is conveying, but it is interesting from and experiential perspective. What do people think it is saying?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on February 24, 2011, 09:47:11 PM
Is it being implied that there aren't any phrases in the Byzantine liturgy that could be misconstrued in a modern context?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on February 24, 2011, 09:49:12 PM
This reminds me about the current word fight over "for many" and "for all".
It's actually exaclty like that. It doesn't affect that actual substance of what the Liturgy is conveying, but it is interesting from and experiential perspective. What do people think it is saying?

As you probably know the latin says the blood was spilled "pro multis" not "pro universis". The argument is that "pro multis" is still validly translated "for all". The disagreement, and one of the reasons it is being changed in the new translation, is that (1) the words "for many" is from the Gospel of Matthew, and (2) "for many" signifies those that accept Jesus, excluding all those who do not.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent
Quote
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Hermogenes on February 25, 2011, 04:17:45 PM
I just received a copy of the Western Rite Service Book, for use in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Congrats!

Quote
I don't know what I was expecting, but after all the passionate defense of its uniqueness I certainly wasn't expecting what I got.

That happens.

Quote
This is for all purposes, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

It certainly feels that way, true.

Quote
The so-called Liturgy of St. Tikhon

It's no so-called, that's its official title ;)

Quote
is the Anglican service of Holy Communion, with a few things tossed in to make it conform theologically.

Some things were removed too, but yes, it has been supplemented from the Rite of St. Gregory and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Quote
The book also includes such "Orthodox" rites as the Stations of the Cross and the Adoration of the Blessed Sacramment--which appear to have been adapted from the Prayer Book of St. Augustine (a prayer book published early in the last century for high-church Anglicans).

Those aren't rites, they're devotions.

Quote
Even the order of services in the book follows the Anglican format. The Matins and Vespers services appear to be lifted from BCP nearly word for word.

Indeed!

Quote
My one response is--why?

Because all things true and beautiful belong in the bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Quote
What is the point of this?

Taken from http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/wrv_history.pdf (http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/wrv_history.pdf):

Quote
The purpose of the Western Rite Vicariate, as originally conceived in 1958, is threefold. First, the WRV serves an ecumenical purpose. The ideal of true ecumenism, according to an Orthodox understanding, promotes “all efforts for the reunion of Christendom, without departing from the ancient foundation of our One Orthodox Church.”  Second, the WRV serves a missionary and evangelistic purpose. There are a great many non-Orthodox Christians who are “attracted by our Orthodox Faith, but could not find a congenial home in the spiritual world of Eastern Christendom.” Third, the WRV exists to be witness to Orthodox Christians themselves to the universality of the Orthodox Catholic Faith – a Faith which is not narrowly Byzantine, Hellenistic, or Slavic (as is sometimes assumed by non-Orthodox and Orthodox alike) but is the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for all men, in all places, at all times. In the words of Father Paul Schneirla, “the Western Rite restores the normal cultural balance in the Church. The pre-schismatic condition is restored between East and West in symbol and potentiality. A primary result of this reunion is that the Church proclaims her catholicity. She demonstrates that the is the Oecumenical Church, not a tribal religion.”  The WRV, while existing within the bosom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, has an entirely “Western Catholic” liturgical life, as it includes translated and adapted Latin liturgical texts for the Divine Office, the Mass (Divine Liturgy), the Sacraments, and various Blessings; forms for the observance of the Western Church Year and the old Roman sanctoral kalendar; the use of Gregorian chant as well as other forms of traditional Western church music and hymnody; ceremonial acts, vestments, architecture, ecclesiastical arts, popular piety and ethos. The basis for the WRV’s eucharistic texts may be found in two seminal documents: (1) the Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis (drawn up by J. J. Overbeck and approved by the Russian Synod in 1869, and by Constantinople in 1882), and (2) the 1904 response of the Russian Synod to Archbishop (now Saint) Tikhon concerning the 1892 American Book of Common Prayer.

Sums it up nicely.

Quote
Why is an Orthodox church using a Protestant prayer book, even assuming certain corrections for the sake of theological uniformity?

In the words of one wise man:

Quote
No honest human being could describe this as "The Book of Common Prayer." Although Anglo-Catholics would recognize it, and most Western Christians feel an instant and familiar sense of worship while praying it, St. Tikhon's Liturgy far exceeded any edition of the BCP...

Much less could it be called "Protestant." It is a liturgy compiled according to the instructions of the Orthodox Church, at the behest of Orthodox saints, by distinguished Orthodox theologians, blessed within the Orthodox Church, and celebrated within multiple patriarchates of the Orthodox Church for decades. No Protestant would be comfortable with the liturgy's fervent supplication of the saints and the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. He would not appreciate its commemoration of Orthodox hierarchs. He would find no "Zwinglian" content in its outspoken profession of the Real Presence. And no Calvinist -- the British variety of which paid thugs to smash church pictures and stained glass windows with a hammer -- would feel comfortable in a church that visibly expresses its acceptance of the seventh ecumenical council.

In giving its approval, the Church adoped the liturgy's every word and turn-of-phrase -- whatever its provenance -- as Her own. One is inescapably led to believe as the Orthodox Church does about this liturgy, and the Western Rite in general: that it conveys the fulness of Orthodox faith, worship, and devotion to those, of whatever ethnic background, privileged to share in its celebration.
- Benjamin Anderson, westernorthodox.blogspot.com

Quote
The Anglican Eucharist isn't simply different theologically: The entire intent of the service is explicitly different.

Texts don't have "intent," people do. If you'd like to know what those of us Orthodox worshipping with this beautiful liturgy "intend" you should come to one of our services ;)


This is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. If I wanted to attend an Anglican service I'd go to an Anglican church. Many liturgies are beautiful. The Tridentine Mass with music by Vittoria or Palestrina is hard to beat for sure beauty. That is hardly the point.

This is Article XXVIII frpom the Anglican 39 articles:

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

So this explains quite clearly what the Anglicans thought they were doing when they wrote this liturgy. How much of this conforms with Orthodox eucharistic theology? Sincerity and truth are not synonymous.

I think I'm done with this discussion. Unfortunately, I appear to be nearly in the same place on exiting the discussion as I was on entering it. I would have been happy to see how my original views were mistaken, but the arguments just seem to go around in circles and make no sense to me. Not that you should care what makes sense to me. But maybe you should care that someone who was originally sensitive to your arguments and open to having his mind changed hasn't been able to see any more logic to these "Western Rites" now after six months of discussion that he could see before.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on February 25, 2011, 06:49:36 PM
Fair enough, Hermogenes, and with all due respect, we don't need your approval. While it would be nice for our Byzantine brethren to understand where we're coming from, and receive their prayers on our behalf, as we pray for them in our Prayer for the Church, we'll be content with the approval and prayers of our bishops, our Metropolitan, our Patriarch and the Saints who brought this Rite to fruition. To put it simply, I think they know better than you ;)

And quite frankly, until you actually attend a service where the Rite of St. Tikhon is served, most people would do well to ignore what you have to say. You quite obviously have no idea what happens at our services, no idea what we really believe, and no idea what we offer to God through our worship. In your clouded logic all you're able to see is BCP = Anglican, Anglican = Protestant, BCP = Rite of St. Tikhon, Rite of St. Tikhon = Protestant.

At the risk of wasting my time, since you've given up trying to understand where we're coming from, I'll reply anyway. Maybe other readers might find it useful...

This is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. If I wanted to attend an Anglican service I'd go to an Anglican church. Many liturgies are beautiful. The Tridentine Mass with music by Vittoria or Palestrina is hard to beat for sure beauty. That is hardly the point.

It isn't "hardly" the point for those of us who believe all beauty and truth belong to God.

Quote
This is Article XXVIII frpom the Anglican 39 articles:

You'll note the 39 Articles are not found anywhere in the service book you purchased, and have no bearing on the Rite of St. Tikhon. Anyway...

Quote
"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

So, the Supper of the Lord, as defined by this Article is, a) a Sacrament of our Redemption and, b) the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ when it is received rightly, worthily and with faith.  What exactly is the problem???

Quote
"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

Perhaps these portions of the Rite of St. Tikhon might clear things up:

"vouchsafe to send down thy holy Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. "

"may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

"humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ."

"grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."

"Almighty and ever living God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ."

The Church has also added the same prayers from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for good measure:

"I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood. Wherefore I pray thee, have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance; and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of thine immaculate Mysteries, unto remission of my sins and unto life everlasting. Amen.

Of thy Mystic Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of thy Mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas; but like the thief will I confess thee: Remember me, O Lord, in thy Kingdom. Not unto judgement nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body."

Quote
So this explains quite clearly what the Anglicans thought they were doing when they wrote this liturgy. How much of this conforms with Orthodox eucharistic theology? Sincerity and truth are not synonymous.

I'm failing to see what the intent of Anglicans who assembled the original BCP and its Articles has to do with the Antiochian Orthodox Rite of St. Tikhon. Oh, wait, unless you were under the impression that everything that makes up the Byzantine Rite came from non-secular, Christian sources and Orthodox history is completely free of assuming and blessing cultural and linguistic things that came from outside of her boundaries. Surely that isn't true?

Quote
I think I'm done with this discussion. Unfortunately, I appear to be nearly in the same place on exiting the discussion as I was on entering it. I would have been happy to see how my original views were mistaken, but the arguments just seem to go around in circles and make no sense to me. Not that you should care what makes sense to me. But maybe you should care that someone who was originally sensitive to your arguments and open to having his mind changed hasn't been able to see any more logic to these "Western Rites" now after six months of discussion that he could see before.

Perhaps you should discuss issues with the bishops and priests who have blessed and live out these "Western Rites" that you inexplicably placed in quotes, instead of relying on lay people who chat in online forums? Or, better yet, swallow your distaste and try attending a service and actually worshipping with your fellow Orthodox brethren before you make up your mind? But, that might require a little effort, and it's much easier slap unwarranted labels on things and draw unwarranted conclusions from things that have no relationship to one another.

In fact, I think I'll once again leave with the quote of another far more wise than you or I; His Grace Bishop BASIL:

Quote
MY observations begin with my own experience with Western Rite. Some of you who have known me since I’ve been consecrated have heard this confession before. Before I was thoroughly exposed to the Western Rite by attending services, I was very leery. I knew that philosophically and historically it was legitimate. But I couldn’t believe that it could be authentic. And that was because I hadn’t experienced it. So the confession is that you have a convert here.

Orthodox who are of the Byzantine Rite know that the way one worships is not a proof of anything. We have been in churches, and some of us have relatives who attend these churches that look like ours and they smell like ours, and if you would go to communion it would probably taste like ours. When you eat the holy bread it tastes like ours. The music sounds like our music. The accents that the people have are the same accents that we have, but it’s not the Church.

So for Orthodox people, the fact that something looks the same and smells the same is not a proof of anything. It is in this sense that our Eastern Rite people are coming to a greater appreciation for the Western Rite. It looks different, the vestments are different, the incense smells different, the words and music are different—and it is the Church.

I remember well the first time I attended a Western Rite service. It was not at one of our churches, but at an Episcopal cathedral. On this first visit, I wept. This was not just because it was aesthetically pleasing; I don’t cry at concerts. Rather, I wept because this beautiful and authentic tradition was in danger of dying out.

You are the inheritors of a precious treasure: the authentic and Orthodox rites that nourished thousands now in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Orthodox Church thanks you for preserving this tradition all these years, so that it could be restored to her through Western Rite Orthodox parishes.

The faith that you hold, combined with the rite in which you practice that faith, is more important than anything else.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 25, 2011, 07:34:37 PM
You'll note the 39 Articles are not found anywhere in the service book you purchased, and have no bearing on the Rite of St. Tikhon.


The pre-Institution Narrative paragraph of the Canon seems to reflect Article XXXI.  The Anglican Use Roman Catholic Mass simply replaced the Anglican Canon with the Roman.  Given all the fuss over inserting a Byzantine Epiclesis and Pre-Communion prayer and making sure the "merits" was replaced by prayers I am surprised this was glossed over.  Please note I have no problem with the Liturgy of St. Tikhon with this exception.

"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again:(Liturgy of St. Tikhon)."

"XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The Offering of Christ once made in that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction,
for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other
satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was
commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission
of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits (Book of Common Prayer).



Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Sleeper on February 25, 2011, 11:15:12 PM
All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy,
Rite of St. Gregory (6th c.):  “Therefore, most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech thee”
Missal of Robert of Jumieges (1000 AD):  “Te igitur clementissime pater per iesum christum filium tuum dominum nostrum”


didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption;
Hebrews 9:15b (KJV):  “that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

who (by his own oblation of himself once offered)
Hebrews 9:28a (KJV):  “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world;
1 John 2:2 (KJV):  “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again:
Luke 22:19 (KJV):  “this do in remembrance of me.”
1 Corinthians 11:26 (KJV):  “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”




I understand where you're coming from, Deacon Lance, but it's not like we Orthodox don't understand what's happening in our Mass, you know? The convert has obstacles to overcome no matter what rite he worships with. Our liturgies aren't don't happen in a vacuum, but are part of an entire life of the Church, the Western Rite of which is utterly steeped in Orthodox theology and experience.

And another thing, is that the Western Rite isn't finished. Things take time, and as the Rite of St. Tikhon gets rooted in our Western Rite experience, it will continue to develop and change as any rite naturally does.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on February 25, 2011, 11:44:49 PM
So this explains quite clearly what the Anglicans thought they were doing when they wrote this liturgy. How much of this conforms with Orthodox eucharistic theology? Sincerity and truth are not synonymous.
The Book of Common Prayer predates the 39 articles.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on February 28, 2011, 06:40:31 AM
They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

Agreed. As to the textual nature, these are minor differences. The liturgy will still be highly similar, almost exactly the same, with these necessary Orthodoxizing measures.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on February 28, 2011, 06:41:57 AM
Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

The only real differences between the latin and AWRV is the insertion of an extra epiclesis and the precommunion prayer of St John Chrysostom.

Were these necessary additions?
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on February 28, 2011, 07:40:14 AM
Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

The only real differences between the latin and AWRV is the insertion of an extra epiclesis and the precommunion prayer of St John Chrysostom.

Were these necessary additions?
Not really: they were made for pastoral reason-to assure the rest of the Orthodox that they were Orthodox, and shibboleths to demonstrate that they had embraced the Orthodox side of the debate on these issues.  Btw, another change is the references to the merits of the saints has been changed to "prayers of the saints" etc., to conform to Orthodox theology.
Title: Re: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?
Post by: Melodist on February 28, 2011, 03:19:51 PM
They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

Agreed. As to the textual nature, these are minor differences. The liturgy will still be highly similar, almost exactly the same, with these necessary Orthodoxizing measures.

Very minor differences, and with the exception of changes made to how St Anna's conception of the Theotokos is celebrated, would not even be offensive to the current Roman tradition considering they currently acknowledge that the creed is orthodox as it was originally written and they allow for the laity to receive both the Body and the Blood in the Eucharist.