OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 03:23:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Celtic Liturgy in the Russian Church  (Read 4485 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« on: December 13, 2007, 06:40:22 PM »

The Lorrha Missal in use in Russian Church

I posted this information in another thread but it is worth repeating here.

With the blessing of His Grace Archbishop Hilarion and as a result of the scholarly work of the Hieromonk Michael (a Cornishman resident in Australia) the early Celtic Liturgy as represented in the 8th century Lorrha-Stowe Missal has been approved for limited use in the Australian and New Zealand Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.


Text of the Stowe-Lorrha Missal (this text is the translation of Bishop Maelruain of the Celtic Orthodox Church in the US):

Part 1
http://web.archive.org/web/20021219230809/http://www.illusions.com/rowanhold/stowe.htm

Part 2
http://web.archive.org/web/20030214220709/http://www.illusions.com/rowanhold/stowe2.htm

Another Format:
http://celticchristianity.org/stowe.html
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 06:42:14 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Ian Lazarus
The Main Man!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOA
Posts: 1,545


yIjah, Qey' 'oH!


« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2007, 07:03:13 PM »

I've actually always wanted to hear Liturgy in Gaelic
Logged

"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2007, 07:38:27 PM »

I've actually always wanted to hear Liturgy in Gaelic
Dear Ian,

The Lorrha Liturgy was orginally used in Latin and is now being used in the Australian Russian Diocese in English.  No Irish, I am afraid.

However, there is one place on earth where you can hear the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in Irish and that is the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin with Fr Serge Kelleher (Ukrainian Greek Catholic.)
Logged
Papa Gregorio
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 33

St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Old Rome


« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2007, 07:56:40 PM »

The Lorrha Missal in use in Russian Church

I posted this information in another thread but it is worth repeating here.

With the blessing of His Grace Archbishop Hilarion and as a result of the scholarly work of the Hieromonk Michael (a Cornishman resident in Australia) the early Celtic Liturgy as represented in the 8th century Lorrha-Stowe Missal has been approved for limited use in the Australian and New Zealand Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.


Text of the Stowe-Lorrha Missal (this text is the translation of Bishop Maelruain of the Celtic Orthodox Church in the US):

Part 1
http://web.archive.org/web/20021219230809/http://www.illusions.com/rowanhold/stowe.htm

Part 2
http://web.archive.org/web/20030214220709/http://www.illusions.com/rowanhold/stowe2.htm

Another Format:
http://celticchristianity.org/stowe.html


FASCINATING Father. Any word on which parishes will be using it?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2007, 08:18:15 PM »

FASCINATING Father. Any word on which parishes will be using it?
Fr Michael would be the best person to provide information on that.  Here is his e-mail
m.wood@utas.edu.au

m.wood @ utas.edu.au
Logged
Papa Gregorio
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 33

St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Old Rome


« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2007, 01:28:50 AM »

Thanks alot for that Father. I'm awestruck at the beauty of these prayers. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the Lorrha-Stowe in terms of the theology it conveys when compared with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2007, 01:54:34 AM »

Thanks alot for that Father. I'm awestruck at the beauty of these prayers. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the Lorrha-Stowe in terms of the theology it conveys when compared with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
Allow me to invite Fr Michael to come onto the list and make a reply.  In the course of working on the Lorrha Missal such thoughts must have been in his mind.
Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2007, 02:01:13 AM »

Father,
Thank you for the wonderful link.  What type of chant is used for the collect etc.. is it standard Gregorian chant?
Are the prayers inaudible for the Most Dangerous Prayer?  This liturgy is beautiful, hopefully someone puts a video of this liturgy on the internet someday. 
Father, that would be wonderful to have a thread with Father Michael. 
When was this Liturgy replaced with the Roman Liturgy?  Was that in the 11th/12th century or more towards the Council of Trent period? 
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 02:04:02 AM by username! » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2007, 02:34:06 AM »

Father,
Thank you for the wonderful link.  What type of chant is used for the collect etc.. is it standard Gregorian chant?
Are the prayers inaudible for the Most Dangerous Prayer?  This liturgy is beautiful, hopefully someone puts a video of this liturgy on the internet someday. 
Father, that would be wonderful to have a thread with Father Michael. 
When was this Liturgy replaced with the Roman Liturgy?  Was that in the 11th/12th century or more towards the Council of Trent period? 

*
Dear Username!

I've sent an e-mail to Father Michael asking if he would look at this thread and contribute to it.  So I'll hold off with my replies and hope that he will assist us all with his liturgical knowledge.  If he is too busy we could ask Bishop Maelruain of the Celtic Orthodox Church to contribute; he writes on one or two mailing lists.
Logged
frmichangel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 4


« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2007, 03:12:18 AM »

As the ROCOR hieromonk referred to (inaccurately) in a number of posts above, please let me make a few corrections of fact:

1.  While part of our family originated in Cornwall, and I have lived in Cornwall (and Devon), I wasn't born in Cornwall, so that's as good as that gets.

2. Archbishop Hilarion has never to my knowledge authorised the Liturgy of Saint John (the Divine) aka Stowe for use in his diocese.

3. We did a rescension in English, of the Stowe Missal Liturgy with the object of seeing if it could be made usable for 21st century people.  It is NOT a purists version - but a close adaption.  Due to the absence of rubricisation, we "adapted back" a few of the Sarum rubrics which possibly originated from Stowe or its contemporary British cousins.

Someone asked when the Stowe Liturgy was superceded by the Roman liturgy.  It wasn't.  The Liturgy of Saint John the Divine was suppressed by the schismatic Norman bishops in 1171.  One assumes that there wouldn't be much point in suppressing something that was no longer in use, so it seems reasonable to assume that in some last corner of Celtic Britain, it was in use up until 1170-71ish. It was superceded by Sarum which owed its existence to various stages of development from the SJD Liturgy the beginnings of which are evident in the Stowe book) via much Continental Gallican and Roman borrowing.

I would advise against anyone taking the maelruin version and its attendant suppositions too seriously.  I have severe problems with his translation in places (and no, I haven't the faintest intention of entering a debate on that subject).  Suffice to say the following:

We need to remember that Stowe is merely a representative book from the many local variations on what may be termed the "British Isles Liturgy".  The Church in the British Isles seems to have collectively referred to its Liturgy as the Liturgy of Saint John - meaning Saint John the Divine.  They maintained that their earliest liturgical material came from Ephesus at the time that Saint John was living there.  Whether that is true or not, is of no consequence - it's as good as the attributions of other Orthodox liturgies. I think that translating the Latin and choosing artificially Byzantine-compatible phrases only distorts the feel of the Liturgy - away from the Celtic feel.  Having said which, our own rescension certainly uses English which is un-Celtic in feel.

The Stowe book itself is a book with a long - three hundred year history of use and alteration.  It is a Irish version of the Saint john Liturgy, and it certainlyevidences having resided in several different places.  It was added to, overwritten and generally has an interesting tale of the development of the Liturgy to tell for the paleographer, since many of the overwritten texts are discernible using modern technology (sometimes just the Mark 1 eyeball).

It is also worth remembering that when Saint John Chrysostom wrote that the Church in the British Isles albeit differing in some administrative details etc., was still wholly Orthodox - thiswas the Liturgy that was being used in Britain.  So by extension it might be said to have his imprimatur ... sort of ...

Fr. Michael
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 03:39:34 AM by frmichangel » Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2007, 03:41:07 AM »

Thank you Father for responding.  I researched the "Celtic Orthodox Church of the USA."  I feel very reluctant that I thought I was reading a legitimate translation by an approved Orthodox writer/commission. 
In hindsight I should have read where the linked text came from, this "celtic orthodox church of the usa."  If I would have taken the time to have caught that before I read it, I would not have given it any public praise as I did in my post above.  Silly me for not fully paying attention to what I was reading!  Mea culpa Mea culpa.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 03:58:10 AM by username! » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2007, 03:59:29 AM »

As the ROCOR hieromonk referred to (inaccurately) in a number of posts above, please let me make a few corrections of fact:

1.  While part of our family originated in Cornwall, and I have lived in Cornwall (and Devon), I wasn't born in Cornwall, so that's as good as that gets.
*
Still eating wasps for breakfast, I see. :-)  I have an e-mail in which you described yourself as Cornish.  I guess you were speaking loosely and I took it at face value.  My apologies.
Quote
2. Archbishop Hilarion has never to my knowledge authorised the Liturgy of Saint John (the Divine) aka Stowe for use in his diocese.
*
You will note, dear Father, that I said limited use.  You said so in an e-mail to me.
Logged
frmichangel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 4


« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2007, 04:05:18 AM »

Archbishop Seraphim (MoscPat) has authorised limited (very limited) use of the Stowe Liturgy rendered in Dutch for use inside one monastery in Holland.  That might be what is causing the confusion.

Archbishop Hilarion and I certainly discussed the possibility of limited use of our rescension, but it was never approved for inclusion in the Saint Colman Prayer Book.  I seem to recall that he may have sanctioned a once-off experimental use back in 1998 or thereabouts - but we never did it.  (After all, it is an unarguable Orthodox Liturgy and in theory oughtn't to need too much authorisation ..... try telling that to an Orthodox bishop ... )

Fr. Michael
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 04:11:27 AM by frmichangel » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2007, 04:14:59 AM »

Thank you Father for responding.  I researched the "Celtic Orthodox Church of the USA."  I feel very reluctant that I thought I was reading a legitimate translation by an approved Orthodox writer/commission. 
In hindsight I should have read where the linked text came from, this "celtic orthodox church of the usa."  If I would have taken the time to have caught that before I read it, I would not have given it any public praise as I did in my post above.  Silly me for not fully paying attention to what I was reading!  Mea culpa Mea culpa.
*Pay no attention to scholars' rivalry!  The bishop and the monk have been battling about this for years in a gentlemanly fashion.  :-)
Logged
frmichangel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 4


« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2007, 10:33:14 PM »


And now I've gone and added to the confusion about who authorised what.  I said it was Archbishop Seraphim when in fact it was Archbishop Simon - how easily these things can happen - and who knows? it may already have spread far across the net that it was Archbishop Seraphim (sigh)

Fr. Michael
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2007, 10:56:10 AM »

Archbishop Seraphim (MoscPat) has authorised limited (very limited) use of the Stowe Liturgy rendered in Dutch for use inside one monastery in Holland.  That might be what is causing the confusion.
To further the confusion, it would be Archbishop Simon of Brussels. And the monastery if I am not very mistaken would be that of Abbot Thomas at Diksmuide in Belgium and not Holland (yes there's been a border since 1830 :-)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2007, 11:12:58 AM »

A question on an epiclesis

In the Dutch Celtic Prayer book published by Abbot Thomas there is no explicit epiclesis.  So unless he adds it while liturgizing, it is not used.

In my opinion, since the Lorrhra Missal is representative of orthodox worship in the British Isles from approximately the 6th century on it was and still is a perfectly valid liturgy as it stands, without an explicit epiclesis.

I understand that Bishop Maelruain has added an epiclesis, bowing to modern Orthodox sensibilities on this point.  He has taken, if I remember correctly, something from the Roman text for the feast of the Archangel Michael which is appropriately "epiclesal."

Father Michael, did you think it necessary to introduce an epiclesis?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2007, 11:53:22 AM »

Thank you Father for responding.  I researched the "Celtic Orthodox Church of the USA."  I feel very reluctant that I thought I was reading a legitimate translation by an approved Orthodox writer/commission. 
*
My apologies.  I took it for granted that people on the Forum would know that a Church with the name of the "Celtic Orthodox Church" would not be quite kosher. 
Quote
In hindsight I should have read where the linked text came from, this "celtic orthodox church of the usa."  If I would have taken the time to have caught that before I read it, I would not have given it any public praise as I did in my post above.  Silly me for not fully paying attention to what I was reading!  Mea culpa Mea culpa.
*
No need to be ashamed.  People say nice things and praise the King James Version too and that translation was produced outside the Church.  Some Orthodox parishes use it for their liturgical readings and even enthrone its Gospel section on the Holy Table and yet it is most definitely NOT a legitimate translation produced by Orthodox scholars.  So don't be upset if your genuine reaction upon reading Bp Maelruain's Lorrha text was that you found it beautiful. :-)  I have the same reaction when I chant the beautiful Psalms translated by the heretic Coverdale.   Grin

Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2007, 01:22:21 PM »

A question on an epiclesis

In the Dutch Celtic Prayer book published by Abbot Thomas there is no explicit epiclesis.  So unless he adds it while liturgizing, it is not used.

In my opinion, since the Lorrhra Missal is representative of orthodox worship in the British Isles from approximately the 6th century on it was and still is a perfectly valid liturgy as it stands, without an explicit epiclesis.

I understand that Bishop Maelruain has added an epiclesis, bowing to modern Orthodox sensibilities on this point.  He has taken, if I remember correctly, something from the Roman text for the feast of the Archangel Michael which is appropriately "epiclesal."

Father Michael, did you think it necessary to introduce an epiclesis?

Father Ambrose, Bless!
Question, why do you call Maelruian a Bishop when it seems according to his webpage he is a self-proclaimed bishop of what he calls the true orthodox church and calls anathema on the canonical Orthodox Churches?  He isn't a bishop.  He isn't a priest.  Maybe on his webpage and in his chapel in his house he is a priest in his imagination, but last time I checked  SCOBA I didn't see his church (and I cringe to use this word in connection to his organisation ) listed on their website.  I may sound uncharitable, but I was raised in two worlds, Orthodoxy and I also have an Irish grandfather who schooled me deeply in the Irish view of Roman Catholicism.  That may not make sense to many people on this board, but you are an Irishman, so I think you can relate.

I am leery of these self proclaimed bishops and archbishops who have chapels in their homes.  My last visit to the Byzantine Catholic Pilgrimage in Uniontown, PA I ran into three seperate self proclaimed bishops.
Two of them claimed to be a Ukrainian like true Orthodox church, one was a self proclaimed archbishop and the other was a self proclaimed bishop.  They claimed to be from my city.  I know the Orthodox clergy in my area.  Guess what, they're not Orthodox Clergy, and they claim their chapel is on their private property.  At the pilgrimage was another break away man who calls himself a Metropolitan of some Ukrainian schismatic made up Orthodox church.  He has one church and a webpage as well. 
Anyone can proclaim themselves bishops and start a "church" in their garage/shed/basement, but that doesn't make them part of the True Canonical Orthodox Church.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 01:30:05 PM by username! » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2007, 07:09:32 PM »

Father Ambrose, Bless!
Question, why do you call Maelruian a Bishop when it seems according to his webpage he is a self-proclaimed bishop of what he calls the true orthodox church and calls anathema on the canonical Orthodox Churches?  He isn't a bishop.  He isn't a priest. 
*
I tend to call non-Orthodox clergy as they are typically called.  For example, I call the Pope the Pope and the Bishop of Rome even though he is not part of the Orthodox Church.  I call Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury even though he is simply a layman.  Our own bishops extend this courtesy to the non-Orthodox and I follow their example.  The best thing is for each of us to learn what our own bishop does and follow it.  Does your bishop speak of Joseph Ratzinger as "the Pope"?  Does he call the local Roman Catholic bishop "Your Grace"?  Does he allow him to attend Orthodox services in his church vesture, etc.?

Bp Maelruain is nothing if not sincere in his faith and indeed quite fierce about it.  He categorically refuses to be in communion with present day Orthodoxy and sees us as traitors because we commune non-Chalcedonians (Copts,etc) and also Catholics and Anglicans.  We are also members of the World Council of Churches, etc. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2007, 10:27:08 PM »

A question on an epiclesis
I understand that Bishop Maelruain has added an epiclesis, bowing to modern Orthodox sensibilities on this point.  He has taken, if I remember correctly, something from the Roman text for the feast of the Archangel Michael which is appropriately "epiclesal."
Something to hand from Bishop Maelruain:

"The prayer we have chosen to use at every celebration of the Eucharist is the Post Mysterium of the Feast of the Throne of Saint Peter, The Post Mysterium is a variable proper to the feast day.  Some feasts have none and the P.M.s for those that do may or may not make reference to the Bread and Wine becoming the Body and Blood."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2007, 11:16:54 PM »

A question on an epiclesis

I understand that Bishop Maelruain has added an epiclesis, bowing to modern Orthodox sensibilities on this point. 
*
This is the prayer which Bishop Maelruain has added into the Lorrha Missal to act as an epiclesis.  It is the Post Mysterium prayer for the Feast of the Throne of Saint Peter at Rome and it may be the origin of the Byzantine  and Mozarabic forms:

"We who serve, offer these prescribed Holy Gifts of our Salvation, that Thou may be pleased to send Thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice so that it may be changed into a legitimate Eucharist for us in the Name of Thee, Thy Son and the Holy Spirit, in the transformation of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and may it be unto us who eat and drink, Life eternal and the eternal Kingdom. Through Himself, Christ Our Lord who reigneth with Thee and the Holy Spirit throughout all ages of ages. Amen."


Source:
http://celticchristianity.org/library/epikl.html

« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 11:17:55 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2007, 12:52:49 PM »

*
I tend to call non-Orthodox clergy as they are typically called.  For example, I call the Pope the Pope and the Bishop of Rome even though he is not part of the Orthodox Church.  I call Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury even though he is simply a layman.  Our own bishops extend this courtesy to the non-Orthodox and I follow their example.  The best thing is for each of us to learn what our own bishop does and follow it.  Does your bishop speak of Joseph Ratzinger as "the Pope"?  Does he call the local Roman Catholic bishop "Your Grace"?  Does he allow him to attend Orthodox services in his church vesture, etc.?

Bp Maelruain is nothing if not sincere in his faith and indeed quite fierce about it.  He categorically refuses to be in communion with present day Orthodoxy and sees us as traitors because we commune non-Chalcedonians (Copts,etc) and also Catholics and Anglicans.  We are also members of the World Council of Churches, etc. 


Thank you Father Ambrose, a point well taken.  I see your point and it makes sense.  It is a lesson that I will remember and thank you for teaching it to me.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.09 seconds with 50 queries.