OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 02:16:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liturgy of St. Tikhon vs. Sarum Rite  (Read 30750 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« on: May 28, 2008, 05:06:18 PM »

This Topic has been split from this thread.
George



Here is an interesting Wester Rite Orthodox site that argues both the positives of the Western Rite and also attacks the use of Anglican or Tridentine services rather than using the historical Western-Rite Orthodox Liturgies and other services.

http://bloggingthefraud.blogspot.com/
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 02:41:19 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2008, 10:24:56 AM »

The epiclesis and other necessary emendations to the WEstern Rite were completed by St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, hence why it is referred to as the Rite of St. Tikhon.
This is completely false. St Tikhon was martyred before any liturgy besides Overbeck's was approved.  As well, the use of modified post-schism rites is allowed *temporarily* until Orthodox rites are restored, which they already are.  The AWRV has since created a new "market" for these rites-- disaffected Anglicans who are looking for a "new home".  This is also why some who joined the AWRV have left and simply rejoined under a conservative Anglican Bishops when they are found. This was the case with at least one parish.

Orthodoxy, whether Eastern or Western, requires conversion to Orthodoxy, and this is not just deficient in the AWRV, it is virtually invisible.  Examples can be cited in countless places where people retain their heretical religious views from their past.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2008, 01:50:16 PM »

The Liturgy of St Tikhon needs to be tossed. It has nothing to do with Orthodoxy nor does it convey right-belief.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,311


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2008, 01:56:37 PM »

The Liturgy of St Tikhon needs to be tossed. It has nothing to do with Orthodoxy nor does it convey right-belief.

 Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2008, 02:20:46 PM »

The Liturgy of St Tikhon needs to be tossed. It has nothing to do with Orthodoxy nor does it convey right-belief.

St. Tikhon apparently thought otherwise and I hold his opinion in greater esteem than I do yours.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2008, 02:23:02 PM »

The Liturgy of St Tikhon needs to be tossed. It has nothing to do with Orthodoxy nor does it convey right-belief.

Have you read it or experienced it?

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2008, 02:26:59 PM »

Unfortunately ive read it, but i definately dont wont experience it. Im in shock such a service is allowed.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2008, 02:31:05 PM »

St. Tikhon apparently thought otherwise and I hold his opinion in greater esteem than I do yours.

I second you on this.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2008, 02:31:33 PM »

Unfortunately ive read it, but i definately dont wont experience it. Im in shock such a service is allowed.

Can you give specifics of what is so "shocking" about it please?

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2008, 02:35:50 PM »

Thus liturgy has gotten named after the saint in the 1970's, he has nothing to do with it. For starters this liturgy denies the ever virginity of Mary simply refering to her as 'Blessed Mary". In fact the only place Mary is called 'Virgin Mary" is the only part of this liturgy which truly is pre-schism, the Nicene Creed!  (although ive come across differing versions as used in the the wrv some newer version now add "ever-virgin" or 'mother of God' after references of blessed Mary are used). Regardless this proves that this is not a pre-schism liturgy, and the heretical nature of this service is best realized when the orthodox additions and interpolations are omitted.

It was also a service meant for those that deny the real Prescense, and even with the Orthodox interpolations and added epiklesis, this aspect of denying the actual body and blood still comes through. And of course it teaches the branch theory of the church(no corrections have been made to this part).
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 02:43:58 PM by buzuxi » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2008, 02:48:15 PM »

Can you please provide some quotes of the passages that you think offensive or in error?  Such as what part is the branch theory?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2008, 03:29:19 PM »

Here are references to the branch theory from this Liturgy:

"We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of ALL CHRISTIAN RULERS, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice and to the maintenance of thy TRUE RELIGION.  Give grace o heavenly Father to all bishops and OTHER ministers... ( WRV has interpolated the names of the patriarch and bishop after the phrase, "OTHER MINISTERS"). Even before this verse the reference to "Universal Church' taken in context (which i havent quoted), is intended for those that understand the church as part of the branch theory. From an Orthodox pov this prayer is very awkward.

Later on in the Prayer of Thanksgiving, it says this: "...And that we are very members INCORPORATE in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people...." (these branch theorists dont even want to use the word 'baptised into' and substitute 'incorporate', regardless we can see the theological errors which alludes to the branch theory in this phrase)

In the consecration we see that this liturgy was originally for those that denied the real prescense: "...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."

After the words if institution are read they end with the phrase, "in remembrance of me" (as the protestants understand it as seen in the previous quote).
The prayer continues: "...According to thy institution of thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants , do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, thy memorial the Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, His mighty ressurection, and glorious ressurection"... (the Orthodox epiclesis added after this).

This liturgy (if it can be called that) is not theologically correct nor is it pre-schism unless the pre-schism Church denied the real prescense of the Eucharist and never used Theotokos or "ever-Virgin or even "Virgin Mary' to describe Christ's mother.

here is a link to this service:
http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/tikhon.PDF





"
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 03:53:01 PM by buzuxi » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2008, 03:39:37 PM »

This is completely false. St Tikhon was martyred before any liturgy besides Overbeck's was approved.  As well, the use of modified post-schism rites is allowed *temporarily* until Orthodox rites are restored, which they already are.  The AWRV has since created a new "market" for these rites-- disaffected Anglicans who are looking for a "new home".  This is also why some who joined the AWRV have left and simply rejoined under a conservative Anglican Bishops when they are found. This was the case with at least one parish.

Orthodoxy, whether Eastern or Western, requires conversion to Orthodoxy, and this is not just deficient in the AWRV, it is virtually invisible.  Examples can be cited in countless places where people retain their heretical religious views from their past.


That includes those who ape the ethnics.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2008, 06:13:26 PM »

That includes those who ape the ethnics.

I am not sure what aping ethnics has to do with aping heretics.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2008, 06:15:55 PM »

The Liturgy of St Tikhon needs to be tossed. It has nothing to do with Orthodoxy nor does it convey right-belief.

Amen. There are enough translations of the Sarum for them to adopt. They are purposely ignoring the real Western Orthodox tradition to defend their father, Thomas Cranmer.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2008, 06:34:22 PM »

Here are references to the branch theory from this Liturgy:

"We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of ALL CHRISTIAN RULERS, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice and to the maintenance of thy TRUE RELIGION.  Give grace o heavenly Father to all bishops and OTHER ministers... ( WRV has interpolated the names of the patriarch and bishop after the phrase, "OTHER MINISTERS"). Even before this verse the reference to "Universal Church' taken in context (which i havent quoted), is intended for those that understand the church as part of the branch theory. From an Orthodox pov this prayer is very awkward.
How can you say what the "intention" is? I don't read the prayer with that interpretation at all. 

Later on in the Prayer of Thanksgiving, it says this: "...And that we are very members INCORPORATE in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people...." (these branch theorists dont even want to use the word 'baptised into' and substitute 'incorporate', regardless we can see the theological errors which alludes to the branch theory in this phrase)
"Incorporate" literally means "to include in the body". The prayer is talking about the Body of Christ- this is simply an appropriate word to use. Even St. Paul never says we are "baptized" into the Body of Christ, merely that we are members of it, like your own body's members. Is St. Paul a Branch Theorist?

In the consecration we see that this liturgy was originally for those that denied the real prescense: "...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."
Is there a problem? This prayer is based on this verse from the first Epistle to the Corinthians:
"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." (1Corinthians 11:26)
Does St. Paul deny the Real Presence with these words?


After the words if institution are read they end with the phrase, "in remembrance of me" (as the protestants understand it as seen in the previous quote).
Ummm... They are actually Christ's words....
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 07:26:54 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Reader KevinAndrew
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Western Rite
Posts: 138



« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2008, 07:33:10 PM »

Here is an interesting Wester Rite Orthodox site that argues both the positives of the Western Rite and also attacks the use of Anglican or Tridentine services rather than using the historical Western-Rite Orthodox Liturgies and other services.

http://bloggingthefraud.blogspot.com/

You use Orthodox loosely. The blogger is not under or says he is under a group not in communion with the Orthodox Church. It's interesting reading, but criticisms from outside of the Church are just that. Resurrecting liturgies that have long been gone in preference to what the ARWRV uses has been debated over and over. I'll personally remain under the obediance of His Holiness IGNATIUS, Metropolitan PHILIP, and my bishop. If people want to butt heads with these guys, insinuate heresy, etc. etc., go for it. I will stick to my hierarchs' guidance.

Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2008, 07:35:19 PM »

Is there a problem? This prayer is based on this verse from the first Epistle to the Corinthians:
"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." (1Corinthians 11:26)
Does St. Paul deny the Real Presence with these words?

That is not where the denial is. The denial is here, which is from the book of Common prayer, the Liturgy of St Thomas Cramner, at the intercession before the oblation: "....for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) 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 the death and sacrifice, until his coming again".

This unique rephrasing of the English consecration was done with the express intent of satisfying the reformers, who were claiming that the Roman Church was doing multiple services.  The Eucharist, according to Orthodox Church teaching, is a perpetual sacrifice; somewhat different from the Roman teaching, but far removed from the idea that the Eucharist was a memorial meal.  Certainly the text does not outright say that; it would have permanently cemented the divisions between the Anglicans as to whether they believed in the real presence.

Shortly before the Reformation, the English were still using the Sarum rite (which is preserved in the Milan Synod and to a much lesser degree the Russian Church Abroad), which uses this wording before the oblation:"Therefore most merciful Father, suppliant we beg and beseech thee, through Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord, that thou wouldst receive and + bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted sacrifices, Which we offer unto thee, in the first place for thy holy Catholic Church, that thou wouldest vouchsafe to pacify, preserve, unite, and govern it; throughout the whole world, with thy servants N. our Pope, and our Bishop N. (i. e. only his own Bishop) and our King N. and all the orthodox, and all upholders of the Catholic and Apostolic faith."

The one that looks *Orthodox* is kind of obvious.  However, both are equally British and Roman.  Just one is a little more ancient than the other.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2008, 07:41:28 PM »

You use Orthodox loosely. The blogger is not under or says he is under a group not in communion with the Orthodox Church. It's interesting reading, but criticisms from outside of the Church are just that. Resurrecting liturgies that have long been gone in preference to what the ARWRV uses has been debated over and over. I'll personally remain under the obediance of His Holiness IGNATIUS, Metropolitan PHILIP, and my bishop. If people want to butt heads with these guys, insinuate heresy, etc. etc., go for it. I will stick to my hierarchs' guidance.

I am in communion with the Orthodox Church, because I am under an Orthodox Bishop.  I am not in communion with the EP, or Metropolitan Philip, et cetera.  But I don't believe I am outside the Orthodox Church.  You do. That's not my problem. It is yours.  I believe unconverted Anglicans in the AWRV are outside of the Orthodox Church. That's also not my problem.  It is also yours.

And those "long gone" liturgies are already resurrected and being used in "canonical Churches" (except the AWRV). The problem is now that the AWRV no longer wants to use them, preferring the Protestant liturgies instead.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 07:42:09 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2008, 07:46:15 PM »

That is not where the denial is. The denial is here, which is from the book of Common prayer, the Liturgy of St Thomas Cramner,

Huh So what you're saying is that the problem with the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is the Liturgy of Thomas Canmer in the BCP?

The Eucharist, according to Orthodox Church teaching, is a perpetual sacrifice; somewhat different from the Roman teaching, but far removed from the idea that the Eucharist was a memorial meal.
WHAT?!!!!

"Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming: (The Priest takes up the Diskarion and the Chalice and elevates them over the Antimins; he makes the sign of the Cross with them over the Antimins as he lowers them, saying:) Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee, in behalf of all, and for all. "
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 07:52:15 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,408


« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2008, 08:32:35 PM »

Thus liturgy has gotten named after the saint in the 1970's, he has nothing to do with it. For starters this liturgy denies the ever virginity of Mary simply refering to her as 'Blessed Mary". ...

...It was also a service meant for those that deny the real Prescense, and even with the Orthodox interpolations and added epiklesis, this aspect of denying the actual body and blood still comes through. And of course it teaches the branch theory of the church(no corrections have been made to this part).

You made the claim, now prove it.  Your most recent post has done nothing of the sort.  You are imputing motives into the creation of the text without any real substantiation, but only accusations on your part.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,408


« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2008, 08:37:08 PM »

Amen. There are enough translations of the Sarum for them to adopt. They are purposely ignoring the real Western Orthodox tradition to defend their father, Thomas Cranmer.

How do YOU know that Sarum translations are being purposely ignored to use another version of which YOU think is heretical?  Prove both those claims.  You have failed to do this so far.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2008, 08:42:28 PM »

Huh So what you're saying is that the problem with the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is the Liturgy of Thomas Canmer in the BCP?
WHAT?!!!!

"Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming: (The Priest takes up the Diskarion and the Chalice and elevates them over the Antimins; he makes the sign of the Cross with them over the Antimins as he lowers them, saying:) Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee, in behalf of all, and for all. "

1. Of course; saved some interpolations it is the same liturgy. Shall we bring up the Russian observations of 1904 to confirm it?

2. Your shock astounds me, especially if you are citing the Byzantine Liturgy. I am not saying there is no memorial in the Byzantine Liturgy.  There are plenty.  What I am saying is that the canon of the BCP purposely lacks sacrificial elements, such as the following from the Byzantine Liturgy: "We give thanks unto Thee, O Lord God of the Powers, Who hast accounted us worthy to stand even now before Thy holy altar, and to prostrate ourselves before Thy compassion for our sins and errors of the people. Accept our supplications, O God; make us worthy to offer unto Thee prayers and supplications, and bloodless sacrifices for all Thy people....You have served as our High Priest, and as Lord of all, and have entrusted to us the celebration of this liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood. "

Now find that in the BCP of Thomas Cranmer.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 10:09:23 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2008, 09:04:14 PM »

I would absolutely love to see the Ambrosian rite performed.  I attended it once in Italy at a Roman Catholic Church and it was absolutely stunning.

Our Metropolitan was ordained according to the Ambrosian Rite many years ago, as a Western-Rite priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, before they abandoned the Western Rite to get closer to Rome.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2008, 09:37:25 PM »

How do YOU know that Sarum translations are being purposely ignored to use another version of which YOU think is heretical?  Prove both those claims.  You have failed to do this so far.

Sure. The easiest way to look at it is to look at what they are presenting.

In other words, are they saying that these rites are not the Western rites of the old Orthodox West? Or are they saying that they are, even while having to admit the reality?  I answer the latter in the affirmative.

Let's take a look at their approach from their own writers (emphasis mine, and I will not deal with factual errors concerning the Orthodox Western rite in their work, I just want you to understand that they are not the same thing but that they purposely imply that they are):

"This liturgical form is known as the Western Rite. More specifically, the Western Rite is a specified form of worship that was used by Christians in Western Europe before the Roman Catholic Church broke with the Orthodox Church....The Western Rite, when compared to Byzantine liturgical forms, is simpler, less redundant, obviously shorter, and employs a hymnody (the hymns used) that are familiar to a great many American Christians. More precisely, the Western Rite, as approved by the Antiochian Archdiocese is a theologically corrected form of worship formerly used by either the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion. In most Western-Rite Orthodox parishes, this means the liturgy is based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.... For those Western-Rite Christians who use a theologically corrected Anglican liturgy, the modifications, while important, would not be terribly noticeable to even the most regular worshippers from a traditional Episcopal congregation. Two of these alterations include the deletion of the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed and the addition of a stronger epiclesis in the eucharistic prayer said by the priest at the consecration of the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ....Besides the removal of the filioque in the Creed, the Orthodox version of the Western Rite in its Anglican form requires the priest specifically to petition God the Holy Spirit to act in changing the gifts of bread and wine into God’s gift of the life-giving Body and Blood of the Incarnate Son.... In addition to these two changes, the Orthodox Church’s Western Rite includes other indiscernible changes that most Anglo-Catholics (old-fashioned, High-Church Episcopalians) would find to be either familiar or certainly acceptable.... By doing so, these Christians have retained familiar forms of worship and at the same time insured themselves of remaining within an ecclesiastical communion, and under Godly, Orthodox bishops, who attempt to teach and practice the ancient Gospel of Jesus Christ." ("What is Western Rite Orthodoxy?", Fr Patrick MacCauley)

"Because the Western Roman Empire lacked the centralization of Byzantium, a great many local rites developed in Orthodox Western Europe. In the sixteenth century there were five separate diocesan uses in England alone: Salisbury, Hereford, Bangor, York and Lincoln, and whole families of rites evolved around great cities, e.g. Milan, Braga, Lyons and a Mozarabic rite in Spain under the Arab conquerors, as well as others for some religious orders. When the Papacy convoked the Council of Trent to resist the Protestant Reformation, any rite with a long history was allowed to survive, some did so until the Second Vatican Council and some still survive, for example, the particular rite of the Archdiocese of Milan (the Mozarabic rite continues in one church in Spain as a sort of Antique). If you have followed this far you know that rites are local reflections of the faith and that no one of them is the one and only. Only with the invention of printing did rites attain uniformity....At the turn of the ccntury, the only Orthodox bishop in North America, the later Russian Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) was approached by a group of Episcopalians, who asked to be allowed to continue the use of the American Book of Common Prayer rather than the Byzantine rite. Bishop Tikhon petitioned the Holy Synod of Moscow and a commission of theologians was directed to provide a detailed examination and revision of the Prayer Book to be approved for the converts...." ("The Twain Meet", Ver Rev Paul Schneirla)

"Saint Mark’s had continued in the traditional Anglican liturgy for one hundred and nine years when Bishop Frey dissolved the parish on April 27, 1984. Frey’s reason for this extraordinary act was Saint Mark’s failure to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church, by which he meant the new world order of Novus Ordo Missae religion. In civil court the Episcopal Frey Diocese won control of the church building, furnishings, endowments, books, and vestments....On the first Sunday of October, 1988, with choir, hand bells, harpsichord, and oboe, Saint Mark’s offered its first liturgy in its new church building on South Vine Street at Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado. The sign proudly announced, All Services 1928 Book of Common Prayer, by which we meant the old religion of the Christian West, and its traditional liturgy..... Two years later, in August of 1990, Saint Augustine’s Parish in Denver was led by her Rector, Father John Mangels, into the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese through the Western Rite Vicariate. At first, this seemed to be an unrelated event. But beginning in October of 1990, Saint Mark’s Parish was instructed in holy Orthodoxy by Father Alexey Young. On October 6, 1991, by the permission of Metropolitan Philip and the hands of His Grace, Bishop Antoun, I was ordained to the sacred priesthood. On October 13, 1991, Saint Mark’s Parish was received into the Holy Orthodox Church. Archpriest Paul Schnierla, the Vicar General of the Western Rite Vicariate, chrismated the faithful. We are free today to worship with the finest form of the English Liturgy, as we choose to do, because of Bishop Tikhon and the courageous men and women who have defended the Faith in this country against spiritual wickedness in high places. With gratitude, we find ourselves part of the continuation of the mission of Saint Tikhon, the Enlightener of America, who ninety years ago saw the merit, and the need, to authorize and adopt the American Prayer Book Liturgy for the Orthodox Mission in North America (I have to interrupt here because this is a flat out lie-- Rd Joseph)." (Finding a Home in Western Rite Orthodoxy, Fr John Charles Connely)

"As you have been reading in this booklet, a very significant development has occurred relatively recently within the Orthodox Church, as she has recalled the heritage of the Orthodox West before its great schism from the East in the eleventh century. That first millennium of Western Orthodoxy, with its saints and martyrs, its liturgy and theology, is once again entering Orthodox Christian consciousness....From the first, attempts to restore Western culture and liturgy to Orthodoxy have been seen to have great potential for calling Western Christians back to the Church of their ancestors, healing the thousand-year-old break which tore the Christian West from its ancient roots in the Orthodox East....Simply stated, this reunion has become the mission of Western Rite Orthodoxy. Its calling is to provide a vehicle by which those who seek to adopt the ancient Faith of the Apostles can do so within their own cultural and liturgical milieu. As such it should be seen not so much as an innovation as a restoration of Western Christians to their rightful place within Orthodox Christianity." (Our Plea, Fr Michael Trigg

The number of contradictions above alone should be obvious to prove my point: they knew what the old liturgies were but continued to present the new liturgies as the old.

Two things are clear:

1) The ancient Orthodox ritual of the West was NOT either of the liturgies mentioned. (Proof? See Fr Paul Schneirla's statement).

2) The above and others will continue freely to present it as such, and dishonestly.

b) By the use of the all-too famous buzzwords everyone involved with Western Orthodox liturgy has heard: "liturgical archaeology." That is anecdotal.  My apologies. Ask ten Western Rite Vicariate Antiochian priests (try this, as an experiment) why they can't use an actual pre-schism Orthodox liturgy.  You will hear "that's liturgical archaeology", a way of saying that it is wrong to use liturgies which haven't been used by the Church continuously. "The people wouldn't know what to do". (That's also false. The liturgies weren't THAT different; but they were different enough to validate not using the later liturgies.) Et cetera. You might get lucky and find a zealot. (Make a note to call him in five years.)

The only problem with these arguments is that the liturgies presented by the AWRV have NEVER been used by the Church continuously, because Western Orthodox used other, well documented, rites.

As for the issues of heresies lingering in the rites, I once again refer you to what I wrote on the statement of the Russian Synod in 1904 concerning the problems of the BCP, and how they were ignored with the creation of the "Liturgy of St Tikhon": http://bloggingthefraud.blogspot.com/2008/05/thesis-14-russian-church-and-anglican.html

And finally, the last proof is that the Sarum rite has been used in ROCOR for years, and the Antiochians have had access to it all along. That's not even counting the fact that our Synod has been using it for about twenty years now.  And finally, worse of all, even the Anglicans the AWRV apologists who get so mad at me came from had easy access to the Sarum to work with: "The English version is a translation found in The Book of Common Prayer, its History and Interpretation, by R P Blakeney (2nd ed., 1866). It should be noted that Blakeney was not an objective writer; he was decidedly Evangelical, and most emphatically did not think highly of the Sarum Rite. Nevertheless, the translation seems to be fairly accurate (if perhaps overly literal), and he appears to use Maskell as his original source. Another English translation by Charles Howard Walker (1886) is available from the Internet Archive, and also one by John Theodore Dodd (1872) from Google Books."

And it's on the Church of England's own website.

But no, no one has ever told me, "we refuse to use the Sarum officially and that is the position of the AWRV." They didn't have to.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 10:10:27 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2008, 11:00:17 PM »

I am not sure what aping ethnics has to do with aping heretics.

Ethnic and heretic are not mutually exclusive.  Neither is Western and Orthodox.

I am in communion with the Orthodox Church, because I am under an Orthodox Bishop.
Not if he's in the Milan Synod you're not.

Quote
I am not in communion with the EP, or Metropolitan Philip, et cetera.

Et cetera, that would be shorthand for "the diptychs."

Quote
  But I don't believe I am outside the Orthodox Church.


Most heretics don't.

Quote
You do. That's not my problem. It is yours.

Only if you try to approach our chalice.

Quote
I believe unconverted Anglicans in the AWRV are outside of the Orthodox Church. That's also not my problem.  It is also yours.

Since you are at least officially outside, who you say is inside is of no interest to us.  That's your problem, not ours.  They're in the diptychs.  You're not.

Quote
And those "long gone" liturgies are already resurrected and being used in "canonical Churches" (except the AWRV).


Canonical Churches?  You mean those in communion with the EP and Metropolitan Philip many years etc...

Quote
The problem is now that the AWRV no longer wants to use them, preferring the Protestant liturgies instead.

You have heard of the Rite of St. Gregory, no?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 11:07:11 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2008, 11:21:29 PM »

Ethnic and heretic are not mutually exclusive.  Neither is Western and Orthodox.

Well, we agreed on one sentence.

Not if he's in the Milan Synod you're not.

I can live with the fact that you don't recognize it. You, however, should reconsider your statement.

Et cetera, that would be shorthand for "the diptychs."

Yes, the one the Pope of Rome has been back in since 1965.  I can live without such company.

Most heretics don't.

You don't believe you're outside it either. So perhaps you should reconsider your zeal in your attack.

Only if you try to approach our chalice.

I wouldn't, unless your Church ceased its communion with Monophysites.

Since you are at least officially outside, who you say is inside is of no interest to us.  That's your problem, not ours.  They're in the diptychs.  You're not.

Well, since the Pope is there, I assume that this is the motivation for keeping heretical liturgies on your books.

Canonical Churches?  You mean those in communion with the EP and Metropolitan Philip many years etc...

Sure, why not?

You have heard of the Rite of St. Gregory, no?

There is no "rite of St Gregory", since he didn't compose a Latin Rite nor compile one. The only "rite of St Gregory" is the presanctified liturgy.  There was a rite that St Gregory actually used regularly; and it's ours. NOT YOURS.

I like your inside/outside concept. It works well.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 11:37:17 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2008, 11:43:18 PM »

I wouldn't, unless your Church ceased its communion with Monophysites.

Which Monophysites? Unless you mean our Oriental Orthodox brethren? Which are not Monophysites and even have a council condemning such a belief. You should go and do your homework. The correct term for there belief is Miaphysite which is not opposed to our belief about Christ's nature.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2008, 11:45:11 PM »

Which Monophysites? Unless you mean our Oriental Orthodox brethren? Which are not Monophysites and even have a council condemning such a belief. You should go and do your homework. The correct term for there belief is Miaphysite which is not opposed to our belief about Christ's nature.

... Do they accept the Seven Councils or not?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2008, 11:59:29 PM »

... Do they accept the Seven Councils or not?

In what way? In practice and theology yes. But they were not in communion when those councils were settled. Anglicans and Roman Catholics accept the 7 councils and we don't commune them so your argument is disqualified.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 12:00:44 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2008, 12:04:25 AM »

Well, we agreed on one sentence.

Quote
I can live with the fact that you don't recognize it. You, however, should reconsider your statement.

When they reconsider where they get their orders from.
 
Quote
Yes, the one the Pope of Rome has been back in since 1965.  I can live without such company.

Not on ours, but our priest does have a Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club mug with the pope's name on it. (No, we don't use it as a chalice).  We'd like to have him in our company, but...

As for Old Calendarists, they seem to have trouble keeping anyone's company.

Quote
You don't believe you're outside it either. So perhaps you should reconsider your zeal in your attack.

No, I've already made my existentialist decision.

Quote
I wouldn't, unless your Church ceased its communion with Monophysites.

I didn't know the Monophysites survived. I thought they died out when both those for and against Chalcedon condemned Eutyches.

Quote
Well, since the Pope is there, I assume that this is the motivation for keeping heretical liturgies on your books.


Are all your statements going to be this well documented?

Quote
Sure, why not?


Ask a schismatic.

Quote
There is no "rite of St Gregory", since he didn't compose a Latin Rite nor compile one. The only "rite of St Gregory" is the presanctified liturgy.  There was a rite that St Gregory actually used regularly; and it's ours. NOT YOURS.


Actually its use is documented only in the East, so its our, not yours, even if you belonged to a canonical Western Church.

You do know that St. Gregory was Latin, in the ethnic sense of the word?

Quote
I like your inside/outside concept. It works well.

Especially with the cast out.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 12:05:19 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2008, 12:10:01 AM »

... Do they accept the Seven Councils or not?
Regardless, the members of this forum expect each other to speak of the Oriental Orthodox with diplomatic respect, since we have so many OO who post here.  In keeping with this expectation, the admin/moderation staff has mandated that since the Oriental Orthodox do not call themselves Monophysite, we who follow the Seven Councils are not allowed to call them Monophysites, either.  If you want to join discussions that allow for more polemic freedom to call the Oriental Orthodox whatever you want, I recommend that you petition our forum admin, FrChris, for permission to access the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Private Discussions on the Private Forum.

Here in the public boards, however, please refrain from using the term Monophysite unless you make it absolutely clear you are speaking only of the followers of Eutychius, whom even the Oriental Orthodox have condemned.  (A great example of how to do this can be seen in this quote from the above post by ialmisry: "I didn't know the Monophysites survived. I thought they died out when both those for and against Chalcedon condemned Eutyches.")  Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 12:13:52 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2008, 12:24:07 AM »

Quote
I didn't know the Monophysites survived. I thought they died out when both those for and against Chalcedon condemned Eutyches.

Bravo!! Unlike the Nestorians , Eutyches did not survive (and for the churches that consider themselves Nestorian, it can be argued that they themeselves don't teach the doctrine the Nestorius taught.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2008, 01:07:45 AM »

In what way? In practice and theology yes. But they were not in communion when those councils were settled. Anglicans and Roman Catholics accept the 7 councils and we don't commune them so your argument is disqualified.

Roman Catholics added over a dozen more councils.

Anglicans don't actually have to accept any councils.

Next....
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2008, 01:17:21 AM »

When they reconsider where they get their orders from.

This is getting, erm, pointless.
 
Not on ours, but our priest does have a Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club mug with the pope's name on it. (No, we don't use it as a chalice).  We'd like to have him in our company, but...

You should use it as a chalice. He's Pope now. I would think using the mug as a chalice would be a fitting tribute for a man added to the diptychs.

As for Old Calendarists, they seem to have trouble keeping anyone's company.

Actually, I get along well with Old Calendarists of other jurisdictions. I get along with Orthodox in official jurisdictions. I even get along with Anglicans who admit they are Anglicans. I don't get along with people who aren't honest with themselves.

No, I've already made my existentialist decision.

And I've survived it.

I didn't know the Monophysites survived. I thought they died out when both those for and against Chalcedon condemned Eutyches.


Since we can't call them such, we can call them the "Church formerly known as the Monophysites", or we'll just say "your eccentric little communion".

Are all your statements going to be this well documented?

Here.  They admitted they put the Pope back in. There are documented accounts of the same.  Show me a documented account of the Pope being removed after 1968.

Ask a schismatic.

You mean like "your eccentric little communion" or is that only for schismatics and not heretics?

Actually its use is documented only in the East, so its our, not yours, even if you belonged to a canonical Western Church.

You are correct, and I do belong to a canonical Western Church, which gives me the right to say you have adopted heretical rites and are calling them Orthodox.

You do know that St. Gregory was Latin, in the ethnic sense of the word?

I do. I also know he didn't compose any of the texts of the Latin rites.  But you obviously thought otherwise since your betters slapped his name on the Tridentine Mass.

Especially with the cast out.

So you say.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,444


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2008, 01:33:04 AM »

Since we can't call them such, we can call them the "Church formerly known as the Monophysites", or we'll just say "your eccentric little communion".
 

Most here call us Oriental Orthodox.  If it offends you to call us Orthodox, that's O.K.  "Non-Chalcedonian" is fine and it shouldn't violate your personal beliefs about us.   Smiley
Logged

Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2008, 01:35:56 AM »

Most here call us Oriental Orthodox.  If it offends you to call us Orthodox, that's O.K.  "Non-Chalcedonian" is fine and it shouldn't violate your personal beliefs about us.   Smiley

Fair enough. I don't mean to hurt people's feelings. I will refer to you as non-Chalcedonian from here on. My apologies.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 01:39:49 AM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2008, 03:30:20 AM »

Its no secret that the WRV has its critics especially amongst the episcopal ranks. The Liturgy of St Tikhon will always recieve the most critcism because its simply not Orthodox, I'm not the first to point this out nor the last. In another forum a ROCOR monk was defending the western rite and its origins but not the Liturgy of St Tikhon.  From what i understand the antiochans limit this liturgy to north america only and ironically are the only ones who defend calling this liturgy after the russian Saint. As my SF said: St Tikhon must be sad that this bears his name.

There are plenty of canonical Orthodox clergy which have problems with the western rite. Here is a link to a number of articles by Orthodox clergy criticising the WR. Thomas Cranmers influence is cited in some of these articles:
http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/index.html

And here is a website of canonical Orthodoxy which is neither for or against the WR but would rather discuss the controversy rather than sweeping it under the rug:

http://westernritecritic.wordpress.com/category/liturgics/anglican-liturgics/

As far as a heretical protestant understanding of the church, contrary to Orthodoxy, which the Liturgy of St Tikhon holds to, i would like to repeat the second instance within this liturgy that makes mention of this false ecclesiology, since a poster sees it as expressing orthodox ecclesiology:

" That we are members incorporate in thy mystical Body of Thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people..."

The Body of Christ is made of baptised christians, both saints and sinners. It is not the "company of all faithful people" it is an exclusive company of baptized people of whom not all are entirely faithful but some are  wretched sinners. Secondly the term "incorporate" is completely false, we are not incorporated into the Body, but through baptism we are the Body.
As scripture says, "For by One Spirit we were all baptized into One Body"....(1COR 12.13)

"For as many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."(Gal3.27)
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 05:02:02 AM by buzuxi » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2008, 07:36:00 AM »

The Body of Christ is made of baptised christians, both saints and sinners. It is not the "company of all faithful people" it is an exclusive company of baptized people of whom not all are entirely faithful but some are  wretched sinners.
buzuxi,
The Body of Christ is made up of the Faithful.
Faithful does not mean sinless, it means those who hold the True Faith. When someone is not Faithful, they fall away from the Body of Christ and need to return to it. A heretic is not among the Faithful. A schismatic is not among the Faithful.

Secondly the term "incorporate" is completely false, we are not incorporated into the Body, but through baptism we are the Body.
As scripture says, "For by One Spirit we were all baptized into One Body"....(1COR 12.13)

"For as many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."(Gal3.27)

INCORPORATE:  "to put (something) into the body or substance of (something else)," from L.L. incorporatus, pp. of incorporare "unite into one body," from L. in- "into" + corpus (gen. corporis) "body" (see corporeal).
What's the problem?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2008, 07:38:13 AM »

This is getting, erm, pointless.

A sentence we agree on.
 
Quote
You should use it as a chalice. He's Pope now. I would think using the mug as a chalice would be a fitting tribute for a man added to the diptychs.

Just because you repeat a baseless accusation, doesn't make it true.  I've never heard the pope of Rome's name in the dyptich, but hope to in my lifetime.

Would you like a mug with Auxentios' face on it?

Quote
Actually, I get along well with Old Calendarists of other jurisdictions. I get along with Orthodox in official jurisdictions. I even get along with Anglicans who admit they are Anglicans. I don't get along with people who aren't honest with themselves.

Curious then, who's in your dyptichs?

Quote
Since we can't call them such, we can call them the "Church formerly known as the Monophysites", or we'll just say "your eccentric little communion".


Eccentric?  Dangerous word for you to bandy about. Ditto "little."

Are you going to tell me, as like minded have, that the Oriental Orthodox canonoized Eutyches?  Please tell me so I know how far this discussion is going on in reality on the other end.

Quote
Here.  They admitted they put the Pope back in. There are documented accounts of the same.  Show me a documented account of the Pope being removed after 1968.

Show me he was put in in 1965.
 
Quote
You mean like "your eccentric little communion" or is that only for schismatics and not heretics?

Our diptychs have the hierarchy of the Holy Orthodox Church.  Who's in yours?

Quote
You are correct, and I do belong to a canonical Western Church, which gives me the right to say you have adopted heretical rites and are calling them Orthodox.
Your dyptichs agains, please?

Quote
I do. I also know he didn't compose any of the texts of the Latin rites.  But you obviously thought otherwise since your betters slapped his name on the Tridentine Mass.


St. Gregory's revision of the Liturgy of Rome was the last general one before Trent. Gregory's biographer John the deacon (9th cent., at Pope John VIII's request, at the time he was in the dyptichs) says so.
So you say.
[/quote]
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2008, 09:50:18 AM »

Just because you repeat a baseless accusation, doesn't make it true.  I've never heard the pope of Rome's name in the dyptich, but hope to in my lifetime.

Then go to the Great Church, then, and ask.

Would you like a mug with Auxentios' face on it?

No, I don't like coffee cups with people's faces on them.

Curious then, who's in your dyptichs?

Ask my Bishop.

Are you going to tell me, as like minded have, that the Oriental Orthodox canonoized Eutyches?  Please tell me so I know how far this discussion is going on in reality on the other end.

Let's try this again. Do they accept Chalcedon or not?

Show me he was put in in 1965.

I suggest you read the open letters of Metr Philaret of New York, when the ecumenical movement was considerably more open.  However, here are some relevant citations.

Patriarch Athenagoras, addressing himself to Pope Paul VI in his letter for the Feast of the Nativity, in 1968, said: "In this communion (of the love of Christ), celebrating with the company of the most holy and most honorable Metropolitans around me, we will commemorate your precious name in the Diptychs of our heart, O most holy brother Bishop of the Elder Rome, before the holy offering of this precious Body and this precious Blood of the Savior in the Divine Liturgy of our most holy predecessor, the common Father of us all, John Chrysostomos. And we will say on this holy day of the Nativity before the holy Altar, and we say to you: May the Lord God remember thine Episcopacy, always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages." (P. Gregoriou, Journey to Unity, Vol. II, (Athens: 1978), p. 293; Tomos Agapes, Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) [in Greek] (Rome and Istanbul: 1971), pp. 528-530, §242.)

Since the "Lifting of the Anathemas", the Pope of Rome has been included among those commemorated by the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Divine Liturgy (in the Diptychs and in the Anaphora [see "Orthodoxos Enemerosis," Vol. XV-XVI. January-June 1995, pp. 42-43, esp. n. 17, p. 43]), a practice which was first made public to the world in Athenagoras' press statements and encyclicals of 1967-1968, and this practice continues at every Liturgy to this day ("Phone Orthodoxon," Vol. VI, No. 2 [1995], p. 18).

 
Our diptychs have the hierarchy of the Holy Orthodox Church.  Who's in yours?
Your dyptichs agains, please?

I don't have diptychs. Ask my Bishop. I've made no secret of where I am from.

St. Gregory's revision of the Liturgy of Rome was the last general one before Trent. Gregory's biographer John the deacon (9th cent., at Pope John VIII's request, at the time he was in the dyptichs) says so.

There are two problems with your statement. The Gregorian Sacramentary contains St Gregory's feast in it, which indicates he is not the author of the sacramentary.  That he had much to do with the rite is clear and he may have written dozens (if not hundreds) of collects; but the rite which Pope Adrian I gave to Charlemagne was a further revision, and it was that one which was used for the basic pattern of the rite.  John the deacon certainly doesn't attribute authorship to St Gregory, but says that "He collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book", which indicates he can be considered the author of a liturgical text, but certainly not a rite already in use. 

That said, it's not relevant anyway, since you use Trent as your base text and altered it (which is ok, since it has been done in Orthodoxy for a century now as a temporary scenario), and then retroactively blame St Gregory for it (which was never done in Orthodoxy). But at least it isn't basically a heretical text that you are punishing St Tikhon by attaching his name to it. (The Soviets would be so pleased).
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 10:53:34 AM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2008, 12:44:51 PM »

Then go to the Great Church, then, and ask.

Been there. Done that. No pope of Rome.

Quote
No, I don't like coffee cups with people's faces on them.

I don't take communion from coffe cups.  Our chalice has a lot of icons on it.
 
Quote
Ask my Bishop.

Why don't you ask your "bishop."

Quote
Let's try this again. Do they accept Chalcedon or not?

Whether they do or not has nothing to do with us Orthodox and you, well, we haven't gotten any information on your bishops so we don't know exactly what you are.

Quote
I suggest you read the open letters of Metr Philaret of New York, when the ecumenical movement was considerably more open.  However, here are some relevant citations.

Patriarch Athenagoras, addressing himself to Pope Paul VI in his letter for the Feast of the Nativity, in 1968, said: "In this communion (of the love of Christ), celebrating with the company of the most holy and most honorable Metropolitans around me, we will commemorate your precious name in the Diptychs of our heart, O most holy brother Bishop of the Elder Rome, before the holy offering of this precious Body and this precious Blood of the Savior in the Divine Liturgy of our most holy predecessor, the common Father of us all, John Chrysostomos. And we will say on this holy day of the Nativity before the holy Altar, and we say to you: May the Lord God remember thine Episcopacy, always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages." (P. Gregoriou, Journey to Unity, Vol. II, (Athens: 1978), p. 293; Tomos Agapes, Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970) [in Greek] (Rome and Istanbul: 1971), pp. 528-530, §242.)

Since the "Lifting of the Anathemas", the Pope of Rome has been included among those commemorated by the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Divine Liturgy (in the Diptychs and in the Anaphora [see "Orthodoxos Enemerosis," Vol. XV-XVI. January-June 1995, pp. 42-43, esp. n. 17, p. 43]), a practice which was first made public to the world in Athenagoras' press statements and encyclicals of 1967-1968, and this practice continues at every Liturgy to this day ("Phone Orthodoxon," Vol. VI, No. 2 [1995], p. 18).

Just in the interest of fairness and research integrity, I'll have to look this up first before commenting.
 
Quote
I don't have diptychs. Ask my Bishop. I've made no secret of where I am from.

Exactly. I'll have to give you points for being honest to that point.

Quote
There are two problems with your statement. The Gregorian Sacramentary contains St Gregory's feast in it, which indicates he is not the author of the sacramentary.


Reminds of the argument that because the attributions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John aren't in the originals, it means they didn't write their Gospels.

Quote
That he had much to do with the rite is clear and he may have written dozens (if not hundreds) of collects; but the rite which Pope Adrian I gave to Charlemagne was a further revision, and it was that one which was used for the basic pattern of the rite.  John the deacon certainly doesn't attribute authorship to St Gregory, but says that "He collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book", which indicates he can be considered the author of a liturgical text, but certainly not a rite already in use.


A revision, just like St. John's revision of St. Basil's revision of St. James, according to the traditional interpretation.

Quote
That said, it's not relevant anyway, since you use Trent as your base text and altered it (which is ok, since it has been done in Orthodoxy for a century now as a temporary scenario), and then retroactively blame St Gregory for it (which was never done in Orthodoxy).

Like the revisions of the DL of St. James?

Quote
But at least it isn't basically a heretical text that you are punishing St Tikhon by attaching his name to it. (The Soviets would be so pleased).

St. Tikhon specifically asked the Holy Synod on the adaptations needed for the BCP to be used by the Orthodox.  As for heretical, we've yet to see your credentials to bandy that about.

BY THE WAY, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR:

1. Being on the Old Calendar don't make you Old Calendarist.
2. Decrying the abuses of ecumenism doesn't make you a schismatic.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2008, 12:49:02 PM »

I found something, while I was looking for commemorations of the Pope on Google. It's Pope Benedict's observations on his trip to Turkey 1n 2006. Fascinating.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/102681?&eng=y

Most interesting were the following parts:

"The pope says nothing new about his meeting with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. But it should be noted that an unprecedented action took place between Benedict XVI and Bartholomew on November 30: they exchanged the sign of peace during the divine liturgy. In the past, this gesture between the pope and the patriarch always took place outside of the celebration. "

"In the footsteps of Paul VI, who met with patriarch Athenagoras, and of John Paul II, who was welcomed by the successor of Athenagoras, Dimitrios I, I renewed with His Holiness Bartholomew I this gesture of great symbolic value, in order to confirm our mutual commitment to continuing along the way toward the reestablishment of full communion between Catholics and Orthodox.

In order to ratify this firm intention, I signed a joint declaration with the ecumenical patriarch, marking a further step along this journey. It was particularly significant that this act took place at the end of the solemn liturgy for the feast of St. Andrew, which I attended and which concluded with the twofold blessing imparted by the bishop of Rome and by the patriarch of Constantinople, the successors of the apostles Peter and Andrew respectively. In this way, we demonstrated that always at the basis of every ecumenical effort is prayer and the constant invocation of the Holy Spirit. "

Toward, that means not there yet.  If he was commemorated, as you claim, that would mean he had already arrived.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2008, 01:22:07 PM »

Been there. Done that. No pope of Rome.

Wow, it's starting to seem like all of you official Orthodox have suddenly visited Constantinople. Impressive.

I don't take communion from coffe cups.  Our chalice has a lot of icons on it.

Wasn't there a priest in your jurisdiction who wanted to use plastic spoons for the communion? I remember that well.


Why don't you ask your "bishop."

I'm not putting your "bishop" in quotes, though he deserves them.

Whether they do or not has nothing to do with us Orthodox and you, well, we haven't gotten any information on your bishops so we don't know exactly what you are.

Funny thing! That's not my problem.  You don't care enough to follow the Old Calendar Church of Greece, decrying them as schismatics. Not my issue.

Just in the interest of fairness and research integrity, I'll have to look this up first before commenting.

You ALREADY commented on it.  However, I would love to see you find that article.  I didn't know you read Greek, BTW. Something tells me this will be the last we hear from you on the matter of this article.

Exactly. I'll have to give you points for being honest to that point.

That didn't stop you from demanding me to ask them from my "Bishop", as you say.

Reminds of the argument that because the attributions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John aren't in the originals, it means they didn't write their Gospels.

The difference is that the Church recognized them as such; unlike your "liturgies of St Tikhon and St Gregory". Your Archdiocese did. 

A revision, just like St. John's revision of St. Basil's revision of St. James, according to the traditional interpretation.

Fair enough. Still, that would be our liturgy, not yours.

Like the revisions of the DL of St. James?

Those came out of the Tridentine reform too? Wow. You learn something new every day.

St. Tikhon specifically asked the Holy Synod on the adaptations needed for the BCP to be used by the Orthodox.  As for heretical, we've yet to see your credentials to bandy that about.

No you don't. You can read what the Russian Holy Synod said and compare it your history.

BY THE WAY, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR:
1. Being on the Old Calendar don't make you Old Calendarist.
2. Decrying the abuses of ecumenism doesn't make you a schismatic.

1. Of course not. There are those united with Rome on the Old Calendar.
2. Ecumenism IS the abuse.

The word "uniate" is inappropriate for general use on OC.net.  If you'd like to debate this issue, we have a thread for that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16194.0.html

Please do not use the word again in any other threads (other than the one linked above). - Cleveland, Global Moderator
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 03:44:59 PM by cleveland » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2008, 01:23:19 PM »

Toward, that means not there yet.  If he was commemorated, as you claim, that would mean he had already arrived.

In principle, you are correct, which is part of why I have nothing to do with your Church.  However, in practice, they are still keeping up appearances in many parts.

And since you like large letters how come you missed this?

"But it should be noted that an unprecedented action took place between Benedict XVI and Bartholomew on November 30: they exchanged the sign of peace during the divine liturgy. In the past, this gesture between the pope and the patriarch always took place outside of the celebration."
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 01:26:10 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2008, 02:22:10 PM »

Wow, it's starting to seem like all of you official Orthodox have suddenly visited Constantinople. Impressive.

Been to Milan too.

Quote
Wasn't there a priest in your jurisdiction who wanted to use plastic spoons for the communion? I remember that well.

Context?  Names?.....

Quote
I'm not putting your "bishop" in quotes, though he deserves them.

Until your "bishop X" gets a name, do as you like.

Quote
Funny thing! That's not my problem.  You don't care enough to follow the Old Calendar Church of Greece, decrying them as schismatics. Not my issue.

Don't care to follow what the pentacostols are doing either.
 
Quote
You ALREADY commented on it.  However, I would love to see you find that article.  I didn't know you read Greek, BTW. Something tells me this will be the last we hear from you on the matter of this article.

Yes, I read Greek, and yes, I'd love to see if I, or anyone, finds the alleged article.

Quote
That didn't stop you from demanding me to ask them from my "Bishop", as you say.


I'm following St. Ignatius on this.  You know, the Patriarch ordained by the Apostles for our diocese.
 
Quote
The difference is that the Church recognized them as such; unlike your "liturgies of St Tikhon and St Gregory". Your Archdiocese did.
in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. 

Quote
Fair enough. Still, that would be our liturgy, not yours.

We're waiting for the proof of your copyright.

Quote
Those came out of the Tridentine reform too? Wow. You learn something new every day.

Or you don't.

Quote
No you don't. You can read what the Russian Holy Synod said and compare it your history.

Done.

Quote
1. Of course not. There are those united with Rome on the Old Calendar.
Fixed quote with edit in original post - Cleveland, GM
And schismatics.
Quote
2. Ecumenism IS the abuse.
Ex cathedra ecclesiae parvae.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 03:49:15 PM by cleveland » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #46 on: June 02, 2008, 02:23:50 PM »

No, it really doesn't matter to me.  After it was already done I had little interest in what the EP does.

Sooo no interest in seeing it's true.  Ah, conspiratists.  Never confused by the facts.

Uninterested?  Seems you are quite interested in what the EP does:

In principle, you are correct, which is part of why I have nothing to do with your Church.  However, in practice, they are still keeping up appearances in many parts.

And since you like large letters how come you missed this?

"But it should be noted that an unprecedented action took place between Benedict XVI and Bartholomew on November 30: they exchanged the sign of peace during the divine liturgy. In the past, this gesture between the pope and the patriarch always took place outside of the celebration."

Keeping up appearances.  And the conspiracy goes on....
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 02:26:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #47 on: June 02, 2008, 03:06:12 PM »

If the above excerpt is true, then the Great Schism has ended and Orthodox and Catholics have unified on a Hierarchial level and the mission is to sell the unification to the unsuspecting laity.  Not sure what the above has to do with Western-Rite Orthodoxy.   Undecided

If the above excerpt is true, then the Great Schism has ended and Orthodox and Catholics have unified on a Hierarchial level and the mission is to sell the unification to the unsuspecting laity.  Not sure what the above has to do with Western-Rite Orthodoxy.   Undecided

I WAS just ABOUT to get to that.  We have an amazing technique here before us; the old bait-and-switch.

My point was that the ritual of the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" (an insult to the memory of the Saint) is so flawed it cannot be fixed with a couple of small points.

This was the same point brought up by the Russian Synod in 1904.  It's the same point they are ignoring now.

At this point, the question turned on my jurisdicition.  I'd like them to answer my questions without running behind "oh, well he's not from a canonical Church." To the Antiochians ROCOR was non-canonical a decade ago.  Now they are.  I am tired of having this argument about the EP's involvement in ecumenism nor Antioch's involvement in ecumenism.

From Reply #189 on in this thread, it's been nothing since. And I DOUBT, since none of these men have responded to what I *have* written about the "Liturgy", that it will be about anything else. This cheap excuse is all you have, gentlemen, and a cheap excuse it remains.

P.S. My Archbishop is Archbishop John of New York and New Jersey. Please ask him who is in the diptychs. Thank you.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 02, 2008, 03:19:31 PM »

This will be in the running for one of the longest, if not the longest of all, posts I've written.  Forgive the length, as it's addressed both to buzuxi and to Suaiden.

Thus liturgy has gotten named after the saint in the 1970's, he has nothing to do with it. For starters this liturgy denies the ever virginity of Mary simply refering to her as 'Blessed Mary".

Bull.  She is blessed, is she not?  This simply does not refer to her ever-virginity, one way or another.  The East had a sort of "liturgical reaction" to many things that were challenged there that weren't ever challenged in the West (the divinity of Christ, icons, the ever-virginity of Mary).  Consequently our eastern liturgies stress those theological points much more often and much more explicitly than the Roman and British rites ever have ("Christ our God," for example, is said over and over in our liturgies while it's not a phrase of like prominence in the western liturgies -- surely you're not saying that they therefore deny the divinity of Christ, are you??).

It was also a service meant for those that deny the real Prescense, and even with the Orthodox interpolations and added epiklesis, this aspect of denying the actual body and blood still comes through.

More bull.  Prove it.  Christ Himself told us to do this "in memory" of Him, but we know memory to be more participatory than a simple memorial meal.  It seems you want there to be some low-church, non-sacramental meaning in the WR liturgies' phraseology so that you can reject it outright, but you have no cause to do so legitimately. 

"We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of ALL CHRISTIAN RULERS, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice and to the maintenance of thy TRUE RELIGION.  Give grace o heavenly Father to all bishops and OTHER ministers... ( WRV has interpolated the names of the patriarch and bishop after the phrase, "OTHER MINISTERS"). Even before this verse the reference to "Universal Church' taken in context (which i havent quoted), is intended for those that understand the church as part of the branch theory. From an Orthodox pov this prayer is very awkward.

Quote the context.  "Other ministers" could be priests, deacons, bishops, etc.  "Universal Church" may have been "intended" for certain groups several hundred years ago, but now it means "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church": the Orthodox Church.  We've taken something and confessed it with the correct meaning behind it.  Not a problem now.

Later on in the Prayer of Thanksgiving, it says this: "...And that we are very members INCORPORATE in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people...." (these branch theorists dont even want to use the word 'baptised into' and substitute 'incorporate', regardless we can see the theological errors which alludes to the branch theory in this phrase)

If we've been baptized into Christ, we've been incorporated into His body, become members of it (Eph. 4:25; 5:30).  You're grasping at straws and semantics, sir.  Your case is very shaky.  Our faith is not based on a one-to-one word/definition equivalent.  Your treating it as though it were is almost insulting to anyone who can say the same thing with different words.

In the consecration we see that this liturgy was originally for those that denied the real prescense:

And now it's for those who don't, those who can understand those (biblical) terms correctly.

After the words of institution are read they end with the phrase, "in remembrance of me" (as the protestants understand it as seen in the previous quote).

I couldn't care less how some protestants understand those words; what I am so grateful for is that my Western Rite brethren understand them correctly.

This liturgy (if it can be called that) is not theologically correct nor is it pre-schism...

You've offered no substantial evidence as to it's theological incorrectness.  As to it's being pre-schism, well, you're right; it was understood from the start to be an adaptation of the 1928 BCP.  St. Tikhon knew this.  It was never an attempt to use the Sarum Rite.

I will insert this here, though: As much as I support the AWRV (and I'm a reader in the OCA), I would prefer to see the use of the Sarum Rite, as I think it is naturally more compatible with the pre-schism British use.  I think the ROCOR has the better idea.  That having been said, though, I don't think the AWRV is wrong, heretical, heterodox or anything else for using the Rite of St. Tikhon, just that they're using something that isn't as "home grown" as Sarum is.  St. Tikhon's Mass was compiled, largely, outside our communion, but it's not something I'm uncomfortable in the slightest with praying, theologically or liturgically speaking.

Amen. There are enough translations of the Sarum for them to adopt. They are purposely ignoring the real Western Orthodox tradition to defend their father, Thomas Cranmer.

Libel.  Prove this is their motive.

The denial is here...: "....for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) 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 the death and sacrifice, until his coming again".

Please show me the unbiblical and heterodox part of the above.  I don't think it's there.

The Eucharist, according to Orthodox Church teaching, is a perpetual sacrifice; somewhat different from the Roman teaching, but far removed from the idea that the Eucharist was a memorial meal.  Certainly the text does not outright say that; it would have permanently cemented the divisions between the Anglicans as to whether they believed in the real presence.


Glad you can at least admit what I boldfaced.  As to the Orthodox teaching, Christ was offered once for all, period.  Christ is not eternally or perpetually sacrificed.  His one sacrifice is made imminently present at every Eucharist, but He is not "being crucified anew" or "still being crucified" when this happens.

The one that looks *Orthodox* is kind of obvious.

To you.  The synod of Russia disagreed with you several times over, as does the synod of the AOAA.

As to whether or not they're trying to pass of St. Tikhon's Mass as an old western Orthodox mass, first you say the following:

In other words, are they saying that these rites are not the Western rites of the old Orthodox West? Or are they saying that they are, even while having to admit the reality?  I answer the latter in the affirmative.

You quote Fr. Patrick MacCauley as proving your point, which he does at first, though he later down says that "More precisely, the Western Rite, as approved by the Antiochian Archdiocese is a theologically corrected form of worship formerly used by either the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion."  So no, Fr. Patrick is not passing these off as the old rites; he's just not writing precisely.

Then you quote (and even emphasize!) Fr. Schneirla as saying:

"At the turn of the ccntury, the only Orthodox bishop in North America, the later Russian Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) was approached by a group of Episcopalians, who asked to be allowed to continue the use of the American Book of Common Prayer rather than the Byzantine rite. Bishop Tikhon petitioned the Holy Synod of Moscow and a commission of theologians was directed to provide a detailed examination and revision of the Prayer Book to be approved for the converts...."

You emphasize that Fr John Charles Connely says that St. Mark's uses, according to Fr. John, "the finest form of the English Liturgy," but Fr. John is quite clear in saying that that is not a pre-schism liturgy but rather the "1928 Book of Common Prayer, by which we meant the old religion of the Christian West, and its traditional liturgy....."  Now, you may disagree (as I do) with his calling it the finest form of the English liturgy, as well as the old religion of the Christian West (I disagree with this in part), but he can hardly be said to be calling this the exact rite used by pre-schism Christians.  Rather, he's acknowledging this to be a direct and recognizeable descendant thereof, as you can read HERE.

Two things are clear:

1) The ancient Orthodox ritual of the West was NOT either of the liturgies mentioned. (Proof? See Fr Paul Schneirla's statement).

Agreed.

2) The above and others will continue freely to present it as such, and dishonestly.

Wrong, as I showed above.

Its no secret that the WRV has its critics especially amongst the episcopal ranks. The Liturgy of St Tikhon will always recieve the most critcism because its simply not Orthodox, I'm not the first to point this out nor the last.

It will receive criticism because there will (I fear) always be people who squirm at the reality of vast liturgical diversity within the Church from its earliest days.  Lectionaries, fasting rules, prayer rules, Eucharists, vestment styles, chant styles, rubrics, etc...all this has varied wildly throughout Christendom; it's only relatively recently that such a liturgical standardization has been the norm.  It most certainly is not a sine qua non of genuine Orthodoxy.

The Body of Christ is made of baptised christians, both saints and sinners. It is not the "company of all faithful people" it is an exclusive company of baptized people of whom not all are entirely faithful but some are  wretched sinners.

You are aware, are you not, of our Lord's parable of the wheat and the tares?  There are wheat grains and there are tares, but though all may be visibly in the "field" of the Church, those who are truly Christ's within His Church are the "faithful people."  Some may be baptized, but their hearts are not Christ's.  They are not truly of the Body, though they appear so.  We all pray that we are one of those who has been incorporated into that Body which will ever be faithful, without spot or blemish, to our Lord in His Church.

Secondly the term "incorporate" is completely false, we are not incorporated into the Body, but through baptism we are the Body.
As scripture says, "For by One Spirit we were all baptized into One Body"....(1COR 12.13)

"For as many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."(Gal3.27)

If we've been baptized into Christ, we've been incorporated into His body, become members of it (Eph. 4:25; 5:30).  We've been grafted in.  Different ways of saying the same thing.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #49 on: June 02, 2008, 03:45:54 PM »

No one denies that the Liturgy of St Tikhon is mainly a product of the influence of Thoman Cranmer -who denied the real prescense. In one of the links, Bishop Kallistos Ware points this out as does another canonical clergy who also rejects this liturgy in its entirety. None of this is new, no matter how much you think it is, most bishops of our Church reject this protestant rite service. My SF, an OCA monk rejects it as does his bishop., as do most in the GOA. You can be in denial all you want and listen to the lies of Antioch that somehow St Tikhon created this liturgy (even though both ROCOR and the OCA reject this assumption).
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 02, 2008, 04:20:28 PM »

^ Roll Eyes

buzuxi,
The only claim you seem to come up with is that the Antiochian WR are using a modified BCP Liturgy called the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. That's not news to us. Please read mine & DavidBryan's answers to your supposed claims that it is heterodox. It is not a heterodox Liturgy.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2008, 04:25:40 PM »

^ Roll Eyes

buzuxi,
The only claim you seem to come up with is that the Antiochian WR are using a modified BCP Liturgy called the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. That's not news to us. Please read mine & DavidBryan's answers to your supposed claims that it is heterodox. It is not a heterodox Liturgy.
Your argumets are wrong,  Read the Liturgy in context. This Liturgy defames the name of St Tikhon
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 04:27:58 PM by buzuxi » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2008, 04:55:27 PM »

I WAS just ABOUT to get to that.  We have an amazing technique here before us; the old bait-and-switch.

My point was that the ritual of the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" (an insult to the memory of the Saint) is so flawed it cannot be fixed with a couple of small points.

This was the same point brought up by the Russian Synod in 1904.  It's the same point they are ignoring now.

At this point, the question turned on my jurisdicition.  I'd like them to answer my questions without running behind "oh, well he's not from a canonical Church." To the Antiochians ROCOR was non-canonical a decade ago.  Now they are.  I am tired of having this argument about the EP's involvement in ecumenism nor Antioch's involvement in ecumenism.

From Reply #189 on in this thread, it's been nothing since. And I DOUBT, since none of these men have responded to what I *have* written about the "Liturgy", that it will be about anything else. This cheap excuse is all you have, gentlemen, and a cheap excuse it remains.

P.S. My Archbishop is Archbishop John of New York and New Jersey. Please ask him who is in the diptychs. Thank you.

A number of Muslims often say, that I know more about Islam than any Muslim, and can't understand why I'm not.  That being said, according to Islamic law, I can not give a decision under the shariah, as I am not Muslim.

How we got into this is you have made a number of claims about heresy, schism, etc...and I've yet to see evidence that the Orthodox should pay any more attention to your opinions on this than we do those under Rome, the Protestants, etc.  You seem to forget:

I am in communion with the Orthodox Church, because I am under an Orthodox Bishop.  I am not in communion with the EP, or Metropolitan Philip, et cetera.  But I don't believe I am outside the Orthodox Church.  You do. That's not my problem. It is yours.  I believe unconverted Anglicans in the AWRV are outside of the Orthodox Church. That's also not my problem.  It is also yours.

And those "long gone" liturgies are already resurrected and being used in "canonical Churches" (except the AWRV). The problem is now that the AWRV no longer wants to use them, preferring the Protestant liturgies instead.

For starters your repeated contention that St. Tikhon had nothing to do with it is belied by the metion of him sending for instruction to the Holy Synod, and sending the observations to him.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2008, 05:16:09 PM »

Your argumets are wrong,  Read the Liturgy in context. This Liturgy defames the name of St Tikhon

Read the observations on the BCP: they state they were made at the request of St. Tikhon, and to whom they were to be delievered.
http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2008, 06:08:24 PM »

Here are references to the branch theory from this Liturgy:

"We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of ALL CHRISTIAN RULERS, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice and to the maintenance of thy TRUE RELIGION.  Give grace o heavenly Father to all bishops and OTHER ministers... ( WRV has interpolated the names of the patriarch and bishop after the phrase, "OTHER MINISTERS"). Even before this verse the reference to "Universal Church' taken in context (which i havent quoted), is intended for those that understand the church as part of the branch theory. From an Orthodox pov this prayer is very awkward.

Later on in the Prayer of Thanksgiving, it says this: "...And that we are very members INCORPORATE in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people...." (these branch theorists dont even want to use the word 'baptised into' and substitute 'incorporate', regardless we can see the theological errors which alludes to the branch theory in this phrase)

In the consecration we see that this liturgy was originally for those that denied the real prescense: "...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."

After the words if institution are read they end with the phrase, "in remembrance of me" (as the protestants understand it as seen in the previous quote).
The prayer continues: "...According to thy institution of thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants , do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, thy memorial the Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, His mighty ressurection, and glorious ressurection"... (the Orthodox epiclesis added after this).

This liturgy (if it can be called that) is not theologically correct nor is it pre-schism unless the pre-schism Church denied the real prescense of the Eucharist and never used Theotokos or "ever-Virgin or even "Virgin Mary' to describe Christ's mother.

here is a link to this service:
http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/tikhon.PDF





"


The truth is, it can go eitherway. The Anglicans are a mixed bag. The highchurch interpreted those words differently than the broad & Low church.

Before I became Orthodox I was Anglo-Catholic for a few years and I know how the Anglo-Catholic side viewed the liturgy. I also hung around the Low church and saw how different their interpretation was.

Most....if not all, Anglo-catholics believe in a real presence....some even believe in the Roman Catholic understanding of Trancesubstanciation.

I maybe wrong, but I think Saint Tikhon and the Russians knew about the Low, broad, and highchurch distinctions.

I could be wrong again about what I am about to say, but I think the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon was looking at how the highchurch understood those words............ Not the low and broad wings of Anglicanism........for we all know that their view is far from the pre-schizm perspective.

So what you have to do is look at how the Anglo-Catholics and other high church Anglicans understood those words in the liturgy you are talking about.


However, to your credit, I must admit, that the Anglo-Catholics I know do believe in the branch theory. So I will agree with you about that. That would be a problem. However, one can always give an Orthodox interpretation to those parts.

I could be wrong about this, but I think the Russian Church knew about the branch theory error of Anglicanism, so the corrections they made could of takin that into account. I would like to read the primary works of the Russians that critiqued the BCP. I would like to know what they had to say about the Branch theory and what corrections they made in the BCP to correct it.

I have faith in the corrections they made. We just have to understand the Orthodox edited version with the eyes of the Russian Church. We have to interprete it, the way they(The Russians) did.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 06:24:10 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2008, 06:38:10 PM »

Read the observations on the BCP: they state they were made at the request of St. Tikhon, and to whom they were to be delievered.
http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html

Thanks for the link.

I maybe wrong, but I think the Russians knew what they were doing. They spoke with the Anglicans long enough to know it's errors. And I'm sure they knew about the different groups within it.

Thus, I have faith in the Russian edited edition, and it should be interpreted the way the Russians understood it.


So when reading the Russian edited version, Thomas Cranmer should be ignored.


besides, alot of highchurch Anglicans had a different interpretation than Thomas Cranmer.......Anglicanism is a mixed theological bag......with different theological systems within it.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 06:58:56 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #56 on: June 02, 2008, 07:00:03 PM »

No one denies that the Liturgy of St Tikhon is mainly a product of the influence of Thoman Cranmer -who denied the real prescense. In one of the links, Bishop Kallistos Ware points this out as does another canonical clergy who also rejects this liturgy in its entirety. None of this is new, no matter how much you think it is, most bishops of our Church reject this protestant rite service. My SF, an OCA monk rejects it as does his bishop., as do most in the GOA. You can be in denial all you want and listen to the lies of Antioch that somehow St Tikhon created this liturgy (even though both ROCOR and the OCA reject this assumption).

http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/ware.html

Thank you for providing the link where His Emminence Bishop Kallistos Ware briefly shares his views on the historical, liturgical and pastoral aspects of the so-called "Liturgy of St. Tikhon".  Truly, various Orthodox liturgies were in use in the West prior to the schism, but the said liturgy was not one of them.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #57 on: June 02, 2008, 09:31:30 PM »

A number of Muslims often say, that I know more about Islam than any Muslim, and can't understand why I'm not.  That being said, according to Islamic law, I can not give a decision under the shariah, as I am not Muslim.

...

How we got into this is you have made a number of claims about heresy, schism, etc...and I've yet to see evidence that the Orthodox should pay any more attention to your opinions on this than we do those under Rome, the Protestants, etc.  You seem to forget:

Fair enough.  Assume for your amusement that I am another religion. Now answer my claim.

For starters your repeated contention that St. Tikhon had nothing to do with it is belied by the metion of him sending for instruction to the Holy Synod, and sending the observations to him.

BUT HE NEVER ACTED UPON THOSE OBSERVATIONS.  The Anglican body was attempting to join corporately as the Orthodox in America without conversion. By the time the Synod's answer came, they had already abandoned the idea.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2008, 09:50:52 PM »

This will be in the running for one of the longest, if not the longest of all, posts I've written.  Forgive the length, as it's addressed both to buzuxi and to Suaiden.

Bull.  She is blessed, is she not?  This simply does not refer to her ever-virginity, one way or another.  The East had a sort of "liturgical reaction" to many things that were challenged there that weren't ever challenged in the West (the divinity of Christ, icons, the ever-virginity of Mary).  Consequently our eastern liturgies stress those theological points much more often and much more explicitly than the Roman and British rites ever have ("Christ our God," for example, is said over and over in our liturgies while it's not a phrase of like prominence in the western liturgies -- surely you're not saying that they therefore deny the divinity of Christ, are you??)....More bull.  Prove it.  Christ Himself told us to do this "in memory" of Him, but we know memory to be more participatory than a simple memorial meal.  It seems you want there to be some low-church, non-sacramental meaning in the WR liturgies' phraseology so that you can reject it outright, but you have no cause to do so legitimately....Quote the context.  "Other ministers" could be priests, deacons, bishops, etc.  "Universal Church" may have been "intended" for certain groups several hundred years ago, but now it means "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church": the Orthodox Church.  We've taken something and confessed it with the correct meaning behind it.  Not a problem now."

Absolutely not! It is absolutely worse now, which is why the Sarum is superior in this regard.

I am glad, however, you acknowledge that the authors of this rite intended something totally different. THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT THE RUSSIAN SYNOD MADE IN 1904:

The second foundation-stone of the Orthodox Liturgy is represented by the belief in the Eucharist as a sacrifice for the living and the dead. This belief is expressed with indisputable clearness in our Liturgies, both in the proskomide and also especially in the prayer "No one is worthy," which prayer, as the prelude to the whole solemn action of the sacrament, gives the key to the interpretation of the remaining passages, which are perhaps not so clear and definite if each of them is taken separately. We do not see that in the C. P. B. In the American "Oblation" it only says that "We . . . do celebrate and maker here before thy Divine Majesty with these thy Holy Gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial ([Vospominanie]) thy Son hath commanded us to make"; but about the sacrificial significance of this offering and about its saving power for those on whose behalf they offer it, there is not a word said either here or elsewhere in the Communion Service. In the Offertory (sic) one can discern something more similar to our proskomide, for there are found there prayers for the living and also a slight mention of the dead; but all mention of the Gifts is omitted (though they lie on the table ([stol']) at the time), and mention is made only of prayers, donations ([pozhertvovaniyakh']), and alms ([milostin']), if any are collected. It is true, in the American rite immediately after the Invocation there is placed the prayer "And we earnestly desire," in which one can find some sort of allusion ([kamekh']) to prayer for the whole Church; therein they entreat God "mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," But remember that this same prayer is employed in the English edition as the prayer of thanksgiving after Communion and is read after it, one cannot fail to see how vague is the reference to sacrifice in it. This is all the more so, as the term, "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" is applied in the C. P. B. to a general thanksgiving prayer (see, for example, the prayer to be used at sea: O most blessed and glorious Lord God).

They can point us to several ancient Liturgies in which these ideas about the change of the Holy Gifts and about the Sacrifice also are expressed somewhat vaguely. For example (concerning the change) the Gallican Liturgy, the Mozarabic, also the Western Roman ("that it may become to us the Body and Blood of thy well-beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ"), and in particular in the Ethiopic text of the Liturgy in the Apostolic Constitutions (about the change and Sacrifice), for there at the Consecration there is not even so much reference to the Body of Christ as there is in the Communion Service. But (a) the indefinite expressions concerning the consecration of the Gifts which occur in the Roman, Gallican and Mozarabic Liturgies are undoubtedly defined in other passages of these Liturgies; (for example at the Offertory, or at Communion itself, in the phrase "the union (conjunctio) of the Body of Christ;" for the elements themselves are clearly called "the Body of Christ"). (b) All these Liturgies, not excepting the Liturgy of The Apostolic Constitutions, markedly differ from the Communion Service when they speak about the fruits of Communion. If the Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, then it is evident that the Orthodox in receiving the Mysteries ([tain’]) cannot pray that together with them he may be a partaker also of the Body of Christ; it is already given. He therefore prays at once for the fruits of partaking of the Body and Blood, for sobriety of soul, for forgiveness of sins, for sanctification, and asks that the reception of the Body and Blood may not be to him for judgment or condemnation. We see the same in all the Church’s Liturgies. The C. P. B., however, prays for the partaking of the Body and Blood as for something that should follow upon the reception of the sacrament. In this case the Gifts are not at all the same thing to the communicant as the Body of Christ. It may be impossible to call this a direct negation of the belief in the change, but it is also impossible to call it an undoubted and unequivocal expression of it.

It is impossible also to keep out of sight a fact which in this particular case is of importance. In the ancient Church the question of the Eucharist was not a controversial question; and the Church itself did not raise suspicions against any one on the ground of his Eucharistic beliefs. However, the C. P. B. must be regarded as being at variance with the whole Church on this question, and as belonging to a Church which in its symbolical literature and in its catechism confess a doctrine which is clearly protestant. Considering the origin of the document and the epoch to which it belongs, it must be required to exhibit a definiteness on this question no less than the definiteness which liturgical monuments, hailing from the time of controversies about the Holy Trinity, about the wills in the Person of Jesus Christ, etc., exhibit upon these subjects.


If we've been baptized into Christ, we've been incorporated into His body, become members of it (Eph. 4:25; 5:30).  You're grasping at straws and semantics, sir.  Your case is very shaky.  Our faith is not based on a one-to-one word/definition equivalent.  Your treating it as though it were is almost insulting to anyone who can say the same thing with different words.... And now it's for those who don't, those who can understand those (biblical) terms correctly.... I couldn't care less how some protestants understand those words; what I am so grateful for is that my Western Rite brethren understand them correctly."

Do they? Is that why one Antiochian Western Rite writer thought a bunch of Anglican nuns who died fighting cholera at the turn of the century should be glorified as passion bearers?

You've offered no substantial evidence as to it's theological incorrectness.  As to it's being pre-schism, well, you're right; it was understood from the start to be an adaptation of the 1928 BCP.  St. Tikhon knew this.  It was never an attempt to use the Sarum Rite.

But it is being presented as what the Sarum Rite IS: a genuine pre-schism use of Orthodox England.

I will insert this here, though: As much as I support the AWRV (and I'm a reader in the OCA), I would prefer to see the use of the Sarum Rite, as I think it is naturally more compatible with the pre-schism British use.  I think the ROCOR has the better idea.  That having been said, though, I don't think the AWRV is wrong, heretical, heterodox or anything else for using the Rite of St. Tikhon, just that they're using something that isn't as "home grown" as Sarum is.  St. Tikhon's Mass was compiled, largely, outside our communion, but it's not something I'm uncomfortable in the slightest with praying, theologically or liturgically speaking.

So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints with them I will never support the AWRV.

Libel.  Prove this is their motive.

That's what my website is for.

Glad you can at least admit what I boldfaced.  As to the Orthodox teaching, Christ was offered once for all, period.  Christ is not eternally or perpetually sacrificed.  His one sacrifice is made imminently present at every Eucharist, but He is not "being crucified anew" or "still being crucified" when this happens.

Read even the Russian Synod excerpt above.

To you.  The synod of Russia disagreed with you several times over, as does the synod of the AOAA.


This statement only proves you have marginally skimmed the text.  I would suggest you read it. I disagree with nothing in the 1904 text. The AOAA however, refers to that text and says the opposite, such as when Deacon Ben Johnson said (repeatedly) it was a text approving the Book of Common Prayer, which it does not.

As to whether or not they're trying to pass of St. Tikhon's Mass as an old western Orthodox mass, first you say the following:

I waited for a response, but it was apparently that I misread EVERYTHING (you didn't even say that with Fr Schneirla's comment).

Wrong, as I showed above.

It will receive criticism because there will (I fear) always be people who squirm at the reality of vast liturgical diversity within the Church from its earliest days.  Lectionaries, fasting rules, prayer rules, Eucharists, vestment styles, chant styles, rubrics, etc...all this has varied wildly throughout Christendom; it's only relatively recently that such a liturgical standardization has been the norm.  It most certainly is not a sine qua non of genuine Orthodoxy.

And among heretics, pagans, and shamans. However, we do not adopt the vestments and ideas of heretics, pagans and shamans.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 10:16:09 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2008, 09:53:47 PM »

Thanks for the link. ...I maybe wrong, but I think the Russians knew what they were doing. They spoke with the Anglicans long enough to know it's errors. And I'm sure they knew about the different groups within it...Thus, I have faith in the Russian edited edition, and it should be interpreted the way the Russians understood it.
...So when reading the Russian edited version, Thomas Cranmer should be ignored.

There is no "Russian edited version" the AWRV is using!   And Thomas Cramner was important enough to the Russians to bring it up to them! -- "Moreover, this must be stated not only concerning the ordination of presbyters (sic) but of deacons and bishops also. Such an omission cannot have been accidental, as is shown by the nature of the views respecting the Eucharist held by Archbishop Cranmer, who was the chief leader of the reform and perhaps the author of the rite, and by his most intimate collaborators. The Anglican rite of ordination was so drawn up as to express a view of ordination which did not include in it power to consecrate and offer the bloodless sacrifice."
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2008, 10:28:37 PM »

Read the observations on the BCP: they state they were made at the request of St. Tikhon, and to whom they were to be delievered.
http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html

So he submitted a request, the Synod told him in 1904 and in plenty of words just how useless the BCP was for Orthodox worship, the Anglicans who wanted to be recognized as Orthodox realized they'd have to find another patsy like Meletios Metaxakis (who "recognized their orders"), and then St Tikhon went to Russia in 1907 to be martyred by the Soviets a decade later.

So in the 1970's the Anglicans who joined ignored most of the Russian Synod's directives (which can be read) and so this is why it's called the liturgy of St Tikhon.

I guess, comparatively speaking, the "liturgy of St Gregory" (which should be called the "liturgy of Pope Pius V") sounds outright apostolic in origin compared to the facts above.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 10:30:10 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2008, 12:14:54 AM »

Suaiden,

Why the belligerent tone?
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2008, 12:37:34 AM »

Suaiden,

Why the belligerent tone?

I don't know if my tone comes off as belligerent, but I apologize if it does.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2008, 12:45:31 AM »

I don't know if my tone comes off as belligerent, but I apologize if it does.
Well, you just accused the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of being a body of heretics for her support of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon.  How is this not belligerent?
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2008, 12:46:53 AM »

Suaiden what would you consider belligerent behavior?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2008, 12:59:53 AM »

Suaiden what would you consider belligerent behavior?

Trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't want to because they are preoccupied with 107 monks in Esphigmenou, Mt Athos, who are now surrounded by police and who has already told you they are concerned about that on another thread.

That's belligerent, sir.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #66 on: June 03, 2008, 01:07:45 AM »

Quote
Trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't want to because they are preoccupied with 107 monks in Esphigmenou, Mt Athos, who are now surrounded by police and who has already told you they are concerned about that on another thread.

That's belligerent, sir.

I didn't ask my question in a hostile manner and you reply as such. You showed PeterTheAleut the same gratitude of answering his question. I wasn't implying anything about your behavior just curious as to what extent you would see someone as acting belligerent.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 01:08:24 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2008, 01:24:42 AM »

Trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't want to because they are preoccupied with 107 monks in Esphigmenou, Mt Athos, who are now surrounded by police and who has already told you they are concerned about that on another thread.

That's belligerent, sir.
Then why do you even take the time to post on this thread if you're so concerned with doings on another thread?  The good thing about internet discussions such as this is that you can reply on your own time.  If you're preoccupied with another situation and you just don't want to continue this discussion for a time, then just don't even visit this thread.  No one is forcing you to do so.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #68 on: June 03, 2008, 01:30:22 AM »

Then why do you even take the time to post on this thread if you're so concerned with doings on another thread?  The good thing about internet discussions such as this is that you can reply on your own time.  If you're preoccupied with another situation and you just don't want to continue this discussion for a time, then just don't even visit this thread.  No one is forcing you to do so.

A part of me wants to argue the fact that I am being "chased" on the matter, but I will simply say: yes, you are right. I'll come back to this when the more pressing matter of 600 SWAT police around Esphigmenou is resolved, by God's grace peacefully.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #69 on: June 03, 2008, 01:44:15 AM »

Well, you just accused the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of being a body of heretics for her support of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon.  How is this not belligerent?

BTW, when did I ever say what you are saying above?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #70 on: June 03, 2008, 01:44:26 AM »

Then why do you even take the time to post on this thread if you're so concerned with doings on another thread?  The good thing about internet discussions such as this is that you can reply on your own time.  If you're preoccupied with another situation and you just don't want to continue this discussion for a time, then just don't even visit this thread.  No one is forcing you to do so.

Exactly I said the exact same thing but replying is more important. To show the worry the poster shoudn't reply to any of the posts if it is genuine.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #71 on: June 03, 2008, 01:46:49 AM »

Exactly I said the exact same thing but replying is more important. To show the worry the poster shoudn't reply to any of the posts if it is genuine.

Are you judging my intentions, sir?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #72 on: June 03, 2008, 01:49:49 AM »

Are you judging my intentions, sir?

I am not judging your intentions I am just asking why you keep responding to these replies if your response constantly is "I'm more worried about the Monastery situation at the moment" and leaving it at that rather than constantly posting this fact.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2008, 01:53:18 AM »

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Well, you just accused the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of being a body of heretics for her support of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon.  How is this not belligerent?

BTW, when did I ever say what you are saying above?

Quote from: Suaiden
So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints with them I will never support the AWRV.

Unless you believe a church can use a heretical liturgy and not be heretical and if you believe that then you havn't stated that the Antiochians are heretics.

Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #74 on: June 03, 2008, 01:56:29 AM »

Well, you just accused the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of being a body of heretics for her support of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon.  How is this not belligerent?

BTW, when did I ever say what you are saying above?

Here:

So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints with them I will never support the AWRV.
AWRV = Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, an arm of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese (AOCA)...

To accuse the AWRV of using heretical liturgies that insult the memories of the saints is to call the AWRV heretical, together with her parent jurisdiction, the AOCA.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 01:57:22 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #75 on: June 03, 2008, 01:57:52 AM »

I am not judging your intentions I am just asking why you keep responding to these replies if your response constantly is "I'm more worried about the Monastery situation at the moment" and leaving it at that rather than constantly posting this fact.

Why do you feel the need to respond? Do you have the same disease?

Seriously, this is getting stupid. I will not respond further on the matter of my replies (though it sure sounded like you were judging my intentions), I will simply not reply.

Say what you want! I am ok with it.

So far, as I understand, there are no updates. They may occur while I am resting.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #76 on: June 03, 2008, 05:48:23 AM »

Read the observations on the BCP: they state they were made at the request of St. Tikhon, and to whom they were to be delievered.
http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html

This doesnt mean he approved of the rite. In fact this Liturgy as used in the AWRV is from the 1928 BCP with a mixture of the Anglican Missa after the death of St Tikhon in 1925. Under St Tikhon a group of american anglicans asked to be recieved into the Orthodox church while retaining their protestant liturgy (not a pre-schism western liturgy of the Orthodox church of the first 1000 years as Antioch claims). While correspondence was going on, this anglican group withdrew their petition after learning how radically different Orthodox was to their beliefs. This group believed Orthodoxy was similar to their own theology much of which is espoused in Zwingli theology. I will demonstrate this:

This Liturgy says," We beseech thee also so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, they they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of the wicked and vice and to thy maintenance of Thy True Religion and virtue. Give grace O Heavenly Father to all bishops and other ministers especially (our N patriarch, Metropolitan, Synod of Antioch).. "

Who are these varied christian rulers who will defend the "true religion" (the Orthodox church)?. In protestantism, the true religion is simply all christian denominations and it doesnt matter what denomination the christian ruler belongs to, its a reference to a branch theory. In the latter part of the prayer the Antiochan heirarchy falls under "other ministers" and not bishops. In Zwingli theology the secular christian rulers held a special place but not the bishops who lead the churches, they were considered corrupt and this notion amongst the anglican worshippers of this service, holds the Antiochan heirarchy as ministers not bishops.
Zwingli came up with his "67 conclusions", 67 articles outlining his vision of protestantism. Here are conclusions #34 & 35:,"The spiritual heirarchial power, so called,  has no foundation in holy Scriptures and the teaching of Christ. But the secular power of the state is confirmed by the teaching and example of Christ."

The belief about the Eucharist of this service as already stated is that of Zwiglianism, that the Eucharist is a symbolic act and nothing more. This is what this Liturgy prays (as repeated in previous posts), " ....Who by His own oblation of Himself once offered made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction of the sins of the whole world, and did institute and in His Holy Gospel command us to make a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice until his coming again."

In Zwingli's '67 conclusions' #18 says, "Christ who offered himself once on the cross, is the sufficient and perpetual sacrifice for the sins of all believers. Therefore the mass is no sacrifice, but a commemoration of the one sacrifice of the cross, and a seal of redemption through Christ." 
Zwingli article #18 is basically whats paraphrased in the above verse of the Liturgy of St Tikhon!

In the other verse of this liturgy which is quintessental protestant ecclesiology, (which i have to revisit again), "... And that we are very members incorporate in thy mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of ALL faithful people..."

These faithful people who are incorporated are those of all denominations regardless of whether they are baptised or not, hence 'ALL'. Zwingly taught that infant baptism was legit but not that baptism is required for salvation or that baptiism is a vehicle of grace. Once again the above verse from the so-called Liturgy of St Tikhon is echoed in the 67 conclusions of Zwingli of which Cranmer was a follower of, in Articles #7 & 8:"Christ is the head of ALL believers who are His Body, but without Him, the body is dead. All who live in this head are His members and children of God. And this is the Church, the communion of saints, the bride of Christ, the Ecclesia catholica.  (no, he wasnt thinking of the Orthodox church but of the protestant movement where baptism is not a requirement for entrance into this church)

This verse from this WR liturgy as the others i mentioned, jumped out at me, the first time i read them. (even before i heard of Zwingli) Being an Orthodox christian i knew they were extremely awkward and strange, they are so obvious. I hope now that the cat is out of the bag that Antioch will no longer market this protestant liturgy as a western liturgy of the Orthodox church of the first thousand years. St Photios nor St John of Damascus nor any of the orthodox popes recognize this liturgy.  Here is a list of some of the 67 articles of Zwingli theology which the liturgy of St tikhon is indebted to:

 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc8.iv.iii.viii.html

 


« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 05:56:43 AM by buzuxi » Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #77 on: June 03, 2008, 10:27:21 AM »

Seriously, this is getting stupid. I will not respond further on the matter of my replies (though it sure sounded like you were judging my intentions), I will simply not reply.

You have leveled a charge of heresy which is a serious matter. As is Orthodox Tradition that when someone accuses someone else of heresy they explain in detail why it is heresy or they themselves can face discipline. I would therefore ask that you provide your proof of heretical teachings that exist in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon by Friday, June 6, 2008. If you need more time to put your argument together please PM me and I will be happy to give you an extension.

Also considers this a public warning not to cross post into more then one thread. In each of the two active WR threads you placed an announcement about a monastery on Mt. Athos which violates board policy.

-Arimethea
Liturgy Section Moderator
Logged

Joseph
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #78 on: June 03, 2008, 11:38:40 AM »

You have leveled a charge of heresy which is a serious matter. As is Orthodox Tradition that when someone accuses someone else of heresy they explain in detail why it is heresy or they themselves can face discipline. I would therefore ask that you provide your proof of heretical teachings that exist in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon by Friday, June 6, 2008. If you need more time to put your argument together please PM me and I will be happy to give you an extension.

Also considers this a public warning not to cross post into more then one thread. In each of the two active WR threads you placed an announcement about a monastery on Mt. Athos which violates board policy.

-Arimethea
Liturgy Section Moderator


Really? Is an internet forum now the Church?  Do you have the power to "subject me to canonical discipline"? Of course not. I shall oblige this madness, however, because I am not wrong.

I have asked for someone to point out how I have said the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese is in heresy; I have been accused of it twice, and no one can cite what I said, because I am innocent of the charge. So would this be called a "robber disciplining"?

In the one attempt we've had to demonstrate I said what I didn't, the quote was:
"So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints with them I will never support the AWRV."

This was taken to mean, by extension, the AOCA. That's unfair.  I am certainly not the first person to say that the turn the AWRV has taken since the 70's has taken of a heretical bent; there are Bishops of the Greek, ROCOR, and OCA Archdioceses who say the same thing.  They have not said the AOCA is heretical.  However, my exact statement was "So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints" -- and to the first I say: (1) I've written in depth on the matter, and I have asked everyone to read the essay I wrote detail the Russian Synod's position on the BCP in 1904. If you'd like, I can show how that has been, wholesale, ignored, although two people pointed out that there is a clear denial of the sacrificial nature of the liturgy. (2) If the Saint had nothing to do with the monstrosity we have now with his name on it, but did his best to defend Orthodoxy until his death, which the liturgy does NOT do (which is why the Russian Synod disapproved of it in general unless major additions were made) then it is an insult to call it HIS liturgy.

I have not said the AOCA are heretics. The best one *can* say is that there are heretics in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, and that the leadership is aware of it (more below).

What I have said is (a) there are unconverted Anglican heretics in the Western Rite Vicariate (b) the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" is neither an Orthodox liturgy nor blessed by St Tikhon  and.... we may add what I didn't state is (c) I know many people of the AWRV who AGREE WITH ME.

Now, this has been turned has been turned into me accusing an entire jurisdiction of heresy.  No, I'd rather point to some egregious examples of people who support heresy in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.

We can start with the most obvious, Deacon Ben Johnson, whom for his work in not only attacking the canonical Orthodox rites of the West but promoting heretical post-schism devotions such as the "Sacred Heart of Jesus", the "May Crowning", and flatly defending the Book of Common Prayer (not the "Liturgy of St Tikhon" but the book of common prayer), an Anglican prayer book as Orthodox, inspired my "Western Rite Fraud" site by attacking me and an innocent third party in an email sent throughout the WR community because he couldn't figure out who "Western Rite Critic" was.

I can continue.  But I never said what anyone said I said, so it's silly if you still think I am guilty of saying what I didn't say, to defend my point on what I do say.

MINOR EDIT: Allow me to add: I have not accused the AOCA of heresy in my blogs.  As far as I am concerned I am doing it a public service, since they should know where there is heresy in their jurisdiction.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 11:48:34 AM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 03, 2008, 11:47:21 AM »

(not a pre-schism western liturgy of the Orthodox church of the first 1000 years as Antioch claims).

This is not what is claimed.

In protestantism...

In Zwingli theology...

Zwingli came up with...

In Zwingli's '67 conclusions' #18 says...

Zwingly taught that infant baptism...

Please...PLEASE...ask ANY Western Rite priest if, when reading these words they read them as Zwingly reads them.  It does not, I repeat, does NOT matter how other groups read these words!

Many creedal protestants also read the phrase "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", as do Catholics, yet they understand the idea of this very differently.  Are we to stop using that phrase ourselves?  Or is it about the understanding of what is being said?

Again, just because Zwingly and others misunderstood Christ's phrase "in memory of Me," we should not therefore stop using the phrase "memory."  The Eastern Rite Antiochian prayer book uses the word "merits," but doesn't mean it as the Roman Catholics do.

You say "These faithful people who are incorporated are those of all denominations regardless of whether they are baptised or not," yet offer no explicit text from the liturgy that verifies this.  You show that Zwingly uses the same biblical terminology (not a bad thing in and of itself) as the liturgy does, but not that the liturgy must therefore be understood as Zwingly says it.

Eastern Rite Lutherans in the Ukraine use many of our phrases in their altered liturgy; do they automatically get credit for having an Orthodox understanding of what they're praying?  I don't think you'd think so, so it does not follow that Christians who've been baptized and chrismated Orthodox, who pray biblical prayers, should be automatically accused of believing something contrary to what their bishops teach about the sacraments and liturgy.

I hope now that the cat is out of the bag that Antioch will no longer market this protestant liturgy as a western liturgy of the Orthodox church of the first thousand years.

They aren't doing this.  Stop saying they are.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #80 on: June 03, 2008, 12:02:23 PM »

This is not what is claimed.

Please...PLEASE...ask ANY Western Rite priest if, when reading these words they read them as Zwingly reads them.  It does not, I repeat, does NOT matter how other groups read these words! .... Again, just because Zwingly and others misunderstood Christ's phrase "in memory of Me," we should not therefore stop using the phrase "memory."  The Eastern Rite Antiochian prayer book uses the word "merits," but doesn't mean it as the Roman Catholics do.... You say "These faithful people who are incorporated are those of all denominations regardless of whether they are baptised or not," yet offer no explicit text from the liturgy that verifies this.  You show that Zwingly uses the same biblical terminology (not a bad thing in and of itself) as the liturgy does, but not that the liturgy must therefore be understood as Zwingly says it....Eastern Rite Lutherans in the Ukraine use many of our phrases in their altered liturgy; do they automatically get credit for having an Orthodox understanding of what they're praying?  I don't think you'd think so, so it does not follow that Christians who've been baptized and chrismated Orthodox, who pray biblical prayers, should be automatically accused of believing something contrary to what their bishops teach about the sacraments and liturgy.... They aren't doing this.  Stop saying they are.

I believe his name is Zwingli.

More importantly, you are both touching on the cornerstone of the problem.  If they are not doing this (and I have shown that some in the leadership imply they do, whether through nostalgic reference or gloss) then there is a far worse problem in front of us.

Those words have never been read by Orthodox Christians, historically (and this is if we assume these churches are Orthodox) until today. There is no living tradition; there is no link to the past except Zwingli, Cranmer, et cetera because these reformers wrote those words with those express intentions.  Why didn't you mention Easterners in communion with Rome, who use the exact same words as the Orthodox? But the point is that those are *Orthodox* words, and they try to present themselves as *the Church*.

So the argument that "oh, well, the Orthodox reader means something different" is itself not Orthodox. It is deceptive to those who walk in, out, join and leave these communities, and consequently each of the arguments for being "Eastern" united with Rome  on the part of the Western Rite Vicariate is valid.  Worse still, some communities who have been received by the AOCA left and joined Anglican churches later! Do you think they genuinely converted to Orthodoxy and then apostatized?  I don't. On the flip side, rather than entering more deeply into the Western Orthodox tradition, why have some of the Vicariate's people simply left and become Eastern Rite? Because it's "flowery"? No, I believe people who convert to Orthodoxy are not that superficial.  More probable is that these people could not withstand hearing what they knew were texts contrary to the Orthodox faith.

Much of the phrasing in these post-schism liturgies carries a heretical bent, and for an Orthodox Christian to use them makes little sense. An Orthodox Christian, whether Eastern or Western, must use Orthodox terms.  (Read: use the Sarum, Mozarabic, or other pre-schism Rite....)  The closest one "gets" to Orthodoxy in Anglicanism is the Anglo-Catholic movement, still far removed from simple Orthodox faith (and even many of those people preferred the Sarum rite!) 

So why defend the BCP? Instead of defending these words, knowing there are undoubted Orthodox texts in the Western Orthodox tradition, why not use them instead?  Any Orthodox confronted with the choice would know what to do.  And that why that bothers so many Orthodox can only be answered in the worst ways.

I've asked you before to not use the word "Uniate." 

1. Of course not. There are those united with Rome on the Old Calendar.
2. Ecumenism IS the abuse.

The word "uniate" is inappropriate for general use on OC.net.  If you'd like to debate this issue, we have a thread for that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16194.0.html

Please do not use the word again in any other threads (other than the one linked above). - Cleveland, Global Moderator


Since I figure this error is not purposeful (i.e. you may not have seen the previous warning), you're only going to be "warned" for 3 days.  Please don't use the word anymore, unless you're participating in the thread that specifically is discussing the appropriateness of using that word.

Thank you for your understanding.

- Cleveland, GM
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 03:28:07 PM by cleveland » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #81 on: June 03, 2008, 03:53:23 PM »

Really? Is an internet forum now the Church?  Do you have the power to "subject me to canonical discipline"? Of course not. I shall oblige this madness, however, because I am not wrong.

I have asked for someone to point out how I have said the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese is in heresy; I have been accused of it twice, and no one can cite what I said, because I am innocent of the charge. So would this be called a "robber disciplining"?

In the one attempt we've had to demonstrate I said what I didn't, the quote was:
"So long as you use heretical liturgies and insult the memories of Saints with them I will never support the AWRV."

Please re-read my post. I never indicate whom you have accused of heresy, rather that you have leveled the charge. PLEASE INDICATE HOW THE LITURGIES USED BY THE AWRV ARE HERETICAL LITURGIES.

As for discipline, we, as the moderators of OrthodoxChristianity.net, have levels of actions that can be taken towards posters. You have already reached "Warned" for your continued use of the word "Uniate" and there are other levels that can be administrated to you that would include having your post reviewed before posting and up to a complete banning from the system.

-Arimethea
Liturgy Section Moderator
Logged

Joseph
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #82 on: June 03, 2008, 03:54:02 PM »

I've asked you before to not use the word "Uniate."  [/center]

Since I figure this error is not purposeful (i.e. you may not have seen the previous warning), you're only going to be "warned" for 3 days.  Please don't use the word anymore, unless you're participating in the thread that specifically is discussing the appropriateness of using that word.

Thank you for your understanding.

- Cleveland, GM
[/quote]

You changed my post? You realize you mangled the English of the second use? You are correct in that I missed that prohibition, but it's a stupid prohibition!

Do you know what the title of the Balamaand Statement is?   What if someone wanted to post the text of this statement? Would they have to change it???

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.aspx

I used to be a "Greek-Catholic" many years ago. And some people in our own parish used the "forbidden term". I am in awe.  So many people historically used this term, you'd have to re-edit them and sink them down the memory hole.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #83 on: June 03, 2008, 03:55:12 PM »

Please re-read my post. I never indicate whom you have accused of heresy, rather that you have leveled the charge. PLEASE INDICATE HOW THE LITURGIES USED BY THE AWRV ARE HERETICAL LITURGIES.
-Arimethea
Liturgy Section Moderator


THEY WERE WRITTEN BY HERETICS. PERIOD. Sticking in a couple of Orthodox words does not create an Orthodox liturgy if the base text is itself a made-up text by Protestant heretics.

AND IT IS.

I assume I will be banned for the use of the term "Protestant heretic"?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 03:57:09 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #84 on: June 03, 2008, 04:37:42 PM »

I've asked you before to not use the word "Uniate."  [/center]

Since I figure this error is not purposeful (i.e. you may not have seen the previous warning), you're only going to be "warned" for 3 days.  Please don't use the word anymore, unless you're participating in the thread that specifically is discussing the appropriateness of using that word.

Thank you for your understanding.

- Cleveland, GM


You changed my post? You realize you mangled the English of the second use? You are correct in that I missed that prohibition, but it's a stupid prohibition!

Do you know what the title of the Balamaand Statement is?   What if someone wanted to post the text of this statement? Would they have to change it???

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.aspx

I used to be a "Greek-Catholic" many years ago. And some people in our own parish used the "forbidden term". I am in awe.  So many people historically used this term, you'd have to re-edit them and sink them down the memory hole.

Well, the "U" term is not to be used on OC.net as the current policy stands.  However, if you'd like to debate this, please see (and participate in) the following thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16194.0.html.

The policy:

Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be prejorative by other members of this forum:

Uniate: please use Eastern Catholic.
Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian.

Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology in dialog on this forum.

I assume I will be banned for the use of the term "Protestant heretic"? 

Probably not - really, why be so mean?  They're in heresy.  They're in schism, too.  But there's better and worse ways of saying that - some ways are genteel without subverting the Truth, and some ways beat people over the head (I'm figuring you like the latter style).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #85 on: June 03, 2008, 04:52:42 PM »

Well, the "U" term is not to be used on OC.net as the current policy stands.  However, if you'd like to debate this, please see (and participate in) the following thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16194.0.html.

Based on what the deacon said, I don't think I was violating the guidelines, since I used "U-----" as a reference point, not individuals, and the "ism" as a specific policy reference, which changing it to actual people destroyed the point of the sentence.

Probably not - really, why be so mean?  They're in heresy.  They're in schism, too.  But there's better and worse ways of saying that - some ways are genteel without subverting the Truth, and some ways beat people over the head (I'm figuring you like the latter style).

It has been repeatedly asked of me to demonstrate that this liturgy is heretical. The easiest and most obvious proof is that unlike the Tridentine liturgy its origin was completely heretical.  There are rare smatterings of post-schism Roman texts, but for the most part the liturgy is often ambivalent and often Protestant, as was clearly delineated by the Russian Synod in 1904. For the umpteenth time I refer the reader to what I wrote on the matter, since I will probably be shouted down by "no they didn't" without more than a sentence of reference to the text or an attack on my jurisdiction.

Altering my text was extremely offensive, and I have never seen this done in a forum.  I really regret being here, and I will make a decision as to whether I leave or stay before the pending of my "warned" status.  This "western-rite" forum appears to increasingly be a "sales pitch" for the AWRV, and as a man who came to Orthodoxy through the Eastern tradition and returned to his Western roots, his ORTHODOX roots, this is nothing more than watching people get sold a stone for bread.

And no, I don't like bashing people over the head.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 04:56:58 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #86 on: June 03, 2008, 05:12:00 PM »

It has been repeatedly asked of me to demonstrate that this liturgy is heretical. The easiest and most obvious proof is that unlike the Tridentine liturgy its origin was completely heretical.  There are rare smatterings of post-schism Roman texts, but for the most part the liturgy is often ambivalent and often Protestant, as was clearly delineated by the Russian Synod in 1904. For the umpteenth time I refer the reader to what I wrote on the matter, since I will probably be shouted down by "no they didn't" without more than a sentence of reference to the text or an attack on my jurisdiction.
Btw, the Sarum rite is technically the Sarum use of the Roman rite.  It is also not pre-schism, as it took its form under one of the Norman bishops.  It also served as the basis of the Book of Common Prayer.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #87 on: June 03, 2008, 05:20:19 PM »

It has been repeatedly asked of me to demonstrate that this liturgy is heretical. The easiest and most obvious proof is that unlike the Tridentine liturgy its origin was completely heretical.  There are rare smatterings of post-schism Roman texts, but for the most part the liturgy is often ambivalent and often Protestant, as was clearly delineated by the Russian Synod in 1904. For the umpteenth time I refer the reader to what I wrote on the matter, since I will probably be shouted down by "no they didn't" without more than a sentence of reference to the text or an attack on my jurisdiction.
Actually, our esteemed posters ozgeorge and DavidBryan made a very cogent argument for how the Protestant language in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon lends itself well to redefinition in an Orthodox manner such that the language can be accepted by us Orthodox.  I haven't yet seen you provide a good response to their rebuttal except to repeat the same old logic that ozgeorge and DavidBryan already refuted.  Can you give us something new that you haven't already posted?
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #88 on: June 03, 2008, 05:43:45 PM »

Actually, our esteemed posters ozgeorge and DavidBryan made a very cogent argument for how the Protestant language in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon lends itself well to redefinition in an Orthodox manner such that the language can be accepted by us Orthodox.  I haven't yet seen you provide a good response to their rebuttal except to repeat the same old logic that ozgeorge and DavidBryan already refuted.  Can you give us something new that you haven't already posted?

Absolutely not. I already answered as to why just the idea of "redefinition" is not Orthodox here.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=13345.msg233110#msg233110
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #89 on: June 03, 2008, 05:55:54 PM »

Btw, the Sarum rite is technically the Sarum use of the Roman rite.  It is also not pre-schism, as it took its form under one of the Norman bishops.  It also served as the basis of the Book of Common Prayer.

Without getting into the Synod of Cashel and when the schism occurred, a text that was already in use in the 11th century is not really "post-schism". It's during the schism, yes; but the liturgy was never an issue. It was already Roman there before the schism.

The Sarum Rite is certainly not the basis of the BCP, however, except to a degree in the 1549 edition. Every later version of the BCP is heavily modified to reflect reformation thought and practice. The 1928 prayer book upon with the Anglican Liturgy of the AWRV is based is well distanced from any thought of the Sarum Rite. 
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #90 on: June 03, 2008, 07:17:08 PM »

Absolutely not. I already answered as to why just the idea of "redefinition" is not Orthodox here.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=13345.msg233110#msg233110
Okay, I'll eat crow and grant that you did address their rebuttal. Embarrassed

Now, regarding your rebuttal of their rebuttal:  I've seen in reading various Orthodox sources and discussions on this forum the very common argument that we can accept as Orthodox only that language and those concepts that have their origination within the Orthodox Tradition, that we must reject as heretical anything else imported from outside.  I just don't buy that argument, otherwise I would have to side with the Judaizers against St. Paul and advocate a return to a strictly Judaic understanding of the Christian Gospel, since this is really the only understanding that developed organically from within the Tradition the Apostles inherited.  I would have to reject St. John's identity of Christ with the Logos of Greek philosophy in the first chapter of his Gospel.  I would have to reject the writings of St. Justin Martyr for his attempts to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christian revelation.  I would have to reject the First Ecumenical Council for their decision to borrow the term homoousios from the Greek philosophers so these holy Fathers could formulate an Orthodox understanding of the deity of Jesus Christ.  I would also have to reject the work of such luminaries as St. Paul the Apostle, Ss. Cyril and Methodios, St. Innocent of Alaska and his protege, St. Innocent of Japan, who all sought to introduce Christ to their audiences using the languages of their audiences (language being much more than mere semantics).  But since the Church has such a tradition of borrowing words and concepts from heterodox and pagan sources and redefining them to give them Orthodox meanings, how can I find acceptable your argument that the Church cannot do the same with the language of the BCP?  In this case, it may not be the best course of action, considering the more organically Orthodox Western Rite liturgies we do have, but doing so is in no way contrary to Orthodox Tradition.  (Note the key word contrary.)

Now, to your charge that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is a heretical liturgy (making those who approve its use heretics by definition), the charge that this board's moderator has asked you formally to defend:  your own opinion that the liturgy is heretical is not sufficient.  So far, this is all I have seen from you.  Such a charge of heresy requires more formal substantiation from a hierarchical authority, be that a synod, a canon, or the consensus of the Fathers.  If you can provide us that--i.e., proclamation by a synod or a canon--then maybe we will deem this defense acceptable.  I must say again, however, that mere repetition of your own opinion is not sufficient to substantiate that something accepted by a synod of the AOCA is heretical.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 03, 2008, 07:29:07 PM »

Now, to your charge that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is a heretical liturgy (making those who approve its use heretics by definition), the charge that this board's moderator has asked you formally to defend:  your own opinion that the liturgy is heretical is not sufficient.  So far, this is all I have seen from you.  Such a charge of heresy requires more formal substantiation from a hierarchical authority, be that a synod, a canon, or the consensus of the Fathers.  If you can provide us that--i.e., proclamation by a synod or a canon--then maybe we will deem this defense acceptable.  I must say again, however, that mere repetition of your own opinion is not sufficient to substantiate that something accepted by a synod of the AOCA is heretical.

St. Tikhon wasn't a heretic; hence, His Liturgy wasn't heretical.  From the Western Orthodoxy Blog:

Most importantly, St. Tikhon's Liturgy is not simply the "Book of Common Prayer" rite. The Orthodox Church adapted this material in accordance with the Russian Observations Upon the American Prayer Book to bring it into liturgical and theological conformity with Holy Orthodoxy. Not only were these necessary changes made, but the liturgical commission of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate added rich ceremonial and prayers expressing the Church's liturgical heritage, especially reverence for the Real Presence. Similar to the Anglo-Catholic movement of the day, it incorporated the Western structure of the Mass. Asperges, Introits, graduals, alleluias, tracts, sequences, offertory prayers, prayers at the foot of the altar, communion verses, post-communion prayers, Agnus Deis, Non Sum Dignuses, Last Gospels, and other devotions reappeared where the Protestant Reformation had done its damage, and the Gloria returned to its traditional position: following the Kyrie on most Sundays (outside certain penitential seasons). This was a full, glorious, comprehensive, catholic, Apostolic, and Orthodox liturgy.

Source
Article Preceding the above source article
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 03, 2008, 07:34:27 PM »

Then-Bishop of Denver Isaiah had this to say about Western Rite Liturgies back in 1995.  Source is also from Western Orthodoxy Blog.  Met. Isaiah's words are in red bold text:

To give another view of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese's outlook vis-a-vis the Western Rite, the wonderful Met. ISAIAH of Denver published a pro-WRV in his diocese (in the Diocesan News for Clergy and Laity in February 1995). Of particular interest is his conclusion:

    The Western Rite has proven to be an excellent missionary outreach in the Western World to those who seek the purity of Orthodox Faith, yet are uncomfortable with the oriental character of Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy. Nonetheless, people of either Rite worship together and the clergy may, with episcopal permission, concelebrate.

    The properly Baptized and Chrismated members of parishes who use these liturgies and are approved by Metropolitan Philip are Orthodox Christians, and are welcome to worship in parishes within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and to receive the Sacred Mysteries.


His Eminence is also known as being on the cutting edge of Goarch on using the English language and welcoming converts into his parishes. He seems like someone worth heeding on this matter, if you ask me.


Source
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 03, 2008, 07:39:40 PM »

Finally, the proof is in the pudding that St. Tikhon's Liturgy is valid.  Source is Western Orthodoxy Blog; The home page has the 5/31 Blog Entry Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Western Rite Vicarate established by Patriarch Alexander III in 1958

Those who retort "St. Tikhon never approved the 'Liturgy of St. Tikhon'" strongly imply this means that he had no desire to approve such a rite. Their use of this anti-Western Rite mantra conceals the fact that the saint took great pains to ascertain that such a rite could be approved and that, when he did so, it would be recognized by the Church as Orthodox. In other words, it ignores that he went out of his way to create the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, and without his efforts, there would be no such liturgy (which has since been authorized and celebrated within the Antiochian and Alexandrian patriarchates, ROCOR, and I'm told within the Moscow Patriarchate*).

Source
Logged
Reader KevinAndrew
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Western Rite
Posts: 138



« Reply #94 on: June 03, 2008, 09:38:17 PM »

... and as a man who came to Orthodoxy through the Eastern tradition and returned to his Western roots, his ORTHODOX roots, this is nothing more than watching people get sold a stone for bread.


Please, speak for yourself. I'm sorry you see it that way, but it simply is not true. I, and many of my fellow WR parishoners, came to Orthodoxy via the Eastern Rite. We have guest preachers from the OCA, GOArch, and other jurisdictions that visit and preach. Our own priest regularly fills in for his Eastern Rite brethren who may be out and need a priest to back them up. So we're not some satellite body in Orthodoxy that is just out there hanging out doing their own thing.

This whole arguement of WR parishes being enclaves of unconverted, crypto-heterodox souls sounds very familiar to the criticisms of the EOC when they were recieved into Orthodoxy. Sure, there were things that could have been done better, but at the end of the day we trusted in the wisdom and guidance of our bishops and they came through...and it all worked out. We all know the story how the EOC members were constantly to to "wait" and that "things in the Orthodox Church take time." Met. PHILIP took another approach in preference to this inertia and brought them home. Then the same "wait and see" folks cried that these souls weren't converting fast enough. It looks like the same type of thing these converts 20 years later are going through. Do these folks really want these former evangelicals, Anglicans, Romans, unchurched, etc.in the Church or not? It's just not clear what the critics exactly want these people to do.

I'm thankful for the decisiveness of bishops to bring people in and follow up with shepherding them.
Sorry if this post veered a bit from topic. But it sort of hits on this issue of receiving not only people into the WR, but the Church itself...especially groups wanting to really come home to the Church. I ask critics to please be patient and loving and help them on their journey.

Reader kevin
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #95 on: June 03, 2008, 09:44:11 PM »

Then-Bishop of Denver Isaiah had this to say about Western Rite Liturgies back in 1995.  Source is also from Western Orthodoxy Blog.  Met. Isaiah's words are in red bold text:

To give another view of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese's outlook vis-a-vis the Western Rite, the wonderful Met. ISAIAH of Denver published a pro-WRV in his diocese (in the Diocesan News for Clergy and Laity in February 1995). Of particular interest is his conclusion:

    The Western Rite has proven to be an excellent missionary outreach in the Western World to those who seek the purity of Orthodox Faith, yet are uncomfortable with the oriental character of Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy. Nonetheless, people of either Rite worship together and the clergy may, with episcopal permission, concelebrate.

    The properly Baptized and Chrismated members of parishes who use these liturgies and are approved by Metropolitan Philip are Orthodox Christians, and are welcome to worship in parishes within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and to receive the Sacred Mysteries.


His Eminence is also known as being on the cutting edge of Goarch on using the English language and welcoming converts into his parishes. He seems like someone worth heeding on this matter, if you ask me.


Source

A little off topic, but I'll mention that I have heard nothing but good on his grace from all jurisdictions.  He is one of the few on the synod of Constantinople who actually heads a diocese that actually exists.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #96 on: June 03, 2008, 09:49:40 PM »

Please, speak for yourself. I'm sorry you see it that way, but it simply is not true. I, and many of my fellow WR parishoners, came to Orthodoxy via the Eastern Rite. We have guest preachers from the OCA, GOArch, and other jurisdictions that visit and preach. Our own priest regularly fills in for his Eastern Rite brethren who may be out and need a priest to back them up. So we're not some satellite body in Orthodoxy that is just out there hanging out doing their own thing.

This whole arguement of WR parishes being enclaves of unconverted, crypto-heterodox souls sounds very familiar to the criticisms of the EOC when they were recieved into Orthodoxy. Sure, there were things that could have been done better, but at the end of the day we trusted in the wisdom and guidance of our bishops and they came through...and it all worked out. We all know the story how the EOC members were constantly to to "wait" and that "things in the Orthodox Church take time." Met. PHILIP took another approach in preference to this inertia and brought them home. Then the same "wait and see" folks cried that these souls weren't converting fast enough. It looks like the same type of thing these converts 20 years later are going through. Do these folks really want these former evangelicals, Anglicans, Romans, unchurched, etc.in the Church or not? It's just not clear what the critics exactly want these people to do.

I'm thankful for the decisiveness of bishops to bring people in and follow up with shepherding them.
Sorry if this post veered a bit from topic. But it sort of hits on this issue of receiving not only people into the WR, but the Church itself...especially groups wanting to really come home to the Church. I ask critics to please be patient and loving and help them on their journey.

Reader kevin

I might mention that we have a WR priest who is attached to our Church (which is Eastern), and regularly concelebrants and fills in. Please pray for Fr. David, who is now recuperating from surgery.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 03, 2008, 09:51:11 PM »

A little off topic, but I'll mention that I have heard nothing but good on his grace from all jurisdictions.  He is one of the few on the synod of Constantinople who actually heads a diocese that actually exists.

Please forgive me for the correction, His Eminence Isaiah, the now Metropolitan of Denver.  The elevation from Diocese to Metropolitan resulted in a change of titles.  His Eminence was born in NH, served in Korea and is one of my favorite Hierarchs.   Smiley

The purpose of the 3 threads was merely to validate the legitimacy of St. Tikhon's Liturgy rather than suggesting the creation of a new Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy and to repudiate suggestions that the Liturgy was declared heretical.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 09:52:06 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
Reader KevinAndrew
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Western Rite
Posts: 138



« Reply #98 on: June 03, 2008, 09:54:04 PM »

I might mention that we have a WR priest who is attached to our Church (which is Eastern), and regularly concelebrants and fills in. Please pray for Fr. David, who is now recuperating from surgery.

Al-Maseeh qam! Fr. David is a great priest and a very wise man. He's certainly in my prayers.

Allah ma'ak, habibi

Reader Kevin
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #99 on: June 03, 2008, 11:28:20 PM »

Interesting I found this article by Fr. Alexander Schmemann by following the link to the Holy Trinity Cathedral web site that buzuxi provided in Reply #31...

Notes and Comments on the "Western Rite"

The question of rites is precisely not, has never been and cannot be a mere question of rites per se , but is and has always been a question of faith, of its wholeness and integrity. The liturgy embodies and expresses the faith, or better to say, the experience of the Church, and is that experience's manifestation and communication. And when rites, detached from their nature and function, begin to be discussed in terms of "acceptance" and "rejection" or "likes and dislikes", the debate concerning them becomes meaningless.

For many people, the eastern and western rites are two entirely different and self-contained "blocks" ruling out, as an impure "hybridization", all contacts and mutual influences. This, however, is wrong - first of all, historically. In a sense, the entire history of Christian worship can be termed a history of constant "hybridizations" - if only this word is deprived of its negative connotations. Before their separations, the east and the west influenced one another for centuries. And there is no exaggeration in saying that the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy is infinitely 'closer' to the Roman anaphora of the same period than the service of Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer is to, for example, the Tridentine Mass.

What makes a western rite Orthodox? For many proponents of the western rite, all it takes is a few additions and a few deletions, e.g. "striking the filioque " and "strengthening of the epiclesis." This answer implies, on the one hand, that there exists a unified and homogenous reality identifiable as the western rite and, on the other hand, that except for two or three "heretical" ingredients or omissions, this rite is ipso facto Orthodox. Both presuppositions are wrong.

Indeed, one does not have to be an "authority on the West" in order to know that liturgical development in the West was shaped to a degree unknown in the East by various theologies, the succession of which - and the clashes of one with another - constitute western religious history. Scholasticism, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, etc., have all resulted in sometimes radical liturgical metamorphoses and all have had a decisive impact on worship. Therefore, one should speak today not of the western rite, but of western rites, deeply - if not radically - differing from one another, yet all reflecting in one way or another, the western theological tragedy and fragmentation. This does not mean that all these rites are "heretical" and simply to be condemned. It only means that, from an Orthodox point of view, their evaluation in terms merely of "deletions" and "additions" is - to say the least - inadequate. For the irony of our present situation is that while some western Christians come to Orthodoxy in order to salvage the rite they cherish ( Book of Common Prayer , Tridentine Mass, etc.) from liturgical reforms they abhor, some of these reforms, at least in abstacto , are closer to the structures and spirit of the early western rite - and thus to the Orthodox liturgical tradition - than the later rite, those precisely that the Orthodox Church is supposed to "sanction" and to "adopt."

It is my deep conviction that the eastern liturgical tradition is alone today in having preserved, in spite of all historical "deficiencies", the fullness of the Church's lex orandi and constitutes, therefore, the criterion for all liturgical evaluations.

Father Alexander Schmemann (1920-1983)
(SVTQ 24/4, 1980)


http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/schmemann.html


To highlight what I thought were the most important statements in the above article, let me requote them.  "This does not mean that all these rites are 'heretical' and simply to be condemned. It only means that, from an Orthodox point of view, their evaluation in terms merely of 'deletions' and 'additions' is - to say the least - inadequate."  Echoing this sentiment and the sentiment of much of what I've read on this while preparing this reply, let me just say that I would likely see the Western Rite "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the faithful, but I would NOT go as far as Suaiden and buzuxi have to call the liturgy heretical.
Logged
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #100 on: June 04, 2008, 01:50:11 AM »

Now, regarding your rebuttal of their rebuttal:  I've seen in reading various Orthodox sources and discussions on this forum the very common argument that we can accept as Orthodox only that language and those concepts that have their origination within the Orthodox Tradition, that we must reject as heretical anything else imported from outside.  I just don't buy that argument, otherwise I would have to side with the Judaizers against St. Paul and advocate a return to a strictly Judaic understanding of the Christian Gospel, since this is really the only understanding that developed organically from within the Tradition the Apostles inherited.  I would have to reject St. John's identity of Christ with the Logos of Greek philosophy in the first chapter of his Gospel.  I would have to reject the writings of St. Justin Martyr for his attempts to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christian revelation.  I would have to reject the First Ecumenical Council for their decision to borrow the term homoousios from the Greek philosophers so these holy Fathers could formulate an Orthodox understanding of the deity of Jesus Christ.  I would also have to reject the work of such luminaries as St. Paul the Apostle, Ss. Cyril and Methodios, St. Innocent of Alaska and his protege, St. Innocent of Japan, who all sought to introduce Christ to their audiences using the languages of their audiences (language being much more than mere semantics).

While I don’t have problems in the addition of pagan concepts, that's not applicable in this situation for the so-called Liturgy of St. Tikhon does not bring new ideas to the table.  Instead, the liturgy in its original form actually subtracts something out of the established beliefs of Orthodoxy, the most striking of which are the absence of the words "ever-virgin" and the denial of the real presence.  Cranmer's (who by the way is not a saint as others you mentioned) "revelation" had the intention of leading us away from the Truth, instead of guiding us toward Orthodoxy as what the ancient religions and philosophies have done. 

Quote
But since the Church has such a tradition of borrowing words and concepts from heterodox and pagan sources and redefining them to give them Orthodox meanings, how can I find acceptable your argument that the Church cannot do the same with the language of the BCP?

The Protestant movement that rejected Tradition was a relatively recent phenomenon.  I don’t think the revision and adoption of a Protestant liturgy has parallels in the pre-schism church. 
Logged
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #101 on: June 04, 2008, 02:05:05 AM »

let me just say that I would likely see the Western Rite "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the faithful, but I would NOT go as far as Suaiden and buzuxi have to call the liturgy heretical.

Same here.  I would not call the liturgy heretical out of respect for those Orthodox brethren who cherish it and were converted through it.
Logged
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #102 on: June 04, 2008, 02:38:15 AM »

This is not what is claimed.

They aren't doing this.  Stop saying they are.


This will be my last response on the subject of the WR, i believe the thread ran its course and everyone will believe what they will at this point. The above response (reply #62) is to my assertion that that Antioch markets these liturgies (Liturgy of St Tikhon specifically) as a western rite liturgy of the pre-schism Church. Some dont believe this is the case, that they are not misleading anyone, (but acknowledge that its a corrected protestant liturgy for high church Anglicans ?)

Here is the link to the Orthodox Western Rite webpage, with Intro to the Western rite:
http://www.westernorthodox.com/western-rite.html

The 2nd paragraph of this article says, "About 90 years ago, He (St Tikhon) examined the existing Anglican Book of Common Prayer and sent it to the Holy Synod of Moscow. THAT LITURGY, DERIVED FROM THE ANCIENT USE OF THE ORTHODOX WEST , AND FIRST EXPRESSED IN ENGLISH IN THE EDITION OF 1549, by authority of King Edward the sixth of England , was corrected and approved by the Holy Synod for Orthodox church use."

Here we see the first misconception being perpetrated. In 1549 Anglican Archbishop Thomas Cranmer gathered his bishops and invented the book of common prayer in order to do away with latin theology he objected to, The BCP did not exist before this.  its not an english tanslation of some latin liturgy originating in the undivided church but invented to mock those liturgiesof the first thousand years.

The very final sentence of the lWR link repeats the fib: "Western Rite parishes represent A RESTORATION OF THE LEGITIMATE WESTERN LITURGY OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH OF THE FIRST 1000 YEARS, by Patriarchal authority, for the benefit of all Orthodox People."
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 02:41:45 AM by buzuxi » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #103 on: June 04, 2008, 02:44:27 AM »

Here we see the first misconception being perpetrated. In 1549 Anglican Archbishop Thomas Cranmer gathered his bishops and invented the book of common prayer in order to do away with latin theology he objected to, The BCP did not exist before this.  its not an english tanslation of some latin liturgy originating in the undivided church but invented to mock those liturgiesof the first thousand years.
Do you know the difference between fact and opinion?  Between truth and spin?  Evidently not.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 02:45:43 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #104 on: June 04, 2008, 07:31:32 AM »

While I don’t have problems in the addition of pagan concepts, that's not applicable in this situation for the so-called Liturgy of St. Tikhon does not bring new ideas to the table.  Instead, the liturgy in its original form actually subtracts something out of the established beliefs of Orthodoxy, the most striking of which are the absence of the words "ever-virgin" and the denial of the real presence.  Cranmer's (who by the way is not a saint as others you mentioned) "revelation" had the intention of leading us away from the Truth, instead of guiding us toward Orthodoxy as what the ancient religions and philosophies have done. 

The Protestant movement that rejected Tradition was a relatively recent phenomenon.  I don’t think the revision and adoption of a Protestant liturgy has parallels in the pre-schism church. 


A quick comment on the lack of the title "ever-virgin." As all the Protestants at the time, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.  believed in the perpetual virginity, there was no need for it to be in the liturgy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #105 on: June 04, 2008, 11:10:30 AM »

The 2nd paragraph of this article says, "About 90 years ago, He (St Tikhon) examined the existing Anglican Book of Common Prayer and sent it to the Holy Synod of Moscow. THAT LITURGY, DERIVED FROM THE ANCIENT USE OF THE ORTHODOX WEST , AND FIRST EXPRESSED IN ENGLISH IN THE EDITION OF 1549, by authority of King Edward the sixth of England , was corrected and approved by the Holy Synod for Orthodox church use."

Here we see the first misconception being perpetrated. In 1549 Anglican Archbishop Thomas Cranmer gathered his bishops and invented

"Invented"!??!   Huh Roll Eyes  Where did you get your information on the writing of the first BCP please?  How do you know what Cranmer was thinking or doing when he *wrote* it.  It didn't come out of the air, it had roots in centuries of Christian faith. Have you ever read anything in any BCP? 

Quote
The BCP did not exist before this.  its not an english tanslation of some latin liturgy originating in the undivided church but invented to mock those liturgiesof the first thousand years.

"invented to mock".  Roll Eyes  On what do you base this peculiar accusation?  Mockery implies ridicule and would suggest that Thomas Cranmer was not Christian at all.  The Book of Common Prayer was not made up out of whole cloth. It was not for mockery but for worship.  If desired I can give some titles and sites for the Real story of the BCP. 

Sigh!

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #106 on: June 04, 2008, 11:14:50 AM »

Cranmer's (who by the way is not a saint as others you mentioned)

I think the tossed in "St. Thomas Cranmer" was meant to be another sniping remark at the Anglicans.  For the record, while he is recalled on our Kalendar, he is not "St."   

Sigh.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #107 on: June 04, 2008, 11:24:41 AM »

A quick comment on the lack of the title "ever-virgin." As all the Protestants at the time, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.  believed in the perpetual virginity, there was no need for it to be in the liturgy.

Indeed, and I have just checked our copy of the First and Second BCPs  and both refer to the Virgin Mary.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #108 on: June 04, 2008, 11:40:03 AM »

"invented to mock".  Roll Eyes  On what do you base this peculiar accusation?  Mockery implies ridicule and would suggest that Thomas Cranmer was not Christian at all.  The Book of Common Prayer was not made up out of whole cloth. It was not for mockery but for worship.  If desired I can give some titles and sites for the Real story of the BCP.   

Since this keeps getting brought up, why don't you give some of those sites.  Otherwise we're going to have more ridiculous theories put out there.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #109 on: June 04, 2008, 12:23:21 PM »

Since this keeps getting brought up, why don't you give some of those sites.  Otherwise we're going to have more ridiculous theories put out there.

Certainly, I am happy to oblige.  Smiley 


Here is the first Liturgy in English and the only one published in the reign of Henry VIII. Please note this bit from the headnotes
"This work was done by Archbishop Cranmer, and is partly his own composition, and partly drawn from the Sarum (i. e., Salisbury) processional, from Luther's Litany, and from the Greek Orthodox Litany."
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Litany1544/Exhortation&Litany_1544.htm
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Litany1544/Litany_1544.htm

This is the first Communion Service in English which was put out prior to the first BCP.  There are some headnotes of interest.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Communion_1548.htm

Here is the Mass in English from the Sarum Rite:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/English.htm

Here is Percy Dearmer's "Everyman's History of the Book of Common Prayer" on-line:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/everyman_history/index.htm

William Sydnor's book The Story of the Real Prayer Book (which we have somewhere on our shelves) has been revised and expanded and published as The Prayer Book Through the Ages (which I'll have to get for our shelves now  Wink )

As a note it was because of a convoction prior to the first communion service in English that it was ordered that the laity be given the Eucharist under both Kinds, the Body and the Blood.

Will this do for now?  I can find more, if you like, but I have to go do some things.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #110 on: June 04, 2008, 12:35:09 PM »

Will this do for now?  I can find more, if you like, but I have to go do some things. 

Great stuff.  Thanks!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #111 on: June 04, 2008, 06:46:21 PM »

I was hoping to get involved, but your accusation concerning the BCP is quite inaccurate.

Was the the Liturgy of 1549 a compromise?  Absolutely.  However, to get into a strictly historical context many things in the Church are.  Although, I'm going to get perhaps some abuse from this, even things we hold infallible in the Orthodox Church were a product of compromise.  One, only has to look at the Symbol of the Orthodox Faith, the Niceane-Constantinopolian Creed.  It did come out as a product of two Oecumenical Synods compromising.  Does that mean that there is anything heretical in it.  I have even in lectures by Cardinal Dulles (A Catholic Cardinal, but a studious theologian nonetheless) heard the idea suggested that certain aspects within it were also meant to placate the Arians.  However, he emphasised that the beauty in it is not that this compromise happened, but that the Orthodox interpretation prevailed. 

As others have said, something born outside of the Church does not scare me (otherwise, I'd be afraid of mine own shadow  Cool ), but what does scare me is when the absense of the Holy Ghost which prevents a Christian understanding and changing the meaning to truth.  And thus, yes, there are parts in the Liturgy of St Tikhon which were constructed outside of the Church.  It is possible that Crammer had absolutely no belief in the real presence (although, from my understanding it was congruent to Luther's idea of consubstantiation at worst).  Yet, considering the pro-Catholic theology of the Crown (as opposed to pure Calvanism) I've heard several historians suggest that to add the heretical attributes which you claim is to misunderstand the approval of the BCP and its origin.  Some of these historians I'd suggest if you wish to maintain a scholarly debate and not one of opinions and generalisations would include P.D.L Avis, A. Bartlett; and M. Anthony.

However, using your criteria I shall have to abandon the Logos and its theology also.  For when the Platonists formed this idea they were not implying the divine nature of the Triune God and a lesser substance and not that of homousios and are therefore damned.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 04, 2008, 09:16:01 PM »

Thanks for the references Ebor! I am wading through them, and probably will for the next few days!
I think one of the sources of the accusation that Thomas Cranmer (and hence his Liturgy) denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the 28th Article of the Thirty Nine Articles.
What I find interesting is that this accusation is often based on the fact that the 28th Article rejects the notion of transubstantiation, which the Orthodox also reject, yet people seem to insist that this is "proof" of a denial of the Real Presence! It's almost as though, to Eastern Orthodox eyes, a Western Church can only believe in the Real Presence if it couches it in the innaccurate terms of "transubstantiation"!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,378



« Reply #113 on: June 04, 2008, 09:44:11 PM »

Seeing as how the recent revival of this thread has now been shown to be little more than attempt to denigrate the principal Orthodox churches in favor of the Milan schism, can't we take this elsewhere?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #114 on: June 04, 2008, 10:59:43 PM »

...

Fair enough.  Assume for your amusement that I am another religion. Now answer my claim.

BUT HE NEVER ACTED UPON THOSE OBSERVATIONS.  The Anglican body was attempting to join corporately as the Orthodox in America without conversion. By the time the Synod's answer came, they had already abandoned the idea.

You've already answered the question: the Anglicans remained outside (actually they went on to be Old Catholic I believe), so they are somewhat irrelevant when it comes to those who have converted and entered Orthodoxy.  As for St. Tikhon, he returned to America soon after the Observations were published.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #115 on: June 05, 2008, 12:51:53 AM »

I don't like the idea of Western Rite. If you want to attract Americans, make OCA churches! The liturgy is in English and very Orthodox! I don't find Western Liturgies quite the same experience. Look at Prince Vladimir, for example. He visited some western churches, but he much preferred the Byzantine liturgy by far. The Byzantine Liturgy is not a cultural liturgy, Russia was able to use it, why can't Americans? I can sympathize with the idea of trying to recreate a pre-schismatic Western Church, but the Western Liturgy has been revised many times over the past 1000 years, so I would just stick with the Eastern Rite that predates the 4th century. I may be wrong on this, but aren't Western Rite services much shorter too? And with pews? Bah! This may not be true for all Western Churches either, but many aren't as ornate as Orthodox Churches. Of course, many Americanized Greek Churches are no better.

I can never understand these movements to Westernize Orthodoxy. Why do people add organs to a 4th century liturgy and put pews in the church? Why did Peter the Great have to decide the Russian Church was "outdated" and therefore make it more Western?


After that rant you probably think I'm some sort of radical Old Ritualist (or you may just think I'm some mean old jerk), but I can't understand why people even want to do this.
Logged

signature
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #116 on: June 05, 2008, 12:56:49 AM »

I don't like the idea of Western Rite. If you want to attract Americans, make OCA churches! The liturgy is in English and very Orthodox! I don't find Western Liturgies quite the same experience. Look at Prince Vladimir, for example. He visited some western churches, but he much preferred the Byzantine liturgy by far. The Byzantine Liturgy is not a cultural liturgy, Russia was able to use it, why can't Americans? I can sympathize with the idea of trying to recreate a pre-schismatic Western Church, but the Western Liturgy has been revised many times over the past 1000 years, so I would just stick with the Eastern Rite that predates the 4th century. I may be wrong on this, but aren't Western Rite services much shorter too? And with pews? Bah! This may not be true for all Western Churches either, but many aren't as ornate as Orthodox Churches. Of course, many Americanized Greek Churches are no better.

I can never understand these movements to Westernize Orthodoxy. Why do people add organs to a 4th century liturgy and put pews in the church? Why did Peter the Great have to decide the Russian Church was "outdated" and therefore make it more Western?


After that rant you probably think I'm some sort of radical Old Ritualist (or you may just think I'm some mean old jerk), but I can't understand why people even want to do this.

You used the pronoun I there several times which is the whole point of a Western-Rite. People should have a choice of liturgy and the fact is that liturgies and rites are an organic evolution of Orthodoxy in the culture the way that turns out is completely cultural. I am a cradle and know nothing else besides an eastern Greek liturgy but I would like to see a western rite service.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 05, 2008, 01:00:27 AM »

You used the pronoun I there several times which is the whole point of a Western-Rite. People should have a choice of liturgy and the fact is that liturgies and rites are an organic evolution of Orthodoxy in the culture the way that turns out is completely cultural. I am a cradle and know nothing else besides an eastern Greek liturgy but I would like to see a western rite service.

I'm also curious about observing a Western Rite Liturgy except that there aren't many churches on the East Coast which perform Western Rite Liturgies.

I haven't observed the Divine Liturgy of St. James which I hear is long, very long.   Huh
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #118 on: June 05, 2008, 01:03:55 AM »

I'm also curious about observing a Western Rite Liturgy except that there aren't many churches on the East Coast which perform Western Rite Liturgies.

There are plenty, just not in the AWRV maybe?

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #119 on: June 05, 2008, 01:05:02 AM »

I don't like the idea of Western Rite. If you want to attract Americans, make OCA churches! The liturgy is in English and very Orthodox! I don't find Western Liturgies quite the same experience. Look at Prince Vladimir, for example. He visited some western churches, but he much preferred the Byzantine liturgy by far. The Byzantine Liturgy is not a cultural liturgy, Russia was able to use it, why can't Americans? I can sympathize with the idea of trying to recreate a pre-schismatic Western Church, but the Western Liturgy has been revised many times over the past 1000 years, so I would just stick with the Eastern Rite that predates the 4th century. I may be wrong on this, but aren't Western Rite services much shorter too? And with pews? Bah! This may not be true for all Western Churches either, but many aren't as ornate as Orthodox Churches. Of course, many Americanized Greek Churches are no better.


You need real Western Orthodoxy, brother, and you won't find it in the "Western Rite" AWRV.

All's I gotta say.

Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #120 on: June 05, 2008, 01:05:44 AM »

Seeing as how the recent revival of this thread has now been shown to be little more than attempt to denigrate the principal Orthodox churches in favor of the Milan schism, can't we take this elsewhere?


Milan isn't a schism. It was blessed. Please get your facts straight.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #121 on: June 05, 2008, 01:08:31 AM »

You've already answered the question: the Anglicans remained outside (actually they went on to be Old Catholic I believe), so they are somewhat irrelevant when it comes to those who have converted and entered Orthodoxy.  As for St. Tikhon, he returned to America soon after the Observations were published.

So who did he approve for the liturgy of St Tikhon (which didn't exist) until 1907 when he went back?

NOBODY.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #122 on: June 05, 2008, 01:11:44 AM »

I was hoping to get involved, but your accusation concerning the BCP is quite inaccurate.

Was the the Liturgy of 1549 a compromise? 

What matter? The BCP - AWRV liturgy is based on 1928.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #123 on: June 05, 2008, 01:11:48 AM »

^^^^^ OK, Let me play Devil's Advocate with 2 Saints common to Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

St. Martin of Tours (May his memory be eternal) who lived in the 4th Century is both a Catholic and Orthodox saint.  What Liturgy did he celebrate?

When He was ordained Bishop of Tours in 372, what Liturgy was celebrated at his Ordination?

The Venerable Bede (May his memory be eternal), who lived in the 7th & 8th Centuries and served as a priest for 59 Years, what Liturgy did He celebrate during those periods?

Sources can be found at http://www.newadvent.org

Edited due to previous poster adding 4 posts after the one I was replying to; hence, the 5 carets.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:13:40 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #124 on: June 05, 2008, 01:16:29 AM »

Thanks for the references Ebor! I am wading through them, and probably will for the next few days!
I think one of the sources of the accusation that Thomas Cranmer (and hence his Liturgy) denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the 28th Article of the Thirty Nine Articles.
What I find interesting is that this accusation is often based on the fact that the 28th Article rejects the notion of transubstantiation, which the Orthodox also reject, yet people seem to insist that this is "proof" of a denial of the Real Presence! It's almost as though, to Eastern Orthodox eyes, a Western Church can only believe in the Real Presence if it couches it in the innaccurate terms of "transubstantiation"!

ARRGH! Cranmer revealed publicly that he thought the Eucharist was only "spiritual" in 1548!
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #125 on: June 05, 2008, 01:18:10 AM »

Brother Suaiden what was your reason for even joining this forum? You seem to just want to state all Western liturgies are incorrect except for yours. That the "World Orthodoxy" is false ecumenism and that the Milan synod is the True Apostolic and Catholic faith. Do you have anything helpful to add rather than just statements which could at best be seen as trolling.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:18:46 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #126 on: June 05, 2008, 01:20:31 AM »

Okay, I'll eat crow and grant that you did address their rebuttal. Embarrassed

Now, regarding your rebuttal of their rebuttal:  I've seen in reading various Orthodox sources and discussions on this forum the very common argument that we can accept as Orthodox only that language and those concepts that have their origination within the Orthodox Tradition, that we must reject as heretical anything else imported from outside.  I just don't buy that argument, otherwise I would have to side with the Judaizers against St. Paul and advocate a return to a strictly Judaic understanding of the Christian Gospel, since this is really the only understanding that developed organically from within the Tradition the Apostles inherited.  I would have to reject St. John's identity of Christ with the Logos of Greek philosophy in the first chapter of his Gospel.  I would have to reject the writings of St. Justin Martyr for his attempts to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christian revelation.  I would have to reject the First Ecumenical Council for their decision to borrow the term homoousios from the Greek philosophers so these holy Fathers could formulate an Orthodox understanding of the deity of Jesus Christ.  I would also have to reject the work of such luminaries as St. Paul the Apostle, Ss. Cyril and Methodios, St. Innocent of Alaska and his protege, St. Innocent of Japan, who all sought to introduce Christ to their audiences using the languages of their audiences (language being much more than mere semantics).  But since the Church has such a tradition of borrowing words and concepts from heterodox and pagan sources and redefining them to give them Orthodox meanings, how can I find acceptable your argument that the Church cannot do the same with the language of the BCP?  In this case, it may not be the best course of action, considering the more organically Orthodox Western Rite liturgies we do have, but doing so is in no way contrary to Orthodox Tradition.  (Note the key word contrary.)

The Jews and Greeks of old were not enemies of the Church.

Now, to your charge that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is a heretical liturgy (making those who approve its use heretics by definition),

No, making those who approve either ignorant of heresy or heretics by definition.

the charge that this board's moderator has asked you formally to defend:  your own opinion that the liturgy is heretical is not sufficient.  So far, this is all I have seen from you.  Such a charge of heresy requires more formal substantiation from a hierarchical authority, be that a synod, a canon, or the consensus of the Fathers.  If you can provide us that--i.e., proclamation by a synod or a canon--then maybe we will deem this defense acceptable.  I must say again, however, that mere repetition of your own opinion is not sufficient to substantiate that something accepted by a synod of the AOCA is heretical.

Which synod condemned the Wiccan sabbat? That's ridiculous.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #127 on: June 05, 2008, 01:23:01 AM »

Brother Suaiden what was your reason for even joining this forum? You seem to just want to state all Western liturgies are incorrect except for yours. That the "World Orthodoxy" is false ecumenism and that the Milan synod is the True Apostolic and Catholic faith. Do you have anything helpful to add rather than just statements which could at best be seen as trolling.

Why do you call me brother when you treat me so? No, friend, I am not so small minded (and neither is anyone in the Milan Synod) to say that mine alone is the "true and apostolic faith". 

I am saying that all Orthodox Western liturgies are correct. That the Liturgy of St Gregory is not substantially different from Overbeck's revision, and is good for temporary use. And that the Protestant BCP is NOT for use in the Orthodox Church. Not in Milan. Not in ROCOR. Not in the AWRV.

This is not jurisdictional. It is about right and wrong. "Politics" aside.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2008, 01:25:07 AM »

Milan isn't a schism. It was blessed. Please get your facts straight.
The "facts" in this case depend on your perspective.  I'm sorry to say it, but according to the mainstream of Orthodox churches (i.e., those in communion with Constantinople), the Milan Synod is in schism from the Church.  You can argue your view of canonicity vs. the "institutional/legalistic" view held by this mainstream--I can certainly see some truth in both points of view, so I really don't want to argue that subject here--but this doesn't change the fact that according to most of the churches represented here, the Milan Synod is a schism blessed by a bishop who was himself deemed schismatic.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:25:59 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #129 on: June 05, 2008, 01:27:20 AM »

Why do you call me brother when you treat me so? No, friend, I am not so small minded (and neither is anyone in the Milan Synod) to say that mine alone is the "true and apostolic faith". 

I am saying that all Orthodox Western liturgies are correct. That the Liturgy of St Gregory is not substantially different from Overbeck's revision, and is good for temporary use. And that the Protestant BCP is NOT for use in the Orthodox Church. Not in Milan. Not in ROCOR. Not in the AWRV.

This is not jurisdictional. It is about right and wrong. "Politics" aside.

So is your reason for joining to show that the BCP should not be used in the Orthodox church?
Also I refer to you as brother because you are as such with Christ. You can call me friend all you want but brothers fight more than friends Wink
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #130 on: June 05, 2008, 01:29:06 AM »

"Invented"!??!   Huh Roll Eyes  Where did you get your information on the writing of the first BCP please?  How do you know what Cranmer was thinking or doing when he *wrote* it.  It didn't come out of the air, it had roots in centuries of Christian faith. Have you ever read anything in any BCP? 

Sorry, pal. If you claim it had it's roots in centuries of Christian faith, prove it. Now it's time to put the BCP on trial... where it belongs.

"invented to mock".  Roll Eyes  On what do you base this peculiar accusation?  Mockery implies ridicule and would suggest that Thomas Cranmer was not Christian at all.  The Book of Common Prayer was not made up out of whole cloth. It was not for mockery but for worship.  If desired I can give some titles and sites for the Real story of the BCP. 

Worship of man, perhaps.

Sigh!

Ebor
[/quote]
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #131 on: June 05, 2008, 01:30:30 AM »

So is your reason for joining to show that the BCP should not be used in the Orthodox church?
Also I refer to you as brother because you are as such with Christ. You can call me friend all you want but brothers fight more than friends Wink

Ok, bro, no, my reason for joining was someone told me "hey join this Western rite forum".

I had no idea. Honest.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #132 on: June 05, 2008, 01:30:40 AM »

You need real Western Orthodoxy, brother, and you won't find it in the "Western Rite" AWRV.

All's I gotta say.



What do you mean?
Logged

signature
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #133 on: June 05, 2008, 01:31:58 AM »


Worship of man, perhaps.


Where? How?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #134 on: June 05, 2008, 01:33:06 AM »

St. Tikhon wasn't a heretic; hence, His Liturgy wasn't heretical.  From the Western Orthodoxy Blog:

That blog is a sham. He was reposed 60 years before that liturgy saw the light of day.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #135 on: June 05, 2008, 01:34:18 AM »

Where? How?

http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthumanism/a/reformation.htm
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #136 on: June 05, 2008, 01:35:29 AM »

Which synod condemned the Wiccan sabbat? That's ridiculous.
What does that have to do with what I said?  I'm addressing your charge that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is a heretical liturgy, a charge that arimethea asked you formally, in his role as this board's moderator, to substantiate.  A formal charge of heresy demands an opinion other than your own to back it up.

This is not jurisdictional. It is about right and wrong. "Politics" aside.
No, this is about your view of right and wrong, which you are trying to preach to us.  Now, what synod ever formally condemned the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as heretical?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:36:11 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #137 on: June 05, 2008, 01:35:59 AM »

That blog is a sham. He was reposed 60 years before that liturgy saw the light of day.

Without any sources both of those claims are on the same level of truth.

Quote

Yep that hands down proves that the BCP worships man! Could you please show me specifically where the BCP in word or spirit worships man and not God?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:39:12 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #138 on: June 05, 2008, 01:36:04 AM »

You used the pronoun I there several times which is the whole point of a Western-Rite. People should have a choice of liturgy and the fact is that liturgies and rites are an organic evolution of Orthodoxy in the culture the way that turns out is completely cultural. I am a cradle and know nothing else besides an eastern Greek liturgy but I would like to see a western rite service.

Yes, I know, when writing a paper one isn't supposed to use 1st or 2nd person pronouns and it destroys one's ethos. Oh well, it's summer time for me, which means time to forget about grammar and punctuation! Haha!
Logged

signature
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #139 on: June 05, 2008, 01:37:04 AM »

Then-Bishop of Denver Isaiah had this to say about Western Rite Liturgies back in 1995.  Source is also from Western Orthodoxy Blog. 

And then there's reality.

His Grace Bishop Anthony [of San Francisco - GOANSA] recently issued an encyclical concerning the "Western Rite" Orthodox parishes. These are Orthodox Churches which do not use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, but instead celebrate revised versions of the Anglican and Roman mass. In America there are such parishes under the Antiochian Archdiocese, the Moscow Patriarchate and the so-called Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia. In the geographical area or the Diocese of San Francisco there are several such parishes, most notably in Whittier and Concord, California and in Spokane, Washington. His Grace issued this encyclical in response to numerous inquiries by the clergy and lay people on how to treat these parishes.

His Grace makes clear that while we accept the priests and lay people of these parishes as fully Orthodox we are to avoid any activity which would tend to imply agreement with the formation of such parishes. The reason for this disagreement is twofold: it is both liturgically unsound and pastorally unwise. "Liturgically unsound because these rites are not in direct continuity with the worship of the early Church in the West, but are primarily the result of 16th century Reformation or Counter Reformation debates; pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny group of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated from the rest of the Church."

The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:

"1. 'Western-rite' clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, 'eastern' Orthodox vestments.

"2. Clergy of this Diocese may not serve or participate in 'western-rite' liturgies.

"3. The participation of our laity in any pan-orthodox liturgical activity specifically with 'western-rite' parishes is to be actively discouraged."
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #140 on: June 05, 2008, 01:37:31 AM »

That blog is a sham. He was reposed 60 years before that liturgy saw the light of day.

Gee, I would think that others in this forum would have brought that "observation" to my attention.  I wouldn't consciously link to something if I knew that it was a "sham."
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #141 on: June 05, 2008, 01:38:38 AM »

Now it's time to put the BCP on trial... where it belongs.
And I suppose you would be the jury of one.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #142 on: June 05, 2008, 01:39:17 AM »

Without any sources both of those claims are on the same level of truth.

Would you like his obituary??? He died April 7, 1925.  The liturgy of St Tikhon wasn't produced until the 70's.  I can prove when he died. Now prove, if even the AWRV says the liturgy in question wasn't done till the 70's, how it was done before.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #143 on: June 05, 2008, 01:39:41 AM »

And I suppose you would be the jury of one.

.... and Judge
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #144 on: June 05, 2008, 01:39:49 AM »

And I suppose you would be the jury of one.

There are more of us here than one, papa.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #145 on: June 05, 2008, 01:41:10 AM »

Gee, I would think that others in this forum would have brought that "observation" to my attention.  I wouldn't consciously link to something if I knew that it was a "sham."

I'm not here to judge people, sorry. Don't know you from my neighbor. Just answering the questions.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #146 on: June 05, 2008, 01:41:30 AM »

And then there's reality.

Metropolitan Gerasimos replaced Metropolitan Anthony of Blessed Memory.  I can't speculate if Met. Gerasimos has continued the policy or not other than to say that Western Rite Ministries have had 50 years of legitimacy under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Antioch.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #147 on: June 05, 2008, 01:41:44 AM »

There are more of us here than one, papa.
But who else cares?
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #148 on: June 05, 2008, 01:42:45 AM »

What does that have to do with what I said?  I'm addressing your charge that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is a heretical liturgy, a charge that arimethea asked you formally, in his role as this board's moderator, to substantiate.  A formal charge of heresy demands an opinion other than your own to back it up.

You asked for a canon condemning people who had nothing to do with Orthodoxy for 500 years as though they were not heretics if there was a canon.

No, this is about your view of right and wrong, which you are trying to preach to us.  Now, what synod ever formally condemned the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as heretical?

Here we go again.

What synod condemned the Jehovah's Witnesses as heretical?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #149 on: June 05, 2008, 01:43:40 AM »

Metropolitan Gerasimos replaced Metropolitan Anthony of Blessed Memory.  I can't speculate if Met. Gerasimos has continued the policy or not other than to say that Western Rite Ministries have had 50 years of legitimacy under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Antioch.

Too bad both the Bishops you mention are GOA.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #150 on: June 05, 2008, 01:43:49 AM »

What synod condemned the Jehovah's Witnesses as heretical?

The First Ecumenical council when the stopped the Arian Heresy.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:44:50 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #151 on: June 05, 2008, 01:47:42 AM »

Yes, I know, when writing a paper one isn't supposed to use 1st or 2nd person pronouns and it destroys one's ethos. Oh well, it's summer time for me, which means time to forget about grammar and punctuation! Haha!

Lol yeah don't get me started. Sorry that wasn't my emphasis I was talking more about personal choice not punctuation Smiley sorry for the mix up.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #152 on: June 05, 2008, 01:49:53 AM »

What synod condemned the Jehovah's Witnesses as heretical?
Please don't answer my question with a question.  You have with your last two analogies connected the Liturgy of St. Tikhon with the Wiccan sabbat and the Jehovah's Witnesses as heresies that need no formal condemnation.  I am working to support my fellow moderator--if you haven't noticed yet, I too am a moderator--to get from you the formal substantiation he requested to support your condemnation of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon.  Until you tell us what synod condemned the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, your charge of heresy is purely your own groundless opinion.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:54:36 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #153 on: June 05, 2008, 01:52:30 AM »

Please don't answer my question with a question.  You have with your last two analogies connected the Liturgy of St. Tikhon with the Wiccan sabbat and the Jehovah's Witnesses as heresies that need no formal condemnation.  I am working to support my fellow moderator--if you haven't noticed yet, I too am a moderator--to get from you the formal substantiation he requested to support your condemnation of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon.  Until you tell us what synod condemned the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, your charge of heresy is groundless.

The "Liturgy of St Tikhon" is a barely-edited BCP rite.

Anglicanism also needs no formal condemnation.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #154 on: June 05, 2008, 01:53:44 AM »

The First Ecumenical council when the stopped the Arian Heresy.

Wrong, because Jehovah's Witnesses share views with Arians. They are condemned, on those grounds, by a number of councils, as are the Anglicans-- such as Chalcedon.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #155 on: June 05, 2008, 01:56:10 AM »

The "Liturgy of St Tikhon" is a barely-edited BCP rite.

Anglicanism also needs no formal condemnation.

How is the BCP rite heretical with those edits?
Quote
Wrong, because Jehovah's Witnesses share views with Arians. They are condemned, on those grounds, by a number of councils, as are the Anglicans-- such as Chalcedon.

What are you even trying to say? How did Chalcedon rebuke Anglicanism? What are you even trying to say in the first sentence?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:58:04 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #156 on: June 05, 2008, 01:56:11 AM »

^^^^^ OK, Let me play Devil's Advocate with 2 Saints common to Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

St. Martin of Tours (May his memory be eternal) who lived in the 4th Century is both a Catholic and Orthodox saint.  What Liturgy did he celebrate?

When He was ordained Bishop of Tours in 372, what Liturgy was celebrated at his Ordination?

The Venerable Bede (May his memory be eternal), who lived in the 7th & 8th Centuries and served as a priest for 59 Years, what Liturgy did He celebrate during those periods?

Sources can be found at http://www.newadvent.org

Edited due to previous poster adding 4 posts after the one I was replying to; hence, the 5 carets.

I know it wasn't the "Liturgy of St Tikhon". I'd have to look it up. Probably some Gallican or Roman form in the former, and a Roman in the latter.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #157 on: June 05, 2008, 01:56:52 AM »

The "Liturgy of St Tikhon" is a barely-edited BCP rite.
So what if it is?  This may make the liturgy [arguably] inadequate for church use, but this doesn't make it heretical.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #158 on: June 05, 2008, 02:00:02 AM »

What do you mean?

Pre-schism rites are real. Period. And people use them. Period. And they aren't in the AWRV's "Anglican rite", they can be found in ROCOR, Milan, and other places.

Western Orthodoxy is coming back.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #159 on: June 05, 2008, 02:00:31 AM »


Where? Where and Where?

I cited this. Argue with them. I wasn't there.

But I believe them.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #160 on: June 05, 2008, 02:02:05 AM »

The "facts" in this case depend on your perspective.  I'm sorry to say it, but according to the mainstream of Orthodox churches (i.e., those in communion with Constantinople), the Milan Synod is in schism from the Church.  You can argue your view of canonicity vs. the "institutional/legalistic" view held by this mainstream--I can certainly see some truth in both points of view, so I really don't want to argue that subject here--but this doesn't change the fact that according to most of the churches represented here, the Milan Synod is a schism blessed by a bishop who was himself deemed schismatic.

What you mean is "Milan is a schism blessed by the head of the Old Calendar Church of Greece, Archbishop Auxentios of Athens."

At least say who you are talking about.

If you are ok with the above sentence, I'll agree to it.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #161 on: June 05, 2008, 02:05:08 AM »

So what if it is?  This may make the liturgy [arguably] inadequate for church use, but this doesn't make it heretical.

I see we are heading back to the "how Orthodox read it" argument.  See #63.  Can we see the circle forming?

If I say it's heretical and you say "we don't read it that way" there is little left to say at the outset. Now read #63 without edits, thanks.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #162 on: June 05, 2008, 02:05:14 AM »

What you mean is "Milan is a schism blessed by the head of the Old Calendar Church of Greece, Archbishop Auxentios of Athens."

At least say who you are talking about.

If you are ok with the above sentence, I'll agree to it.

A schism blessed by another schismatic. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #163 on: June 05, 2008, 02:05:53 AM »

You have with your last two analogies connected the Liturgy of St. Tikhon with the Wiccan sabbat and the Jehovah's Witnesses as heresies that need no formal condemnation.
Besides, I'm not aware that the Wiccan sabbat or any JW heresies ever received the blessing of an Orthodox bishop for dissemination within any diocese of the Orthodox Church, unlike the Liturgy of St. Tikhon.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #164 on: June 05, 2008, 02:06:49 AM »

A schism blessed by another schismatic. Two wrongs do not make a right.

And thank YOU for sharing.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #165 on: June 05, 2008, 02:07:27 AM »

A schism blessed by a schism..... Now there's credibility for you!
It amazes me how many branch schisms those who schism from the Church form. And, ironically, all in the name of opposing the Branch Theory! Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #166 on: June 05, 2008, 02:09:52 AM »

A schism blessed by a schism..... Now there's credibility for you!
It amazes me how many branch schisms those who schism from the Church form. And, ironically, all in the name of opposing the Branch Theory! Cheesy
Eventually after anathematizing everyone else, you find that you have no one left to condemn but yourself.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #167 on: June 05, 2008, 02:10:52 AM »

Drop the melodrama. It's happening and it's been recorded. By the way, what do you think of Kasper showing up in Russia with Greek Archdiocese Bishops to "smooth it over"?

Are you also going to tell me that 2+2 is 5 and torture me like in 1984?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #168 on: June 05, 2008, 02:14:43 AM »

Excuse me? Who are you? Address yourself privately if you wish.

Ding, ding, ding, we have baiting by a troll. 
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #169 on: June 05, 2008, 02:15:52 AM »

Ding, ding, ding, we have baiting by a troll. 

What? You mentioned my wife. Start talking, sir, trolls hide. People know who I am.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #170 on: June 05, 2008, 02:16:26 AM »

Excuse me? Who are you? Address yourself privately if you wish.

He is referring to you.

You referred to your "loving wife" (they are in quotation marks not in mocking but to show you said this" as the web master of the site.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 02:17:59 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #171 on: June 05, 2008, 02:19:02 AM »

What? You mentioned my wife. Start talking, sir, trolls hide. People know who I am.

You mentioned your wife first as a web maintainer; hence, the comment that both of you are communicants in the Milan Synod.  By saying that people know who you are, maybe past identities associated with the Milan Synod have graced this forum in the past?
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #172 on: June 05, 2008, 02:20:00 AM »

You mentioned your wife first as a web maintainer; hence, the comment that both of you are communicants in the Milan Synod.  By saying that people know who you are, maybe past identities associated with the Milan Synod have graced this forum in the past?

That means nothing; apostates are everywhere.

Be more specific.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #173 on: June 05, 2008, 02:22:11 AM »

We have a new website for the St Gregory's Press to purchase the full cycle of Western Rite Services...

Thanks. I see it off the links. Very impressive websites, presentation is well done.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #174 on: June 05, 2008, 02:22:44 AM »

That means nothing; apostates are everywhere.

Be more specific.

Since I've been on this forum, a few people associated with the Milan Synod have been placed on "Moderated" status for various violations of the forum rules.
Logged
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #175 on: June 05, 2008, 02:23:39 AM »

As a congregant of the Milan Synod and maintainer (with your wife) of various websites...SNIP

I'm sorry, "a maintainer" with me?

 I just want to clarify that I am the SOLE webmaster for milansynodusa.org & the St. Gregory's Press Site.

The ONLY person who has maintained any websites I have redone (yet not with me) for The Holy Synod of Milan (in the USA) is Father Symeon.

Sorry...as for the rest of the message, I have no interest in it.

So, you all have fun.  I'm going back to scripting.

Chow, it's been a slice.

BTW, Happy Feast!
 
Grin
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #176 on: June 05, 2008, 02:24:19 AM »

Since I've been on this forum, a few people associated with the Milan Synod have been placed on "Moderated" status for various violations of the forum rules.

The only one I know of that didn't was George and he was a convert that wasn't aware of the non-canonical status of the church and has found a new church which is canonical.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #177 on: June 05, 2008, 02:24:43 AM »

Since I've been on this forum, a few people associated with the Milan Synod have been placed on "Moderated" status for various violations of the forum rules.

Such an answer is unclear. Who are you?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #178 on: June 05, 2008, 02:25:43 AM »

That means nothing; apostates are everywhere.

Be more specific.

Would the term "apostate" apply to everyone in this board who doesn't share the sentiments espoused by any uncanonical Orthodox Jurisdiction?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #179 on: June 05, 2008, 02:26:11 AM »

You need real Western Orthodoxy, brother, and you won't find it in the "Western Rite" AWRV.

All's I gotta say.

This is prosyletizing. This contravenes our forum rules, Specifically:
Proselytizing people to your jurisdiction is no longer allowed.  I don't care if it is the GOA or the ROAC, we don't exist to give spiritual advice, but rather to discuss spiritual matters. There is a healthy distinction.  If you feel the need to plug your group then do it by private message.
This is your final warning.
George
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #180 on: June 05, 2008, 02:26:40 AM »

Such an answer is unclear. Who are you?

What does SolEX01's identity have to do with the thread?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #181 on: June 05, 2008, 02:27:18 AM »

This is prosyletizing. This contravenes our forum rules, Specifically:This is your final warning.
George


Fair enough. Sorry about that. Is suggesting the use of the Sarum, which is used in ROCOR allowed?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #182 on: June 05, 2008, 02:28:01 AM »

Would the term "apostate" apply to everyone in this board who doesn't share the sentiments espoused by any uncanonical Orthodox Jurisdiction?

No, it wouldn't. Now answer *my* question: who are you?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #183 on: June 05, 2008, 02:28:25 AM »

What does SolEX01's identity have to do with the thread?

If my guess is right, plenty.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #184 on: June 05, 2008, 02:28:45 AM »

If my guess is right, plenty.

What is your guess?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #185 on: June 05, 2008, 02:28:58 AM »

I'm sorry, "a maintainer" with me?

 I just want to clarify that I am the SOLE webmaster for milansynodusa.org & the St. Gregory's Press Site.

The ONLY person who has maintained any websites I have redone (yet not with me) for The Holy Synod of Milan (in the USA) is Father Symeon.

Thank you and I apologize for being in error by saying that Sudaien was a website maintainer.  Please forgive me.   angel 
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #186 on: June 05, 2008, 02:29:20 AM »

What is your guess?

Let him answer.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #187 on: June 05, 2008, 02:30:27 AM »

Let him answer.

There is a difference between showing your identity on a shaky medium such as the internet and bringing to light your hypothesis about the poster.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
nyc_xenia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Holy Synod of Milan
Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #188 on: June 05, 2008, 02:31:56 AM »

Thank you and I apologize for being in error by saying that Sudaien was a website maintainer.  Please forgive me.   angel 

God forgives.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #189 on: June 05, 2008, 02:33:38 AM »

There is a difference between showing your identity on a shaky medium such as the internet and bringing to light your hypothesis about the poster.

Of course there is.  Is he afraid of saying who he is perhaps? I can make that guess without threat of banning, since he is making a number of claims without verification (notably that he was a member of our Church)...


...so, who is he?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #190 on: June 05, 2008, 02:35:42 AM »

Let him answer.

I'm NOT a member of your church.  Why the paranoia?
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #191 on: June 05, 2008, 02:44:05 AM »

I'm NOT a member of your church.  Why the paranoia?

Well, then, I guess a full recitation of your name wouldn't be scary.  My name is Joseph Mahomond-Suaiden.  What's yours?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #192 on: June 05, 2008, 02:48:45 AM »

Well, then, I guess a full recitation of your name wouldn't be scary.  My name is Joseph Mahomond-Suaiden.  What's yours?
For purposes of protecting one's privacy on the internet, no one here can be required to reveal his offline identity, so stop asking.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 02:53:56 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #193 on: June 05, 2008, 02:51:08 AM »

For internet security purposes, no one here can be required to reveal his offline identity, so stop asking.

Well, then, I guess I am unafraid when it comes to internet security purposes, and the man begging you to ask me to leave him alone is a coward.  I will post no further on this matter, and have nothing pleasant to say to his future, fake responses.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #194 on: June 05, 2008, 02:53:35 AM »

... the man begging you to ask me to leave him alone is a coward.
No one begged me to ask you to leave him alone, and calling someone a coward is an ad hominem, which is not permitted on the OC.net discussion forum.
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #195 on: June 05, 2008, 02:55:05 AM »

Well, then, I guess I am unafraid when it comes to internet security purposes, and the man begging you to ask me to leave him alone is a coward.  I will post no further on this matter, and have nothing pleasant to say to his future, fake responses.

Are you referring to me brother? All my responses were to you and not to any moderators. Nothing pleasant to say to his future, fake responses? Where did that come from?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #196 on: June 05, 2008, 02:56:25 AM »

OK. Everyone just cool it.
Suiaden, there is no need for ad hominems.
Can we please keep this thread on track to discuss the Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the Sarum Rite without getting into personal insults?
I actually think these are important questions which need to be examined in a scholarly way, rather than flinging insults.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #197 on: June 05, 2008, 02:57:00 AM »

No one begged me to ask you to leave him alone, and calling someone a coward is an ad hominem, which is not permitted on the OC.net discussion forum.

Your forum is proving more trouble than it's worth. There are banned words, I can't call people heretics without flack, and random unidentified people can pull up personal stuff about my wife. 

This isn't a good place to be, but your troll is comfortable. At least he's canonical. Maybe.  Use the rules of logic.  There is more ad hominem than you wish to catch. Selective catching of ad hominem is worthless, sir. In a dialogue, such prohibitions ARE ad hominem.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 02:57:33 AM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #198 on: June 05, 2008, 02:59:58 AM »

Well, then, I guess I am unafraid when it comes to internet security purposes, and the man begging you to ask me to leave him alone is a coward.  I will post no further on this matter, and have nothing pleasant to say to his future, fake responses.

This is an unacceptable and uncharitable post. All the active WR boards will be locked until further notice in order to allow heads to cool. Everyone do their research over the weekend and then post on Monday. GOOD NIGHT!
-Arimethea
Logged

Joseph
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #199 on: June 11, 2008, 11:59:36 AM »

The "Liturgy of St Tikhon" is a barely-edited BCP rite.

Anglicanism also needs no formal condemnation.
Something has been bothering me about your argument against the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Your whole argument against is that it is based on Anglican practice. Correct me if I am wrong, you do admit that is was edited to be in conformity with Orthodox theology but you reject it because of its origins.

So based on that... Do you celebrate Christmas on December 25th (and please don't look stupid by claiming you celebrate it on the Old Calendar date in January, it is still December 25th)? The celebration of Christmas on December 25th has its origins in Pagan worship yet it was edited to make it a Holy day for Christians. Why can't something that had been developed in a community that at least has a basic understanding of Christian theology then be edited to make it Holy?

I can make a list of items and practices that have origins in Paganism that have been baptized and made holy and are now venerable parts of Orthodox worship and practice. Would you reject all of these too?
Logged

Joseph
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #200 on: June 11, 2008, 01:08:36 PM »

Something has been bothering me about your argument against the Liturgy of St. Tikhon.

Really? I'm sorry to hear that. Let's see what it is.

Your whole argument against is that it is based on Anglican practice. Correct me if I am wrong, you do admit that is was edited to be in conformity with Orthodox theology but you reject it because of its origins.  So based on that... Do you celebrate Christmas on December 25th (and please don't look stupid by claiming you celebrate it on the Old Calendar date in January, it is still December 25th)?

This bothers you?

The celebration of Christmas on December 25th has its origins in Pagan worship yet it was edited to make it a Holy day for Christians. Why can't something that had been developed in a community that at least has a basic understanding of Christian theology then be edited to make it Holy? I can make a list of items and practices that have origins in Paganism that have been baptized and made holy and are now venerable parts of Orthodox worship and practice. Would you reject all of these too?

No, I wouldn't.

The argument that "the Church has borrowed from paganism in the past" is a straw man argument. I never denied that there were elements of worship taken from paganism, or Judaism, in the Church's liturgical life.  Nor have I ever said that such things are sin.  This sounds like the Protestant argument that Orthodox are "Christianized neo-platonists", which we are not.

The truth is that the one has nothing to do with the other; the pagans were not trying to create a liturgy in opposition to the Church which the Church then adopted.  They were simply doing what they believed before coming into contact with the Church.  By contrast, the Anglicans, who knew very well *who* the Orthodox were, were creating a liturgy in opposition to the established one (the Tridentine and the Sarum alike) and rewriting texts to reflect anti-Christian views (I realize some would call this "reformation theology", but when you say  priesthood, the visible Church, images, and the Holy Mysteries are "innovations" then your "theology" is "anti-Christianity").

So the argument that "the Church took certain symbols and days from paganism" (itself an exagerrated charge) is simply not relevant to the reality that the BCP rite is a rite formed in conscious opposition to the Church's available tradition.  The Fathers did not bless such usages, and did not bless this one, which we can at least say for December 25.

I've stated this repeatedly, so from here on in I will simply refer to this post.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #201 on: June 11, 2008, 01:29:57 PM »

So the argument that "the Church took certain symbols and days from paganism" (itself an exagerrated charge) is simply not relevant to the reality that the BCP rite is a rite formed in conscious opposition to the Church's available tradition.  The Fathers did not bless such usages, and did not bless this one, which we can at least say for December 25.

So are we frozen in time unable to let the spirit guide the Church? Yes we can agree that the formation of this Liturgy was done by people against the tradition of the Church but the Church has taken this ill conceived plan of the devil and baptized it to make it holy. The Church is a living breathing organism in which we pray for the Holy Spirits guidance and we judge the works by the fruit in which they produce and I have yet to hear of a good argument that those who are using the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are not good, believing and practicing Orthodox Christians and thus good fruit.

Logged

Joseph
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #202 on: June 11, 2008, 04:11:46 PM »

So are we frozen in time unable to let the spirit guide the Church?

Funny thing. That's what Roman Catholics say about Orthodox *in general*, especially about "Eastern Rite" and how "frozen" their theology is.  Orthodox Christians, however, know better, that in those ancient liturgies, and through the guidance of the Fathers who composed the sacred rites, that the Holy Spirit guides the Church as Our Saviour intended.  The Holy Spirit will not be stopped by men; men can only lose His grace.

Yes we can agree that the formation of this Liturgy was done by people against the tradition of the Church but the Church has taken this ill conceived plan of the devil and baptized it to make it holy.

The Church's job is not to baptize rites, but sinners.  The rites are the tools given to us by the Holy Apostles to save men.  Are we now to use the tools of those who have abandoned the Church? To what end? A nice fuzzy feeling?

The Church is a living breathing organism in which we pray for the Holy Spirits guidance and we judge the works by the fruit in which they produce and I have yet to hear of a good argument that those who are using the Liturgy of St. Tikhon are not good, believing and practicing Orthodox Christians and thus good fruit.

I lack the proof you have of such.  My experience has repeatedly been -- from the lower to higher echelons of people within the vicariate -- that "little has changed" in their change from (usually) Anglicans to AWRV members and their practice mirrors it.  That tells me a great deal.  They've changed religions, and strangely they don't notice a thing.  Of course I can't say this about everyone in the AWRV. But I can say that many of these "Western-rite Orthodox" are more interested in being "Western-rite" than "Orthodox".  If you'd like me to be clearer with an example, the spirit that comes out of the writings of (now-Deacon) Ben Johnson is that of a high-church Episcopalian and an Anglo-Catholic wannabe, not an Orthodox Christian. And if you like I can gladly cite proof. I can usually do it within three posts of his most recent. Let's see.

Oh, look.  Under a Patristic quote, we get to hear from the wisdom of George MacDonald. So, you ask? Who is he? A member of the "dissenter" branch of the Scottish Church and a Congregationalist.

And that was two posts in.  I'm not even going on the "Byzantine Orthodox" comment three posts in, there was an entire post written on it at Western Rite Critic (the author is a member of a SCOBA jurisdiction, so the typical argument I've seen of "you're a schismatic with your schismatic synod" won't apply here.) I will cite a section so that I can by forum rules include a hyperlink:

No, I don’t know what ["Byzantine Orthodox"] means either. Nor am I aware that the various synods of the world have declared themselves to be any such thing as “Byzantine Orthodox”. But that’s what Western Rite enthusiasts are calling you. It’s because they want to reformulate Holy Orthodoxy into a religious system defined by the selection of a particular rite, the religious endorsement of a body of cultural baggage, and the importation of a whole set of heterodox pieties on the justification that they’re “Western” and “Orthodox” people are willing to use them. They call themselves by the misnonmer “Western Orthodox”, and the only way to keep it from looking like a schism, a fetish, or a ploy (like “Charismatic Orthodox” - no such thing), is to try to rename the rest of us after their heresy. Yes, heresy, for it is certainly heresy to create another “Orthodoxy” in competition with the Orthodoxy already here present, and wed it to anything but itself, and claim that it is the rightful religion of those who live in already-evangelized lands. If it is Orthodoxy, let it be simply that. If it is Orthodoxy-plus or Orthodoxy-light, it is a deception, as well as a heresy.

--http://westernritecritic.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/did-you-know-youre-byzantine-orthodox/

The moral of the story is that what I see are not "good fruit", but exactly what using a fully Episcopalian ritual will bring to the Church: not converts from the Episcopal Church, but simply Episcopalians.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 04:13:45 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,763



« Reply #203 on: June 12, 2008, 09:31:42 AM »

May I suggest that if you have questions about the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate, one might address those questions to His Grace Bishop BASIL (Essey) of the Diocese of Wichita and the Mid-America. His e-mail is openly listed on the Antiochian website under his diocese.  He writes back within 1-2 weeks usually. The e-mail addresses of other members of the commission are listed on the Antiochian website as well. They have always responded to questions by people I have sent there  in the past. His Grace Bishop Basil has many Western Rite parishes in his Diocese and was initially given  the duty of  Archepiscopal Vicar (i.e. bishop vicar) serving those parishes.  Officially Western Rite parishes are under the ordinary supervision of their diocesan bishop. His Grace serves over the Western Rite Vicarate Commission as Archepiscopal Vicar. [Addendum:I will also be at a Parish Life conference next week for the Diocese of Witchita and Mid-America, where  many of our Western Rite parishes will be present I will address some of your issues with them for their reponses it you like, PM the questions  to me and I will gladly pass them on for you---they can then respond to them via e-mail if you wish.

His Grace Bishop Basil is also one of the leading Liturgists in the Archdiocese, his book, The Liturgikon: the Book of Divine Services for the Priest and Deacon, was published in 1989 by Antakya Press and serves as the guidelines for liturgical practice of the Eastern Rite in the Archdiocese. He is the only monastic hierarch in the Antiochian Archdiocese being a member of the Orthodox Brotherhood of the Monastery of St. John the Baptist at Tolleshunt Knights, England.

The official article on the Web by the Antiochian Archdiocese may be found here: http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite

Here are the four  Liturgies that I am aware of being utilized by the Western Rites of various jurisdictions:

Divine Liturgy of Saint Tikhon – This liturgy is currently used by approximately two-thirds of congregations in the AWRV. The Rite of St. Tikhon was developed utilizing the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican Missal. The Book of Common Prayer was altered by removing the filioque from the text of the Nicene Creed, include prayers for the dead, the invocation of the saints, strengthening the epiclesis within the Eucharistic prayer, and the addition of a few other prayers from the Byzantine Rite. It is utilized primarily by parishes formally of an Anglican/Episcopal background. A variation of this liturgy called "The English Liturgy." was augmented with material from the Sarum Missal and  approved by ROCOR for Western Rite use.
Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory – Utilized by the remainder of the AWRV, this rite is a version of the Roman Tridentine Mass which has been altered to remove the filioque and inserting a Byzantine epiclesis. It is used primarily by parishes formerly of a Lutheran, Roman Catholic, or Old Catholic background, including those incorporated from the Society of Saint Basil in 1961. One Orthodox Benedictine monastery, Christminster, uses a slightly different form of this liturgy.
Sarum Rite – St. Petroc Monastery, a ROCOR monastery located on Tasmania, as well as its dependencies celebrate the Sarum Liturgy. Western Rite parishes under the supervision of the Holy Synod of Milan also utilize what it calls the Old Sarum Rite, which differs greatly from the version celebrated in ROCOR [This translation and rubrics are the result of the work of a former priest of the Milan Synod, Hieromonk Aidan (Keller)].
Liturgy of St. Germanus – Utilized only by l'Eglise Orthodoxe de France (ECOF), the liturgy of St. Germanus is a reconstructed version of what is presumed to be Gallican rite, but which has been supplemented with elements from the Byzantine, Celtic and Mozarabic rites. This was the Western Rite Liturgy encouraged in France by St John of Shanghai and San Francisco (ROCOR) when he was the Bishop serving ROCOR in France.
adapted from article on Wikedpedia

While there may be individual opinions as to the use of the Western Rite, those Orthodox jurisdictions in communion with World Orthodoxy or put more succinctly those in communion with the historic patriarchates, recognize western rite Orthodox under the Antiochian and ROCOR  jurisdicti