OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 05:24:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liturgy of St. Tikhon vs. Sarum Rite  (Read 28883 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« 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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


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: 127



« 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: 35,629



« 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: 35,629



« 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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


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: 127



« 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: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« 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: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« 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: 35,629



« 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: 6,297



« 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: 6,297



« 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: 6,297



« 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: 19,844


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: 6,297



« 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: 19,844


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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« 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: 35,629



« 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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


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: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« 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"
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.166 seconds with 72 queries.