OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 08:45:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liturgy of St. Tikhon vs. Sarum Rite  (Read 28835 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: 6,069


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: 6,297



« 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: 6,297



« 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: 6,297



« 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: 6,297



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,608



« 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: 126



« 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: 4,346


« 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: 4,346


« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,608



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,608



« 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: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« 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

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,608



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,608



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 35,608



« 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"
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 0.195 seconds with 74 queries.