Topic: Gallican Mass/Celtic Mass/Pre-Tridentine Mass valid for use?

[88Devin12]

I decided to go talk to some Roman Catholics about what they know about the Pre-Schism liturgical rites of Catholicism, and they pointed me to these rites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallican_Rite#The_Mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Rite#The_Mass_itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass#Comparison_of_the_Mass.2C_c._400_and_1000_AD

Is there something unorthodox about these? I was curious as to why the Western Rite doesn't use these instead of the masses/liturgies it has created in the last 100 years that were based upon these or others.

[ialmisry]

I decided to go talk to some Roman Catholics about what they know about the Pre-Schism liturgical rites of Catholicism, and they pointed me to these rites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallican_Rite#The_Mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Rite#The_Mass_itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass#Comparison_of_the_Mass.2C_c._400_and_1000_AD

Is there something unorthodox about these? I was curious as to why the Western Rite doesn't use these instead of the masses/liturgies it has created in the last 100 years that were based upon these or others.

That is only skewed because you are in America.  The Gallican is called the DL of St. Germain is what was/is used in France for WRO.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Divine_Liturgy_according_to_St._Germanus_of_Paris
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy2/Liturgy1-Gallican.htm

The DL of St. Gregory and St. Tikhon are what they are because it fits with the background of the converts in the US.

The Celtic Rite, from what I've seen, is also OK, but not in use by a canonical body (non-canonical Vagranti ones have it).

There are more:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Western.html
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy2/Liturgical%20Texts.htm

[Irish Hermit]

The Celtic Rite, from what I've seen, is also OK, but not in use by a canonical body (non-canonical Vagranti ones have it).

The Lorrha Missal which is a typical "Celtic" liturgy of the early centuries of Ireland has been blessed for limited use in the ROCA Diocese of Australia and New Zealand by Metropolitan Hilarion.

It was also blessed for use in the Belgian monastery under the Moscow Patriarchate but they have stopped using it.


Text of the Stowe-Lorrha Missal from Rowanhold:

Part 1:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030202223746/http://www.illusions.com/rowanhold/stowe.htm
Part 2:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030214220709/http://www.illusions.com/rowanhold/stowe2.htm

[Entscheidungsproblem]

I'd love to see the Ambrosian rite celebrated within the Orthodox Church.  I've only heard of the Synod of Milan using it though.

[drewmeister2]

Here is part of a paper that I wrote last year that you might find interesting:

The forms of prayer in Irish monasticism are very similar compared to that of Eastern monasticism.  The cycle of services during the day at an Irish monastery was similar to that of Eastern monasteries.  In fact, the same six services were used during the day at a monastery: Matins, Third Hour, Sixth Hour, Ninth Hour, Vespers, and then the Vigil or Midnight Service (Telepneff, 1998, p. 54).  The longer Matins service on Saturdays and Sundays was similar to the extended service in the East on Saturdays and Sundays.  Also, the Gloria in Excelsis Deo was similar to that of the Great Doxology used in the East, and often used Eastern wording or, in some cases, even was said in Greek (Telepneff, 1998, p. 52).  Another feature of the Irish cycle of prayer that is similar to the Eastern cycle of prayer is that the prayer, “Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.” was said after all three psalms of the hours had been recited rather than after each psalm.  Kneeling was forbidden on Sundays and the time following Easter, just as it was in Egypt and elsewhere in the East, since these times were times when Christ’s Resurrection from the dead was celebrated (Telepneff, 1998, pp. 33, 53).

There are a number of general monastic principles that are common to both Eastern and Celtic monasticism.  Among them are silence, especially for novices, not possessing anything to oneself, and obedience to one’s superiors, in particular, the abbot.  Another very important theme in monasticism in both Ireland and the East was that of confession.  Confession was seen as a way to help rid the body and soul of the passions (Telepneff, 1998, p. 32).  Monastic practices in both the Celtic lands and the East were similar in their methods for overcoming various sins.  Often, they were overcome using ascetic practices, or, more commonly, by doing the opposite of the sin.  So, if a monk were falling into the sin of gluttony, fasting would be imposed; if he were lazy, more work would be given to the monk (Telepneff, 1998, p. 33).  Disciplinary penances were also common in both Celtic and Eastern communities, in order to help maintain a sense of discipline among the monastic community (Telepneff, 1998, p. 32).  Monks were also forbidden to leave the monastery or to visit the cells of other monks without permission, further helping to maintain a sense of order (Telepneff, 1998, p. 33). 
There is a particular service that is unique to monasteries that is found both in Ireland and in the Christian East, and that is the Service in the honor of the Mother of God, also known as the Elevation of the Panagia.  This is a short prayer service that was conducted before and after meals in the refectory, as well as after the liturgy.  This service is mentioned both in St. Cassian’s writings as well as in St. Columbanus’s Regula Coenobialis (Telepneff, 1998, p. 55).  Also, the form of chanting was very similar.  Antiphony, or two choirs singing hymns and psalms in alternation, was common both in Celtic monasteries and in Eastern monasteries (Telepneff, 1998, p. 56).

There are also many aspects of Holy Communion that are common between what is found in the Eastern liturgies and the Celtic liturgy.  The Celtic liturgy actually broke the bread for Communion in the Eastern way, and it was also the norm for everyone to receive not only the Body of Christ but also His Blood, which was unique to the East.  Women were required in Celtic lands to cover their heads for Communion, as mentioned in some of the writings of St. Cummian when he cites St. Basil, which was a practice common in the East.  The bishop blessing the people prior to Communion was common to both Ireland and to the East, and also, the way the bishop blessed people was the same (Telepneff, 1998, p. 59).  The bishop would make a sign with his hand known as a Christogram, having “his index finger extended, middle finger curved, the thumb crossed over the ring finger, and the little finger curved” (Telepneff, 1998, pp. 59-60).  This depiction is seen in many different Celtic illuminations.

The cites come from Fr. Gregory Telepneff's book (one I got on interlibrary loan and found to be very interesting):

Telepneff, G. (1998). The Egyptian Desert in the Irish Bogs: the Byzantine Character of Early Celtic Monasticism. Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies.

[Alpo]

It was also blessed for use in the Belgian monastery under the Moscow Patriarchate but they have stopped using it.

Do you know why they have ceased using it? Did they switch to the Byzantine rite?

[ialmisry]

It was also blessed for use in the Belgian monastery under the Moscow Patriarchate but they have stopped using it.

Do you know why they have ceased using it? Did they switch to the Byzantine rite?

Since we have heard from up North, I'd like to see the Liturgy of the Nordic Catholic Church: they wanted to become Orthodox, but the Greek bishop up in those parts doesn't want people to think Orthodoxy is for Scandinavians.  They got orders from the Polish National Catholics. Interesting that they didn't from the Swedes or (Lutheran) Finns.

[88Devin12]

but the Greek bishop up in those parts doesn't want people to think Orthodoxy is for Scandinavians.

Why do we allow people like this to remain Bishops?

[ialmisry]

Btw:

To put it bluntly, why the Nordic Catholic Church? Why not Rome? Why not Orthodoxy?

RF: We had been united as a group, and there was a lot of internal loyalty to the group. Those of us who had leadership responsibilities did not want to leave the people that we had put in such a difficult position. So we tried to find a collective solution. Orthodoxy would probably have accepted us in the end, after a transitional period, as a Western rite parish or parishes.

The Roman Catholic Church never gave any indication of an option other than individual conversions. For our leadership, Rome also was more difficult in the sense that many people had difficulties with various Roman Catholic dogmas, especially the Marian dogmas. As to Orthodoxy, it was felt to be culturally impossible not to follow a Western liturgical calendar.

Even though we were not looking for the lowest common denominator, we had to take into consideration that not all our people were moving at the same speed, and some probably were not going to move either to Constantinople or to Rome. Therefore, those of us who had responsibility wanted to find some sort of structure that could take us as a flock. So we made contact with the PNCC in 1996. They were very generous to us and proposed a period of convergence into the new system.

Of course, it has been somewhat difficult theologically: Many of us, because of our background, are rather Augustinian in our theological thinking, but we have been very influenced by Orthodoxy in our liturgical style and also, perhaps, in our theological thinking. So we are living with a certain theological tension, perhaps a creative tension, in the sense that we are trying to unite a Western Augustinian theology and ethos with elements from the Orthodox Church. Perhaps that means, unfortunately, that we are too Augustinian to become Orthodox and too Orthodox in some of our approaches to become Roman.

What is the current state of Orthodox Christianity in Norway? Is it reasonably possible for a Norwegian to join the Orthodox Church?

RF: There is a radical development there, as the old Russian parish, established after the Russian Revolution and now under Constantinople (via the Russian archdiocese in Paris), has moved dramatically in a Norwegian direction, with Norwegian clergy and a Liturgy mostly in Norwegian. I think that if they get more clergy and can change their calendar to a Western reckoning, they will have a great future. A culturally indigenous Norwegian Orthodoxy would profit from the anti-Romanism inherent in the Lutheran tradition and a certain closeness to, and sympathy with, Russia in northern Norway. Also, in Norway there is some liking for both Gregorian Chant and Orthodox church music. The Orthodox Liturgy itself exerts a strong attraction on many Protestants, almost as if they find in it the verve and pulse—a liturgical version—of a revival meeting.

What about the Roman Catholic Church in Norway?

RF: The difficulty with the Roman Catholic Church is that it remains a church of immigrants. Sometimes I have the feeling that the Roman Catholic Church is less Norwegian than it was twenty years ago, and that it is more and more becoming culturally marginalized in Norwegian society. Perhaps also the Norwegian element in it is more liberal than what we tend to be.

What about the Porvoo Agreement of intercommunion between the Church of Norway and other Scandinavian Lutheran bodies and between the Church of England and other British Anglican bodies? Is Porvoo in any way beneficial to the Church of Norway, or harmful, or an indifferent development?

RF: It’s very difficult to say. I think that the Porvoo Agreement could have had possibilities, but it turned out that these liberal state churches linked together in a sort of liberal “catholic” organization that could in the future become some sort of liberal alternative to Rome.

It is a case of declining state churches uniting under Canterbury, with all that style. Perhaps it would have been a good idea thirty or forty years ago, but today it’s difficult to know on what basis they are uniting, whether on a theological basis or whether declining state churches are simply finding common comfort in a liberal agenda.

How do you see the future of orthodox Christianity in Norway? What do you see as the future of the state church and the Nordic Catholic Church?

RF: Christianity is at stake in Norway today. In Oslo, there are more Muslims going to mosques weekly than Christians to churches, so Christianity as such needs a dramatic realignment.

We have to leave to God all that is going to be, but I do not think that the Church of Norway has the spiritual resources to renew itself—at least not at the present time. To put it another way, it needs a nervous breakdown in order to rediscover its identity before it can start moving again.

The future of the Nordic Catholic Church is difficult to say because it is really still in its inception. We hope that we can develop parishes on the basis of what used to be the Free Synod and also that we can create a strong and vigorous spirituality that will allow us to do our part in re-evangelizing Norwegian society. And we hope to do this with sister parishes in Sweden and perhaps elsewhere in Scandinavia and the British Isles.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-06-054-i

[Shlomlokh]

The Celtic Rite, from what I've seen, is also OK, but not in use by a canonical body (non-canonical Vagranti ones have it).

The Lorrha Missal which is a typical "Celtic" liturgy of the early centuries of Ireland has been blessed for limited use in the ROCA Diocese of Australia and New Zealand by Metropolitan Hilarion.

It was also blessed for use in the Belgian monastery under the Moscow Patriarchate but they have stopped using it.


Text of the Stowe-Lorrha Missal from Rowanhold:

Part 1:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030202223746/http://www.illusions.com/rowanhold/stowe.htm
Part 2:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030214220709/http://www.illusions.com/rowanhold/stowe2.htm

I found this website: http://celticchristianity.org/. They claim to be continuing authentic Celtic Orthodoxy and boast of "pre-schism North American Saints" (which sounds bizarre to me), but they seems to be off on their own with self-proclaimed bishop(s). Do you, Father, or does anyone else know anything about this group?

In Christ,
Andrew

[Schultz]

Vagante.  I corresponded with the webmaster there some years ago when I was starting a return to the faith.  Nice people, but definitely vagante.

[Shlomlokh]

Vagante.  I corresponded with the webmaster there some years ago when I was starting a return to the faith.  Nice people, but definitely vagante.

That's a shame, but it is exactly what I expected. Is there a history of Orthodoxy ever trying to reach out to these vagante groups and bring them into the fold?

In Christ,
Andrew

[tuesdayschild]

Is there a history of Orthodoxy ever trying to reach out to these vagante groups and bring them into the fold?

In some places, there is a history of ignoring vagantes in order to avoid granting them the appearance of legitimacy through association with canonical clergy.  There is wisdom in this, but it doesn't resolve the matter of their existence and the spiritual threat they pose to the innocent and unwary.

[Shlomlokh]

Is there a history of Orthodoxy ever trying to reach out to these vagante groups and bring them into the fold?

In some places, there is a history of ignoring vagantes in order to avoid granting them the appearance of legitimacy through association with canonical clergy.  There is wisdom in this, but it doesn't resolve the matter of their existence and the spiritual threat they pose to the innocent and unwary.

I certainly see the wisdom in this. Do you know if there have been examples of Orthodox Synods baptizing these people and bringing them in rather than just tacitly accepting them? I know that in the case of Protestant churches coming into Orthodoxy en masse, they are either baptized and/or chrismated and are not just accepted without the Sacraments of reception.

In Christ,
Andrew

[tuesdayschild]

Do you know if there have been examples of Orthodox Synods baptizing these people and bringing them in rather than just tacitly accepting them? I know that in the case of Protestant churches coming into Orthodoxy en masse, they are either baptized and/or chrismated and are not just accepted without the Sacraments of reception.

I do not.  Someone more knowledgeable will have to answer that.

[Subdeacon Michael]

Vagante.  I corresponded with the webmaster there some years ago when I was starting a return to the faith.  Nice people, but definitely vagante.

That's a shame, but it is exactly what I expected. Is there a history of Orthodoxy ever trying to reach out to these vagante groups and bring them into the fold?

In Christ,
Andrew

The Orthodox Church of France was originally formed in the 1930s by receiving vagantes from one of the groups going by the name Liberal Catholic.  That group has been unstable since the 1970s for various reasons, not all of them their fault, and has now split into a number of groups, only one of which is Orthodox (under the Serbian Patriarchate).  A representation from ROCOR was sent to l'ECOF a few years ago in the hope of effecting some sort of reconciliation but it came to nothing.

In the United Kingdom, the Celtic Orthodox church (another vagantes group) split into two.  One part remained as it had been while the other part was received by the Copts and is now known at the British Orthodox church.  The former bishop of the vagante remnant has now been received into the Orthodox Church as a monk through the Basilites.

[ialmisry]

Is there a history of Orthodoxy ever trying to reach out to these vagante groups and bring them into the fold?

In some places, there is a history of ignoring vagantes in order to avoid granting them the appearance of legitimacy through association with canonical clergy.  There is wisdom in this, but it doesn't resolve the matter of their existence and the spiritual threat they pose to the innocent and unwary.

Supposedly the Episcopal Assmeblies' list of canonical bishops can be put to use on this.

On the other hand, it can also be put to use against groups like that of Fr. Anastasios, and I have a feeling will be.

[Iconodule]

They claim to be continuing authentic Celtic Orthodoxy and boast of "pre-schism North American Saints"

Maybe they mean St. Brendan the Navigator and his companions? Though I didn't think anyone took the idea seriously that they landed in the Americas.

[Jason.Wike]

They claim to be continuing authentic Celtic Orthodoxy and boast of "pre-schism North American Saints"

Maybe they mean St. Brendan the Navigator and his companions? Though I didn't think anyone took the idea seriously that they landed in the Americas.

That would be completely untenable... but there are midieval Gaelic and Norse mentions about people happening upon an island in the west that was actually inhabited by Gaelic and Norse speaking people (both sources state both Gaelic and Norse, although I can't remember what it was) and that they even had bishops. But, I think it's more likely there was an island that is now gone rather than that people from the British Isles accidentally sailed all the way to America (just consider the fact that all throughout the British Isles there are confirmed sites of former habitation that are now underneath the sea... people have even pulled stuff up in the vicinity of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall which is completely bizarre).

[tuesdayschild]

Is there a history of Orthodoxy ever trying to reach out to these vagante groups and bring them into the fold?

In some places, there is a history of ignoring vagantes in order to avoid granting them the appearance of legitimacy through association with canonical clergy.  There is wisdom in this, but it doesn't resolve the matter of their existence and the spiritual threat they pose to the innocent and unwary.

Supposedly the Episcopal Assmeblies' list of canonical bishops can be put to use on this.

On the other hand, it can also be put to use against groups like that of Fr. Anastasios, and I have a feeling will be.

At best, the EA list of bishops would be a resource.  The absence from the list of the name of a man who claims to be an Orthodox bishop would mean only that he is not in communion with the EA bishops.  But he could still freely claim to be the Orthodox primate of his own 501(c)(3).

I wonder, are there any laws that prevent a man from claiming to be a Catholic bishop?  Or a Roman Catholic bishop?  If so, then maybe you are correct, and the list could be used to disprove someone's claim.

[mike]

At best, the EA list of bishops would be a resource.  The absence from the list of the name of a man who claims to be an Orthodox bishop would mean only that he is not in communion with the EA bishops.  But he could still freely claim to be the Orthodox primate of his own 501(c)(3).

Or it would mean that EA Bishops are not aware of who their Priest share the Chalice with (like sc. 'uncanonical' Polish Orthodox Clergy in Brazil concelebrating with Greek Priest).

[deusveritasest]

No one's yet mentioned the Mozarabic!

[That person]

They claim to be continuing authentic Celtic Orthodoxy and boast of "pre-schism North American Saints"

Maybe they mean St. Brendan the Navigator and his companions? Though I didn't think anyone took the idea seriously that they landed in the Americas.

I saw a History Channel special that advocated the idea, so probably not.

[arimethea]

Is there a history of Orthodoxy ever trying to reach out to these vagante groups and bring them into the fold?

In some places, there is a history of ignoring vagantes in order to avoid granting them the appearance of legitimacy through association with canonical clergy.  There is wisdom in this, but it doesn't resolve the matter of their existence and the spiritual threat they pose to the innocent and unwary.

Supposedly the Episcopal Assmeblies' list of canonical bishops can be put to use on this.

On the other hand, it can also be put to use against groups like that of Fr. Anastasios, and I have a feeling will be.

There is a major difference between these vagantes groups and the church in resistance movement. The vagantes claim Orthodoxy and try to pretend to be in communion or claim that they are kept out of communion because the legitimate Orthodox groups are just ethnic bigots. The churches in resistance are Orthodox but have chosen to separate themselves from Orthodoxy, they are very up front with what they are.

The litmus test on how close someone is to the Church is looking at what it would take to bring them into the Church.

Resistance Churches (aka Old Calendar movement) - confession, clergy received as clergy
Oriental - confession, clergy received as clergy
Roman Catholic - anointing with Chrism, some traditions receive clergy, some do not
Protestant - anoint with Chrism or baptism, no clergy reception
Vagantes - anoint with Chrism or baptism, no clergy reception
Muslim or Jew - baptism

So when a Vagante bishop is left off of the Episcopal Assembly list they will cry about being persecuted but, when a church in resistance is left off they will be happy.