Topic: The Western rite mass - St. Gregory, St. Tikhon or Celtic?

[SubdeaconDavid]

Priest Michael Johnson from ROCOR's San Francisco Diocese wrote a critique of the Gregorian and Tikhonite mass rites of the Western-rite Orthodox, which were essentially Latin Roman and Anglican Anglo-Catholic missal masses, cleansed of heresy and with Orthodox epiclesis etc added in.  Without passing judgement, Fr. Michael raises an argument that I have read elsewhere - that Archbishop Tikhon (later a martyr for the Faith in Russia) did not authorise the mass that would be attributed to him. and this somehow has entered into WR mythology.   Is this correct?  I reproduce the comments:

Does the reconstituted "western rite" actually represent an authentic return to the pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west?

The "western rite" as currently practiced in the Antiochian Archdiocese consists of two Eucharistic liturgies. As they are quite different from one another, let's consider them separately.

First, the "Liturgy of St. Gregory": this liturgy gets its name because it supposedly represents the Roman rite as practiced in the time of St. Gregory the Great, the bishop of Rome from 590 to 604 AD. There is no question that St. Gregory the Great left his mark on the history of worship - not only in the west, but also in the east. (Indeed, it may be argued that the Orthodox Church already has a Liturgy of St. Gregory - namely, the Presanctified Liturgy where this saint is always commemorated in the dis missal.) If the situation of having two Liturgies of St. Gregory isn't confusing enough, the question remains whether or not the Liturgy of St. Gregory as currently practiced in the "western rite" parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese deserves this title at all. In fact, what we are actually presented with is the Tridentine Latin Mass (i.e., the Missal of Pius the V, printed in 1570), translated from Latin into King James English, with - among other things - references to the "merits of the saints" left out and the epiklesis of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom stuck in. In this regard, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, the Tridentine Mass was the Liturgy of the Roman Church as revised at the Counter Reformation. Second, the Gregori an Sacramentary (which, so far as the MSS tradition is concerned, is primarily Frankish and not Roman in origin) had already been revised in the 11th century (near the time of the Western Schism). So the present "Liturgy of St. Gregory" as used in America n "western rite" parishes is at least two revisions away from the saint whose name it bears - and both revisions were made at times of severe crises of faith in the west.

The inadequacies of this rite become obvious on close examination. The anaphora, for example - far from being a single unified prayer as one would expect - seems more like a loosely joined collection of prayers. Stranger yet, the first of these prayers b egins with the word "Therefore" (referring to what? Apparently, some transition has gone missing!). As if the disjointed nature of this anaphora weren't bad enough, tinkering with it by well meaning Orthodox has only made matters worse. According to the great Orthodox liturgical scholar and saint, Nicholas Cabasilas, the prayer in the Roman rite "Supplices te rogamus" ("Most humbly we implore Thee") is an "ascending epiklesis." Even so, the epiklesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has been adde d, thereby giving this rite both an ascending and descending epiklesis, in which the celebrant asks for the consecration of the gifts to be completed after it has already happened! Furthermore, such improbable features as the "last Gospel" are retained. (This was the reading of the prologue to the Gospel of John at the end of the service, a practice that had begun as a private devotion of the celebrating clergy sometime curing the 11th or 12th centuries and which, by the 16th century, had become a prescri bed appendage to the Mass.)

Second, the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon": However inappropriate the "Liturgy of St. Gregory" may seem for Orthodox worship, it can't hold a candle in this regard to the other "western rite" liturgy now in use, which has somehow gotten itself named after a 20th century Russian saint. St. Tikhon served as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America before being elected Patriarch of Moscow in 1917. During his tenure in America, he apparently received a petition for the use of a "western rite" from a group of American Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians. St. Tikhon then forwarded their request to the Holy Synod in Moscow, which examined this proposal carefully and granted the possibility of a "western rite", provided far reaching changes in the Book of Commo n Prayer were made. The Holy Synod left the final decision to St. Tikhon, who - for whatever reason - never formally authorized the establishment of a "western rite" during his pastorate in America. It therefore seems farfetched in the extreme to name th is liturgy after St. Tikhon. He is not the "father" of this "western rite" in even remotely the same way that St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil the Great are the fathers of the Liturgies which bear their names. Furthermore, even if St. Tikhon had authoriz ed the use of a "western rite", every administrative decision made by a saint should not be considered infallible.

What, then, is the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon"? First of all, it is not the Eucharistic rite of the Book of Common Prayer as ever approved by the Episcopal Church. Rather, it is based on a strange amalgam commonly known as the "Anglican Missal." This missal was developed by Anglo-Catholics to make up for deficiencies they perceived in the Book of Common Prayer . The Anglican Missal contains the anaphora and other prayers from the BCP, folded together with parts of the anaphora and other prayers from the Tridentine Mass translated from Latin into King James English. As now used in the "western rite" of the Antio chian Archdiocese, it contains still further additions and corrections made by the Orthodox. A more confusing liturgical hodgepodge could hardly be imagined! The "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" is the Reformation rite of Thomas Cranmer, with additions from the C ounter Reformation rite of the Council of Trent, with still further superficial tinkering in order to make it "more Orthodox."

In defense of this rite, some Orthodox are saying that we should accept it because it contains "nothing heretical." Unfortunately, that itself is an Anglican argument. An Orthodox rite must do far more than avoid heresy - it must clearly proclaim and tea ch the Orthodox faith. In Communist Russia as in Ottoman Greece, the Orthodox Liturgy alone maintained the faith through long years of persecution. Bearing in mind that Cranmer was probably a Zwinglian who designed his rite to express "the real absence" of Christ in the Eucharist, it is easy to see that the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" could never meet the basic criterion of being an Orthodox Liturgy.

In summary, the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" has no historical validity whatsoever. The "Liturgy of St. Gregory" can be traced back to that great saint only in a very attenuated way. The simple fact is, neither of these liturgies represents an authentic return to the pre-schismatic Orthodox worship of the ancient Christian west.http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/johnson.html

Where does the so-called Sarum fit into this, given that Sarum was in use well after the Great Schism in England especially,so it should be true that Sarum elements came into the  English Anglican prayer-book of 1549?  We have Orthodox WR masses based largely on the BCP in the US and elsewhere.  

It is however also true that the Antiochian Church and ROCOR in the wisdom of their hierarch's has blessed the Western-rite.  What is the understanding of ROCOR and Antioch about the historical efficacy of the western-rite claims of the Tikhonite mass in particular?

[ialmisry]

Priest Michael Johnson from ROCOR's San Francisco Diocese wrote a critique of the Gregorian and Tikhonite mass rites of the Western-rite Orthodox, which were essentially Latin Roman and Anglican Anglo-Catholic missal masses, cleansed of heresy and with Orthodox epiclesis etc added in.  Without passing judgement,

LOL.

Fr. Michael raises an argument that I have read elsewhere - that Archbishop Tikhon (later a martyr for the Faith in Russia) did not authorise the mass that would be attributed to him. and this somehow has entered into WR mythology.   Is this correct?  

Yes and no. St Tikhion submitted the BoCP to the Russian Holy Synod, but did not live to see the probject through (in this life that is).

[PapaSymeon]

Where does the so-called Sarum fit into this, given that Sarum was in use well after the Great Schism in England especially,so it should be true that Sarum elements came into the  English Anglican prayer-book of 1549?  We have Orthodox WR masses based largely on the BCP in the US and elsewhere.  

It is however also true that the Antiochian Church and ROCOR in the wisdom of their hierarch's has blessed the Western-rite.  What is the understanding of ROCOR and Antioch about the historical efficacy of the western-rite claims of the Tikhonite mass in particular?

The American Archdiocese of the "Milan Synod" (even before they joined the TOC of Europe) were using what was being called "Sarum" it was actually a complete rite collected from available documents of Orthodox England a more "Anglo-Roman rite" rather than purely "Sarum Use". Much of the translation has been completed by Abp John of NY/NJ.  Before joining ROCOR Fr Michael Wood had a lengthy conversation with Abp John regarding the Western Rite.  The next time "Sarum" is seen to appear within Orthodoxy (not counting Hieromonk Aidan of Austin's version) is in ROCOR/Australia where Hieromonk Michael Wood championed WRO, creating his own version of Sarum. 

I don't believe you can have a pure Sarum Use --though it began prior to 1054 -- its major developments occurred very soon after 1054, as I understand it. Some would argue that the deterioration of the Western Church-at-large should be seen as a gradual phenomena not an overnight event in 1054 due to the posting of the mutual anathemas.

My personal opinion based on observation: Wisdom was with the Synod of Antioch when it approved a WR for use.  The American Metropolitan tolerates it and thus far finds it useful (his ER priests ought to shave & dress like those Anglos) and if it were not for the number of converts his numbers would be far smaller.  As for ROCOR, the smartest thing Metr Hilarion had done regarding the WR is to make Fr John Shaw (who greatly advised Abp John in his translation work) his vicar Bishop.  It is Bishop Jerome, not the Metropolitan, who knows a tremendous amount about both Western & Eastern rites. Lastly, it has been correctly said that Metr. Hilarion had blessed Abp John's works for use in ROCOR (or in the Eastern American Diocese?) when Hieromonk David Cuthbert (Pierce) was accepted under his omophorion. But this would not be the first encounter with Abp John's Sarum Use; when Metr Hilarion was still Bishop of Manhattan he visited the Abbey of the Holy Name and at that time spoke with Abp John and saw some of the work completed at that time.

forgive me,
Father Simon-Salos
Eastern rite (Slavic Use) hermit

[Sleeper]

This is from Lux Occidentalis and touches on many of these criticisms.


If the “Rite of St. Tikhon” is more suspect, because of its history among English speaking people, than the “Rite of St. Gregory,” then it should be examined for its antiquity versus Bishop Anthony’s theory that these Rites are “not in direct continuity with the worship of the early Church of the West.”

According to Blunt (1882) the “Ancient Liturgy according to the use of Sarum” begins following this pattern:  “The priest, having first confessed and received absolution, said the Hymn, “Veni Creator,” whilst putting on the holy vestments, and then the Collect, “Deus, cui omne cor patet,” Ps. xliii. Judica me, with the Antiphon, “Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui lætificat juventutem meam;” followed by “Kyrie,” “Pater Noster,” and “Ave Maria.” All this was done in the Sacristy.

The Introit, having been begun, the Priest proceeded “ad gradum Altaris,” and there (with the Deacon on his right and Sub-deacon on his left) said “Confiteor, etc. Then going up to the Altar, and standing in the midst, said secretly, “Take away from us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, all our iniquities...” He then censed the Altar while the Choir sing the Introit, the Kyries, and the priest himself intones the “Gloria in excelsis Deo” after which he returns to the dexter (right) horn of the Altar to say the Collect and remains there for the reading of the Epistle...”

The Orthodox Missal (1995) page 172 ff... provides Psalm 43 (xliii.), the antiphon “I will go unto the altar of God.” (Introibo ad altare Dei...) followed by the Collect:  “Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspira- tion of thy Holy Spirit, that we may per- fectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.”
“Deus Cui omne cor patet, et omnis voluntas loquitur, et Quem nullum latet secretum; purifica per infusionem Sancti Spiritus cogitationes cordis nos- tri; ut Te perfecte diligere, et digne lau- dare mereamur. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.”

This “Collect for Purity” is not found in the preparatory prayers of the Roman Sacramentary. Perhaps it points to a “result of 16th century Reformation or Counter Reformation debates.” On the contrary, this prayer appears (in Latin as above) in the Sarum Sacramentary (c. 1085) in the Priest’s preparation prayers, and again in a Mass “ad invocandum gratiam Spiritus Sancti” at the end of the Sarum Missal, and in a Mass attributed by Muratori [ii.383] to St. Gregory, the Abbot of Canterbury about A.D. 780. It is also found in the Sacramentary of Alcuin (c. 735-804), and at the end of the Mass in the Hereford Missal, and the York Litany. It also occurs in the Roman Missal in a votive Mass “Missa votiva de Spiritu Sancto.”

Surely the antiquity of the Introit Psalm and the Kyries are above reproach. The “Gloria in Excelsis” follows immediately. The Gloria is known anciently, appearing completely in its present form in St. Athanasius’ De Virgin, tom. ii., and undoubtedly dates from the Apostolic period. The angelic hymn was part of Western Matins and introduced into the Eucharistic Liturgy at least by the time of Symachus, Bishop of Rome, A.D. 500.

The Collect of the Day, Epistle, Gradual and Alleluia verses, and Gospel follow as on pages 175, 176 of the Orthodox Missal. These “Propers” of the Western Rite have been established since at least the time of St. Jerome [c. 342-420] and are not just similar, but for most part identical, in the Sacramentaries and Missals from the fifth century to the present usage of the Western Rite. Compare the Collect for Pentecost in the Missal of Robert of Jumièges [English c. 1000] withthat of the Orthodox Missal (1995):  “Deus qui hodierna die corda fideli- um sancti spiritus inlustratione docuisti. da nobis in eodem spiritu recta sapere. et de eius semper con- solatione gaudere, per dominum. in unitate eiusdem...”
“God, who as at this time didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit: grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things: and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort. Through... in the unity of the same...”

The “Credo in unum Deum” follows as always, without the “filioque” in conformity to Orthodox pneumatology. The Offertory sentences and prayers follow, unchanged in over a thousand years. A “Proper Preface” follows the Sursum Corda and these have varied somewhat over the centuries. In the middle of the first millennium there were more Proper Prefaces, in some books a unique text for every Day of the year. The Eastern Liturgies have a fixed form that does not vary from Advent to Christmas to Lent to Pascha. Most Western Missals provide at least ten Proper Prefaces, including one for the Virgin Mother of God, for Apostles’ Days, as well as for the major Feasts of the Temporal Cycle. The Orthodox Missal provides (p. 216 f.) twenty-two Prefaces.

Following the threefold Sanctus, the Canon continues...
Orthodox Missal p.185 (St. Tikhon)
“All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy ten- der mercy, didst give thine only Son..."
Orthodox Missal p.205 (St. Gregory) “Therefore, most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech thee through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord,"

Missal of Robert of Jumièges p.45:  “Te igitur clementissime pater per iesum christum filium tuum dominum nos- trum"

The Liturgy is always offered ‘ad Patrem’ through the Son. The gifts are offered as an explicit oblation to the Father:
Orthodox Missal p.185 (St. Tikhon) :
“do celebrate and make here before thy divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee..."
Orthodox Missal p.205 (St. Gregory) : “... these gifts, these offerings, these holy, spotless sacrifices, which we offer thee..."

Missal of Robert of Jumièges p.45 :
“...supplices rogamus et petimus uti accepta habeas et + benedicas + haec dona + haec munera haec sancta sacrifi- cia inlibata..."

The Commemoration of the Departed brings us to an instance where the local [English] Church has caused a variation in the text. How charming to read the list of Saints in Jumièges (p. 47) as compared to the standard [Roman] Western reading followed in our Orthodox Missal (pp. 186, 187):
“...cum tuis sanctis apostolis et mar- tyribus cum Iohanne Stephano Mathia Barnaba Ignatio Alexandro Marcellino Petro Felicitate Perpetua Agatha Lucia Agnae Caecilia Anastasia Ætheldrythae Gertrudis et cum omnibus sanctis..."
“...with thy holy Apostles and Martyrs: John, Stephen, Mattias, Barnabas, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and with all thy Saints..."

Perhaps the names of Ætheldreda and Gertrude might be restored to the Orthodox Missal. Neither pious lady was seen to participate in the “16th century Reformation or Counter Reformation debates.” For that matter, they, and all the above mentioned Saints, reposed centuries before the Schism of East and West. It is also worth noting, in this discussion of an Antiochian Orthodox Service Book, that Ignatius of Antioch was included in the constant Commemorations of the pre- Schism English Church.

There follows the Pater Noster and the prayer Libera Nos which since the 6th century has included the name of the Apostle Andrew. This is simply because Pope St. Gregory the Great of Rome offered the Mass with an explicit commemoration of St. Andrew, the patron Saint of the monastery Gregory had founded at his family’s estate in Rome. Pilgrims may still visit this monastery and other churches nearby mentioned by Gregory in his sermons. The monastery is now dedicated to San Gregorio himself. Gregory had earlier served in Constantinople whose Apostolic patron is St. Andrew. The universal Liturgy has ever after continued this commemoration of St. Andrew the Apostle. One writer, lately published by St. Vladimir Press in its Quarterly, mistakenly argued that the name of Andrew entered the text when a parochial Service Book was published by St. Andrew’s Parish in Eustis, Florida! The same writer has argued that the word “remembrance” in the text of the Administration of the sacrament (Missal p. 191) relegates the entire Rite to a kind of Zwinglian “memorialist” service. He “proves” this by supposing that the assumptions of one or more deceased English sovereigns has determined the meaning of “remembrance” wherever it appears in an English Liturgical text. On the contrary, “remembrance” means what our Lord meant when He Instituted the Sacrament saying “This do in remem- brance of me.” (St. Luke 22.19, I Cor 11.24, I Cor 11.25.) The text was established some fifteen hundred years before Zwingli or the “Reformation debates” and is present in every Liturgy of the Universal Church. For a discussion of “remembrance” in relation to the Liturgy see: Carlton, The Faith, Regina Press, 1997, pp. 204, 205.

Perhaps a “Reformation debate” can be found in the fixed “post Communion” prayer or “thanksgiving” of the St. Tikhon Rite Missal (p. 192). There is no such in the Roman Missal, or in the old English Missals. There is, however, a corresponding prayer in the Liturgy of St. James, which is as follows:  “We give Thee thanks, Christ our God, that Thou hast vouchsafed to make us partakers of Thy Body and Blood, for the remission of sins, and eternal life. Keep us, we beseech Thee, with- out condemnation, because Thou art good, and the lover of men. We thank Thee, God and Saviour of all, for all the good things which Thou hast bestowed on us; and for the partici- pation of Thy holy and spotless mysteries... Glory to Thee, Glory to Thee, Glory to Thee, Christ the King, Only begotten Word of the Father, for that Thou hast vouchsafed us sinners and Thy unworthy servants to enjoy Thy spot- less mysteries, for the forgiveness of sins, and for eternal life: Glory to Thee.”

The word “duly” in “duly received” (p. 192) of the Orthodox Missal is the English word for “proper rite” according to the proper form and ordinance.

There is one more statement in Bishop Anthony’s encyclical that needs comment. He continues:  “[The Western Rite is] pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny group of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated from the rest of the Church.”  How sad that a Greek Orthodox prelate is still actively suppressing legitimate Liturgies of the Orthodox Church in the interest of promoting only one: the so-called “Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.”  The historical John Chrysostom (Golden Mouth) was a son of Antioch, an Arab Christian, who served the Liturgy of St. James most of his life. That venerable Liturgy (and the Liturgy of St. Mark of Alexandria) was needlessly suppressed in the 13th Century by “Patriarch” Theodore IV (Balsamon), who was a Greek bishop living at Constantinople, and who never saw Antioch and never served the Liturgy of St. James. The arrogance of those who discard sacred tradition does not belong only to the modern period. Nor does such arrogance belong only to the Latin West.

The worship of the one, holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church, through the first millennium, was expressed in several regional Liturgies with local variations. These Liturgies include that of St. James in Antioch and the East, St. Mark in Alexandria and Africa, St. Peter in Rome and the West (with some residue of the Liturgy of St. John of Ephesus, and the local Ambrosian and Gallican and Mozarabic Liturgies) and St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom in the Imperial City and among the Hellenes (Greeks). This is the early Church which St. Ignatius of Antioch [c. 35- 107] first described [Ep. ad Smyr. 8.2.] as the Catholic Church and which is confessed in the Nicene Creed... “and I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

The Western Rite has undergone some “development” and augmentation in 1500 years, and so has the Eastern Rite. If the Western Rite seems strange to some Orthodox observers, it is probably because of its antiquity and austerity as compared with the highly developed and elaborated expression of the Eastern Rite.

[Sleeper]

“[The Western Rite is] pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny group of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated from the rest of the Church.”  How sad that a Greek Orthodox prelate is still actively suppressing legitimate Liturgies of the Orthodox Church in the interest of promoting only one: the so-called “Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.”  The historical John Chrysostom (Golden Mouth) was a son of Antioch, an Arab Christian, who served the Liturgy of St. James most of his life. That venerable Liturgy (and the Liturgy of St. Mark of Alexandria) was needlessly suppressed in the 13th Century by “Patriarch” Theodore IV (Balsamon), who was a Greek bishop living at Constantinople, and who never saw Antioch and never served the Liturgy of St. James. The arrogance of those who discard sacred tradition does not belong only to the modern period. Nor does such arrogance belong only to the Latin West.

The worship of the one, holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church, through the first millennium, was expressed in several regional Liturgies with local variations. These Liturgies include that of St. James in Antioch and the East, St. Mark in Alexandria and Africa, St. Peter in Rome and the West (with some residue of the Liturgy of St. John of Ephesus, and the local Ambrosian and Gallican and Mozarabic Liturgies) and St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom in the Imperial City and among the Hellenes (Greeks). This is the early Church which St. Ignatius of Antioch [c. 35- 107] first described [Ep. ad Smyr. 8.2.] as the Catholic Church and which is confessed in the Nicene Creed... “and I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

The Western Rite has undergone some “development” and augmentation in 1500 years, and so has the Eastern Rite. If the Western Rite seems strange to some Orthodox observers, it is probably because of its antiquity and austerity as compared with the highly developed and elaborated expression of the Eastern Rite.

[Sleeper]

I have no idea why the previous post isn't showing up...Here's another try...


“[The Western Rite is] pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny group of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated from the rest of the Church.”  How sad that a Greek Orthodox prelate is still actively suppressing legitimate Liturgies of the Orthodox Church in the interest of promoting only one: the so-called “Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.”  The historical John Chrysostom (Golden Mouth) was a son of Antioch, an Arab Christian, who served the Liturgy of St. James most of his life. That venerable Liturgy (and the Liturgy of St. Mark of Alexandria) was needlessly suppressed in the 13th Century by “Patriarch” Theodore IV (Balsamon), who was a Greek bishop living at Constantinople, and who never saw Antioch and never served the Liturgy of St. James. The arrogance of those who discard sacred tradition does not belong only to the modern period. Nor does such arrogance belong only to the Latin West.

The worship of the one, holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church, through the first millennium, was expressed in several regional Liturgies with local variations. These Liturgies include that of St. James in Antioch and the East, St. Mark in Alexandria and Africa, St. Peter in Rome and the West (with some residue of the Liturgy of St. John of Ephesus, and the local Ambrosian and Gallican and Mozarabic Liturgies) and St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom in the Imperial City and among the Hellenes (Greeks). This is the early Church which St. Ignatius of Antioch [c. 35- 107] first described [Ep. ad Smyr. 8.2.] as the Catholic Church and which is confessed in the Nicene Creed... “and I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

The Western Rite has undergone some “development” and augmentation in 1500 years, and so has the Eastern Rite. If the Western Rite seems strange to some Orthodox observers, it is probably because of its antiquity and austerity as compared with the highly developed and elaborated expression of the Eastern Rite.

[Sleeper]

As known to Archbishop Tikhon, the American Book of Common Prayer, gotten from the Scottish Episcopal Church in 1789, was a close derivation of the Scottish BCP of 1764, from the Liturgy of the English Nonjurors of 1716. The Nonjuring Liturgy consisted of a careful restoration of ancient Liturgical "usages" by the brilliant English scholar, Thomas Brett (1667-1744), of Canterbury. His sources and methods are explained in his principal work Dissertation on the Ancient Liturgies (1720). As an eminent liturgical scholar with a particular interest in the Eastern liturgies, he insisted on the explicit oblation of the Eucharistic elements to God the Father, and on the Epiclesis of the Holy Ghost. The Nonjuring English Liturgy, subsequently that of Scotland and America, is the basis, in its present English text, of the "Rite of St. Tikhon." This Liturgy, like that of St. Gregory, is unrelated to the "Reformation and Counter Reformation debates." Even a casual examination of the text will reveal little in common with the Eucharistic Liturgy (Order of Holy Communion) in the various editions, 1549, 1552, 1559, 1662, of the English Book of Common Prayer.

[Deacon Lance]

It would seem Fr. Michael should refrain from commenting since his liturgical scholarship on the Roman Liturgy is so lacking.  No serious liturgical scholars now believes St. Gregory the Great composed the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts.  The early manuscripts don't have any name.  St. Gregory was the Pope of Rome's procurator in Constantinople before being elected Pope of Rome himself.  He imported the Presanctified Liturgy to Rome.  He gave the Roman Mass its final major revision, though the Roman Canon predates him.  

That he has the gall to call the ancient Roman Canon used by so many Western Orthodox saints and continued in use by the Old Ritualists until the 1960's is inadequate is incredulous.  I will agree that the Byzantine Epiclesis has no place in it.

The Gallicanisms are easily identified and removed if they are such a problem, but is reciting the Last Gosepl, Psaml 42, and Confiteor that unorthodox?

[arimethea]

I have no idea why the previous post isn't showing up...Here's another try...


“(The Western Rite is) pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny group of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated...

Please provide a correct citation for your post, failing to properly credit the author is plagiarism in any media.

Arimethea
-Liturgy Section Moderator

[Sleeper]

This was the continuation of the my first post, with Lux Occidentalis cited.  I apologize for not making that clear.

[simplygermain]

“[The Western Rite is] pastorally unwise because this adds still further to our fragmentation as a Church in the Americas and creates a tiny group of missions and parishes that are liturgically isolated from the rest of the Church.”  

This is funny, Orthodoxy has always had multiple liturgy. It isn't until recently that there seems to be a surge of clergy (surgey?? ) which has been supportive of restraining all rites sans Byzantine. I feel this is unfortunate. Someone recently informed me that the OO churches use multiple liturgies (sometimes as many as ten).
And again, as I've said about this issue on other threads, the cure for questionable Liturgies would be to stand by St. John Maximovitch's approach to the Gallican (St. Germanus of Paris) Liturgy. A liturgy that was upheld and supported by Canonical Orthodoxy and a Modern Saint who did a tremendous work, for France and for Western Rite Orthodoxy as a whole.

Vivre la France!!

In Christ - SG+

[kijabeboy03]

Wasn't/isn't Fr. Michael a priest in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese? I'm fairly confident when he wrote that article he was serving at the parish in Tacoma at a time when Synodal clergy weren't allowed to even concelebrate with clergy from non-traditional jurisdictions, much less fill in at their parishes for extended periods of time :-).