OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 10:33:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Western Rite equivalent of the Menaion and other items?  (Read 3654 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« on: September 14, 2011, 02:53:32 PM »

In the Eastern Rite, the Menaion has all the many service texts for a given saint on their day (both minor and major saints have the rubrics, though the level of detail depends on how much we know about their life). For example, here is the service text of St. Augustine: http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/servaugu.htm

What rubrics does the WR use for feast days of saints? How much? Form? Example rubrics?

Is there a Western Rite equivalent to the Troparion?

What about the WR equivalent to an Akathist or Supplicatory Canon of a saint?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 02:56:23 PM by bogdan » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2011, 08:12:26 PM »

In the Eastern Rite, the Menaion has all the many service texts for a given saint on their day (both minor and major saints have the rubrics, though the level of detail depends on how much we know about their life). For example, here is the service text of St. Augustine: http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/servaugu.htm

What rubrics does the WR use for feast days of saints? How much? Form? Example rubrics?

Is there a Western Rite equivalent to the Troparion?

What about the WR equivalent to an Akathist or Supplicatory Canon of a saint?

The WR equivalent of the Menaion, Octoechos, Triodion, and Pentecostarion is the Breviary and Missal. The rough WR equivalent of the troparion is the collect. The WR equivalents of akathists and canons are litanies and novennas.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2011, 08:28:04 AM »

Well, heck. www.breviary.net used to provide the daily Catholic divine office according to the most recent Tridentine usage, which is not what any WR Orthodox use, but would give a feel for the office, but it looks like they're charging now.

Here are some Word files from an attempt to make a Western Orthodox version of the Roman breviary (vs. the Benedictine, which is what most WR Orthodox use), which have the propers fro the saints through the year, but I'm not sure how helpful it'll be if you don't already know how the office is laid out.

The WR divine office focuses much more on psalmody than the Byzantine, and doesn't have nearly as much hymnography. Major saints will have their own psalm selections, antiphons (bits of hymnody surrounding the psalms), hymns (a specific part of the service) and readings at matins (such as their lives, excerpts from their writings, etc.). Lesser saints have most of their service drawn from the common, which has the components for services for all the classes of saints (martyrs, hieromartyrs, bishops, confessors, teachers, virgins, etc.), and a few specific parts, such as the collect, for the saint, that would be indicated on that day's entry. More minor saints might have a commemoration, which is just basically their collect sung after the collect for the day at lauds and vespers.

Unlike the Eastern rite, the WR doesn't have celebrations of saints for every day. Many days are ferias, which are just ordinary days that have the liturgical texts that vary by season and day of the week. The Martyrology (equivalent to the Synaxarion, and read during the first hour) lists all the saints for a day, but most of them aren't commemorated liturgically. Originally, the Roman rite only commemorated saints liturgically when their relics were actually present. This later changed, but it's why most saints celebrated in the WR are Roman martyrs whose relics were located there, and why many days don't have any saints celebrated.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 08:42:01 AM by yBeayf » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2011, 04:39:08 PM »

yBeayf, that makes sense, as I have been told the WR is generally simpler in its liturgical expression due to peculiarities of the conditions under which both respective "systems" developed, the Western Roman Empire having collapsed much earlier and so forth.

Thank you both! I will take a look at the links you shared.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2011, 03:37:18 AM »

Quote
Unlike the Eastern rite, the WR doesn't have celebrations of saints for every day. Many days are ferias, which are just ordinary days that have the liturgical texts that vary by season and day of the week.

I think that description is oversimplified.

#1 - The older uses generally have more "proper music" for saints feasts than do the newer uses.

One will find 30-40% more propers in the pre-reformation office (sarum for instance) than the post reformation office (16th to 20th c. breviaries)

One can see examples of the 11th century "sarum benedictine" english office here:

http://www.scribd.com/FatherAugustine25/documents?page=6


#2 - Being that everyday technically does have a saint's feast on it, and most of them are listed even in the newest breviaries - one could compile propers from throughout the different regions and give almost all saints propers. Even if the day was a feria, something could be sung as a "commeration" regardless, without altering that it is a feria.

This is what I am attempting to do.

You see there are hymns, antiphons, sequences, responsories for at least 2000 different western saints over time.
I have collected far many of these, mostly by accident, more than most people can ever dream of. It is somewhat daunting to have so many, but also very interesting. They existed locally, but not universally. Being that in countries such as the USA these local peoples now coexist, there is some value in altering this situation.

There is a value in the western office evolving over time to be more like the eastern office, and vice versa. However that is something better left to the Holy Spirit, as we must respect holy tradition for the most part, and if we tinker with the office, only bits and pieces, working with reviving a select few elements of pre-existing now-forgotten latin tradition.





« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 03:45:08 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2011, 02:51:15 PM »

Quote
I think that description is oversimplified.

#1 - The older uses generally have more "proper music" for saints feasts than do the newer uses.

One will find 30-40% more propers in the pre-reformation office (sarum for instance) than the post reformation office (16th to 20th c. breviaries)

One can see examples of the 11th century "sarum benedictine" english office here:

When I (and the vast majority of people) refer to the western rite, we're referring to the rite of Rome, which has been the normative rite of the west for over 400 years now. If someone asks a question about the WR, it can be assumed they're talking about the Roman rite. Bringing up the Sarum rite is like bringing up the Cathedral rite when someone asks about the ER.

(digression) And for the love of all that is holy, what is people's obsession with the Sarum rite? It wasn't even the rite of all of England, and England was a tiny proportion of Catholics in the middle ages (and an even tinier proportion today). What's wrong with the Roman rite? At the very least, there are actually people alive today who remember it being celebrated as part of a living tradition. Speaking as someone who is descended from Italian, German, and Mexican Catholics, I don't give a flip about the Sarum, and I doubt very much that anybody south of the Tropic of Cancer (where we *should* be focusing our missionary efforts) does, either. It just seems like a way for the already insignificant WR missions in the US to attract embittered, nerdy ex-Episcopalians (thus assuring their continued insignificance).

Quote
#2 - Being that everyday technically does have a saint's feast on it, and most of them are listed even in the newest breviaries - one could compile propers from throughout the different regions and give almost all saints propers. Even if the day was a feria, something could be sung as a "commeration" regardless, without altering that it is a feria.

As the WR office is designed, you need the ferias to have a complete liturgical cycle. Without them, you lose the cycle of psalms throughout the week, the seasonal hymns, the scriptures at Matins... The saints of the day will still have their due at the Martyrology reading at Prime. There's no need to displace the ferias just so every saint can get a mention.
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: 37,458



« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2011, 03:26:42 PM »

Quote
I think that description is oversimplified.

#1 - The older uses generally have more "proper music" for saints feasts than do the newer uses.

One will find 30-40% more propers in the pre-reformation office (sarum for instance) than the post reformation office (16th to 20th c. breviaries)

One can see examples of the 11th century "sarum benedictine" english office here:

When I (and the vast majority of people) refer to the western rite, we're referring to the rite of Rome, which has been the normative rite of the west for over 400 years now. If someone asks a question about the WR, it can be assumed they're talking about the Roman rite. Bringing up the Sarum rite is like bringing up the Cathedral rite when someone asks about the ER.

(digression) And for the love of all that is holy, what is people's obsession with the Sarum rite? It wasn't even the rite of all of England, and England was a tiny proportion of Catholics in the middle ages (and an even tinier proportion today). What's wrong with the Roman rite? At the very least, there are actually people alive today who remember it being celebrated as part of a living tradition. Speaking as someone who is descended from Italian, German, and Mexican Catholics, I don't give a flip about the Sarum, and I doubt very much that anybody south of the Tropic of Cancer (where we *should* be focusing our missionary efforts) does, either. It just seems like a way for the already insignificant WR missions in the US to attract embittered, nerdy ex-Episcopalians (thus assuring their continued insignificance).
Those British Americans consitute most of the WRO. Hence the interest in the Sarum rite.  Because of that, the Roman rite (itself a Gallo-Roman rite) doesn't have the primacy you are ascribing to it here.

I remember that the last post I was posting on the old CAF Eastern Christian forum (it was done away with even as I was posting) was on someone who found a vaganti church serving the rite of Toledo, the Mozarabic Rite.  I'd like to see a Divine Liturgy of St. Eugene as there is a DL of St. Germaine among the canonical Orthodox.

Quote
#2 - Being that everyday technically does have a saint's feast on it, and most of them are listed even in the newest breviaries - one could compile propers from throughout the different regions and give almost all saints propers. Even if the day was a feria, something could be sung as a "commeration" regardless, without altering that it is a feria.

As the WR office is designed, you need the ferias to have a complete liturgical cycle. Without them, you lose the cycle of psalms throughout the week, the seasonal hymns, the scriptures at Matins... The saints of the day will still have their due at the Martyrology reading at Prime. There's no need to displace the ferias just so every saint can get a mention.
I'll leave this inside baseball talk alone.
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
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2011, 03:37:23 PM »

Quote
Those British Americans consitute most of the WRO. Hence the interest in the Sarum rite.  Because of that, the Roman rite (itself a Gallo-Roman rite) doesn't have the primacy you are ascribing to it here.

In Western culture, yes, it does. If an average western Christian adult asks what Western Orthodox worship is like, and we say, "It's like the Catholics did, back in the day when they were using Latin, but we use English instead", they will instantly know what we are talking about. If we say "Sarum", or "like the English did in the year 1054", they will say "what".

So again, the choice: catering to liturgical geeks and angry ex-Episcopalians, or actual relevancy?
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,416



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2011, 03:46:59 PM »



When I (and the vast majority of people) refer to the western rite, we're referring to the rite of Rome, which has been the normative rite of the west for over 400 years now. If someone asks a question about the WR, it can be assumed they're talking about the Roman rite. Bringing up the Sarum rite is like bringing up the Cathedral rite when someone asks about the ER.

The vast majority of people? Really? You've taken a census of both Western Rite users (and the rest of us who use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom) and have come to this conclusion? You have, perhaps, read sources to back this up?

Most Eastern Orthodox are unaware that a Western Rite even exists, let alone which Liturgy they're referring to when they use the term.

Quote
(digression) And for the love of all that is holy, what is people's obsession with the Sarum rite? It wasn't even the rite of all of England, and England was a tiny proportion of Catholics in the middle ages (and an even tinier proportion today). What's wrong with the Roman rite? At the very least, there are actually people alive today who remember it being celebrated as part of a living tradition. Speaking as someone who is descended from Italian, German, and Mexican Catholics, I don't give a flip about the Sarum, and I doubt very much that anybody south of the Tropic of Cancer (where we *should* be focusing our missionary efforts) does, either. It just seems like a way for the already insignificant WR missions in the US to attract embittered, nerdy ex-Episcopalians (thus assuring their continued insignificance).

Given that in the States the AWRV seems fairly evenly divided between former Anglicans using St Tikhon's Liturgy (which is the Orthodox version of the Book of Common Prayer, which is descended from the Sarum Rite) and Tridentine users, and outside of the US the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox Western Rite users are ROCOR (specifically former Anglicans in Australia and New Zealand with some new ground being broken in England) and has a large number of parishes using the Sarum rite, I wouldn't write off nerdy ex-Episcopalians/Anglicans- without them there wouldn't be much of a Western Rite. And since they do make up a large portion of the current Western Rite asking what the rules for Sarum are makes quite a bit of sense, especially if the questioner about Western Rite is referring specifically to Orthodox Western Rite- not necessarily what the Roman Church has been doing for the past 400 years (and hopefully not what they've been doing for the past 50).

Now, if the other poster had mentioned the Llorha-Stowe I could see your point. Completely irrelevant to the question. But the Sarum, like it or not, is an existent and thriving use within the Orthodox Western Rite.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
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: 37,458



« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2011, 03:50:29 PM »

Quote
Those British Americans consitute most of the WRO. Hence the interest in the Sarum rite.  Because of that, the Roman rite (itself a Gallo-Roman rite) doesn't have the primacy you are ascribing to it here.

In Western culture, yes, it does. If an average western Christian adult asks what Western Orthodox worship is like, and we say, "It's like the Catholics did, back in the day when they were using Latin, but we use English instead", they will instantly know what we are talking about. If we say "Sarum", or "like the English did in the year 1054", they will say "what".

So again, the choice: catering to liturgical geeks and angry ex-Episcopalians, or actual relevancy?
I am not sure of the actual relevancy of the petite église you are building up and proclaiming.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 03:51:42 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
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2011, 03:56:16 PM »

Quote
The vast majority of people? Really? You've taken a census of both Western Rite users (and the rest of us who use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom) and have come to this conclusion? You have, perhaps, read sources to back this up?

People, not just Orthodox, otherwise I would have said "vast majority of Orthodox".

And yes, in western culture, the Roman rite is the default liturgical rite. Anything else (BCP, Sarum, Ambrosian, whatever it is Lutherans do, make-believe Gallican liturgies, etc., etc.) is an exception. The numbers are just too lopsided for it to be any other way.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 03:58:36 PM by yBeayf » Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2011, 03:57:11 PM »

Quote
I am not sure of the actual relevancy of the petite église you are building up and proclaiming.

I'm not building up and proclaiming anything. I would *like* to see western Orthodoxy become a relevant force in our country (and hopefully beyond). As things are now, it's not going to happen.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,416



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2011, 04:10:47 PM »

Quote
I am not sure of the actual relevancy of the petite église you are building up and proclaiming.

I'm not building up and proclaiming anything. I would *like* to see western Orthodoxy become a relevant force in our country (and hopefully beyond). As things are now, it's not going to happen.

I would like to see Orthodoxy period become a relevant force in our country.

Not to denigrate the Western Rite, but many of your criticisms of Sarum could apply just as well to the Western Rite as a whole (and often are), just replace "embittered Episcopalians" with Liturgical Protestants and disaffected Roman Catholics. The vast majority of Americans (according to censuses) are either aliturgical Evangelicals or unchurched as a whole- a completely Roman Western Rite would be viewed by the Evangelicals with more suspicion than they already have for our Catholic ways and any Liturgy is going to be an adjustment for them.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2011, 06:18:54 PM »

Quote
If someone asks a question about the WR, it can be assumed they're talking about the Roman rite. Bringing up the Sarum rite is like bringing up the Cathedral rite when someone asks about the ER.

(digression) And for the love of all that is holy, what is people's obsession with the Sarum rite? It wasn't even the rite of all of England, and England was a tiny proportion of Catholics in the middle ages (and an even tinier proportion today).


If I was uneducated on the subject I would be inclined to agree with this statement.
As I have familiarized myself with the facts of history, I can not agree with it.

The Sarum is important not just because the USA descends in it's origins from English settlers and English is the dominant language and cultural influence. (aside from aboriginal peoples, by the way there is an Tlingit anguage gregorian gradual book made by 19th c. missionaries.)

The Sarum is primarily important because it is a typical example of "pre-reformation" Latin catholic culture and liturgy. It is therefore "more in harmony" with present day Greco-slavic Orthodox culture and liturgy.

One can look at "ANY" pre-reformation use and find that it is similar to the Sarum use.
ALL pre-reformation uses contained more propers than post-reformation uses.


The liturgical tinkering that came about at Vatican II had it's precedence shortly after the Council of Trent and in the Catholic Counter-reformation. Much "pruning" was done to remove propers. 90% of the hymns of the office had been altered and made inferior by Pope Urban VIII. This Trent tinkering while, not as severe as Vatican II  was still something that went against the received Holy Tradition.

The important way in which propers were removed is that almost all the antiphons for vespers were removed and replaced with the antiphons with lauds, so that the antiphons for lauds and vespers were usually the same. One can see that very clearly comparing the office on http://www.sarum-chant.ca/ to that of http://www.breviary.net

Regarding ferias being necessary to complete the office and temporale (seasonal) cycle, this is true and I did not disagree with this.
However in the pre-reformation use we find many days for saints, such as St. Nicholas or St Martin in which the ferial psalms are preserved, while the proper music of the saint is still existing along with them.

A feria is itself not opposed to a Proper. This was a post reformation idea to always separate ferial psalms and use sunday/festal psalms if there was a saints feast. It had a precedent for sure, but not one with that exclusivity. The late Laszlo Dobszay discussed this in his book "The Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform", agreeing that using propers while retaining ferial psalms was more ideal than using sunday psalms.

So I can agree that the issue here is not about whether the Sarum is specifically relevant, but moreso that the modern roman rite office is not "AS" agreeable to orthodox worship as the older rites office was. One can take any local usage and use it instead of Sarum and find the same advantages.  

Sarum is for many a synonym for any use that came before the time liturgical tinkering was acceptable practice.
It is additionally the only pre-reformation use that the average person can find on the internet and learn about, without having to read the original latin manuscripts. So it's simply the most convenient pre-reformation use to use, not by any means the only one or "best" as they're all similar.

My reason for accepting sarum, even though I have no english descent is because it is not substantively different from other preformation uses in other countries of the latin west.

For example, the feasts of St Nicholas of Myra, St Ursula & Virgin martys of Cologne, St Vincent of Sarragossa, St Katherine of Alexandria were all widespread in all pre-reformation uses. The only place their proper music survived in books published after the reformation was in certain religious orders, such as the Dominicans rite.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 06:28:23 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2011, 07:58:14 PM »

Christopher's position seems akin to Fr. Aidan Keller's (a staunch proponent of the "Sarum" Use) and is pretty well debunked in this perspective, offered by Fr. Benjamin Johnson:

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/search?q=Unserious+Criticisms+of+the+%22Tridentine+Mass%2C%22+Part+1%3A+History

and

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/search?q=Unserious+Criticisms+of+the+%22Tridentine+Mass%2C%22+Part+2

I also respect Fr. Guy Winfrey's take on the topic:

"The Sarum use does have some aficionados among the WRO, but I am not convinced in its appropriateness for a couple of reasons. First of all, speaking purely from the Orthodox position, it is a use that was developed purely in post-schism France and then imported to England via the Normans. I know that many have been promoting the Sarum use as part of an English patrimony, but really that's bullocks. The English used it following 1066, or even later, and they developed it some into the use of York and Hereford, etc. Prior to this the normative Roman use was to be found in England as that is what St. Augustine of Canterbury brought with him from St. Gregory the Great (remember Whitby where the Roman use won the day?). Actually the Sarum use is but one of the many variations of the basic Northern European use. Even Scandinavia used something quite similar. Sarum represents a romantic notion of English Catholicism and expects far too much from it. Furthermore, the Sarum use (and any of the northern European variants) have long since ceased to be used. They are but a vague memory which is occasionally trotted out in a sample Mass which is pieced together as best as one can interpret. I am personally very reluctant to give much credence to academic recreations of liturgies."

- http://padretexwest.blogspot.com/2010/08/mass-of-st-peter-or-liturgy-of-st.html
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2011, 08:01:13 PM »

In any case, one could make the claim that all of the additions that had found their way into the Sarum Use were themselves "liturgical tinkering" with the received Tradition up to that point. Trent did not "prune" Tradition, it restored the pristine simplicity of the Roman Rite as it was set forth by St. Gregory the Great.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2011, 03:08:32 AM »

Quote
Trent did not "prune" Tradition, it restored the pristine simplicity of the Roman Rite as it was set forth by St. Gregory the Great.

What you refer to a "a restoration of pristine simplicity", is the same mantra of 16th c. protestantism and jansenism. Except form them it was more often St. Augustine than St Gregory.
They are wicked movements against Holy Tradition.

What you state is the same thing that most Novus ordo roman catholics say to in defense of the Novus ordo.
Aside from the Sarum office, the fact remains, that the Roman Office from the city of Rome itself from before Trent, is in many ways different than that after Trent.


Compare the Alleluia in Office of Vespers for Resurrection (Easter) Sunday:
(It was also used at the Mass)

1072 AD to the 13th century - Alleluia; Pascha Nostrum (OLD ROMAN MELODY)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDGjpq7Vo-I

1534 AD - Alleluia; Pascha Nostrum (SARUM-GREGORIAN MELODY)
As used in Rome, Paris, Salisbury and nearly all western europe before the reformation.

http://www.sarum-chant.ca/office---advent/temporale/temporale-files/B-30diesanctopascha.pdf  (page 25)

After the 1570 there is no longer a stand alone alleluia at Vespers any longer.
The closest thing left is this simple one for Holy Saturday, which to this day is all that remains in the official Antiochian Divine Office book "Monastic Diurnal Noted" identical to this melody here:

1570 AD - 1962 AD - Alleluia; Pascha Nostrum (MODERN MELODY)




One can find in the padretex blog a certain person with the username "BJA" standing for Benjamin Joseph Andersen. Mr. Andersen was the first in the comments section to immediately agree with Fr. J. Guy Winfrey, that what trent did was a very good acceptable thing.

Mr. Benjamin Andersen is an individual who has since left the Orthodox Church and gone back to become a Benedictine novice in the Papal latin church to worship in the Novus Ordo. I think that tells us much of who's thinking is truly Orthodox and whose is not.

People like this find much agreement with Megingaud of Eichstatt, a Bavarian bishop appointed by his relative Emperor Henry II (1002-1024) and confirmed in office by the Pope, was displaying certain liturgical attitudes hardly unusual for today's age:

"In every divine service he was a lover of brevity, preferring a short Mass to a short meal. Thus, there was one occasion when he was publicly singing the Mass on Easter Day. He had at last got to the point at which the Sequence should be sung, and the precentor solemnly started it in the usual way. Angrily the bishop called to the archdeacon and ordered him to read the Gospel as quickly as possible. 'These fellows' he said, 'are mad, and by singing for such a dreadfully long time they are making me die of hunger and thrist!"
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 03:19:12 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2011, 03:28:04 AM »

Ironically the only rite that preserves the music for St. Patrick is the Sarum, as it was used in Dublin.
I have this very music and am collaborating with three other chant/hymn scholars to adapt it into english.

I say this because user Sleeper, has the icon of St Patrick there.

It is amazing how blind people are. The very most important western saints...the matins lesson of who they are and their propers..
many of them are preserved only in sources from before the Council of Trent, or in some cases the Dominican order, which preserved much that was suppressed/forgotten elsewhere, as Aristibule Adams pointed out.

To revive them ought to be a priority, not something deemed as reckless or unimportant.
They made our culture what it is.. Boniface, Patrick, Olaf, Remegius, Germanus, Augustine of Canterbury, Stephen of Hungary.
If we forget them and we will forget our own culture.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 03:30:47 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2011, 08:17:58 PM »

Quote
Mr. Benjamin Andersen is an individual who has since left the Orthodox Church and gone back to become a Benedictine novice in the Papal latin church to worship in the Novus Ordo. I think that tells us much of who's thinking is truly Orthodox and whose is not.

I'm friends with Ben and am sure you don't know the half of it. At any rate, better a "Benedictine novice in the Papal Latin Church" than "uncertain," eh Christopher?

I know you shout from the rooftops every chance you get how educated you are and how nobody knows as much as you do about anything, but Ben (or Brother Benedict as he's rightfully called) is very, very well educated (with actual degrees and, like, stuff) and he sides with Fr. Winfrey for good reason. As do I. Trent was necessary and we should be grateful for it. That's simply the fact of the matter.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2011, 08:28:30 PM »

Quote
Mr. Benjamin Andersen is an individual who has since left the Orthodox Church and gone back to become a Benedictine novice in the Papal latin church to worship in the Novus Ordo. I think that tells us much of who's thinking is truly Orthodox and whose is not.

I'm friends with Ben and am sure you don't know the half of it. At any rate, better a "Benedictine novice in the Papal Latin Church" than "uncertain," eh Christopher?

I know you shout from the rooftops every chance you get how educated you are and how nobody knows as much as you do about anything, but Ben (or Brother Benedict as he's rightfully called) is very, very well educated (with actual degrees and, like, stuff) and he sides with Fr. Winfrey for good reason. As do I. Trent was necessary and we should be grateful for it. That's simply the fact of the matter.

I'm sorry for both. I don't think any program of the new papacy (Leo IX and his imported cronies' agenda) was necessary. Fact is, the whole thing was not supposed to happen in the first place. It was a flagrant departure from tradition in the West, just as Trent was yet another tool of papal centralization.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2011, 08:32:49 PM »

Best to deal with the facts of history, rather than fantasy.

“Our missal is that of Pius V. We may be very thankful that his Commission [at the Council of Trent] was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition. Essentially the missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is transformed from the Gelasian book, which depends upon the Leonine collection. We find the prayer of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our Fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God … There is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.” – Adrian Fortescue, *The Mass: A History of the Roman Rite* (p. 213).

“The Tridentine liturgical reform, initiated in order to correct abuse and ensure doctrinal orthodoxy, was thoroughly traditional. It produced nothing radically new. It promulgates – and facilitated by the development of the printing press – published a missal that could be used uniformly throughout the Roman rite, without prejudice to venerable local uses, which it respected. Neither clergy nor laymen were astounded by this reform, and there is no evidence of disparity between the mandate of the Council and the work of its liturgical commission. It was another growth of the living organism that is the Roman rite, involving little substantial change.” – Dom Alcuin Reid, "The Organic Development of the Liturgy* (p. 44).

“The missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short the missal of 1570 was in essentials the usage of the mainstream of medieval European Liturgy which included England and its rites … The missal of 1570 was essentially traditional.” – Dom David Knowles (quoted in Reid, p. 44).
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 08:33:51 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2011, 04:07:48 PM »

Best to deal with the facts of history, rather than fantasy.

“Our missal is that of Pius V. We may be very thankful that his Commission [at the Council of Trent] was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition. Essentially the missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is transformed from the Gelasian book, which depends upon the Leonine collection. We find the prayer of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our Fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God … There is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.” – Adrian Fortescue, *The Mass: A History of the Roman Rite* (p. 213).

“The Tridentine liturgical reform, initiated in order to correct abuse and ensure doctrinal orthodoxy, was thoroughly traditional. It produced nothing radically new. It promulgates – and facilitated by the development of the printing press – published a missal that could be used uniformly throughout the Roman rite, without prejudice to venerable local uses, which it respected. Neither clergy nor laymen were astounded by this reform, and there is no evidence of disparity between the mandate of the Council and the work of its liturgical commission. It was another growth of the living organism that is the Roman rite, involving little substantial change.” – Dom Alcuin Reid, "The Organic Development of the Liturgy* (p. 44).

“The missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short the missal of 1570 was in essentials the usage of the mainstream of medieval European Liturgy which included England and its rites … The missal of 1570 was essentially traditional.” – Dom David Knowles (quoted in Reid, p. 44).

Lol. Of course the papist are going to say it's traditional.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 10:01:10 AM by arimethea » Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2011, 06:49:10 PM »

Oh. Okay. I thought maybe an
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,889


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2011, 08:26:23 PM »

Best to deal with the facts of history, rather than fantasy.

“Our missal is that of Pius V. We may be very thankful that his Commission [at the Council of Trent] was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition. Essentially the missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is transformed from the Gelasian book, which depends upon the Leonine collection. We find the prayer of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our Fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God … There is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.” – Adrian Fortescue, *The Mass: A History of the Roman Rite* (p. 213).

“The Tridentine liturgical reform, initiated in order to correct abuse and ensure doctrinal orthodoxy, was thoroughly traditional. It produced nothing radically new. It promulgates – and facilitated by the development of the printing press – published a missal that could be used uniformly throughout the Roman rite, without prejudice to venerable local uses, which it respected. Neither clergy nor laymen were astounded by this reform, and there is no evidence of disparity between the mandate of the Council and the work of its liturgical commission. It was another growth of the living organism that is the Roman rite, involving little substantial change.” – Dom Alcuin Reid, "The Organic Development of the Liturgy* (p. 44).

“The missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short the missal of 1570 was in essentials the usage of the mainstream of medieval European Liturgy which included England and its rites … The missal of 1570 was essentially traditional.” – Dom David Knowles (quoted in Reid, p. 44).

Lol. Of course the papists are going to say it's traditional.

And of course the your going to say its not.  The problem with your analysis is your assumption that the Roman Catholic scholars were writing to try and convince the Orthodox of anything, they were not.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
FrAugustineFetter
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Americas and British Isles
Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2011, 10:48:58 PM »

http://www.western-orthodox.info/2011/12/anachronism-and-ancient-i-often-hear.html

I've written a short response here to some of the observations made.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 10:50:51 PM by FrAugustineFetter » 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: 37,458



« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2011, 11:58:29 PM »

Best to deal with the facts of history, rather than fantasy.

“Our missal is that of Pius V. We may be very thankful that his Commission [at the Council of Trent] was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition. Essentially the missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is transformed from the Gelasian book, which depends upon the Leonine collection. We find the prayer of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our Fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God … There is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.” – Adrian Fortescue, *The Mass: A History of the Roman Rite* (p. 213).

“The Tridentine liturgical reform, initiated in order to correct abuse and ensure doctrinal orthodoxy, was thoroughly traditional. It produced nothing radically new. It promulgates – and facilitated by the development of the printing press – published a missal that could be used uniformly throughout the Roman rite, without prejudice to venerable local uses, which it respected. Neither clergy nor laymen were astounded by this reform, and there is no evidence of disparity between the mandate of the Council and the work of its liturgical commission. It was another growth of the living organism that is the Roman rite, involving little substantial change.” – Dom Alcuin Reid, "The Organic Development of the Liturgy* (p. 44).

“The missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short the missal of 1570 was in essentials the usage of the mainstream of medieval European Liturgy which included England and its rites … The missal of 1570 was essentially traditional.” – Dom David Knowles (quoted in Reid, p. 44).

Lol. Of course the papists are going to say it's traditional.

And of course the your going to say its not.  The problem with your analysis is your assumption that the Roman Catholic scholars were writing to try and convince the Orthodox of anything, they were not.
Don't have to get us involved.  They were trying to convince the Protestants, and moreover themselves, of it.
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
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2011, 12:44:44 AM »

Fr. Augustine's comments are very accurate.

Quote
But, the truth is, there was little major differences, before the schism, and for a time afterward, between what priests in different places were doing.  They all had the same propers for the mass, even the Roman Church was importing Sacramentaries from French and German monasteries by the 10th century.  If we said "Western Orthodox usage", that would be more accurate (since we believe that the West prior to the Schism was in communion with the East, and therefore a part of the Orthodox Church"), but, I'm even sure some would object that the entire Iberian lands were using something noticeably different (and they had their own venerable Liturgy from the Fathers, which is also so well documented in the Liber Ordinum of pre-schism times).

My concern personally has been the calendar, the divine office and the musical propers - especially responsories, sequences and tropes.
Those were areas that had much more change post reformation and into the 20th century.
To my knowledge, the mass ordinary itself was not changed in any serious way by the council of Trent.

I personally would not advocate that the Antiochians are making many serious mistakes within their western rite.
The three ideas I have are:

#1  - use a more Orthodox Psalter, either the 'corrected' coverdale or holy transfiguration psalters that are allowable in ROCOR would be better.

#2 - add more of the pre-schism/pre-reformation propers and feasts into their calendar for both offices and masses.

#3 - either hire/find more trained cantors or create a body of simplified plainchant or polyphony that is simple enough for the average parishoner to sing, without being so simple that it loses beauty and seems boring. (Rossini psalm tone propers at mass are not very inspiring for congregations)
 
#4 - create schematics and blueprints of standardized "western rite" architecture and iconography/frescos for future Churches. There may not be much money avaible for them now, but when the time comes, they will be very helpful to ensure that they retain that which their ancestors had, but with the added mindset of keeping harmonious with the eastern christianity of today. (In times when western churches were iconoclastic, they need not be any longer). (books such as "Romanesque Wall Painting in Central France The Politics of Narrative by Marcia Kupfer (1993))

None of this ought to be controversial, it is as Fr. Augustine said "the spirit of Orthodoxy"...

Any historian or medievalist would see these suggestions as very normal.

P.S. I apologize to anyone if I said something inappropriately harsh about Mr. Benjamin J Andersens decisions. I do only had one conversations with him in my life and do not know him well.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2012, 09:58:21 PM »

First, I was saddened to hear that Ben Andersen has apostasized and lost his salvation. Through repentance, may he regain his soul's salvation.

Second, the best analogue to the troparion of the ER may be the major antiphon (the antiphon on Benedictus at Lauds, or the antiphon on Magnificat at Vespers). The collect is not too far off, except, for one thing, it's not a hymn/song at all.

It was said: "More minor saints might have a commemoration, which is just basically their collect sung..." But I have to amplify, it's the Major Antiphon plus a versicle and response, plus the collect.

It was said: "Unlike the Eastern rite, the WR doesn't have celebrations of saints for every day." But I must amplify: NEARLY every day.

yBeayf said: "If someone asks a question about the WR, it can be assumed they're talking about the Roman rite. Bringing up the Sarum rite is like bringing up the Cathedral rite when someone asks about the ER."

But the Sarum IS the Roman Rite. Just the pre-Reformation Roman Rite, in the essential form in which it was preserved all over Western Europe in Italy, France, Germany, England, Scandinavia, Hispania, Hungary, Poland, Czech lands, Denmark... you get the picture.

yBeayf said: "And for the love of all that is holy, what is people's obsession with the Sarum rite?"

Some Orthodox like the old Roman rite. Of the available and in-use Western rites, only the Sarum maintains all aspects of the essential pre-Reformation Roman Rite. Therefore it is the main inheritance we have from our Western Orthodox ancestors. And that's no small thing! Don't think of Sarum as something local, but it simply represents the Old Roman Rite universally.

yBeayf said: "At the very least, there are actually people alive today who remember it being celebrated as part of a living tradition. Speaking as someone who is descended from Italian, German, and Mexican Catholics, I don't give a flip about the Sarum, ..."

But some *do* care about the worship of their Orthodox ancestors. So give them a break. They're not freaks for being interested in their heritage.

yBeayf said: "It just seems like a way for the already insignificant WR missions in the US to attract embittered, nerdy ex-Episcopalians..."

Having seen the Sarum as a pastorally useful, daily, traditional liturgical rite in a parish and a monastery, across decades, I've never seen it appeal to nerdy ex-Episcopalians, just Eastern Orthodox Christians.

yBeayf said: "liturgical geeks and angry ex-Episcopalians, or actual relevancy?"

The Sarum is fully relevant and dynamic for our society and our outreach to Western people.

yBeayf said: "Roman rite is the default liturgical rite. Anything else (BCP, Sarum, Ambrosian, whatever..."

The Sarum Rite *is* the Roman Rite. Just the older Roman Rite standard before the Counter-Reformation.

More anon.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2012, 02:38:32 AM »

Ad multos annos presbyter aidanus!

May God grant Fr. Aidan many years, for such wisdom.

One of my Nativity "presents" this year, was the book "Hymns of the Anglo-Saxon Church (before 1066 AD)" by Inge B. Milfull (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England, Vol. #17). I recommend it to everyone. I know a few others already have it.


As I peruse through it I see proper hymns for these particular saints: Stephen protomartyr, Oswald, King Edward the Confessor, Cuthbert, Augustine of Canterbury, Chad, Dunstan, Lawrence of Rome, Martin of Tours, Gregory Magnus, Benedict, thats in the 11th c. (also ones for each of the 12 apostles.)

Than by the 14th century theres several more proper hymns to "pre-schism saints" added, such as for Patrick of Ireland.

Than we can go across to other local regions and find proper hymns for other saints, which are still on the calendar but did not happen to have proper hymn to them sung in england, only a "common hymn". I can't see anything wrong with this. So long as one notes what origin of diocese it originates in. This fills in the blank for the numerous, italian , french, mexican, whatever ancestors ones has (I have some of them myself.)  If this practice is wrong, may someone soon correct me. It's academic as much as anything, call it unpractical or nerdy if you must. But it's not boring, and no worse a hobby than baseball card collecting.

Let me paste a translation of one of them:

YMNUS DE SANCTO DUNSTANO EPISCOPO

(the english is not metered for singing)

I - Ave Dunstane, presulum   sidus decusque splendidum,
    lux vera gentis Anglice   et ad deum dux previe.

I - Hail Dunstan, you star and glorious ornament among bishops, true light of the English nation and leader preceding it on its way to God,

II - Tu spes tuorum maxima,   dulcedo necnon intima
     spirans odorum balsama  vitalium melliflua.

II - you are the greatest hope of your people and also and innermost sweetness breathing the honeyed balm of life-giving perfumes.

III - Tibi, pater, nos credimus,   quibus te nil iocundius,
ad te manus expandimus,   tibi preces effundimus.

III - We have faith in you, Father, we to whom nothing is more pleasing than you are. We extend our hands to you, we pour our prayers to you.

IV - Oves tuas, pastor pie,   passim premunt angustie.
      Mucrone gentis barbare   necamur, en cristicole.

IV - Troubles oppress your sheep on all sides, kind shepherd, See how we, the believers in Christ, are deciamated by the swords of the pagan nation.

V - Offer, sacerdos, hostias   Christo  precum gratissimas,
     quibus placatus criminum   solvat  catenas ferreas,

V - O priest, offer up to Christ the sacrifice of most satisfactory prayers, so that by them he may be appeased and release us from the iron chains of our transgressions

VI - Per quas Anglorum terminis  ecclesieque filiis
      et nationes perfide  petesque cedant noxie.

VI - and so that by them both infidel nations and harmful diseases may recede from the territory of the English and sons of the church.

VII - Per te, pater, spes unica,  per te, proles, pax unica
       et spiritus, lux unica   adsit nobis in secula. Amen.

VII By your intercession may the Father, our only hope, by your intercession may the Son, our only peace, and the Spirit, our only light, be with us throughout the ages.  Amen.

The goal, if not stated before is to have them all fitted to proper meter to be sung smoothly and easily by all, in english. perhaps eventually other languages too.
 
Under the aegis of my good high-lutheran friend (odd as this sounds eh..) Matthew Carver with his mastery of hymn translations/adaptions, who can churn out a remarkably fine work in a few days notice for reasonable fees. (http://matthaeusglyptes.blogspot.com/)
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 02:57:32 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
samkim
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 735



« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2012, 03:56:35 AM »

This resource provides texts for pre-tridentine hours, along with modern Roman Catholic versions:

http://divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl

Although I'm not sure how accurate or complete they are.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 04:04:15 AM by samkim » Logged

주 예수 그리스도 하느님의 아들이시여 저 이 죄인을 불쌍히 여기소서.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,639



« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2012, 04:12:34 AM »

But the Sarum IS the Roman Rite. Just the pre-Reformation Roman Rite, in the essential form in which it was preserved all over Western Europe in Italy, France, Germany, England, Scandinavia, Hispania, Hungary, Poland, Czech lands, Denmark... you get the picture.

Father, do you happen to know how Scandinavian use of Roman rite differed from, say, English use? Was there any local peculiarities or was it completely same?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 04:15:50 AM by Alpo » Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,294



« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2012, 11:57:44 AM »

Quote
The vast majority of people? Really? You've taken a census of both Western Rite users (and the rest of us who use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom) and have come to this conclusion? You have, perhaps, read sources to back this up?

People, not just Orthodox, otherwise I would have said "vast majority of Orthodox".

And yes, in western culture, the Roman rite is the default liturgical rite. Anything else (BCP, Sarum, Ambrosian, whatever it is Lutherans do, make-believe Gallican liturgies, etc., etc.) is an exception. The numbers are just too lopsided for it to be any other way.

Since this is an ORTHODOX forum, why would anyone think to answer the question using any context other than the Orthodox.  I think you are just trolling.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #32 on: March 26, 2012, 01:40:59 PM »

1072 AD to the 13th century - Alleluia; Pascha Nostrum (OLD ROMAN MELODY)


From which source do you have this wonderful layout?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 01:41:20 PM by Caelestinus » Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2012, 01:44:01 AM »

That layout is my own personal typeset page for that chant, saved on my hardrive, posted as a .jpg on whatever website host images.

I copied the neumes for that chant using a 3 fonts in adobe photoshop and saved them as a .tif file.

The source I copied from does not exist in that precise notation online.
It does exist in an older 10th century, Non-diastematic notation online, which I am unable to read.
http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/cb/0074  (Gradual of Santa Cecilia)

Therefore I copied them from pages in a book in which they were transcribed into the late 11th century notation which is the standard latin/western plainchant notation which most people today read old latin church music with.

The title of the book is:

Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduale Vat. lat. 5319 by Bruno Stäblein and Margareta Landwehr-Melnicki (published in 1970)  

This Gradual is the actual Gradual that the Pope's masses were sung from before the schism of 1054 The Pope did not use the same Gregorian chant that was used elsewhere, which was a french and german style. He had his own distinct variant, which is theoretically what the germans and french copied and modified. Note that this Gradual contains several greek verses in it's alleluias for Easter, not found in any of the german/french gregorian chant books.

Take a look at the .pdf here:ink: https://www.yousendit.com/download/M3BuYURKY3lwaFFzeHNUQw

It's not as if it's entirely different from gregorian chant, some of it is almost identical, but many melodies are different.


It was sent to me by Dr. William Mahrt president of the (Catholic) Church Music Association of America.

The Church Music Association is one of the few gregorian chant organizations to survive after the purgings of the 1960's when many of the chant precentor/music directors became unemployed. It was a coming together of two, previously larger societies, the Society of St. Cecilia and St. Gregory Society.

This happened around 1965 most of the older "traditional" books left behind were burned. By 1966 they were replaced by people who played "Peter, Paul & Mary" fake folk music on guitars.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 01:59:29 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2012, 04:49:33 PM »

The title of the book is:

Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduale Vat. lat. 5319 by Bruno Stäblein and Margareta Landwehr-Melnicki (published in 1970)

I know this book (quite expensive), a result of hard labour. But your layout is really fine and looks more professional than the handdrafted notations and texts in the edition of 1970 (of course, there were no such PC-programms some 40years ago). It would be wonderful, if you or somebody else would layout the complete repertoire that way, so that it can be handed down to everybody interested..may be with the aim that the old-roman chant can be introduced as standard form of chanting in WR-parishes, at least for sollemn occasions or where there is a consciousness that there is a need for that, because it perfectly fits to the orthodox Roman Rite. What do you think?
Logged
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2012, 06:05:03 PM »

It should be noted that there is no evidence which would lead us to conclude definitively that the Old Roman chant repertoire is older than the "normal" Gregorian chant repertoire. In fact, the current learning on the subject leans to the conclusion that the "standard" Gregorian chant (which has been called "French/German" because its earliest manuscript records are from France and Germany, as well as England and elsewhere) is the older chant chronologically speaking. The thesis goes like this:

Roman chant was a flourishing and vibrant musical tradition which was exported to the rest of Europe with great fidelity and exactness in the 7th-9th centuries. They then preserved the melodies with great exactitude and fidelity, preserving for us the oldest known Christian music tradition. Meanwhile, back at Rome, the level of cantorship was such that new melodies were able to be written, as part of a fluid living paradigm. This gives us the distinctives of the "Old Roman" repertoire. But elsewhere, the older forms were enshrined and "frozen" in content, so to speak.

There is no reason that WR people should use Old Roman as opposed to what I will nickname "Older Roman" chant.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2012, 02:34:00 AM »

Fr. Aidan, let me state that you are , as far as this forum goes, the closest to a person of scholarly credentials I know.
I pray that my statements do not in any way deride or disagree specifically with anything you have said. As I have great respect for you, and in fact sang one of the chants from the canticle of canticles as a processional during vespers for the annunciation yesterday.

I will also say that I personally am most committed to the gregorian repertoire, primarily because it is the easiest to work with, as the pioneering work of" englishing it", has been done already. Secondly, because it is essentially the tradition I am directly attached to, due to my ancestry, which is majority irish. (Of course I am unaware of any specific irish repertoire surviving, so i go ahead to england and the Sarum rite as used in Dublin as my own standard, which was mostly the same as that used in southern England by the later middle ages.)

HOWEVER -----

I DO believe strongly that options must be open for diversity of western rites.
To do otherwise would NOT be..orthodox ..

This is where the question of localization becomes important.
Local rites and uses. Which "family/diocese/episcopus" are you attaching yourself to?

There is absolute no right and wrong to this question.

If you are continueing that of england and northwestern europe, you would use the gregorian. If you're continueing that of spain, you would use the visigothic. If you're continueing that of italy, one of their particular uses (too many to name! some not surviving in tact ravenna, benevento, milan, rome, aquilea, etc.). The gallican in france apparently has not survived in tact.

And ultimately, we attach ourselves to whatever rite is available to us at all !!
AS IF WE REALLY HAVE A CHOICE. That might be the local albanian byzantine rite church for some people eh? ehehe.
The dominant western rite is of course using gregorian.

As to the theory of which is the older chant or which is the original chant, that is a separate question altogether.
Simply because one chant was original or was older, does not mean that it is necessarily better or superior.

However, much of this debate overlooks evidence and replaces it with nationalist tendencies I think.
Many people simply dont care for the different repertoires and feel threatened by diversity in western latin liturgical rites.
There is an obsession or insistance on purity and centralization. Almost a utopian vision of "only one chant " "only the perfect pure chant". That view is nonsense.

So now at least with all those statements out of the way we get down to the business of the facts to consider.
Though, I am forced to agree with Fr. Aidan that there is some conjecture involved, we do have some facts to form our opinions.


The fact that the "old roman" repertoire was used by the Pope himself means something to me.

There are two reasons why I feel that the Old Roman Chant is earlier than the Gregorian.

#1. Old Roman is more sparse in diversity of melodies and embelishments (not including melismas).

The repertoire of the Alleluia melodies is only half that of the Gregorian reportoire. The Gregorian is far more interesting in its diversity of alleluia melodies for Sundays. The Old Roman tradition has less to work with. The Ambrosian tradition has even less alleluias than the Old Roman. That being said, they are still very impressive melodies.

#2. Certain original greek texts are preserved in the old roman chant and not preserved in the gregorian. In fact , from what I have seen nearly all the surviving localized italian rites chant preserve some amount of greek texts in them (even if it's one or two pieces).

#3. There is I recall some specific evidence that proves to certain gallican chants being added into the gregorian repertoire .

"Among the various peoples of Europe, the Teutons or Gauls were good at learning the charms of these melodies; however, they were able to sing few of them flawlessly, as they mixed in some of their own songs with the Gregorian ones. Alpine bodies produce harsh tones, through the roar of their thunderous voices and the barbarous coarseness of their thirsty throats, and through a kind of inborn cracking sound like a cart going over a step"  

Clearly, Johannes Diaconus had little praise for the Gaulish singers around 880. Noteworthy is his comment that the Gauls mixed their own songs with the Gregorian ones.  The liner notes of the cd "Cantus Gallicanus" speak about this.

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/9598/09.12.19.html?sequence=1

"The split between Gregorian and Old Roman appears to have taken place after 800, since the feast of All Saints, a relatively late addition to the liturgical calendar, has markedly different chants in the two traditions. The Old Roman tradition appears to have preserved the texts more faithfully; the Old Roman texts often resemble the earliest Carolingian sources more closely than the later Gregorian sources do."

"Old Roman chants have intricate melodic motion within a narrow ambitus, with small repeating melodic motifs, which are common in the Italian chant traditions such as the Ambrosian and Beneventan. Old Roman chants are often highly melismatic, with melismas blending into one another and obscuring the underlying melodic structure."

So, from my perspective, whatever way you want to look at it. The Old Roman has more subtle characteristics and qualities of the native italian chant. The Gregorian has more subtle characteristics and qualities of the gallican chant and northern musical ideas.

Thats my views and I'm sticking to them until I do more research.
So I will support singing gregorian chant of course, but if someone wants to throw in an old roman chant once or twice a year, why not? Fine with me. If there's ever a bunch of italians, a certain monastery that wants to be attached to this, or someone who claims he is the Orthodox Pope of Rome, Old Roman's the ideal repertoire to use.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 02:43:45 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2012, 05:00:27 PM »

It should be noted that there is no evidence which would lead us to conclude definitively that the Old Roman chant repertoire is older than the "normal" Gregorian chant repertoire. In fact, the current learning on the subject leans to the conclusion that the "standard" Gregorian chant (which has been called "French/German" because its earliest manuscript records are from France and Germany, as well as England and elsewhere) is the older chant chronologically speaking. The thesis goes like this:

Roman chant was a flourishing and vibrant musical tradition which was exported to the rest of Europe with great fidelity and exactness in the 7th-9th centuries. They then preserved the melodies with great exactitude and fidelity, preserving for us the oldest known Christian music tradition. Meanwhile, back at Rome, the level of cantorship was such that new melodies were able to be written, as part of a fluid living paradigm. This gives us the distinctives of the "Old Roman" repertoire. But elsewhere, the older forms were enshrined and "frozen" in content, so to speak.

There is no reason that WR people should use Old Roman as opposed to what I will nickname "Older Roman" chant.

Yes, this is the actual state of resaerch. As Andreas Pfisterer (Cantilena Romana 2002 p. 193) points out:
1. At the latest in the middle of the 8th century the Roman Choral is a textual and melodic fixed thing.
2. This repertoire is transmitted during the second half of the 8th c. into the Frankish kingdom and is spread there. The goal, to adopt the Roman melodies unchanged, is achieved as far as possible.
3. In the Frankish kingdom follows a phase of tradition, which is - with some regional deviations - all in all very stable.

and p. 178:
in many points the Frankish record (resp. her reconstructable original state)  is with great probability more primordial as the Roman record of the 11th c., which we have in front of us.

--------------------------------------
But Gregorian chant of our days (Roman Catholic), does it sound as in the 8th century? I have my doubts..

The interpretations of Marcel Pérères is marvellous, no question, and in my opionion it would fit wonderful to an orthodox Latin Liturgy, but of course one has to take into account that every performance it is an interpretation in our present time and perhaps/probably closer to the Roman chanting of the 11th c. than of that of the Byzantien era  (late 5th to early 8th century).

11th century music in an orthodox liturgy - should that be real? I would say: Yes, this music is neither schismatic nor heretic..like the psalter from whom most of the texts are taken from.. Wink
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 05:01:55 PM by Caelestinus » Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2012, 11:50:03 PM »

Quote
The interpretations of Marcel Pérères is marvellous

Yes, Marcel, I have always admired. He remains controversial, he wrote several academic books in french which I have long desired to read. They are almost like diaries and his personal views and studies written for all to see.

The irony is that Marcel Peres (actually it's the fact that half his men and women singers are from corsica using corsican folk singing technique) interpretations of Gregorian Chant sound almost the same as his Old Roman Chant.
So from that perspective it's less a matter of repertoire and more a matter of who/what/how you sing...
A friend of mine heard his CD of Vespers for the feast of St Ursula and said how come that sounds the same as his old roman cd's even though it's gregorian..and I said that its the technique not the repertoire alone.

I once read there was an old cistercian manuscript that showed microtones in the notation of their chant antiphonary/gradual. Whether this is true and whether this is a rare isolated incident that can provide meaning for the whole latin chant repertoire I do not know.

By the way, besides Corsicans, the folk singing from Croatia is also very similar to Corsica and works well with latin liturgical music. In both Corsica and Croatia every village and city has at least one group of singers that represent them and have the tradition of preserving acapella music for their culture. That was probably one of the reasons why the Serbian Orthodox were able to convert several adriatic croatian islands to their church during the 60's/70's I think. Not sure what happened there, after 1990 some of that mission work may have fallen apart due to the balkans nationalist wars.

I have long thought that some of their sacred music would sound very good adapted into english. Some of them are easier than the Gregorian Chants and use the same words/propers. But I have not studied them enough to know how practical that would be. Their Mass Ordinaries definitely work well in english.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 11:57:40 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.185 seconds with 66 queries.