Topic: Charts of Roman rite changes; 1570-1911 - why the Sarum use is ideal

[Christopher McAvoy]

Many critics and supporters alike of the 1962 liturgical books tend, quite incorrectly, to equate them with the books published after the Council of Trent by Pius V and his immediate successors.  Differences over the next four centuries are generally glossed over and the 'Tridentine' rite described as 'identical' apart from minor 'rubrical' or 'calendar' changes to that found in the books published immediately prior to and during the opening session of the Second Vatican Council.  The latest fashion for erroneous and misleading euphemisms has, for example, created the 'TLM' (Traditional Latin Mass) and the idea of  'organic' development before the Second Vatican Council and, presumably, something 'inorganic' after.  In fact, in the vast majority of cases, the Conciliar Latin Mass of 1961 - 1964 is the rite being used : perhaps 'CLM' would be more appropriate? These claims ignore, the effect both the rubrics and the calendar have on the celebration of any given liturgical rite, and the temporary nature of the 'CLM'.

The Second Vatican Council is considered to be the cause of the liturgical problems in the Roman rite whilst in fact the malaise goes much deeper.   The aliturgical practice of versus populum celebration is a case in point with nearly all commentators stating that the Council 'turned around the altars'.  In fact it ordered no such change but the practice of versus populum had become fashionable and widespread in Europe and some parts of the USA by the 1950's.  

The Word ® files, downloadable below, for various months, confining consideration to the Office and Mass, aim to explore the veracity of the 'unchanging rite' hypothesis.  We give, by way of example, an indication of how the Roman rite would have been celebrated  according to different editions of the liturgical books for some sample months from 2002.  For ease of comparison we have transposed the 1570 rite to the Gregorian Calendar, whilst it followed the Julian system until 1582 in Rome and later in other countries.  What follows is, by necessity, extremely incomplete.  We have not included such changes as the omission of bows to the altar Cross at the Holy Name (1962 rite), the omission of Pater, Ave and Credo before some of, and, in the case of Compline after, the Canonical Hours (1956 rite) or the radical re-distribution of the Psalter in 1911.  By having 1570 and 1939 in adjacent columns we do not equate these rites as there were a succession of significant changes between 1570 and the mid-1920s. Rather, for the sake of simplicity, we have chosen to show the significant steps that immediately preceded the Second Vatican Council.

Subsequent articles on this website will consider the differences between the Office as in 1570 and 1911 but, for the moment, we beg the indulgence of the patient reader. Likewise, we have not shewn the changes of 1964, 1965 and 1967 (such as the abolition of choir ceremonies, solita oscula and the widening of permission for the vernacular) to do so, we feel, would rather confuse the illustration we are attempting to make. In the Word files, each day of the month is given starting with the 'Tridentine' rite and at the right of the page the Paul VI rite. The format has been adopted of generally saying what happens rather than what doesn't: we have not said 'No preces', 'No suffrages' etc. When an entry says 'At Compline preces' and there is no entry for that day in a subsequent rite this does not mean Compline is not sung rather that the preces are not part of that hour in that version of the Roman rite.

http://www.ordorecitandi.org.uk/page4.htm

This presents very clear illustrations for why the Sarum use and other pre-1570 uses of the Roman rite are more ideal to follow for Orthodox Christians, especially as concerns the church calendar. Though for the divine office use of the 1930's benedictine or dominican versions solves some of these problems, as they were much less altered, those are not complete solutions, and have no effect on the Mass.

[scamandrius]

Why not the Gallican Rite?  Or the Ambrosian Rite?  Or the Mozarbmic Rite?  All are Western Rites and all predate the schism and all occur at the high point of development instead of the low point with the Tridentine Reforms of the late 16th century? 

My biggest complaint with the Western RIte is that its proponents cannot even answer the question:  Which Western Rite?  Many people who are part of a western Rite congregation do not seem to realize that there have been numerous manifestations of western rite and that there was no uniformity except those that were imposed on them by the Roman popes.  As such, the western rite in most western rite congregations is that resulting from the Tridentine Reforms. They have also continued to use feasts such as corpus christi, sacred heart, adoration of the blessed sacrament which are really alien to Orthodoxy. 

I would have no problem with a Western Rite for Orthodox per se, but there are a number of issues that have to be satisfactorily addressed first.  The question of which Rite is at the top of the list.

[Maria]

Why not the Gallican Rite?  Or the Ambrosian Rite?  Or the Mozarbmic Rite?  All are Western Rites and all predate the schism and all occur at the high point of development instead of the low point with the Tridentine Reforms of the late 16th century?  

My biggest complaint with the Western RIte is that its proponents cannot even answer the question:  Which Western Rite?  Many people who are part of a western Rite congregation do not seem to realize that there have been numerous manifestations of western rite and that there was no uniformity except those that were imposed on them by the Roman popes.  As such, the western rite in most western rite congregations is that resulting from the Tridentine Reforms. They have also continued to use feasts such as corpus christi, sacred heart, adoration of the blessed sacrament which are really alien to Orthodoxy.  

I would have no problem with a Western Rite for Orthodox per se, but there are a number of issues that have to be satisfactorily addressed first.  The question of which Rite is at the top of the list.

+1

Also all the Tridentine WRO liturgies, which I have seen, omit the Trisagion which apparently was found in Pope St. Gregory's Standardized Latin Liturgy before 800 A.D., when the Franks eliminated anything byzantine except the Kyrie Eleison.

Interestingly, many Roman Catholics who love the Tridentine Latin Mass do not even realize that Kyrie eleison is Greek.

[scamandrius]

Interestingly, many Roman Catholics who love the Tridentine Latin Mass do not even realize that Kyrie eleison is Greek.

I'm not sure if this apocryphal, but there is a story that during the Vatican II Council, during one of the committee meetings on reforming the Mass, one of the Cardinals petitioned strongly to at least keep Κυριε ελεησον so that the people will still have some Latin!

[age234]

Why not the Gallican Rite?

That rite was suppressed even before the Schism because, I am told, it had become so incredibly complicated it was utterly unwieldy.

Which Western Rite?

The question of which Rite is at the top of the list.

There never was a single Western Rite before the Schism, so why would there have to be in Orthodoxy? The Orthodox East gradually settled on the imperial Constantinopolitan rite, but it took a long time. So, why not establish a few and see how things develop over the centuries? That's basically how we got what we have now.

(I don't know how I feel about this personally; I'm playing devil's advocate.)

They have also continued to use feasts such as corpus christi, sacred heart, adoration of the blessed sacrament which are really alien to Orthodoxy. 

I agree with these concerns about problematic elements.

[Maria]

Interestingly, many Roman Catholics who love the Tridentine Latin Mass do not even realize that Kyrie eleison is Greek.

I'm not sure if this apocryphal, but there is a story that during the Vatican II Council, during one of the committee meetings on reforming the Mass, one of the Cardinals petitioned strongly to at least keep Κυριε ελεησον so that the people will still have some Latin!

Yes, that story has been mentioned for quite some time by quite a few folks.
I would not be surprised if it were true, but then it could be one of those legends.
Have you visited Snopes recently?

Nevertheless, I have heard quite a few Catholics say that they appreciate hearing the Latin "Κυριε ελεησον." I guess they consider it Latin since it appears in the Latin Mass. "Don't ask; don't tell." We do not want to embarrass them or to annoy them. Some people do not want to hear the truth.

[Sleeper]

The problem I have with the problem-havers (ha!) is that they seem to reject any concept of a living rite, a living tradition. The conversation centers around an odd premise that Orthodox Christians went, "Hmmm, we should have a Western Rite since there was one before the Schism! Now...which one should we choose? We could pick our favorite location (Gaul, Milan, Rome, etc.), or our favorite golden era (post-Norman Invasion Sarum Use, "the high point," (according to my own tastes) etc.), or we could 'mimic' Roman Catholics (Tridentine/Gregorian) or the Anglicans (Book of Common Prayer/Tikhonian). Let's argue endlessly about which approach is our favorite one!"

This approach relies on nothing but "scholarship," fantasy, and arbitrary decisions ("Let's pick this place, over that one, and this era over that one"). It's a "recreation" of something that no one alive today has any living experience of, because it's made up. Sure, we may have "complete texts and rubrics" in books, and historical references, and archaeology, etc., but our worship is much, much more than that.

And that is not to mention the fact that we are not infallible, and in our "recreations" we can introduce errors of our own, or eradicate something precious and vital because of our own ignorance. It's a dangerous game to play.

Antioch insisted on using the living liturgy of the West, because tradition, patrimony, inheritance, heritage, whatever you want to call it, is extremely important for catholic Christians. It guarantees authenticity, it safeguards from arbitrarily contrived things that could prove wrong in the end, and it's something that comes naturally to the people who inherited it.

Because liturgy happens organically and is traditioned organically, the Orthodox Western Rite needs to move into the future organically. This takes time, care, patience, and prayer. Only things which are absolutely clear should be altered, with everything else left for the Church to discern over time. If certain feasts, or certain devotions, go by the wayside, then perhaps it is for the best. And if they remain, perhaps that is for the best. We must trust the Spirit to guide us into the future in the same way He guided those who approved our liturgies in the first place.

[scamandrius]

The problem with the living tradition is that the living tradition of the West that Antioch appropriated is laden with any number of problems, theological and practical.  The mere paring of theological issues in the text of the mass such as filioque and the canon of the Mass is artificial.  There is nothing organic about using the Western Rite as there has been no Orthodox Western Rite  in existence for well over 600 years.

I agree that choosing another rite such as the Gallican or Sarum or Ambrosian or Mozarmbic, etc. does nothing to solve the issues and it does not meet the criterion of organic development.

The existence of the Western Rite poses many problems and should be taken up at the Great Council whenever that should convene. 

[Sleeper]

Some related quotes that further highlight the topic, from Fr. Guy Winfrey's blog, padretex.com :

"So how do we make a decision about things that developed after 1054? We are told in the WR Edict that those things which logically develop from the use of the West in 1054 are to be retained. This guideline is set for fights. One says it is logical and another says it isn’t. The answer must be more generous than not because I sense more than a little iconoclasm is involved here. There is a very real desire to “break” the West and reshape it to one’s one vision. But I, for one, am reminded of the parable of the wheat and the tares. We must be very careful because those who wish to break up the received Western practices are usually also heavily enculturated with the spirit of the Reformation (from whence many of them came). There is a puritanical bent to purge it all without regard. And, as I have written before, there is still a very keen and hotly felt Romaphobia as well.

It seems that in discerning certain items that time is by far the better judge. Most things should be left alone and allow the Church herself to do the pruning and correcting rather than individual clergy with a reformer’s zeal (however Orthodox the zeal is meant to be).

There are things that need to be altered to be sure for use among the Orthodox. One example is the filioque in the Creed. Okay. Do we see vestigial examples of the filioque in other places? Sometimes yes, but usually not really. The West was far more liturgically conservative than the East was. When a new dogma was proclaimed, or a heresy defeated something was added in the Eastern Rite to prop that up and confirm it. This was not the Western practice. The West left the liturgy alone. A good example of this would be Papal Infallibility. When this was made a dogma of the Western Church nothing was added to any of the prayers or to the liturgy concerning this. It was not until 1955 (three-quarters of a century years later) that we find a Mass added for the Supreme Pontiff. This is the typical custom of the West which makes the Roman Missal almost completely corrected for the WRV at the very outset. It’s easy, just drop that one Mass Si diligis. Done.

But very often we read into the text something that is not there because our own bias has set us out to look for it. For example there have been a few who want to alter the Exsultet because they see an erroneous notion of sin taught. Was St Ambrose a heretic? Did he hold an heretical notion of sin? I’ve never before heard such a thing. And are we of such high theological standing that we can presume to judge St Ambrose (who is very highly venerated throughout the East)? Or ought we be more humble and realize that perhaps we are misunderstanding what St Ambrose is saying here and it is we who have got the wrong end of the stick? I would suggest the second approach is more Orthodox.

I will give another example of what we thought needed to be changed at one time. Not too long ago (and admittedly many still hold this) it was generally stated in the WRV that the word “merits” had to be altered to refer to the “intercession” of the Saint in question. Upon more reflection it has been definitively shown that these collects are amongst some of the most ancient in the Western liturgy and that there are exact parallels in the Eastern Rite. The problems is not “the merits of the Saints,” but the reading of this phrase through the eyes of the 15th century Reformation controversies. It may well be a blessing of God that a new altar missal had not been published during that time so that such errors would not be admitted to the WRV text.

This is why I am quite skeptical in the ability of the WRV to edit out heterodox material as it is publishing texts. This will take decades and perhaps longer before it may be done safely. There was an English seaman in WWI who was tragically burnt in combat. His face resembled a cut-out pumpkin. At the beginning stages of facial reconstruction the surgeon (who was the pioneer in this field and who would later give a life to many of the dreadfully wounded men) tried to reconstruct the sailor’s face in one operation. There were skin graphs and bone resections and so forth. The young man died a few days after the operation because his body went into shock. Too much had been done too fast. It was a critical lesson learned and it helped to save the life of many in the trenches who would later need this surgery.

We run the risk of killing the Western Rite by trying to do too much. This is true because we introduce errors of our own (even though often well-intentioned) and because it creates a trauma to westerners themselves. They cannot look at these reconstructions and see their own Patrimony."

"I am personally very reluctant to give much credence to academic recreations of liturgies. The 19th century saw at least two (possibly more) recreations of the Gallican Rite and which were wildly different depending upon how one understood the core of the Rite, whether it was from the Roman family or the Antiochian family. One simply doesn't really know the answer, and so it is largely still left to speculation. Pay your money and take your chance. That is not organic and healthy worship."

"There is no evidence at all that supports the notion of trying to recreate a pure Western Rite through Orthodox (i.e., Byzantine) or historical lenses. The WR was not a romantic movement, but one of reunion. It took real living Western Christians and reunited them to the Orthodox Church as they were. The impulse was true ecumenism. It ought also to be noted, and this is no small point, that the use of the WR at the time was the same as the Anglo-Catholics and the Roman Catholics. There was at that time a unity of liturgical practice. This was simply authorized among the Orthodox."

"The necessity of the WR to be somehow liturgically different from the Latins and Anglicans was not part of the deposit of the WR. That is something that developed as the Latins and Anglican (and all of the West) changed to the newer liturgical forms. It was only then that the WR Orthodox stood out as somehow liturgically unique. So what was the original focus that made us different from the West? It was our ecclesial context. We didn't look different, but we lived in union with the East theologically and sacramentally. The liturgy was simply taken for granted… that's how we do things. It was not nearly so self-conscious."

[Sleeper]

The problem with the living tradition is that the living tradition of the West that Antioch appropriated is laden with any number of problems, theological and practical.  The mere paring of theological issues in the text of the mass such as filioque and the canon of the Mass is artificial.  There is nothing organic about using the Western Rite as there has been no Orthodox Western Rite  in existence for well over 600 years.

Why does organic liturgy belong only to the East? This is a common canard tossed around that somehow "the Western Rite died" at the Schism. It did not.

I agree that choosing another rite such as the Gallican or Sarum or Ambrosian or Mozarmbic, etc. does nothing to solve the issues and it does not meet the criterion of organic development.

The existence of the Western Rite poses many problems and should be taken up at the Great Council whenever that should convene.  

Well, the use of a Rite belongs solely to the autocephalous Church who authorizes it, and this goes for the Eastern Rite too. Liturgy has never been decided upon in a council, and it doubtfully ever will be. That's the whole point of a Church being self-governing.

[Christopher McAvoy]

Why not the Gallican Rite?  Or the Ambrosian Rite?  Or the Mozarabic Rite?

The Sarum use of the Roman rite is the easiest to deal with because it has had the most work done to be able to celebrate it in english (or latin) with all original rituals and music in tact. The Sarum use is one of many pre-1570 roman uses, thus compared to the Gallican, Ambrosian, Visigothic rites, it is the closest to the Tridentine. It has the most similarity to Tridentine while also containing the richest most interesting propers and calendar of saints, any of the local Roman uses is potentially what the Tridentine would have become if it had not cut off organic development from forming it. One could use any other pre-1570 use instead of the Sarum as an alternative in theory yes, such as that of Paris, Mainz, Salzburg, Estergom (Hungary), Spoleto (Croatia) . It is the fact that it is pre-1570 that matters.

The Gallican Rite, which is almost a variation of the Mozarabe (Visigothic) rite would probably need to use the Mozarabic propers, as it does not have its own surviving ones. The Mozarabic propers are however somewhat 16th c. reconstructions, they are not available very easily either. The genuine Mozarabic propers exist in one, two or three manuscripts, but for whatever reason seem not to have been transcribed into modern notation. I recall that some of them are not legiable, but than some are definitely preserved in the early diastemic chant notation with 4 line staff . I really cant say about that, it seems to me it is somehow possible to use authentic 10th c. Mozabic music if the right person investigates it (not an easy task though). The Mozarabic divine office has very rich hymnody for both the proper of time and proper of saints which makes it quite worthy of orthodox usage.

The Ambrosian is probably the most practical to use because it remains the most intact and with all the complete music and melodies, no questions asked.

You can download a 19th c. transcription from Solesme monastery of an actual 12th c. Ambrosian Antiphonarium (For both Mass and Divine office use) at this link:

http://archive.org/details/palographiemus1900gaja

That would be easily useable at an Orthodox Mass today, so long as the Latin is acceptable.

The  Roman rite in any of it's local uses is the most established rite, it is the most familiar to the widest variety of people, contains the largest selection of liturgical books from the 9th to 15th c.

It's not that the other rites don't deserve revival, but..the motivation to create the books in languages besides latin or to use them at all is not as great. It's practicality more than anything. If one  feels strongly impelled or attached to those rites wants to use them, I would happily support them in any way possible.

Many will say the Sarum itself is impractical...well perhaps compared to the later abbreviated forms of the Roman rite, but the important work of having it available in english and having the books available to download online is nearing completion.

In fairness much of my concern is not particularly about the words of the Mass itself.

Other than forgetting about the bidding intercessory prayers before Mass, I have no objections to the actual Tridentine Mass, even the 20th century form. It is able to be seen as Orthodox, no question, the extent to which it was artificially altered at Trent is very minimal.

Much of the main difference with the pre-1570 local Roman uses and the earlier 20th c. form is that they have a much wider range of propers and interesting music and ways that the calendar works, more octaves and what not. This is  perhaps the heart of the matter to me.  If for example you compare the hymns of the Benedictine Monastic Diurnal from lanceloteandrewes press to the 1534 Sarum use hymns (thus also any other pre-1570 use) you will see a very big difference. The benedictine omits a great number of beautiful hymns, it actually has 30% less, with the Mass there is a similar situation.

Many anglo-catholic (anglican/episcopalian) parishes , including a few still today (I'm thinking of Mt. Calvary in Baltimore, MD specifically, even though they are now with Rome) they would follow the Sarum calendar and propers even though they would use the 1955 roman rite in english for example.  

I personally would also have no objection to using the later 19th/20th c. propers for the feast of St. Joseph , Christ the King or Most Holy Body of Christ within a Sarum mass or office.

This is as simple or as complex as you want to make it.

[Christopher McAvoy]

"There is no evidence at all that supports the notion of trying to recreate a pure Western Rite through Orthodox (i.e., Byzantine) or historical lenses. The WR was not a romantic movement, but one of reunion. It took real living Western Christians and reunited them to the Orthodox Church as they were. The impulse was true ecumenism. It ought also to be noted, and this is no small point, that the use of the WR at the time was the same as the Anglo-Catholics and the Roman Catholics. There was at that time a unity of liturgical practice. This was simply authorized among the Orthodox."

"The necessity of the WR to be somehow liturgically different from the Latins and Anglicans was not part of the deposit of the WR. That is something that developed as the Latins and Anglican (and all of the West) changed to the newer liturgical forms. It was only then that the WR Orthodox stood out as somehow liturgically unique. So what was the original focus that made us different from the West? It was our ecclesial context. We didn't look different, but we lived in union with the East theologically and sacramentally. The liturgy was simply taken for granted… that's how we do things. It was not nearly so self-conscious."

Fr. Guy Winfrey is a wise man. I can't say I disagree with much of what he says there.

I'm certainly wouldn't think my view has anything in common with influence of the reformation, I'd be the first to runaway from that.
I have no interest in altering anything thats already there - only adding on to it. I am an "addition" oriented individual not "subtraction" oriented one. I don't even think the latin liturgies needs explicit epiclesis in them (though I accept that as current practice and dont much care if they are there or not there.)

All I know is this : there were thousands of extra propers being used before the reformation in most roman rite churches graduals/antiphonaries - those propers (not to mention unaltered office hymns) were no longer used by the 20th c. except within perhaps the dominican or benedictine rite.

I can't think of a good reason for WR Orthodox to not use those propers again.
Adam of St. Victor alone is a fine example of what I mean. http://danielmitsui.tripod.com/aaaaa/seq0.html
His work and works like his by others were enshrined in the pre-1570 Graduals as required texts -not to be omitted - read out loud, even if not able to be sung. It was precisely the ideaology of the reformation that encouraged the removal of them from Graduals printed after 1570.  The Orthodox WR ought to remove reformation influence.

The patrimony that entered from living organic use into the Orthodox WR in the 1950's therefore was one that was incomplete/semi-inorganic because it had things removed after the reformation/counter-reformation.

The 1534 Sarum use of the Roman rite is a convenient way to fix that. I would not claim that it is the only way.
At least they should be added into the existing tridentine mass. Tridentine mass but with Sarum propers...

Yes, I think that having only 5 sequences in WR Orthodox Missals (or Graduals) instead of 150 or more from before the Reformation is something that is embarrassing. (Even in 1054 most graduals had at least 50 sequences)

[ialmisry]

Why not the Gallican Rite?  Or the Ambrosian Rite?  Or the Mozarbmic Rite?  All are Western Rites and all predate the schism and all occur at the high point of development instead of the low point with the Tridentine Reforms of the late 16th century? 

My biggest complaint with the Western RIte is that its proponents cannot even answer the question:  Which Western Rite?  Many people who are part of a western Rite congregation do not seem to realize that there have been numerous manifestations of western rite and that there was no uniformity except those that were imposed on them by the Roman popes.  As such, the western rite in most western rite congregations is that resulting from the Tridentine Reforms. They have also continued to use feasts such as corpus christi, sacred heart, adoration of the blessed sacrament which are really alien to Orthodoxy. 

I would have no problem with a Western Rite for Orthodox per se, but there are a number of issues that have to be satisfactorily addressed first.  The question of which Rite is at the top of the list.

Why should they answer "Which Western Rite," when many Easter Rites (Alexandrian, Antiochian, etc.) also have been suppressed.

[Alpo]

Why should they answer "Which Western Rite," when many Easter Rites (Alexandrian, Antiochian, etc.) also have been suppressed.

Just out of curiosity, would you switch to the Alexandrian rite if that was possible within the EO Church?

[Fr.Aidan]

@sleeper:

If it is a "dangerous game to play," all the more reason not to let that risky business be handled, or "played," entirely by non-Orthodox Christians crippled by heresy and separation from Christ's Church. Right? Certainly St. John Maximovitch did not just think we should adopt things straight from Rome unquestioningly, and emphasized the importance of a 1054 cutoff date.

In the West the trisagion was NOT removed from the Liturgy. It was known in the time of St. Gregory, but not as a song during the Liturgy. And it continued always in the Good Friday service, and, in the Sarum Use of the Roman rite, in First Hour (Prime) and Compline.

[Sleeper]

And plenty of saints who didn't insist on 1054. Besides, nobody is advocating an "unquestioning" approach to the Western patrimony. It's not as if heresy is "lurking" in the approved rites of the AWRV, waiting to sneak up on us unwittingly. "Oh no! We didn't catch what those sneaky Anglicans did and now we don't know what to believe!"

The only argument people seem to be having anymore is about time periods and geography. The Antiochian Western Rite has proven itself. Those of blessed to be part of such parishes don't hold defective faith, we aren't impoverished or missing out on anything, no one I've ever met visiting was confused about who we were or what we are about. It's odd that there's even anything to argue anymore.

[ialmisry]

Why should they answer "Which Western Rite," when many Easter Rites (Alexandrian, Antiochian, etc.) also have been suppressed.

Just out of curiosity, would you switch to the Alexandrian rite if that was possible within the EO Church?

Probably not, but I would attend it frequently.

[Fr.Aidan]

Okay, who is a Saint that didn't go by the 1054 date? I don't know who that reference is to.

The same said about the AWRV parishes could also be said about the parishes who have used, say, the Sarum for a long time now, and are officially Orthodox. The approach has proven itself and worked fine. Notice I am not making any liturgical attacks here; rather, I am responding to an argument for more restrictiveness in liturgy.

[Sleeper]

Okay, who is a Saint that didn't go by the 1054 date? I don't know who that reference is to.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "go by" the date. In terms of what? What I meant was that some saints didn't think everything post-Schism (whatever date might be given) was "crippled by heresy." Some, in fact, thought aspects of post-Schism Western spirituality, liturgy, etc., could be put to use in an Orthodox context (whether it was actually carried out, or just put forth in theory). They would be, off the top of my head: St. Dimitri of Rostov, St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, St.Tikhon of Moscow, St. Nicholas of Japan, and St. Raphael of Brooklyn. In one way or another, each one of these Saints evaluated aspects of the post-Schism West in an objective, value-based approach. They did not dismiss it based on an arbitrary date.

The same said about the AWRV parishes could also be said about the parishes who have used, say, the Sarum for a long time now, and are officially Orthodox. The approach has proven itself and worked fine. Notice I am not making any liturgical attacks here; rather, I am responding to an argument for more restrictiveness in liturgy.

Indeed. And I wish nothing but the best for the Sarum use and any other liturgy given official approval by self-ruling Orthodox churches. The Western Rite doesn't need uniformity. Let each church do what it needs to do and pray for its continued success, whatever its manifestation.

[Cognomen]

Antioch insisted on using the living liturgy of the West, because tradition, patrimony, inheritance, heritage, whatever you want to call it, is extremely important for catholic Christians. It guarantees authenticity, it safeguards from arbitrarily contrived things that could prove wrong in the end, and it's something that comes naturally to the people who inherited it.

I understand your point about avoiding arbitrarily contrived rites, but it seems to minimize that the Western Church and rites (which you claim to have been safeguarded) ceased to be part of the Church and therefore developments may not have been orthodox. 

I'm not sure I can accept the guaranteed authenticity argument (which could be authentically wrong) so easily, when the Western church was not safeguarded from error.

[Cognomen]

The only argument people seem to be having anymore is about time periods and geography. The Antiochian Western Rite has proven itself. Those of blessed to be part of such parishes don't hold defective faith, we aren't impoverished or missing out on anything, no one I've ever met visiting was confused about who we were or what we are about. It's odd that there's even anything to argue anymore.

I don't believe it is accurate to say that time periods and geography are the only reasons argued.  As you're well aware, many Orthodox believe that there are devotions and practices that developed outside of the Church and do not belong. 

I truly hope that you and parishioners in similar circumstances are not "impoverished or missing out on anything" or that you haven't added (to Orthodoxy) any unnecessary or inappropriate practices.

I find it odd that you find it odd that these arguments exist.  Devotions like the sacred heart are foreign to the rest of Orthodoxy.  Why should we automatically assume that they are orthodox?  Is it because a few bishops (or auxiliary bishops) experimenting with melding traditions think it's fine?    My apologies for the phrasing of the last sentence, but the question remains.

[Sleeper]

Antioch insisted on using the living liturgy of the West, because tradition, patrimony, inheritance, heritage, whatever you want to call it, is extremely important for catholic Christians. It guarantees authenticity, it safeguards from arbitrarily contrived things that could prove wrong in the end, and it's something that comes naturally to the people who inherited it.

I understand your point about avoiding arbitrarily contrived rites, but it seems to minimize that the Western Church and rites (which you claim to have been safeguarded) ceased to be part of the Church and therefore developments may not have been orthodox. 

Which is why everything must be tested so that only what is good, true, beautiful, noble, etc., remains. Again, nobody is advocating for an unquestioning, cart blanche acceptance of anything and everything. All that has been approved within the Western Rite of Antioch has been blessed only after review by capable minds. The point is that one of the factors in consideration is not the date of something, because that's irrelevant. Something is either true, or it isn't. It's good and thus worthy, or it isn't. Everything must be tested, whether Eastern or Western, first century or 21st century.

I'm not sure I can accept the guaranteed authenticity argument (which could be authentically wrong) so easily, when the Western church was not safeguarded from error.

I only mean authentic in terms of that underlying, more fluid aspect of a living tradition that necessarily rests on it being something truly handed down. Put another way, it is always authentic because it remains from generation to generation, having been received and passed down. It's like language; you have your mother tongue because you learn it from your parents and your community, in a fluid, non-self-conscious way. You don't remember learning to speak, you just know that you can do it. Language isn't given to people from some other time period or some other culture and then enforced. "Your language is inadequate. You will now speak Arabic instead of English." Or, "you may only speak as those from 1,000 years ago spoke." Sure, there might be some great things about the way they spoke, there might be a lot to learn, but it's going to be a difficult transition, will not truly be authentic, and what would potentially be "gained" in doing such a thing may not compare to that which is lost.

That being said, I'm only talking about authenticity, not whether or not something is true. Those are separate things. And again, it's just an analogy, I'm not actually talking about the language used in the Western Rite.

The only argument people seem to be having anymore is about time periods and geography. The Antiochian Western Rite has proven itself. Those of blessed to be part of such parishes don't hold defective faith, we aren't impoverished or missing out on anything, no one I've ever met visiting was confused about who we were or what we are about. It's odd that there's even anything to argue anymore.

I don't believe it is accurate to say that time periods and geography are the only reasons argued.  As you're well aware, many Orthodox believe that there are devotions and practices that developed outside of the Church and do not belong.

Orthodoxy is not a private country club. In the words of St. Justin Martyr: "Whatever has been uttered rightly by any man, belongs to us Christians." There are many, many things that have become part of Orthodox tradition that were "developed outside the Church" but that does not mean they do not belong. It means they're seen for what they are, treasured because they are true, and blessed to be used by all the faithful for their salvation.

I truly hope that you and parishioners in similar circumstances are not "impoverished or missing out on anything" or that you haven't added (to Orthodoxy) any unnecessary or inappropriate practices.

The feelings are mutual towards you and all of our Eastern brethren.

I find it odd that you find it odd that these arguments exist.  Devotions like the sacred heart are foreign to the rest of Orthodoxy.

Lots of things in the Western catholic tradition, whether pre or post-Schism are "foreign" to the Orthodox catholics of the Eastern world. Different cultures in different times do different things that are peculiar to them. This is a beautiful thing.

Why should we automatically assume that they are orthodox?

We shouldn't. No one is advocating that.

Is it because a few bishops (or auxiliary bishops) experimenting with melding traditions think it's fine?    My apologies for the phrasing of the last sentence, but the question remains.

In short, yes, it's because our bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs and saints think it's fine. That's how it works.

[James2]

The changes in the Roman Rite between 1570 and 1962 pale in comparison to what was done in 1969.  But then, if you compare 1570 to the Roman rite of late antiquity, you'll see a lot of other differences.  Rites necessarily evolve over time.  Sometimes they grow overly complicated and need to be streamlined by the competent church authorities.  To attempt to implement a rite from centuries ago amounts to museum-piece religion.  Sleeper is right - liturgical traditions need to be living things, not artificial reconstructions.

[Shanghaiski]

The changes in the Roman Rite between 1570 and 1962 pale in comparison to what was done in 1969.  But then, if you compare 1570 to the Roman rite of late antiquity, you'll see a lot of other differences.  Rites necessarily evolve over time.  Sometimes they grow overly complicated and need to be streamlined by the competent church authorities.  To attempt to implement a rite from centuries ago amounts to museum-piece religion.  Sleeper is right - liturgical traditions need to be living things, not artificial reconstructions.

"Artificial reconstruction" is an arbitrary term. Is that what St. John Maximovitch did with the neo-Gallican Liturgy?

They are prayers. Pray them.

[Fr.Aidan]

"Artificial reconstruction" is pejorative and really doesn't add much to the discussion, other than dissing fellow Orthodox.

St. John Maximovitch favored precisely this approach of reaching into the Orthodox past for liturgical usages of the West, and he had more living contact with the Holy Spirit than probably all of us combined. He is a patron for WR Orthodoxy, so his wisdom in things should not be disparaged too willy-nilly.

Sometimes changes are made to a Rite by competent authorities. Of course, in the case of the Roman Catholic church, there was no competent authority there after the schism. Heretics and schismatics are not authorized to decide what prayers Orthodox Christians will pray or not.

Pejorative reference was also made to "museum-piece religion." But Bp. Jerome, Vicar Bishop for WR in the Russian Church Abroad, has put that specter to rest with his short but penetrating article here: http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Archaeology.html.

And, just to be sure where we stand, no one is using an older liturgical tradition AS archaeology, but only as vibrant, alive, contemporary, powerful liturgy. Nor is anyone using a more modern liturgical form AS IS, but only with various adjustments along Orthodox lines. So we really are not so different from one another, as all that.

[Sleeper]

Indeed, we should take the wisdom of St. John the Wonderworker into account. However, he was not the only saint interested in the Western Rite, and the approach of St. Tikhon the Enlightener of America, for example, should be weighed as well.

As far as changes in rite, it's a bit irrelevant for us Orthodox as we've come full circle, as it were. Perhaps some changes were made by incompetent authorities post-Schism (whenever we decided to date it), but that which is now approved has certainly been addressed by competent authorities who can decide what prayers Orthodox Christians will pray or not. It's a bit like a garden that was tended by a master gardener, but then came under the control of some who were misguided, and is now back in the hands of master gardeners who have decided what things should be uprooted, what things can be cultivated, and what things may need to be planted anew. The point is the garden we now have, not what it was in the past. Which, as you said and with which I'm in full agreement, there is not a modern liturgical form ("garden") in use as is.

May both gardens thrive in the light of Holy Orthodoxy.

[Fr.Aidan]

Amen. And very well put.

About St. Tikhon, does anyone know what his approach to Western Rite was? He never became personally involved with any Western Rite Orthodox services, nor did he write down his opinions, so I am not sure what they would be. He sent an inquiry to Synod, on behalf of some inquirers, but do we know what he himself told the inquirers? He may, for example, have told them something like, "This is outside my area of knowledge, so I'm going to forward your inquiry to a committee in Russia which was set up to handle these issues."

[James2]

"Artificial reconstruction" is an arbitrary term. Is that what St. John Maximovitch did with the neo-Gallican Liturgy?

They are prayers. Pray them.

It's not arbitrary.  It's descriptive.  To attempt to create a whole liturgy out of fragments (which is all there is of the Gallican rite) necessarily involves supplementation from other sources and various judgment calls, and the result is therefore something new.  That's all right, I suppose, but when there is a living tradition at hand of Western Catholic worship, why not draw directly from that, as the Antiochian Archdiocese has done?

[Fr.Aidan]

There is a living tradition of Western Catholic worship at hand. There is a living tradition of Western worship from the Orthodox period at hand. Both are approved in the RWRV. There are completely surviving, intact, liturgies from the Orthodox West. These can easily be used as the Sunday service today.

[James2]

"Artificial reconstruction" is pejorative and really doesn't add much to the discussion, other than dissing fellow Orthodox.

St. John Maximovitch favored precisely this approach of reaching into the Orthodox past for liturgical usages of the West, and he had more living contact with the Holy Spirit than probably all of us combined. He is a patron for WR Orthodoxy, so his wisdom in things should not be disparaged too willy-nilly.

I didn't disparage his wisdom.  I didn't even bring him up - Shanghaiski did.

Sometimes changes are made to a Rite by competent authorities. Of course, in the case of the Roman Catholic church, there was no competent authority there after the schism. Heretics and schismatics are not authorized to decide what prayers Orthodox Christians will pray or not.

So it's okay to "diss" fellow Christians who aren't Orthodox.  No one is suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church should tell the Western Orthodox how to worship.  But Rome most certainly has been and continues to be the competent authority for maintaining her own rite, the vast majority of which is pre-schism and thoroughly Orthodox.

[Sleeper]

Amen. And very well put.

About St. Tikhon, does anyone know what his approach to Western Rite was? He never became personally involved with any Western Rite Orthodox services, nor did he write down his opinions, so I am not sure what they would be. He sent an inquiry to Synod, on behalf of some inquirers, but do we know what he himself told the inquirers? He may, for example, have told them something like, "This is outside my area of knowledge, so I'm going to forward your inquiry to a committee in Russia which was set up to handle these issues."

Specifically, I'm not sure. We know he had definitely experienced the Western Rite, as documented in a newspaper from that time. Surely he knew high church Anglicans weren't Orthodox, and that their services were post-schism. So, while you may not put much stock in his inquiry, we can draw some conclusions about his approach to their liturgical heritage. It was not dismissed a priori. He saw potential value in having it looked into. I may have some more info at home I could try to dig up.

[Fr.Aidan]

The Roman Catholic Church is the competent authority for Roman Catholic worship. The Orthodox Church is the competent authority for Orthodox worship.

It doesn't seem complex to me, but maybe I am a simple-minded little monk.

So, yes, here is what we have about St. Tikhon: There are implications, deduced from actions he took, that he did not dismiss Anglican Liturgy a priori, but passed that basketball to others.

And that's about ALL we have, regarding St. Tikhon. We have no idea what his "approach" may have been, other than, "forward issue to committee."

[Shanghaiski]

The ancient Orthodox Western traditions are still alive because the saints who prayed in those traditions are not dead. Besides, the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the Orthodox Church and is not dependent on continuity or heterodox innovations.

[Sleeper]

So, yes, here is what we have about St. Tikhon: There are implications, deduced from actions he took, that he did not dismiss Anglican Liturgy a priori, but passed that basketball to others.

That is enough though. He knew what high church Anglican worship was like from personal experience, he knew who they were and where they came from, and in principle, as someone who had all authority to squash the idea right then and there if 1054 were a line not to be crossed, he went through the trouble of inquiring on their behalf (no small potatoes at that time, given the logistics of pulling something like that off) anyway. You don't do something like that if you wouldn't implement when and if a positive reply came back. You don't pay the exorbitant costs to have books shipped overseas and waste the time of a Synod as a mere formality or a "passing of the basketball."

No need to focus solely on St. Tikhon though. We have St. Nicholas of Japan, Equal to the Apostles. His affirmation is a bit more explicit. From a written account in 1912, by the Rev. Charles Filkins Sweet, we learn that St. Nicholas had no qualms about "the language or meaning of the English Prayer Book" but rather "the practical apprehension in daily life by Anglicans of the need of sacramental grace." You can read the account here.

As far as St. John the Wonderworker is concerned, it should be noted that he was not the architect of the so-called Gallican rite that was used, nor was the Gallican rite the only Western Rite under his care. The monk and known healer (possibly saint?) Dom Denis Chambault celebrated the "Tridentine" mass. It was that very mass that, after having visited Dom Denis in Europe, the Vicar of the AWRV Fr. Paul Schnierla was inspired to approach Antioch about a possible Western Rite, which we all know came to fruition as our "Rite of St. Gregory" (which is often characterized as "Tridentine"). And it was this liturgy (not the Gallican, nor the Sarum Use) to which St. John was referring when he uttered his now-famous words, “Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies.”

Those Gallican rite parishes eventually left Orthodoxy, and yet the Western Rite seed planted by St. John in the Gregorian Rite is the very same one now flowering in Antioch.

And that's about ALL we have, regarding St. Tikhon. We have no idea what his "approach" may have been, other than, "forward issue to committee."

Let's not forget that that "committee" could very well likely have been comprised of several saints, whom we honor as the Russian New Martyrs. And the letter of inquiry they received was penned by none other than St. Raphael.

You can dismiss this all if it's not explicit enough for your tastes, but the facts we know are that St. Tikhon thought it wise and prudent to see about having the American Prayer Book adapted for use by Orthodox converts, that the letter of inquiry was from the hand of St. Raphael, and the suggested corrections were likely put forth by some saints martyred for Christ. And St. John the Wonderworker's legacy lives on in the Gregorian Rite of Antioch too.

[Fr.Aidan]

1. St. John Maximovitch was not referring to the Tridentine Use of the Roman rite, as he was addressing Dom Augustine Whitfield, who used a form of Roman rite differing from both the Tridentine and the Sarum Uses.

2. The historical facts just do not support that we know much of anything about St. Tikhon's "approach" to Western Rite, or if he even, personally, wanted it to exist or not. We just don't know and can't extrapolate from these straws of meager evidence. And what's this, that mailing a book to Russia in 1904 was something likely to put an archbishop in a difficult place financially? That's just plain weird.

3. There is no evidence that St. Nicholas of Japan supported Western Rite at all; it is not logical to extrapolate from his statement (basically, that the problem with Anglicanism isn't so much their prayer book as this other thing) that he held any formed "view" regarding Western Rite whatever.

4. The committee might have included saints. Or not. Can anyone name a saint that was serving on the committee? It's a stretch, or a total "Wouldn't it be neat if."

5. There is no evidence that the Gallican rite's falling into abeyance was related to any qualities of the rite. The desire was to import the Roman rite and the natural consequence of this was the disuse of the Gallican rite. Contemporary records do not reveal any motives having to do with complexity, or ease, or suitability of either rite. I glean, reading between the lines, that the whole displacement was more a function of the prestige and international sweep of the Roman rite. But, again, there is no evidence.

I think we just have to stick with the actual data. I think it would be swell if various saints were pro-Western Rite, but we can't put words in their mouths just because they don't have any words in their mouths.

[Alpo]

Is Old Roman/Sarum rite used regularly in any Orthodox parish or monastery?

[Fr.Aidan]

Yes, it is used regularly in three monasteries of the Russian Orthodox Church, and I think two parishes and two missions (in Illinois, in Iowa, and Down Under). But I have to double check on the parishes.

[Sleeper]

1. St. John Maximovitch was not referring to the Tridentine Use of the Roman rite, as he was addressing Dom Augustine Whitfield, who used a form of Roman rite differing from both the Tridentine and the Sarum Uses.

2. The historical facts just do not support that we know much of anything about St. Tikhon's "approach" to Western Rite, or if he even, personally, wanted it to exist or not. We just don't know and can't extrapolate from these straws of meager evidence. And what's this, that mailing a book to Russia in 1904 was something likely to put an archbishop in a difficult place financially? That's just plain weird.

3. There is no evidence that St. Nicholas of Japan supported Western Rite at all; it is not logical to extrapolate from his statement (basically, that the problem with Anglicanism isn't so much their prayer book as this other thing) that he held any formed "view" regarding Western Rite whatever.

4. The committee might have included saints. Or not. Can anyone name a saint that was serving on the committee? It's a stretch, or a total "Wouldn't it be neat if."

5. There is no evidence that the Gallican rite's falling into abeyance was related to any qualities of the rite. The desire was to import the Roman rite and the natural consequence of this was the disuse of the Gallican rite. Contemporary records do not reveal any motives having to do with complexity, or ease, or suitability of either rite. I glean, reading between the lines, that the whole displacement was more a function of the prestige and international sweep of the Roman rite. But, again, there is no evidence.

I think we just have to stick with the actual data. I think it would be swell if various saints were pro-Western Rite, but we can't put words in their mouths just because they don't have any words in their mouths.

I think we are talking past one another now. If you believe that facts we have saynothing about the Western Rite, that's your prerogative. It's not putting words in anyone's mouth, historical information needs to be interpreted. And both "approaches" can use the available data to bolster their viewpoints, though I find it amusing that anyone would think the actions of Ss Tikhon, Raphael, and Nicholas would support a "pre-schism only" approach. Anyone can look into this for themselves and see who's stretching

[Fr.Aidan]

But no one has ever claimed that Sts. Tikhon, Raphael, and Nicholas advocated a pre-schism Western Rite. Certainly I've never claimed that. The fact remains, there's no evidence of what their predilections were, one way or the other. That's all I'm saying. We don't even know if any of these three saints thought that it would be a good idea if the Orthodox Church had communities which were primarily Western-Rite.

[sheep100]

For what its worth it seems to me that the Antiochians have taken the right approach
to WRO. It seems to me that since Rome was the premier see in the West pre schism
and perhaps in the entire Orthodox World her rite should be revived, all other choices
Sarum, Ambrosian, Mozarabic etc. seem to be entirely arbitrary choices based upon
personal preference. The choice of the Rite of Rome(the Gregorian one not the Novus Ordo) also makes sense
because the Church of Rome is currently the largest Christian Church in the world it would
seem to that it would facilitate easier conversion for Roman Catholics if the Rite is of Rome
instead of a lesser See. It also has the advantage of being drawn from a living tradition,
which is why I think the Antiochians were also wise to allow former Anglicans to keep
a rite similar to what they previously used as a pastoral concession. A needless proliferation
of Western Rites in use in the Orthodox Church seems to me to harm the cause of WRO in
general because of the confusion it causes for even other WRO who do not use the same rite.

[Fr.Aidan]

I partially agree with sheep's post, but a lot of it does not make sense to me:

"It seems to me that since Rome was the premier see in the West pre schism
and perhaps in the entire Orthodox World her rite should be revived,"

Yes, but which form of her rite? Novus Ordo, Tridentine, Sarum, monastic orders'? All are the Roman rite.

> ... all other choices
Sarum, Ambrosian, Mozarabic etc. seem to be entirely arbitrary choices based upon
personal preference.

How is using one of these more a matter of "personal preference" than choosing the Tridentine?

"The choice of the Rite of Rome(the Gregorian one not the Novus Ordo) also makes sense
because the Church of Rome is currently the largest Christian Church in the world it would
seem to that it would facilitate easier conversion for Roman Catholics ...

Then you would be supporting the Novus Ordo, the ordinary usual experience of Roman Catholics the world over. The Tridentine is retro now, for Catholics. They didn't grow up knowing it or being familiar with it, etc.

" ... It also has the advantage of being drawn from a living tradition,"

How is the Sarum Use of the Roman rite not a living tradition? And if "living" means accepting the various changes the Vatican made to the Roman rite over the last few centuries, then only the Novus Ordo would represent a real "living tradition" of Rome, no?

"... which is why I think the Antiochians were also wise to allow former Anglicans to keep
a rite similar to what they previously used as a pastoral concession.

There's more St. Tikhon rite in the AWRV than Tridentine. Are you saying that the see of Canterbury is more venerable or "commanding" than the see of Rome itself?

"... A needless proliferation
of Western Rites in use in the Orthodox Church seems to me to harm the cause of WRO in
general because of the confusion it causes for even other WRO who do not use the same rite."

Also a good argument for everyone just going to the Eastern Rite.

[Sleeper]

It should be noted, in regards to Antioch, that the primary motivation behind which Western expression was going to be blessed was what the bodies seeking communion were actually using. The whole thrust of the AWR was that of reconciliation. It was not born in theory, or historical speculation, or anything else we find interesting to discuss. It was groups of people, wanting to enter the fullness of the Faith, yet retain as much of their heritage as possible. Because why upset something if it doesn't need it? If you're going to start from scratch, why not go Eastern Rite?

[Fr.Aidan]

Sleeper, you have made a strong case for pre-schism Western Liturgy in the Church under certain conditions.

When Christians who were already using pre-schism Western Liturgy, for whom it was not anything exotic, but simply the way they prayed day by day, week by week, year by year, decade by decade, approached the Russian Orthodox Church, the Church authorities permitted them to continue as they were.

So, Sleeper, if a community using the pre-schism Western Liturgy were to approach the Church of Antioch, would they be allowed to "continue as they were," or be required to change to liturgical usages unfamiliar to them and not organically continuous for them?

I agree very much with one thing: No one is "playing church" by toying with liturgy. We all, I presume, pray and celebrate the Liturgy in a sober way, seeking the salvation of the human race and of our own souls.

[Sleeper]

I have no doubts that a group with a pre-schism liturgy who wanted to continue it within Antioch would be allowed to do so. Why would they not? Indeed, this is precisely my point. The liturgy of the people need not be toyed with if it's authentic, true, beautiful, and blessed by the local bishop. It matters not what time period it's from.

[Deacon Lance]

"Artificial reconstruction" is an arbitrary term. Is that what St. John Maximovitch did with the neo-Gallican Liturgy?

It was certainly a reconstruction with byzantinizations added.