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

[Deacon Lance]

"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.

Holiness does not make one an expert on historical usage.  The Liturgy of St. Germanie is certainly beautiful but it is a reconstruction full of educated guesses and byzantinization.

[Deacon Lance]

I also don't understand the magic date of 1054, as if all orthodoxy ceased in West at the point and nothing heterodox appeared before.  The Roman Rite deserves to be favored as it is the most conservative of the Latin Rites.  The Carthusian use is the most conservative of the Roman Rite uses and is probably the most untouched by medieval accretions.

[Fr.Aidan]

So medieval accretions are good for the Eastern Rite, but bad for the Western Rite?

One of our RWRV clergy came up with a good idea for an approach to Western Liturgy in general: that everything pre-Schism be considered as presumably trustworthy although subject to theological or pastoral oversight, and everything post-Schism be considered as presumably deserving of scrutiny, although subject to acceptation by competent authority.

Late medieval accretions might need some scrutiny, but I can say that a lot of the medieval accretions in the Western Rite simply brought it more in line with the Eastern Rite.

[Christopher McAvoy]

I wish I had said "pre-tridentine" roman rite is ideal, as I see that the term "sarum" is less often clearly understood.

I am not saying to not use the the Roman rite Mass/Office, I am suggesting to not use the newer Roman Mass/Office from after year 1570. That is all.

For it is from that time forward, that gradually the medieval patrimony is incrementally stripped down, especially by 1911 in the office.
It is from that time forward that the "Low mass" is officially sanctioned, and officially appears on paper as "official option" and becomes more popular.  Before the Reformation and counter-reformation there was a more Orthodox approach to liturgy.

The most conveniently available option of pre-reformation use of the Roman rite is which was used in england, typically called Sarum (Salisbury). That has received the most attention so far, in that it has a few practical liturgical books published for it in latin and english. Therefore it is the most convenient to use in the immediate future, or present, in english. People can do anything as long as there is demand, education, willingness to translate or use it "as is".

As said previously, I have nothing against certain newer developments, such as newer feasts, known in the tridentine use and antiochian vicariate, examples such as St. Joseph and Sacred Heart. But why not add them to the pre-reformation propers if you want them? In G.H. Palmer's books that is exactly what is done - certain post 16th c. feasts are added into the organic pre-reformation tradition.

These books are freely available to use, I encourage anyone who may to do so.

"The Order of Vespers throughout the year from the Salisbury use" (St. Mary's Press, Wantage, 1934)
https://www.box.com/s/v3rxz8w1dua0fwyo89nj

"The Diurnal  Noted from the Salisbury Use" (St. Mary's Press, Wantage, 1926) (contains Lauds, Sext, None)
(not yet accessible online)

Fourteen ancient fauxbourdons;  set to the Song of the blessed Virgin Mary, in English (1912)
https://www.box.com/s/v3rxz8w1dua0fwyo89nj

[Christopher McAvoy]

As far as the Liturgy of St. Germanus is concerned, I am not deeply knowledgeable in it's books or history.
What do know about it is that there are no musical notation propers surviving for it's use. The best one could do to remedy this is to use whatever visigothic (Iberian/mozarabe) propers exist form their use , as the two uses are very similar.

(although for the proper of saints, most of them will be from Iberia not Gaul).

I think that the Liturgy of St. Germanus is the most impractical liturgy to use because the least information about it survives.
With the Ambrosian, Visigothic (Iberian) and all sorts of Roman uses, we have nearly full, complete documentation about them, and furthermore those three all survived in some capacity as a living tradition for the most part, even if rather obscure and rare.

To compare the pre-760 AD Gallican Mass/Office to the Pre-Trent Roman is like comparing Apples and Oranges.
One has massive documentation and is well known throughout academia, the other is not at all known with limited documentaton.
Even I will hesistate to say that in some capacity that may be going too far to commonly use the St. Germanus, for it becomes more theory than reality. If a tradition is too incomplete, it makes less sense to use it.

(most of the older pre-trent roman use, such as sarum, survived within the dominican rite until 1962, and even now is being revived by people such as Fr. Augustine Thompson, O.P. and other traditional roman catholic priories)

[Deacon Lance]

So medieval accretions are good for the Eastern Rite, but bad for the Western Rite?

One of our RWRV clergy came up with a good idea for an approach to Western Liturgy in general: that everything pre-Schism be considered as presumably trustworthy although subject to theological or pastoral oversight, and everything post-Schism be considered as presumably deserving of scrutiny, although subject to acceptation by competent authority.

Late medieval accretions might need some scrutiny, but I can say that a lot of the medieval accretions in the Western Rite simply brought it more in line with the Eastern Rite.

I would say it depends how badly the accretions obscure the true meaning of a given ritual.  I would also argue each Rite should be authentic to itself.  One Rite does not need to be brought more in line with another.  This seems to me a problem with Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy which is always judging other Rites by its own standards, i.e. Byzantine=Orthodox.

[ialmisry]

So medieval accretions are good for the Eastern Rite, but bad for the Western Rite?

One of our RWRV clergy came up with a good idea for an approach to Western Liturgy in general: that everything pre-Schism be considered as presumably trustworthy although subject to theological or pastoral oversight, and everything post-Schism be considered as presumably deserving of scrutiny, although subject to acceptation by competent authority.

Late medieval accretions might need some scrutiny, but I can say that a lot of the medieval accretions in the Western Rite simply brought it more in line with the Eastern Rite.

I would say it depends how badly the accretions obscure the true meaning of a given ritual.  I would also argue each Rite should be authentic to itself.  One Rite does not need to be brought more in line with another.  This seems to me a problem with Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy which is always judging other Rites by its own standards, i.e. Byzantine=Orthodox.

LOL.  The Vatican's Latin Roman rite has had quite a problem with that, even with other Latin rites.

Fr. Aidan rule of thumb is a good one.

[ialmisry]

"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.

Holiness does not make one an expert on historical usage.  The Liturgy of St. Germanie is certainly beautiful but it is a reconstruction full of educated guesses and byzantinization.

What goes around comes around:

Pope Adrian I between 784 and 791 sent to Charlemagne at his own request a copy of what was considered to be the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, but which certainly represented the Roman use of the end of the eighth century. This book, which was far from complete, was edited and supplemented by the addition of a large amount of matter derived from the Gallican books and from the Roman book known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, which had been gradually supplanting the Gallican. It is probable that the editor was Charlemagne's principal liturgical advisor, the Englishman Alcuin. Copies were distributed throughout Charlemagne's empire, and this "composite liturgy", as Duchesne says, "from its source in the Imperial chapel spread throughout all the churches of the Frankish Empire and at length, finding its way to Rome gradually supplanted there the ancient use".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallican_rite#Later_History_of_the_Gallican_Rite

[Deacon Lance]

So medieval accretions are good for the Eastern Rite, but bad for the Western Rite?

One of our RWRV clergy came up with a good idea for an approach to Western Liturgy in general: that everything pre-Schism be considered as presumably trustworthy although subject to theological or pastoral oversight, and everything post-Schism be considered as presumably deserving of scrutiny, although subject to acceptation by competent authority.

Late medieval accretions might need some scrutiny, but I can say that a lot of the medieval accretions in the Western Rite simply brought it more in line with the Eastern Rite.

I would say it depends how badly the accretions obscure the true meaning of a given ritual.  I would also argue each Rite should be authentic to itself.  One Rite does not need to be brought more in line with another.  This seems to me a problem with Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy which is always judging other Rites by its own standards, i.e. Byzantine=Orthodox.

LOL.  The Vatican's Latin Roman rite has had quite a problem with that, even with other Latin rites.

Fr. Aidan rule of thumb is a good one.

His rule of thumb is fine from an Orthodox view point, ut bending one Orthodox Rite to the bias of another is wrong be it Byzantine or Latin.

[ialmisry]

So medieval accretions are good for the Eastern Rite, but bad for the Western Rite?

One of our RWRV clergy came up with a good idea for an approach to Western Liturgy in general: that everything pre-Schism be considered as presumably trustworthy although subject to theological or pastoral oversight, and everything post-Schism be considered as presumably deserving of scrutiny, although subject to acceptation by competent authority.

Late medieval accretions might need some scrutiny, but I can say that a lot of the medieval accretions in the Western Rite simply brought it more in line with the Eastern Rite.

I would say it depends how badly the accretions obscure the true meaning of a given ritual.  I would also argue each Rite should be authentic to itself.  One Rite does not need to be brought more in line with another.  This seems to me a problem with Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy which is always judging other Rites by its own standards, i.e. Byzantine=Orthodox.

LOL.  The Vatican's Latin Roman rite has had quite a problem with that, even with other Latin rites.

Fr. Aidan rule of thumb is a good one.

His rule of thumb is fine from an Orthodox view point

He is an Orthodox priest, posting on an Orthodox board.

but bending one Orthodox Rite to the bias of another is wrong be it Byzantine or Latin.

Indeed!  But purging an Orthodox rite of heretical accretions is right worship i.e. Orthodox.

[Christopher McAvoy]

according to google we have this definition:

ac·cre·tion

noun /əˈkrēSHən/ 
accretions, plural

    The process of growth or increase, typically by the gradual accumulation of additional layers or matter
        - the accretion of sediments in coastal mangroves
        - the growing accretion of central government authority

    A thing formed or added by such growth or increase
        - about one-third of California was built up by accretions
        - the city has a historic core surrounded by recent accretions

    The coming together and cohesion of matter under the influence of gravitation to form larger bodies

I think I support accretions fully and totally in most situations.
Why accretions bother anyone is unknown to me. (The filioque would be one of the rare accretions that went against Church unity.)

What we deal with after Trent is not as much fact accretion as it is ommission of accretion. That is the beautiful glorious "accretions" that had grown up within the local rites of that time, and instead attempted to standardize it by ommitting certain previous customs..

Gone were the local propers for local saints SS. Dunstan, Patrick, Etheldreda, Thomas of Canterbury, in their place the commons and universal saints. In my roman catholic school we learned far more about these later post-trent universal saints, such as John Boscoe, Martin de Pores, Therese of Liseux, and much less about the ancient local saints.  Much as in how in the post-vatican II parishes we frequently find a bookcase where every single book is by "Scott Hahn" and other EWTN apologist friends of his who promote the semi-modernist worldview.

The view seems to go something like this:

A new time calls for a new church, a new church calls for new saints to replace the old. And by this method people are discouraged to hold or remember too many attachments to previous, now abandoned traditions, by which newer developments may gradually gain acceptance, developments which in some cases would have in another previous time have had anathemas pronounced against them.

[Fr.Aidan]

Christopher, you gave the same link for the fauxbourdons as for the online Sarum Vespers book (produced by pious Anglicans).

But I'd really like to see the fauxbourdons; can you repost a link? Gratias tibi in antecessum ago. 

[Christopher McAvoy]

Fourteen ancient fauxbourdons;  set to the Song of the blessed Virgin Mary, in English (1912)
https://www.box.com/s/e93aqefkzxxu2oy9llvf

Additionally, here are two "two part" settings I made from the document.
https://www.box.com/s/vpc10te666acx75ll50i

I took only the cantor/alto parts to typeset, omitting bass and tenor, for situations when you only have two people to sing them, in which case a setting for four voices does not make much sense. In my opinion they sound as nice with 2 voices as with 4 voices.  I also transposed them down one, two or three notes to better fit the average male voices. I am doing this with all the settings as time permits, I'm almost finished with tone two (for great "O" antiphons..).

[Fr.Aidan]

Sleeper, I am told that there were some independent Anglicans using the Sarum and they approached the AWRV and they were told that they would not be allowed into the AWRV unless they gave the Sarum Use up for a more modern Use of the Roman rite. But, again, that was a few years ago. And I have no "inside track" or grapevine access to the AWRV. Nor should this paragraph be construed to indicate value judgments for the Anglican's having used Sarum or for the AWRV authorities telling them "no." I report it without adding any value judgment of mine own, as I heard it. And I stand to be corrected. 

[Sleeper]

Sleeper, I am told that there were some independent Anglicans using the Sarum and they approached the AWRV and they were told that they would not be allowed into the AWRV unless they gave the Sarum Use up for a more modern Use of the Roman rite. But, again, that was a few years ago. And I have no "inside track" or grapevine access to the AWRV. Nor should this paragraph be construed to indicate value judgments for the Anglican's having used Sarum or for the AWRV authorities telling them "no." I report it without adding any value judgment of mine own, as I heard it. And I stand to be corrected. 

That's interesting, if true. I could see that being the case, I suppose, for practical concerns in terms of liturgical oversight? As opposed to being on principle.

[ialmisry]

"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.

Holiness does not make one an expert on historical usage.  The Liturgy of St. Germanie is certainly beautiful but it is a reconstruction full of educated guesses and byzantinization.

What goes around comes around:

Pope Adrian I between 784 and 791 sent to Charlemagne at his own request a copy of what was considered to be the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, but which certainly represented the Roman use of the end of the eighth century. This book, which was far from complete, was edited and supplemented by the addition of a large amount of matter derived from the Gallican books and from the Roman book known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, which had been gradually supplanting the Gallican. It is probable that the editor was Charlemagne's principal liturgical advisor, the Englishman Alcuin. Copies were distributed throughout Charlemagne's empire, and this "composite liturgy", as Duchesne says, "from its source in the Imperial chapel spread throughout all the churches of the Frankish Empire and at length, finding its way to Rome gradually supplanted there the ancient use".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallican_rite#Later_History_of_the_Gallican_Rite

As it happens, today I had the pleasure of meeting the priest out in the middle of Iowa who serves the Gallican rite at St. John the Wonderworker.

[sheep100]

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.

It seems obvious to me at least that the Novus Ordo should not even be considered, given that it
is largely an artificial contruction by so called "liturgy experts" with very questionable motivations and
because of the largely bad fruits it has born in the Roman Church. I am no liturgy expert but it seems
to me that the Sarum rites and especially the monastic rites are primarilymodifications with additions or deletions of the mother Rite of Rome(Rite of Rome being defined as the liturgy celebrated in the city of Rome). The Tridentine Rite(which is what the Liturgy of St.Gregory is with minor modifications in the vernacular) unlike what its name suggests is largely identical with what was celebrated in late pre schism
Rome and is even more ancient than the divine Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom! It is not a dead tradition but a living tradition
since it is still celebrated by various traditionalist Catholics in communion and out of communion with Rome( for example
the FSSP and the FSSPX) and by various other groups including Western Rite Orthodox.

> ... 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 Tridentine rite is largely the intact Rite of late pre schism Rome(the most important
Apostolic See in the West by far). It seems to that all other things being equal the most
influential and prestigious pre schism(and post schism) Apostolic See's Rite should take precedence.


"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.

That is not the case for all Catholics, traditionalist Catholics who are a growing minority i the Latin Church are intimately familiar with it.

" ... 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?

The Novus ordo is a living tradition beginning about 40 years ago, it bears little resemblance with any
of the forms of Roman Liturgy that preceded it. The Sarum liturgy is celebrated by very few Christians let alone Western
Rite Orthodox ,and was only revived in nineteenth or eighteenth century England.

"... 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?

No. I do see however practical considerations outweighing theoretical priority of the Roman Rite over other Western Rites.

"... 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.

It can also be used as a argument for maintaining unity with a small and fledgling community (WRO).

[Sleeper]

An important point that ties in with the importance of patrimony, is that you shouldn't really be "choosing" your liturgy. Ideally, liturgy is received from our forebears, only changing organically over time. That is the natural state of communal, liturgical worship. Antioch didn't choose from the plethora of rites available, and just happen to land on the "Tridentine" or "BCP" liturgies; they merely corrected and approved the living tradition of the parishes entering into communion.

I'm not saying no choices were made, or that everything has worked out perfectly, but choosing the Sarum or Gallican rites for use in parishes that had no experience with them is indeed different and somewhat "arbitrary" compared to an approach that works with the received tradition.

[Christopher McAvoy]

The idea of going away from individuality and choice to following that of the bishop and communities already existing in WR orthodoxy, is a very good one. Though if these communities current uses have some degree of inconsistency or minor problems here and there It may be wise to correct them.

The  fact is that far more of the book of common prayer propers keep alive the same gospel readings found in the pre-tridentine roman rite of england ("sarum" IE salisbury, york, winchester, etc.).

Thus rather than having an "anglican rite of st tikhon" directly from the book of common prayer it makes more sense to me to have one directly from the roman rite of 16th c. that created the book of common prayer, that of salisbury. That is exactly what I believe the ROCOR WR vicariate feels and is aptly freely encouraging.


The introduction of new liturgies by force by archbishops /popes within schismatic latin catholicism and protestantism in the 20th century confuses this situation toward what extent we have a right to choose our liturgies. For many people or priests the concept of choosing a more orthodox, more ancient WR liturgy book seems to be a way of correcting errors of heterodox bishops who forced them upon laity not so long ago.

If the hierarchy had a right to choose to make up new liturgies, why do we not have a right to choose to return to even older liturgies and use them nearly "as is" ?
(i'd be the first to say, we ought to generally avoid going too far back of course, so far to gallican.)

I think that we can argue the essentialy elements of pre-tridentine roman rite has been "alive" enough that it merits being deemed a living tradition, in the form of dominican rite within Roman communion and in the form of the book of common prayer within anglicanism.

It reaches a point where the average parish of the non-orthodox does not have experience with pre-1962 theology/culture/liturgy in any form at all generally. However the Antiochian vicariate did begin around 1958, and so in this case I believe one can point to this as being the continuity... so yes it makes more sense to have attachment to the tridentine if we keep that in mind, though I would argue we at to at the very least re-attachment certain elements of the pre-tridentine onto the tridentine to make it more harmonious with orthodoxy.

Frankly I prefer that the Gallican not even be involved in this thread as I once again feel it is an "apples" and "oranges" comparison.
I'd be the first to acknowledge that most likely the gallican is not able to be considered as much a living tradition as the others, in that sense a monastic community seems to me to be better off with it, if anyone at all.  I can't begin to form strong opinions for or against it because as it is not especially living or especially documented academically, it has little familiarity !

However the Ambrosian and Moazarabic most definitely deserve equality in the western rite, even if they are not as directly attached to the patrimony of most of its current members or ethnicities, which suggests that as is currently practiced, Bishop Jerome is right to prefer some form of roman (pre-tridentine or not) for his own celebration of official vicariate masses (such as for ordinations).

[Fr.Aidan]

If in the Western Rite we Orthodox must stick to liturgies as they were handed down to modern Western people from preceding generations, then we have these problems or conundra:

1. The Anglican liturgy certainly was not something handed down, at the time it was created. It was a revolutionary break with the Christian past, crafted in order to destroy and overturn the Christian heritage of that people in many respects. But if it is permissible nowadays because of the fact time has passed since the revolution, then don't worry, using pre-schism Western Liturgy will also become permissible ere long, on sheer grounds of the passage of time, following the same logic.

2. If we must take what was handed down, then the Western Rite has to be the Novus Ordo. The pre-Novus Ordo didn't really make it past the 1960s as a mainstream Liturgy of Western (Catholic) Christians.

3. If we must take what was handed down to our generation in the mainstream West, which is the Novus Ordo and the 1978 BCP, there is the problem that these themselves were not cases of "handing down" from the Christian past. The Sarum Use is just a variant of the ancient Roman rite, as is the Tridentine Use, but the Novus Ordo is a serious break with the past, and likewise the 1978 Episcopalian creation. So you defeat the principle.

4. If you decide, "Well, we'll use what came down to the 1960s fairly intact (Tridentine Use of the Roman rite, 1928 form of the Anglican), since they are somewhat modern," you can't reconcile that to the fact that they are by now foreign to almost all Roman Catholics and Anglicans in the world. So what you're doing, is making a bold strike at doing something Orthodox, over doing something familiar or well-known to people. Catholics today who can remember pre-Vatican II, are not many in number, e.g. Same with Anglican liturgy--the 1928 BCP is not something mainstream Anglicans/Episcopalians know anymore. So, IF you are going to do something unfamiliar to Westerners anyway, on the grounds that it is more Orthodox, the crowning logic of that bold act is to use things still more Orthodox in teaching and culture, due to their having continuity with the West's Orthodox past. One example (and not the only one possible!) would be the Sarum Use of the Roman rite.

5. But, as Christopher pointed out, the Sarum Use and other older uses, like the monastic uses of the Roman rite, were in continuous use throughout all the intervening centuries since the Reformation. The Sarum was done in the 10th century, and 11th, and 12th, and 13th, and 14th, and 15th, and 16th, and 17th, and 18th, and 19th, and 20th., and now 21st (though sometimes on a very small scale). So it is not so much a break in the Roman tradition, as the more Orthodox-leaning part of that tradition. And out of the two words "Western" and "Orthodox," isn't the more important word "Orthodox"?  

[Sleeper]

If in the Western Rite we Orthodox must stick to liturgies as they were handed down to modern Western people from preceding generations, then we have these problems or conundra:

I didn't say they must, just that that's the rationale behind Antioch's approved liturgies. Any self-ruling church is free to do as they wish. I think thoughtful points could be made about both "approaches" as each have potential strengths and weaknesses. But surely we can agree that, whatever their provenance, all liturgies approved are now Orthodox?

1. The Anglican liturgy certainly was not something handed down, at the time it was created. It was a revolutionary break with the Christian past, crafted in order to destroy and overturn the Christian heritage of that people in many respects.

Which Anglican liturgy are you referring to? The 1549 or one of it's subsequent revisions? The English liturgy of the Non-Jurors? The 1928? There are vast differences between them.

And whether or not it (the 1549) was "revolutionary" is up for debate. Being as familiar as you are with the Sarum Use, you should be able to recognize the clear structural similarities, conventions of language, etc. Even the title demonstrated that the Church of England was carrying out a reform rather than a "revolution": The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church: After the Use of the Church of England. The Church of England which had several Uses of the Roman Rite would now have one national Use, but the new Prayer Book was still recognized as a “Use” of the Roman Rite. I'm sure you don't agree, but the intention was not to create something new and novel, it was to restore their heritage to a more primitive standard. Whether they succeeded or not is, perhaps, debatable, but hardly revolutionary.

Indeed, one could be so bold as to say that this reformation of the liturgy was no different than the reformations of the Eastern liturgy carried out by St. Basil, or St. John Chrystostom. Even their reasons were similar. Proklos of Constantinople says, “When the great Basil...saw the carelessness and degeneracy of men who feared the length of the Liturgy - not as if he thought it too long - he shortened its form, so as to remove the weariness of the clergy and assistants" (De traditione divinae Missae, P.G., XLV, 849).

Reforming the liturgy is nothing new, so long as it's done in an "organic" manner. But, in terms of Orthodox liturgy and the Western Rite, this is beside the point. No one is using the Book of Common Prayer. There are similarities between it (them) and The English Liturgy of ROCOR and the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon of the AWRV, but both of them eclipse any of the Prayer Books.

But if it is permissible nowadays because of the fact time has passed since the revolution, then don't worry, using pre-schism Western Liturgy will also become permissible ere long, on sheer grounds of the passage of time, following the same logic.

And there would be nothing wrong with that. Again, each self-ruling church can do as it wishes.

2. If we must take what was handed down, then the Western Rite has to be the Novus Ordo. The pre-Novus Ordo didn't really make it past the 1960s as a mainstream Liturgy of Western (Catholic) Christians.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The Western Rite Vicariate of Antioch was formed before the Novus Ordo, in 1958. The approval of their liturgical heritage (corrected of course) was merely what their received tradition was. Are you implying we have to "change with the times"?

3. If we must take what was handed down to our generation in the mainstream West, which is the Novus Ordo and the 1978 BCP, there is the problem that these themselves were not cases of "handing down" from the Christian past.

The approval of the Rite of St. Tikhon happened in 1977, before the '78 BCP, and indeed, what was approved was the American Missal anyway. And, yes, they were "handed down" from the Christian past, blending much with the received tradition found in the "Tridentine" missal tradition.

The Sarum Use is just a variant of the ancient Roman rite, as is the Tridentine Use, but the Novus Ordo is a serious break with the past, and likewise the 1978 Episcopalian creation. So you defeat the principle.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Both of the approved liturgies of the AWRV happened before either of the ones you mentioned, as the received tradition of the parishes entering, and continuing on in a living tradition to today.

4. If you decide, "Well, we'll use what came down to the 1960s fairly intact (Tridentine Use of the Roman rite, 1928 form of the Anglican), since they are somewhat modern," you can't reconcile that to the fact that they are by now foreign to almost all Roman Catholics and Anglicans in the world.

Why would that matter? For evangelizing purposes?

So what you're doing, is making a bold strike at doing something Orthodox, over doing something familiar or well-known to people. Catholics today who can remember pre-Vatican II, are not many in number, e.g. Same with Anglican liturgy--the 1928 BCP is not something mainstream Anglicans/Episcopalians know anymore. So, IF you are going to do something unfamiliar to Westerners anyway, on the grounds that it is more Orthodox, the crowning logic of that bold act is to use things still more Orthodox in teaching and culture, due to their having continuity with the West's Orthodox past. One example (and not the only one possible!) would be the Sarum Use of the Roman rite.

If we were talking about liturgies that were in the process of being approved today, I suppose I could follow what you're getting at. But we're not. The approved liturgies have been approved for decades. And the communities using them have been doing so for decades. Those parishes know nothing else.

5. But, as Christopher pointed out, the Sarum Use and other older uses, like the monastic uses of the Roman rite, were in continuous use throughout all the intervening centuries since the Reformation. The Sarum was done in the 10th century, and 11th, and 12th, and 13th, and 14th, and 15th, and 16th, and 17th, and 18th, and 19th, and 20th., and now 21st (though sometimes on a very small scale). So it is not so much a break in the Roman tradition, as the more Orthodox-leaning part of that tradition. And out of the two words "Western" and "Orthodox," isn't the more important word "Orthodox"?  

That's great. I did not know that the Sarum had continued use. From what I've seen/read on it, it's a beautiful liturgy and I wish it all the success in the world.

[Christopher McAvoy]

http://musicasacra.com/sjfm/about.html

The Missals and Graduals printed after the Council of Trent contain only parts of the very rich tradition of medieval plainsong. It seems that many of the chants removed from the books at this time may still be sung (if not as liturgical items, then as motets at a suitable point during Mass), and explicit permission has been given for the use of some of them. Since many of them can enrich the liturgy both theologically and musically, a small selection of them are included here — this makes the St John Fisher Missale probably the first non-academic publication that makes this material accessible to congregations. The additional chant texts fall into three groups:

    The Offertory Verses, taken from the 1935 Offertoriale Romanum
    The Sequences, as found in the Sarum Missal, which would have been known by St John Fisher and sung in medieval England
    The Texts for the Kyrie, likewise from the Sarum Missal and, if not available there, from the Analecta hymnica. 

Where can music for these additional chants be found?

    Offertory verses: The music for the Offertory verses was published by the monks of Solesmes in 1935 in the Offertoriale Romanum, which can be downloaded for free at http://www.sinfonia-sacra.de/40355.html. A later edition with neumes, thus analogous to the Graduale Triplex (ISBN 2-85274-042-7), was published in 1985. It is still in print and available for ca. 25-30 Euros. A smaller selection of Offertory verses with neumes can be found at http://www.gregor-und-taube.de/html/materialien.htm.
    Sequences: Currently, there is no complete edition of the music for the Sequences of the Use of Sarum available. The Sequences of the Proper of Seasons are included in Nick Sandon: The Use of Salisbury, Moretonhampstead 1984-1999 (6 vols), but for those of the Proper of Saints (the great majority) one has to use the 16th-century editions of the Graduale ad usum insignis Ecclesiæ Sarum.
    Texts for the Kyrie: Music for all the Kyrie texts used here can be found in Anton Stingl jun.: Tropen zum Kyrie im Graduale Romanum, St. Ottilien, 2011, ISBN 978-3-8306-7468-9, available for ca. 20 Euros.

As long as the antiochian western rite vicariate keeps those facts in mind, they should be OK...
(For that matter the same to ROCOR , as most of their clergy do not use the pre-tridentine uses. )

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Charts of Roman rite changes; 1570-1911 - why the Sarum use is ideal