OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 10:34:06 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: David Frost on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite  (Read 5087 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,474



« on: June 18, 2013, 12:12:39 AM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2013, 07:45:19 AM »

Listening again now.
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,321


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2013, 08:34:43 AM »

Any thoughts?

The criticism seems to extend to the Eastern Rite as well. He seems to have this feelgood idea of Christianity.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2013, 08:36:07 AM »

I listened to this before, and now I remember alot of it. ok, my thoughts:

He talks about how in the Liturgy the Trinitarianism is weak, but I really dont see this. The Holy Trinity is mentioned specifically quite a few times, and AFAIK in the "correct" way. Also, he mentions a "remedial epiklesis" in the Liturgy, yet he references the BCP from 1662. However, the epiklesis that was put in (and indeed the entire liturgy) was not based on the BCP from the 1600's at all. St. Tikhon's reference is from the BCP from 1882 IIRC. The epiklesis WAS indeed inserted (which he mentions) but his entire premise is that it was "slid in" as if it was invalid. I find this to be odd since everyone, WR and ER, are in agreement that the BCP was not Orthodox, which is why an Orthodox (and orthodox) epiklesis WAS necessary, emphasizing heavier on the Holy Spirit (something he also mentions that is lacking...which I find VERY odd). So he's making a point which does not need to be made, even if his frame of reference is incorrect.

I LOVE his mentioning of the prayer of Thanksgiving....it is my favorite prayer in Orthodoxy. It is deeply moving for me as well.

As far as the communion prayer and its penitential nature, this came from the pre-Norman, pre-schism England Sarum Liturgy, which was totally Orthodox (obviously) so I really dont understand his problems with it. Quote from the Sarum is below:

Quote
Lord Jesus Christ, | Son of the living God, | Who by the will of the
Father | and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit | hast, by Thy death, given
life to the world, | deliver me, I pray Thee, | by this Thy most holy Body and
Blood, | from all mine iniquities and from all evils, | and make me ever obey
Thy commandments, | and suffer me not to be separated from Thee | at any
time, O Saviour of the world, | Who with God the Father, | in the unity of
the selfsame Holy Spirit, | livest and reignest, God | through all the ages of
ages, | amen.
I confess to God, | to blessed Mary, | to all the saints, | and to thee, | that I
have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, through my fault. | I
beseech Holy Mary, | all the saints of God, | and thee to pray for me

And from the Liturgy of St. Tikhon
Quote
ALMIGHTY GOD, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all things, judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we from time to time most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive us all that is past and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life.
To the honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
Both have a penitential feel.

It seems to me, alot of his issues stem from the BCP. That fine, so was St. Tikhon's which is why he changed alot of it for the Episcopalians that wanted to become Orthodox. That was the whole point.

For a bit more balanced perspective, i'd give a listen to Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon's view on the WR. Its on AFR somewhere....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,474



« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2013, 10:24:42 AM »

I listened to this before, and now I remember alot of it. ok, my thoughts:

He talks about how in the Liturgy the Trinitarianism is weak, but I really dont see this. The Holy Trinity is mentioned specifically quite a few times, and AFAIK in the "correct" way. Also, he mentions a "remedial epiklesis" in the Liturgy, yet he references the BCP from 1662. However, the epiklesis that was put in (and indeed the entire liturgy) was not based on the BCP from the 1600's at all. St. Tikhon's reference is from the BCP from 1882 IIRC. The epiklesis WAS indeed inserted (which he mentions) but his entire premise is that it was "slid in" as if it was invalid. I find this to be odd since everyone, WR and ER, are in agreement that the BCP was not Orthodox, which is why an Orthodox (and orthodox) epiklesis WAS necessary, emphasizing heavier on the Holy Spirit (something he also mentions that is lacking...which I find VERY odd). So he's making a point which does not need to be made, even if his frame of reference is incorrect.

I LOVE his mentioning of the prayer of Thanksgiving....it is my favorite prayer in Orthodoxy. It is deeply moving for me as well.

As far as the communion prayer and its penitential nature, this came from the pre-Norman, pre-schism England Sarum Liturgy, which was totally Orthodox (obviously) so I really dont understand his problems with it. Quote from the Sarum is below:

[snip]

It seems to me, alot of his issues stem from the BCP. That fine, so was St. Tikhon's which is why he changed alot of it for the Episcopalians that wanted to become Orthodox. That was the whole point.

For a bit more balanced perspective, i'd give a listen to Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon's view on the WR. Its on AFR somewhere....

PP

It seems he's gone to the extreme of rejecting any notion of God's wrath or our need for penitence at all, as Cyrillic said. That's why he has a problem with the penitential prayers I think, and why he discussed his former problems with the Jesus Prayer.

I'll definitely look up Fr. Patrirck's podcast. Is it this one?
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 10:25:24 AM by Nephi » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2013, 12:35:56 PM »

I listened to this before, and now I remember alot of it. ok, my thoughts:

He talks about how in the Liturgy the Trinitarianism is weak, but I really dont see this. The Holy Trinity is mentioned specifically quite a few times, and AFAIK in the "correct" way. Also, he mentions a "remedial epiklesis" in the Liturgy, yet he references the BCP from 1662. However, the epiklesis that was put in (and indeed the entire liturgy) was not based on the BCP from the 1600's at all. St. Tikhon's reference is from the BCP from 1882 IIRC. The epiklesis WAS indeed inserted (which he mentions) but his entire premise is that it was "slid in" as if it was invalid. I find this to be odd since everyone, WR and ER, are in agreement that the BCP was not Orthodox, which is why an Orthodox (and orthodox) epiklesis WAS necessary, emphasizing heavier on the Holy Spirit (something he also mentions that is lacking...which I find VERY odd). So he's making a point which does not need to be made, even if his frame of reference is incorrect.

I LOVE his mentioning of the prayer of Thanksgiving....it is my favorite prayer in Orthodoxy. It is deeply moving for me as well.

As far as the communion prayer and its penitential nature, this came from the pre-Norman, pre-schism England Sarum Liturgy, which was totally Orthodox (obviously) so I really dont understand his problems with it. Quote from the Sarum is below:

[snip]

It seems to me, alot of his issues stem from the BCP. That fine, so was St. Tikhon's which is why he changed alot of it for the Episcopalians that wanted to become Orthodox. That was the whole point.

For a bit more balanced perspective, i'd give a listen to Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon's view on the WR. Its on AFR somewhere....

PP

It seems he's gone to the extreme of rejecting any notion of God's wrath or our need for penitence at all, as Cyrillic said. That's why he has a problem with the penitential prayers I think, and why he discussed his former problems with the Jesus Prayer.

I'll definitely look up Fr. Patrirck's podcast. Is it this one?
Virtually certain that it is. If its the one Im thinking of, it has Fr. Reardon talking about the pre-Chalcedonian nature of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom....or something to that effect.

PP
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 12:36:24 PM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2013, 01:00:53 PM »

A few things.

1. The basis of his less-than-favorable view of the Rite of St. Tikhon is a rather unfair (and unfortunate) comparison between the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (which bears little resemblance to the Rite of St. Tikhon) and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It is unfair because the Rite of St. Tikhon is not of the same liturgical tradition as the 1662 BCP and there are some very significant differences. And it is also unfair because the Western Rite had a different historical development than the Eastern Rite of St. John Chrysostom; the Byzantine Rite is not the measuring stick by which the Western Rite is judged.

When properly understood as the "daughter rite" of the ancient Roman liturgy that it is, the Rite of St. Tikhon is wholly justified in the spirit of its language. It does not have to use the same brush strokes as the Byzantine Liturgy, or provide the same emphases that Prof. Frost thinks need to be there, because it is not responsible to the Byzantine development of liturgy. It is responsible to its own, authentic, equally ancient, equally Apostolic liturgical tradition.

2. Context is everything. Prof. Frost repeatedly made reference to the intentions of Anglican theologians as if the practice of the Western Rite within Orthodoxy were identical. Our spiritual context as Orthodox Christians is vastly different than that of 17th century Anglicans. And this is not at all unimportant. The habitat in which the liturgy exists is what gives it its meaning. The catechesis of Western Orthodox Christians, the homilies of our priests, the leadership of our bishops (who are all Eastern Rite), our experience of pan-Orthodox events and services, our reading of the great spiritual writings of Orthodox Fathers and Saints (both East and West), etc., all give meaning to the prayers and ceremonial of the liturgy. This did not seem to occur to Prof. Frost.

3. Most of Prof. Frost’s arguments had to do with his own specific feelings and associations made with the Book of Common Prayer, and were not in any way based upon the way the Western Rite is actually carried out within an Orthodox context. As an example, he had a problem praying the Jesus Prayer because any time he came upon the words “a sinner” he couldn’t help but have the vengeful, fearful God he associated with his Anglican upbringing popping into his thoughts. He then transfers these feelings to speciic prayers found in the Rite of St. Tikhon as if that is the only way one can understand them. This is, again, why context is everything.

4. Prof. Frost mischaracterized Met. KALLISTOS Ware’s thoughts on the Western Rite. Met. KALLISTOS does not place himself in the camp of those who have been vocally opposed to the Western Rite. He merely stated that, at that time (when he wrote his book), and in his particular situation (England), he didn’t think such an endeavor was wise. Fair enough. That has little to do with North American Western Rite Orthodoxy, which is the only place (to my knowledge) where the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is celebrated.

It was an odd reflection, to say the least. I almost want to say it was lazy, but I don't want to be uncharitable. There was just nothing of substance, in my opinion.

And if strong language about sin and our unworthiness of the goodness of God is something he thinks is "unOrthodox" perhaps Prof. Frost should familiarize himself with St. Theophan the Recluse (and many other Fathers of our Holy Church).

“The more man contemplates his sin and the more he laments over himself, the more pleasing and accessible he is to the Holy Spirit, who like a physician approaches only those who recognize themselves as being ill....Look upon your sin, and search it out. Do not turn your eyes away from it. Deny yourself, do not over-value your soul. Give yourself up entirely to the contemplation of your sin, and weep over it. Then in due time you will become conscious of your re-creation through the incomprehensivle and inexplicale action of the holy Spirit...He will act in you when you have recognized yourself as quite unworthy of Him.”

“Consequently, there is never a single moment when we have nothing on our conscience, either voluntary or involuntary, and therefore there is never a single moment when our peace with God is assured. It follows from this that it is absolutely essential to cleanse our conscience in order to be at peace with God. The conscience is cleased by repentance: consequently it is necessary to repent unceasingly. For repentance cleanses all pollution from the soul and makes it pure. Repentance does not just consist in the words, ‘Forgive, O Lord; have mercy, O Lord.’ To receive remission of sins we must also realize to the full the definite impurity of each thought, glance, and word, of each kind of allurement, we must be conscious of our own guilt and of our own lawlessness and absence of justifiication, we must recognize our need to pray for God’s forgiveness, until the spirit attains peace.”


Can anyone honestly read that, and think this prayer to be inappropriate?

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all
things, judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold
sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously
have committed, By thought, word, and deed, against thy Divine
Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against
us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our
misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the
burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy
upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus
Christ’s sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may
ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life. To the
honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.


Heck, Prof. Frost should even familiarize himself more with his own liturgy.

"How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me."

Soiled garments, being tied up and cast out by angels, is that imagery not considerably more strong than committing sins "from time to time"?

And the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is replete with images of the goodness of God, of joy and thanksgiving, etc.

"and dost assure us thereby of thy favor and goodness towards us;  and that we are
very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which
is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs
through hope of thy everlasting kingdom..."

"And we most humbly beseech thee, of thy
goodness, O Lord, to comfort and succor all those who, in this
transitory life, are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any
other adversity (the priest may commemorate specific names).  And
we also bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this
life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them
continual growth in thy love and service.  And give us grace so
to follow the good examples of blessed Mary and all thy Saints,
that, through their intercessions, we (with them) may be
partakers of thy heavenly kingdom."

"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us;
and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy holy
Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that
they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly
beloved Son.  Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son
our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of
his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body
and Blood.  And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness,
mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the
merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in
his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of
our sins, and  all other benefits of his passion."

"O GOD, who in creating human nature hast wonderfully dignified it and still more wonderfully reformed it, grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may become partakers of his Divine Nature who deigned to partake of our human nature..."

"Let the partaking of thy Body, O Lord Jesu Christ, which I, unworthy, presume to receive, turn not to my judgment and condemnation; but of Thy goodness, let it avail unto me for protection of sole and body, that I may receive Thy healing..."
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,862



« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2013, 01:31:09 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2013, 01:36:11 PM »

A few things.

1. The basis of his less-than-favorable view of the Rite of St. Tikhon is a rather unfair (and unfortunate) comparison between the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (which bears little resemblance to the Rite of St. Tikhon) and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It is unfair because the Rite of St. Tikhon is not of the same liturgical tradition as the 1662 BCP and there are some very significant differences. And it is also unfair because the Western Rite had a different historical development than the Eastern Rite of St. John Chrysostom; the Byzantine Rite is not the measuring stick by which the Western Rite is judged.

When properly understood as the "daughter rite" of the ancient Roman liturgy that it is, the Rite of St. Tikhon is wholly justified in the spirit of its language. It does not have to use the same brush strokes as the Byzantine Liturgy, or provide the same emphases that Prof. Frost thinks need to be there, because it is not responsible to the Byzantine development of liturgy. It is responsible to its own, authentic, equally ancient, equally Apostolic liturgical tradition.

2. Context is everything. Prof. Frost repeatedly made reference to the intentions of Anglican theologians as if the practice of the Western Rite within Orthodoxy were identical. Our spiritual context as Orthodox Christians is vastly different than that of 17th century Anglicans. And this is not at all unimportant. The habitat in which the liturgy exists is what gives it its meaning. The catechesis of Western Orthodox Christians, the homilies of our priests, the leadership of our bishops (who are all Eastern Rite), our experience of pan-Orthodox events and services, our reading of the great spiritual writings of Orthodox Fathers and Saints (both East and West), etc., all give meaning to the prayers and ceremonial of the liturgy. This did not seem to occur to Prof. Frost.

3. Most of Prof. Frost’s arguments had to do with his own specific feelings and associations made with the Book of Common Prayer, and were not in any way based upon the way the Western Rite is actually carried out within an Orthodox context. As an example, he had a problem praying the Jesus Prayer because any time he came upon the words “a sinner” he couldn’t help but have the vengeful, fearful God he associated with his Anglican upbringing popping into his thoughts. He then transfers these feelings to speciic prayers found in the Rite of St. Tikhon as if that is the only way one can understand them. This is, again, why context is everything.

4. Prof. Frost mischaracterized Met. KALLISTOS Ware’s thoughts on the Western Rite. Met. KALLISTOS does not place himself in the camp of those who have been vocally opposed to the Western Rite. He merely stated that, at that time (when he wrote his book), and in his particular situation (England), he didn’t think such an endeavor was wise. Fair enough. That has little to do with North American Western Rite Orthodoxy, which is the only place (to my knowledge) where the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is celebrated.

It was an odd reflection, to say the least. I almost want to say it was lazy, but I don't want to be uncharitable. There was just nothing of substance, in my opinion.

And if strong language about sin and our unworthiness of the goodness of God is something he thinks is "unOrthodox" perhaps Prof. Frost should familiarize himself with St. Theophan the Recluse (and many other Fathers of our Holy Church).

“The more man contemplates his sin and the more he laments over himself, the more pleasing and accessible he is to the Holy Spirit, who like a physician approaches only those who recognize themselves as being ill....Look upon your sin, and search it out. Do not turn your eyes away from it. Deny yourself, do not over-value your soul. Give yourself up entirely to the contemplation of your sin, and weep over it. Then in due time you will become conscious of your re-creation through the incomprehensivle and inexplicale action of the holy Spirit...He will act in you when you have recognized yourself as quite unworthy of Him.”

“Consequently, there is never a single moment when we have nothing on our conscience, either voluntary or involuntary, and therefore there is never a single moment when our peace with God is assured. It follows from this that it is absolutely essential to cleanse our conscience in order to be at peace with God. The conscience is cleased by repentance: consequently it is necessary to repent unceasingly. For repentance cleanses all pollution from the soul and makes it pure. Repentance does not just consist in the words, ‘Forgive, O Lord; have mercy, O Lord.’ To receive remission of sins we must also realize to the full the definite impurity of each thought, glance, and word, of each kind of allurement, we must be conscious of our own guilt and of our own lawlessness and absence of justifiication, we must recognize our need to pray for God’s forgiveness, until the spirit attains peace.”


Can anyone honestly read that, and think this prayer to be inappropriate?

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all
things, judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold
sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously
have committed, By thought, word, and deed, against thy Divine
Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against
us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our
misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the
burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy
upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus
Christ’s sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may
ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life. To the
honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.


Heck, Prof. Frost should even familiarize himself more with his own liturgy.

"How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me."

Soiled garments, being tied up and cast out by angels, is that imagery not considerably more strong than committing sins "from time to time"?

And the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is replete with images of the goodness of God, of joy and thanksgiving, etc.

"and dost assure us thereby of thy favor and goodness towards us;  and that we are
very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which
is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs
through hope of thy everlasting kingdom..."

"And we most humbly beseech thee, of thy
goodness, O Lord, to comfort and succor all those who, in this
transitory life, are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any
other adversity (the priest may commemorate specific names).  And
we also bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this
life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them
continual growth in thy love and service.  And give us grace so
to follow the good examples of blessed Mary and all thy Saints,
that, through their intercessions, we (with them) may be
partakers of thy heavenly kingdom."

"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us;
and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy holy
Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that
they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly
beloved Son.  Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son
our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of
his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body
and Blood.  And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness,
mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the
merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in
his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of
our sins, and  all other benefits of his passion."

"O GOD, who in creating human nature hast wonderfully dignified it and still more wonderfully reformed it, grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may become partakers of his Divine Nature who deigned to partake of our human nature..."

"Let the partaking of thy Body, O Lord Jesu Christ, which I, unworthy, presume to receive, turn not to my judgment and condemnation; but of Thy goodness, let it avail unto me for protection of sole and body, that I may receive Thy healing..."

Sleeper,
Did you write this blog post? Its pretty much verbatim.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2013, 02:20:38 PM »

Yes!
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2013, 04:19:20 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.

This is also why it's important to be clear on which Prayer Book tradition is being referenced. The Scottish Liturgy, as it was developed by the Non-Jurors and the like, is much different than the Prayer Books of the Church of England. And even further, the American Missal is much different than any Prayer Book on which it drew some of its texts.

There is an ocean of distinctions that need to be made when speaking of any relationship between the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the Communion Office of any number of extant Prayer Books.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2013, 04:30:46 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2013, 04:46:59 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,474



« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2013, 04:56:44 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?

I imagine:

"who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

It seems to sound like 1) satisfaction theory, and 2) a denial of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. I may very well may be wrong, and this may not be what he had in mind by quoting it.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2013, 05:07:02 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2013, 05:08:34 PM »

This is also why it's important to be clear on which Prayer Book tradition is being referenced. The Scottish Liturgy, as it was developed by the Non-Jurors and the like, is much different than the Prayer Books of the Church of England. And even further, the American Missal is much different than any Prayer Book on which it drew some of its texts.

There is an ocean of distinctions that need to be made when speaking of any relationship between the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the Communion Office of any number of extant Prayer Books.

So the DL of St. Tikhon is a revision of revision of revision of revision of revision of revision of etc. Sarum and hence it's perfectly logical to use it instead of Sarum?
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2013, 05:47:27 PM »

And here is the prayer it replaced:

Then immediately joining his hands, and raising his eyes, let him begin:

Therefore most merciful Father, suppliant we beg and beseech thee, through Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord.

Here let the priest rising kiss the altar on the right hand of the sacrifice, saying:
that thou wouldst receive and bless these + gifts, these + presents, these + holy unspotted sacrifices.

And the signs being made over the chalice, let him elevate his own hands, saying thus:

Which we offer unto thee, in the first place for thy holy Catholic Church, that thou wouldest vouchsafe to pacify, preserve, unite, and govern it; throughout the whole world, with thy servants N. our Pope, and our Bishop N. and our King N. and all the orthodox, and all upholders of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Here let him pray in commemoration of the living:

Remember, O Lord, thy servants, N. and N. and all present, whose faith and devotion to thee is known: for whom we offer unto thee, or who themselves offer to thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves, and all theirs for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and safety and render their own thanks to thee, the eternal God, the living and the true.

Communicating and venerating the memory in the first place, of the glorious Virgin Mary, the mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ; But also of thy blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus; Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Laurentius, Crisogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian; and all thy saints: by whose merits and prayers grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of thy protection. Through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Here let the priest look with great veneration upon the Host, saying:

We therefore beseech thee, 0 Lord, that being appeased thou wouldst accept this oblation of our servitude, as also of all thy family, and dispose our days in thy peace, and command that we may be delivered from eternal damnation, and numbered in the flock of thy elect. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Here again let him look upon the Host, saying:
Which oblation do thou, O Almighty God, we beseech thee, vouchsafe in all respects to make +hallowed, +approved, +ratified, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may be made unto us the +body and +blood of thy most dear Son our Lord Jesus Christ.

http://www.liturgies.net/Liturgies/Historical/sarum.htm
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 05:48:22 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2013, 05:58:44 PM »

This is also why it's important to be clear on which Prayer Book tradition is being referenced. The Scottish Liturgy, as it was developed by the Non-Jurors and the like, is much different than the Prayer Books of the Church of England. And even further, the American Missal is much different than any Prayer Book on which it drew some of its texts.

There is an ocean of distinctions that need to be made when speaking of any relationship between the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the Communion Office of any number of extant Prayer Books.

So the DL of St. Tikhon is a revision of revision of revision of revision of revision of revision of etc. Sarum and hence it's perfectly logical to use it instead of Sarum?

 angel
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2013, 06:00:18 PM »

I don't know who David Frost is, but he should probably stop talking about Orthodoxy and do something else.
Logged

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

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2013, 06:14:26 PM »

This is also why it's important to be clear on which Prayer Book tradition is being referenced. The Scottish Liturgy, as it was developed by the Non-Jurors and the like, is much different than the Prayer Books of the Church of England. And even further, the American Missal is much different than any Prayer Book on which it drew some of its texts.

There is an ocean of distinctions that need to be made when speaking of any relationship between the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon and the Communion Office of any number of extant Prayer Books.

So the DL of St. Tikhon is a revision of revision of revision of revision of revision of revision of etc. Sarum and hence it's perfectly logical to use it instead of Sarum?

Sarum is there for anyone to use, if they have the blessing of their bishop. For Antiochians, it was decided that resuming the living rites of the people coming into Orthodoxy was preferable to forcing them to use rites they had neither received from their forebears nor had any experience of (for the most part, as they aren't terribly dissimilar).
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,474



« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2013, 06:47:13 PM »

Virtually certain that it is. If its the one Im thinking of, it has Fr. Reardon talking about the pre-Chalcedonian nature of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom....or something to that effect.

PP

I didn't feel like I learned much about the Western Rite really. More about how the Eastern Rite tends to be fairly monophysite in its practical understanding and liturgy whereas the history of the Western Rite doesn't and emphasizes Christ's consubstantial humanity. Interesting nonetheless, although I feel it's not a deficiency inherent in the ER but more of a problem of poor catechesis. His words on St. Augustine's soteriology paralleling St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians are enlightening as well.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,862



« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2013, 07:09:11 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
and why is that?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2013, 07:19:14 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
and why is that?
That is the Canon the English Church used before Cranmer replaced it.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,862



« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2013, 08:56:26 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
and why is that?
That is the Canon the English Church used before Cranmer replaced it.
And?

The Roman Canon in its corrected Tridentine form had already been approved for Orthodox use in 1870.  St. Tikhon wouldn't have needed to have submitted the Book of Common Prayer rites to be corrected and approved, if that meant just adopted the corrected Tridentine canon.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2013, 09:10:17 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
and why is that?
That is the Canon the English Church used before Cranmer replaced it.

First of all, the original canon of the first BCP was not written from scratch and quite clearly preserves the same flow of thought as the ancient Roman canon. Secondly, Cranmer did not work alone and was not given free reign to express whatever theological ideas he my have eventually held. Thirdly, vast improvements were made to the English canon in subsequent centuries, mostly in the Scottish tradition. Fourthly, the Orthodox Tikhonian canon is not the wholesale adoption of any previous manifestation of the English canon, but was shaped according to the directions of the Russian Synod, and approved by the Antiochian Church. And lastly, the striking resemblance of the language in question is still there in our canon because it's 100% true.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2013, 09:18:50 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
and why is that?
That is the Canon the English Church used before Cranmer replaced it.
And?

The Roman Canon in its corrected Tridentine form had already been approved for Orthodox use in 1870.  St. Tikhon wouldn't have needed to have submitted the Book of Common Prayer rites to be corrected and approved, if that meant just adopted the corrected Tridentine canon.

There are other prayers that are unique to the Anglican use that the Synod would have had to approve. They dropped the ball allowing the Cranmerian Canon is all.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2013, 09:31:18 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
and why is that?
That is the Canon the English Church used before Cranmer replaced it.
And?

The Roman Canon in its corrected Tridentine form had already been approved for Orthodox use in 1870.  St. Tikhon wouldn't have needed to have submitted the Book of Common Prayer rites to be corrected and approved, if that meant just adopted the corrected Tridentine canon.

There are other prayers that are unique to the Anglican use that the Synod would have had to approve. They dropped the ball allowing the Cranmerian Canon is all.

 Roll Eyes

Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2013, 09:32:56 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
and why is that?
That is the Canon the English Church used before Cranmer replaced it.

First of all, the original canon of the first BCP was not written from scratch and quite clearly preserves the same flow of thought as the ancient Roman canon. Secondly, Cranmer did not work alone and was not given free reign to express whatever theological ideas he my have eventually held. Thirdly, vast improvements were made to the English canon in subsequent centuries, mostly in the Scottish tradition. Fourthly, the Orthodox Tikhonian canon is not the wholesale adoption of any previous manifestation of the English canon, but was shaped according to the directions of the Russian Synod, and approved by the Antiochian Church. And lastly, the striking resemblance of the language in question is still there in our canon because it's 100% true.

Things must be taken in context.  The Anglicans abandoned the Roman Canon and created a new one that comported with the faith presented in Articles 28 and 31.  Compared side by side the Roman prayer is superior, not becasue it is Roman but because it clearly presents the Catholic and Orthodox faith.  The Cranmerian prayer, while I concede can be meant in a non-heretical faction, can also be meant in heretical fashion which is what those who adhered to the 39 Articles intended.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2013, 10:22:14 PM »

Quote
On the 350th anniversary of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662), Professor David Frost, Principal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, assesses the influence of the Anglican rites on Orthodox theology and worship.

Professor David Frost speaks on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite.

As a former member of the Church of England, he has some interesting comments about the Anglican BCP-derived Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Not really positive comments, however. He seems to be arguing that major parts of the theology and language of the BCP, and likewise the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, are contrary to Orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?
Those parts are eliminated in WRO: that is the reason why (or one of them) it's not "reverse uniatism  (their, i.e. apologists for the Vatican, term, not mine) as is alleged.
Not all of them.

From the Canon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

And which part of that would/should be troublesome for an Orthodox Christian?
I am a supporter of WRO, but this prayer is Cranmerian.  The Roman Canon should have been used.
and why is that?
That is the Canon the English Church used before Cranmer replaced it.

First of all, the original canon of the first BCP was not written from scratch and quite clearly preserves the same flow of thought as the ancient Roman canon. Secondly, Cranmer did not work alone and was not given free reign to express whatever theological ideas he my have eventually held. Thirdly, vast improvements were made to the English canon in subsequent centuries, mostly in the Scottish tradition. Fourthly, the Orthodox Tikhonian canon is not the wholesale adoption of any previous manifestation of the English canon, but was shaped according to the directions of the Russian Synod, and approved by the Antiochian Church. And lastly, the striking resemblance of the language in question is still there in our canon because it's 100% true.

Things must be taken in context.  The Anglicans abandoned the Roman Canon and created a new one that comported with the faith presented in Articles 28 and 31.  Compared side by side the Roman prayer is superior, not becasue it is Roman but because it clearly presents the Catholic and Orthodox faith.  The Cranmerian prayer, while I concede can be meant in a non-heretical faction, can also be meant in heretical fashion which is what those who adhered to the 39 Articles intended.

Which is also why the "Cranmerian canon" (though it can't be attributed to one person) was not the one adapted for Orthodox use, and the one which was adapted underwent further adjustment, according to the wisdom of the Holy Synod (which you are inaccurately portraying as adopting a Cranmerian canon):

"The committee, after reviewing these "Observations," allowed in general the possibility that if Orthodox parishes, composed of former Anglicans, were organized in America, they might be allowed, at their desire, to perform their worship according to the "Book of Common Prayer," but only on condition that the following corrections were made in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. On the one hand everything must be removed from the Book that bears a clearly non-Orthodox character—the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Confession, the Catechism with its protestant teaching about the sacraments, the Filioque, the idea of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the sole source of the teaching of the Faith, etc. On the other hand, there must be inserted into the text of the prayers and rites contained in the Book those Orthodox beliefs which it is essentially necessary to profess in Orthodox worship—into the rite of the Liturgy, the profession of belief in the change of the Holy Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ, and of belief in the sacrificial significance of the Eucharist"

This is exactly what has been done with the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2013, 10:46:57 PM »

Liturgy of St Tikhon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

Book of Common Prayer:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again."
http://www.bcponline.org/

This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2013, 11:16:30 PM »

Liturgy of St Tikhon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

Book of Common Prayer:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again."
http://www.bcponline.org/

This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer. 

As you can see, the prayer was changed, from "one oblation" to "own oblation" but, nevertheless, it didn't need to be changed beyond that; for the theology in this prayer is wholly scriptural and patristic.

All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy,
Rite of St. Gregory (6th c.):  “Therefore, most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech thee”

Missal of Robert of Jumieges (1000 AD):  “Te igitur clementissime pater per iesum christum filium tuum dominum nostrum”


didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption;
Hebrews 9:15b (KJV):  “that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

who (by his own oblation of himself once offered)
Hebrews 9:28a (KJV):  “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world;
1 John 2:2 (KJV):  “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Hebrews 9:26 (KJV):  “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Hebrews 10:12 (KJV):  “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

St Athanasius: "But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death" ~ "On the Incarnation"


and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again:
Luke 22:19 (KJV):  “this do in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 11:26 (KJV):  “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2013, 09:57:32 AM »

Quote
This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer
I dont understand your point.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2013, 10:04:51 AM »

If someone pulled a bunch of prayers from the Pentecostarion and labeled them as "Western," some people would start digging up theological errors from them too.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2013, 10:06:40 AM »

If someone pulled a bunch of prayers from the Pentecostarion and labeled them as "Western," some people would start digging up theological errors from them too.

QFT!!!
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,862



« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2013, 10:27:54 AM »

Liturgy of St Tikhon:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again"

Book of Common Prayer:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there, by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again."
http://www.bcponline.org/

This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer. 

What Epiclesis is that?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,413


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2013, 12:03:36 PM »

If someone pulled a bunch of prayers from the Pentecostarion and labeled them as "Western," some people would start digging up theological errors from them too.

LOL!  So true...
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2013, 12:40:36 PM »

If someone pulled a bunch of prayers from the Pentecostarion and labeled them as "Western," some people would start digging up theological errors from them too.

QFT!!!

Seconded.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2013, 04:30:03 PM »

What Epiclesis is that?

"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

which was this:
"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2013, 06:44:58 PM »

A few things.

1. The basis of his less-than-favorable view of the Rite of St. Tikhon is a rather unfair (and unfortunate) comparison between the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (which bears little resemblance to the Rite of St. Tikhon) and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It is unfair because the Rite of St. Tikhon is not of the same liturgical tradition as the 1662 BCP and there are some very significant differences. And it is also unfair because the Western Rite had a different historical development than the Eastern Rite of St. John Chrysostom; the Byzantine Rite is not the measuring stick by which the Western Rite is judged.

When properly understood as the "daughter rite" of the ancient Roman liturgy that it is, the Rite of St. Tikhon is wholly justified in the spirit of its language. It does not have to use the same brush strokes as the Byzantine Liturgy, or provide the same emphases that Prof. Frost thinks need to be there, because it is not responsible to the Byzantine development of liturgy. It is responsible to its own, authentic, equally ancient, equally Apostolic liturgical tradition.

2. Context is everything. Prof. Frost repeatedly made reference to the intentions of Anglican theologians as if the practice of the Western Rite within Orthodoxy were identical. Our spiritual context as Orthodox Christians is vastly different than that of 17th century Anglicans. And this is not at all unimportant. The habitat in which the liturgy exists is what gives it its meaning. The catechesis of Western Orthodox Christians, the homilies of our priests, the leadership of our bishops (who are all Eastern Rite), our experience of pan-Orthodox events and services, our reading of the great spiritual writings of Orthodox Fathers and Saints (both East and West), etc., all give meaning to the prayers and ceremonial of the liturgy. This did not seem to occur to Prof. Frost.

3. Most of Prof. Frost’s arguments had to do with his own specific feelings and associations made with the Book of Common Prayer, and were not in any way based upon the way the Western Rite is actually carried out within an Orthodox context. As an example, he had a problem praying the Jesus Prayer because any time he came upon the words “a sinner” he couldn’t help but have the vengeful, fearful God he associated with his Anglican upbringing popping into his thoughts. He then transfers these feelings to speciic prayers found in the Rite of St. Tikhon as if that is the only way one can understand them. This is, again, why context is everything.

4. Prof. Frost mischaracterized Met. KALLISTOS Ware’s thoughts on the Western Rite. Met. KALLISTOS does not place himself in the camp of those who have been vocally opposed to the Western Rite. He merely stated that, at that time (when he wrote his book), and in his particular situation (England), he didn’t think such an endeavor was wise. Fair enough. That has little to do with North American Western Rite Orthodoxy, which is the only place (to my knowledge) where the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is celebrated.

It was an odd reflection, to say the least. I almost want to say it was lazy, but I don't want to be uncharitable. There was just nothing of substance, in my opinion.

And if strong language about sin and our unworthiness of the goodness of God is something he thinks is "unOrthodox" perhaps Prof. Frost should familiarize himself with St. Theophan the Recluse (and many other Fathers of our Holy Church).

“The more man contemplates his sin and the more he laments over himself, the more pleasing and accessible he is to the Holy Spirit, who like a physician approaches only those who recognize themselves as being ill....Look upon your sin, and search it out. Do not turn your eyes away from it. Deny yourself, do not over-value your soul. Give yourself up entirely to the contemplation of your sin, and weep over it. Then in due time you will become conscious of your re-creation through the incomprehensivle and inexplicale action of the holy Spirit...He will act in you when you have recognized yourself as quite unworthy of Him.”

“Consequently, there is never a single moment when we have nothing on our conscience, either voluntary or involuntary, and therefore there is never a single moment when our peace with God is assured. It follows from this that it is absolutely essential to cleanse our conscience in order to be at peace with God. The conscience is cleased by repentance: consequently it is necessary to repent unceasingly. For repentance cleanses all pollution from the soul and makes it pure. Repentance does not just consist in the words, ‘Forgive, O Lord; have mercy, O Lord.’ To receive remission of sins we must also realize to the full the definite impurity of each thought, glance, and word, of each kind of allurement, we must be conscious of our own guilt and of our own lawlessness and absence of justifiication, we must recognize our need to pray for God’s forgiveness, until the spirit attains peace.”


Can anyone honestly read that, and think this prayer to be inappropriate?

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all
things, judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold
sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously
have committed, By thought, word, and deed, against thy Divine
Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against
us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our
misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the
burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy
upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus
Christ’s sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may
ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life. To the
honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.


Heck, Prof. Frost should even familiarize himself more with his own liturgy.

"How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me."

Soiled garments, being tied up and cast out by angels, is that imagery not considerably more strong than committing sins "from time to time"?

And the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is replete with images of the goodness of God, of joy and thanksgiving, etc.

"and dost assure us thereby of thy favor and goodness towards us;  and that we are
very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which
is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs
through hope of thy everlasting kingdom..."

"And we most humbly beseech thee, of thy
goodness, O Lord, to comfort and succor all those who, in this
transitory life, are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any
other adversity (the priest may commemorate specific names).  And
we also bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this
life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them
continual growth in thy love and service.  And give us grace so
to follow the good examples of blessed Mary and all thy Saints,
that, through their intercessions, we (with them) may be
partakers of thy heavenly kingdom."

"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us;
and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy holy
Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that
they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly
beloved Son.  Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son
our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of
his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body
and Blood.  And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness,
mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the
merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in
his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of
our sins, and  all other benefits of his passion."

"O GOD, who in creating human nature hast wonderfully dignified it and still more wonderfully reformed it, grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may become partakers of his Divine Nature who deigned to partake of our human nature..."

"Let the partaking of thy Body, O Lord Jesu Christ, which I, unworthy, presume to receive, turn not to my judgment and condemnation; but of Thy goodness, let it avail unto me for protection of sole and body, that I may receive Thy healing..."


As someone who knows nearly nothing about any of this, a very informative and persuasive post.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2013, 08:14:21 PM »

Quote
This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer
I dont understand your point.

PP

That's because there is no point to be made. The logic goes like this:

Book of Common Prayer?! > Thomas Cranmer had something to do with that! > He was Protestant! > Similar language is used in the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon! = This is not Orthodox!
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #40 on: June 19, 2013, 08:14:58 PM »

A few things.

1. The basis of his less-than-favorable view of the Rite of St. Tikhon is a rather unfair (and unfortunate) comparison between the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (which bears little resemblance to the Rite of St. Tikhon) and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It is unfair because the Rite of St. Tikhon is not of the same liturgical tradition as the 1662 BCP and there are some very significant differences. And it is also unfair because the Western Rite had a different historical development than the Eastern Rite of St. John Chrysostom; the Byzantine Rite is not the measuring stick by which the Western Rite is judged.

When properly understood as the "daughter rite" of the ancient Roman liturgy that it is, the Rite of St. Tikhon is wholly justified in the spirit of its language. It does not have to use the same brush strokes as the Byzantine Liturgy, or provide the same emphases that Prof. Frost thinks need to be there, because it is not responsible to the Byzantine development of liturgy. It is responsible to its own, authentic, equally ancient, equally Apostolic liturgical tradition.

2. Context is everything. Prof. Frost repeatedly made reference to the intentions of Anglican theologians as if the practice of the Western Rite within Orthodoxy were identical. Our spiritual context as Orthodox Christians is vastly different than that of 17th century Anglicans. And this is not at all unimportant. The habitat in which the liturgy exists is what gives it its meaning. The catechesis of Western Orthodox Christians, the homilies of our priests, the leadership of our bishops (who are all Eastern Rite), our experience of pan-Orthodox events and services, our reading of the great spiritual writings of Orthodox Fathers and Saints (both East and West), etc., all give meaning to the prayers and ceremonial of the liturgy. This did not seem to occur to Prof. Frost.

3. Most of Prof. Frost’s arguments had to do with his own specific feelings and associations made with the Book of Common Prayer, and were not in any way based upon the way the Western Rite is actually carried out within an Orthodox context. As an example, he had a problem praying the Jesus Prayer because any time he came upon the words “a sinner” he couldn’t help but have the vengeful, fearful God he associated with his Anglican upbringing popping into his thoughts. He then transfers these feelings to speciic prayers found in the Rite of St. Tikhon as if that is the only way one can understand them. This is, again, why context is everything.

4. Prof. Frost mischaracterized Met. KALLISTOS Ware’s thoughts on the Western Rite. Met. KALLISTOS does not place himself in the camp of those who have been vocally opposed to the Western Rite. He merely stated that, at that time (when he wrote his book), and in his particular situation (England), he didn’t think such an endeavor was wise. Fair enough. That has little to do with North American Western Rite Orthodoxy, which is the only place (to my knowledge) where the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is celebrated.

It was an odd reflection, to say the least. I almost want to say it was lazy, but I don't want to be uncharitable. There was just nothing of substance, in my opinion.

And if strong language about sin and our unworthiness of the goodness of God is something he thinks is "unOrthodox" perhaps Prof. Frost should familiarize himself with St. Theophan the Recluse (and many other Fathers of our Holy Church).

“The more man contemplates his sin and the more he laments over himself, the more pleasing and accessible he is to the Holy Spirit, who like a physician approaches only those who recognize themselves as being ill....Look upon your sin, and search it out. Do not turn your eyes away from it. Deny yourself, do not over-value your soul. Give yourself up entirely to the contemplation of your sin, and weep over it. Then in due time you will become conscious of your re-creation through the incomprehensivle and inexplicale action of the holy Spirit...He will act in you when you have recognized yourself as quite unworthy of Him.”

“Consequently, there is never a single moment when we have nothing on our conscience, either voluntary or involuntary, and therefore there is never a single moment when our peace with God is assured. It follows from this that it is absolutely essential to cleanse our conscience in order to be at peace with God. The conscience is cleased by repentance: consequently it is necessary to repent unceasingly. For repentance cleanses all pollution from the soul and makes it pure. Repentance does not just consist in the words, ‘Forgive, O Lord; have mercy, O Lord.’ To receive remission of sins we must also realize to the full the definite impurity of each thought, glance, and word, of each kind of allurement, we must be conscious of our own guilt and of our own lawlessness and absence of justifiication, we must recognize our need to pray for God’s forgiveness, until the spirit attains peace.”


Can anyone honestly read that, and think this prayer to be inappropriate?

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all
things, judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold
sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously
have committed, By thought, word, and deed, against thy Divine
Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against
us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our
misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the
burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy
upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus
Christ’s sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may
ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life. To the
honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.


Heck, Prof. Frost should even familiarize himself more with his own liturgy.

"How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me."

Soiled garments, being tied up and cast out by angels, is that imagery not considerably more strong than committing sins "from time to time"?

And the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon is replete with images of the goodness of God, of joy and thanksgiving, etc.

"and dost assure us thereby of thy favor and goodness towards us;  and that we are
very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which
is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs
through hope of thy everlasting kingdom..."

"And we most humbly beseech thee, of thy
goodness, O Lord, to comfort and succor all those who, in this
transitory life, are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any
other adversity (the priest may commemorate specific names).  And
we also bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this
life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them
continual growth in thy love and service.  And give us grace so
to follow the good examples of blessed Mary and all thy Saints,
that, through their intercessions, we (with them) may be
partakers of thy heavenly kingdom."

"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us;
and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy holy
Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that
they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly
beloved Son.  Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son
our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of
his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body
and Blood.  And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness,
mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the
merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in
his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of
our sins, and  all other benefits of his passion."

"O GOD, who in creating human nature hast wonderfully dignified it and still more wonderfully reformed it, grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may become partakers of his Divine Nature who deigned to partake of our human nature..."

"Let the partaking of thy Body, O Lord Jesu Christ, which I, unworthy, presume to receive, turn not to my judgment and condemnation; but of Thy goodness, let it avail unto me for protection of sole and body, that I may receive Thy healing..."


As someone who knows nearly nothing about any of this, a very informative and persuasive post.

Thank you, Orthonorm.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #41 on: June 19, 2013, 10:19:16 PM »

Quote
This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer
I dont understand your point.

PP

That's because there is no point to be made. The logic goes like this:

Book of Common Prayer?! > Thomas Cranmer had something to do with that! > He was Protestant! > Similar language is used in the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon! = This is not Orthodox!

More like:

English Church uses Roman Canon > Cranmer takes it out because he is Protestant > He replaces it with a new Canon that is worded to agree with Protestant theology, most precisely Articles 28 and 31 of te 39 > exact language (but for changing one to own) is used in Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon = This is Orthodox with one prayer based on poor theology
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #42 on: June 19, 2013, 10:20:42 PM »

Quote
This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer
I dont understand your point.

PP

That's because there is no point to be made. The logic goes like this:

Book of Common Prayer?! > Thomas Cranmer had something to do with that! > He was Protestant! > Similar language is used in the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon! = This is not Orthodox!

More like:

English Church uses Roman Canon > Cranmer takes it out because he is Protestant > He replaces it with a new Canon that is worded to agree with Protestant theology, most precisely Articles 28 and 31 of te 39 > exact language (but for changing one to own) is used in Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon = This is Orthodox with one prayer based on poor theology

I ask that you two keep up this format of debate. I love it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,258

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #43 on: June 19, 2013, 11:00:38 PM »

Quote
This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer
I dont understand your point.

PP

That's because there is no point to be made. The logic goes like this:

Book of Common Prayer?! > Thomas Cranmer had something to do with that! > He was Protestant! > Similar language is used in the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon! = This is not Orthodox!

More like:

English Church uses Roman Canon > Cranmer takes it out because he is Protestant > He replaces it with a new Canon that is worded to agree with Protestant theology, most precisely Articles 28 and 31 of te 39 > exact language (but for changing one to own) is used in Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon = This is Orthodox with one prayer based on poor theology

Reality:

Catholic Christians within a specific liturgical tradition (developed outside the Church of England, though bearing some similarities) approach an Orthodox bishop inquiring about the possibility of retaining their liturgy as Orthodox Christians > said Bishop/Saint forwards liturgy to Holy Synod of Russia/Sainted New Martyrs > Synod replies with all necessary changes to bring liturgy into conformity, saying if carried out such a liturgy would be "a full expression of their new beliefs" and "is found desirable" to be "carried out...in America" > The Patriarch of Antioch and All the East "in consultation with the heads of the other autocephalous Orthodox churches" authorizes Met. ANTHONY Bashir to carry out the suggestions of the Russian Synod > Metropolitan establishes Commission of distinguished Orthodox theologians (who do not hold to Cranmerian theology of any shade) to adapt said liturgy, saying "This is a work for specialists, men who are trained to adapt heterodox theologies and rites to our Orthodoxy" and that "each and every case will be carefully analyzed by theologians of our Church, by whose skillful judgement I shall be guided" > Commission carries out adaptation, not allowing anything Cranmerian/Protestant/Zwinglian/Boogeyman into final product = Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, a liturgy which has been described by the current Antiochian Metropolitan, "in accordance with the venerable tradition of the Church" as a "witness to the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Faith" which the Archdiocese "respects and encourages the integrity" of, so much so that "Under no circumstances, now or in the future, will the Byzantine expression of this same Faith be forcibly imposed on the clergy or faithful of the Vicariate for use within their local communities."

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.

Quote
This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer
I dont understand your point.

PP

That's because there is no point to be made. The logic goes like this:

Book of Common Prayer?! > Thomas Cranmer had something to do with that! > He was Protestant! > Similar language is used in the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon! = This is not Orthodox!

More like:

English Church uses Roman Canon > Cranmer takes it out because he is Protestant > He replaces it with a new Canon that is worded to agree with Protestant theology, most precisely Articles 28 and 31 of te 39 > exact language (but for changing one to own) is used in Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon = This is Orthodox with one prayer based on poor theology

I ask that you two keep up this format of debate. I love it.

Apologies if you were being sarcastic Smiley
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 11:03:51 PM by Sleeper » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #44 on: June 19, 2013, 11:03:19 PM »

Man, I liked the > thing.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.232 seconds with 72 queries.