OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 07:48:13 AM *
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 4825 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« 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

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,224


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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,729



« 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

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,224


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: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« 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

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,224


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: 1,254

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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« 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: 6,224


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: 1,254

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: 1,254

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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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: 1,254

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: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« 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

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,502



« 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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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: 7,964


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: 7,964


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: 1,254

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: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« 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

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« 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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« 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: 1,254

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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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: 1,254

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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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: 1,254

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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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: 1,254

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: 6,224


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: 6,861


"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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,472


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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: 1,254

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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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: 16,350



« 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: 1,254

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: 1,254

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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


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: 16,350



« 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: 1,254

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: 16,350



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

Man, I liked the > thing.
Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2013, 11:05:27 PM »

Man, I liked the > thing.

Still there!
Logged
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2013, 11:06:14 PM »

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

Oh snap.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2013, 11:13:03 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2013, 11:15:14 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2013, 02:55:04 AM »

  I am very sympathetic to the argument you are trying to make. Thomas Cranmer was a Zwinglian when it comes to this issue. But if the revised prayer can be understood in an Orthodox way (non zwinglian)  then I think someone should at least explain our (Orthodox)  interpretation of the prayer.

[ author=Deacon Lance link=topic=51995.msg940850#msg940850 date=1371694756]
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!

   
Quote
e 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
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 03:00:10 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,502



« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2013, 04:26:51 AM »

If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2013, 06:03:43 AM »

 I am very sympathetic to the argument you are trying to make. Thomas Cranmer was a Zwinglian when it comes to this issue. But if the revised prayer can be understood in an Orthodox way (non zwinglian)  then I think someone should at least explain our (Orthodox)  interpretation of the prayer.

I attempted to do so, earlier. The prayer is really nothing but an interweaving of scriptural/patristic themes.

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;
Luke 1:76-79:  “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, To give knowledge of salvation to His people, By the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God, With which the Dayspring from on high has visited; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace.”

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)
St. John Chrysostom: "By whom offered? Evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed."

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;
De Sacramentis of St. Ambrose:  "Make for us this oblation approved, ratified, reasonable, acceptable, seeing that it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

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: "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.”


One should take the Tikhonian Canon as a whole, though, to gain a full picture of its clear, Orthodox teaching and what we believe is happening.

"that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son....may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood...that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one Body with Him, that He may dwell in us, and we in Him...grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us...And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood...and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of thine immaculate Mysteries, unto remission of my sins and unto life everlasting...Not unto judgement nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body."

After communing, we give thanks for what just happened:  

"thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; 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."

If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?

We do not have a prayer with poor theology.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 06:05:16 AM by Sleeper » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,224


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2013, 07:18:36 AM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
orthodox to you.

Quote
If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?
Poor theology? How so? Sleeper's breakdown of the prayer is great. So what about it is poor?

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: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2013, 12:14:48 PM »

For a more in-depth analysis of an Orthodox understanding of "satisfaction" here are Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon's thoughts on the subject: http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/fr-reardon-on-anselmian-soteriology/

Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,502



« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2013, 12:22:52 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
orthodox to you.

Quote
If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?
Poor theology? How so? Sleeper's breakdown of the prayer is great. So what about it is poor?

PP

There's nothing heretical in the prayer and I'm not one of those "Is Western? Is outrage!" folks. The prayer can and is undersood in an Orthodox way by the WRO.

However I'm not still comfortable with the idea that we have a eucharistic prayer composed by a Zwinglian because didn't like the Roman canon. I realize that proper interpretation can be found but if it was composed as an antithesis to Orthodox understanding it shouldn't be used. Please not the "if" again. I'm not familiar with the evolution of Anglican liturgy.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 12:26:13 PM by Alpo » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2013, 01:14:01 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
orthodox to you.

Quote
If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?
Poor theology? How so? Sleeper's breakdown of the prayer is great. So what about it is poor?

PP

There's nothing heretical in the prayer and I'm not one of those "Is Western? Is outrage!" folks. The prayer can and is undersood in an Orthodox way by the WRO.

However I'm not still comfortable with the idea that we have a eucharistic prayer composed by a Zwinglian because didn't like the Roman canon. I realize that proper interpretation can be found but if it was composed as an antithesis to Orthodox understanding it shouldn't be used. Please not the "if" again. I'm not familiar with the evolution of Anglican liturgy.

Cranmer did not have free reign to compose anything he wished, and he was part of a team of theologians who reworked the Roman canon. They didn't abolish it. The general outline and stream of thought is virtually identical. The language was developed over time in a decidedly non-Cranmerian direction, however, by those who wished to return the English canon back to one more in line with ancient, particularly Eastern canons. This happened in the Scottish liturgical tradition, which had little to do with the official prayer books of the Church of England.

One might ask, as you did earlier, why not just swap the canon out for an already existing one? That's a good question, and I suspect there are lots of factors at play. The most important one that I can think of at the moment is that liturgy has a way of becoming a part of someone, a part of a worshipping community, such that it's not something you "do" or "perform" but something that lives in you, something you breathe. It gets passed on from generation to generation in an organic way. All of the great liturgical traditions underwent revisions, simplifications, etc., over time, and that of English-speaking catholics is no different. The West has a complicated history, no doubt. But quite simply, those who ended up coming into Orthodoxy with their English Rite loved and treasured their inheritance and didn't want to forsake it for something that had no lived experience among them.

There are other practical and pastoral issues that I'm sure could be brought up.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #56 on: June 21, 2013, 04:36:26 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
orthodox to you.

PP

And all the Orthodox who used it pre-schism and Western Rite Orthodox who use it today.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #57 on: June 21, 2013, 04:43:04 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.
Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2013, 05:29:20 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.

The canon is more than the first prayer, my friend. And, as has already been pointed out, the changing of "one word" in that first paragraph changed the entire theology of the prayer. Pretty cool how that works.

Anyway, in regards to the whole canon, I'll let those more knowledgeable than me say it better than I could:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764.

In this, the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.”

- The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

The Scottish tradition was the basis for the Tikhonian canon, as it came down to us through the American Missal. Not Cranmer's canon. And it's apparently worth pointing out again that Thomas Cranmer was not the only person working with the English canon and a breakdown of the text as it exists in the Tikhonian Rite is perfectly Orthodox in every turn of its phrase. The Russian Synod did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology (whatever that means) slip in. The Commission established for the very purpose of vetting Western Rites for Orthodoxy did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology slip in. And the Orthodox Christians who have continually used this beautiful liturgy, since its inception, know that it expresses the fully eucharastic theology of the Orthodox Church, and nothing else.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 05:30:58 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #59 on: June 21, 2013, 08:25:02 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.

The canon is more than the first prayer, my friend. And, as has already been pointed out, the changing of "one word" in that first paragraph changed the entire theology of the prayer. Pretty cool how that works.

Anyway, in regards to the whole canon, I'll let those more knowledgeable than me say it better than I could:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764.

In this, the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.”

- The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

The Scottish tradition was the basis for the Tikhonian canon, as it came down to us through the American Missal. Not Cranmer's canon. And it's apparently worth pointing out again that Thomas Cranmer was not the only person working with the English canon and a breakdown of the text as it exists in the Tikhonian Rite is perfectly Orthodox in every turn of its phrase. The Russian Synod did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology (whatever that means) slip in. The Commission established for the very purpose of vetting Western Rites for Orthodoxy did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology slip in. And the Orthodox Christians who have continually used this beautiful liturgy, since its inception, know that it expresses the fully eucharastic theology of the Orthodox Church, and nothing else.
I am aware that the canon is more than that one prayer. I also admit the prayer can have an orthodox meaning.  That said much like the new Eucharistic prayers created for the Roman Rite post-Vatican II, why bother?  The tradition of the English church was the Roman Canon pre-schism and pre-reformation.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the new Roman Rite canons or that of the Liturgy of St Tikhon, but they all pale in comparison to the Roman Canon used from antiquity and hallowed by the use of saints and fathers of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Logged

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

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: 37,124



« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2013, 09:27:41 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.
Then it wouldn't have had to be corrected, then, would it?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2013, 09:29:54 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.

The canon is more than the first prayer, my friend. And, as has already been pointed out, the changing of "one word" in that first paragraph changed the entire theology of the prayer. Pretty cool how that works.

Anyway, in regards to the whole canon, I'll let those more knowledgeable than me say it better than I could:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764.

In this, the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.”

- The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

The Scottish tradition was the basis for the Tikhonian canon, as it came down to us through the American Missal. Not Cranmer's canon. And it's apparently worth pointing out again that Thomas Cranmer was not the only person working with the English canon and a breakdown of the text as it exists in the Tikhonian Rite is perfectly Orthodox in every turn of its phrase. The Russian Synod did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology (whatever that means) slip in. The Commission established for the very purpose of vetting Western Rites for Orthodoxy did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology slip in. And the Orthodox Christians who have continually used this beautiful liturgy, since its inception, know that it expresses the fully eucharastic theology of the Orthodox Church, and nothing else.
I am aware that the canon is more than that one prayer. I also admit the prayer can have an orthodox meaning.  That said much like the new Eucharistic prayers created for the Roman Rite post-Vatican II, why bother?  The tradition of the English church was the Roman Canon pre-schism and pre-reformation.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the new Roman Rite canons or that of the Liturgy of St Tikhon, but they all pale in comparison to the Roman Canon used from antiquity and hallowed by the use of saints and fathers of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
and a whole host of heretics.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2013, 09:40:13 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."


Cramner had nothing to do with that Epiclesis.  The Non-juring Scottish bishops put it in in 1764, and passed it on to the Americans when they ordained Seabury.
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2013, 09:57:54 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.
Then it wouldn't have had to be corrected, then, would it?
If by corrected you mean clumsily inserting a second epiclesis of Byzantine style, no it didn't need corrected and some Eastern Orthodox are actually recognize that.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #64 on: June 21, 2013, 09:58:45 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."


Cramner had nothing to do with that Epiclesis.  The Non-juring Scottish bishops put it in in 1764, and passed it on to the Americans when they ordained Seabury.

I never said he did.
Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #65 on: June 21, 2013, 10:21:47 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.

The canon is more than the first prayer, my friend. And, as has already been pointed out, the changing of "one word" in that first paragraph changed the entire theology of the prayer. Pretty cool how that works.

Anyway, in regards to the whole canon, I'll let those more knowledgeable than me say it better than I could:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764.

In this, the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.”

- The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

The Scottish tradition was the basis for the Tikhonian canon, as it came down to us through the American Missal. Not Cranmer's canon. And it's apparently worth pointing out again that Thomas Cranmer was not the only person working with the English canon and a breakdown of the text as it exists in the Tikhonian Rite is perfectly Orthodox in every turn of its phrase. The Russian Synod did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology (whatever that means) slip in. The Commission established for the very purpose of vetting Western Rites for Orthodoxy did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology slip in. And the Orthodox Christians who have continually used this beautiful liturgy, since its inception, know that it expresses the fully eucharastic theology of the Orthodox Church, and nothing else.
I am aware that the canon is more than that one prayer. I also admit the prayer can have an orthodox meaning.  That said much like the new Eucharistic prayers created for the Roman Rite post-Vatican II, why bother?  The tradition of the English church was the Roman Canon pre-schism and pre-reformation.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the new Roman Rite canons or that of the Liturgy of St Tikhon, but they all pale in comparison to the Roman Canon used from antiquity and hallowed by the use of saints and fathers of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

This wades into a much larger issue of what the "purpose" of Western Rite Orthodoxy is. The history of the Antiochian Western Rite is one solely about the union of Western catholic Christians with the undivided, Orthodox Church. Its impetus was not of a theoretical nature, in which the goal was to "pick up where the 'Orthodox West' left off" and revive rites or customs that had faded into history, venerable as those things may be. It wasn't nearly as self-conscious as much of contemporary Western Orthodoxy seems to be about these things.

If you read the correspondences, and the stories about those who made this movement happen, it was always "Can we become Orthodox and still worship from within our Western heritage?" As we see most clearly in the Russian Observations of the Prayer Book, the answer was, "Yes, and here's what you'd have to do."

Why not help restore and fulfill all of the good and beautiful aspects of the people's heritage instead of forcing upon them rites and customs that fell into disuse? Is something "Orthodox" because of its time period, or geographical location, rather than the theology it expresses? Antioch would say no.

That being said, if the people eventually incorporate something older from the whole tradition and revive it, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that has happened already; the manner in which we now cross ourselves, the use of "blessed bread," the fasting rules, have all be restored. But these things happen organically, as they should.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #66 on: June 21, 2013, 10:29:21 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.
Then it wouldn't have had to be corrected, then, would it?
If by corrected you mean clumsily inserting a second epiclesis of Byzantine style, no it didn't need corrected and some Eastern Orthodox are actually recognize that.
Some Eastern Orthodox evidently don't know what they are talking about.

If the Vatican hadn't clumsily squeezed the old epiclesis out of the Roman canon on the papacy's meandering down the road out of Orthodoxy, the issue wouldn't come up.

That's not the only correction needed to make the Tridentine Mass into the DL of St. Gregory.

Even the Latin "Extraordinary Rite" (or whatever ya'll are calling it nowadays) crowd don't complain of the "Byzantine" style Kyrie.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 10:35:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #67 on: June 21, 2013, 11:08:44 PM »

Isa brings up an important point. The Antiochian Western Rite liturgies are, to my knowledge, the only time the Western Rite has been laid at the feet of the Eastern Church, as it were, for full scrutiny. And because of that, the liturgies as they exist now, are in some ways improvements over any of the more ancient rites. The Orthodox Church, having 2,000 years of unbroken liturgical tradition and experience, can provide a perspective on liturgy that no one else can, and they can ensure that all of their authorized rites are full expressions of Orthodoxy. In this sense, reverting to an older service, however appealing it might be for the sake of historical "purity" may have the effect of impoverishing the rite.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,472


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 21, 2013, 11:27:47 PM »

If the Vatican hadn't clumsily squeezed the old epiclesis out of the Roman canon on the papacy's meandering down the road out of Orthodoxy, the issue wouldn't come up.

What old epiclesis?  I hadn't heard of such a thing.
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
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,224


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 22, 2013, 11:38:16 AM »

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."


Cramner had nothing to do with that Epiclesis.  The Non-juring Scottish bishops put it in in 1764, and passed it on to the Americans when they ordained Seabury.

I never said he did.
No, but you did say that it was Cranmer's theology, unless I misread it.

Quote
Some Eastern Orthodox evidently don't know what they are talking about
You're right, they dont. They put just as much emphasis on EASTERN as they do Orthodox. Which is why Bishop Anthony of San Francisco got slam dunked when he made that ridiculous encyclical a few years back.

Quote
I do not question the orthodoxy of the new Roman Rite canons
You're starting to become a minority...alot of converts to Orthodoxy are those fleeing the post-Vatican II hilarity.
Quote
or that of the Liturgy of St Tikhon
Nor should you....it is both Orthodox and orthodox. Heck even most hierarchs with ZERO WR parishes say there is absolutely nothing wrong with the liturgy, or the WR in general.
Quote
but they all pale in comparison to the Roman Canon used from antiquity and hallowed by the use of saints and fathers of both the Catholic and Orthodox Church
Which one would that be? (honestly curious)


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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #70 on: June 22, 2013, 11:56:37 AM »

If the Vatican hadn't clumsily squeezed the old epiclesis out of the Roman canon on the papacy's meandering down the road out of Orthodoxy, the issue wouldn't come up.

What old epiclesis?  I hadn't heard of such a thing.

Take for instance the epiclesis: the Roman rite, according to, for instance, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" had one:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
Quote
Epiklesis (Latin invocatio) is the name of a prayer that occurs in all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also) after the words of Institution, in which the celebrant prays that God may send down His Holy Spirit to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son...It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer...Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations. The Gallican Liturgy had variable forms according to the feast....The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations...It should be noticed that the Epiklesis for the Holy Eucharist is only one of many such forms. In other sacraments and blessings similar prayers were used, to ask God to send His Holy Spirit to sanctify the matter. There was an Epiklesis for the water of baptism. Tertullian (On Baptism 4), Optatus of Mileve ("De schism. Don., III, ii, VI, iii, in "Corp. Script. eccl. Latin.", vol. XXVI, 69, 148, 149), St. Jerome (Contra Lucif., vi, vii), St. Augustine (On Baptism V.20 and V.27), in the West; and St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit 15.35), St. Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. cat. magn. xxxiii), and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. iii, 3), in the East, refer to it.
At the time before your schism
Quote
That in the Liturgy the Invocation should occur after the words of Institution is only one more case of many which show that people were not much concerned about the exact instant at which all the essence of the sacrament was complete. They looked upon the whole Consecration-prayer as one simple thing. In it the words of Institution always occur (with the doubtful exception of the Nestorian Rite); they believed that Christ would, according to His promise, do the rest. But they did not ask at which exact moment the change takes place. Besides the words of Institution there are many other blessings, prayers, and signs of the cross, some of which came before and some after the words, and all, including the words themselves, combine to make up the one Canon of which the effect is Transubstantiation. So also in our baptism and ordination services, part of the forms and prayers whose effect is the sacramental grace comes, in order of time, after the essential words.
but of course, the scholastics could leave well enough alone
Quote
It was not till Scholastic times that theologians began to discuss the minimum of form required for the essence of each sacrament.
and then got it wrong
Quote
It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis]
which progressed to a problem
Quote
This form has given rise to one of the chief controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches, inasmuch as all Eastern schismatics

sic
Quote
now believe that the Epiklesis, and not the words of Institution, is the essential form (or at least the essential complement) of the sacrament.
whereupon, instead of correcting the matter, the Vatican
Quote
decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear....and the disappearance of any real Epiklesis in our Liturgy confirms this
IOW the Vatican persisted and refused correction and decided on heresy, going into schism over it. Since it chose that over full communion with the Church, the lack of an epiclesis, or at least a full one, and the concommittant defense of lacking one, prove more than a hinderance for the Vatican to return to Catholic communion.
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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,472


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 22, 2013, 01:05:04 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #72 on: June 22, 2013, 04:42:45 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before, if it ever had one, liturgical scholars do not agree.  St. Nicholas Cabasilas understood the "Supplices te Rogamus" as an implicit ascending Epiclesis as do others with any Liturgical sense.

As to extent western epiclesis, yes we have them in the Mozarabic Missal.
Logged

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

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: 37,124



« Reply #73 on: June 22, 2013, 05:26:03 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #74 on: June 22, 2013, 11:33:41 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?  Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #75 on: June 22, 2013, 11:36:42 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?  Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.

Fr. Deacon, are there actual texts going back that far? In an era in which priests memorized the Mass?
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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #76 on: June 22, 2013, 11:48:28 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?
Not just that, but that is more than you got, Deacon.
Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.
You first.
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #77 on: June 23, 2013, 12:45:15 AM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?  Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.

Fr. Deacon, are there actual texts going back that far? In an era in which priests memorized the Mass?

To St Gelasius?  No.  The oldest sacramentaries we have are from the seventh century.  But there are writings of the fathers that attest to the antiquity of the Roman Canon and the great majority of scholars agree that it is St. Gregory the Great who arranged it as we have it today.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #78 on: June 23, 2013, 01:07:24 AM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?
Not just that, but that is more than you got, Deacon.
Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.
You first.

The Canon of St. Hippolytus
We give you thanks, O God, through your beloved Servant Jesus Christ, whom at the end of time you did send to us a Saviour and Redeemer and the Messenger of your counsel. Who is your Word, inseparable from you; through whom you did make all things and in whom you are well pleased. Whom you did send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who, dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as your Son, being born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Who, fulfilling your will, and winning for himself a holy people, spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death he might set free them who believed on you.
Who, when he was betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to nought death, and break the bond of the devil, and tread hell under foot, and give light to the righteous and set up a boundary post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving thanks to you said: Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, perform my memorial. Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, yielding you thanks, because you have counted us worthy to stand before you and to minister to you. And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

From Rome, the 300s, no Eastern style Epiclesis there.
 
Logged

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

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: 37,124



« Reply #79 on: June 23, 2013, 01:54:58 AM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it.  

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?
Not just that, but that is more than you got, Deacon.
Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.
You first.

The Canon of St. Hippolytus
We give you thanks, O God, through your beloved Servant Jesus Christ, whom at the end of time you did send to us a Saviour and Redeemer and the Messenger of your counsel. Who is your Word, inseparable from you; through whom you did make all things and in whom you are well pleased. Whom you did send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who, dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as your Son, being born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Who, fulfilling your will, and winning for himself a holy people, spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death he might set free them who believed on you.
Who, when he was betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to nought death, and break the bond of the devil, and tread hell under foot, and give light to the righteous and set up a boundary post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving thanks to you said: Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, perform my memorial. Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, yielding you thanks, because you have counted us worthy to stand before you and to minister to you. And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

From Rome, the 300s, no Eastern style Epiclesis there.
  
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 01:55:47 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #80 on: June 23, 2013, 12:37:11 PM »

And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

That is not an Eastern style Epiclesis. Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about here are some examples:

From the Byzantine St James Liturgy:
"The Priest, in a low voice: Have mercy on us, Lord God, the Father, the Almighty. Have mercy on us, God our Saviour. Have mercy on us, O God, in accordance with your great mercy, and send forth upon these holy gifts, here set forth, your all-holy Spirit, (bowing) the Lord and giver of life, enthroned with you, God and Father, and your only-begotten Son, co-reigning, consubstantial and co-eternal, who spoke by the Law and the Prophets and by your New Covenant, who came down in the form of a dove upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, and rested upon him, who came down upon your holy Apostles in the form of fiery tongues in the upper room of holy and glorious Sion on the day of Pentecost. (Standing up) Your same all-holy Spirit, Lord, send down on us and on these gifts here set forth,

(aloud): that having come by his holy, good and glorious presence, he may sanctify this bread and make it the holy body of Christ,

People: Amen.

Priest: and this Cup the precious blood of Christ,

People: Amen.

The Priest signs the holy Gifts and says in a low voice: that they may become for all those who partake of them for forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. For sanctification of souls and bodies. For a fruitful harvest of good works. For the strengthening of your holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which you founded on the rock of the faith, so that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it, delivering it from every heresy and from the scandals caused by those who work iniquity, and from the enemies who arise and attack it, until the consummation of the age.

The clergy alone answer: Amen."
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/lit-james.htm

From The Mozarabic Mass for the Nativity of Chirst(this prayer was part of the propers changing with each day)

"Observing, O Lord, these Thy gifts and commands, we placed upon Thine Altar these offerings of bread and wine, beseeching Thee in the abundance of Thy goodness and compassion, that by the power of that same Spirit by which uncorrupt virginity conceived Thee in the flesh, the Undivided Trinity may sanctify these oblations, so that, when they shall be received by us with no less fear than veneration, whatever there be of life harmful to the soul may wither, and that what has withered may in no wise live again. Amen."
(Twenty-five Consecration Prayers, with Notes and Introduction, Arthur Linton, 1921. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 116-119.)


See the difference?
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 12:39:16 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

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

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: 37,124



« Reply #81 on: June 23, 2013, 05:24:36 PM »

And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

That is not an Eastern style Epiclesis.

No, it is a Western style Epiclesis.  Do keep up, Deacon.

Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about
Enough to know that there is a literature on the epiclesis in the passage in question, and questions about the passage's text. Lord willing later, I might post some references.

here are some examples:

From the Byzantine St James Liturgy:
"The Priest, in a low voice: Have mercy on us, Lord God, the Father, the Almighty. Have mercy on us, God our Saviour. Have mercy on us, O God, in accordance with your great mercy, and send forth upon these holy gifts, here set forth, your all-holy Spirit, (bowing) the Lord and giver of life, enthroned with you, God and Father, and your only-begotten Son, co-reigning, consubstantial and co-eternal, who spoke by the Law and the Prophets and by your New Covenant, who came down in the form of a dove upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, and rested upon him, who came down upon your holy Apostles in the form of fiery tongues in the upper room of holy and glorious Sion on the day of Pentecost. (Standing up) Your same all-holy Spirit, Lord, send down on us and on these gifts here set forth,

(aloud): that having come by his holy, good and glorious presence, he may sanctify this bread and make it the holy body of Christ,

People: Amen.

Priest: and this Cup the precious blood of Christ,

People: Amen.

The Priest signs the holy Gifts and says in a low voice: that they may become for all those who partake of them for forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. For sanctification of souls and bodies. For a fruitful harvest of good works. For the strengthening of your holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which you founded on the rock of the faith, so that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it, delivering it from every heresy and from the scandals caused by those who work iniquity, and from the enemies who arise and attack it, until the consummation of the age.

The clergy alone answer: Amen."
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/lit-james.htm

From The Mozarabic Mass for the Nativity of Chirst(this prayer was part of the propers changing with each day)

"Observing, O Lord, these Thy gifts and commands, we placed upon Thine Altar these offerings of bread and wine, beseeching Thee in the abundance of Thy goodness and compassion, that by the power of that same Spirit by which uncorrupt virginity conceived Thee in the flesh, the Undivided Trinity may sanctify these oblations, so that, when they shall be received by us with no less fear than veneration, whatever there be of life harmful to the soul may wither, and that what has withered may in no wise live again. Amen."
(Twenty-five Consecration Prayers, with Notes and Introduction, Arthur Linton, 1921. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 116-119.)

See the difference?
No, that's a distinction without a difference.
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #82 on: June 23, 2013, 07:26:56 PM »

At this point I am not even sure what you are arguing about.  I never said there wasn't an Epiclesis, just not an explicit descending Epiclesis of the style the East.  The Roman Canon has an implicit ascending Epiclesis:
"In humble prayer we ask you,almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing."
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml

Which matches thought with the Mozarabic:
"Observing, O Lord, these Thy gifts and commands, we placed upon Thine Altar these offerings of bread and wine, beseeching Thee in the abundance of Thy goodness and compassion, that by the power of that same Spirit by which uncorrupt virginity conceived Thee in the flesh, the Undivided Trinity may sanctify these oblations, so that, when they shall be received by us with no less fear than veneration, whatever there be of life harmful to the soul may wither, and that what has withered may in no wise live again. Amen."
(Twenty-five Consecration Prayers, with Notes and Introduction, Arthur Linton, 1921. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 116-119.)

So if you have no problem with the Mozarabic you should have none with the Roman if you are being consistent.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #83 on: June 23, 2013, 07:33:56 PM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Logged

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

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: 37,124



« Reply #84 on: June 23, 2013, 08:20:14 PM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #85 on: June 23, 2013, 08:23:15 PM »

At this point I am not even sure what you are arguing about.  I never said there wasn't an Epiclesis, just not an explicit descending Epiclesis of the style the East.  The Roman Canon has an implicit ascending Epiclesis:
"In humble prayer we ask you,almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing."
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml

Which matches thought with the Mozarabic:
"Observing, O Lord, these Thy gifts and commands, we placed upon Thine Altar these offerings of bread and wine, beseeching Thee in the abundance of Thy goodness and compassion, that by the power of that same Spirit by which uncorrupt virginity conceived Thee in the flesh, the Undivided Trinity may sanctify these oblations, so that, when they shall be received by us with no less fear than veneration, whatever there be of life harmful to the soul may wither, and that what has withered may in no wise live again. Amen."
(Twenty-five Consecration Prayers, with Notes and Introduction, Arthur Linton, 1921. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 116-119.)

So if you have no problem with the Mozarabic you should have none with the Roman if you are being consistent.
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #86 on: June 23, 2013, 09:17:14 PM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."

You don't get it.  Conversation over.
Logged

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

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: 37,124



« Reply #87 on: June 23, 2013, 09:47:43 PM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."

You don't get it.  Conversation over.
But God's praise endeth never.

But do tell us when you find an epiclesis that doesn't invoke the Spirit, Deacon.  I mean, besides the Tridentine.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 09:49:33 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2013, 12:00:29 AM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."

You don't get it.  Conversation over.
But God's praise endeth never.

But do tell us when you find an epiclesis that doesn't invoke the Spirit, Deacon.  I mean, besides the Tridentine.

Still not getting it.  I didn't say the Spirit wasn't invoked, although some Mozarabic and Gallican epicleses as well as that of Serapion invoke Christ rather than the Spirit.   And the Roman Canon does invoke the Spirit, that is who the Angel with a capital A is. 
Logged

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

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: 37,124



« Reply #89 on: June 24, 2013, 12:45:40 AM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."

You don't get it.  Conversation over.
But God's praise endeth never.

But do tell us when you find an epiclesis that doesn't invoke the Spirit, Deacon.  I mean, besides the Tridentine.

Still not getting it.  I didn't say the Spirit wasn't invoked, although some Mozarabic and Gallican epicleses as well as that of Serapion invoke Christ rather than the Spirit.   And the Roman Canon does invoke the Spirit, that is who the Angel with a capital A is. 
There were no capitals in ancient Latin.

And I don't recall the Spirit ever being referred as an angel, capitalized or otherwise, anywhere.  Anywhere Orthodox and orthodox that is.
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2013, 07:24:20 PM »


There were no capitals in ancient Latin.

And I don't recall the Spirit ever being referred as an angel, capitalized or otherwise, anywhere.  Anywhere Orthodox and orthodox that is.

I think you mean ancient Latin was all capitals.

I did make an error.  It would seem St. Nicholas Cabasilas considers "Supplices te rogamus" a Christ epiclesis after rereadng his commentary.

Here an Antiochian priest states the Byzantine Epiclesis was inserted in the Roma Canon not because it was thought defective but for pastoral reasons so that Eastern Riters wouldn't be disturbed.

http://padretexwest.blogspot.com/2010/08/liturgy-of-st-gregory-and-invocation.html
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 440



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 25, 2013, 02:12:13 AM »

I sympathize with a few things Dr. Frost says, but I agree that it's an unfortunate interview, as Dr. Frost himself said the interview opened a can of worms.

Ironically I came to the Orthodox Church in order to preserve the Latin rite, not to avoid it.

There are a number of people who become Orthodox because of various degrees of dislike or disenchantment with the western rite(s).
it's not just the the theology itself it's the entire complex western churches and liturgical innovations/traditions that become discouraging to them. The refreshing trend some of these people find is that the Orthodox Church has little or no western baggage and problems in it. Therefore to find that what one hoped to "escape from" or at least "avoid" even if this wasnt the main reason that became orthodox, to find it again within the Church, can be uncomfortably disturbing to them.

To this extent I can sympathize with them, the western rite of the Orthodox Church is in many ways very ecumenical in the sense that it explores and resolves a number of the original causes and origins the led to the schism of the Roman Catholic Church from it. It is perhaps destined to remain controversial for a certain period of time for that reason. But this is not enough of a reason to abandon it or speak against it. It simply must keep growing and maturing, in time the controversies that exist today will be resolved.


His statement toward the end that the Orthodox Church doesnt believe in "original sin" is embarrassing and mistaken, although it is sadly an all too common view being perpetuated these days. (Though obviously it has a different teaching of original sin from John Calvin the reformer.)


The moral of the story here is this:

If the prayers don't exist in a latin original as a counterpart to the english, they need to be removed.
As long as protestant prayers or liturgies exist within the Western rite of the Orthodox Church,
they will be used as an excuse to avoid or discourage the use of the various Latin rites within the Orthodox Church.

I have no love or interest for Thomas Cranmer's innovations or prayers that do not correspond to latin originals.
They happened in an inorganic fashion similar on some level to the various shortcomings of the Novus Ordo of vatican II.
If the liturgy commonly referred to as the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" happened to disappear one day I would not notice or mind.

I think that the adaptation of any directly protestant liturgies or prayers into the Orthodox Church is a mistake and I will have no part in participating in them on a regular basis.

The "burden of them is intolerable".
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 02:30:20 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #92 on: June 25, 2013, 02:28:01 AM »


There were no capitals in ancient Latin.

And I don't recall the Spirit ever being referred as an angel, capitalized or otherwise, anywhere.  Anywhere Orthodox and orthodox that is.

I think you mean ancient Latin was all capitals.
No.


I did make an error.  It would seem St. Nicholas Cabasilas considers "Supplices te rogamus" a Christ epiclesis after rereadng his commentary.

Here an Antiochian priest states the Byzantine Epiclesis was inserted in the Roma Canon not because it was thought defective but for pastoral reasons so that Eastern Riters wouldn't be disturbed.

http://padretexwest.blogspot.com/2010/08/liturgy-of-st-gregory-and-invocation.html
Yes, I'm aware of 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
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 440



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 25, 2013, 02:28:25 AM »

mistaken post.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 02:28:55 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #94 on: June 25, 2013, 06:00:06 PM »

Ironically I came to the Orthodox Church in order to preserve the Latin rite, not to avoid it.

"Yet the true cleavage today is not between the 'East' and the 'West.' It is between those who seek in the liturgy the essential food of their Christian life and those for whom it is a matter of "attachment"...And all these tensions...cannot and will not be solved except by an ever deepened interest — not in 'liturgies' per se, not in 'rites,' but in the Orthodox faith these rites reveal and communicate. Whatever the future of the Western rite, it depends, I am sure, on the thirst and hunger for the fullness of the Orthodox faith and on nothing else. Dogmatically, ecclesiologically — and I said this some twenty years ago on these very pages — Orthodoxy has no objection to the Western Rite as such. To have such an objection would mean the loss by the Orthodox Church of her claims to universality. The question therefore is not whether a rite is Eastern or Western. Neither Easternism or Westernism are important in themselves. The only question is whether a rite adequately embodies, manifests and communicates the eternal and unchanging Truth, — is Orthodox in the deepest sense of this word."

- Protpresbyter Alexander Schmemann, St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 4/1980, pp. 266-269. (emphasis added)

Quote
There are a number of people who become Orthodox because of various degrees of dislike or disenchantment with the western rite(s).

Probably true, though not a very good reason at all.

Quote
it's not just the the theology itself it's the entire complex western churches and liturgical innovations/traditions that become discouraging to them. The refreshing trend some of these people find is that the Orthodox Church has little or no western baggage and problems in it. Therefore to find that what one hoped to "escape from" or at least "avoid" even if this wasnt the main reason that became orthodox, to find it again within the Church, can be uncomfortably disturbing to them.

I sympathize with this, I really do. But the hang-ups of some should never dictate the worship of others, especially when the very Church they are running to says the worship is fully Orthodox. You either trust the Church or you don't.

Quote
To this extent I can sympathize with them, the western rite of the Orthodox Church is in many ways very ecumenical in the sense that it explores and resolves a number of the original causes and origins the led to the schism of the Roman Catholic Church from it. It is perhaps destined to remain controversial for a certain period of time for that reason. But this is not enough of a reason to abandon it or speak against it. It simply must keep growing and maturing, in time the controversies that exist today will be resolved.

Absolutely.

Quote
The moral of the story here is this:

If the prayers don't exist in a latin original as a counterpart to the english, they need to be removed.

I cannot agree with this, but even if it were true, the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon meets this criteria in every way. The Scottish Liturgy upon which it is largely based modeled the liturgical prayers upon primitive sources, although admittedly of a more Eastern character than the ancient Latin. As one scholar put it:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764." -The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

I cannot agree with your conclusion for many reasons, but one important one was articulated quite nicely by Fr. George Grabbe:

“(T)he West has been separated from Orthodoxy for so many centuries. Life is not static. It is development and growth. This is why it is impossible to return mechanically to forms of Christian life that existed in the West more than a thousand years ago, when it was still Orthodox. To express Orthodoxy again, the western forms must be enriched by the heritage of the centuries of uninterrupted tradition in the life of the Orthodox Church. Its experience (…) must become your experience and be incorporated into western liturgical forms.”

- Attempts at creating a western orthodox rite Historical outline[1], by Jean-François Mayer, Religioscope – May 2002

Living liturgy restored and fulfilled is always better than forced, mechanical attempts at recreating the past according to our own vision. And the unbroken tradition of the Orthodox Church puts it in a unique position to shape the Western Liturgy to conform to the fullness of Orthodoxy, even better than Western Orthodox of the first millennium. We are Orthodox now, we were not baptized into the pre-Schism Western Church.

Quote
As long as protestant prayers or liturgies exist within the Western rite of the Orthodox Church, they will be used as an excuse to avoid or discourage the use of the various Latin rites within the Orthodox Church.

There are no Protestant prayers, nor liturgies, within the Orthodox Church. Seriously, how could there be? What do you think the Russian Synod, the theologians on the Western Rite Commission, etc., were doing when the Western Rites were approved?

I'd really love to know, and on what you are basing these accusations.

Quote
I have no love or interest for Thomas Cranmer's innovations or prayers that do not correspond to latin originals.

As has been noted numerous times in this thread, Cranmer's work is neither here nor there. The Scottish tradition was not influenced by him or his theology. If you have particular prayers of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon you find troublesome, let's see them and discuss them.

Quote
They happened in an inorganic fashion similar on some level to the various shortcomings of the Novus Ordo of vatican II.

Given your odd pursuit of some kind of historical "purity" in liturgy, I hate to inform you that every liturgy used within canonical Orthodoxy has been reformed and revised over the centuries. As Fr. John Meyendorff (interestingly enough, an original member of the Western Rite Commission) says:

“Since neither theology nor liturgical piety could remain completely aloof from the issues arising from history, by studying them together we can follow the evolution of the religious mind...liturgy resond(s) creatively to the changes of history. The interplay of continuity and change, unity and diversity, faithfulness to a central prototype and local initiative, is unavoidable in the lex orandi of the Church.” - Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, p. 115

Quote
If the liturgy commonly referred to as the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" happened to disappear one day I would not notice or mind.

Translated: "I don't care one bit about the Christian souls expressing prayer and worship through this venerable rite, I only care about my own idea of liturgical purity and ensuring my vision of the Western Rite wins the day."

It's interesting that this is the most widely-used Western Rite liturgy within canonical Orthodoxy, and that the parishes blessed to use it are of remarkable stability and Orthodox zeal.

Quote
I think that the adaptation of any directly protestant liturgies or prayers into the Orthodox Church is a mistake and I will have no part in participating in them on a regular basis.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. 5:21

“We must hate and detest the misbeliefs and unlawful customs of the Latins and others who are Heterodox; but if they have anything sound and confirmed by the Canons of the Holy Synods, this we must not hate.” - St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, p. 26

“We must accept the expressions of their feelings and their life and not say, 'This is not Orthodox!' What is not Orthodox? Not Orthodox is to be impure, to be dishonest, to be against the will of God, this is unorthodox.” Abp. Anastasios of Albania, Understanding Orthodoxy: How to distinguish true mission from proselytism.

"[T]hroughout history the Orthodox Church was willing under certain circumstances to recognize the real activity of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the rites and teachings of other ecclesial communities with which it is not in communion...And the other ecclesial communities..can have many good and wonderful things in them that are really of God, and He really does act in them—we see holy people in them; we’ve even canonized and put in our calendar people who were never technically Orthodox." - Fr. Thomas Hopko, November 2, 1996 at the Greek Orthodox Church of the Assumption, Seattle, WA

Quote
The "burden of them is intolerable".

Nice.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 06:06:50 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 440



WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 25, 2013, 10:45:45 PM »

Quote
If the prayers don't exist in a latin original as a counterpart to the english, they need to be removed.

I can't imagine any other rite in the Orthodox Church allowing prayers in the liturgy which only exist in english.
The other ROCOR and Antiochian byzantine rite priests would surely find the concept preposterous.
English has no history as a liturgical language in the orthodox or roman catholic church until very recently.

The St. Tikhon liturgy does not have a version that exists in latin, therefore it is irrelevant to me how much anyone likes it. I have no interest in it. I do not accept for my own use or participation liturgies and prayers that do not have an ancient tradition and ancient liturgical language behind every single word and action in them. I am obedient to them being allowed in the Antiochian vicariate but I certainly don't have to like them or participate in them. I will not go into specifics as to what is wrong with it because it is unnecessary, as I have no interest in discussing it. Frankly, I feel certain that no matter what I had to say about it, it would be disagreed with by certain people. Deacon Lance has contributed sound comments to this post which I agree with but some have not.

No sleeper, I do not fully agree with your ideas about the liturgy of St. Tikhon.

Quote
On one hand you have Orthodox critics who claim that the Antiochians took a "reformed Protestant" rite authored by the heretic Cranmer, slammed in some language and rubrics here and there to give it an orthodox/catholic appearance, gave it a funny Orthodox sounding name, and voila! an Orthodox liturgy. On the other hand, within the Antiochian Western Rite community, you have some people very sloppily claiming that, somehow, some way, all of this is derived from "pre-schism" Anglo-Saxon usage (occasionally there is an attempt to buttress this claim with very curious argumentation derived from J. H. Blunt's "Annotated Book of Common Prayer", which claims that the BCP is somehow in direct continuity with the Sarum Use, which in turn was derived ultimately from the Gallicans, and by the Gallicans from a primitive "Ephesine" rite of St John the Apostle.)

In any case, I hoped to show in my thesis how one might begin to go about understanding this Liturgy as something which has its origins in Reformation England, but which had been developed and altered over the centuries by High Church Anglicans in conscious imitation of ancient liturgical precedents, especially oriental ones. The US Antiochians, in 1977, didn't really do much so much liturgical work at all: they received a product of centuries of High Church liturgical development, tweaked it, and let the Church of the Incarnation, Detroit, go with it.
 http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/06/the-liturgy-of-st-tikhon-of-moscow/

Quote
On the differing views of resurrected pre-schism vs. post-schism-based liturgies, I have occasionally wondered whether there might be a pond difference here. It is often said that Britons consider 300 miles to be a long distance while Americans consider 300 years to be a long time, and I think that this does affect our perception of things. An American friend of mine currently in the UK for a year repeatedly finds himself baffled by the reluctance of British Orthodox people to travel "long" distances for services at other churches, which for him are a mere stone's throw away. He has also been excited to be able to visit some of the shrines and holy places associated with the pre-schism Orthodox Saints of Britain, saying, 'We don't have these in our back garden'.

The point is that, for North Americans, the introduction of a liturgical form of Christianity with origins in Orthodox services came in the form of the late Roman Rite the Anglican Prayer Book, and so forth. I can see how American Orthodox people, looking back to their own history and roots, might embrace that and seek to restore its Orthodoxy. For Orthodox Britons, however, the perception of these same rites may be somewhat different because of their different history and associations here. For us, they represent a departure from our pre-schism Orthodox history and roots, and have associations that maybe they do not have for our American brethren, (allowing for those who do trace their roots back to these isles). Could this be why their use has taken off in America but not here? The current dean of the local Antiochian deanery is a friend of mine and his opposition to the Western Rite is known but it is actually more nuanced than people give him credit for. In one conversation with me, he said that he would actually be much happier with "Sarum, or something like that", and he was pleasantly surprised when I explained that this is blessed for use in the Russian Church. It seemed to me that his opposition was not entirely to the Western Rite per se, but at least in part to the particular form of the Western Rite that would be available to him, and I wonder whether there are others who feel similarly. When I visit the shrine of St Bertram and think that prayers and hymns he probably knew and used are blessed for use in Orthodoxy today, that gives me sense of continuity with the Orthodox Saints of these isles, and an inspiration to again tend the garden that sprung from the seed that they planted on this soil that I do not get when I think of Anglican services corrected for use.

This is all speculation on my part, of course, but I wonder whether there might be something to it. Thoughts?

http://morespaciousthantheheavens.blogspot.com/2011/06/on-liturgical-archaeology.html

« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 10:50:04 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2013, 12:15:01 AM »

I can't imagine any other rite in the Orthodox Church allowing prayers in the liturgy which only exist in english.

And what happens when the first American-born saint is glorified by the Orthodox Church in English-speaking America? The akathists and troparia can only be composed into Slavonic or Greek and then translated?

Also: talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Quote
The other ROCOR and Antiochian byzantine rite priests would surely find the concept preposterous.

And yet ROCOR has approved "The English Liturgy" which contains prayers that only exist in English, and the original Western Rite Commission of the AWRV, as well as the current AWRV Vicar General, etc., were and are Byzantine Rite priests, with the Vicariate as a whole being overseen by Byzantine Rite bishops. Truly, what on earth are you talking about?

Quote
English has no history as a liturgical language in the orthodox or roman catholic church until very recently.

So?

Quote
The St. Tikhon liturgy does not have a version that exists in latin, therefore it is irrelevant to me how much anyone likes it. I have no interest in it. I do not accept for my own use or participation liturgies and prayers that do not have an ancient tradition and ancient liturgical language behind every single word and action in them.

Again, if you'd like to point out examples of where the Rite of St. Tikhon is not based upon "ancient tradition" please do so.

Quote
I am obedient to them being allowed in the Antiochian vicariate but I certainly don't have to like them or participate in them.

You certainly don't.

Quote
I will not go into specifics as to what is wrong with it because it is unnecessary, as I have no interest in discussing it.

Then please, do refrain from making accusations you refuse to back up.

Quote
Frankly, I feel certain that no matter what I had to say about it, it would be disagreed with by certain people.

That pretty much goes for anything said by anyone. To be frank myself, I don't much care to discuss this topic with someone like yourself either, but you make bold claims that need to be answered, because people read these threads believe it or not.

Quote
No sleeper, I do not fully agree with your ideas about the liturgy of St. Tikhon.

That's okay.

Quote
On one hand you have Orthodox critics who claim that the Antiochians took a "reformed Protestant" rite authored by the heretic Cranmer, slammed in some language and rubrics here and there to give it an orthodox/catholic appearance, gave it a funny Orthodox sounding name, and voila! an Orthodox liturgy. On the other hand, within the Antiochian Western Rite community, you have some people very sloppily claiming that, somehow, some way, all of this is derived from "pre-schism" Anglo-Saxon usage (occasionally there is an attempt to buttress this claim with very curious argumentation derived from J. H. Blunt's "Annotated Book of Common Prayer", which claims that the BCP is somehow in direct continuity with the Sarum Use, which in turn was derived ultimately from the Gallicans, and by the Gallicans from a primitive "Ephesine" rite of St John the Apostle.)

I'm quite certain that I made none of these claims, in any way, shape, or form. Who said anything about Anglo-Saxons? Or J.H. Blunt's unfortunate "Ephesine theory" (which I agree, is "curious" and misguided). On the contrary, I made it quite clear that the primary basis of the Rite of St. Tikhon was the Scottish Liturgy of the Non-Jurors, who framed their compositions on older, Eastern models.

Quote
In any case, I hoped to show in my thesis how one might begin to go about understanding this Liturgy as something which has its origins in Reformation England, but which had been developed and altered over the centuries by High Church Anglicans in conscious imitation of ancient liturgical precedents, especially oriental ones. The US Antiochians, in 1977, didn't really do much so much liturgical work at all: they received a product of centuries of High Church liturgical development, tweaked it, and let the Church of the Incarnation, Detroit, go with it.


This is much closer to the truth, despite trying to paint it as a flippant process by the AWRV. How is it in any way connected with the previous paragraph?

Quote
On the differing views of resurrected pre-schism vs. post-schism-based liturgies, I have occasionally wondered whether there might be a pond difference here. It is often said that Britons consider 300 miles to be a long distance while Americans consider 300 years to be a long time, and I think that this does affect our perception of things. An American friend of mine currently in the UK for a year repeatedly finds himself baffled by the reluctance of British Orthodox people to travel "long" distances for services at other churches, which for him are a mere stone's throw away. He has also been excited to be able to visit some of the shrines and holy places associated with the pre-schism Orthodox Saints of Britain, saying, 'We don't have these in our back garden'.

The whole pre vs. post Schism dichotomy (aside from being terribly boring) is really ultimately irrelevant. It only makes a difference if one thinks the "point" of Western Rite Orthodoxy is to "make things like it was back then." If people want to take on that experiment, I suppose they can. Good luck to you. From an Antiochian perspective, the "point" was reuniting groups of Christians with the Orthodox Church, providing for the flock a healthy and culturally authentic life of worship. And to this day, only whole stable communities can come into the AWRV.

It is a reintegration of the living, Western catholic life with Holy Orthodoxy, purged of any errors and fulfilled by the unbroken tradition of the Eastern Church. It matters very little who wrote what when and under what circumstances. Things pass into the common stream of tradition when they are received by the people and passed on to future generations. And incorporating anything of spiritual value into the common tradition has always been the way of the Church. It's why St. Nicodemus translates the writings of a Catholic mystic. It's why works penned by known heretics were transmitted "anonymously." It's why St. Gregory tells St. Augustine, "It pleases me that if you have found anything either in the Roman, or the Gallican, or any other Church, which may be more acceptable to Almighty God, you carefully make choice of the same, and sedulously teach the Church of the English, which as yet is new in the faith, whatsoever you can gather from the several Churches. For things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from every Church those things which are pious, religious, and upright, and when you have, as it were, made them up into one body, let the minds of the English people be accustomed thereto.

For Orthodox Christians, something is either true, good, right, and beautiful, or it isn't.

Quote
The point is that, for North Americans, the introduction of a liturgical form of Christianity with origins in Orthodox services came in the form of the late Roman Rite the Anglican Prayer Book, and so forth. I can see how American Orthodox people, looking back to their own history and roots, might embrace that and seek to restore its Orthodoxy.

Good!

Quote
For Orthodox Britons, however, the perception of these same rites may be somewhat different because of their different history and associations here.

I think that is largely true, and why it's important to point out that the "Prayer Book" tradition of the Church of England, versus that of the Scotch/American liturgical tradition, is very much different, in form, spirit, and text. Not to mention the different ecclesiastical settings, manner of celebration, etc.

Quote
For us, they represent a departure from our pre-schism Orthodox history and roots, and have associations that maybe they do not have for our American brethren, (allowing for those who do trace their roots back to these isles). Could this be why their use has taken off in America but not here?

That would not surprise me, to be honest, but I'm not much familiar with the British context.

Quote
The current dean of the local Antiochian deanery is a friend of mine and his opposition to the Western Rite is known but it is actually more nuanced than people give him credit for. In one conversation with me, he said that he would actually be much happier with "Sarum, or something like that", and he was pleasantly surprised when I explained that this is blessed for use in the Russian Church. It seemed to me that his opposition was not entirely to the Western Rite per se, but at least in part to the particular form of the Western Rite that would be available to him, and I wonder whether there are others who feel similarly. When I visit the shrine of St Bertram and think that prayers and hymns he probably knew and used are blessed for use in Orthodoxy today, that gives me sense of continuity with the Orthodox Saints of these isles, and an inspiration to again tend the garden that sprung from the seed that they planted on this soil that I do not get when I think of Anglican services corrected for use.

I understand that. Truly. The thing is, I do not believe that special "thing" you're after is due to the words or melodies themselves. They were products of their time and place, pointing to something much deeper and eternal. The best definition I've ever seen about the Western Rite was given by the AWRV's first Vicar General:

"Western Orthodoxy is the rediscovery of the Orthodoxy which withered in the west, and its revitalization, not through the transferral of eastern Patristic thought and devotional attitudes, but by the patient searching out, assembly and coordination of the supratemporal factors which created and characterized pre-schismatic occidental Christianity in its essence, and the careful selection of valid survivals in contemporary western thought and culture. 12 - “The Western Rite in the Orthodox Church.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 1958), p. 35.

This balanced approach is what continues to guide the Antiochian Western Rite. It preserves the important and vital aspect of a living tradition, and an openness to restoring said tradition in a healthy, organic way.

Quote
This is all speculation on my part, of course, but I wonder whether there might be something to it. Thoughts?

I think you could very well be on to something. I really don't know, though. I think it's great that different communities of Western Orthodox Christians are being given what their Bishops think they need. Unity in diversity and all that. From my perspective, the approved Western Rites are not in competition with each other.

Where we will likely always disagree is in the simple fact that I believe the received tradition of the West, restored in light of the unbroken experience of the living Orthodox Church, is the healthiest approach to establish anything of lasting value. It is far less mechanical in that respect, it may not satisfy the purists, it may not be what they see as the "point" of it all (and thus see it as a "threat" for some reason; really?), but it gets to the real heart of the matter, which is union with Christ in His Holy Church. If something needs to change, it will.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 12:16:35 AM by Sleeper » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2013, 04:42:48 PM »

I finally had a chance to read the very last link you posted, Christopher, and realized I had already read it and interacted with the author in the comments section (I was "MPT") back in 2011. I was glad to see Fr. Michael say, "However, I do wonder whether my position on adapted Anglican rites may be worth reconsidering in light of what you have said."

What it all boils down to is this: something had to be approved for use by Orthodox faithful, something had to be established as the basis for what will, God-willing, become an ongoing reality in the Church as She moves into the future. Decisions had to be made as to whether or not the resulting product expressed Orthodoxy adequately. Attempting to return to earlier forms doesn't solve the predicament, because they still have to be examined, they still have to be approved, they still have to come into conformity with the 1,000 years of Orthodox experience that occured after the Schism. The difference is that the attempt to return mechanically to earlier forms brings up a whole host of issues that are avoided by resuming a living tradition.

For example, which era do you choose? Which geographical location? Which aspects do you "revive" and which do you leave be? Why? How do you decide, and how could those decisions ultimately be anything but arbitrary?

"It should be Sarum, because I love England!" 
"Well I love France, so we'll use the Gallican!"
"Hey, I love St. Ambrose, so we'll use the Ambrosian Rite!"
"Let's resurrect them all!"

In the link you posted, Fr. Michael quoted Bp. Jerome Shaw, saying:

"Those who go to church on Sunday morning are not called upon to be liturgicists or liturgical archaeologists, any more than the patient needs to be a medical scientist or go into the lab to be given medicine. The ‘finished product’ is nevertheless today’s worship; if they hear or join in texts that had been in an ancient manuscript, they need never suspect it, for all that is worth. These materials have been returned to use because they provide what was needed."

The irony here is that the exact same logic applies to anything "post-Schism." Faithful worshippers need never suspect that the texts of their liturgical prayers are from a certain era, for they "provide what was needed" most importantly on competent Orthodox authority.

The only reason I can think of, that someone would need to know the exact origins of a prayer, rubric, hymn, etc., is if the whole point was to "be like it was back then" as I said earlier. Should not the point be the sacramental mysteries we are celebrating, and whether or not our approved liturgies express the "mind of the Church"? I know which reason I prefer.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,502



« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2013, 04:55:43 PM »

For example, which era do you choose?

The last date before the Schism.

Quote
Which geographical location?

Your own or the nearest location where Orthodoxy had been spread before the Schism.

Quote
Which aspects do you "revive" and which do you leave be?

Those aspects that were part of regular Orthodoxy before the Schism in your region.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #99 on: June 26, 2013, 05:30:45 PM »

For example, which era do you choose?

The last date before the Schism.

Quote
Which geographical location?

Your own or the nearest location where Orthodoxy had been spread before the Schism.

Quote
Which aspects do you "revive" and which do you leave be?

Those aspects that were part of regular Orthodoxy before the Schism in your region.

Thank you for proving my point.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,502



« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2013, 01:15:04 AM »

Thank you for proving my point.

Care to elaborate?

I understand the idea that it could be arbitary. If I wanted to bring Mozarabic rite to Finland that would be larping but I fail to see how plain old boring Roman rite would be since that is what Scandinavians used to have.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2013, 05:39:55 PM »

Thank you for proving my point.

Care to elaborate?

I understand the idea that it could be arbitary. If I wanted to bring Mozarabic rite to Finland that would be larping but I fail to see how plain old boring Roman rite would be since that is what Scandinavians used to have.

That's all my point was, really. When the liturgy is chosen, rather than received, it cannot be anything but an arbitrary selection, because the only impetus one could have for moving from the received tradition to some earlier manifestation, is the pursuit of historical "purity."

And it is that mentality that I find so troubling. It means the concern is not for Westerners to be both Orthodox and western (note: actually western, not western as we imagine it, or what "western" meant 1,200 years ago), but is for something else entirely.

I do not deny that "resurrecting" practices can work, and that contemporary westerners can grow accustomed to them. On the contrary, this has even happened in the Antiochian Western Rite. The ancient western customs and liturgies will forever be venerable and appropriate for Orthodox Christians. The problem lies with those who wish to denigrate the practice of restoring the received tradition on any grounds other than whether or not it expresses the mind of the Church. And that's a conversation I believe worth having, because when it comes to our expressive life as Christians, it's the only thing that matters.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #102 on: July 16, 2013, 01:59:11 AM »

mistaken post.
yours?
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
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 0.486 seconds with 130 queries.