OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 01:22:38 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 4824 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 0.1 seconds with 41 queries.