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