OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 10:18:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?  (Read 39118 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #180 on: November 27, 2010, 01:17:22 PM »

A reasonable approach, at any rate.

I think one reason I find the whole debate puzzling is that the Eastern liturgy is so deeply moving to me. I can't imagine my spiritual life without it.

Change Eastern to Western and you've got the exact reason for why the Western Rite exists at all!
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #181 on: November 27, 2010, 01:31:46 PM »

A reasonable approach, at any rate.

I think one reason I find the whole debate puzzling is that the Eastern liturgy is so deeply moving to me. I can't imagine my spiritual life without it.

Change Eastern to Western and you've got the exact reason for why the Western Rite exists at all!

But in that case, I'm not sure why I'd have left my original church.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #182 on: November 27, 2010, 01:36:28 PM »

Because you found the Byzantine Rite to speak to your heart more than anything else.  It won't be the same for everyone.  Praise God we're all different and can still find a home!
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #183 on: November 27, 2010, 01:52:11 PM »

Because you found the Byzantine Rite to speak to your heart more than anything else.  It won't be the same for everyone.  Praise God we're all different and can still find a home!

If an Anglican were so attached to their liturgy that they couldn't conceive of their spiritual life without it, why would they even consider becoming Orthodox? That's what I don't get. That seems like a person who would be more likely to try to work within the Anglican church for any change they thought was necessary. And it seems like someone who may be trying to have things all ways. It's like a name change.

Well, this is why they pay bishops the big bucks, I guess, to figure these things out.
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,644



WWW
« Reply #184 on: November 27, 2010, 02:35:44 PM »

I don't have an issue with people doing whatever they want with the permission of their bishop.

But...

One of the great blessings for me in becoming Orthodox was laying aside the sense that what I wanted came before what the Church expected of me? Indeed although I am fully engaged in discussion of ortho-praxis with my bishop, other priests and laity, nevertheless in the end we all seek to abide by the informed instructions of our bishop.

I can understand that it is proper for an enquirer to seek a community where they can comprehend, participate and find a welcome. And this is why liturgy in English seems to me to be central to the development of Orthodoxy in the UK. But I do find it harder to support the view which seems to be saying - I will become Orthodox but only if we get to use the liturgy I prefer. We are not talking about language. I chose not to become involved with the Greek Church in the UK for a variety of reasons including the fact that the worship was conducted in Greek. I understand the language issue.

But we are (it seems) talking about deciding to become Orthodox or not based on choosing the liturgy that is used. I don't feel entirely comfortable with that. What if I prefer the Lorrha Missal to the Sarum rite? Should I hold out for an authentic Western Rite according to my own opinion? The Oriental Orthodox are very comfortable with liturgical diversity and it seems to me to be a necessary aspect of Orthodoxy. I would not ever criticise an Armenian Orthodox priest for celebrating in a different manner to a Coptic Orthodox, or an Indian Orthodox. But there would be something wrong if an Armenian priest started agitating to be allowed to celebrate according to the Coptic Orthodox tradition. Indeed the Coptic Orthodox Church has legislated to forbid the use of the wide variety of Ethiopian fractions in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, not because they are not appropriate in a liturgical historical sense, but because there is an order in the Church, and it is not for priests to determine for themselves what liturgical forms they will adopt.

I am not entirely suggesting this is the case with the WR. But it does seem to me that it is the case that there are those who have a legitimate interest in the Western liturgical tradition and seem to then insist that their interest must be supported in the Church. I am not convinced that is the case, apart from an organic development within and by the Church. I have experienced 16 years of happiness in following and participating in a 'given' tradition, and being able to forget about choosing what I like. I am not sure that I buy the argument that if there were only one WR congregation in the world it would be worth it. I don't see thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of people in the UK clamouring for the Western Rite. Indeed I know plenty of 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans who cannot even bring themselves to become Catholic and wouldn't consider Orthodoxy at all, whatever the Rite.

I entirely accept that language can be, and indeed IS an obstacle to people becoming Orthodox but I really do not believe, as an English person who has sought Orthodoxy himself, that the Rite is an issue at all, as long as it is served in English. It is certainly not an issue, as far as I can see, for anyone who is not an Anglican. And Anglicans will not be becoming Orthodox, or Catholic in very great numbers, having had decades of living with a very compromised situation, and finding ways to do so. I have had enquirers say that they could not become Orthodox because we used incense, or because we prostrated in prayer, or because we had open coffins at funerals. I am not at all sure that the issues preventing them becoming Orthodox were those they identified themselves.

Likewise I am not convinced that an enquirer who WOULD become Orthodox only if there were a Western Rite, if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English, really wants to become Orthodox. I am not an advocate of the 'I had to learn Church Slavonic and it didn't do me any harm' school of evangelism, but I really and truly do not think that the Rite should be an issue with a genuine enquirer. I am convinced that Western Orthodoxy is what is required, and that this means the authentic Orthodox life being lived by people who remain genuinely British (or Western). And to be a little critical - what does an ancient Western form of liturgy have to do with Australia or New Zealand? The Lorrha Missal form of worship was never, ever used in the US. It is as alien as the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, or St Basil, or in fact just as appropriate or just as inappropriate.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #185 on: November 27, 2010, 03:31:14 PM »

If an Anglican were so attached to their liturgy that they couldn't conceive of their spiritual life without it, why would they even consider becoming Orthodox? That's what I don't get. That seems like a person who would be more likely to try to work within the Anglican church for any change they thought was necessary. And it seems like someone who may be trying to have things all ways. It's like a name change.

Well, this is why they pay bishops the big bucks, I guess, to figure these things out.

One simple answer would be:  The Anglican Communion is not the Church.  People convert because they believe that the Body of Christ is the Holy Orthodox Church.

Perhaps the way I've been speaking is causing a misunderstanding, but it's not simply out of love and blind attachment to a particular liturgy that the Western Rite has been blessed, but because people love the whole of the Western tradition and want to continue in it, if they may.  

Anyone I know who has converted did so because they fell in love with the Orthodox Church, and if the Byzantine Rite was all that was available to them, they would've done so anyway.  But now there is another possibility and they are happy to join the One Church and yet retain much of the tradition that they love.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #186 on: November 27, 2010, 03:40:07 PM »

I don't have an issue with people doing whatever they want with the permission of their bishop.

But...

One of the great blessings for me in becoming Orthodox was laying aside the sense that what I wanted came before what the Church expected of me? Indeed although I am fully engaged in discussion of ortho-praxis with my bishop, other priests and laity, nevertheless in the end we all seek to abide by the informed instructions of our bishop.

I can understand that it is proper for an enquirer to seek a community where they can comprehend, participate and find a welcome. And this is why liturgy in English seems to me to be central to the development of Orthodoxy in the UK. But I do find it harder to support the view which seems to be saying - I will become Orthodox but only if we get to use the liturgy I prefer. We are not talking about language. I chose not to become involved with the Greek Church in the UK for a variety of reasons including the fact that the worship was conducted in Greek. I understand the language issue.

But we are (it seems) talking about deciding to become Orthodox or not based on choosing the liturgy that is used. I don't feel entirely comfortable with that. What if I prefer the Lorrha Missal to the Sarum rite? Should I hold out for an authentic Western Rite according to my own opinion? The Oriental Orthodox are very comfortable with liturgical diversity and it seems to me to be a necessary aspect of Orthodoxy. I would not ever criticise an Armenian Orthodox priest for celebrating in a different manner to a Coptic Orthodox, or an Indian Orthodox. But there would be something wrong if an Armenian priest started agitating to be allowed to celebrate according to the Coptic Orthodox tradition. Indeed the Coptic Orthodox Church has legislated to forbid the use of the wide variety of Ethiopian fractions in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, not because they are not appropriate in a liturgical historical sense, but because there is an order in the Church, and it is not for priests to determine for themselves what liturgical forms they will adopt.

I am not entirely suggesting this is the case with the WR. But it does seem to me that it is the case that there are those who have a legitimate interest in the Western liturgical tradition and seem to then insist that their interest must be supported in the Church. I am not convinced that is the case, apart from an organic development within and by the Church. I have experienced 16 years of happiness in following and participating in a 'given' tradition, and being able to forget about choosing what I like. I am not sure that I buy the argument that if there were only one WR congregation in the world it would be worth it. I don't see thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of people in the UK clamouring for the Western Rite. Indeed I know plenty of 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans who cannot even bring themselves to become Catholic and wouldn't consider Orthodoxy at all, whatever the Rite.

I entirely accept that language can be, and indeed IS an obstacle to people becoming Orthodox but I really do not believe, as an English person who has sought Orthodoxy himself, that the Rite is an issue at all, as long as it is served in English. It is certainly not an issue, as far as I can see, for anyone who is not an Anglican. And Anglicans will not be becoming Orthodox, or Catholic in very great numbers, having had decades of living with a very compromised situation, and finding ways to do so. I have had enquirers say that they could not become Orthodox because we used incense, or because we prostrated in prayer, or because we had open coffins at funerals. I am not at all sure that the issues preventing them becoming Orthodox were those they identified themselves.

Likewise I am not convinced that an enquirer who WOULD become Orthodox only if there were a Western Rite, if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English, really wants to become Orthodox. I am not an advocate of the 'I had to learn Church Slavonic and it didn't do me any harm' school of evangelism, but I really and truly do not think that the Rite should be an issue with a genuine enquirer. I am convinced that Western Orthodoxy is what is required, and that this means the authentic Orthodox life being lived by people who remain genuinely British (or Western). And to be a little critical - what does an ancient Western form of liturgy have to do with Australia or New Zealand? The Lorrha Missal form of worship was never, ever used in the US. It is as alien as the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, or St Basil, or in fact just as appropriate or just as inappropriate.

Excellent points!  And I think you're right.  As I posted in the post prior to this, perhaps I may have caused some confusion in how I worded things, but the Western Rite does not exist because potential converts threw a hissy fit and demanded that they not be required to change.  That's not what it is at all.

Anyone who converts, regardless of rite, must be doing so for the right reasons.  The goal is not to get people from other traditions to become Orthodox nominally whilst requiring as little change as possible.  And as you get to know Western Rite folks and attend their liturgies I think you'll find that these are truly Orthodox people and nothing less.  They aren't Anglican holdouts who begrudgingly join the Church because there's nowhere else to go.  They convert for the same reasons anyone else does; they believe Orthodoxy to be the Church of Christ.

The Orthodox Church has seen fit to provide a means for those who have been nourished and formed by the Western tradition to come into the Church and continue in that tradition, preserving all that is life-giving.

Much of the contention seems to be around the issue of converts and outreach, and that is certainly a hope of the Western Rite, but it is not at all its primary purpose.  It's really nothing more than the simple fact that the ancient Western rites rightfully belong to the Orthodox Church and She has had the wisdom and grace to bless people who love those rites the opportunity to participate in their redemption and restoration.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #187 on: November 27, 2010, 03:42:28 PM »

I don't have an issue with people doing whatever they want with the permission of their bishop.

But...

One of the great blessings for me in becoming Orthodox was laying aside the sense that what I wanted came before what the Church expected of me? Indeed although I am fully engaged in discussion of ortho-praxis with my bishop, other priests and laity, nevertheless in the end we all seek to abide by the informed instructions of our bishop.

I can understand that it is proper for an enquirer to seek a community where they can comprehend, participate and find a welcome. And this is why liturgy in English seems to me to be central to the development of Orthodoxy in the UK. But I do find it harder to support the view which seems to be saying - I will become Orthodox but only if we get to use the liturgy I prefer. We are not talking about language. I chose not to become involved with the Greek Church in the UK for a variety of reasons including the fact that the worship was conducted in Greek. I understand the language issue.

But we are (it seems) talking about deciding to become Orthodox or not based on choosing the liturgy that is used. I don't feel entirely comfortable with that. What if I prefer the Lorrha Missal to the Sarum rite? Should I hold out for an authentic Western Rite according to my own opinion? The Oriental Orthodox are very comfortable with liturgical diversity and it seems to me to be a necessary aspect of Orthodoxy. I would not ever criticise an Armenian Orthodox priest for celebrating in a different manner to a Coptic Orthodox, or an Indian Orthodox. But there would be something wrong if an Armenian priest started agitating to be allowed to celebrate according to the Coptic Orthodox tradition. Indeed the Coptic Orthodox Church has legislated to forbid the use of the wide variety of Ethiopian fractions in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, not because they are not appropriate in a liturgical historical sense, but because there is an order in the Church, and it is not for priests to determine for themselves what liturgical forms they will adopt.

I am not entirely suggesting this is the case with the WR. But it does seem to me that it is the case that there are those who have a legitimate interest in the Western liturgical tradition and seem to then insist that their interest must be supported in the Church. I am not convinced that is the case, apart from an organic development within and by the Church. I have experienced 16 years of happiness in following and participating in a 'given' tradition, and being able to forget about choosing what I like. I am not sure that I buy the argument that if there were only one WR congregation in the world it would be worth it. I don't see thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of people in the UK clamouring for the Western Rite. Indeed I know plenty of 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans who cannot even bring themselves to become Catholic and wouldn't consider Orthodoxy at all, whatever the Rite.

I entirely accept that language can be, and indeed IS an obstacle to people becoming Orthodox but I really do not believe, as an English person who has sought Orthodoxy himself, that the Rite is an issue at all, as long as it is served in English. It is certainly not an issue, as far as I can see, for anyone who is not an Anglican. And Anglicans will not be becoming Orthodox, or Catholic in very great numbers, having had decades of living with a very compromised situation, and finding ways to do so. I have had enquirers say that they could not become Orthodox because we used incense, or because we prostrated in prayer, or because we had open coffins at funerals. I am not at all sure that the issues preventing them becoming Orthodox were those they identified themselves.

Likewise I am not convinced that an enquirer who WOULD become Orthodox only if there were a Western Rite, if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English, really wants to become Orthodox. I am not an advocate of the 'I had to learn Church Slavonic and it didn't do me any harm' school of evangelism, but I really and truly do not think that the Rite should be an issue with a genuine enquirer. I am convinced that Western Orthodoxy is what is required, and that this means the authentic Orthodox life being lived by people who remain genuinely British (or Western). And to be a little critical - what does an ancient Western form of liturgy have to do with Australia or New Zealand? The Lorrha Missal form of worship was never, ever used in the US. It is as alien as the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, or St Basil, or in fact just as appropriate or just as inappropriate.

Exactly! If I am coming to Orthodoxy from another church, it is because(one hopes) of an awareness that Orthodoxy better embodies the teachings of Our Lord. I am not the best judge of God's will, my own life choices have demonstrated this simple fact time and again. So it seems to me I ought to take what I find at my new destination instead of trying to hold on to what didn't work.

The arguments here seem to present the two liturgies as different approaches to the same spiritual action. But I don't believe the two liturgies are equal in the way they embody our Lord's commandment to "do this in memory of Me." The Western and Eastern churches do not describe the function of the liturgy in the same way. When I attend a Western liturgy,it does not feel as if I am doing the same thing as at my regular parish. If the differences were merely linguistic or cultural, it wouldn't matter. As you say, I could join the local Antiochian (Arabic) or ROCOR (Slavonic) parish as it suited me. I feel the differences are much more profound than that.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #188 on: November 27, 2010, 03:54:27 PM »

If you really believe that, then you have some explaining to do to the thousands of Orthodox saints now in Heaven who were nourished and formed by the Western tradition.  It is not inferior to the Byzantine Rite.  The ancient Western Rite was guided by the Spirit of God every bit as much as the Byzantine was.  I don't know how anyone could say otherwise.

And I apologize if I'm giving a false impression of what the WR is.  I must be doing a poor job because these posts seem to just be missing the point entirely...

The Western Rite does not exist because people came to the Orthodox Church, didn't like what they saw, and demanded something different.  It does not exist because converts refuse to change and are desperate to cling to anything and everything they can from their past.  Everyone seems to get so hung up on the idea of converts and some false idea that they refuse to participate in a Byzantine liturgy.  It's just a fact that some people find it a difficult transition, and now, a wholly unnecessary one.

And I must ask, Hermogenes, was it an Orthodox Western liturgy you attended?  Because if not, I wouldn't be surprised that you feel this way.  What has become of the Western liturgy in the heterodox world is not what it once was.  That's the point...
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,644



WWW
« Reply #189 on: November 27, 2010, 04:19:51 PM »

Sleeper, I hope that I do not come across as dismissive of the Western Rite when it is celebrated. I am not dismissive of any Orthodox worship, and if you lived near me and invited me to attend a Western Rite liturgy I would do so with pleasure and interest. I am also not one of those who think that only a liturgy which has an unbroken history of Orthodox use can be authorised. To a great extent I believe that appropriate forms of worship are those which bishops authorise, whatever they are. Even a completely new form drawing on the liturgical Tradition as all liturgical developments have done in the past. I guess my personal view is that a priest serves the liturgy authorised by his bishop.

But I still have an issue with the 'primary purpose' of the Western Rite which you describe....

It's really nothing more than the simple fact that the ancient Western rites rightfully belong to the Orthodox Church

because this can be extended to every Rite which has ever existed and has fallen into disuse. Should ALL of these rites be revived? Why? I cannot see that the Church has EVER been concerned about Rites in this way. Liturgical forms have developed. As far as I can see there has never been in the life of the Coptic Orthodox Church an 'Old St Basil Liturgy' movement trying to revive an older form of the liturgy. I don't sense that the in the Byzantine World there is a movement (beyond academia) to restore a more primitive form of worship. Surely the life of the Church moves on and we join the stream. We are where we are, and as far as I can see, we are not called to live out an earlier period of the history and life of the Church. For myself, I do not honour my patron by trying to worship according to forms he may have used 1400 years ago, but by emulating his life. I love St Severus more than any other saint, but surely I do not express my devotion by trying to live as if in 6th century Antioch?

I was a member of a group called Tha Engliscan Gesithas, which was a great way of furthering an interest in all things Old English. I once helped with some suggestions for an Anglo-Saxon Matins which they organised in an old Anglo-Saxon church. But though I still have a great interest in this period, I do not think that reconstructing it is an option. I don't think that dressing up as Anglo-Saxons is the same as respecting and studying the Anglo-Saxon period. It can be part of it, but it is not the same as it. (Nor am I suggesting that the Western Rite is dressing up). But I am not convinced that reconstruction is the same as understanding, respecting, valuing and learning from that tradition.

So I guess my question is, if the Western Rite is to be preserved/restored because it belongs/belonged to the Church, the why not ALL those Rites which have disappeared for one reason or another, and why not all those Rites which have been superceded by another? Why only one or two Western Rites, and especially those that the advocates prefer? Why are there so few advocates of the Lorrha Missal for instance? Why is the Nubian liturgy not being reconstructed? Why not the Carthaginian? Surely if it is NECESSARY to preserve the/a Western Rite, then it is NECESSARY to preserve ALL, otherwise we are really back to the fact that some people like some Western forms and want to be allowed to use them. That is a different situation.

At one point I used Western forms of prayer, studied the ancient Western liturgies, and hoped that there might be a possibility to use a variety of Rites. But actually without any pressure, I have come to see that this is just not (in my opinion) sensible, especially in regard to being part of a small community in which multiple rites would be a weakness and not a strength, and because I have not found that there is a demand for the Western Rite (I appreciate that your mileage may well vary). I have been on retreat with the Anglican Society of St Francis in the distant past. I used their prayer book. I have used the Roman Catholic missal. I have used the Monastic Diurnal. In my own congregation we sometimes sing some of the ancient Western hymns in English translation. We venerate the British saints. My Church is dedicated to St Alban and I have his relics in the altar. At the moment I am reading Bonaventure's Life of Francis of Assisi. I am profoundly appreciative of being English. But I am not convinced that this sense of being English requires that I use a restored or modified Western liturgy. And more, I am not convinced that it is a necessity of any sort that liturgical forms be restored for any reason.

How do you view all of the Western forms? Should they ALL be restored? If not, why not? And what of the redundant Eastern forms? Is it not God honouring that ALL be restored? I guess my question is why should only one or two Western forms be restored, and then only the ones that the people in question prefer? It does all seem to come down to personal preferences, and I do have a problem associating that with Orthodoxy.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #190 on: November 27, 2010, 04:40:32 PM »

If you really believe that, then you have some explaining to do to the thousands of Orthodox saints now in Heaven who were nourished and formed by the Western tradition.  It is not inferior to the Byzantine Rite.  The ancient Western Rite was guided by the Spirit of God every bit as much as the Byzantine was.  I don't know how anyone could say otherwise.

And I apologize if I'm giving a false impression of what the WR is.  I must be doing a poor job because these posts seem to just be missing the point entirely...

The Western Rite does not exist because people came to the Orthodox Church, didn't like what they saw, and demanded something different.  It does not exist because converts refuse to change and are desperate to cling to anything and everything they can from their past.  Everyone seems to get so hung up on the idea of converts and some false idea that they refuse to participate in a Byzantine liturgy.  It's just a fact that some people find it a difficult transition, and now, a wholly unnecessary one.

And I must ask, Hermogenes, was it an Orthodox Western liturgy you attended?  Because if not, I wouldn't be surprised that you feel this way.  What has become of the Western liturgy in the heterodox world is not what it once was.  That's the point...

I understand that there are thousands of Western saints. I also understand that for more than 900 years East and West haven't been in communion with one another. And I also understand that the Western liturgy of 900 years ago was quite different than any Western liturgy being celebrated today.

As I read through it, the Western Rite feels to me like a high-church Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) liturgy with a couple of Orthodox elements grafted on to make it conform canonically. I don't understand the point of all the work that has been put into creating (or re-creating, if you insist) a Western-style liturgy that conforms to our canons. I haven't heard an explanation yet that didn't refer to things like personal preference, and I haven't seen a Western liturgy that embodies a living connection with the church of a thousand years ago. What I see is the 1928 Prayer Book, combined with the Anglican Missal in the American Edition, with some Orthodox elements added on.

I'm not an expert on this particular aspect of liturgy (I was at one time a specialist in the area of Gregorian chant). This amalgam may be OK, signed off on by professional theologians or even saints. Maybe I am blind here. I don't understand why we're offering this--forgive me--mishmash. I'm sorry. Maybe I shouldn't post to this thread any more.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 04:47:23 PM by Hermogenes » Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #191 on: November 27, 2010, 06:00:00 PM »


Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
Quote
Fr. Aidan has been blessed by Metr. Hilarion (Sept. 26, 2008) to celebrate services according to the Sarum use of the Roman rite, using the full line of liturgical books published by St. Hilarion Press and which are due for re-issue under the aegis of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Source: http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-news-for-sarum-use-of-roman-rite.html

Yes, he has a habit of claiming that. 
http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/sigha-response-to-derek-fr-aidan.html

Perhaps, he finally got approval.  That does not mean his scholarship is accurate.

I recall, sadly only too well, the hostility against Fr Aidan which was both deep-seated and long-running.  It was not widespread though, and was confined to just five people.  Within ROCA - ********.  Among the Antiochians -********  The latter uses his blog to denigrate Fr Aidan and misrepresent what he says. 

The anti-Fr Aidan campaign was well organised. It went back several years both in public messages on blogs and e-lists as well as in private mailings to Church authorities.  It has been a very illuminating example of the pettiness which can posses some of the souls in the WR world when their hegemony is challenged.


This is NOT TRUE. There is no hostility against Fr. Aidan. Certainly not from me. There is certainly no cabal amongst those being accused here. There was no campaign either. There *was* a defense of the ROCOR Western rite against false claims being made from those in the Milan Synod. But, this horrible accusation above is certainly NOT TRUE!!!!
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 10:34:14 PM by arimethea » Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #192 on: November 27, 2010, 06:27:06 PM »

Because you found the Byzantine Rite to speak to your heart more than anything else.  It won't be the same for everyone.  Praise God we're all different and can still find a home!

If an Anglican were so attached to their liturgy that they couldn't conceive of their spiritual life without it, why would they even consider becoming Orthodox? That's what I don't get. That seems like a person who would be more likely to try to work within the Anglican church for any change they thought was necessary. And it seems like someone who may be trying to have things all ways. It's like a name change.

Well, this is why they pay bishops the big bucks, I guess, to figure these things out.

Hermogenes - the reason why is because the Anglican church is not the Church. Neither is Old Catholicism, or Old Rome. Orthodoxy IS the Church. It is the theology as well. You can speak of a 'Western captivity' in Eastern Orthodoxy. We've had our own captivity in the West as well. We're ready to be liberated, and to once again be in union the Mother Church. However, for many of us as well - we see no reason to throw the Baby out. The Church has agreed, and said we may enter the Church - and remain Westerners, use our own tongue, venerate our local saints, and use the prayers our local church used from the beginning.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,644



WWW
« Reply #193 on: November 27, 2010, 06:45:34 PM »

Hi Ari,

but again it seems to be being said (it feels that way) that only those who use the Western Rite..

Quote
remain Westerners

and that isn't so. Indeed out of this sentence,

Quote
..remain Westerners, use our own tongue, venerate our local saints, and use the prayers our local church used from the beginning.

it is only the liturgical form that is (perhaps) particularly restricted to the Western Rite.  I am entirely a Westerner, I am English for goodness sake (not a colonial :-)), and I worship in my own language and venerate our local saints. And I pray the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and many other aspects of the liturgy which are universal to all liturgical traditions.

And I am not entirely convinced by the idea that the Western Rite uses the prayers used in the West from the beginning. Surely the revised BCP rite is not ancient? And is even the Sarum rite ancient in comparison to most Eastern ones?

I have no problem with the Western Rite, it is not my business. But I do object to the sense that comes over (even unwittingly) that only the Western Rite can produce and nourish a Western Orthodoxy. As I have said, I'd be happy and interested to attend a Western Rite liturgy.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #194 on: November 27, 2010, 07:11:32 PM »

Hi Ari,

but again it seems to be being said (it feels that way) that only those who use the Western Rite..

Quote
remain Westerners

and that isn't so. Indeed out of this sentence,

Quote
..remain Westerners, use our own tongue, venerate our local saints, and use the prayers our local church used from the beginning.

it is only the liturgical form that is (perhaps) particularly restricted to the Western Rite.  I am entirely a Westerner, I am English for goodness sake (not a colonial :-)), and I worship in my own language and venerate our local saints. And I pray the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and many other aspects of the liturgy which are universal to all liturgical traditions.

And I am not entirely convinced by the idea that the Western Rite uses the prayers used in the West from the beginning. Surely the revised BCP rite is not ancient? And is even the Sarum rite ancient in comparison to most Eastern ones?

I have no problem with the Western Rite, it is not my business. But I do object to the sense that comes over (even unwittingly) that only the Western Rite can produce and nourish a Western Orthodoxy. As I have said, I'd be happy and interested to attend a Western Rite liturgy.

Fr. Peter - having been Eastern rite, I can say that an attempt was being made to 'wipe out' my Westerness. I do understand the position of the BOC, though I find it inconsistent as they do not use the same liturgy as the Orthodox in Britain. If the BOC is serious about uniform liturgy, then why not adopt Chrysostoma in ritual, office, calendar, vestments and customs? (Does the rest of the Coptic church hold to the same idea? Any consideration there of adopting the Byzantine forms in lieu of the Coptic?) If there is a 'sense' you object to, please consider that that 'sense' might come explicitly from the presence of an entrenched anti-Westernism amongst some Easterners. It certainly is not a game of 'We're the only Westerners'. There are probably a billion Westerners - most being heterodox, or even non-Christian in the majority. That does not make them less Western either; it does make them in conflict with their true Western heritage though - a rebellion that can be reversed. So - let us rather speak of the sense in which we mean (wittingly and unwittingly): that those who enter the Church in the Western rite *do* remain Westerners, but fully Orthodox ones.

So, yes - there is a sense where being Western rite does affirm that we are Westerners by Providence, and that the Church is open to all. The BOC has its ministry - we have response to those who cannot be reached by the BOC. I'm honoured that I was asked to come witness the life of the English converts through the Western rite. It is filling a need - and is an opportunity that was missed by others over 15 years ago (an observation made even by other clergy in the UK in my presence this past month.) It certainly does not represent a threat to the other Eastern Orthodox (nor the BOC.) However, there is some paranoia present in Eastern Orthodoxy - probably a relic of the Soviet days. I don't know that the Oriental churches have to deal with it. We can see it in the manufacture of supposed cabals, violent opposition to anything perceived as 'Western', or in the perceived need to send 'spies' to our Western Orthodox meetings (we all had a good laugh about that in London. And - I even discovered the spy! Wink )
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #195 on: November 27, 2010, 08:35:15 PM »

To be clear, the St. Tikhon Mass is nothing more than the Roman Rite that was brought to the British Isles.  It's extremely close to the Sarum Mass.  But in either case these weren't just conjured out of thin air.  They were adaptations of existing pre-Schism material, much like the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was.  To say it's simply the 1928 BCP with Orthodox elements grafted on doesn't really mean anything, because the content of the BCP was, in large part, pre-Schism content.  It sounds like it should be a shocker ("An Anglican Mass?!"), but it isn't.

I realize, Hermogenes, that you don't understand why the work went into the St. Tikhon Mass, but you're unaware of the cultural circumstances of its creation.  When St. Tikhon sent it to Moscow to be looked over, it was really his only option.  Because, how many Orthodox churches in North America were in any position to accept converts?  They were all diaspora churches who brought their cultural heritage with them, offered no services in English and weren't able to take on new converts.  What was Tikhon supposed to do, say "Sorry"?  Fortunately, he had the wisdom to not do such a thing!

Having spent a great many years amongst the Episcopalians, St. Tikhon knew the ancient Orthodox stock from which her liturgy came and didn't think twice about sending it off for corrections and ultimate approval.

This touches on the questions you asked, Peter.  Should we restore all the ancient liturgies?  Well, if there's a practical reason to do so and there are bodies of people who would desire such a thing, I'd say absolutely, why not?  What problem would you have with that, anyway?

I think far too big a deal is made of the falling out of usage of certain elements of the Church's worship and history, far too big a deal is made of the supposed importance of "continuity" when it comes to these things, as if disuse or misuse completely destroys something.  That is not the Orthodox spirit.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #196 on: November 27, 2010, 10:14:01 PM »

To be clear, the St. Tikhon Mass is nothing more than the Roman Rite that was brought to the British Isles.  It's extremely close to the Sarum Mass.  But in either case these weren't just conjured out of thin air.  They were adaptations of existing pre-Schism material, much like the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was.  To say it's simply the 1928 BCP with Orthodox elements grafted on doesn't really mean anything, because the content of the BCP was, in large part, pre-Schism content.

This is inaccurate. The Cranmer prayer book of 1549, on which all subsequent revisions are based, was a new document altogether. Some bits and pieces of the Catholic rites were kept, of course; but the entire meaning of the Mass was redefined in a Protestant way. Read the 39 Articles if you want a clear overview of what the reformers thought they were doing. (The articles were approved in the reign of Elizabeth I.) Compare the 1549 communion service with the pre-Tridentine mass, and you will see very significant differences. It is far from being just a translation of the Latin. The other services--Matins, Evensong, etc.--Cranmer mostly wrote from scratch. King Edward VI was a strong reformer, as they were then known, and wanted no vestiges of popery in his chapel.

People on this blog write about the time before 1054 as though the libraries are full of primary source material. In fact, material is extremely scarce. Non-existent, in fact. For the Sarum Rite, there are no primary sources before the 13th century. None at all. So all the references on this thread to pre-schism this and and pre-schism that frankly surprise and amaze me. The sum total of what we know definitively about Western liturgical practices before 1054 could probably fit on a single CD.

One final note: The majority of non-Psalm texts and nearly all their musical settings used in the Latin Rite are post-schism. You see some bits here and there from the 10th Century, and the oldest chants, such as the chants for Pascha, must surely go back much earlier. But we really don't know too much about any of this--not so we can say for sure when things were written or how they were performed. There are simply no sources. A few books in the monastery at St. Gallen and a couple of Northern French Mss. form the most significant corpus of our knowledge about pre-schism Western liturgy, and we have no idea how normative the contents of those books might have been. Even then, we can only speculate as to how the liturgy would have been celebrated. We can't read the music (it doesn't show precise pitch or rhythm)--we can only guess, using some of the tools philologists use. We don't know what the abbreviations in some of the texts mean. The problems are that basic. The tradition relied to such a high degree on oral transmission that it's simply not possible to say anything with 100% certainty.

That is the state of our knowledge of liturgy in the pre-schism West.

The  situation in the East, of course, was quite different. The Eastern Empire underwent nothing comparable to the Dark Ages, so this highly literate society preserved many more of its primary documents. Where in the West we might have one incomplete version to work off of, in the East we might have numerous editions to compare. To take one small but significant illustration: Musicians in the Eastern church had developed a notation system that could accurately show pitch and rhythm by the Ninth Century. The West didn't have anything that clearly showed pitch until the 12th century, and it's only with music the 16th Century that we are reasonably certain we are deciphering the rhythm the way it was meant.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 10:23:18 PM by Hermogenes » Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #197 on: November 27, 2010, 10:29:41 PM »

To be clear, the St. Tikhon Mass is nothing more than the Roman Rite that was brought to the British Isles.  It's extremely close to the Sarum Mass.  But in either case these weren't just conjured out of thin air.  They were adaptations of existing pre-Schism material, much like the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was.  To say it's simply the 1928 BCP with Orthodox elements grafted on doesn't really mean anything, because the content of the BCP was, in large part, pre-Schism content. 

This is inaccurate. The Cranmer prayer book of 1549, on which all subsequent revisions are based, was a new document altogether. Some bits and pieces of the Catholic rites were kept, of course; but the entire meaning of the Mass was redefined in a Protestant way. Read the 39 Articles if you want a clear overview of what the reformers thought they were doing. (The articles were approved in the reign of Elizabeth I.) Compare the 1549 communion service with the pre-Tridentine mass, and you will see very significant differences. It is far from being just a translation of the Latin. The other services--Matins, Evensong, etc.--Cranmer mostly wrote from scratch. King Edward VI was a strong reformer, as they were then known, and wanted no vestiges of popery in his chapel.

People on this blog write about the time before 1054 as though the libraries are full of primary source material. In fact, material is extremely scarce. Non-existent, in fact. For the Sarum Rite, there are no primary sources before the 13th century. None at all. So all the references on this thread to pre-schism this and and pre-schism that frankly surprise and amaze me. The sum total of what we know definitively about Western liturgical practices before 1054 could probably fit on a single CD.

One final note: The majority of non-Psalm texts and nearly all their musical settings used in the Latin Rite are post-schism. You see some bits here and there from the 10th Century, and the oldest chants, such as the chants for Pascha, must surely go back much earlier. But we really don't know too much about any of this--not so we can say for sure when things were written or how they were performed. There are simply no sources. A few books in the monastery at St. Gallen and a couple of Northern French Mss. form the most significant corpus of our knowledge about pre-schism Western liturgy, and we have no idea how normative the contents of those books might have been. Even then, we can only speculate as to how the liturgy would have been celebrated. We can't read the music (it doesn't show precise pitch or rhythm)--we can only guess, using some of the tools philologists use. We don't know what the abbreviations in some of the texts mean. The problems are that basic. The tradition relied to such a high degree on oral transmission that it's simply not possible to say anything with 100% certainty.

That is the state of our knowledge of liturgy in the pre-schism West.

There was no Cranmer Prayer Book of 1549. Convocation made the translation of the 1549, including a few bishops who were still of Catholic faith. The liturgy they had already started using was the Sarum rite with references to the Pope and post-schism saints removed. The 1549 was intended as a common parish liturgy in English following that rite. Cranmer's first prayer book is the 1552, when he pushed through the changes he had wanted in 1548-9 and was unable to get (and Rome still recognized the 1549 as a Catholic liturgy even in that day.) The 1549 continued in use long after - the 1552 never was distributed fully, and was replaced by the Sarum rite again under the reign of Mary. The 39 Articles have no bearing on the 1549 - as they date from 1563. The 1549 must be considered in the light of the Six Articles and King's Book, which immediately preceded it (and was the reigning doctrine at the time.) The 1552 followed the 1552 Forty-Two articles, which repudiated the Six Articles and King's Book. The 39 Articles are an Elizabethan revision that post-date the Elizabethan prayer book of 1559. The only prayer book in England that the 39 Articles might have had influence on is the 1662 (and later, the American Prayer Book tradition.) They clearly were not the religious impulse behind the 1928 English Prayer Book (different than the 1928 American Prayer Book.)

Pre-Schism Western rite material is plenteous, and not sparse. The Sarum rite is quite complete, and even the Roman Catholic scholar Daniel Rock DD could say that at most six or seven words had changed in the rite from before the Norman Conquest until after. I'll quote him, from "The Church Of Our Fathers" 1866:
Quote
"Protestant writers upon the history and antiquities of the Church in this country, have often allowed themselves to be easily misled into no small error concerning changes imagined to have been wrought by St. Osmund in our national ecclesiastical services.

Not for a moment must it be thought that this holy man either took away one smallest jot from the text of the liturgy for offering up the sacrifice of the mass, or altered a word of the ritual of administering any of the seven sacraments. Both the Sacrifice and the Sacraments were hallowed things, which the Normans looked upon with the like deep reverence and holy feeling as the Anglo-Saxons: for each nation's belief upon these articles of Christian faith was identical, flowing as it did out of the self-same well-spring of truth -- the apostolic see, the chair of St. Peter."

....

Now it should be asked: " In What did the Sarum ritual vary from that of Rome, and of the Anglo-Saxons?", the question is readily answered by replying, that the difference was neither much nor important. On comparing the Breviary, the Missal, and the Manual of Salisbury, with such of the service-books as have come down to us from Anglo-Saxon times, and those books now in use at Rome [1849], we shall find that they agree with one another almost word for word; so much so, indeed, as to show that St. Osmund did nothing more than to take the Roman liturgy as he found it at the time, ingraft upon it some slight unimportant insertions, and draw out its rubrics in such a way as to hinder the ordinary chances of falling into any mistakes about them from happening. He seems to have invented nothing of himself in these matters, but to have chosen out of the practices he saw in use around him, among the Anglo-Saxons here, and more especially among his own countrymen in Normandy; and it would appear he undertook nothing more than to arrange the church-offices in such sort that his clergy -- composed as they must have been of Normans and Anglo-Saxons -- might have one known uniform rule to lead them while going through their respective functions within the sanctuary, and their several duties amid their flocks."

....

Such, reader, are the chief though not all the beauties of our dear old Sarum rite, which, after all, was so very Anglo-Saxon in its leading features. To love those olden ways in which our fathers for ages trod, is what has been told us and taught us by some of the highest holiest men who have lived at different times and various places in God's one catholic everlasting Church. How St. Charles Borromeo strove and wrought successfully to keep up the liturgy and ritual as they were left by hid predecessor, the great St. Ambrose; how Cardinal Ximenes preserved, at Toledo, the Mozarabic service - are fact well known. ... The Holy See, nay the Church herself, has always acknowledged the lawfulness of keeping up local rites and praiseworthy customs in different countries. The council of Trent, Sess. XXIV., in its Decretum de Reformatione Matrimonii cap. i., says: - Si quae provinciae aliis, ultra praedictas, laudabilibus consuetudinibus et caeremoniis hac in re utuntur, eas omnino retineri sancta Synodus vehementer optat. For the holy See, and the Roman Congregation of Rites, Gavanti, than whom a more trustworthy witness could not be found, assures us that: - Proprios mores unaquaeque habet ecclesia et laudibiles consuetudines, quas non tolli a caeremoniali Romano, neque a rubricis Breviarii, saepius declaravit Sacra rittum Congregatio.

....

Between the Anglo-Saxon and the Sarum rite there was but small difference: this latter bore about it a strong sister likeness to the first, so that, while looking upon the one, we, after a way, behold both. In its features and its whole stature, we gaze, as it were, upon our fathers in their religious life; we read their ghostly annals, through a thousand years and more, as a Catholic people. It tells us what men and women, old and young, high and low, then did and must have done to have got for this land of England that sweet name, among the nations, of "The island of Saints." When we take a remembrance of this liturgy with us into the tall cathedral and the lowly parish church, those dear old walls that catholic hands built are again quickened into ritual life; we see the lighted tapers round the shrine, or circling about the Blessed Sacrament hung above the altar; we catch the chant, we witness the procession as it halts to kneel and pray beneath the rood-loft; to the inward eye, the bishop with his seven deacons and as many subdeacons, is standing at the altar sacrificing, and as he uplifts our divine Lord in the Eucharist, for the worship of the kneeling throng, we hear the bell toll forth slowly, majestically. From the southern porch-door, to the brackets on the eastern chancel wall for the B.V. Mary's and the patron saint's images, every thing has its own meaning and speaks its especial purpose, as intended by the use of Sarum. Can these rites never again be witnessed in England? They may. Let us hope then - let us pray for their restoration, so that England may once more gaze upon her olden liturgy; let us hope and pray that her children, in looking upon, may all acknowledge their true mother, and love and heed the teaching the while they study the ritual of the Church of our Fathers."

Osmund didn't change the rite, it was simply codified from the books that they had brought from Sherborne and Ramsbury (which have a connection to St. David's - Menevia and Caerleon through Bishop Asser, whom St. Alfred the Great brought to be the bishop of Sherborne.)

There are more than pre-schism texts in Northern France (which had ecclesiastical contact with Anglo-Saxon England long before the Conquest, hence Rouen being like Sarum.) The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is one, as is the old Cornish Mass in the Bodleian. There is more - if one digs.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #198 on: November 27, 2010, 10:32:48 PM »

To be clear, the St. Tikhon Mass is nothing more than the Roman Rite that was brought to the British Isles.  It's extremely close to the Sarum Mass.  But in either case these weren't just conjured out of thin air.  They were adaptations of existing pre-Schism material, much like the St. John Chrysostom liturgy was.  To say it's simply the 1928 BCP with Orthodox elements grafted on doesn't really mean anything, because the content of the BCP was, in large part, pre-Schism content.

This is inaccurate. The Cranmer prayer book of 1549, on which all subsequent revisions are based, was a new document altogether. Some bits and pieces of the Catholic rites were kept, of course; but the entire meaning of the Mass was redefined in a Protestant way. Read the 39 Articles if you want a clear overview of what the reformers thought they were doing. (The articles were approved in the reign of Elizabeth I.) Compare the 1549 communion service with the pre-Tridentine mass, and you will see very significant differences. It is far from being just a translation of the Latin. The other services--Matins, Evensong, etc.--Cranmer mostly wrote from scratch. King Edward VI was a strong reformer, as they were then known, and wanted no vestiges of popery in his chapel.

People on this blog write about the time before 1054 as though the libraries are full of primary source material. In fact, material is extremely scarce. Non-existent, in fact. For the Sarum Rite, there are no primary sources before the 13th century. None at all. So all the references on this thread to pre-schism this and and pre-schism that frankly surprise and amaze me. The sum total of what we know definitively about Western liturgical practices before 1054 could probably fit on a single CD.

One final note: The majority of non-Psalm texts and nearly all their musical settings used in the Latin Rite are post-schism. You see some bits here and there from the 10th Century, and the oldest chants, such as the chants for Pascha, must surely go back much earlier. But we really don't know too much about any of this--not so we can say for sure when things were written or how they were performed. There are simply no sources. A few books in the monastery at St. Gallen and a couple of Northern French Mss. form the most significant corpus of our knowledge about pre-schism Western liturgy, and we have no idea how normative the contents of those books might have been. Even then, we can only speculate as to how the liturgy would have been celebrated. We can't read the music (it doesn't show precise pitch or rhythm)--we can only guess, using some of the tools philologists use. We don't know what the abbreviations in some of the texts mean. The problems are that basic. The tradition relied to such a high degree on oral transmission that it's simply not possible to say anything with 100% certainty.

That is the state of our knowledge of liturgy in the pre-schism West.

There was no Cranmer Prayer Book of 1549. Convocation made the translation of the 1549, including a few bishops who were still of Catholic faith. The liturgy they had already started using was the Sarum rite with references to the Pope and post-schism saints removed. The 1549 was intended as a common parish liturgy in English following that rite. Cranmer's first prayer book is the 1552, when he pushed through the changes he had wanted in 1548-9 and was unable to get (and Rome still recognized the 1549 as a Catholic liturgy even in that day.) The 1549 continued in use long after - the 1552 never was distributed fully, and was replaced by the Sarum rite again under the reign of Mary. The 39 Articles have no bearing on the 1549 - as they date from 1563. The 1549 must be considered in the light of the Six Articles and King's Book, which immediately preceded it (and was the reigning doctrine at the time.) The 1552 followed the 1552 Forty-Two articles, which repudiated the Six Articles and King's Book. The 39 Articles are an Elizabethan revision that post-date the Elizabethan prayer book of 1559. The only prayer book in England that the 39 Articles might have had influence on is the 1662 (and later, the American Prayer Book tradition.) They clearly were not the religious impulse behind the 1928 English Prayer Book (different than the 1928 American Prayer Book.)

Pre-Schism Western rite material is plenteous, and not sparse. The Sarum rite is quite complete, and even the Roman Catholic scholar Daniel Rock DD could say that at most six or seven words had changed in the rite from before the Norman Conquest until after. I'll quote him, from "The Church Of Our Fathers" 1866:
Quote
"Protestant writers upon the history and antiquities of the Church in this country, have often allowed themselves to be easily misled into no small error concerning changes imagined to have been wrought by St. Osmund in our national ecclesiastical services.

Not for a moment must it be thought that this holy man either took away one smallest jot from the text of the liturgy for offering up the sacrifice of the mass, or altered a word of the ritual of administering any of the seven sacraments. Both the Sacrifice and the Sacraments were hallowed things, which the Normans looked upon with the like deep reverence and holy feeling as the Anglo-Saxons: for each nation's belief upon these articles of Christian faith was identical, flowing as it did out of the self-same well-spring of truth -- the apostolic see, the chair of St. Peter."

....

Now it should be asked: " In What did the Sarum ritual vary from that of Rome, and of the Anglo-Saxons?", the question is readily answered by replying, that the difference was neither much nor important. On comparing the Breviary, the Missal, and the Manual of Salisbury, with such of the service-books as have come down to us from Anglo-Saxon times, and those books now in use at Rome [1849], we shall find that they agree with one another almost word for word; so much so, indeed, as to show that St. Osmund did nothing more than to take the Roman liturgy as he found it at the time, ingraft upon it some slight unimportant insertions, and draw out its rubrics in such a way as to hinder the ordinary chances of falling into any mistakes about them from happening. He seems to have invented nothing of himself in these matters, but to have chosen out of the practices he saw in use around him, among the Anglo-Saxons here, and more especially among his own countrymen in Normandy; and it would appear he undertook nothing more than to arrange the church-offices in such sort that his clergy -- composed as they must have been of Normans and Anglo-Saxons -- might have one known uniform rule to lead them while going through their respective functions within the sanctuary, and their several duties amid their flocks."

....

Such, reader, are the chief though not all the beauties of our dear old Sarum rite, which, after all, was so very Anglo-Saxon in its leading features. To love those olden ways in which our fathers for ages trod, is what has been told us and taught us by some of the highest holiest men who have lived at different times and various places in God's one catholic everlasting Church. How St. Charles Borromeo strove and wrought successfully to keep up the liturgy and ritual as they were left by hid predecessor, the great St. Ambrose; how Cardinal Ximenes preserved, at Toledo, the Mozarabic service - are fact well known. ... The Holy See, nay the Church herself, has always acknowledged the lawfulness of keeping up local rites and praiseworthy customs in different countries. The council of Trent, Sess. XXIV., in its Decretum de Reformatione Matrimonii cap. i., says: - Si quae provinciae aliis, ultra praedictas, laudabilibus consuetudinibus et caeremoniis hac in re utuntur, eas omnino retineri sancta Synodus vehementer optat. For the holy See, and the Roman Congregation of Rites, Gavanti, than whom a more trustworthy witness could not be found, assures us that: - Proprios mores unaquaeque habet ecclesia et laudibiles consuetudines, quas non tolli a caeremoniali Romano, neque a rubricis Breviarii, saepius declaravit Sacra rittum Congregatio.

....

Between the Anglo-Saxon and the Sarum rite there was but small difference: this latter bore about it a strong sister likeness to the first, so that, while looking upon the one, we, after a way, behold both. In its features and its whole stature, we gaze, as it were, upon our fathers in their religious life; we read their ghostly annals, through a thousand years and more, as a Catholic people. It tells us what men and women, old and young, high and low, then did and must have done to have got for this land of England that sweet name, among the nations, of "The island of Saints." When we take a remembrance of this liturgy with us into the tall cathedral and the lowly parish church, those dear old walls that catholic hands built are again quickened into ritual life; we see the lighted tapers round the shrine, or circling about the Blessed Sacrament hung above the altar; we catch the chant, we witness the procession as it halts to kneel and pray beneath the rood-loft; to the inward eye, the bishop with his seven deacons and as many subdeacons, is standing at the altar sacrificing, and as he uplifts our divine Lord in the Eucharist, for the worship of the kneeling throng, we hear the bell toll forth slowly, majestically. From the southern porch-door, to the brackets on the eastern chancel wall for the B.V. Mary's and the patron saint's images, every thing has its own meaning and speaks its especial purpose, as intended by the use of Sarum. Can these rites never again be witnessed in England? They may. Let us hope then - let us pray for their restoration, so that England may once more gaze upon her olden liturgy; let us hope and pray that her children, in looking upon, may all acknowledge their true mother, and love and heed the teaching the while they study the ritual of the Church of our Fathers."

Osmund didn't change the rite, it was simply codified from the books that they had brought from Sherborne and Ramsbury (which have a connection to St. David's - Menevia and Caerleon through Bishop Asser, whom St. Alfred the Great brought to be the bishop of Sherborne.)

There are more than pre-schism texts in Northern France (which had ecclesiastical contact with Anglo-Saxon England long before the Conquest, hence Rouen being like Sarum.) The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is one, as is the old Cornish Mass in the Bodleian. There is more - if one digs.

Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source. I cannot find any references to any extant primary source for Sarum Rite from that period. I'd be happy to be wrong.

The "Missal" of Robert de Jumièges is 13 pages of miniatures. It is a fragment.

I'm not gonna quibble on the 1549-52 prayer book thing. You may be right, although I frankly find it highly unlikely that Edward VI and Mary Tudor would or could use the same prayer book. Edward was himself strongly for reform, and the head of his council and his guardian, Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, even more so. My recollection reading the 1549 book (and this was a few years back, so my memory may be faulty) was that it read like the 1660 book, just in older language. The point in any case is, the BCP is a new book, not a reworking of an older book. It constitutes a break with the past, not a link to it.

« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 10:56:04 PM by Hermogenes » Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #199 on: November 27, 2010, 10:40:01 PM »

Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.

Lets have your short list first.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #200 on: November 27, 2010, 10:59:49 PM »

Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.

Lets have your short list first.
I'm asking for your reference. You say there's a primary source for a complete Sarum Rite liturgy. I don't know of any attested Sarum Rite Mss. before the 12th Century. There is mention of the Sarum Rite in other Mss. as early as the Eighth Century, but no primary sources I'm aware of.
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #201 on: November 27, 2010, 11:09:47 PM »

Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.

Lets have your short list first.
I'm asking for your reference. You say there's a primary source for a complete Sarum Rite liturgy. I don't know of any attested Sarum Rite Mss. before the 12th Century. There is mention of the Sarum Rite in other Mss. as early as the Eighth Century, but no primary sources I'm aware of.

You made the initial claim - so ante up. There are multiple primary sources for the local English use of the Roman rite that came to be called Sarum. That is a counter-claim. So, as it goes with these things: show me yours first, and I'll show you mine. (I'm especially interested in this mention of a Sarum Rite in an 8th c. MSS. - first I've heard of it, and would go counter to the history of the Sarum rite as we know it. Again: that Sarum is a post-schism name given to the rite already being celebrated in Wessex - such as at Sherborne and Ramsbury - and essentially the same as that being served across the channel before the Conquest, and in South Wales before the Conquest. And that such was as it had been since the Synod of Cloveshoe II.)
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #202 on: November 27, 2010, 11:30:21 PM »

Aristibule is correct.  "The First Prayer Book, though bearing some traces of foreign influence, was, in fact, a revision of the old Service-books of the English Church…But the First English Book of Common Prayer was formed, not by a composition of new materials, but by a reverent, and on the whole conservative, handling of the earlier services, of which large portions were simply translated and retained." - A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, Frances Proctor

But, in reality, that's beside the point. The 1928 American Book of Common Prayer is not, and has never been, an approved text for use in Western Rite parishes. To be sure, certain elements have been adapted from the 1928 Prayer Book for use in Western Rite parishes (or, more correctly, from the earlier 1892 American Book of Common Prayer): the Daily Office, the Coverdale Psalter, and the (heavily) adapted Communion Service.

However, there are also huge chunks of the 1928 Prayer Book that would never be used in a Western Rite parish: the Calendar (which essentially contains some of the major feasts of Our Lord and only New Testament saints); the Anglican sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Matrimony; the Anglican offices of Communion of the Sick or Burial of the Dead; the Ordinal; the Catechism; and (obviously) the Articles of Religion that you mentioned. Instead, these elements are replaced in the Western Rite with a much fuller Western calendar of feast days, earlier Roman forms of sacraments and services, the Byzantine services for Ordinations, and Orthodox catechisms for religious instruction.

As such, it would probably be more fair to describe the Western Rite, at least on a textual basis, as having been inspired, in part, by the 1928 Prayer Book, but that there are other significant portions of the Rite adapted from other, non-Prayer Book Western sources, most notably the old Roman Rite.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2010, 11:31:38 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #203 on: November 27, 2010, 11:58:30 PM »

Aristibule is correct.  "The First Prayer Book, though bearing some traces of foreign influence, was, in fact, a revision of the old Service-books of the English Church…But the First English Book of Common Prayer was formed, not by a composition of new materials, but by a reverent, and on the whole conservative, handling of the earlier services, of which large portions were simply translated and retained." - A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, Frances Proctor


I stand corrected. I must have been reading the 1552 edition.

In reality, the issue isn't even the 1928 BCP. It is that the liturgy in use in England at the time of the Dissolution would not itself have been considered orthodox by the Orthodox.

To take the best-known case: The Filioque was introduced several centuries before the Schism. I know, some eastern churches used it too, so nobody needs to jump down my throat. At some point, it became standard usage in the West and was declared heretical in the East. It was a process over hundreds of years. I expect we'd find the same thing with some of the other issues. In the East, the bishops reined in those of heterodox views. In the West, those views became doctrine. Now, a thousand years down the road, someone wants to claim there is an ancient orthodox tradition in the West. Certainly, the Western liturgical tradition has very ancient roots--as ancient as the Eastern tradition. The question is, at what point that tradition stopped being orthodox. Some people writing here apparently feel the answer is: Never. Others (I among them) feel the answer is: a very long time ago--at least as far back as the Schism. If these people are correct, then any Western Orthodox Rite in use today would of necessity be a new construction.

Time for sleep. Good night all--God bless! ("And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest...")
« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 12:22:50 AM by Hermogenes » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #204 on: November 28, 2010, 12:18:16 AM »

Oh there's no question at all that, for the most part, these rites ceased "being Orthodox" by the time of the Schism with the accretions and deletions that you've already mentioned.  But that does not completely ruin them and I think you'd find that their structural integrity remained largely intact.  There was not much that had to be changed about them, when it all gets boiled down.

I think what many have a problem with is that the Western Rite, as a whole, was continued to be preserved by heterodox believers and that's just unacceptable to many.  They think it becomes suspect, or "lost" at that point.  But others of us don't want to give up on it, and want to see it restored to its former glory whilst not pretending that nothing ever happened.  This is why I believe the Antiochian approach, while controversial, makes the most sense.
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #205 on: November 28, 2010, 12:28:58 AM »

I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,403


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #206 on: November 28, 2010, 12:37:30 AM »

I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.

A very good point.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #207 on: November 28, 2010, 09:26:03 AM »


The "Missal" of Robert de Jumièges is 13 pages of miniatures. It is a fragment.


The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is more than 13 pages of miniatures. It is in fact 228 leaves, 13 1/4 by 8 3/4 in size, and forms a sacramentary (meaning it has more than a Missal.) It was kept at Rouen, but is English in origin - most likely from Winchester. It contains a Kalendar and Paschal Tables (beginning at the year 1000), the Canon and Temporale, the Sanctorale, Votive Masses, Benediction, Visitation, Unction, Burial and Missa pro defunctis. It was published by the Henry Bradshaw Society in facsimile, and the Monastery of Mount Royal holds a copy. (I've also read through one via Inter-library Loan, a wonderful program.)
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,391


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #208 on: November 28, 2010, 09:40:57 AM »

I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.

Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #209 on: November 28, 2010, 01:56:47 PM »


The "Missal" of Robert de Jumièges is 13 pages of miniatures. It is a fragment.


The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is more than 13 pages of miniatures. It is in fact 228 leaves, 13 1/4 by 8 3/4 in size, and forms a sacramentary (meaning it has more than a Missal.) It was kept at Rouen, but is English in origin - most likely from Winchester. It contains a Kalendar and Paschal Tables (beginning at the year 1000), the Canon and Temporale, the Sanctorale, Votive Masses, Benediction, Visitation, Unction, Burial and Missa pro defunctis. It was published by the Henry Bradshaw Society in facsimile, and the Monastery of Mount Royal holds a copy. (I've also read through one via Inter-library Loan, a wonderful program.)

I've browsed it, not read it closely. I was counting the Sacramentary as a separate volume.

I haven't had the chance to have a discussion like this for several years, and I wanted to thank you. It's been very stimulating. I used to work with these works professionally as a performing musician specializing in music of the period. It's been fun blowing the dust off and seeing how much I remember (and ruing how much I've forgotten).
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #210 on: November 28, 2010, 03:56:21 PM »

Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.

It was gradual leading up and it was gradual afterward.  There were still several churches in communion with one another well after 1054.  There was a Wester Rite Benedictine monastery on Holy Mount Athos until the 13th century.  I think 1054 is completely arbitrary.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #211 on: November 28, 2010, 04:59:41 PM »

Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.

It was gradual leading up and it was gradual afterward.  There were still several churches in communion with one another well after 1054.  There was a Wester Rite Benedictine monastery on Holy Mount Athos until the 13th century.  I think 1054 is completely arbitrary.

Sure, except for the actual anathemae. For instance, the Council of Toledo took place in 589, but the Filoque wasn't adopted permanently by the church at Rome until 1014. The idea of papal supremacy took many centuries to gain something like universal acceptance by Western ecclesiastical authorities, with a number of twists and turns, even at the top level of papal approval.

I think we've wandered from the original topic, however. As I recall it, it was whether enough primary source material exists to assert the existence of an orthodox Western Sarum liturgy prior to 1054. Of course, there's enough other material to cobble together a gradual of some kind (as the Solesmes monks did in the 1960s from San Gallensis 359, Laudunensibus 239, and Einsidlensis 121 in preparing their very interesting Graduale Triplex). A few people have said there's plenty of pre-Schism primary source material--the Sacramentary or Robert de Jumièges, for example. I can't get any closer to an answer with the resources I have available here of a holiday weekend. The Orthodox hierarchy recognized the West's ancient traditions, and I think they are clear and obvious; but  I still do not feel there's a basis for suggesting an unbroken orthodox Sarum tradition.

In any case, from what I know of the origin of the liturgies currently in use under the title Western Orthodox, they were adapted from a variety of sources in the middle of the last century. The people who worked on them were some of them quite knowledgeable. I personally remain confused as to the reason for the efforts of Frs. Schmemann, Meyendorff, et al., but then, I don't really have to understand it. I've never been a member of a Western Rite parish and am not likely to be. I'd like personally to see one church, with a single unified approach to liturgical practice--unified, at least, to the extent we can all worship comfortably in each other's churches. The Western Orthodox Rite, so-called, does not seem to contribute to that. But I'd be happy to understand more about it.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #212 on: November 28, 2010, 05:12:25 PM »

I can understand that, but as you noted, it's just a personal preference of yours. Each his own!

I'm curious what confuses you about the involvement of Frs Schmemann and Meyendorff? Are you confused by the labors of Ss Tikhon, John Maximovitch, Nicholas, Rafael as well?

Also, you must remember that liturgical uniformity is not the natural state of the Church. Why should one trump all the others? Just because geography and history made it so that it was the dominant form in Orthodoxy for so long?

One other thing I'm curious about; why is the Orthodox Western Rite "so-called"? Do you not believe such a thing exists?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 05:13:54 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #213 on: November 28, 2010, 05:13:45 PM »

I can understand that, but as you noted, it's just a personal preference of yours. Each his own!

I'm curious what confuses you about the involvement of Frs Schmemann and Meyendorff? Are you confused by the labors of Ss Tikhon, John Maximovitch, Nicholas, Rafael as well?

Also, you must remember that liturgical uniformity is not the natural state of the Church. Why should one trump all the others? Just because geography and history made it so that it was the dominant form in Orthodoxy for so long?

I don't understand why they undertook it in the first place. It doesn't appear to have been in response to a large groundswell of demand.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #214 on: November 28, 2010, 05:16:26 PM »

Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #215 on: November 28, 2010, 05:29:45 PM »

Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #216 on: November 28, 2010, 06:18:23 PM »

Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?

Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

As far as Meyendorff is concerned, his wonderful book The Orthodox Church gives some great insight into his thoughts on the Western Rite as well as the Byzantine Rite.

A favorite quote of mine, from this book, says: “Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many.”  The Western Rite isn't really much more than this.  Long ago it lead to the salvation of many, and now that it has been restored to the Church it can once again be a beautiful witness to the Orthodox Faith and lead to the salvation of many.

I am a case and point.  I was an atheist and converted to the Orthodox Church, in large part because the beauty of the Rite of St. Tikhon captured my heart and I couldn't imagine worshiping in any other way.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #217 on: November 28, 2010, 07:07:09 PM »

Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?

Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

As far as Meyendorff is concerned, his wonderful book The Orthodox Church gives some great insight into his thoughts on the Western Rite as well as the Byzantine Rite.

A favorite quote of mine, from this book, says: “Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many.”  The Western Rite isn't really much more than this.  Long ago it lead to the salvation of many, and now that it has been restored to the Church it can once again be a beautiful witness to the Orthodox Faith and lead to the salvation of many.

I am a case and point.  I was an atheist and converted to the Orthodox Church, in large part because the beauty of the Rite of St. Tikhon captured my heart and I couldn't imagine worshiping in any other way.

It might be easier for me to understand if I were one of those people who find the long liturgies boring or not meaningful. But the opposite is true. I find the liturgy intensely moving an important. I worked in the Catholic church as a musician for many, many years, and my mother is an Anglican; so I'm very familiar with the Western forms. They are beautiful. But this isn't really about beautiful or pleasing or what I prefer, is it? It's about what's true. I apologize for how priggish that sounds. But I'm asked to do lots of things in my spiritual life that aren't fun or immediately enjoyable. I'm not conceptually opposed to a separate Western rite, but I am opposed if the basis for it is simply that people LIKE it. They prefer it. (You get why this word is such a burr under my saddle, eh? LOL) It's not a relevant value, it wouldn't be worth the effort if that were the only reason for it. In terms of my spiritual growth, nobody cares--or should care--if I'm enjoying myself or having a "good time."

Having spent literally decades at close quarters with both the Tridentine and Pauline masses, I don't believe the Catholics are doing the same thing when they worship as we are. I don't believe that Western liturgy conveys true (or at any rate complete) teaching. It is a commemoration, with the focus on Calvary. The Orthodox liturgy is a re-living of the entire experience, from Bethany to Bethany, as it were. That's how I experience it. I am inside it, it's something I live.

Anyway, I'll check out the sources. Thanks!

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

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #218 on: November 28, 2010, 07:13:16 PM »

Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?

Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

As far as Meyendorff is concerned, his wonderful book The Orthodox Church gives some great insight into his thoughts on the Western Rite as well as the Byzantine Rite.

A favorite quote of mine, from this book, says: “Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many.”  The Western Rite isn't really much more than this.  Long ago it lead to the salvation of many, and now that it has been restored to the Church it can once again be a beautiful witness to the Orthodox Faith and lead to the salvation of many.

I am a case and point.  I was an atheist and converted to the Orthodox Church, in large part because the beauty of the Rite of St. Tikhon captured my heart and I couldn't imagine worshiping in any other way.

It might be easier for me to understand if I were one of those people who find the long liturgies boring or not meaningful. But the opposite is true. I find the liturgy intensely moving an important. I worked in the Catholic church as a musician for many, many years, and my mother is an Anglican; so I'm very familiar with the Western forms. They are beautiful. But this isn't really about beautiful or pleasing or what I prefer, is it? It's about what's true. I apologize for how priggish that sounds. But I'm asked to do lots of things in my spiritual life that aren't fun or immediately enjoyable. I'm not conceptually opposed to a separate Western rite, but I am opposed if the basis for it is simply that people LIKE it. They prefer it. (You get why this word is such a burr under my saddle, eh? LOL) It's not a relevant value, it wouldn't be worth the effort if that were the only reason for it. In terms of my spiritual growth, nobody cares--or should care--if I'm enjoying myself or having a "good time."

Having spent literally decades at close quarters with both the Tridentine and Pauline masses, I don't believe the Catholics are doing the same thing when they worship as we are. I don't believe that Western liturgy conveys true (or at any rate complete) teaching. It is a commemoration, with the focus on Calvary. The Orthodox liturgy is a re-living of the entire experience, from Bethany to Bethany, as it were. That's how I experience it. I am inside it, it's something I live.

Anyway, I'll check out the sources. Thanks!



We are in agreement!  Please rest assured that the Orthodox Western Rite does not exist solely because people like it and prefer it.  It is absolutely about the truth, 100%.  And the Church has approved these rites for our use because they are convinced that they do, in fact, proclaim nothing but the fullness of the Faith.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #219 on: November 28, 2010, 07:19:47 PM »

Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.

Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?

Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

As far as Meyendorff is concerned, his wonderful book The Orthodox Church gives some great insight into his thoughts on the Western Rite as well as the Byzantine Rite.

A favorite quote of mine, from this book, says: “Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many.”  The Western Rite isn't really much more than this.  Long ago it lead to the salvation of many, and now that it has been restored to the Church it can once again be a beautiful witness to the Orthodox Faith and lead to the salvation of many.

I am a case and point.  I was an atheist and converted to the Orthodox Church, in large part because the beauty of the Rite of St. Tikhon captured my heart and I couldn't imagine worshiping in any other way.

It might be easier for me to understand if I were one of those people who find the long liturgies boring or not meaningful. But the opposite is true. I find the liturgy intensely moving an important. I worked in the Catholic church as a musician for many, many years, and my mother is an Anglican; so I'm very familiar with the Western forms. They are beautiful. But this isn't really about beautiful or pleasing or what I prefer, is it? It's about what's true. I apologize for how priggish that sounds. But I'm asked to do lots of things in my spiritual life that aren't fun or immediately enjoyable. I'm not conceptually opposed to a separate Western rite, but I am opposed if the basis for it is simply that people LIKE it. They prefer it. (You get why this word is such a burr under my saddle, eh? LOL) It's not a relevant value, it wouldn't be worth the effort if that were the only reason for it. In terms of my spiritual growth, nobody cares--or should care--if I'm enjoying myself or having a "good time."

Having spent literally decades at close quarters with both the Tridentine and Pauline masses, I don't believe the Catholics are doing the same thing when they worship as we are. I don't believe that Western liturgy conveys true (or at any rate complete) teaching. It is a commemoration, with the focus on Calvary. The Orthodox liturgy is a re-living of the entire experience, from Bethany to Bethany, as it were. That's how I experience it. I am inside it, it's something I live.

Anyway, I'll check out the sources. Thanks!



We are in agreement!  Please rest assured that the Orthodox Western Rite does not exist solely because people like it and prefer it.  It is absolutely about the truth, 100%.  And the Church has approved these rites for our use because they are convinced that they do, in fact, proclaim nothing but the fullness of the Faith.
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia....
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #220 on: November 28, 2010, 11:02:07 PM »

There was no Cranmer Prayer Book of 1549. Convocation made the translation of the 1549, including a few bishops who were still of Catholic faith.

That would be news to pretty much everyone. All the sources I can find say that there is no definite evidence of who wrote the 1549 rite, but that the assumption/belief through the years has been that Cranmer was the principal author. And the general view is that Cranmer's theology shifted considerably between the first two books.

That said, one need not resort to the words of the learned (or supposedly so) in considering the text of the rites, for one may read of the 1549 book here and of the 1892 book (which is what PECUSA was using at the time of Tikhon's American sojourn) here. At the moment I do not have at hand my copy of the western rite service book, but from what I recall it follows the 1892/1928 American pattern, so I don't see what point there is to discussing 1549 in the first place.
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #221 on: November 28, 2010, 11:06:55 PM »

Because portions of the 1549 have been used in the English rite of the Russian Church for use in converting Anglican congregations.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #222 on: November 29, 2010, 09:19:47 AM »

Because portions of the 1549 have been used in the English rite of the Russian Church for use in converting Anglican congregations.

I believe it is the 1660 prayer book that was the basis for most succeeding editions, although it may be more complicated a picture than that. (And I may have the date slightly wrong, too.) The point I had wanted to make earlier is that the BCP is intentionally meant as a break with the past, not a conscious link to it. Extreme Protestants of the period wanted to wipe out every trace of popery. They would have been deaf to appeals for the consideration of tradition. Sola scriptura!
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #223 on: November 29, 2010, 10:16:57 AM »

Do you have a good source for this Hermogenes?  I haven't read much on the intentions of those who worked on the BCP, but I haven't heard this notion that it was a deliberate break from the past.  Everything I have read indicates it was more of a compilation work, rather than an entirely new construction.  I'm interested in where you discovered this.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #224 on: November 29, 2010, 10:49:47 AM »

Do you have a good source for this Hermogenes?  I haven't read much on the intentions of those who worked on the BCP, but I haven't heard this notion that it was a deliberate break from the past.  Everything I have read indicates it was more of a compilation work, rather than an entirely new construction.  I'm interested in where you discovered this.

Aristibule (on this thread) is more knowledgeable on this than I. Perhaps he could share his sources? I didn't remember the sequence of events leading up to the first book as well as he does.
Logged
Tags: ROCOR Western Rite 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   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 0.217 seconds with 72 queries.