Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
I believe it is fair.

"...it is found that the Use of Rouen and that of Sarum were almost identical in the 11th century. A curious and interesting illustration of this will be found in an extract of a Rouen manuscript missal, assumed to be 650 years old... The Rouen Pontifical, of about 1007 A.D., quoted in the same work, shows a like affinity of that of Sarum and Exeter in later days."

http://books.google.com/books?vid=08I4RhaJDeU0z2Dt&id=cyUBAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA20-PA615&lpg=RA20-PA615&dq=Rouen+Missal&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=Rouen%20Missal&f=false

Further, Fr. Aidan has been proved unreliable as to his scholarship concerning the Sarum Rite, as several Western Rite members of this forum can confirm.  Please note his version of the SArum Missal has not been approved for use in ROCOR which received him in 2008.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał said:
Deacon Lance said:
. . .the Sarum use came from France with the Normans. . .
This is a very unfair simplification.

Re: Norman Additions to Sarum
From: Fr. Aidan


This is an excellent question. The short answer is that there is not a single known change or discrepancy between the liturgy of pre-Conquest Sarum and post-Conquest Sarum. According to some scholars, there was zero change. But, that said, the Use of Sarum as it comes down to us looks very suspiciously like the Use of Rouen. Of course we don't know of any change in the liturgy of Rouen from pre-May 1054 to post-May 1054, nor for the following century. Those were the days of not much change in the spirituality and content of the Western liturgy.

The real changes that would impact on the theology of the Liturgy, people's experience of it, really are found in the late 12th century and 13th century: the insertion of an elevation at the "Words of Institution," and so forth.

These latter, changed features are not in the Sarum service books I am familiar with, which have been blessed for celebration in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis
What this leaves out is that there are NO extant sources for Sarum rite liturgy before the Conquest. The earliest (incomplete) texts date from the 12th-13th centuries. What is needed to qualify, according to the criteria laid out at the beginning of this thread, is a liturgy that is orthodox, recognizably "like" the liturgy now being put forth as "Western Orthodox," and dating  from before the Great Schism. Proponents of the Western Rite are saying enough authentic primary sources exist to produce such a liturgy. Skeptics disagree. That's not to say the Sarum Rite isn't a beautiful liturgy, or the 1549 Cranmer/Edward VI prayer book, for that matter. They're just not Orthodox, without some editing.

But--the Carpatho-Rusyn metropolis did exactly that when its adherents became Orthodox in the 1930s. They made the few changes the EP required and kept the rest.

What's most surprising to me about this thread is the number of people, devoutly Orthodox, who actually prefer the Western Rite. In my arrogance, I had always thought use of the Western rite would be some kind of transition until a person could learn to appreciate "real" Orthodox liturgy. Anyone who liked the Western rite simply couldn't have been exposed enough to the glories of Byzantine worship.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Deacon Lance said:
I believe it is fair.
I've just made a little research and came accros a message from one of the WR members of this forum:
Further, Fr. Aidan has been proved unreliable as to his scholarship concerning the Sarum Rite, as several Western Rite members of this forum can confirm.  Please note his version of the SArum Missal has not been approved for use in ROCOR which received him in 2008.
Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
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
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Hermogenes said:
What's most surprising to me about this thread is the number of people, devoutly Orthodox, who actually prefer the Western Rite. In my arrogance, I had always thought use of the Western rite would be some kind of transition until a person could learn to appreciate "real" Orthodox liturgy. Anyone who liked the Western rite simply couldn't have been exposed enough to the glories of Byzantine worship.
I've experienced both Eastern and Western rites, and all I can say is that I just find the Western Rite (Tikhon specifically) to be much more beautiful and meaningful to me than the Byzantine.  But that's because it is from my own heritage and lineage, my own culture and tradition.  It feels natural and authentic and like my worship is coming from a genuine place.  I think I could feel that way in the Byzantine, but it would take some hard to work.  I'm very thankful that Orthodoxy has provided a way for those of us with a more Western mindset to have a fulfilling and authentic form of worship.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Michał said:
Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
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.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Deacon Lance said:
Michał said:
Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
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.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Deacon Lance said:
  Please note his version of the SArum Missal has not been approved for use in ROCOR which received him in 2008.
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Irish Hermit said:
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.
But it also has to be noted that in the ROCOR Fr. Aidan's Sarum is used only by himself, when he occasionally serves according to WR at St. Nicholas Monastery, Ft. Myers, Florida.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Michał said:
Irish Hermit said:
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.

But it also has to be noted that in the ROCOR Fr. Aidan's Sarum is used only by himself...
Your point?

What priests in ROCA use Dom James Deschene's Black Benedictine books and his form of the Tridentine Mass?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use Abbot David Pierce's form of the Sarum (Achbp John LoBue's) cum Dom Augustine's Mt Royal preferences?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use the Gallican forms of Fr Allyne Lev Smith?  Only himself.

 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Irish Hermit said:
Deacon Lance said:
  Please note his version of the SArum Missal has not been approved for use in ROCOR which received him in 2008.
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.
I stand corrected. 
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Irish Hermit said:
Michał said:
Irish Hermit said:
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.

But it also has to be noted that in the ROCOR Fr. Aidan's Sarum is used only by himself...
Your point?

What priests in ROCA use Dom James Deschene's Black Benedictine books and his form of the Tridentine Mass?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use Abbot David Pierce's form of the Sarum (Achbp John LoBue's) cum Dom Augustine's Mt Royal preferences?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use the Gallican forms of Fr Allyne Lev Smith?  Only himself.
The point it would seem is the ROCOR Western Rite is subjected to the personal preferences and idiosyncrasies of the few priests it has.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Irish Hermit said:
Your point?
Just wanted to make it clear for those who don't know that in this case "approved for use in ROCA" does not neceserily mean that it is used by more than one priest-monk.

Irish Hermit said:
What priests in ROCA use Dom James Deschene's Black Benedictine books and his form of the Tridentine Mass?  Only himself.
The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory included in St. Colman Prayer Book, used by St. Petroc Monastery's missions, is the one of the Christminster. I also guess that St. Patrick chapel, Northville, Michigan, as a dependency of Christminster, is in some kind of liturgical uniformity with its mother-monastery. I also assume that the WR Liturgy of the bi-ritual St. Benedict church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, isn't that different from the one of Christminster as both communities have the Benedictione element in common.

Irish Hermit said:
What priests in ROCA use Abbot David Pierce's form of the Sarum (Achbp John LoBue's) cum Dom Augustine's Mt Royal preferences?  Only himself.
As for the Mt. Royal, Archimandrite Anthony (Bondi) wrote recently in his open letter that he and his clergy "will
. . . be able to keep [their] Liturgy which is based on the Dom Augustine Liturgy."

Irish Hermit said:
What priests in ROCA use the Gallican forms of Fr Allyne Lev Smith?  Only himself.
Yes, but there used to be a whole ROCA diocese, with its own WR bishop, which was using it, and we can hope that after Fr. Allyne Lev Smith's reception more Gallican rite parishes will come back home.
 

Michał

High Elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Mazovia, Poland
Deacon Lance said:
The point it would seem is the ROCOR Western Rite is subjected to the personal preferences and idiosyncrasies of the few priests it has.
I'm sure a greater uniformity will be worked out with time.
 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
57
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
I'm very thankful that Orthodoxy has provided a way for those of us with a more Western mindset to have a fulfilling and authentic form of worship.
I don't think that I could have a more Western mindset. I am English, and then British, and proud to be so going back to unrecorded history. I don't think it is fair to suggest that people with a 'Western mindset' become WR. I am very happy being Western and Orthodox and I don't find the Western liturgical tradition immediately makes a connection with me because I was never Anglican. In my experience most WR enthusiasts are Anglican. (That is not a criticism, but an observation).

If it was required that I learn Arabic and/or Coptic to be able to worship I would not be as comfortable in my situation as I am. But in fact as a small missionary diocese of mostly British people in the Coptic Patriarchate I find myself under no pressure to become an Egyptian, and find that the forms of worship we use are entirely accessible to English people. Indeed our diocese has been tasked with sharing our Orthodoxy in a British ethos. As an entirely British person this has NEVER meant being Anglican to me, nor do I consider that to be British means becoming in some manner an Anglican, or adopting Western Catholic forms.

Even the Anglicans who did become Orthodox with the Antiochians became Eastern Rite, and I am not in a position to know whether or not they feel that they need to become Eastern Orthodox as well as Eastern Rite. But for my own community, we are, as I described, Western Orthodox using Eastern Rites, very comfortably, and without diminishing our sense of being entirely British. Perhaps it is because I was never an Anglican that I am not very concerned about which rites I am instructed to use by my bishop. It seems much more important to me that I enter into the prayers as much as possible, and I believe that this depends on the quality of the prayers rather than their origin. I am sure that in other circumstances I would be as content to pray as a Western Orthodox priest using an Armenian Rite in English, or a Syriac in English, or St John Chrysostom in English, while I actually use St James. As far as my experience goes, the process of translating the liturgy (of St James) into good, liturgical English makes it a Western Rite.

I am entirely British, even English. I love the heritage of my own country. My patron saint is buried 20 miles from where I am typing. There are the remains of Christian churches within 20 miles of my home which date back to the 4th century. But in my experience, and this is just my experience, I feel no need to use liturgical forms from the distant past in the West to validate my Western Orthodoxy. I wonder if that is one reason (I know there are others) for the lack of success in the UK for the Western Rite? That is, that since we ARE British and English we don't need to prove it, and whatever we do in our own language, unless we are trying to become a pretend Russian , Greek or Egyptian, is already Western and Orthodox. 
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deacon Lance said:
Irish Hermit said:
Michał said:
Irish Hermit said:
It most certainly has been approved, by Metropolitan Hilarion who has also always allowed its sale in church bookshops and there are now plans to reprint it with his blessing.

But it also has to be noted that in the ROCOR Fr. Aidan's Sarum is used only by himself...
Your point?

What priests in ROCA use Dom James Deschene's Black Benedictine books and his form of the Tridentine Mass?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use Abbot David Pierce's form of the Sarum (Achbp John LoBue's) cum Dom Augustine's Mt Royal preferences?  Only himself.

What priests in ROCA use the Gallican forms of Fr Allyne Lev Smith?  Only himself.
The point it would seem is the ROCOR Western Rite is subjected to the personal preferences and idiosyncrasies of the few priests it has.
I always thought the whole Western Orthodox idea was to remove a stumbling block to Protestants becoming Orthodox. If they were attached to their liturgy, OK, clean up the parts that are doctrinally heterodox and you can still use the Coverdale prayer book. I can't imagine individual priests have that much latitude, even with the Western rite. I mean, the Antiochian archdiocese just suspended a priest for wearing his cassock in public, in defiance of Metropolitan Philip's orders. How much leeway is he gonna give on liturgy?
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
peterfarrington said:
I'm very thankful that Orthodoxy has provided a way for those of us with a more Western mindset to have a fulfilling and authentic form of worship.
I don't think that I could have a more Western mindset. I am English, and then British, and proud to be so going back to unrecorded history. I don't think it is fair to suggest that people with a 'Western mindset' become WR. I am very happy being Western and Orthodox and I don't find the Western liturgical tradition immediately makes a connection with me because I was never Anglican. In my experience most WR enthusiasts are Anglican. (That is not a criticism, but an observation).

If it was required that I learn Arabic and/or Coptic to be able to worship I would not be as comfortable in my situation as I am. But in fact as a small missionary diocese of mostly British people in the Coptic Patriarchate I find myself under no pressure to become an Egyptian, and find that the forms of worship we use are entirely accessible to English people. Indeed our diocese has been tasked with sharing our Orthodoxy in a British ethos. As an entirely British person this has NEVER meant being Anglican to me, nor do I consider that to be British means becoming in some manner an Anglican, or adopting Western Catholic forms.

Even the Anglicans who did become Orthodox with the Antiochians became Eastern Rite, and I am not in a position to know whether or not they feel that they need to become Eastern Orthodox as well as Eastern Rite. But for my own community, we are, as I described, Western Orthodox using Eastern Rites, very comfortably, and without diminishing our sense of being entirely British. Perhaps it is because I was never an Anglican that I am not very concerned about which rites I am instructed to use by my bishop. It seems much more important to me that I enter into the prayers as much as possible, and I believe that this depends on the quality of the prayers rather than their origin. I am sure that in other circumstances I would be as content to pray as a Western Orthodox priest using an Armenian Rite in English, or a Syriac in English, or St John Chrysostom in English, while I actually use St James. As far as my experience goes, the process of translating the liturgy (of St James) into good, liturgical English makes it a Western Rite.

I am entirely British, even English. I love the heritage of my own country. My patron saint is buried 20 miles from where I am typing. There are the remains of Christian churches within 20 miles of my home which date back to the 4th century. But in my experience, and this is just my experience, I feel no need to use liturgical forms from the distant past in the West to validate my Western Orthodoxy. I wonder if that is one reason (I know there are others) for the lack of success in the UK for the Western Rite? That is, that since we ARE British and English we don't need to prove it, and whatever we do in our own language, unless we are trying to become a pretend Russian , Greek or Egyptian, is already Western and Orthodox. 
Wonderful post, but honestly, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise!  See my reply to you in the other thread you commented on. 
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Hermogenes said:
I always thought the whole Western Orthodox idea was to remove a stumbling block to Protestants becoming Orthodox.
That's part of it, but not anywhere near the whole of the idea.  First and foremost is for those who love and treasure the ancient Western expression of the Faith to participate in bringing it back home to Orthodoxy and redeeming it.  It would be done whether there is was a missionary opportunity or not.  It's for the glory of God.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Hermogenes said:
I always thought the whole Western Orthodox idea was to remove a stumbling block to Protestants becoming Orthodox.
That's part of it, but not anywhere near the whole of the idea.  First and foremost is for those who love and treasure the ancient Western expression of the Faith to participate in bringing it back home to Orthodoxy and redeeming it.  It would be done whether there is was a missionary opportunity or not.  It's for the glory of God.
But the issue, amply argued on this thread, is that the "ancient" Western expressions have not been preserved in any form we really understand. There's nothing like the continuity of the Eastern rite. The Dark Ages ensured that books would be scarce to begin with. The reformation and Counter-Reformation ensured that most of the primary sources would be damaged or destroyed and institutional memory mostly wiped out. Our understanding of pre-Tridentine forms is sketchy and fragmentary at best, which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to construct a coherent liturgy. It's a nice idea, but there's just no practical basis on which to realize it.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Sure, I can understand that.  However (and I realize many won't agree with this, or like it) but the ancient Western rites have been preserved; they've just been preserved by heterodox churches.

The Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate gets a ton of vehement flack for taking the approach they take, but there was actually a rationale behind it, believe it or not (and it wasn't one of pandering to people who refused to change, or any other charge that gets thrown around willy-nilly).  The fact is that the Rites of St. Gregory and St. Tikhon are adapted/corrected versions of the ancient rites that have survived and have been preserved by those who continued to use them.

Yes changes were made and things reflected the results of the Schism (which is why corrections were needed) but this seemed to be the best approach precisely because they are the rites that have continued to exist amongst the Western people.

It is correct that the ancient rites, as they were then, can be difficult to figure out as far as rubrics and such.  Which is why the AWRV chose the path of adapting the existing rites, rather than insist on a pre-Schism liturgy, which would ultimately amount to a "living museum" of sorts, or an historical reenactment.

In Bishop BASIL's words, “You are the inheritors of a precious treasure: the authentic and Orthodox rites that nourished thousands now in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Orthodox Church thanks you for preserving this tradition all these years, so that it could be restored to her through Western Rite Orthodox parishes."

Yes, from an Orthodox perspective, these Western rites were "lost" in that they ceased to be a part of the Undivided Church; but in a practical and literal way, they weren't lost at all but were continued to be used by those bodies that got swept away in the Schism.

Again, I realize this won't satisfy many people, but to me it's a sane and reasonable approach.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Sure, I can understand that.  However (and I realize many won't agree with this, or like it) but the ancient Western rites have been preserved; they've just been preserved by heterodox churches.

The Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate gets a ton of vehement flack for taking the approach they take, but there was actually a rationale behind it, believe it or not (and it wasn't one of pandering to people who refused to change, or any other charge that gets thrown around willy-nilly).  The fact is that the Rites of St. Gregory and St. Tikhon are adapted/corrected versions of the ancient rites that have survived and have been preserved by those who continued to use them.

Yes changes were made and things reflected the results of the Schism (which is why corrections were needed) but this seemed to be the best approach precisely because they are the rites that have continued to exist amongst the Western people.

It is correct that the ancient rites, as they were then, can be difficult to figure out as far as rubrics and such.  Which is why the AWRV chose the path of adapting the existing rites, rather than insist on a pre-Schism liturgy, which would ultimately amount to a "living museum" of sorts, or an historical reenactment.

In Bishop BASIL's words, “You are the inheritors of a precious treasure: the authentic and Orthodox rites that nourished thousands now in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Orthodox Church thanks you for preserving this tradition all these years, so that it could be restored to her through Western Rite Orthodox parishes."

Yes, from an Orthodox perspective, these Western rites were "lost" in that they ceased to be a part of the Undivided Church; but in a practical and literal way, they weren't lost at all but were continued to be used by those bodies that got swept away in the Schism.

Again, I realize this won't satisfy many people, but to me it's a sane and reasonable approach.
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.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Hermogenes said:
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!
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Hermogenes said:
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.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
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!
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
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.
 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
57
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
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 <b>seems</b> 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 <b>seem</b> 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, <b>if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English</b>, 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.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Hermogenes said:
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.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
peterfarrington said:
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 <b>seems</b> 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 <b>seem</b> 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, <b>if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English</b>, 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.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
peterfarrington said:
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 <b>seems</b> 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 <b>seem</b> 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, <b>if there were welcoming Orthodox communities nearby using English</b>, 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 <b>seems</b> 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.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
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...
 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
57
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
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.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
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.
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Deacon Lance said:
Michał said:
Fr. Aidan claims otherwise:
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!!!!
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
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.
 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
57
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
Hi Ari,

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

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

..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.
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
peterfarrington said:
Hi Ari,

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

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

..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! ;) )
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
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.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
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.
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
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:
"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.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aristibule said:
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
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:
"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.

 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hermogenes said:
Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.
Lets have your short list first.
 
Top