Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aristibule said:
Hermogenes said:
Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.
Lets have your short list first.
I'm asking for your reference. You say there's a primary source for a complete Sarum Rite liturgy. I don't know of any attested Sarum Rite Mss. before the 12th Century. There is mention of the Sarum Rite in other Mss. as early as the Eighth Century, but no primary sources I'm aware of.
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hermogenes said:
Aristibule said:
Hermogenes said:
Please cite the Ms. containing the complete pre-Conquest Sarum Rite. The primary source.
Lets have your short list first.
I'm asking for your reference. You say there's a primary source for a complete Sarum Rite liturgy. I don't know of any attested Sarum Rite Mss. before the 12th Century. There is mention of the Sarum Rite in other Mss. as early as the Eighth Century, but no primary sources I'm aware of.
You made the initial claim - so ante up. There are multiple primary sources for the local English use of the Roman rite that came to be called Sarum. That is a counter-claim. So, as it goes with these things: show me yours first, and I'll show you mine. (I'm especially interested in this mention of a Sarum Rite in an 8th c. MSS. - first I've heard of it, and would go counter to the history of the Sarum rite as we know it. Again: that Sarum is a post-schism name given to the rite already being celebrated in Wessex - such as at Sherborne and Ramsbury - and essentially the same as that being served across the channel before the Conquest, and in South Wales before the Conquest. And that such was as it had been since the Synod of Cloveshoe II.)
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Aristibule is correct.  "The First Prayer Book, though bearing some traces of foreign influence, was, in fact, a revision of the old Service-books of the English Church…But the First English Book of Common Prayer was formed, not by a composition of new materials, but by a reverent, and on the whole conservative, handling of the earlier services, of which large portions were simply translated and retained." - A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, Frances Proctor

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

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

As such, it would probably be more fair to describe the Western Rite, at least on a textual basis, as having been inspired, in part, by the 1928 Prayer Book, but that there are other significant portions of the Rite adapted from other, non-Prayer Book Western sources, most notably the old Roman Rite.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Aristibule is correct.  "The First Prayer Book, though bearing some traces of foreign influence, was, in fact, a revision of the old Service-books of the English Church…But the First English Book of Common Prayer was formed, not by a composition of new materials, but by a reverent, and on the whole conservative, handling of the earlier services, of which large portions were simply translated and retained." - A New History of the Book of Common Prayer, Frances Proctor
I stand corrected. I must have been reading the 1552 edition.

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

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

Time for sleep. Good night all--God bless! ("And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest...")
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Oh there's no question at all that, for the most part, these rites ceased "being Orthodox" by the time of the Schism with the accretions and deletions that you've already mentioned.  But that does not completely ruin them and I think you'd find that their structural integrity remained largely intact.  There was not much that had to be changed about them, when it all gets boiled down.

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

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,265
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
Aristibule said:
I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.
A very good point.
 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hermogenes said:
The "Missal" of Robert de Jumièges is 13 pages of miniatures. It is a fragment.
The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is more than 13 pages of miniatures. It is in fact 228 leaves, 13 1/4 by 8 3/4 in size, and forms a sacramentary (meaning it has more than a Missal.) It was kept at Rouen, but is English in origin - most likely from Winchester. It contains a Kalendar and Paschal Tables (beginning at the year 1000), the Canon and Temporale, the Sanctorale, Votive Masses, Benediction, Visitation, Unction, Burial and Missa pro defunctis. It was published by the Henry Bradshaw Society in facsimile, and the Monastery of Mount Royal holds a copy. (I've also read through one via Inter-library Loan, a wonderful program.)
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Aristibule said:
I think the rites only ceased being Orthodox when the doctrine in them was changed, and their churches completed schism from the the Orthodox Church. That the whole West went into Schism was not entirely due to a conscious decision by all in the West. Too often it was at the point of the sword. Which is why we say, at least for the English speaking folk, that Orthodoxy in the West and in Britan was not *lost*, it was murdered.
Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aristibule said:
Hermogenes said:
The "Missal" of Robert de Jumièges is 13 pages of miniatures. It is a fragment.
The Missal of Robert of Jumieges is more than 13 pages of miniatures. It is in fact 228 leaves, 13 1/4 by 8 3/4 in size, and forms a sacramentary (meaning it has more than a Missal.) It was kept at Rouen, but is English in origin - most likely from Winchester. It contains a Kalendar and Paschal Tables (beginning at the year 1000), the Canon and Temporale, the Sanctorale, Votive Masses, Benediction, Visitation, Unction, Burial and Missa pro defunctis. It was published by the Henry Bradshaw Society in facsimile, and the Monastery of Mount Royal holds a copy. (I've also read through one via Inter-library Loan, a wonderful program.)
I've browsed it, not read it closely. I was counting the Sacramentary as a separate volume.

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

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
podkarpatska said:
Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.
It was gradual leading up and it was gradual afterward.  There were still several churches in communion with one another well after 1054.  There was a Wester Rite Benedictine monastery on Holy Mount Athos until the 13th century.  I think 1054 is completely arbitrary.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
podkarpatska said:
Many do tend to forget that the schism was more of a gradual drifting apart rather than a cataclysmic event which occurred with abrupt finality in 1053. In our modern age of instant news, we tend to impose our understanding of the rapidity of how history unfolds upon past events.
It was gradual leading up and it was gradual afterward.  There were still several churches in communion with one another well after 1054.  There was a Wester Rite Benedictine monastery on Holy Mount Athos until the 13th century.  I think 1054 is completely arbitrary.
Sure, except for the actual anathemae. For instance, the Council of Toledo took place in 589, but the Filoque wasn't adopted permanently by the church at Rome until 1014. The idea of papal supremacy took many centuries to gain something like universal acceptance by Western ecclesiastical authorities, with a number of twists and turns, even at the top level of papal approval.

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

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

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
I can understand that, but as you noted, it's just a personal preference of yours. Each his own!

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

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

One other thing I'm curious about; why is the Orthodox Western Rite "so-called"? Do you not believe such a thing exists?
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
I can understand that, but as you noted, it's just a personal preference of yours. Each his own!

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

Also, you must remember that liturgical uniformity is not the natural state of the Church. Why should one trump all the others? Just because geography and history made it so that it was the dominant form in Orthodoxy for so long?
I don't understand why they undertook it in the first place. It doesn't appear to have been in response to a large groundswell of demand.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.
Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.
Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?
Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

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

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

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

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.
Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?
Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

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

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

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

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

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

 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.
Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?
Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I'll check out the sources. Thanks!
We are in agreement!  Please rest assured that the Orthodox Western Rite does not exist solely because people like it and prefer it.  It is absolutely about the truth, 100%.  And the Church has approved these rites for our use because they are convinced that they do, in fact, proclaim nothing but the fullness of the Faith.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
Hermogenes said:
Sleeper said:
Oh okay, I see. In think if you were a bit more familiar with the history of the WR you'd understand why.
Is there something I can read that you feel explains it well?
Well, unfortunately, most of the resources are found on websites.  The information is good, but I say it's "unfortunate" because it lacks an "official" feel to it, if you know what I mean.  But a good source is www.westernorthodox.com

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I'll check out the sources. Thanks!
We are in agreement!  Please rest assured that the Orthodox Western Rite does not exist solely because people like it and prefer it.  It is absolutely about the truth, 100%.  And the Church has approved these rites for our use because they are convinced that they do, in fact, proclaim nothing but the fullness of the Faith.
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia....
 

Keble

Protokentarchos
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
60
Location
Maryland
Aristibule said:
There was no Cranmer Prayer Book of 1549. Convocation made the translation of the 1549, including a few bishops who were still of Catholic faith.
That would be news to pretty much everyone. All the sources I can find say that there is no definite evidence of who wrote the 1549 rite, but that the assumption/belief through the years has been that Cranmer was the principal author. And the general view is that Cranmer's theology shifted considerably between the first two books.

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

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Because portions of the 1549 have been used in the English rite of the Russian Church for use in converting Anglican congregations.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aristibule said:
Because portions of the 1549 have been used in the English rite of the Russian Church for use in converting Anglican congregations.
I believe it is the 1660 prayer book that was the basis for most succeeding editions, although it may be more complicated a picture than that. (And I may have the date slightly wrong, too.) The point I had wanted to make earlier is that the BCP is intentionally meant as a break with the past, not a conscious link to it. Extreme Protestants of the period wanted to wipe out every trace of popery. They would have been deaf to appeals for the consideration of tradition. Sola scriptura!
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Do you have a good source for this Hermogenes?  I haven't read much on the intentions of those who worked on the BCP, but I haven't heard this notion that it was a deliberate break from the past.  Everything I have read indicates it was more of a compilation work, rather than an entirely new construction.  I'm interested in where you discovered this.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Do you have a good source for this Hermogenes?  I haven't read much on the intentions of those who worked on the BCP, but I haven't heard this notion that it was a deliberate break from the past.  Everything I have read indicates it was more of a compilation work, rather than an entirely new construction.  I'm interested in where you discovered this.
Aristibule (on this thread) is more knowledgeable on this than I. Perhaps he could share his sources? I didn't remember the sequence of events leading up to the first book as well as he does.
 

Fr.Aidan

High Elder
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
503
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Austin, Texas
Website
www.sarisburium.blogspot.com
I'm afraid, Deacon Lance, that I must go back to your post of several days ago:

"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."

First, why this overweening snideness and smugness? What impels you to write in a disrespectful, boorish, dismissive tone, about someone you've never even met?

Second, what specifically is "unreliable" about any aspect of my scholarship? This statement is not only snide, spiteful, and ill-mannered, it is also not backed up by any sort of factual content. If you feel there actually is something specific to sniff at, please tell what it is.

I have little experience on discussion fora where Eastern Catholic clergy take part. I'm hoping all Eastern Catholic clergy are not so rude.

I look forward to your reply.

Fr. Aidan+  sinner
Holy Protection Russian Orthodox Church, Austin, Texas
http://www.orthodoxaustin.org
 

John Larocque

High Elder
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
529
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michael Davies compared the 1549 BCP to the Novus Ordo Mass, with respect to the changes Cranmer and company made to the traditional English liturgy. Or put another way, the 1970 Novus Ordo mass was something of a Roman Catholic "Anglicanization" of the traditional Roman Missal

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

I'm curious about how much pre-1549 is in the various Western Rite services. There's a Traditional Anglican Communion priest in France (former SSPX) who celebrates a variation of the Sarum Rite, but I don't know much about the version he uses.

 

peterfarrington

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
57
Location
Maidstone, Kent, England
Website
www.stgeorgeministry.com
Father Aidan,

I would be very interested, if you have time, to read a description of the reasoning behind your commitment to a Western Rite, the reason you decided to work with the Sarum tradition, and the process you followed in producing the texts which you use.

I purchased your edition of the Western Rite some years ago and have benefited from it.

Father Peter
 

John Larocque

High Elder
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
529
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Fr. Chadwick was the Anglo-Catholic/TAC priest I mentioned from an earlier post. There's a whole bunch of stuff at his site and TheAngloCatholic.com blog. Elements of TAC seem focused on reviving a pre-1549 Sarum liturgy.

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/05/the-use-of-sarum-explained/

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/05/sarum-answers-to-a-few-difficulties/

Everything, from the rood screen to the three-level sedelia and apparelled amices and albs, were restored at St Mary's Primrose Hill except the rite itself. It was never forgotten, but the Prayer Book was compulsory on pain of severe sanctions to the exclusion of any other rite. We should not forget that the English Missal was totally illegal in the Church of England and still is. It is not an Anglican rite, and is just as illegal as reviving Sarum. We in the TAC no longer suffer from those constraints, and there will be other constraints to "get round" or negotiate in the Ordinariates.

What about the translations? As I say, they exist. The Pearson version of 1868 is in print, but in a cheap paperback with the page edges glued to the spine. It cannot be used at the altar without breaking up after a short period of use. The Warren translation of 1911 is available here - Part 1 and Part 2. I found mine in a second-hand bookshop in England, but paid a steep price, more than L100. It can be OCR'ed and printed, and the readings can be copied in from the King James Bible. Everything is therefore as available as the English Missal (as a reprint). These translations are in Prayer Book language. Therefore, all the music com
posed for the Prayer Book Communion Service can be used with Sarum. There are no incompatibilities with traditional Anglican culture.

The greatest argument against the Use of Sarum is that of its having become obsolete, and therefore its revival would be an act of "archaeologism" and against the sound principles of liturgical tradition. I have already alluded to this above. It has not been in total disuse, since it has been celebrated occasionally in the nineteenth century. Why else would a book be published in 1868 that is not a purely academic critical edition like the Wickham Legg version of the early twentieth century? Within living memory, Fr. Sean Finnegan has done it in Oxford, Bishop Conti has done it in Glasgow. Some ACA parishes use it occasionally on a fairly regular basis (they use the English Missal the rest of the time), and I use it daily in my insignificant chapel...

Another serious misconception is the idea that the 1549 Prayer Book was simply a translation of the Sarum Use. It is not. The two rites simply need to be found here and compared: Sarum - 1549 Prayer Book. If you have any doubts, print them out and compare them side by side. A Prayer Book Eucharist is not Sarum because it is done "Dearmer style" or with "English" trappings.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
peterfarrington said:
Father Aidan,

I would be very interested, if you have time, to read a description of the reasoning behind your commitment to a Western Rite, the reason you decided to work with the Sarum tradition, and the process you followed in producing the texts which you use.

I purchased your edition of the Western Rite some years ago and have benefited from it.

Father Peter
One thing that seems confusing from all the discussions and comments on this thread is the degree to which Sarum Rite differs from other local variants, as well as how it differs. As I understand it--and this could be mistaken, which is why I'm asking--the main difference is in the rubrics. The basic text of the Mass was more or less the same, right? Maybe someone could give us a couple of examples of how the Catholic Mass would have differed if I'd attended St. Paul's in London in 1520 or Notre Dame in Paris or the Lateran in Rome in the same year?

 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hermogenes - I think you mean the 1662 - and it hasn't been the case that any editions have followed it: it is still the BCP in use by the CoE and approved by Parliament. An attempt was made by the Protestant faction to produce a prayer book in 1689 following the 'Comprehension' party - they wanted to make it safe for the Dissenters as well. The 'Toleration' party won out, and the BCP was not changed - the Dissenters were tolerated in their separate congregations. There was a second attempt in 1928 - which was led by the Anglo-Catholic wing - including the Little Hours, a 'retooled' liturgy (which the editors had tried to follow the Observations of the Russian Church for). This is the Book of Common Prayer of which is referred to in this passage by Fr. Michael Protopopov:
"During the 1920’s, the Anglicans were writing the New Book of Common Prayer; it was very Orthodox in its approach. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed memory had even said that if the Anglicans were to accept the New Book of Common Prayer there would be very little separating the Orthodox and the Anglicans, and perhaps they could even be recognized as equal to ourselves. Unfortunately, they never did accept the New Book of Common Prayer, and therefore the unity between the two Churches never went ahead. However, the Anglicans still retained a great fondness for the Orthodox and supported us all the way through until Warrnambool 10 years ago."
The 1928 English BCP was accepted by the CoE (the last BCP in fact), but it was rejected by Parliament - an argument, I think, for getting government out of religion.
Since then, an 'Alternative Service Book', and 'Common Worship' have come out - but the 1662 remains the last one sanctioned by the CoE and Parliament both - in 1662. The 1928 is the last to be sanctioned by the CoE. I expect that will change.
There have been no attempts by the Orthodox to correct the 1662; only the 1928 American (which is from the Scottish tradition of BCPs) by the Antiochians, and the English liturgy largely of Sarum with portions borrowed from both the 1549 and 1718 Non-Jurors liturgy. The Russian version is primarily for congregations of converting Anglicans  - and leads to the Sarum and Mount Royal uses of the Roman rite (which we follow.)

 

Aristibule

High Elder
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hermogenes said:
One thing that seems confusing from all the discussions and comments on this thread is the degree to which Sarum Rite differs from other local variants, as well as how it differs. As I understand it--and this could be mistaken, which is why I'm asking--the main difference is in the rubrics. The basic text of the Mass was more or less the same, right? Maybe someone could give us a couple of examples of how the Catholic Mass would have differed if I'd attended St. Paul's in London in 1520 or Notre Dame in Paris or the Lateran in Rome in the same year?
That is because there is some confusion by academics regarding what is Sarum. The Sarum rite (ritum) refers to the books produced at Sarum and celebrated in that cathedral - and which was adopted wholesale in some places (such as Lichfield.) The Sarum use refers to books which follow the Sarum pattern, but which were adapted for local diocesan use: such as Aberdeen. It can also refer to how the Sarum liturgy was celebrated in attenuated form in English parish churches - which can differ to a great degree: from county to county, and from village to village. The term English use includes Sarum, and other English local uses which are markedly not Sarum: Durham or York, for instance - or Exeter. However, all of the English use rites and uses are simply part of a larger family in Northwest Europe: it is also how the liturgy was followed in France, the Low Countries, Germany and Scandinavia. This is due in no small part to the missionaries from Britain who evangelized the Continent, and continued contact after.

The whole of what makes a rite includes the ritual (the text), the ceremonial (how the rubrics are carried out), ornaments (vestments, fabric of the church), and music. As to details: the Sarum and other English and Northwest European rites were more conservative than their Southern European counterparts: older forms were retained. There was also a difference in life for the clergy: what eventually produced the Missal & Breviary in Rome. The busy life of Italian urban priests did not apply in Britain; which was primarily small village parish churches - more like our present missionary situation.
 

Fr.Aidan

High Elder
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
503
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Austin, Texas
Website
www.sarisburium.blogspot.com
Fr. Peter, I can easily do what you ask. I originally joined a monastic parish which used the Sarum for its regular worship. It wasn't so much that I decided to "go Sarum" (the farthest thing from my mind at the time!), but that I joined a parish, then the nearby monastery of several monastics, which happened to use the Sarum services. I found the worship to be uplifting, heavenly, and carried out by very sincere people, which appealed to me greatly. The parish and monastery were using the Sarum because they had been convinced this was a good thing, by Fr. John Shaw of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. He provided initial impetus and occasional translations. Perhaps more importantly, it was he who convinced us not to do certain things which were of later Roman Catholic provenance--the use of the Eucharist in processions; the later-added elevations during the Canon; etc.

When at one point we had no one to read Latin or to be a "go-to" for historical liturgical process, I threw myself into the Latin language and began to acquaint myself with the original manuscripts. The more I learned, the more I realized what tremendous potential this Use of the Roman rite had, for missionary work. It must be borne in mind that the situation on the ground there, was never a "hothouse" in conception. I never had free rein in producing anything, many of my preferences were not blessed to be done, etc. Liturgical materials were evaluated in terms of historicity but with an eye to real and present pastoral concerns. At its height the parish there had over 50 attendees on a Sunday, and the whole congregation joined in on the main chants. The effect was quite powerful, the faith of the people quite sincere. Nothing was carried out for the sake of experiment. It was done soberly. As prior of the monastery, I introduced daily services, at first just Compline. Then we went to Vespers. Then Vespers and Compline. Then we added Matins. We sang Mass with full chant three to five times a week on average. We chanted the offices. The monastic life was carried out sincerely, if a bit in isolation from mainstream monastic centres of the Orthodox world. And the efforts to get canonical--which lasted years and years--form an entire story besides.

I saw that to do Sarum services every day was Orthodox, beautiful, practical, well-respected by those attending, ... it was everything that a Western rite in Orthodoxy should be. Of course, we had a "constituency" which was an even mix of converts from Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, other Protestant bodies, other religions, and little or no religion. There was no "base" to cater to, so we never had to tried to please anybody's BCP, or Tridentine, or other, predilections.

Almost all the objections well-meaning, pious Eastern Orthodox might have against the Western rite, were and are resolved by use of the Sarum services. Orthodox folk who could never have accepted a Protestant rite service or a Tridentine rite service as genuinely Orthodox, as natively Orthodox, found it easy to so accept the Sarum as it was preserved and celebrated in the old community. A GOA monk recently had a spirited discussion with another Greek monk who was dead-set against Western rite. When the first monk was able to show the second monk the treasures of the West's Orthodox period, from "Orthodox Prayers of Old England," the second monk checked it out and within about 15 minutes was persuaded that this Sarum rite Orthodoxy was a great and good thing. That's typical.

It should be pointed out that the Sarum Use had an Orthodox origin and ended up, historically, in the domain of heresy after the Schism of Rome. It is not a difficult task to correct for all the (very few) changes which occurred in the rite as a result of its contact with post-Schism currents in the Roman Catholic church. Once you do that, the result is something easily digestible to, acceptable by, venerable by, Orthodox folk as a whole. So I think the Sarum Use or something akin to it, is the future of WR in Orthodoxy. I am content to let it prevail by a process of natural selection (if you will) which may take centuries, rather than by wheedling anyone to use it or trying to get authorities to force anyone to use it.

About editorial process, I simply decided on the most rigorous historically-rooted editorial process that has ever been used for any Orthodox Western rite: only liturgical texts which were Sarum or from neighbouring dioceses, prior to the Reformation, could be considered for inclusion. Thus anything that came from continental uses was strictly excluded, as well as everything post-Reformation. In preparing new books for publication under the aegis of the ROCOR, my editorial methods have become even stricter and the documentation will be absolutely meticulous. Careful documentation of sources was impossible in some of the books I published as St. Hilarion Press, because of ecclesiastical obediences to the contrary. But now I can be as meticulous as I wish. This will be helpful, since some people, being ignorant of the liturgical manuscripts themselves, imagined all kinds of rite-mixing was going on. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Well, it may be that my toothache is preventing me from focusing and I'm rambling. I'll stop for now and resume the rambling later.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aristibule said:
Hermogenes - I think you mean the 1662 - and it hasn't been the case that any editions have followed it: it is still the BCP in use by the CoE and approved by Parliament. An attempt was made by the Protestant faction to produce a prayer book in 1689 following the 'Comprehension' party - they wanted to make it safe for the Dissenters as well. The 'Toleration' party won out, and the BCP was not changed - the Dissenters were tolerated in their separate congregations. There was a second attempt in 1928 - which was led by the Anglo-Catholic wing - including the Little Hours, a 'retooled' liturgy (which the editors had tried to follow the Observations of the Russian Church for). This is the Book of Common Prayer of which is referred to in this passage by Fr. Michael Protopopov:
"During the 1920’s, the Anglicans were writing the New Book of Common Prayer; it was very Orthodox in its approach. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed memory had even said that if the Anglicans were to accept the New Book of Common Prayer there would be very little separating the Orthodox and the Anglicans, and perhaps they could even be recognized as equal to ourselves. Unfortunately, they never did accept the New Book of Common Prayer, and therefore the unity between the two Churches never went ahead. However, the Anglicans still retained a great fondness for the Orthodox and supported us all the way through until Warrnambool 10 years ago."
The 1928 English BCP was accepted by the CoE (the last BCP in fact), but it was rejected by Parliament - an argument, I think, for getting government out of religion.
Since then, an 'Alternative Service Book', and 'Common Worship' have come out - but the 1662 remains the last one sanctioned by the CoE and Parliament both - in 1662. The 1928 is the last to be sanctioned by the CoE. I expect that will change.
There have been no attempts by the Orthodox to correct the 1662; only the 1928 American (which is from the Scottish tradition of BCPs) by the Antiochians, and the English liturgy largely of Sarum with portions borrowed from both the 1549 and 1718 Non-Jurors liturgy. The Russian version is primarily for congregations of converting Anglicans  - and leads to the Sarum and Mount Royal uses of the Roman rite (which we follow.)
I didn't think it could be exactly 1660, but I knew it was around then.

How do the 1662 and 1928 differ, besides in modernizing the language? Do they have different rites, or are the rites themselves much different?

There's also the Prayer Book of St. Augustine, which was approved by nobody I'm aware of (except the people who used it), and was basically a Catholic prayer book for Anglicans. Well, maybe more like the way an Eastern-Rite Catholic prayer book ressembles an Orthodox one. Very similar, but not identical. I had one as a kid.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Fr.Aidan said:
Fr. Peter, I can easily do what you ask. I originally joined a monastic parish which used the Sarum for its regular worship. It wasn't so much that I decided to "go Sarum" (the farthest thing from my mind at the time!), but that I joined a parish, then the nearby monastery of several monastics, which happened to use the Sarum services. I found the worship to be uplifting, heavenly, and carried out by very sincere people, which appealed to me greatly. The parish and monastery were using the Sarum because they had been convinced this was a good thing, by Fr. John Shaw of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. He provided initial impetus and occasional translations. Perhaps more importantly, it was he who convinced us not to do certain things which were of later Roman Catholic provenance--the use of the Eucharist in processions; the later-added elevations during the Canon; etc.

When at one point we had no one to read Latin or to be a "go-to" for historical liturgical process, I threw myself into the Latin language and began to acquaint myself with the original manuscripts. The more I learned, the more I realized what tremendous potential this Use of the Roman rite had, for missionary work. It must be borne in mind that the situation on the ground there, was never a "hothouse" in conception. I never had free rein in producing anything, many of my preferences were not blessed to be done, etc. Liturgical materials were evaluated in terms of historicity but with an eye to real and present pastoral concerns. At its height the parish there had over 50 attendees on a Sunday, and the whole congregation joined in on the main chants. The effect was quite powerful, the faith of the people quite sincere. Nothing was carried out for the sake of experiment. It was done soberly. As prior of the monastery, I introduced daily services, at first just Compline. Then we went to Vespers. Then Vespers and Compline. Then we added Matins. We sang Mass with full chant three to five times a week on average. We chanted the offices. The monastic life was carried out sincerely, if a bit in isolation from mainstream monastic centres of the Orthodox world. And the efforts to get canonical--which lasted years and years--form an entire story besides.

I saw that to do Sarum services every day was Orthodox, beautiful, practical, well-respected by those attending, ... it was everything that a Western rite in Orthodoxy should be. Of course, we had a "constituency" which was an even mix of converts from Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, other Protestant bodies, other religions, and little or no religion. There was no "base" to cater to, so we never had to tried to please anybody's BCP, or Tridentine, or other, predilections.

Almost all the objections well-meaning, pious Eastern Orthodox might have against the Western rite, were and are resolved by use of the Sarum services. Orthodox folk who could never have accepted a Protestant rite service or a Tridentine rite service as genuinely Orthodox, as natively Orthodox, found it easy to so accept the Sarum as it was preserved and celebrated in the old community. A GOA monk recently had a spirited discussion with another Greek monk who was dead-set against Western rite. When the first monk was able to show the second monk the treasures of the West's Orthodox period, from "Orthodox Prayers of Old England," the second monk checked it out and within about 15 minutes was persuaded that this Sarum rite Orthodoxy was a great and good thing. That's typical.

It should be pointed out that the Sarum Use had an Orthodox origin and ended up, historically, in the domain of heresy after the Schism of Rome. It is not a difficult task to correct for all the (very few) changes which occurred in the rite as a result of its contact with post-Schism currents in the Roman Catholic church. Once you do that, the result is something easily digestible to, acceptable by, venerable by, Orthodox folk as a whole. So I think the Sarum Use or something akin to it, is the future of WR in Orthodoxy. I am content to let it prevail by a process of natural selection (if you will) which may take centuries, rather than by wheedling anyone to use it or trying to get authorities to force anyone to use it.

About editorial process, I simply decided on the most rigorous historically-rooted editorial process that has ever been used for any Orthodox Western rite: only liturgical texts which were Sarum or from neighbouring dioceses, prior to the Reformation, could be considered for inclusion. Thus anything that came from continental uses was strictly excluded, as well as everything post-Reformation. In preparing new books for publication under the aegis of the ROCOR, my editorial methods have become even stricter and the documentation will be absolutely meticulous. Careful documentation of sources was impossible in some of the books I published as St. Hilarion Press, because of ecclesiastical obediences to the contrary. But now I can be as meticulous as I wish. This will be helpful, since some people, being ignorant of the liturgical manuscripts themselves, imagined all kinds of rite-mixing was going on. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Well, it may be that my toothache is preventing me from focusing and I'm rambling. I'll stop for now and resume the rambling later.
Fr. Aidan--where can I find a copy of the liturgy you do? Are they currently available? Is there a missal or breviary? Unfortunately, I have kind of a knee-jerk response when it comes to the Western Rite, but maybe I would have a similar experience to the GOA priest. Your post here is so reasonable and measured as to make me wish I knew more.

Sorry to hear about your tooth--I had a couple of hot teeth myself recently. May I presume to include you in my prayers?
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
^ I am interested in something, Hermogenes.  In light of knowing a tree by the fruit it produces, what is it exactly about the Western Rite in practice that causes the knee-jerk reaction?  Have you seen its use produce bad fruit somewhere along the way?  Have the people you encountered who worship according to the Western Rite seemed less than Orthodox or spiritually malnourished?

I know its a generalization, but I've yet to have a conversation with someone who has said, "You know, I've spent the last 6 months attending a Western Rite parish and I've got to say, it's just missing the mark.  They're missing out on a lot and I'm concerned about their spiritual well-being.  I myself have noticed a marked shift in my spiritual welfare as a result of attending.  I can't wait to get back to the Byzantine Rite."

I know that's extreme, but so much energy is spent dealing with misinformation and misunderstandings and unfounded accusations (none of which I'm accusing you of!) and I just quite honestly don't think that's fair.

We can talk about the Western Rite in theory until our faces turn blue, but is that really going to accomplish anything?  In what other circumstances is it fair to pass judgment upon something, having never experienced it for oneself?

I don't mean to derail this thread.  Please carry on, but if anyone wants to add their thoughts to this, or their own personal experiences with the Western Rite (or even start a new thread if necessary) I'd be highly interested.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Fr.Aidan said:
I'm afraid, Deacon Lance, that I must go back to your post of several days ago:

"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."

First, why this overweening snideness and smugness? What impels you to write in a disrespectful, boorish, dismissive tone, about someone you've never even met?

Second, what specifically is "unreliable" about any aspect of my scholarship? This statement is not only snide, spiteful, and ill-mannered, it is also not backed up by any sort of factual content. If you feel there actually is something specific to sniff at, please tell what it is.

I have little experience on discussion fora where Eastern Catholic clergy take part. I'm hoping all Eastern Catholic clergy are not so rude.

I look forward to your reply.

Fr. Aidan+  sinner
Holy Protection Russian Orthodox Church, Austin, Texas
http://www.orthodoxaustin.org
Fr. Aidan,

Forgive me.  One can disagree with another’s scholarship without intending rudeness.  You were invoked as an authority which I do not believe you to be.  May I ask what University has granted you a degree in Liturgics?  As to what is unreliable, first would be the fact that your version is different from every other I have seen , second, I think Fr. Ben has already dealt with that here:

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/unserious-criticisms-of-tridentine.html

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/unserious-criticisms-of-tridentine_19.html

That is not to say your version is not beautiful or prayerful.

Fr. Deacon Lance  
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Deacon Lance said:

As to what is unreliable, first would be the fact that your version is different from every other I have seen , second, I think Fr. Ben has already dealt with that here:

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/unserious-criticisms-of-tridentine.html

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/04/unserious-criticisms-of-tridentine_19.html

That is not to say your version is not beautiful or prayerful.

Fr. Deacon Lance  
These articles are written by (the now Father) Benjamin Johnson.   Is he able to offer scholarly critiques of the Sarum Rite?  The Western Rite scholar Aristibule Drake Adams who writes on the forum questions whether Fr Ben Johnson is able to speak knowledgeably about the Sarum.

See his comments here:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sarum_Use/Archive_2

"The citations are provided. The English Liturgy is primarily based on the Sarum rite (including the Sarum canon) with some items from one BCP - the 1549 'Catholic' version, as well as the 1718 Non-Juror Usager liturgy (not a BCP liturgy), the York rite, the Gothic Missal - but not from any other BCP besides the original 1549. Those who do follow the BCP do not see it as a BCP or 'Anglican service'. The Roman rite was approved twice by the Russian Synod (and also by Constantinople) - no specific Use was required, and thus various local or monastic uses of the Roman rite have been used in the Russian Orthodox Church - all adapted according to the rules put forth by the Holy Synod (for that matter, not only is adaptation of the Roman rite and some BCP services - but also the Gallican/Celtic rite.) Any problem with it - take it up with Vladyka Hilarion whose project it was, and whose blessing it has. Or, with all sobriety: do contact Bishop Elect Fr. John R. Shaw and ask him the basis for the Western Rites in the Russian Orthodox Church (specifically the Sarum.) Fr. John R. Shaw is a valuable resource - and soon one of the Metropolitans vicar bishops. I do not think Fr. Benjamin Johnson and I agree often (nor have I heard from him in nearly a year), but I would not attack him as he is a member of the true Orthodox clergy. --Ari 11:35, August 26, 2008 (UTC) "

You will notice that Aristibule Adams mentions that Fr John Shaw, now Bishop Jerome of ROCA, is a valuable Sarum resource and of course it was Bishop Jerome who mentored and assisted Fr Aidan.
 
Top