Latin mass in Orthodox Church [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Drake Adams

01-09-2005, 04:20 AM

Yes, that rite is approved for use in Western Rite communities in ROCOR, particularly under Abp. HILARION. It is quite practical, and is no more intensive than the Byzantine rite. The Benedictine Use of Mount Royal is also used in ROCOR, at the monastery in Rhode Island: http://www.christminster.org

The Sarum is a *usage* of the Roman rite, and does not have 'post-Schismatic additions'. The 19th c. scholar of the Sarum use, Dr. Daniel Rock, noted that the rite was not innovative but a continuation of what was already being done in the churches in England before the Norman invasion. What was done was organizing the material by Osmund and later Richard LaPoore. Both were using the liturgical material preserved at places like Sherbourne. The 'why' of Sarum is that it became the use of the Cathedral at Old Sarum, and later 'New' Salisbury. There were other uses in England as well (Hereford, York, Durham, London, etc.) - Sarum came to be adopted in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and eventually was directed for all of England on the eve of the Reformation.

"Old Sarum Rite" is a misnomer applying only to a Milan Synod liturgy. Historically, there is only a 'Sarum Rite', which is properly the Sarum Use of the Roman rite (Use being the Western equivalent of a Recenscion). The first BCP had its origin with the Sarum use, and is the old ancestor of the St. Tikhon's (through the Scottish use.)

As for the issue of the Schoolmen (not 'Scholastics'), it wasn't the Carolingians, unless somehow the fringe-writings of Romanides have become dogma for the Church. The only corrections needed with the Sarum have been with the filioque, and upon what is meant by 'meritas', and some minor changes on the calendar (note, the Sarum was always on the Julian calendar.) Leavened bread is restored to the rite, and an epiclesis from the Mozarabic. Ornament, ritual, and ceremonial in this Use (and related Uses) stem from the pre-Schism Roman rite and Gallican rite (which includes Mozarabic, Ambrosian, and Celtic), particularly as was used in the Anglo-Saxon Church, and carried through in the English Church, later the English Recusants, Non-Jurors, and the non-Papal branch of the Anglo-Catholic movement.

Hieromonk Michael

31-10-2005, 08:30 AM

Actually there were some post-schism additions to the Sarum - just one or two mainly noticeable in a short embedded litany which is easily identified as such. It is removed in the approved version used by ROCOR's Saint Petroc Monastery and its parishes/missions. The epiclesis added is taken from the Gothic Missal. The other Western Rites approved in ROCOR are the English Liturgy which is a correction of the Church of England (1549/1928) Liturgies, themselves derivative of Sarum, as enabled by the Holy Synod of Russia in 1907 and the Liturgy of Saint Gregory - basically the pre-Tridentine Roman Use as approved by the Holy Synod of Russia in 1879.

Hieromonk Michael
http://p097.ezboard.com/belyforum

Hieromonk Michael

31-10-2005, 08:43 AM

I should add that while Salisbury (Sarum) did "only" develop as a liturgical centre after the Norman invasion, it inherited its liturgical position from Ramsbury and earlier Sherborne Abbeys, both of which predated the Norman invasion (which was the imposition of the Schism upon the British Isles). Sherborne had accumulated a considerable library of first millennium British Isles liturgical usages and this resource was the basis of the Richard lePoore's codification of the pre-Norman liturgical developments. The first millennium liturgy of the British Isles is best seen in the entire Liturgy preserved in the Stowe Missal - the Liturgy of Saint John the Divine. This, like Sarum is an unarguable Orthodox Liturgy - neither of which has ever been suppressed by any Orthodox authority. In theory therefore, any Orthodox bishop could authorise their use.

Hieromonk Michael

Hieromonk Michael

31-10-2005, 08:58 AM

There is nothing to stop the Moscow Patriarchate from using Sarum, the English Liturgy or the Liturgy of Saint Gregory - after all it was the Holy Synod of Moscow which approved their use and that was done (in the latter case) at the request of the future Patriarch Saint Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow. Patriarch Sergius (Stragororodsky) of Moscow issued the Ukase in 1936 which set up the Western Rite Orthodox Church of France (later administered by Archbishop (Saint) John of Shanghai) and Archbishop Nikodim received the Western Rite Monastery of Our Lady of Mount Royal in 1975. There is at present at least one Western Rite centre under the Moscow Patriarchate.

Hieromonk Michael (who promises not to add to this post)

Chev. James R. Weber KGCT

11-07-2008, 06:38 AM

I found this Divine Liturgy after visiting an another Orthodox forum but am unsure if this is true or not. Is this the Liturgy permitted in Russian Orthodox Churches?

Sarum Missal (http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm)

This is based on a liturgy based on an old Celtic liturgy in Scotland/Ireland.

I thought we only had 3 tyes of Liturgy - St John Chrysostom, Basil and James (and "Liturgy" of Presanctified Gifts).

update on sarum link
http://web.archive.org/web/20060526084458/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm

Aristibule

12-07-2008, 06:09 PM

Here is the active non-archived link: http://www.orthodoxresurgence.com/petroc/sarum.htm

RichardWorthington

14-07-2008, 12:32 PM

Absolutely fascinating! ... especially when "Elizabeth our Queen" was mentioned!! Quite unexpected! Are there any parishes using this western rite in Britain itself? The Petroc monastery email address ends in ".au" which is I suppose in Australia.

Richard

Michael Astley

20-07-2008, 11:21 PM

... especially when "Elizabeth our Queen" was mentioned!! Quite unexpected!

Why? This is no different from other Orthodox liturgies in which prayers are offered for the local authorities.

Mark Harrison

16-03-2009, 07:11 AM

There is also a ROCOR community in Hamilton, Ontario that uses Sarum.

Mark Harrison

16-03-2009, 07:16 AM

Why? This is no different from other Orthodox liturgies in which prayers are offered for the local authorities.

Yes, I have seen in the Great Litany as served in nations under the British Crown, "For our sovereign lady, Elizabeth…"

Andreas Moran

16-03-2009, 03:37 PM

The head of state ought to be prayed for in the Divine Liturgy. H.M. the Queen is head of state of some sixteen countries and should be prayed for as such in those countries, which include the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

M.C. Steenberg

18-03-2009, 11:53 AM

Dear Andreas, you wrote:

The head of state ought to be prayed for in the Divine Liturgy. H.M. the Queen is head of state of some sixteen countries and should be prayed for as such in those countries, which include the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

This is quite right; however, as we have noted before (e.g. in the thread Commemoration of non-Orthodox rulers during litanies (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5211)), there are variations in practice across Orthodox traditions as to how precisely this is to be done -- and in particular, vis-a-vis the question of commemoration by name (e.g. 'Our sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth...'), or more generally by office (e.g. 'Our sovereign the Queen...').

In the Moscow Patriarchate parishes in this country (UK), the Queen is always commemorated by name.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Michael Astley

18-03-2009, 11:32 PM

There is also a ROCOR community in Hamilton, Ontario that uses Sarum.

Dear in Christ Subdeacon Mark,

Christminster (http://www.christminster.org/), located here (http://www.westernorthodox.ca/), does indeed use the Roman Rite but not the Sarum Use thereof. Their monastic use of the Roman Rite is local to the monastery, and is referred to as Usus Providentiae, (or the Use of Providence, which is the old location of the monastery, in Rhode Island). It is recognisably the Roman Rite but without many of the later accretions that developed in the post-schism west. Somebody familiar with the extraordinary form of the mass in the Roman Catholic church will find what happens at Christminster familiar but different. For instance, they have restored the more ancient western practice of having an Old Testament Reading, then the Gradual before the Epistle. They also have a rather fuller scheme of liturgical colours which draws on earlier western sources, which date from long before the post-schism Roman church standardised things in the latter half of the 16th century, doing away with many local customs. The music of their liturgies is predominantly the standard chants that you would expect to find in a Benedictine monastic house. However, some of the psalm tones and the music for the ordinary of the Mass draws on other early western rites. In this respect, it is no different from many Byzantine Rite parishes in western lands, where you find a blend of Russian and Byzantine music, along with others types, and a mix of languages being used in the Liturgy, with practices varying from parish to parish, influenced by the background of the people there. It's all part of the richness of Orthodoxy.

There are communities in ROCOR that use the Sarum Use of the Roman Rite. Among them are the aforementioned Monastery of St Petroc in Tasmania and, I believe, the parish of St Benedict (http://www.russianorthodoxoklahoma.org/), (although I may be wrong about exactly which use of the Roman Rite the latter uses, memory tells me that it's Sarum). There are likely other places as well.

In Christ,
Michael

Christopher Dombrowski

18-03-2009, 11:42 PM

This is based on a liturgy based on an old Celtic liturgy in Scotland/Ireland.

Actually, no. For one thing, Sarum was a liturgy based in the old town of Sarum, which is a defunct borough of Salisbury, known as the new Sarum. For another thing, the Sarum liturgy is understood to be a Use of the Roman rite, and as such is more related to the continental Roman rite than the Celtic rites.

I thought we only had 3 tyes of Liturgy - St John Chrysostom, Basil and James (and "Liturgy" of Presanctified Gifts).

Within the Constantinopolitan/Antiochian churches this appears to be the case. However, to my understanding, the Church of Alexandria practices the old Greek liturgy of Mark and on top of this in the U.S. and certain other Western countries we have congregations that adhere to Western liturgies that the Church has edited to a form substantially consistent with the standards of the Byzantine rite. So there is slightly more liturgical diversity within the EOC than you might have expected.

Christopher Dombrowski

18-03-2009, 11:46 PM

Does the patriarchate of Moscow follow this Liturgy?

Aside from certain parishes within ROCOR (which is now technically an autonomous segment of the Moscow Patriarchate rather than completely distinct from it) in the U.S., the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia uses the same liturgies as the Greek churches (with the distinction of not following the 1923 reforms of Constantinople, such as changing the antiphons).

Christopher Dombrowski

18-03-2009, 11:51 PM

But I do not think that the MP has issued an opinion on the Sarum Rite if they are even aware.

If the MP had had any concern about the Sarum Use in the Orthodox Church then they would have brought that up before sealing the reunion with ROCOR in 2007.

Christopher Dombrowski

18-03-2009, 11:53 PM

I think there are some errors in assuming that the Sarum rite is Pre-schism, Western Orthodox. On two occasions, I visited Saint Hilarion's Monastery in Austin and saw their cycle of services. Coming from an Anglican background, it was impressive but still did not have the richness of the "Byzantine" rite. Two years ago, when I was living in London, I made a day trip to Salisbury, Stonehenge, and Sarum. If my memory serves me correctly, Sarum developed as a major ecclesiastical center only after the Norman Invasion of 1066.

The Western rite in general may have never developed the "richness" of the Eastern rites. That doesn't make it "not Orthodox". This may simply be your personal liturgical preferences.

Christopher Dombrowski

18-03-2009, 11:55 PM

However, much has been added to the Sarum Rite after the Schism (and the illegal Norman Invasion of England) so I would not consider this an Orthodox Rite until it is thoroughly purged of errors introduced by the Carolingian Scholastics.

What exactly do you find to be "erroneous" in the Sarum liturgy used by ROCOR?

Michael Astley

19-03-2009, 01:43 AM

Dear Christopher,

A number of good points, well made. Thank you.

Regarding Herman's comment about the absence of an opinion of Moscow on the Sarum "Rite", it must be noted that there has never been such a thing as the Sarum Rite. As you rightly said, there is only the Sarum Use of the Roman Rite. If you think of a liturgical use as being a typikon, then you're on the right path. The Sarum Use is simply a variant form of the Roman Rite, much in the same way that the Byzantine Rite has different local variants in Greece, Russia, and elsewhere. The Sarum Use grew up in the diocese of Salisbury and later spread to other parts of the British Isles, superseding the local uses that existed in other places. There were many uses in Britain: Bangor, York, Lincoln, Exeter, and numerous others. All were local variants of the Roman Rite, celebrating the Mass/Divine Liturgy of St Gregory the Great according to their slightly different local traditions, and that Roman Liturgy/Mass of St Gregory, of which the Sarum Liturgy is one expression, has indeed been blessed for use by Moscow, long before ROCOR came into existence. Whether it currently has parish or monastic communities using it, I do not know, but it certainly did at various points in the course of the 20th century.

With regard to Edward Henderson's post about the diocese of Sarum developing as a major ecclesiastical centre only after the Norman invasion, yes, this is a point of historical fact. However, the relative importance of a diocese has no bearing on the Orthodoxy of the Liturgy in use there. Before Constantinople was made New Rome and subsequently became a major ecclesiastical centre, Christians in Constantinople still worshipped, still prayed fervently, still offered praise and thanks to God, and the way in which they did so was no less Orthodox than anything that may have happened later. Yes, it is true that Salisbury did not become a major centre of Christianity in Britain until after the schism, but its people before that point still prayed, still lifted their hearts to God - the Church there was Orthodox and worshipped in an Orthodox fashion. It is that prayer and worship that concerns us as Orthodox Christians, with a living Faith and a heritage from those before us; not the perceived importance of the diocese at a later point in history. Let us leave that to the historians.

Patrick Walsh does have a point about later, post-schism, additions to Sarum. It is worth remembering that the Sarum Use was in regular use for some centuries and that it developed over that time. Therefore, picking up a manuscript dating from the early 16th century may reveal things objectionable to the Orthodox Christian that may be wholly absent from earlier manuscripts. Therefore, it is important to know what we are talking about when we say that the Sarum Use exists in the Russian Orthodox Church. Fr Michael and Aristibule have already shown how post-schism accretions have been dealt with before the Liturgy was blessed for use by Orthodox people. For the most part, what few additions there were have been removed. Here (http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Defense.html) is a good defence of the recension of Sarum which received Metropolitan Hilarion's blessing last September.

In Christ,
Michael

Andreas Moran

19-03-2009, 04:05 AM

The Use of Sarum is not Orthodox. 'Seen in the context of the history of the liturgy of the Latin Church in the West, the Use of Sarum is a relatively late phenomenon.' It is substantially the work of Bishop Poore in the thirteenth century and devised for the new cathedral at Salisbury after the seat of the diocese was moved from Sarum. 'We should regard the Use of Sarum not as a medieval liturgy, but as a late medieval liturgy'; 'its contemporary influences were probably European rather than narrowly British'. Bishop Poore was educated in Paris and taught theology there. 'We should look as much to Paris and the reforming Augustinian canons for some of the theological and practical influences on the use of Sarum as to earlier practice in Britain'. The Use of Sarum, as the work of Bishop Poore and as revised in the fourteenth century, needs to be understood in the context of the establishment of the new cathedral at Salisbury because the instructions in the liturgical books of the Use of Sarum relate directly to the cathedral as architecture. The Use of Sarum was devised to conform to the architecture of the cathedral - a western Gothic cathedral and thus unrelated to Orthodox church architecture. The reason for the later dominance of the Use of Sarum and its adaptation to Protestant use following the Act of Uniformity in 1559 was that it was a secular use and therefore acceptable for the post-Reformation Protestant church in a way that the monastic uses of the Benedictine cathedral monasteries at Canterbury, Rochester, Worcester, Durham, Ely, etc., etc. were not, given that all eight hundred monasteries had been destroyed and their abbots executed or (if the were lucky) pensioned off. Any notion that the Use of Sarum revives the worship of pre-Schism Orthodox England is completely untenable.

(Quotations are from a lecture given to the Friends of Salisbury Cathedral by Professor John Harper, Director of the Royal School of Church Music in 2007.)

Michael Astley

19-03-2009, 11:37 PM

Thank you fo that, Andreas.

I am aware that there were developments in what is commonly known as late mediaeval Sarum, especially after the move from Old to New Sarum. However, I am familiar with late mediaeval Sarum from personal interest, possession of translations of some of the texts and rubrics, and my involvement in the Gild of Clerks (we do reconstructions of mediaeval English services), and I know that what I have seen blessed for use in ROCOR bears notable differences from this later tradition that I know.

From quickly scanning the SHP ROCOR text, here are some features of it which immediately stand out as different from the late mediaeval text that I know:
a fuller provision of troped Kyries, (which we know were more common in earlier times, even in Rome where they were entirely unknown by the late mediaeval period).
The dismissal of the catechumens is intact, while it is absent from the later version.
The altar-table is freestanding (unlike the later arrangement), and the ceremonial with regard to processions, clergy movements, and censings are all different in accordance with this.
Vesting prayers are provided for the different vestments as opposed to them being donned silently during the singing of Veni, Creator Spiritus.
the priest's ceremonial bows during the Creed appear in different places.
The blessed bread (Eulogion) is still distributed to the people after the Liturgy. In later Sarum, the rite for the blessing of the bread is provided but was used more sparingly, and the distribution fell away, being replaced in some places by the practice of placing it in a designated part of the church for the poor of the parish to help themselves.

I'm sure there are others that I could find if I were to scrutinise the text. However, I am no scholar in these matters. My knowledge of these things is from personal interest and devotion rather than academic study, so I cannot say exactly what lies at the heart of these differences. I only know what I have been assured by those who have had a part in researching and compiling the liturgies that we have, and they are better placed than I to give an account of the earlier sources that pre-date the developments initiated with Richard le Poore and what followed. I have invited one of our clergy who has done extensive research into this to take part here. I am not sure whether he will join in the discussion but I do hope that he can enlighten us a little more.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael Astley

19-03-2009, 11:48 PM

(Oh, I forgot to add that another difference is that there's no Last Gospel as there is in later Sarum).

Andreas Moran

20-03-2009, 06:22 AM

We run the risk of going off topic here and straying into the thread about western rite, and my last post did not help in this regard (and perhaps this one does not, either). I am certainly no scholar of early English liturgical texts. Whilst ever WR liturgical texts contain post-schism material, I cannot accept that they are Orthodox. If there is a complete liturgical text from before the schism then that could presumably be revived. It would be the case, though, that such a text had lain dormant for some one thousand years. (That post-schism texts used in the schismatic and heretical church in England might contain some pre-schism material cannot be said to lend that material continuity). If some central feature of the undivided Church has not be used for so long, where is its place in the Holy Tradition of the Church?

Posts in this thread have repeated the assertion that the Patriarchate of Moscow approved the so-called 'Liturgy of St Tikhon'. This is not so. I have asked the question in Moscow and it was made very clear to me that no such authorisation exists. The claim of approval is reminiscent of how Episcopalians used a permission of St Raphael (Hawaweeny) (who was ordained bishop by Archbishop Tikhon) for Orthodox faithful, in very limited circumstances, to be ministered to by their clergy to claim that he had recognised the Anglican communion and the validity of their orders. St Raphael realised his mistake, withdrew the permission, and declared, 'I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices, as well as the discipline, of the whole Anglican Church are unacceptable to the Holy Orthodox Church'. St Raphael further ordered that only prayers and services from the Holy Orthodox Service Book were to be used by the faithful. It is indeed regrettable that the WR issue was not cleared up when ROCOR united with MP.

Michael Astley

20-03-2009, 11:02 AM

Dear Andreas,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I wouldn't worry too much about the western rite discussion. It would be quite impossible to discuss the OP without veering into the context in which it exists, especially in light of some of the questions that have been asked.

I agree with you entirely about doctoring up Anglican services to make them look Orthodox. The St Tikhon Liturgy and The English Liturgy have both been blessed for use in Antioch and ROCOR, respectively, and I have taken part in the latter and received Communion, so I cannot deny that they are Liturgies of the Orthodox Church. It is not my decision to make and those bishops who have felt it right have given it their blessing, and I respect that. However, for my part, I would prefer that they were not blessed for use.

While I do have sympathy with your concerns about using liturgies tht have not been in Orthodox use for a millennium, academically, the similarities between the earlier western forms and eastern forms that we have today are really quite striking in some cases. They just seem like two sides to the same coin. Also, on the more spiritual level, as somebody who has used the Benedictine Hours regularly for some time now, I can say that they do indeed pray Orthodox in much the same way as Byzantine Rite Vespers at my parish. I just don't see a disconnect from actual use of these services. While the Eastern tradition has indeed grown with the life of the Church, it has also grown organically and conservatively, (and generally without the sort of extensive and artificially forced reforms as were seen by Rome in the 20th century). Because of this, there is a great deal that is held in common by the two traditions - elements of their common roots and common strains of development. There are even some identical texts as you can see where one has borrowed from the other. One example that was recently brought to my attention was one of the stichera from (I think Vespers in) tone 2, which is the Paschal antiphon from the Western Rite, sung during the return of the Holy Things to the main altar on Easter morning.

I'll leave it at that otherwise I'll end up repeating much of what I said on another forum where a priest (also a member of this forum) started a thread about the service of Benediction in Western Rite Orthodoxy. It seems that my response there is pertinent to this exchange so I shall quote it. After pointing out that Benediction is, for the most part, limited to the Wrstern Rite in the Antiochian church, I said:

I think that this comes from a general difference in the approaches of the restoration of the Western Rite to Orthodoxy.

The general trend in the Antiochian church has been to adopt 20th-century Catholic and Anglican practice, adapting them where has been something present that is incompatible with Orthodoxy or adding essential things where they have been absent. Objections to this approach have generally been that it embraces many developments that are foreign to Orthodoxy, and which have their origins in the polarisation of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and the subsequent doctrinal developments in Catholicism and Protestantism, not to mention the delicate balance in Anglican forms of worship which are there to simultaneously pacify the spikiest Anglo-Papalist and the most Calvinistic Evangelical, all of which have their origins outside the Orthodox Church and which are not a part of our heritage. Benediction would be one such post-Orthodox western development. A quick visit to many of the AWRV parish websites reveals that it is not uncommon to find late mediaeval western accoutrments to their forms of dress, devotions, vestments, and church arrangement. None of these things on its own should cause very much alarm, but when all are viewed together, I do wonder about how much they reflect Orthodox Tradition.

The 1904 observations (http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html) on the Prayer Book, which were done as a response to the request for the possibility to be considered for converts from Anglicanism to continue use of Anglican-tradition services, had this to say:

The examination of the "Book of Common Prayer" leads to the general conclusion that its actual contents present very little comparatively that clearly contradicts Orthodox teaching, and therefore would not be admissable in Orthodox worship. But this conclusion comes not from the fact that the book is actually Orthodox, but merely from the fact that it was compiled in a spirit of compromise, and that, while skilfully evading all more or less debateable points of doctrine, it endeavours to reconcile tendencies which are really contradictory. Consequently both those who profess protestantism and their opponents can alike use it with a quiet conscience. But worship which is so indefinite and colourless (in its denomination bearing) cannot, of course, be accepted as satisfactory for sons of the Orthodox Church, who are not afraid of their confession of Faith, and still less for sons who have only just joined the Orthodox Church from Anglicanism. If it were, their prayer would not be a full expression of their new beliefs, such as it ought essentially to be.Even though it goes on to stipulate what must be added to the Prayer Book in order to make it acceptable for Orthodox use, there is no mention of Benediction. Where it does require the profession of belief in the Body and Blood of Christ, it specifically mentions this within the context of the Divine Liturgy itself.

By contrast, the Russian practice has generally been to go back to pre-schism devotions and forms of service, using the services that are closer to what were actually used in Orthodox days. So you won't find birettas, genuflexions, the rosary, much in the way of statuary, Sacred Heart devotions, Benediction, and so forth, all of which are done in the AWRV. This approach is not without its critcs. It is referred to by some as liturgical archaeology and not part of a living tradition. The claim is that there is a 1000-year gap between those services and what actually happens today.

My sympathies are with the latter approach. I feel that there is nothing wrong with Anglicans and Catholics using forms of service that express their beliefs but I would be wary of importing non-Orthodox arguments and the result of those non-Orthodox arguments into Orthodoxy. They are not a part of our tradition and I am uncomfortable with them being given place in our worship.

If people are to convert to Orthodoxy, (or any confession, for that matter), it seems to me to be much more beneficial for them to be immersed in a form of service that is free from the baggage of their past, enabling them to settle in their new home. For me, that has meant a different understanding of the Eucharist, of communion, of the Saints, of the nature of the Church and of my place within it, and an awareness of my own ongoing conversion, brought about by a loving parish and my having been steeped in a tradition of Orthodox prayer and worship. I can see how this could easily be done whether that form of Orthodox worship is Eastern or Western but I struggle with a tradition that isn't Orthodox in origin but has been altered to make it appear so. I do not, could not, and would not wish to judge the conversion and piety of those who worship according to these rites but I would personally struggle in that situation myself. These rites have the blessing of the bishops and those who use them are being obedient.

As for the criticisms of the general Russian approach, I think that they are unfounded. Going back to earlier forms of worship may appear to be archaeology but, actually, when you examine the rites and start to immerse yourself in them, saying the offices regularly, you begin to realise just how very similar they are to the Byzantine Rite, which is the lingua franca, if you will, of Orthodoxy. In that respect - in what they have in common with what has been inherited continually in Orthodoxy - the ancient rites of the West are very much a part of the living tradition of Orthodox prayer and worship.

So I think that this goes beyond just Benediction. The question of Benediction is just one part of a much larger question about the nature of Orthodox worship, its place in Orthodox theology and life, and how it ought to reflect our own heritage as Orthodox people.

In Christ,
Michael

Mark Harrison

21-03-2009, 05:47 AM

If there is a complete liturgical text from before the schism then that could presumably be revived.

Posts in this thread have repeated the assertion that the Patriarchate of Moscow approved the so-called 'Liturgy of St Tikhon'. This is not so. I have asked the question in Moscow and it was made very clear to me that no such authorisation exists. The claim of approval is reminiscent of how Episcopalians used a permission of St Raphael (Hawaweeny) (who was ordained bishop by Archbishop Tikhon) for Orthodox faithful, in very limited circumstances, to be ministered to by their clergy to claim that he had recognised the Anglican communion and the validity of their orders. St Raphael realised his mistake, withdrew the permission, and declared, 'I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices, as well as the discipline, of the whole Anglican Church are unacceptable to the Holy Orthodox Church'. St Raphael further ordered that only prayers and services from the Holy Orthodox Service Book were to be used by the faithful. It is indeed regrettable that the WR issue was not cleared up when ROCOR united with MP.

First, 'reviving' is problematic - look at the results of Oxford some 100 years later.

Second, obviously I don't know who it was you spoke with in Moscow, but the information was not entirely correct. The report of the commission of the Holy Synod is available as an Alcuin Tract (check with SVS - my PDF copy is too big to upload here) and I suggest you read it. Mind you, I am absolutely NOT saying that said report enthusiastically endorses the use of the BCP. The reality could hardly be more opposite. They were extraordinarily unenthusiastic. Their criticisms are pointed, and, in my opinion, very meritorious. HOWEVER, as though plugging their noses with their left hands and looking the other way, they "blessed" the use of the 1898 American BCP with various provisions, beyond the obvious removal of the filioque and addition of a proper epiklesis. For example, they required that the nuptial blessing from the 1667 English BCP be included. In summary, it is not true that the Anglican Use was never approved; it is true that the approbation was one of tolerance, as an act of oikonomia, as if to say "if you must…", not something enthusiastically endorsed.

Third, the MP itself does have at least one WR parish that I have heard of (in Europe somewhere), and it was the MP that historically first allowed consideration of the possibility. WR in ROCOR would not have been an obstacle to the reconciliation, even if it had been discussed, as far as I can tell.

Next, your references to St Raphael well taken in their own right. His pastoral letter written upon the occasion of his rescinding his permission for Orthodox to seek some ministries from Episcopalians I recall being rather terse. I've not read it in a while, but it seemed evident to me that he felt he had been deceived, and he had been. Regardless of how honest individual Anglicans will be, the very reality of competing doctrines within the communion is a recipe for deception. Those who are "high church" will naturally gravitate toward the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and will present Anglicanism from the Anglo-Catholic perspective, while "low-church" Anglicans will act similarly with respect to Presbyterians and Evangelics. While there could be a deliberate deception insofar as neither the high churchman nor the low churchman tells his interlocutors that he does not represent the entire communion, both are likely to believe, at least on some degree, that they do - that "real" Anglicanism is what they hold, so the deception won't necessarily be deliberate.

Finally, to get back on the narrow track of the "Latin Mass in the Orthodox Church," I can't claim to be a counterpart to Robert Taft (the renowned Uniate scholar - who is good as long as he sticks to historical facts and leaves out his opinions of what to do with the facts). I don't know the history of the Western Liturgy top to bottom. What I do know is that what passes for "traditional" among WR practitioners needs to be studied a heck of a lot more. There are indeed a lot of medieval interpolations, and since Sarum developed over the course of several hundred years, it is only natural that it includes some of them. On the one hand, Sarum is the closest thing we have to a complete liturgical set of texts that are historically indigenous to the British Isles, and the BCP was certainly derived from it in no small part. In general terms, therefore, it is the closest thing to representing an Anglican Use Orthodox liturgy. On the other hand, I believe that a lot of study would need to be implemented in the practice of the Sarum Use for it reflect the use of Old Sarum as close to the time of the Norman Conquest as possible. The eulogion and processions have both been mentioned, as well as the chanting of the hymn Veni Sancte Spiritus during the vesting of the priest and the chanting of the Last Gospel at the end of the Liturgy. I've not come across any mention of the use of leavened bread vs azymes in Old Sarum. The very reason the Lavabo exists in the Latin Rite is that the celebrant would wash the crumbs from his fingers after receiving the leavened bread at the altar (see Ordo Romanus Primus for more exact details and remember that it describes a papal pontifical Mass).

Today was the first time I heard of the question of the position of the altar being raised (the altar was definitely free-standing in Rome in the 7th century), and that is an interesting question indeed because the photos I've seen of ROCORs Sarum usage presupposes a Tridentine-style ceremonial with the altar against the wall. This is very typical of WR aficionados, who see the altar against the wall as being more traditional. The problem is that however much even I perceive that to be the case, it just isn't true. I had to push myself to recognise that the reason I associate the altar against the wall with being 'traditional' is that it was those who pushed for a free-standing altar that hijacked liturgical reform as a whole and perverted its very ethos, not to mention the specific ritual details, and, even worse, basic Christian doctrine. My gut feeling is to be happy to see an Anglican or RC church with the altar against the wall - where "it belongs." Having studied the matters to some degree, however, I have to constantly challenge that feeling, and separate the liturgical history from post Vatican II revisionism.

How did these practices mutate over the centuries from the time that we can identify a distinct Sarum Use until the English Reformation? I have little doubt that the Sarum texts I have reflect a later practice - and even less doubt that the metrical version of "Let All Mortal Flesh" was ever heard in Old Sarum's cathedral, or today's Salisbury Cathedral until well after the Reformation. That is a Byzantine interpolation –*one that suits my fancy, but an interpolation nonetheless, and not defensible if the goal is to truly follow the Sarum Use.

Back to my other work. I hope this gives some fuel for thought.

Mark Harrison

21-03-2009, 05:57 AM

The claim of approval is reminiscent of how Episcopalians used a permission of St Raphael (Hawaweeny) (who was ordained bishop by Archbishop Tikhon) for Orthodox faithful, in very limited circumstances, to be ministered to by their clergy to claim that he had recognised the Anglican communion and the validity of their orders. St Raphael realised his mistake, withdrew the permission, and declared, 'I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices, as well as the discipline, of the whole Anglican Church are unacceptable to the Holy Orthodox Church'. St Raphael further ordered that only prayers and services from the Holy Orthodox Service Book were to be used by the faithful.

BTW - St Raphael as correctly implied here, did not ever say there was a state of intercommunion, or bless any Orthodox to receive communion from Anglicans. His blessing for them to seek Anglican ministrations, as I recall was more limited - more like sick calls and funerals, and just attending services, many of which would have been Choral Morning Prayer at the time. That the Episcopalians, given an inch took a mile, was part of where he felt deceived, if memory serves.

I had not seen that someone else had posted a passage from the MP Holy Synod's Review of the BCP. Great! I wish everyone could read the whole thing. It is a big eye-opener, and very thought provoking regarding the questions to be asking.

Michael Astley

21-03-2009, 01:07 PM

Dear Subdeacon Mark,

Thank you for your considered and enlightening response. I have engaged in the past in discussions where clergy of TEC have contradicted statements by Orthodox people regarding ecclesiology and communion, citing permission for Orthodox people to avail themselves of Anglican sacraments. Not being aware of the American situation, I have been in no position to comment but. in light of your post, I have sought out and read this (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx), containing the text of then Bishop Raphael's 1912 pastoral directive. He certainly leaves no doubt. Thank you for highlighting this.

I agree with you, as well, about the 1904 Russian "Observations". It really cannot be cited as actively encouraging the use of the Prayer Book. However, I know of more detailed instruction and authorisation being given in 1907. Unfortunately, I neither have to hand nor know where to find the text of this. I would like to see exactly what it said, and read it in light of the 1904 report. As stated above, I am generally opposed to the idea of tinkering with late services that are the result of many doctrinal disputes, arguments, and compromises that are removed from Orthodox heritage. Insofar as some bishops have blessed their use in their dioceses, I recognise them as authorised Orthodox liturgies, but I still wonder at their appropriateness and the long-term effects that they may have.

With regard to Sarum and the position of the altar, I have only come across salivation (well, not quite, but almost) over the altar against the east wall in traditionalist Roman Catholic circles, and even many of their altars before the 20th century reforms wer efree-standing. That the Sarum altar in many places was free standing is indicated not so much in the Missal, (at least not in the late versions that I know), but in the rubrics for processions, which may be in the Processional or Consuetudinary - I forget, and which assume an ambulatory, or space behind the Table through which the procession would pass. This could not happen if the altar were against a wall, (unless there were the situation as can still be seen at St Alban's, where I believe the wall against which the altar rests is not the east wall of the building, and there is space behind - or Westminster, where there are doorways in the wall). We are talking here, though, about the larger churches where there was space for such niceties. Much like in our Byzantine Rite parishes, in smaller churches (such as my own parish) where space is tight, things are adapted out of necessity. It is fair to assume that processions would have been less prevalent in smaller parishes and that ceremonial would have been simpler. That being the case, there wouldn't have been such need for space behind the altar that it would be sacrificed elsewhere. Those of us blessed to be in the mother country ;-) are able to see this from the size and arrangement of some of our surviving Saxon and mediaeval churches. I suppose an ideal could be that if space is restiricted, place it against the wall, but if you have enough space, then use it.

As for the use of leavaned bread, this I simply took for granted, and didn't mean to imply anything by the omission. I was once told that there were even seals used, as in the east, (although not the same design).

As for the hymns, Holy, Holy, Holy and Let all Mortal Flesh, these are indeed interpolations. It should be pointed out, though, that there are two versions of Sarum blessed for use in ROCOR, and that these only appear in one version, namely, that of St Petroc Monastery (Usus Cascadae) (http://www.orthodoxresurgence.com/petroc/sarum.htm). I have served at the English Liturgy (which is similar at both points where these hymns are inserted) and have in the past had conversations with the compiler of this version of Sarum, and I offer my personal observations, offered respectfully and in a spirit of unifying and aiding our restoration of our Orthodox heritage in these isles:
The hymn Come, Holy Ghost at the beginning of this Liturgy is not the Veni, Creator, but an abbreviated and paraphrased version that appears, (with slight difference of wording in light of the double-procession doctrine), in the Book of Common Prayer and is today popular in Anglican circles as a result. I would suggest that the Veni, Creator be restored at this point.
The hymn Holy, Holy, Holy is sung to cover the action of the censing. The immediately preceding Officium/Introit has been severely truncated in the manner of its execution, (I was stopped on two occasions from continuing to sing). If this were sung in full, with the customary repetitions and the Gloria Patri, this would render unnecessary the inserted hymn which, while modified to make it compatible with Orthodox doctrine, does not need to be there at all.
It would be good if the Kyrie could be restored to its litanic form on the appointed days.
The cherubikon is indeed the compiler's insertion into the Sarum Liturgy. However, it is also an addition in the Byzantine Liturgy. In particular, the hymn Let all Mortal Flesh has already made its way from the Antiochene family to rites into the Byzantine services, so its transplanaton from one rite to another is not an innovation in Orthodox liturgical practice. In light of its Orthodox origins and the history of the cherubikon in Eucharistic liturgies, I think that this is a legitimate (and not at all unattractive) development. I would only say that, on a personal note, I would prefer a more direct translation to Gerard Moultrie's popular Anglican paraphrase. As it has been used in Orthodoxy for some time, there are plenty of musical settings readily available.

My own personal comments aside, this version of Sarum also contains the Last Gospel, which I have learnt elsewhere is a post schism Roman Catholic development. As the text it comes straight from the Gospel, there can be nothing heterodox about it but I thought I would offer the note for interest's sake.

The other Sarum Liturgy that is blessed for use in ROCOR was originally published by the St Hilarion Press (SHP), now the St John Cassian Press. The priest's book may be viewed in .pdf format here (http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Sarum%20Liturgy%20Priest%20Book.pdf). It comes with full musical provision for the Epistle, Gospel, and the Ordinary of the Mass, and an Epistle and Gospel Book, and it is my preferred version. It is to this version that I was referring when I drew comparisons to late mediaeval Sarum in this (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=76989&postcount=33) post.

I've waffled for quite long enough in this post so I'll leave it there.

In Christ,
Michael

Mark Harrison

22-03-2009, 06:43 AM

Greetings, Michael,

You do seem to be very knowledgeable on this matter. I particularly appreciate the attention you draw to the changes from early to late Sarum because I think they are indeed important in considering the appropriateness of the Sarum Use for Orthodox use. Also, I am very much with you: insofar as WR has been blessed by Orthodox hierarchs, rather traditional ones at that, I can't say it is "invalid," but its appropriateness and long term effects are other matters.

I don't have time to reply to your entire reply, though I think it would be worthwhile. I did want to touch on a couple of points:

First, I've been confused about the difference between "Veni Creator Spiritus" and "Veni Sancte Spiritus." Unfortunately, I only know the 1940 Hymnal metrical versions, which is a rather poor tool for getting such things straight. Are there two different versions in Latin? In my past studies, I looked at the Ordo Romanus Primus and the Sarum Brevarium. I wish I had had more Sarum resources back then because Sarum Use fascinates me, regardless of whether I think appropriate. And yes, one word was changed in the ROCOR text, exactly as I have done in singing the hymn to myself: they changed "of" to "with": "Teach us to know the Father, Son, and Thee with both to be but one…" That verse reminds me of St Basil the Great in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, where he talks about the importance of prepositions.

The insertion of the Cherubikon (it's good to be able to use the proper name and have it understood!) does not bother me. Actually, I think it is rather clever as an Offertory hymn. From a purist point of view, it doesn't belong in any form of the Roman Rite historically speaking, that is, it was never there, so to revive Sarum and introduce it is an innovation which purists would find objectionable. I do understand the opinion that if you can't serve a WR liturgy in its full integrity - not introducing Byzantinisms, what are you doing? That objection is often raised with the Gallican Rite, for which there are far fewer texts, and a lot more Byzantinisms added. I also sympathize with the point, but the introduction of "foreign elements" into a rite is also not taboo to me. It's been happening all through history. The Agnus Dei, from what I read, was introduced into the Roman Liturgy by Pope Sergios I, an Easterner who imported it. Now it's not used in Eastern Liturgies, yet it survives in the Roman Rite. As you note, the Kyrie is a reduction of a litany, also introduced by Pope Sergios. Was it wrong for him to interpolate them into the Roman Liturgy? Much of the history of the Byzantine Rite is one of cross-pollination between Constantinople and St Sabbas, with a few additions from the Holy Sepulchre, and finally from Mt Athos in the time of Patriarch Philotheos (Kokkinos). Are we to say that what we have now is "impure"? No! It's part of the natural historical evolution.

I think the sensitivity to interpolating Byzantinisms into Western liturgies arises in large part because the WR, the more it attempts to go back to before the Great Schism, is a matter of revival, not continuity. There has not been a living continuity within the Orthodox Church. The historical evolution, whatever we may think of it, is what took place in the Roman Catholic Church, including the suppression of all but the Roman Rite in its various local uses, of which Sarum was one, with, according to some documents, Gallican origins, which might account for the use of bread with a seal and the distribution of evlogion, and some other practices.

My observation in Europe and in Gothic style cathedrals on the East Coast is that ambulatories were rather common. The High Altar would be against a free-standing wall. It's been a while since I studied such matters, so I don't recall exactly what liturgists have said about the significance of this fact historically. Intuitively, I am guessing that it reflects the fact that in earlier churches in the West the altar was free standing. The ambulatory and side chapels I've always associated more with the rise of the missa privata. The Ordo Romanus Primus, clearly presupposes a free standing altar in an apse facing east. It likewise presupposes the existence of a synthronon ("high place"), where the Pope would stand. Interestingly, he would face east (yes, right to the wall) at certain points. In the end, the position of the altar is potentially indicative of the stage in the evolution of the Sarum Use.

The further back in history we go, it would seem that the more similar to the Byzantine Rite the Western liturgies become. I don't mean that to be an absolute statement, just a general trend to which there are no doubt limits and exceptions. The ethos of the Ordo Romanus Primus, as reflected on paper, was much more "at home" to me as one accustomed to the Byzantine Rite, while still being somewhat familiar to me as a former Anglican. Traditionalist Anglicans and Roman Catholics who are not at home in the Byzantine Rite would probably find the same rite rather foreign, little less so than the Byzantine Rite itself. Ironically, a solemnly celebrated Novus Ordo Missae, as opposed to a folk mass, rock mass, pop mass, American mass, etc., is somewhat closer than the Tridentine Mass to the Ordo Romanus Primus.

This is much more than I had intended to write. I'll leave it here. Please do forgive if I have to bow out of the discussion again. It was I who started the WR discussion, but I've been unable to keep up with it since 2006. Speaking of which, how is this thread supposed to differ from the WR thread?

Wishing everybody a blessed celebration of the Week of the Cross / Laetere Sunday,

Sdn. Mark Harrison

L. Allen

06-04-2009, 10:08 PM

This is a really interesting thread. I don't know how useful my point will be, but I was thinking about what Michael says when he explains that 'The Sarum Use grew up in the diocese of Salisbury and later spread to other parts of the British Isles, superseding the local uses that existed in other places. There were many uses in Britain: Bangor, York, Lincoln, Exeter, and numerous others'. (I hope it's ok to quote like this - I didn't want to quote the whole section.)

I wondered about two related issues. Firstly, my suspicion would be that manuscript historians in England are often more interested in making the binary distinction between York and Sarum Use, and less interested in individual variations. Then, too, it's not unheard of for scribes to write texts that deviate from the carefully set position of the Church at the time. Therefore, I wonder if it's possible that there are a lot of manuscripts lying around that have been categorized as 'Sarum', but might actually be closer to something someone here would recognize as an Orthodox Use? At what point do you think the differences between the two churches would have percolated down to the level of something ordinary people could notice in their daily life?

Michael Astley

08-04-2009, 11:57 PM

...I did want to touch on a couple of points:

First, I've been confused about the difference between "Veni Creator Spiritus" and "Veni Sancte Spiritus." Unfortunately, I only know the 1940 Hymnal metrical versions, which is a rather poor tool for getting such things straight. Are there two different versions in Latin?[/qb]

You're very kind in what you say, Subdeacon Mark.

The hymn Come, Holy Ghost, our souls inspire as it appears in Anglican hymnals is a severely truncated paraphrase of the Veni, Creator Spiritus and has no earlier provenance than the pen of the Anglican hymn-writer John Cosin, in the 17th century. My personal view is that its inclusion in Orthodox liturgies instead of a translation of the actual hymn was a mistake. it only appears in the texts for the Sarum and English Liturgies that were produced by St Petroc Monastery.

To my knowledge, there is only one version of Veni, Creator Spiritus in the Latin manuscripts, and it dates from before the schism. A common Anglican translation, (and a rather lovely one), is here (http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/c/c197.html). The translation blessed for use in ROCOR in the SHP Sarum Liturgy is on pages 6&7 of this (http://allmercifulsavior.info/Liturgy/Sarum%20Liturgy%20Priest%20Book.pdf) text.

The insertion of the Cherubikon (it's good to be able to use the proper name and have it understood!) does not bother me. Actually, I think it is rather clever as an Offertory hymn. From a purist point of view, it doesn't belong in any form of the Roman Rite historically speaking, that is, it was never there, so to revive Sarum and introduce it is an innovation which purists would find objectionable. I do understand the opinion that if you can't serve a WR liturgy in its full integrity - not introducing Byzantinisms, what are you doing? That objection is often raised with the Gallican Rite, for which there are far fewer texts, and a lot more Byzantinisms added. I also sympathize with the point, but the introduction of "foreign elements" into a rite is also not taboo to me. It's been happening all through history. The Agnus Dei, from what I read, was introduced into the Roman Liturgy by Pope Sergios I, an Easterner who imported it. Now it's not used in Eastern Liturgies, yet it survives in the Roman Rite. As you note, the Kyrie is a reduction of a litany, also introduced by Pope Sergios. Was it wrong for him to interpolate them into the Roman Liturgy? Much of the history of the Byzantine Rite is one of cross-pollination between Constantinople and St Sabbas, with a few additions from the Holy Sepulchre, and finally from Mt Athos in the time of Patriarch Philotheos (Kokkinos). Are we to say that what we have now is "impure"? No! It's part of the natural historical evolution.

Precisely!

There is no such thing as a pure rite and all of our rites have in some way or another been influenced by one another. Even the Gallican rite in its heyday was heavily influenced by Eastern traditions. While St John's version of that Liturgy has been further Byzantinised, I feel that this is a legitimate development in the use of the Liturgy. The Liturgy of St Mark is an Alexandrian Liturgy, yet the version blessed for use within ROCOR, being the translation work of Bishop Jerome of Manhattan (formerly Fr John Shaw), is heavily Byzantinised. The Antiochene Liturgy of St James is also a little Byzantinised in some of the options in the authorised ROCOR use. The cherubikon used in the Byzantine St Basil Liturgy on Holy Saturday was oriignally part of the Liturgy of St James and was imported later. Anybody claiming that Sarum as currently blessed for use is inauthentic because it contains elements of other rites would have to discount all liturgies of the Church as inauthentic because all of them are the product of cross-influence, addition, and omission over the years.

The Ordo Romanus Primus, clearly presupposes a free standing altar in an apse facing east. It likewise presupposes the existence of a synthronon ("high place"), where the Pope would stand. Interestingly, he would face east (yes, right to the wall) at certain points. In the end, the position of the altar is potentially indicative of the stage in the evolution of the Sarum Use.

The further back in history we go, it would seem that the more similar to the Byzantine Rite the Western liturgies become. I don't mean that to be an absolute statement, just a general trend to which there are no doubt limits and exceptions. The ethos of the Ordo Romanus Primus, as reflected on paper, was much more "at home" to me as one accustomed to the Byzantine Rite, while still being somewhat familiar to me as a former Anglican. Traditionalist Anglicans and Roman Catholics who are not at home in the Byzantine Rite would probably find the same rite rather foreign, little less so than the Byzantine Rite itself. Ironically, a solemnly celebrated Novus Ordo Missae, as opposed to a folk mass, rock mass, pop mass, American mass, etc., is somewhat closer than the Tridentine Mass to the Ordo Romanus Primus.

Thank you for this. That's a great help, actually, in understanding a little more about the common roots of the various rites. I especially like the image of the Pope facing east while standing directly against the east wall. Interestingly, while his work and ideas are in many ways a combination of the very brilliant and the very odd, Richard Giles, former dean of the Episcopalian Phildelphia Cathedral, has restored the presbyterium or "high place" that was common in the early basilicas and has been retained in our Byzantine churches. You can just make it out behind the people in this (http://www.rider.edu/files/Harpsichord_Phila_Cathedral.jpg) photograph and in use here (http://sweetpeaflowers.com/About_Us/press/cathedral.jpg).

I wondered about two related issues. Firstly, my suspicion would be that manuscript historians in England are often more interested in making the binary distinction between York and Sarum Use, and less interested in individual variations. Then, too, it's not unheard of for scribes to write texts that deviate from the carefully set position of the Church at the time. Therefore, I wonder if it's possible that there are a lot of manuscripts lying around that have been categorized as 'Sarum', but might actually be closer to something someone here would recognize as an Orthodox Use? At what point do you think the differences between the two churches would have percolated down to the level of something ordinary people could notice in their daily life?

Hello, again, Lucy.

There were certainly numerous manuscripts available. A liturgical use was always for the monastery and cathedral but would have been adapted to the smaller building and fewer resources of their dependent parishes. Ceremonial, vestments, liturgical colours, and perhaps even texts, would have varied even within the "Sarum" family. Earlier in the thread, I linked to a rebuttal by Hieromonk Aidan (Keller) of criticisms of the SHP ROCOR text of Sarum. He does mention something of the variations and the conversation is well worth the read.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, though, about the difference between the two churches. Do you mean between Orthodoxy and Catholicism? Before the schism, when the Church ion the west was still Orthodox, there were still variations in rites. There were a number of western rites, which differed considerably from the Byzantine Rite, Antiochene family of rites, not to mention those of Africa. The common roots could be seen and still can be if you examine them but the manner of music, vesture, colour, ceremonial, layout and arrangement of churches are all part of a rite, and these were all quite different from place to place. Even within a single rite there were local uses. We see this today in the difference between Greek and Russian uses of the Byzantine Rite. An Orthodox person in 8th century England travelling to Constantinople would have likely been quite lost in the liturgy there, while simultaneously seeing a great deal of familiarity in its structure.

I hope that helps.

In Christ,
Michael

Andreas Moran

13-04-2009, 01:26 PM

It's worth bearing in mind that after 1066, those who fled the savage despoilation of England by William I (who in our times would be held guilty of genocide and war crimes) went to the Orthodox East. As mentioned above, the daughter of the slain King Harold, Gytha, went to Russia and married Grand Prince Vladimir Monomkah (himself half Greek) and became mother of a long line of Russian saints and princes. Thousands of English went to Constantinople where they had their own church with services in Latin.

L. Allen

13-04-2009, 06:00 PM

Hi Michael,

Yes, what I meant was the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. I guess you have mostly answered my question in telling me about the degree of variation in local Uses before the Schism. I was just trying to think about it from the perspective of your average medieval believer (Catholic or Orthodox), and wondering what the effect of the Schism was from their point of view. I was thinking that, given the difficulty of transmitting information, isolated communities might have taken quite some time to bring their practice into line with the post-Schism Church. I know that, much later when Protestantism was instituted in England, many rural churches didn't really understand what it was they were being asked to do, or to believe in, and continued to worship with either the old Rite, or with a mixture.

Isa Almisry

18-04-2009, 03:58 PM

You're very kind in what you say, Subdeacon Mark.

The Liturgy of St Mark is an Alexandrian Liturgy, yet the version blessed for use within ROCOR, being the translation work of Bishop Jerome of Manhattan (formerly Fr John Shaw), is heavily Byzantinised.

Do you have any more information on this translation, and its use? I'm rather inclined that we in the Alexandrine and Antiochian Patriarchates recover our Divine Liturgies, suppressed by the absentee Patriarch Balsamon around 1200, i.e. nearly a thousand years after the split with the OO. The liturgies preserved by the OO have some of the most expressive language of the mysteries of the Faith I have seen, e.g. the Syro-Indian, when the priest elevates the Eucharist exclaims "Behold! I hold up Him who upholds the four corners of the Earth!"

Olga

19-04-2009, 02:50 PM

The liturgies preserved by the OO have some of the most expressive language of the mysteries of the Faith I have seen, e.g. the Syro-Indian, when the priest elevates the Eucharist exclaims "Behold! I hold up Him who upholds the four corners of the Earth!"

This passage you quoted reminds me of a magnificat verse from ode 9 of the canon for the feast of the Meeting of the Lord:

It is not the old man who holds Me, but I uphold him; for he begs Me to let him depart.

So short, yet so evocative and profound.

Father David Moser

19-04-2009, 07:09 PM

Do you have any more information on this translation, and its use?

You might try contacting Bishop Jerome of Manhatten directly. He is the deputy secretary of the Synod of ROCOR and resides at the Synodal Headquarters in NYC (75 E. 93 Street,New York, NY 10128; Tel.: (212) 534-1601 Fax: (212) 534-1798. If you want to try and email him, please contact me via PM for an email.

Fr David Moser

Michael Astley

20-04-2009, 01:16 PM

Christ is risen!

Isa, the text of the Liturgy as translated by Vladyka Jerome, with accompanying notes on translation and development, may be found here (http://allmercifulsavior.info/Liturgy/Liturgy-Mark.html).

I hope this helps.

Michael.

Michael Astley

05-05-2009, 11:27 AM

The cherubikon is indeed the compiler's insertion into the Sarum Liturgy. However, it is also an addition in the Byzantine Liturgy. In particular, the hymn Let all Mortal Flesh has already made its way from the Antiochene family to rites into the Byzantine services, so its transplanaton from one rite to another is not an innovation in Orthodox liturgical practice. In light of its Orthodox origins and the history of the cherubikon in Eucharistic liturgies, I think that this is a legitimate (and not at all unattractive) development. I would only say that, on a personal note, I would prefer a more direct translation to Gerard Moultrie's popular Anglican paraphrase. As it has been used in Orthodoxy for some time, there are plenty of musical settings readily available.

I thought I'd post an update as my view on this has been refined somewhat. A discussion on another forum caused me to actually examine Gerard Moultrie's version alongside an English translation of the actual cherubikon and the result is that I do not believe that the former is suitable for use in Orthodox worship. It is no longer a case of personal preference for an actual translation but of requirement.

My reasons are below.

Moultrie padded it out considerably, and I would say that approximately half of the resulting hymn comprises his own additions.

Here are portions that are not in the original hymn:

for with blessing in his hand,
Christ our God to earth...,
our full homage to demand.

yet born of Mary,
as of old on earth he stood

in human vesture,
in the body and the blood;

as the Light of light descendeth
from the realms of endless day,
that the powers of hell may vanish
as the darkness clears away.

At his feet...
to the presence...
with ceaseless voice...
Lord Most High

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with these additions per se - it's poetic licence and the result is beautiful - but that the differences are enough to make it a paraphrase rather than a translation and they are additions that are not from the Orthodox tradition.

I think we can forgive his rendering of the description of the Cherubim as being "many-eyed" as having "sleepless eye". It's possible that the original can be translated either way - I don't know.

My main objections to its use in Orthodox worship are the protestant influences. One thing that was in the original but which was omitted by Moultrie was the mention of the Principalities and Powers alongside the Cherubim and the Seraphim. Was there some sort of objection to the orders of Angels in the 19th century Church of England that could have possibly got him into trouble had he included too many of them? I suppose what I'm asking is whether it would have been considered to be unwelcome high churchery.

The reason for my suspicion is that the original mentions that the King of kings and the Lord of lords "comes forth to be sacrificed/slain", and in its original context it is sung as the bread and wine are carried to the altar in procession, in preparation for the Anaphora. Such words linked to such ceremonial would have caused a scandal in 19th century English Anglicanism - suggesting that the bread and wine were Christ coming to be sacrificed - especially at the dawn of the Oxford Movement, which was not uncontroversial. In Moultrie's version, any reference to Christ coming forth to be slain or sacrificed has been expunged and replaced with an inoffensive reference to Him descending with his blessing, and there would have been no ceremonial link between this reference to Christ's descent and any procession of bread and wine to the altar.

Is this the sort of influence that we want to import into our worship? I certainly feel uneasy about it.

One English translation of the original hymn is here:

Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and in fear and trembling stand, pondering nothing earthly-minded; for the King of kings and Lord of lords comes to be sacrificed, to give Himself as food to the faithful. Amen.

Before Him go the ranks of Angels; all the Principalities and Powers, the many-eyed Cherubim, and the six-winged Seraphim, covering their faces, singing their hymn: Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! [/QB][/QUOTE]

There are plenty of settings to this readily available and I see no reason why a Western Rite church cannot use this instead of the protestantised version.

In Christ,
Michael

Olga

05-05-2009, 04:26 PM

I think we can forgive his rendering of the description of the Cherubim as being "many-eyed" as having "sleepless eye". It's possible that the original can be translated either way - I don't know.

The Greek words used to describe the Cherubim is polyommatos (singular) / polyommata (plural). It definitely means many-eyed, not unsleeping. Agrypnos would be the right word for unsleeping.

Andreas Moran

05-05-2009, 06:01 PM

We have had a thread which explains why 'Let all mortal flesh' is reserved in the Orthodox Church for use on Great and Holy Saturday alone. To use it at other times and in particular on any day other than Saturday seems to me to be the kind of playing fast and loose with Holy Tradition which comes from ignorance and pride.

Michael Astley

06-05-2009, 02:47 AM

Thank you for clarifying, Olga. I knew somebody here would be able to give an accurate rendering.

We have had a thread which explains why 'Let all mortal flesh' is reserved in the Orthodox Church for use on Great and Holy Saturday alone. To use it at other times and in particular on any day other than Saturday seems to me to be the kind of playing fast and loose with Holy Tradition which comes from ignorance and pride.

I disagree with the latter statement, Andreas, because it is based on a false premise. It is not accurate to say that Let all Mortal Flesh is reserved for Great and Holy Saturday alone. On the thread that you mention, it came up that this hymn is the standard cherubic hymn from the Liturgy of St James, and is thus sung whenever that Liturgy is celebrated. In the Russian church this liturgy is blessed for use on the Feast of St James (23rd October) and on the Sunday after the Nativity of the Saviour. This liturgy was once served more frequently in Jerusalem and on Zakynthos, although others will be better placed than I am to comment on the current practice in those places.

I have here a copy of an English translation of the Slavonic text of the St James Liturgy that was blessed for use in ROCOR in the 1930s, being a restoration of an earlier Russian practice. The rubrics detail some of the differences that were found between the practice of Jerusalem and Zakynthos at the time, which had developed as a result of this Liturgy being served regularly as part of a continuous tradition in those two places, while much of the rest of Orthodoxy had forgotten about it. It is from Zakynthos that it spread to the Russian church again. As it was told to me, (and, sadly, I have no written sources for this), the Russian church sent a delegation to both Zakynthos and Jerusalem to learn how to serve this Liturgy from those who simply knew it as part of their ongoing tradition, hence the divergence in the rubrics. My parish priest told me this as something he remembered from his liturgical studies. I may see if he knows of a source for it.

In addition to the Russian church's practice, (which we follow at my parish), I have friends in the Greek Archdiocese in North America who also tell me that they sometimes use the Liturgy of St James on his feast day, and I have personally been to such a liturgy in my local Antiochian parish, so it certainly appears not to be uncommon.

It is worth noting that the Liturgy of St James is not a part of the Byzantine rite but comes from a different liturgical tradition from the Liturgies of Ss Basil the Great and John Chrysostom. It is from the Antiochene family of rites. The hymn Let all Mortal Flesh, as used on Great and Holy Saturday at the Basil Liturgy was actually transplanted from one rite to another, and is therefore not original to the Holy Saturday St Basil Liturgy. (Again, those more knowledgeable than I will be able to give some indication as to when). Therefore, it is not an innovation for this hymn to move from one rite to another, and its longstanding traditional use in its original context of the St James Liturgy on days other than Holy Saturday has been more widespread - and continuous - than you have been led to believe.

I think we should perhaps be hesitant about attributing pride to people's motives. God knows we all suffer from enough of that without having more atrributed to us then we deserve.

In Christ,
Michael

Mark Harrison

06-05-2009, 06:37 AM

The reason for my suspicion is that the original mentions that the King of kings and the Lord of lords "comes forth to be sacrificed/slain", and in its original context it is sung as the bread and wine are carried to the altar in procession, in preparation for the Anaphora. Such words linked to such ceremonial would have caused a scandal in 19th century English Anglicanism - suggesting that the bread and wine were Christ coming to be sacrificed - especially at the dawn of the Oxford Movement, which was not uncontroversial. In Moultrie's version, any reference to Christ coming forth to be slain or sacrificed has been expunged and replaced with an inoffensive reference to Him descending with his blessing, and there would have been no ceremonial link between this reference to Christ's descent and any procession of bread and wine to the altar.

Is this the sort of influence that we want to import into our worship? I certainly feel uneasy about it.

Your unease is warranted. I grew up loving that hymn as an Episcopalian. It was hymn 197 in the 1940 Hymnal. My love for that hymn, and certain others, is part of what told me that Orthodoxy was my only choice when the time came. HOWEVER, your point about the change in language is significant. It is a symptom of the typical Anglican 'theology of imprecision' and it cannot be simply dismissed as poetic licence, even though that is certainly just as much an influence. Byzantine hymnography is not metrical. Any text can be set to any tone. Western hymns are metrical, and if the words don't fit the metre, it doesn't work. To that degree we can, and must forgive the "translator" who is inevitably paraphrasing to one degree or another.

There is a major distinction that MUST be made here: it is not in itself an absolute, a priori problem that the hymn was paraphrased to fit the metre. That is inevitable in Western music. The problem here is the specific paraphrase, which, as in so many cases in which Orthodox texts are borrowed by Anglicans, changes the meaning so as to avoid a theological point that is controversial among Anglicans, yet solidly Orthodox. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is perhaps the chief point (with references to the Theotokos following immediately behind) where Anglican texts waffle, and change terminology, giving rise to one WR champion's expression "the theology of imprecision."

Regarding the use of this particular Cherubikon outside of Great and Holy Saturday, I have to say that I don't have a big problem with that off hand (I might if someone makes a good case). I don't believe that it is ignorance of Tradition that led to this improvisation in ROCOR's use of Sarum. I suspect that the redactors knew exactly how the hymn is properly used in the Byzantine Rite, and also know that it is a hymn that is familiar to former Anglicans in its metricized form, and thus considered it to be a suitable candidate. By using it in a Western Liturgy, the redactors are already removing it from its original context, which, even before being the Cherubikon of Holy Saturday, is the Cherubikon of the Liturgy of Saint James, still celebrated occasionally in some places. That point is signficant because it cannot be strictly said that it is only appointed for Holy Saturday. A Westerner confronted with this issue might wonder why we who follow the Byzantine Rite don't still celebrate the Liturgy of Saint James on that day. I don't see that a universally satisfactory reason can be given for not appropriating that Cherubikon in the Sarum Liturgy or for not using the Liturgy of Saint James on Holy Saturday. There are too many variables and attitudes about "purism" are certainly at play here. Where one draws lines is not set in stone. The question is whether or not one is guided by the Tradition - the continuity of the living Liturgy. When it comes to that, Western Rite itself can be (and should be) questioned, whatever the final answer may be.

This brings me back to my original thesis: that WR can neither be upheld or denigrated a priori. Because the Christian West has developed outside the fold of the Orthodox Church for centuries now, there will always be pragmatic problems involved with the use of Western Rite. That does not mean that it is a scourge, a slow poison from the outset. It means just what I said: there will always be problems. It may not survive. The Byzantine Liturgy has stood the test of time and has transcended cultures from the Greeks, to the Slavs, to the Romanians, and to Western Europeans and Americans. It is my home now, not some modified form of the Anglican liturgy with which I was raised. Anglican liturgy is now alien to me, however well I remember and smile at certain finer points. Am I speaking out of both sides of my mouth? No, I am (hopefully) illustrating by my own experience that WR is an inherently complex issue. Only in the context of genuine theology through genuine prayer (as per Evagrios) can we hope to find guidance from the Holy Spirit. The question here, of the use of the Cherubikon of the Liturgy of Saint James is a prime example of the depth, nature, and complexity of the problem (question) of Western Rite as a whole.

Andreas Moran

06-05-2009, 06:34 PM

Michael Astley

07-05-2009, 01:50 AM

Yes, 'Let all mortal flesh' is in the Liturgy of St James, but how many of the world's Orthodox have even ever heard of that liturgy, let alone the fact that they are never likely to hear it. For all practical purposes, all Orthodox experience the liturgy of St John Chrysostom except for when they have the liturgy of St Basil and the Presanctified. So have things been for very many centuries. This is the mainstream tradition of the Church and it is in that context that things developed as they did so that what I said about the use of 'Let all mortal flesh' being used on Great and Holy Saturday holds good. We explored the incredible richness and beauty of the Church's liturgical hymnography particularly as regards the Vesperal Liturgy of St Basil on Great and Holy Saturday, and I still think that to prise 'Let all mortal flesh' out of that setting and use it in WR liturgies is wrong.

I think that this raises new questions, Andreas. You appear to have modified your original statement that this hymn is only used on Holy Saturday, and that a departure from this would be playing fast and loose with Tradition, to saying that this is the most widespread custom in Orthodoxy. This is not an insignificant shift. However, your most recent post raises the separate questions of whether absolute liturgical uniformity is something that has ever been known in Orthodoxy and indeed whether it is even something that is desirable. I'm sure that these questions could produce some interesting discussions but I would respectfully suggest that it is a much broader issue than the discussion on this thread, which is specifically about the Western Rite Mass. It may be better suited to the more general thread about the concept of the Western Rite or could perhaps even have a dedicated thread. FWIW, my sympathies lie with what Subdeacon Mark has said on the matter of testing all of these developments for their consistency with Tradition, while acknowledging that purism can be taken too far.

I think you're right, Subdeacon Mark, about the "theology of imprecision" evident in many texts that are used by our Anglican friends. The same is true for hymnody as it is for service texts. As the aforementioned Russian church's observations on the Anglican Prayer Book say: "...its actual contents present very little comparatively that clearly contradicts Orthodox teaching, and therefore would not be admissable in Orthodox worship. But this conclusion comes not from the fact that the book is actually Orthodox, but merely from the fact that it was compiled in a spirit of compromise, and that, while skilfully evading all more or less debateable points of doctrine, it endeavours to reconcile tendencies which are really contradictory. Consequently both those who profess protestantism and their opponents can alike use it with a quiet conscience." This is necessitated by the very nature of Anglicanism. I don't think that this should be the case for Orthodox worship and, sadly, this hymn in this form encapsulates precisely that.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael Astley

07-05-2009, 01:59 AM

With respect to your point, Subdeacon Mark, about wetsern hymnody being metrical, this is indeed true for many of the ancient office hymns and has been followed in modern hymnody in the post-schism west, but there are also the ordinary and propers of the Mass, which are hymns in much the same way that the tropars and kondaks are hymns in the Byzantine Rite, yet are not metrical. Therefore, it should be very easy to set Let all Mortal Flesh to western painsong without having to resort to Picardy. :)

Andreas Moran

07-05-2009, 06:33 PM

I think that this raises new questions, Andreas. You appear to have modified your original statement that this hymn is only used on Holy Saturday, and that a departure from this would be playing fast and loose with Tradition, to saying that this is the most widespread custom in Orthodoxy. This is not an insignificant shift.

All I was doing was acknowledging, as I obviously must, that 'Let all mortal flesh' is used in the Liturgy of St James. But being used in this obscure liturgy on occasion doesn't change the point I was making. I think it's hardly a shift at all.

The point keeps being made that there is room for liturgical variety today because there was no strict conformity in ancient times. But surely the pattern of the liturgies of St John Chrysostom, St Basil and the Presanctified has been established for so long that the variety spoken of is now so remote that it is straining things to appeal to it. Anybody seeking now to depart from the liturgical consistency the Orthodox Church has had for so very long bears a very heavy burden of justification, and I can't see where that justification could come from. There's nothing I can add to the opinion I have already expressed about WR; I agree with those who dismiss it as having no place in the Orthodox Church.

Michael Astley

07-05-2009, 11:51 PM

All I was doing was acknowledging, as I obviously must, that 'Let all mortal flesh' is used in the Liturgy of St James. But being used in this obscure liturgy on occasion doesn't change the point I was making. I think it's hardly a shift at all.

The point keeps being made that there is room for liturgical variety today because there was no strict conformity in ancient times.

I have not been appealing to ancient times alone but also to continuous Orthodox practice. Even though the variations have been a matter of local practice, I don't think that anybody here is using that to justify anything more than local practice today. Nobody is asking for universal changes to the widespread usage of the Orthodox Church, but simply a recognition of variations in local custom, reflecting a situation that we have always had. Just like the existing eastern liturgies that are not used in some parishes, nobody is forcing anybody who does not wish to use the western liturgies either - simply to recognise their place within Orthodoxy. That is all.

But surely the pattern of the liturgies of St John Chrysostom, St Basil and the Presanctified has been established for so long that the variety spoken of is now so remote that it is straining things to appeal to it. Anybody seeking now to depart from the liturgical consistency the Orthodox Church has had for so very long bears a very heavy burden of justification, and I can't see where that justification could come from.

It is still my opinion that there may be an interesting discussion to be had on that point elsewhere but that a thread about a specific service, such as this one, is be too narrow a focus for it.

There's nothing I can add to the opinion I have already expressed about WR; I agree with those who dismiss it as having no place in the Orthodox Church.

I do understand this, Andreas. You have expressed your position clearly and rationaly. I respect you and acknowledge the integrity of the position that you hold. However, for those of us who disagree with your position and who wish to discuss the detail of how the Western Rite is to be implemented and used, this is proving to be a very useful thread, which seems to me to be quite a separate one from the discussion about the rights and wrongs of the Western Rite in the first place. If we could focus on that here, I would find that helpful and would be personally grateful.

Thank you for being understanding about this.

In Christ,
Michael