Anglican/Orthodox

[Annalise Kockott]

Hello
I have been told that there are several points of resonance between the Anglican and Orthodox churches. Please can someone tell me more about this?
Many thanks.
Annalise

[John King]

Dear Annalise,

I'm not sure about that. Although the protestant reformation was an attempt to undo the great harm that had been done to the Western Church since 1054 it did not go nearly far enough.

To this day Protestants in England regard the worship of Our Lady as 'suspicious', see icons as 'graven images' (idolatery) and use the RC version of the Creed.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hello
I have been told that there are several points of resonance between the Anglican and Orthodox churches. Please can someone tell me more about this?
Many thanks.
Annalise

There were many discussions formally and informally through parts of the 19th and 20th centuries. I suppose the idea was that Anglicanism could be the basis of a kind of English Orthodoxy since it was episcopal without being papal and also had a sacramental sense to it.

However much of the motivation for close contact collapsed after the 1970s with the great changes in modern Anglicanism- ordination of women & then homosexuals, liberal theology and piety, etc.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosta]

I dont think there has ever been a time the anglicans were considered similar enough to Orthodoxy which would lead to unity. Much of the hoopla is basically a case of making mountains out of mold hills. In the years between 1915 and 1930 a heretical bishop with ties to the british establishment attempted to synchronize with the Anglicans. This false case of ecumenism has fueled rumors that there was a time that Orthodoxy and anglicanism would merge. Nothing could be further from the truth since Orthodoxy can only accept a heterodox thru chrismation and their clergy thru re-ordination on an individual basis.

Due to this first case study of false ecumenism by the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis (of sorry memory), many Anglicans were duped into believeing that they and their Orthodox counterparts were one and the same, and this assumption still lingers to this day. Little do most people know, that its only a matter of time before E.P. Meletios is officially condemned by a pan-Orthodox council for heresy and trampling upon the canons. It is this one bishop that has skewered history into the belief that there was a time in the past that the Orthodox uniting with the Anglicans came oh so close. E.P Meletios started this Orthodox-Anglican fiasco whose false influence lasts to this day among people on both sides. Modern historians today try to make it out as if this union which supposedly almost occured 80 years ago was imminent when in fact it never was.

[Demetrios Galanidis]

Please, Kosta, share your knowledge of this unnamed 'pan-Orthodox' council condemning Patriarch Meletios. Inquiring minds want to know! Start with when, where, attended by whom...you know, the usual details.

[Kosta]

I didnt say that a past pan-Orthodox council condemned Meletios, what i said is that its a matter of time before one will. On the other hand the Church of Greece on Dec 9, 1921 did indeed depose Meletios for canonical violations and creating schism. But by then he was secretly and uncanonically elected to the EP, by the secular political powers that be. Thus the descision had no bearing.

[Olympiada]

Hello
I have been told that there are several points of resonance between the Anglican and Orthodox churches. Please can someone tell me more about this?
Many thanks.
Annalise

Communion for one, both of our churches are sacramental. Vestments for two, both of our churches use vestments. Also I understand the Anglican church is "high church" while the Orthodox church is probably the "highest church"...

[Owen Jones]

The Anglican Communion is a shell of its former self. The American Church has been taken over by a radical political movement and is not even remotely Christian, which is not to say that there aren't faithful people in the pews -- but it is a dwindling number. The hierarchy is deliberately forcing them out.

There are many good Bishops and faithful in Africa and other parts of the former British Empire, but they tend to have a strong protestant focus. Anglicanism from its inception was a strategic compromise between catholic and protestant elements, so that Britain could avoid a major religious war. Its existence is the result of Henry's break with the papacy.

For a "traditional" Anglican, it is not a leap to become Orthodox, for reasons outlined above on this thread. The Antiochian Archdiocese has approved a revised Anglican liturgy as Western Rite Orthodoxy, and there are several parishes that have become Orthodox through this route. A couple have experimented and then gone to the Eastern liturgy.

Anglicanism has traditionally justified itself based on "the branch theory," which is that Anglicanism is an historical branch of the tree of orthodox Christianity.

There is zero chance of any real union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism today, for a number of reasons.

[Isaac Crabtree]

I suppose it depends on what basis one is talking about unity with the Orthodox Church. If by unity one means something like a "reconciliation" of two parts of the Church which had been divided, Orthodox must reject it because Anglicanism, despite its best intentions, persists in serious errors of both dogma and practice.

Nevertheless, if by unity one means something more along the lines of the Orthodox receiving vast numbers of Anglican Christians-- clergy, laity, parishes-- on the condition that they accept the Orthodox Faith, full and unadulterated, then such a thing is quite possible, especially now since the rising tide of apostasy within Anglicanism has reduced it to little more than a social club with fancy ceremonies. The "how" of receiving the faithful remnants who would be trying to flee from such a pernicious institution could be answered differently by different local Orthodox synods, although I suspect the most expedient way would be chrismation. It might be a serious stretch to receive Anglican priests "in their orders" because such a thing, I think, would require near certitude that at least historical apostolic succession was not lost... and I don't think this can be verified.

I grew up Episcopalean, and after a seven-year trist with various evangelical churches (liturgically both high and low), I found my way into the Ark of Salvation, Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I've been Orthodox for nearly four years.

[Kosta]

Welcome home my Brother!

On the current situation of reception of converts, i agree with you 100 percent. I do not at all promote western rite as an option. While the WR is basically an "orthodoxized" anglican rite, it contains innovations that have nothing to do with Orthodoxy or a pre-schism western liturgy, regardless of what bishops who support it have to say. The most noticeable is the use of "pita bread" for the prosphora. Theres nothing western rite or eastern rite about that!

[Owen Jones]

The churches I am used to attending could easily be criticized as social clubs with ornate liturgy, albeit lacking in the more heretical elements of Anglicanism that we find today. However, I heard a sermon last week at an Orthodox cathedral that, if not overtly heretical, clearly missed the mark and was tinged with the same kind of historical gnosticism that now prevails in the Episcopal Church U.S.

So we hopefully will not be too smug. There is much to be concerned about within Orthodoxy, i.e. within ourselves.

[Isaac Crabtree]

Welcome home my Brother!

On the current situation of reception of converts, i agree with you 100 percent. I do not at all promote western rite as an option. While the WR is basically an "orthodoxized" anglican rite, it contains innovations that have nothing to do with Orthodoxy or a pre-schism western liturgy, regardless of what bishops who support it have to say. The most noticeable is the use of "pita bread" for the prosphora. Theres nothing western rite or eastern rite about that!

I feel like real WR Orthodox would want something more along the lines of the Tridentine, Sarum, or Mozarabic Mass than simply the Anglican rite with a Byzantine epiclesis. The real problem with the Anglican WR is not its form so much as the fact that it originated from minds who did not share in the Orthodox conception of what a Liturgy really is supposed to be, and do.

Plus, we have so many unity issues in the New World anyway, that as a practical matter it's hard to see why the WR would really be beneficial.

[Isaac Crabtree]

The churches I am used to attending could easily be criticized as social clubs with ornate liturgy, albeit lacking in the more heretical elements of Anglicanism that we find today. However, I heard a sermon last week at an Orthodox cathedral that, if not overtly heretical, clearly missed the mark and was tinged with the same kind of historical gnosticism that now prevails in the Episcopal Church U.S.

So we hopefully will not be too smug. There is much to be concerned about within Orthodoxy, i.e. within ourselves.

Friend, I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience. Do you mind elaborating on what specifically in the sermon appeared to be gnostic or heretical? I've heard bad sermons by Orthodox clergy before, but nothing heretical, and CERTAINLY nothing like in Anglicanism where it is becoming more and more common for priests and bishops to openly proclaim their denial of Christ's deity and/or bodily resurrection from the dead. That, my friend, you will never hear from Orthodox because such a one would be almost immediately deposed by his bishop or his synod. But please elaborate... certainly the Orthodox Church has dealt with heretics in her midst before.

[Kris]

I feel like real WR Orthodox would want something more along the lines of the Tridentine, Sarum, or Mozarabic Mass than simply the Anglican rite with a Byzantine epiclesis. The real problem with the Anglican WR is not its form so much as the fact that it originated from minds who did not share in the Orthodox conception of what a Liturgy really is supposed to be, and do.

Plus, we have so many unity issues in the New World anyway, that as a practical matter it's hard to see why the WR would really be beneficial.

The purpose of having a "Western Rite" is to receive Westerners that might feel alienated by the "foreignness" of the Orthodox Church. However, if one were to use the Tridentine, Sarum, or Mozarabic Mass, their forms will be as foreign to the majority of people as the Byzantine rite is. Indeed, even much of the music used by the Western Church pre-schism (especially that of the Mozarabic rite) was more Eastern in flavour than Western.

Essentially, this form of Western Rite will only really appeal to romantics and liturgical enthusiasts, which makes it an unsuccessful mission tool. Morover, due to the fact that these rites have no living link, but are essentially resurrected from the dead, they can't help but feel somewhat contrived and akward.

This is the reason the WR in America has made use of living traditions as its foundation. The problem with this, as noted above, is that these traditions have grown up in a world that has been separated from Orthodoxy for a millennium, which seems to make them unsuitable.

Ultimately, though, I think the failure in the WR lies in that it makes ethnicity and culture the focus of its mission, rather than just plain old Orthodoxy. I do not believe the future of Orthodoxy in the West will be helped by adding yet another ethnic grouping. I'd much rather see a model akin to that of St. John the Baptist's Monastery in Essex, which breaks down such cultural differences.

[Kosta]

The churches I am used to attending could easily be criticized as social clubs with ornate liturgy, albeit lacking in the more heretical elements of Anglicanism that we find today. However, I heard a sermon last week at an Orthodox cathedral that, if not overtly heretical, clearly missed the mark and was tinged with the same kind of historical gnosticism that now prevails in the Episcopal Church U.S.

So we hopefully will not be too smug. There is much to be concerned about within Orthodoxy, i.e. within ourselves.

Owen, i definately have to agree with you. A dear Orthodox friend of mine lamented how there is no longer any definate answer in Orthodoxy concerning our traditions. Everyone contradicts each other. From this very forum we can see, that controversy exists on the Orthodox belief towards the RC Immaculate Conception and the Sinlessness of Mary. No one can decipher the difference of the chalcedonian definition with the miaphysite position. No one can agree on the place of God the Father depictions in iconography, only myriad of spurious texts to justify supposedly what the Church has always taught.
In another forum i subscribe too, it more akin to Orthodox heterodoxy than anything else. An inquierer was asking whether Orthodox believed marriage was an eternal everlasting bond. To my surprise most of the Orthodox endorsed this position. In one post even divorce in this life does not end it. When i posted a few verses about marriage using the bible (verse: in the ressurection we do not marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels) and patristic commentary on those verses contradicting the eternality of marriage, i was brushed off as some theological illiterate. The one poster did not offer me patristic interpetation to rebut me, he simply told me the passage simply abolished future marriages in heaven. The Earthly marriage started here though will continue. The enquirer along with some RC posters were baffled themselves.

I concur with you Owen, we are not on the same page and our witness is divided.

[Andreas Moran]

A dear Orthodox friend of mine lamented how there is no longer any definate answer in Orthodoxy concerning our traditions. Everyone contradicts each other.

This, I'm sure, is because some western converts (including some clergy) adapt Orthdoxy to themselves because it goes against the western grain of accommodation, tolerance, intellectualism, etc. to be dogmatic. I have no doubt that Orthodoxy has definite answers but what is often lacking in the west is humble acceptance of them. Many westerners are fascinated by their own intellect and don't know the difference between questioning which leads to ambiguity and even doubt, and inquiry which informs faith. 'Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.' Matthew 18:3.

[Owen Jones]

The sermon I heard said that the purpose of commemorating martyrs was so that we can all have a passionate commitment to prevent and eliminate future wars!

[Rick H.]

A dear Orthodox friend of mine lamented how there is no longer any definate answer in Orthodoxy concerning our traditions. Everyone contradicts each other.




Initially, this is how it often appears to us "western converts."

And, clearly, we do need to allow some room for what is being said in some areas--it does not take a very high degree of awareness to know this. However, what is equally clear is that it is the presentation of the answers in Orthodoxy that will greatly determine the time it takes for one to discover the Beauty of Orthodoxy.

If the one who sits in the seat of the teacher of Orthodoxy provides answers from a place of superiority, or at times self-righteousness whereby a total acceptance of what is said by this one is required in order to avoid a quick and harsh rebuke, then chances are the harmony that exists within the Body of Christ will be camouflaged and in the end nothing is provided that is of any use. In the end, the suspicions of the one who laments as above are only confirmed. The choice between a seeming contradiction or varying forms of formalism, or a legalism of sorts, is all that is left. And, this poor method has nothing to do with the state of the one who would learn the Orthodoxy Way.

However, when one takes a caring and compassionate approach that is void of either impatience or arrogance, and when one is able to speak in a way that is comprehensible (as a competent teacher), then it is a different story. The American Fundamentalists are known for handing down decrees from on high and beating their victims over the head with the Bible to back up what they are saying, but consider this method (which is not unique to them, but to be associated with all taliban types), as contrasted with say our own Herman the Simple.

Herman takes the time to develop what he is saying in a way that even a child could understand it. One does not need to check his/her brain at the door for this method of the simple bear. What Herman does with his illustrations should be used as one model of how to teach the Orthodox Way. The person above is quoted as saying, "Everyone contradicts each other." And, to this we can bark out the right orders and then call for 100 push ups if they are not well received. And, then after this we can bash the western ways and even throw out a bible verse or two to drive home our point . . .

OR, we can pour a cup of coffee for ourselves and the one who does not understand. We can talk to the individual like he is a human being. And, knowing some are quicker than others, and knowing we are not all at the same place in our journeys, or on The Path this might even take two or three cups . . . but as we continue talking about a symphony, or a doctor and patient, or a coach and a player, or even a rudder of a boat, clearly this is the way of the competent teacher of Orthodoxy. This is the way to minister and to bring the Answer of answers as it relates to a seeming contradiction or seemilngly mad way of knowing. As Owen has used the word smug, may we not sit in the seat of smug as we teach the Orthodox Way (and call for humility).

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

Most of the arguments today in Orthodoxy are about a) ecumenism b) parish administration c) jurisdictional problems. Hardly anything of a truly heretical nature, thank God, not even incrementally it seems. No great push for female acolytes, let alone priestesses. No liturgical reform movement, thank God. If anything, more parishes are getting back to real candles and traditional chant and notation. I would say the real issue for Orthodoxy, particularly in America, is how much further will we appreciat the role of monasticism and support and encourage its growth. That Orthodox people love to argue about stuff is a good thing. We don't wait around for a Pope to tell us how we must think on important matters. Every member of the faithful has a responsibility to be theologically informed to the best of his ability.

I let my matter with the above mentioned priest sit for a couple of days so as not to act too hastily, and then I sent him a loving e-mail regarding his sermon. Not that I will ever get a response, and I'm sure his reaction is that I am one of those opinionated converts, but at least my conscience is clear. I've seen what happened to the Episcopal Church when an uninformed laity permits the clergy to get away with stuff.

As for what one might call "traditional" Anglicanism, it is not so far from Orthodoxy and a traditional Anglican liturgy, including the litanies, would be Orthodox in virtually every respect. So you correct the Nicene Creed, and certain things in the eucharistic prayer, and I don't think we should have any problem with this rite. We should rejoice in fact.

Liturgically, I have seen Greek priests skip over major parts of the eucharistic prayer in a manner that is really shocking just to move the service along, and so, again, we ought not to be too smug about our own condition. But it is somewhat understandable historically. When Greek immigrants first came to the U.S. in large numbers without priests and bishops they were told by their bishops back home to simply attend the nearest Episcopal Church. Many did so and were given communion. When they finally acquired priests and built their own churches, the architecture was Anglican, the hymns borrowed from Anglicanism, the service had to be over in an hour, and matins became a service just for the priest and cantor, and so on. As more Greeks become exposed to traditional forms and customs they often opt for them. There is a boon in traditional Church construction, and the younger priests coming out of seminary seem to be pretty solid on doctrinal matters, albeit not so great with sermons, and terrible when it comes to manage the affairs of a congregation. So I see fine young priests "burning out" and leaving the priesthood because they are manhandled by the archons in their parish and rarely get the backing they need from their bishops. There are far too few clergy and especially the lack of deacons is a serious problem. Each parish should have numerous deacons who can and should perform liturgical and pastoral functions that one sole priest cannot possibly keep up with. The times are just too tough for one lone priest to handle a parish on his own. It is like a death sentence.

[Anthony]

In addition to Kris' valid points about the WR, I have to say that I have never been able to see what is so exotic and Oriental about our own Liturgy. Is it the Beatitudes, the Psalms, the Eucharistic Prayers, or maybe the readings from Scripture or the Our Father? Or something else I haven't noticed?

[Herman Blaydoe]

In addition to Kris' valid points about the WR, I have to say that I have never been able to see what is so exotic and Oriental about our own Liturgy. Is it the Beatitudes, the Psalms, the Eucharistic Prayers, or maybe the readings from Scripture or the Our Father? Or something else I haven't noticed?

Actually, that would be the frequent three-fold repetitions, the multiple and elaborate litanies, the sonorous music that is anything but fast-paced, not to mention the often elaborate prayers. All the things that attempt to create a sense of timelessness are basically an assault on "western" concepts of efficiency and convenience, not to mention the shortened attention spans of the MTV generation. We want to get in, sit down, feel good, then get out and about our business with a minimum of "fuss". Let's face it, defined in western terms, the Divine Liturgy is very "fussy".

A priest was explaining how the Divine Liturgy mirrors Heavenly worship and he basically said this: "if you enjoy attending Divine Liturgy, then you will enjoy Heaven. If you don't like the Liturgy, then Heaven will be hell." Now THAT is something to think about. If you think an hour and a half seems like an eternity, what will Eternity seem like?

I go back and forth over the value of a "western" rite, but I really don't think "short" services add anything to the Faith, nor will it really change attendance. If, however, more "familiar" elements cause people to be better attuned to the service and better communicate the Faith (oh, I don't know, like using a language people understand, or even music more attuned to western ears), then they ought to at least be looked into and not rejected out of hand simply because it isn't Greek or Russian or whatever. But hey, that's just me.

Herman

[Kris]

If, however, more "familiar" elements cause people to be better attuned to the service and better communicate the Faith (oh, I don't know, like using a language people understand, or even music more attuned to western ears), then they ought to at least be looked into and not rejected out of hand simply because it isn't Greek or Russian or whatever. But hey, that's just me.


The Byzantine ("Greek") churches use Arabic in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, Swahili is used in Kenya and Uganda, etc. I don't think the use of the vernacular language is a feature necessarily related to rite.

As for the Western music, don't we already have this in the Russian and Serbian churches?

[Andreas Moran]

As for the Western music, don't we already have this in the Russian and Serbian churches?

Certainly as far as Russian church music is concerned, numbers of non-Orthodox buy CDs of Russian church music, at least, Rachmaninov's Vespers. However, modern Russian church music in its western musical style has been influenced by the Ukrainians like much else in the Russian Church.n For real Russian church music, you have to look further back, to the 17th century.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Byzantine ("Greek") churches use Arabic in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, Swahili is used in Kenya and Uganda, etc. I don't think the use of the vernacular language is a feature necessarily related to rite.

Fine and dandy. But I haven't been to Jordan or Kenya or Uganda. I have been to Orthodox churches in the Netherlands, Scotland and of course the US that still use an unintelligible language to most of the people living in the general vicinity of the church, however.


As for the Western music, don't we already have this in the Russian and Serbian churches?

That would be a great big "IT DEPENDS", I suspect. It depends on how you propose to define "western" music, and if you want to freeze it to a specific historical period, which seems rather arbitrary to me. I have to admit I have grown to like the Carpatho-Russian plain chant tradition and I have heard some really nice "modern" arrangements of traditional music in an all-convert church in Indianapolis that might horrify some "purists". I will go out on a limb here and risk criticism from some circles by saying I don't believe that Greek chant represents the end-all and be-all of spiritual expression, beautiful as it may be to attuned ears. And I think some of the later Russian music simply too operatic and "showy" to be practical for every-day worship in small parishes that do not have professionally trained choirs. Russian and Serbian composers are not the only arbiters of what constitutes a"western" style. Not that these do not have their place, they certainly do, but there is some room here for variations in expression without bringing in the guitars and drum sets, that is, there is room for evolving styles that are more endemic to the cultural mileu they are in, just as the Church has done for centuries.

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

The Anglican Communion is a shell of its former self. The American Church has been taken over by a radical political movement and is not even remotely Christian, which is not to say that there aren't faithful people in the pews -- but it is a dwindling number. The hierarchy is deliberately forcing them out.

There are many good Bishops and faithful in Africa and other parts of the former British Empire, but they tend to have a strong protestant focus. Anglicanism from its inception was a strategic compromise between catholic and protestant elements, so that Britain could avoid a major religious war. Its existence is the result of Henry's break with the papacy.

For a "traditional" Anglican, it is not a leap to become Orthodox, for reasons outlined above on this thread. The Antiochian Archdiocese has approved a revised Anglican liturgy as Western Rite Orthodoxy, and there are several parishes that have become Orthodox through this route. A couple have experimented and then gone to the Eastern liturgy.

Anglicanism has traditionally justified itself based on "the branch theory," which is that Anglicanism is an historical branch of the tree of orthodox Christianity.

There is zero chance of any real union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism today, for a number of reasons.

To reply to Owen Jones's [Seraphim's] post of earlier date, where he said

"The Anglican Communion (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Communion) is a shell of its former self."

I went with a delegation from my then Episcopal parish to be a witness (for a heresy trial that never took place) to the "ordination" of the "Philadelphia Eleven" at the Episcopal Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia, 29 July, 1974.

We all, just ordinary laypeople with very good spiritual help provided by our then pastor, fullly understood that the Episcopal church had been even then for many years departing from what had been believed "semper, ubique et ab omnibus", but we saw when we witnessed that "ordination", conducted in an atmosphere of something I can only call "spiritual uproar", that the Episcopal church of our youth had changed so radically that there was no hope of returning to the truth.

We each, in our own ways, set out in search of that ancient and unchanging truth, which is the Orthodox Faith. We found it and we were glad to leave that which is changeable and impermanent behind.

But to get to my entertainment for you all, here's a little vignette of what we left behind.... 'way, way behind....

=========

Trendy Wendy

Trendy Wendy, puddin' an' pie,
Came to my convent and made me cry.
Put inclusive language in the hymns and psalms,
Gave us balloons instead of palms,
Stole our wimple, cropped our veil,
Sold our habit at a jumble-sale.
Dressed us in trousers,
Curled our hair,
Stripped our chapel perfectly bare,
Swopped our organ for her guitar,
Turned our refectory into a bar,
Fired our confessor, hired a shrink,
Made us a banner in mauve and pink,
Hung it up in the sacristy,
Just where the crucifix used to be.

Changed our Rule, dispensed our Vows,
What God forbade, Zeitgeist allows!
So, out with discipline! On with fun!
When Trendy Wendy got all done,
I left. Why bother to be a nun?

Mary Emily Hamilton
August 15, 1974 [edited over the years to attempt to make it scan]

[All rights cheerfully waived]

After a study of Orthodoxy that took about three years, I was chrismated on Christmas in 1977, and I've never looked back! Praise be to our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Best wishes to everyone, and remember to smile, but seek the Truth and never turn back once you've put your hand to the plough!

Mary Emily

[Anthony]

Actually, that would be the frequent three-fold repetitions, the multiple and elaborate litanies, the sonorous music that is anything but fast-paced, not to mention the often elaborate prayers.

Fair enough, I asked for that :). But I still don't really see these as particularly "Oriental". I think the perception of Orthodoxy as culturally alien is the result of centuries of anti-Orthodox or anti-Greek propaganda (or at any rate prejudice). Sometimes I almost think the word Byzantine was invented specifically for the purpose.



I go back and forth over the value of a "western" rite, but I really don't think "short" services add anything to the Faith, nor will it really change attendance.

When I first asked to become Orthodox, I had quite recently discovered the beauty and simplicity of traditional Anglican and RC / Anglo-Catholic worship. At that time I was therefore very receptive to the idea of retaining western rites and prayers. However the priest who received me just told me to attend the services and "pray with the Church". By doing so, I began to learn Orthodoxy (to the extent that I have begun to learn it). I am now very grateful for this, and would not have it any other way. It seems to me that if a convert does not love Orthodox worship, or come to love it (after all there are many reasons for converting), then something somewhere is probably wrong.

But I am not going to try and legislate for others, or to criticize projects that have the blessing of Orthodox bishops.

[Kris]

Fine and dandy. But I haven't been to Jordan or Kenya or Uganda. I have been to Orthodox churches in the Netherlands, Scotland and of course the US that still use an unintelligible language to most of the people living in the general vicinity of the church, however.


My point was simply that one need not establish an independant "Western Rite" in order to have the liturgy in a language comprehensible to the people, which can easily be achieved while maintaining the existing rite as is shown by the examples I provided.

And while I personally prefer Byzantine music, I certainly do not believe it to be the only kind appropriate for worship. Various musical traditions existed within the early church (some are preserved by the OO churches), which were later supressed (e.g. Patriarch Balsamon forcing the Antiochians to abandon the Syriac rite) in favour of the Byzantine forms.

[Anthony]

(e.g. Patriarch Balsamon forcing the Antiochians to abandon the Syriac rite) in favour of the Byzantine forms.

I would be interested to know more about this story.

[Andreas Moran]

Whilst recent posts are somewhat off-thread, they are interesting. Music and liturgical language are not inseparable issues. As for music, it is true that Byzantine chant can be a strain on the western ear; some of the more elaborate examples sound too much like the muezzin! However, when we went to Meteora last year and attended the early-morning Liturgy at Aghiou Stephanou convent, the chanting was so beautiful we thought we'd gone to heaven. It is also true that some Russian/Ukrainian singing sounds too operatic, and you think you're listening to a concert performance. What really matters is how well either is done, and by 'well', I mean not necessarily technically but spiritually. At the monastery here, Fr Sophrony wanted simple, modest, and prayerful singing, and that's what they do whether it be Byzantine or Russian (the latter music being used for both Slavonic and English). Indeed, he refused the help of someone with musical training. As to liturgical language and Herman's comment about 'unintelligible language', we've had this debate before. I expect to have to conform myself to the Church (Greek or Russian), not that the Church of all ages conforms itself to me for the sake of my ease and convenience.

PS I have to say that I find the use of paid singers in parish church choirs in Russia regrettable - they are not part of the parish community, and when they've done their 'job', they leave.

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

At this website http://kliros.ru/audio.html there are many free downloads of Slavonic Church music. I found the third grouping, of 25 selections, extremely interesting in regard to this discussion. While I agree with Andreas Moran that we are brought to Orthodoxy by Our Lord Himself, to be conformed to Him and to His Church rather than to change His Church to suit our personal liturgical tastes, I don't know of any law that says that His Church can't write good music that doesn't necessarily fall pleasantly on the ear. Medieval Russian choral music, for example, sounds quite dissonant to the "western" ear until one gets used to it, while Znamenny chant has a sort of "beat" that takes a bit of getting used to as well.

But this third grouping of selections, sung by the Chamber Choir of Kiev, is unusual in that it makes use of two Gregorian melody-patterns, all harmonised in Obikhod or Kievan (I theenk--I don't know too much about Russian Church music) style: the "Missa de Angelis" and the chant "Ubi Caritas". I'd be interested to know what people think when they've heard some of the selections available on the website in the third grouping. There are many other selections in the other groupings as well, from well-known composers such as Tchaikovsky and Bortniansky--by various choirs of various sizes, so if you've not been fond of those forms of Orthodox Church music, you can still familiarise yourself so that you know what to expect should you have a chance to visit an Orthodox Church or Cathedral other than your own "spot". As for "paid choir members", as the Fathers say, "I prefer to pass over that in silence" ;).

The secret to the good Byzantine chant that Andreas Moran heard in Greece (and I heard too on a visit to a lovely convent in Attica in '81) is that the monastic choirs do try harder than ordinary Greek or Arabic choirs to keep together. The ornamentation that some chanters use in local churches in the USA does not always mean they know how to read Byzantine chant notation--often it means that "that's the way we used to sing it in my village".... Again, I prefer to pass over that in silence as well.

The main thing is that in our singing, we praise God together with dignity and joy. We sing as one united body where no one person other than the canonarch (who necessarily must keep the pitch and sing the words clearly enough to be heard by all) stands out as a "virtuoso" or "prima donna". The choir at my parish were all kind enough to help me to learn to sing in the liturgical language that the parish uses, and now we are attempting to add some English to our liturgy, little by little (not easy as English is not our "first language"). But it did give me joy, one day, to be asked to sing with the choir director, just the two of us, "Enite, Enite".... people were amazed that the little old lady with the Scottish name, 100% American from top to toe, could sing that and not goof it up.

Orthodoxy: right worship, right teaching, right praise.

Best wishes,

Mary Emily

[Mary]

While I agree with Andreas Moran that we are brought to Orthodoxy by Our Lord Himself, to be conformed to Him and to His Church rather than to change His Church to suit our personal liturgical tastes, I don't know of any law that says that His Church can't write good music that doesn't necessarily fall pleasantly on the ear. Medieval Russian choral music, for example, sounds quite dissonant to the "western" ear until one gets used to it, while Znamenny chant has a sort of "beat" that takes a bit of getting used to as well.

I was listening to some music on Ancient Faith Radio, and they sang a hymn in English, that we'd first heard at an Antiochian parish. I'm not musical by any definition of the word, BUT, believe me, English sounds horrendous when sung like Arabic! I'd rather listen to the hymn in Arabic, even if I can't understand it, because the language fits with the music.

English isn't as smooth and flowing as Arabic, and therefore, definitely needs different music to make it worshipful! I for one, am extremely thankful that music is being written and the translations adjusted to make all the beautiful Orthodox hymns sound beautiful, even in English! =)

Forgive me. Those are the observations of an untrained ear.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

Yes, Mary, I'm no expert on Arabic chanting, but I think you are right. There is a technique for pointing words in a chant so that the proper number of syllables goes on each note so as not to destroy the character of the chant itself, but it takes a real musician to be able to do that so that it sounds just right. For example, "Ho-oh-oh-oh-oh-OH-ly-GOD" has a far less "fitted to the music" sound than "QU..du....son Allah" (sp?).

It's easier for converts to Orthodoxy to sing Kievan chants in English because they may already be used to forms such as "Anglican chant" where more than one word can be squeezed onto the same note or divided over several notes, but for Byzantine chant, it's a whole different technique that's required. Personally, I don't attempt it.

My late, great spiritual father could do a pretty good job of adapting these things, and one can find free choir music at websites like this one

http://tinyurl.com/3btz9f
that will illustrate what you and I are talking about. It may be of some help to the converts as they get used to the customary musical forms of the Orthodox Churches they visit or join.

Best wishes,

Mary

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

Yes, Mary, I'm no expert on Arabic chanting, but I think you are right. There is a technique for pointing words in a chant so that the proper number of syllables goes on each note so as not to destroy the character of the chant itself, but it takes a real musician to be able to do that so that it sounds just right. For example, "Ho-oh-oh-oh-oh-OH-ly-GOD" has a far less "fitted to the music" sound than "QU..du....son Allah" (sp?).

It's easier for converts to Orthodoxy to sing Kievan chants in English because they may already be used to forms such as "Anglican chant" where more than one word can be squeezed onto the same note or divided over several notes, but for Byzantine chant, it's a whole different technique that's required. Personally, I don't attempt it.

My late, great spiritual father could do a pretty good job of adapting these things, and one can find free choir music at websites like this one

http://tinyurl.com/3btz9f
that will illustrate what you and I are talking about. It may be of some help to the converts as they get used to the customary musical forms of the Orthodox Churches they visit or join.

Best wishes,

Mary

This post didn't come out right--there is some "garbage" at the end of the last line of the first paragraph that somehow got onto it without my realising what was happening. Sorry!

Mary Emily

[Mary]

Yes, Mary, I'm no expert on Arabic chanting, but I think you are right. There is a technique for pointing words in a chant so that the proper number of syllables goes on each note so as not to destroy the character of the chant itself, but it takes a real musician to be able to do that so that it sounds just right.
Mary

Dear Mary Emily,

Here are two songs for you, from the Monastery of St John in CA. They're finally putting together a CD! Let me know what you think...

http://www.monasteryofstjohn.org/music/joyouslight.mp3
http://www.monasteryofstjohn.org/music/simeon.mp3

They make it very hard for me to listen to anyone else!! =)

Love in Christ,
Mary.

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

Thank you so much, Mary! Beautiful singing on both of those--I'm going to write to them and see if I can order the entire recording.

I think they do a fine job of pointing the English words so that in the chant, the stressed syllables fall on the correct notes to make it more intelligible. Besides that, the monks who are singing pronounce the words clearly, which is most important for the congregation to be able to understand and participate.

You might like some of the choral arrangements, in Greek and in English, by another California Orthodox musician, Tikey Zes. He is retired now, but there's a record of his work available at http://tinyurl.com/22rx7f (some things in Greek, some in English) with his gorgeous arrangements of Byzantine chant in a polyphonic style that is very pleasant to listen to.

Best wishes,

Mary Emily

[Nina]

Yes, Mary that is beautiful. Thank you for linking those chants from Monastery of St John in CA. You know that my fiance stopped the other day when you sent them, and asked me "What is that?" :)

Also I have Paraklisis in Arabic from Balamand Monastery and it is amazing.

I think chanting as long as it is Orthodox is amazing in every language God created. This is part of the universality of Orthodoxy. I am moved, or delighted by them all in general.

What I really miss and have no access to, is the chanting of a monk from Mount Athos who is a protosyngelos somewhere, and is the spiritual father of my mom. He never recorded those chants with his voice... and I regret for not having a recorder with me when he was chanting... The Lamentations he was chanting were cutting through my soul that I had to leave the church to go get some cold water over my face... The words of the Virgin Mary for the Crucified Christ also and especially when she says 'My Son and My God.' Words are very insufficient to describe the experience - everything stopped in the overfilled cathedral and people were not even breathing when that protosyngelos was chanting those verses. But the delightful chants gave wings to your heart and soul. Very few chanters have that impact over my soul at least. It is amazing how for granted I took everything when I had it, but slowly I have learned to lower my expectations since not everyone has that Gift that I can not express it in words; and also look for other gems.

[Mary]

You might like some of the choral arrangements, in Greek and in English, by another California Orthodox musician, Tikey Zes. He is retired now, but there's a record of his work available at http://tinyurl.com/22rx7f (some things in Greek, some in English) with his gorgeous arrangements of Byzantine chant in a polyphonic style that is very pleasant to listen to.

Best wishes,

Mary Emily

I"m glad you like them! I found out that the CD is just now being sent to the printers', and they need money up front. I hope they have enough! I wonder if we can pre-pay for the CDs we wish to order...

Anyways - do you know if there are any sample audio files of Tikey Zes's, floating around in cyber space? It would be nice to hear a bit of his stuff before I buy anything else!

Thank God for UPS and USPS to allow us to do all of our shopping from home!! =)

In Christ,
Mary

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

Mary, I didn't find any sample files of Tikey Zes' music on the URL I posted. I'll keep looking!

Aha! Found a few at this good website for Orthodox (and other) liturgical music:

http://tinyurl.com/yq23wl

Best wishes, Mary Emily

[Mary]

Mary, I didn't find any sample files of Tikey Zes' music on the URL I posted. I'll keep looking!

Aha! Found a few at this good website for Orthodox (and other) liturgical music:

http://tinyurl.com/yq23wl

Best wishes, Mary Emily

You're a Gem!

Thank you, Mary Emily!! =) The organ took me by surprise, but you're right, the music is good. However, I'm still prejudiced in favore of the Monastery of St John! ;)

In Christ,
Mary.

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

Yes, the organ is rather an anomaly.... at least in the blurb for the CD they warn you about it! There are only a few songs on that CD in English, and speaking critically, though it's a good recording, I agree with you that the monks you cited are extremely careful about their pronunciation so that it's very, very clear.

Do let us know if you find out further info on the monks' CD!

Best wishes,

Mary Emily

[Nina]

You're a Gem!

Thank you, Mary Emily!! =)
In Christ,
Mary.

Yes, she is! She also PMed me this: (but is uncomfortable to flood the thread with links)

http://www.ortodoxtv.com/muzica-bizantina-psaltica-mp3.php


P.S Liturgica website will sent 2 CD samplers gratis to all who inquire. I have noticed this in the past.

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

Nina, you read my mind! This is super!

<hurrying off to get the free samplers from Liturgica.com>

Happily,

Mary Emily

[Father David Moser]

The Hapgood service book details the "Office for the Reception of Converts" which includes the prescribed renunciations for those who come from heterodox confessions. Oddly enough - or perhaps not so oddly - there are no renunciations for those coming from the Anglican confession. Ms. Hapgood translated extant liturgical books for her "Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church." Therefore I am wondering if there are any renunciations for those converting from the Anglican confession which might exist in Slavonic? Any takers?

Fr David Moser

[Olga]

I have a Slavonic trebnik on file, I'll see what I can come up with.

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

The Hapgood service book details the "Office for the Reception of Converts" which includes the prescribed renunciations for those who come from heterodox confessions. Oddly enough - or perhaps not so oddly - there are no renunciations for those coming from the Anglican confession. Ms. Hapgood translated extant liturgical books for her "Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church." Therefore I am wondering if there are any renunciations for those converting from the Anglican confession which might exist in Slavonic? Any takers?

Fr David Moser

Reverend and dear Fr. David,

It will soon be 32 years since God in His mercy brought me to the Orthodox Church and gave me a spiritual father, Father Antony of blessed and eternal memory, to guide me into the Orthodox Faith. He had the reasoning that when one becomes Orthodox, one must make a completely new start, especially if one was an Anglican so "High Church" that people needed a ladder just to say "Good Morning" to a fellow Anglican (if you know what I mean.... :) )

I was that sort of Anglican--an expert on all the rubrics. I was the perfect embodiment of one of the funny stanzas to the old Episcopal youth-camp song "When I was a lad" (to the Gilbert and Sullivan tune--if anybody would get a laugh out of having all the words, let me know and I'll send them to you by private message). But the stanza that was germane was this one:

"The acolyte's post I so well filled
"That they made me head of St. Vincent's Guild!
"For every day, I knew the proper prayer
"And I even told the Rector what to do, and where!//
"I'm lord and master of the sacristy
"And now I am a student for the ministry!" //

I became Orthodox before there were "wacolytes" (woman acolytes), but there had been so much relativism, revisionism and modernism that had become stylish and sophisticated already in 1975 that it was difficult to know what sound doctrine even was. I was blessed to have come from a parish where the priest (Episcopal) was sound in his theology, and actually "very Catholic"...in fact he was more Catholic than most of the post-Vatican II Catholics of that time....

So, to make a long story short, Fr. Antony simply asked me to write down for him everything I believed about each sacrament, and everything I believed about each phrase and clause of the Nicene Creed. With this information, and with the "spiritual autobiography" that I wrote for him so that he could see how my convictions developed through my life (I was only in my 30s in those days...ah, youth, where have you flown?), Fr. Antony, using whatever books he had (I think he had something in Slavonic as well as Hapgood) "tweaked" those renunciations to fit my particular spiritual....what shall I call it.... well, I don't know quite what to call my spiritual "situation" at that time. It was not by any means the spiritual "situation" of a perfect Christian, and of course, it would be prideful if I were to say I have reached any sort of spiritual perfection even now.

But at least Fr. Antony made clear to me that Anglicanism is not "Orthodoxy Lite", and that Anglican beliefs, being in some ways too close to Roman Catholic post-schism additions and in other ways tainted even with Calvinism, that my faith was going to need major straightening out. I am glad he did all those things for me, and even though I might have felt at the time that I was renouncing things I never had quite believed anyway, it was a whole lot better to be on the safe side and go back to square one in the building of the True Faith in my soul. It took some time to work through this entire process--I'd say about three years total from the time I began studying Orthodoxy--but I am glad Fr. Antony made sure I took plenty of time to make up my mind and get things together in the right order.

It all had the side benefit, too, of curing me of being a "spike". A "Spike" is somebody who knows so much about liturgics and is so convinced one knows everything, that one has the temerity to walk right up to the priest at the coffee hour and say, "Fawtherrr....yew read the wrong antiphons at Matins yesterday, you know...." Priests hates 'em, they does, they does!

Please everybody continue to pray for me, because like all former spikes, I still am riddled with hideous pride and vainglory! But at least I know what it is, and am not so blind any more to my many sins.

(Tip to spiritual fathers...work hard on those who think "sophistication" is better to attain than wisdom....)

Mary Emily

[Owen Jones]

Dear Emily,

My sins are of the opposite degree, I suppose, because having attended Nashotah House, and having had to suffer three years around a bunch of "spikes," I have a kind of aversion today to liturgical rubrics and stuff...sometimes I just want to scream out, what are we doing here!!!!! Let's go out in the streets and make some trouble for the Lord!!!!!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The Hapgood service book details the "Office for the Reception of Converts" which includes the prescribed renunciations for those who come from heterodox confessions. Oddly enough - or perhaps not so oddly - there are no renunciations for those coming from the Anglican confession. Ms. Hapgood translated extant liturgical books for her "Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church." Therefore I am wondering if there are any renunciations for those converting from the Anglican confession which might exist in Slavonic? Any takers?

Fr David Moser

Dear Father.

In the Slavonic "Order for Uniting Oneself to Orthodoxy" (Montreal 1981; blessed by Abp Vitaly) there is no specific service for Anglicans.

The closest (maybe) that I can find in that book is entitled: "Order for Receiving Those Who Come to Orthodoxy from the Reformed Confession".

I don't really know though whether this could work for Anglicans (High Anglicans anyway) as the questions seem to assume that what is at issue is the acceptance of the sacramental church.

Perhaps they were simply chrismated?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary Emily Hamilton]

Fathers David and Raphael,

Your blessings!

I thought of another thing that might help with the Anglicans coming in.... I think that nowadays many of them may have been concentrating on the "Thirty-Nine Articles", written in the early days of the Church of England. Those were a kind of compromise, in some respects, to mute the pressures (at the time they were written) of Calvinism on the Church of England while at the same time distancing it from the Roman Catholic Church, so insofar as the Thirty-Nine Articles might have influenced your prospective converts from Anglicanism toward any shade of Calvinism, it might be worthwhile to discern the amount of that influence....

Begging your forgiveness if this is not useful,

Mary Emily

[Ryan]

It's hard to know how to approach the 39 articles- some Anglicans treat them as a dead letter, and others vehemently uphold them as a doctrinal standard. These different kinds of people can often be found within the same denominations.