Western Rite Critic

A Balance to Contagious Enthusiasm

Timeline

Western Rite Timeline

Vlad the Cosmonaut1st century – Sources of our understanding of liturgy include the oldest Christian writing, The Didache [thi-thah-kee], which contains liturgical instructions relating to Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. Likewise, the scriptures – of both the Old and the New Mystery, if read with an Orthodox hermeneutic, will evince all manner of liturgical content, structure, information, and understanding, precisely because they are liturgical books. The apostolic fathers make repeated references and quotations. The Orthodox rites are everywhere present and more or less uniform until Nicaea and the centralization of the Roman empire in Constantinople.

4th century – St. John Chrysostom harmonizes the liturgical life of the Church by revising the prayers and rubrics of the Divine Liturgy, or celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Oldest extant Liturgy of St. Mark (Alexandrian rite) dates from this period. Liturgy of St. James (oldest eucharistic liturgy in continuous use) becomes the liturgy of Jerusalem and Antioch. From the liturgy of St. James: “Let all mortal flesh keep silent…”

440-1172 Celtic Rite [Revision to this item pending – see comments below]

6th century – Pope St. Gregory the Great (the Dialogist) is credited with the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (used today in Eastern Orthodox Churches), as well as modifications of the Roman rite, known thereafter as the Gregorian Rite

8th century – First manuscript evidence of the dubiously named Ambrosian Rite.

9th century – Stowe (Lorrha) Missal (translation of the Latin and Gaelic Missal).

1078 Sarum Rite as a Norman modification of extant Celtic-Anglo-Saxon rite. The Holy Synod of Milan will one day use a rite that hearkens back to the Sarum.

1172 Anglo-Roman rite adopted in Ireland under the Normans/Rome.

1549 Book of Common Prayer originally based on the Sarum Rite. This will form the basis for the Western Rite used by a few ROCOR parishes. [Revision to this item pending – see comments below]

1864-1905 – Julius Joseph Overbeck attempts to build a Western Orthodox Church in England.

1890 Episcopalian parish in Green Bay, pastored by Fr. Joseph Vilatte, is received by Bishop Vladimir Sokolvsky, however Fr. Joseph was soon ordained a bishop in the Jacobite Church.

1904 The Russian Church, with St. Tikhon, consider allowing some Episcopalians to convert while retaining liturgics from the 1892 BCP. Nothing came of this.

1911 Arnold Harris Matthew, Old Catholic bishop, enters short-lived union with Patriarchate of Antioch, under Met. Gerasimos of Beirut.

1915 Archimandrite Aftimios (Ofiesh) succeeds St. Raphel of Brooklyn in 1915, elected to care for the Arab Orthodox faithful under the Church of Russia’s canonical authority. He is consecrated Bishop of Brooklyn.

1921 GOA Jurisdiction Organized: Exiled former Archbishop of Athens Meletios IV had been ordering the patchwork of Greek Orthodox communities in the Americas into a “Greek Orthodox Archdiocese”. In this year, he is mysterious elected Patriarch of Constantinople and, in an unprecedented act, repeals this oversight from Athens and transfers control of his new archdiocese to Constantinople, effectively creating the GOA as it is today. Meletios IV has been criticized for being a freemason, for ecumenism in general, and for participating in Anglican Services in the US and recognizing Anglican orders. Embarrassingly, Rome condemns his behavior. He then convenes a Pan-Orthodox conference to “update” Orthodoxy with the new (Gregorian) calendar, abolition of fasting, and a married episcopate (only the calendar change is enacted). All involved reject this, but he orders the switch anyway, in conjunction with Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens. Meletios IV is generally acknowledged to have inaugurated the policies of ecumenism within Constantinople that spread then to much of the Orthodox Church. From 1923-1926, the New Calendar was adopted by most of world Orthodoxy. Interestingly, the Old Calendar had been the universal calendar for all Orthodox, including those in the West prior to the Schism.

1923 AOA Jurisdiction formed by some members of Metropolia (OCA): Bishop Aftimios is elevated by Met. Platon to Archbishop of the The Syrian Orthodox Mission of The North American Diocese of The Russian Orthodox Church (now called the OCA). In 1924, in the canonical chaos initiated by the Bolshevik Revolution, the Arab Orthodox faithful split into two factions, one remaining with the canonical authority of Russia, the other wishing to unite with the Church of Antioch. This begins the official presence of the Church of Antioch on American soil, and the situation of full-fledged multi-jurisdictionalism in American Orthodoxy, which is further complicated by the establishment, three years early, of the GOA under the Pat. of Constantinople. In this same year, the Metropolia declares a state of “temporary self-government” which the (Sergianist) Church of Russian considered until 1970 to be a schism.

1927 Metropolia and ROCOR separate jurisdictions: Archbishop Aftimios and the North American Diocese (Metropolia of the Church of Russia – now called the OCA) act upon advice by Pat. Tikhon of Moscow, further blessed by his successor Met. Sergius to found an autocephalous American Orthodox Catholic Church (chartered in 1927, incorporated in 1932). This becomes, in America, for the first time, an autocephalous Orthodox Church. This is also the year of the “Sergian Compromise”, and the division and long struggle between the ROCA and the OCA.

1928 The Anglican “28” Prayerbook is released. This book will become symbolic (in 1979) of a bygone era of traditionalism among Anglicans, and will also form the basis for the spuriously named “Rite of St. Tikhon”.

1932 First Western Rite Jurisdiction Formed: Archbishop Aftimios consecrates Bishop Ignatius Nichols, a former Episcopalian priest, and assigned him to the Western Rite parishes of the American Orthodox Catholic Church (THEOCACNA). This became the first full-fledged Western Rite jurisdiction and churches in the United States. Bishop Ignatius founded the SSB (Society of Clerks Secular of St. Basil the Great), known informally as “The Basilian Fathers” or “Society of St. Basil”, an Orthodox devotional society (or non-monastic order) for clergy and laity, based on the daily recitation of the Western Breviary (Divine Office). In 1933, Archbishop Aftimios is regarded, by his jurisdiction, as retired, since he chose to marry (something permitted in Western canon law, which did not ratify the decisions of the East in this regard). In 1939, Bishop Ignatius consecrated Bishop Alexander Turner, who led the SSB after Bishop Ignatius’ death in 1947, and published Orthodoxy (the first US publication by that name, though the name would later be appropriated by a ROCOR publication).

1937 The French: Church of Russia receives a small group as l’Eglise Orthodoxe Occidentale (Western Orthodox Church). They are part of ROCOR from 1959-1966. After their patron St. John Maximovitch’s death in 1966, they lacked canonical protection, until 1972 with the Church of Romania. In 1993, the Romanian Church withdrew its blessing and broke communion. In 1995, ten parishes left and formed a Union of Western Rite Orthodox Worship Associations; this entered into the French diocese of the Serbian Patriarchate in 2006.

1958 Western Rite Vicariate Commission: Met. Anthony (Antiochian Archdiocese) issues Edict of 1958. First Western Rite Vicariate commission is convened by Met. Anthony, composed of Fathers Paul Schneirla, Stephen Upson, Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff.

1961 Western Rite Vicariate Formed: Bishop Alexander (Turner) is received (as a priest), along with the other clergy and laity of the SSB and THEOCACNA, into the Antiochian Archdiocese on the basis of Met. Anthony (Bashir)’s 1958 Edict. It they who found the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese, with Bishop Alexander serving as Vicar-General until his death in 1971, succeeded by (currently as of 2008) Fr. Paul W.S. Schneirla

1962 Last publishing of the Tridentine Mass (1570-1962). This will form the basis of the “Gregorian” Rite of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese.

1970 OCA Jurisdiction: The Church of Russia (Sergian), brokers a deal to declare autocephaly for the OCA in exchange for the Church of Japan.

1974 Departure of the SSB: Citing reasons of trends in the Antiochian Church and/or neglect of the Western Rite, a number of Western Rite congregations leave the Antiochian Archdiocese WRV, with Fr. Francis Forbes, SSB. receiving consecration from other Bishops (e.g. Bishops who have come out of retirement from THEOCACNA), and founding the Holy Orthodox Church, American Jurisdiction as a continuation of THEOCACNA, serving the Western Rite, and continuing the work of the SSB. The current WRV of the AA does not include any remaining members of the SSB.

1982 The OCA, by order of Biship Herman, switches to the New Calendar. ROCA, of course, continues with the traditional calendar. This further solidifies the divide.

1995 Publication of the Gregorian Rite (Basilian Missal and Basilian Diurnal) in the SSB. In the same year, publication of The Stowe Missal by Bishop Maelruain Kristopher Dowling (Celtic Orthodox Church, Celi De).

1995 The Antiochian Archdiocese establishes a British Deanery to absorb converts from the Church of England, some into Western Rite parishes. In Australia and New Zealand, the Western Rite has been populated mostly from Anglican and Continuing Anglican communities. Both ROCA and the AA have received convert communities and ER orthodox as Western Rite parishes.

1998 Ben Lomond Tragedy

2000-2001 ROCA ousts Met. Vitaly, and begins brokering a deal for union with the Russian Church in Moscow. In 2003, ROCA concelebrates with Constantinople, which during this time frame is involved heavily in ecumenistic efforts, such that large numbers of monks on Athos call for removing the Patriarch’s name from the dyptichs, exactly as was done with the Pope, over the filioque. In 2004 with Serbia and Australia. In 2005, ROCA recognizes Met. Sergius, eliminating the barrier of Sergianism.

2007 Union of ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate. Concelebrations begin between ROCOR and OCA.

2008 (beginning in late 2007). An L-curve of efforts to establish Western Rite parishes and missions by the Antiochian Archdiocese and ROCOR. The Roman Pope announces a renewed initiative toward union with the Orthodox, prays for the first time facing East.

Some events on this timeline are provided merely for context, to illustrate the environment in which Western Rite initiatives have occurred, namely one of multi-jurisdictionalism, and conflict over the Faith, especially ecumenism.

Advertisements

32 Comments »

  1. Correction of some errors in the above listing,

    1923-The American Orthodox Catholic Church (THEOCACNA) is not now the OCA. They are 2 different entities.

    1927- THEOCACNA was not associated with ROCOR.

    1932 – THEOCACNA was incorporated in 1927, not in 1932. This is a false statement.

    Ignatius did not found the SSB in THEOCACNA, Aftimios did in 1931. Ignatius was consecrated an Auxaliary Bishop in Sept 1932 but left in June 1933. In 1934 he was claiming to be an Archbishop of the Metropolitan Synod of the Holy Orthodox Church in America, not acting for THEOCACNA. All acts after leaving the Orthodox Church was as an independent. In Orthodoxy a bishop cannot act after he leaves the Church since he leaves all authority. It is an old catholic view that Ignatius passed on Canonical Orthodox lines after leaving without the required letters.

    1974 – No retired THEOCACNA bishops were involved with Forbes. He eft the Antiochian Church and sought ordination by 2 independent bishops.

    THEOCACNA was incorporated in 1927 and has never ceased to exist. Mariam Ofiesh sat on the Church board of trustees until 1999 when she retired for health reasons. She provided THEOCACNA with a photo of her late husband in his living room in his cassock. Her biography claimed Aftimios intended to continue as a married bishop and he did. THEOCACNA views him as head of the Church until his death in 1966.

    Many claim to be THEOCACNA under another name, some improperly use AOCC but are provaby not Orthodox and not associated in any way with THEOCACNA. One groups original name is the Independent American Catholic Church, they have ordained women and are not orthodox. Another group changes its name to the AOCC and even have the Pentecostal Orthodox Church among their number. A former Roman Catholic priest with articles on Pokrov.org had claimed to be the successor of Forbes and claimed to head THEOCACNA because he incorporated in Fla under the THEOCACNA name and he claimed the synod members committed criminal acts claiming to be the true synod of the Church.

    Others also claim to be THEOCACNA but under a different name. THEOCACNA states on their website that none of them have any sacramental authority from THEOCACNA.

    This information is provided to correct the errors you have written here. THEOCACNA claims they can document their claims and I have studied their website and corporate documents.

    New Mexico Oldtimer

    Comment by nmoldtimer | April 7, 2009 | Reply

  2. For the most part, the Drummond looks like another Roman Missal of the period, but that opinion is based on a cursory review of the text and the opinions of other commentators on Celtic usages. So it is not as informed as I would prefer. The use of Irish was assessed as a reflection the Norman tendency to go native which ended with the election of Lorcan and _really_ ended with Lorcan’s defection from the Church.
    In light of what you say, I really should reexamine the Drummond, but time is taken up with other matters.

    Comment by espmaelruain2 | May 2, 2008 | Reply

  3. What I’ve read about the Drummond missal is that it was probably written at Glendalough, not Dublin. And it is described as pre-Norman and representing unique Celtic musical traditions. Does it not contain an early Irish psalter? Does it not contain quatrains in Irish? Why would it not be considered a Celtic book?

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | April 28, 2008 | Reply

  4. Interesting assertion that the Drummond is a later development of Celtic usage. The Drummond is a service book of the Norman colony at Dublin, so it follows Canterbury’s Roman form. Dublin imported clergy from England. Lorcan was the first real Irish Orthodox Bishop of Dublin, and also the last.

    Nice source for music though since there are neums above the lines. I assume you’ve examined it or faxes from the Morgan Library?

    The commonality of prayers found in the Stowe and others is curious since a prayer that is part of the ordinary in one usage may be a proper in another. The prayer of the immersion of the Bread in the Stowe appears as a post secreta in the Bobbio.

    Comment by espmaelruain2 | April 25, 2008 | Reply

  5. I’ll look at this after Holy Week, then. 🙂

    Comment by tuD | April 24, 2008 | Reply

  6. More suggestions for the timeline:

    re: “1078 Sarum Rite as a Norman modification of extant Celtic-Anglo-Saxon rite. The Holy Synod of Milan will one day use a rite that hearkens back to the Sarum.”

    First, there is no known Celtic component to the Sarum rite at all. No one can name a single prayer in it, of Celtic provenance. Nor is there any self-awareness of the rite as being Celtic or partially Celtic. The “Celtic” part should be dropped as without any foundation.

    Even the idea of “Norman modification” is problematic, though there is closeness between the rites of Sarum and Rouen. But there is no evidence that in 1078 anyone modified anything liturgical at all. The main Norman influence at Sarum was in the constitutions of the cathedral, governing how the four “personae” or high-ranking cathedral priests, were to do their work in their spheres of influence (the treasurer, the dean, the cantor, etc.) and to interact with the bishop (whose power was quite limited under the new Norman system). I suggest dropping the whole “Norman” part. One could state that the see was transferred geographically from Sherborne-Ramsey to Sarum in 1075, but the appointment of Osmund as bishop in 1078 had no known result for liturgy.

    Lastly, there is an altogether inaccurate statement: “The Holy Synod of Milan will one day use a rite that hearkens back to the Sarum.” The Synod of Milan will one day use the Sarum rite itself–not a “similar-to-Sarum” rite. Also, the spelling is “harken.”

    The part about the creation of a Greek Orthodox church administration in America in the 1920s seems to have no particular bearing on Western rite questions that I can tell. I would simply drop that entry entirely.

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | April 20, 2008 | Reply

  7. In the dialectic between patriarchal Roman liturgy and non-patriarchal or extra-patriarchal Celtic liturgy, there were clear instances of suppresssion of the Celtic/Gallican, as when Pippin decreed that the Roman rite should replace the Gallican throughout Gaul, in about 750, long before Charlemagne and Alcuin.

    But there was also a lot of simple attrition or voluntary switching to the patriarchal or Roman rite, as seems to have been the case in England and Ireland. The Stowe missal itself is an example of Romanisation and the replacement of Celtic/Gallican liturgy, since the entire anaphora has been replaced by the Roman Canon of the Mass.

    If we speak of all disappearance of the Celtic rites as “suppression,” the Stowe missal is itself an example of suppression. But it’s just a natural and gradual process that led from whatever-came-before-Stowe to Stowe, to, say, the Drummond missal (which is Irish and pre-Anglicisation).

    What prayers are common to most of the fragments? I haven’t seen real patterns emerge, per se, in Celtic sources. Like, what’s a prayer that appears in three or more sources?

    I’m not being all pro-Roman, nor anti-Celtic; I have no unspoken apologia to craft for one rite over another; I simply haven’t seen a Celtic pattern in anything. Then again, I’m no expert in it…

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | April 20, 2008 | Reply

  8. “The entry “440-1172, Celtic Rite” could be misleading, since it implies that there existed a Celtic Rite identifiable as such (i.e., having cohesion with itself).”

    Yes it can be missleading. Celtic Rite more correclly refers to a family of liturgies which was related to the Gallican, Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites.

    The suppression of that family began shortly with the creation of a Frankish court liturgy by Alcuin. The idea was to create a standardized Liturgy after the fashion of the Byzantine court Liturgy. Alcuin called it “Gregorian” in order to give it a provenance. The original Gregorian Sacramentaries borrowed heavily from the Gallican Liturgies.

    The suppression of local usages was not as universal in the West as the suppression in the East, but it did eliminate entire styles. Variants of the “Gregorian” form used in monastic houses survived. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian survive.

    The Celtic Liturgies grew out of the various Celtic monastic houses, but the variation evidenced by the fragments we have is broad, but there are prayers which are common to most of the fragments.

    The Lorrha-Stowe Missal contains the only complete pre-suppression Liturgy of the Celtic churches. We have fragments of others, and there has been a great deal of experimentation with reconstructions, but all ot the ones I have seen reflect foreign sensibilities.

    Comment by espmaelruain | April 19, 2008 | Reply

  9. Regarding the SSB and HOCAJ and Roman Catholicism
    —————————–
    Apparently, in 1997, a bishop or bishops in the synod expressed concerns over an instance of use of unleavened bread. The petitioning bishop(s) felt the concerns were not being addressed by the Archbishop and departed the synod.

    The quasi-Roman Catholic stuff on the web, though, actually comes from three Bishops in New Orleans who, prior to this, we are told, petitioned the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans to receive them, and went into schism, while still attempting to retain the emblem of the SSB and represent membership in the holy synod of the HOCAJ/AOC/AOCC. In fact, they started referring to themselves nebulously as “the order” and acting on their own as “3/4 of the synod”, but have apparently no remaining connection to Abp. Francis Forbes or the Cathedral/Archdiocese of Nashville. Their web site is: reu.org and features “unification” documents with Rome which are not signed by Abp. Francis Forbes or the other members of the synod of HOCAJ. Their newsletter is called Reunion, if that’s any reflection of their attitude toward Rome.

    The three bishops in question are *not* listed as members of the synod by any of the official SSB/HOCAJ web sites, namely:

    * The Cathedral in Nashville: stbasilscathedral.org

    * The Archdiocese of Nashville: archdioceseofnashville.com

    * The Archdiocese of the Southwest: westernriteorthodoxy.org and clerkssecularofstbasil.com

    To our readers: Please accept our profound apologies for any lack of clarity in the timeline 1974 entry. We do not endorse any particular jurisdiction, much less enter into debates over who is canonical/uncanonical (which will shortly become ridiculous, if the “canonical” are those who enter some sort of communion with Rome), but our initial concerns over the direction of HOCAJ and the SSB are, at least at present, removed. We may have a few reservations, but the timeline is not about those. Thank you for Metropolitan-Bishop Emanuel of Montreal for getting our research pointed in the right direction.

    Comment by tuD | April 18, 2008 | Reply

  10. ASimpleSinner: this has been disputed, actually, and is being looked into. If it’s not correct, we’ll be making a correction. Stand by.

    Sorry for the delay in response. I think somehow no one noticed your comments on this page.

    Comment by tuD | April 18, 2008 | Reply

  11. Re: Archbishop Francis Forbes.
    I am a personal friend and honorary member of Archbishop Francis’ Synod. He did NOT leave Orthodoxy for Roman Catholicism. It was three rebel bishops in New Orleans, one of which usurped the Title of Metropolitan-Archbishop, which proceeded to beg the RC Archdiocese of New Orleans to receive them, with all episcopal honors of course,declaring the RC to be the one true church. In the meanwhile to cover their tracks, one of them declared Archbishop Francis to be insane; another declared that he had died. They did not have the decency to send “condolences”to the family or Cathedral in Nashville. Archbishop Francis still holds the original charter of the Basilian Brotherhood. For more info, try google-ing his name.

    Comment by bishopemanuel | April 18, 2008 | Reply

  12. Anyone?

    Comment by asimplesinner | March 18, 2008 | Reply

  13. “Some parishes ….. would, circa June, 1997, lapse into Roman Catholicism”

    Anymore details on this?

    Comment by asimplesinner | March 5, 2008 | Reply

  14. I would like to request, specifically, that we not devolve here into a discussion of the events which unfolded at Ben Lomond in 1998 and after. I don’t think those events shed any light on Western rite in the Orthodox Church (if they do somehow, no one has made the case, but let’s not “go there,” please).

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | February 17, 2008 | Reply

  15. I would replace this entry:

    > …1st century – the oldest Christian writing, The Didache [thi-thah-kee] contains liturgical instructions relating to Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. (More correctly, the oldest only if one does not consider the Old Testament and Deuterocanon, which are as much Orthodox writings as anything since, and which likewise contain liturgy and liturgical instructions.) Likewise, we should take written text, not writing, since St. Luke had (perhaps earlier) written an ikon of the Theotokos. Then, too, the Lord’s ikon (mandelion) is older still, though “made not with hands”. The Acts of the Apostles would likewise describe the continual praying and breaking of bread and the epistles and gospels, if read with an Orthodox hermeneutic, will evince all manner of liturgical content, structure, and information, especially if read in conjunction with the references in the law and prophets to the temple. Likewise the apostolic fathers make repeated references and quotations. The rite is everywhere present and more or less uniform until Nicaea and the centralization of the Roman empire in Constantinople.

    … with this:

    1st century. Very little is known about how the Liturgy was conducted, but elements of today’s Liturgies, Eastern and Western, are already being practised (this is demonstrated by letters written during this time period).

    … I would specifically not mention the Didache, as most consider it a document of the 2nd, not the 1st, century.

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | February 17, 2008 | Reply

  16. Recommended rewrites:

    > … 1924 In the canonical chaos initiated by the Bolshevik Revolution, the Arab Orthodox faithful split into two factions, one remaining with the canonical authority of Russia, the other wishing to unite with the Church of Antioch. This begins the official presence of the Church of Antioch on American soil, and the situation of full-fledged multijurisdictionalism in American Orthodoxy, which is further complicated by the establishment, three years early, of the GOA under the Pat. of Constantinople. In this same year, the Metropolia declares a state of “temporary self-government” which the (Sergianist) Church of Russian considered until 1970 to be a schism.

    I would delete this entirely as essentially unrelated to Western rite.

    > … 1927 Archbishop Aftimios and the North American Diocese (Metropolia of the Church of Russia – now called the OCA) act upon advice by Pat. Tikhon of Moscow, further blessed by his successor Met. Sergius to found an autocephalous American Orthodox Catholic Church (chartered in 1927, incorporated in 1932). This becomes, in America, for the first time, an autocephalous Orthodox Church. This is also the year of the “Sergian Compromise”, and the division and long struggle between the ROCA and the OCA.

    I would delete this entry entirely, for the same reason.

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | February 17, 2008 | Reply

  17. Suggested rewrite:

    1921 – Exiled former Archbishop of Athens Meletios IV is selected as Patriarch of Constantinople in a disputed election. He later convenes a Pan-Orthodox conference to “update” Orthodoxy with the new (Gregorian) calendar, abolition of fasting, and a married episcopate (only the calendar change is enacted). Patriarch Meletios has been criticized for holding ecumenist views and for his membership in the Masonic Lodge.

    (I whittle it down to this bare statement, although I’m not sure how this directly relates to Western rite in the Eastern Orthodox Church.)

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | February 17, 2008 | Reply

  18. Suggested rewrite:

    1549 – First edition of the Book of Common Prayer. Portions of this book will later be utilized for Western Rite services on the part of some ROCOR parishes.

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | February 17, 2008 | Reply

  19. Thank you, Father. Could you write replacement entries and or any needed additional entries for the portions you’ve identified and post them here? Give me the best wording, and I’ll get it updated.

    Thank you for your ongoing helps. They are continually appreciated.

    Likewise, ordoromanusprimus, wherever you have got off to. 🙂

    Comment by tuD | February 16, 2008 | Reply

  20. The entry “1549, Book of Common Prayer originally based on the Sarum Rite” could be misleading, because it implies that the Protestant Anglican liturgy relied heavily on the Sarum form of service. It did not, and thus it failed to perpetuate the Sarum services even in an attenuated form. In fact, its purpose was to destroy and uproot from among the populace not only Sarum particulars, but the whole piety and religious understanding and forms of worship which had prevailed in England from the mission of St. Augustine to the Schism of Rome in 1054. The BCP’s sparse cherry-picking of a few items from the Sarum cannot honestly be described as the BCP being “based on” the Sarum.

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | February 16, 2008 | Reply

    • Indeed, only those very few Anglicans that use the BCP with Sarum-Use Ceremonial, can make a claim of perpetuating a recension of Old Sarum. Historically speaking this would comprise QEI, Andrewes, Cosin, Herbert, and an extremely small number (de minimis) of Prayer-Book Catholic Anglicans. A return to Old Sarum outright would indubitably be easier than trying to pull and English Orthodox Rite out of the myriad of editions of the Book of Common Prayer in use around the globe.

      Comment by deathbredon | November 17, 2009 | Reply

  21. The entry “440-1172, Celtic Rite” could be misleading, since it implies that there existed a Celtic Rite identifiable as such (i.e., having cohesion with itself). There is no evidence that was the case. We also know that the Roman rite had essentially been adopted throughout Ireland long before the Schism, not to mention 1172. Although some Gallican propers and customs were being utilised (which is also true of the Sarum use of the Roman rite), the core of the Mass was Gregorian or Roman, already in the 9th century. Thus in 1172 there was not so much a change of rite, as a change in certain liturgical details–mainly the introduction of pre-Schism French usages.

    It must be pointed out that the Anglo-Saxon Orthodox Christians were being heavily Normanised long before the Schism and long before the invasion of 1066. Already in the 10th c., the greatest of the English Saints were determined to establish the liturgy and monastic observance of England on a firmly Norman and French basis, even importing Norman and French clergy wholesale to achieve their aims. This was because the Norman and French churches of this period were renowned for their liturgical splendour, redolent of the majesty and solemnity of the liturgy in the Orthodox East.

    Comment by hieromonachusaidanus | February 16, 2008 | Reply

  22. Hi, yes it’s already there, but no I didn’t post it. I moved it offline. In fact, to post it in entirety, permission might be needed; I haven’t seen the copyright statement and reprint rights associated with it in Again, which is not a publication I read. I don’t know if rights revert, upon publication, to the author, or are retained, or what rights were acquired, etc.

    One could post a fair-use excerpt but, given the length of the main account, the excerpt might exceed fair use. As it is, I don’t know that I need to post it, since it’s available on the web. I just know it’s not really what the WRC site is about. 🙂

    Comment by tuD | February 15, 2008 | Reply

  23. parchementee – yes I have seen that article before, listed here: http://z6.invisionfree.com/On_Our_Way_Home/index.php?showtopic=157&st=75

    TuD did you move it elsewhere, or perhaps you posted it originally?

    Comment by fortuin | February 15, 2008 | Reply

  24. Thank you. I’ll move it elsewhere, though. This really isn’t the best forum for it. Again, thanks.

    Comment by tuD | February 15, 2008 | Reply

  25. fortuin: perhaps this article sheds some light on the Ben Lomond issue – from the 1999 AGAIN magazine, reflecting the AOC perspective. Hope it helps:

    Comment by parchemente | February 15, 2008 | Reply

  26. Well, personally, I probably wouldn’t drop it into a forum. That happens periodically and the response is usually, that I’ve seen, either unpleasant and/or you get the official version which is available anywhere, and uses words like “a few” people instead of hundreds. If other people know anything, they aren’t talking. Personally, I don’t feel comfortable being a resource or source on it. I have a limit on how many touchy topics I can devote myself to. If someone made a convincing argument that it’s related to Western Rite, I guess I’d have to consider it, but so far I haven’t heard such an argument. I think it’s in the timeline only as a frame of reference, since it involves an en masse conversion of heterodox converts which, perhaps these days, might have resulted in a WRV parish.

    You could probably find some of what you’re looking for in a google seach under either “Ben Lomond Tragedy” or “Ben Lomond Crisis”. I’ve seen it referred to both ways. I haven’t given thought to what the difference in terms implies – maybe nothing. Best wishes.

    Comment by tuD | February 4, 2008 | Reply

  27. Wow, ok well that settles that! Would you care to elaborate perhaps at a different venue? Or is this topic untouchable for disciplinary reasons? If not, I know of just the right forum.

    Comment by fortuin | February 3, 2008 | Reply

  28. Fortuin: Thank you for your query. It might be clouding an already easy-to-cloud set of issues if that topic were addressed here. In short, I’m not permitted, by my mission description, to launch into that. You’re right, I can’t be forthright. Sorry I can’t be of help in that particular matter.

    Comment by tuD | February 3, 2008 | Reply

  29. “Yes, those archives really did tell a different story.”

    Would you be so kind to share that “different story”? You are obviously “in the know”, otherwise making such a statement would be irresponsible, or at the least less than forthright.

    Comment by fortuin | February 2, 2008 | Reply

  30. Yes, those archives really did tell a different story. Just as it’s a shame that history books will one day contain a blurb explaining the invasion of Serbia, Afghanistan, or Iraq in a way that any of us now (if not suffering from historical amnesia), regardless of attitude toward it, would regard as so simplistic as to be incomprehensible, so this is likely to happen w. Ben Lomond, buried in silence, reformatted, and steeped in disregard of its import.

    Comment by DUCK | January 18, 2008 | Reply

  31. You don’t say much about the Ben Lomond Tragedy. Maybe because you’re in the AA? The three best histories of it are gone off the web, and only the official version remains: “It was a few rebel converts who got out of control and had to be disciplined.” etc. Most of the correspondence, archives, etc. showing what really happened are gone. Here’s an account that attempts to be somewhat neutral (though how can one be?):

    The parish in Ben Lomond, CA was then the largest parish of the Antiochian Evangelical Mission. In 1997, a parish of perhaps 1500. Saturday Vespers had about 200 people. Entire congregation sang as Choir. A K-12 school, world class choir, a hospitality house (for visitors), programs for teens, a publishing house they brought with them (Conciliar Press), etc. They allowed a highly respected spiritual father from Mount Athos to visit them and to hear confessions and give guidance. That got everyone fasting and praying more. The hierarchy of the Antiochian Archdiocese forbade any Antiochian clergy or faithful to go for a confession to a priest who wasn’t also Antiochian. Ben Lomond’s practice of having a complete round of daily services, with Matins, Liturgy, Vespers, and everything else (which were well attended), was considered bizarre and no longer the norm among ethnic jurisdictions. The word came that no Russian music was to be used; all music had to be from the simplified Antiochian music packets. Eventually, there was a huge parish meeting and the parish petitioned Metropolitan Philip to permit them to switch to the OCA (Orthodox Church in America). In response, the main priest who had years before started the parish from scratch and all clergy who were felt to support him, got a sudden fax from Met. Philip saying they were all defrocked immediately. They appealed to the decision to an Antiochian trial council. Then they were all excommunicated, some for a minimum of five, some for a minimum of three, years. The majority of them were treated as lepers. The building, all property, the school, all the bank accounts, were seized by the Archdiocese. The original parishioners became scattered, confused, and priestless. The court decisions came in in favor of the Archdiocese. However, the remaining small congregation hadn’t been the primary financial backing, and couldn’t support the church as it was. It abandoned the school entirely and gutted or abandoned other things, and began selling property. The OCA eventually received a large number of the faithful, on condition they keep quiet, likewise forbidding OCA clergy from discussing it. The Jerusalem patriarchate received the rest. The AA considered suspending relations with both. To this day, there is an atmosphere of watchfulness over parishes becoming too much like Ben Lomond. The clergy remained persona non grata for years, even after the imposed period of excommunication, and some died this way. Recently, the rest were received back into the AA or elsewhere. The remainder of the parish is still there, but it’s not what it was. Nothing in the AA is.”

    Comment by jdelphiki | January 18, 2008 | Reply


Thoughts, Opinions, Comments?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: