From the Mailbag: Occidentalis Misleads About Dom James Deschene's Office

Q: On the Occidentalis Yahoo Group, the moderator wrote (on October 2, 2008) that Dom James Deschene uses the modern Benedictine office. He wrote that ROCOR approves the:

Tridentine mass. An edition of this service is used at Christminster (Christ the Saviour Monastery) in Hamilton, Ontario, and at the Western rite services done in Oklahoma City. I think the accompanying divine office is the modern Benedictine one, at least in the case of Christminster. (I'm not sure what form of WR divine office Fr. Anthony uses in conjunction with mass).

He contrasted this with "the pre-Reformation Benedictine Office." Does Christminster Monastery really use the modern, post-Novus Ordo Benedictine office?

A: Dom James M. Deschene, hieromonk, certainly does not use the "modern Benedictine" Office, as this individual falsely claims. The Order of St. Benedict in the Roman Catholic Church updated its Liturgy of the Hours following Vatican II and Novus Ordoized them. Neither Hieromonk James Deschene nor anyone else at Christminster Monastery, nor at its attached chapel, has anything whatsoever to do with the "modern Benedictine" office.

This is hardly unknown. I posted on this blog more than two years ago that "in addition to being the unbroken observance of the AWRV, Fr. James Deschene of Christminster Monastery in RI prays these hours." Nor has anyone associated with Christminster been other-than-forthcoming about this fact. Christminster's website notes, "the Hours of the Divine Office - the Work of God as St. Benedict calls it - are sung in chant according to the arrangement he himself set forth in his Holy Rule in the fifth century, and thus the monastic Office is one of the oldest forms of the Hours still in use."

The Breviarium Monasticum is the ancient form of the Benedictine Office, and its structure could be reconstructed by reading St. Benedict's Rule. Somehow, the moderator of the Occidentalis Yahoo Group transformed the most ancient office into "the modern" office and pinned it on Dom James. As noted, the same individual has fibbed on the same group that "Fr. James Deschene of the ROCOR in the U.S. inserts the Litany of Peace (from the Byzantine rite; "In peace let us pray to the Lord," etc.) straight into the middle of his Tridentine Liturgy." (This, too, has been pointed out as false, both here and several times on that group. If this has ever been specifcially retracted, please let me know.)

I also know Dom James does not like the label Tridentine for the simple reason that, for most people, it suggests a late usage, and that is not an accurate view, either of his use or of the Tridentine use. (He is, as usual, correct. See these two posts about attacks on the so-called "Tridentine" Mass's history and liturgics from the same source.) In fact, I know Dom James is a fine traditional Orthodox priest, who has served many long years in ROCOR, and he disdains any form of liturgical modernism or tinkering by self-appointed "scholars."

I am uncertain of the Hours Fr. Anthony Nelson of St. Benedict Orthodox Church (ROCOR) in Oklahoma City celebrates, but we wish him every success, and pray he too is not further maligned or misrepresented by members of this group. (One of its members has implied not so long ago that, due to his bi-ritual church's setup, his Eucharist was invalid and "would seem to make certain implications about the validity of Western Rite Masses in ROCOR." The moderator responded that he was "not so certain anything is implied by this placement of the altar," that Fr. Anthony thought his masses were valid, and this was an "analogue to this placement of the altar (i.e., 'altare' or holy table) in late mediaeval practice on the eve of the R/Deformation" that reflected "the context of the post-mediaeval Roman church.")

Thank you for bringing this misinformation to light. That individual's post displays either ignorance or malice toward canonical Western Rite Orthodox — in this case a long-serving hieromonk — which has long been a hallmark of many of that group's posters (except when it temporarily suits their purposes to tone things down or clam up for awhile). In general, that group is a terrific place to stay away from. As Dom James has written about these provocations, "God save us from 'liturgical wars'!"

This continued misinformation about ROCOR Western Rite monks shows, the "negative campaigning" against other Western Rite Orthodox continues. For shame.

A Question from Finland: "Mass" or "Liturgy"?

I was interested to get this e-mail from a writer in Finland:

Q: Do the western rite orthodox use the term "mass" or "liturgy"?

It's quite sad that the western rite isn't in wider use. I'm considering joining in the Orthodox Church and I'm accustomed to western masses. I wish the Church of Finland would also have a western rite...

A: Thank you so much for your question! I will try my best to answer you, but let me begin with this: if a Western Rite is not available, please don't let that deter you from joining the Orthodox Church. We are Orthodox first and celebrants of a canonically approved expression of Orthodoxy second. The Orthodox Church is your heart's home; I hope you'll investigate it carefully, whether you have the ability to worship in the Western Rite or not. And you might always prays Western Rite prayers in your home; the Monastic Diurnal and Monastic Breviary Matins are available from this distributor, and you can download St. Tikhon Rite Matins and Vespers (with music) here.

The answer to your question is, yes: the Eucharistic service in the Western Rite is called both "Mass" and "Liturgy." True, the term "Mass" is more common in the Western Rite and "Divine Liturgy" more common for the Byzantine, but one may hear the Western Rite service called the Divine Liturgy — e.g., "The Liturgy of St. Gregory," "St. Tikhon's Liturgy." Technically, the Orthodox Missal is the approved text of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, and it uses the term "The Mass according to the Rite of Saint (Gregory/Tikhon)." My own preference is to call the Western Eucharistic service Mass and the Byzantine Liturgy, but I'm ambivalent either way.

One sometimes finds both terms used for the Byzantine rite, as well. For instance, the Byzantine service book Divine Prayers and Services by Fr. Seraphim Nassar (sometimes lovingly called "the five-pounder") regularly uses the term "Mass" instead of "Liturgy." (It also refers to Lent as "Quadragesima"; confusing, since that term, and all "The Gesima Sundays," have another meaning in Western liturgics.) Yet this book is still used by the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. Undoubtedly, some Carpatho-Russians, OCA members, and others continue to use the term "Mass" for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

There should be little concern about which term we use: both are ancient. What no one should countenance is the common misconception that the term "Mass" is some kind of post-Schism Roman abuse that Orthodox Christians should never utter except when adjoined with the word "anathema!" The Catholic Encyclopedia gives some background on the term: "The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general designation for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the West after the time of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604)." In fact, St. Ambrose of Milan used the Latin phrase in a letter to his sister, Marcellina (Letter XX).

I'll let Fr. Michael Keiser have the final word, through this quotation from his book, Offering the Lamb: Reflections on the Western Rite Mass in the Orthodox Church:

The two names that are most commonly used among Orthodox Western Rite to describe the Eucharistic gathering are the Mass and the Divine Liturgy. I do not think one is necessarily more appropriate than the other, but it is important to understand that the Mass is not a late Roman Catholic innovation, but an Orthodox designation that was used by Orthodox Christians for centuries prior to the schism between the East and the West...What a blessing it would be if we could rejoice in the richness and diversity of Holy Tradition, as expressed in the names we used for the holy and common action that forms the center of the Orthodox Christian life: the Mass, the Divine Liturgy, and all the other words and rites that remind us of the rich tapestry that is the experience of the universal and True Faith. (pp. 8-10, 10).

(P.S.: I'm truly sorry it took me so long to answer, and I'm sorry for posting your comment and your question here. Usually, I just post one or the other. I'm humbled that you asked for my poor response. Thank you for stopping by this blog; we hope you'll return regularly. And please keep us informed about the Church in Finland!)

From the Mailbag: Western Rite Missions in England?

Q: Your Western Orthodoxy blog shows in its entry for July 16 a clergyman censing the congregation at a ROCOR Western-Rite liturgy in London.

On the assumption that the London in question is London the capital of the UK rather than London, Ontario, Canada, I should be interested to know if WR liturgies are a regular occurrence in London and who organises them.

I am an Anglican with a long-standing interest in Orthodoxy and who is needless to say unhappy with what is going on in Anglicanism at the moment.

I assume that you are the author of the blog, if not please congratulate him from me on splendid piece of work.

A: Thank you for your kind words about my poor, unofficial blog. The liturgy was, indeed, held in the UK rather than Ontario (although there is a ROCOR monastery not far from London, Ontario, as well). The celebrant of the Mass in London, Fr. Michael of St. Petroc Monastery, recently addressed the issue of Western Rite missions in Great Britain. Here's what he wrote:

In the aftermath of the Church of England's General Synod decision to go right ahead with bishopesses, and of the shambles that Rowan Williams has managed to make of Lambeth, it is timely to say out loud to Church of England laity, that there is an alternative to the pseudo-leadership of the papacy. The Pope is neither the only nor the best way for members of the Church of England to go!! How many Church of England people realise that the Western Rite was first authorised for Orthodox use specifically IN ENGLAND over a hundred and thirty years ago (just after the Primus of Scotland had visited Russia and discussed unity with Church authorities there - and reported his conversations to the Convocation of Canterbury)? How many realise that services extracted from the Book of Common Prayer were authorised for adaption for Orthodox use over a hundred years ago? How many realise that there have been Orthodox Benedictine monasteries for over sixty years? That the Church of England non-Jurors discussed joining with Orthodoxy in the eighteenth century? Or that the first Anglican parish joined Orthodoxy over thirty years ago? Embryo Western Rite parishes/missions can be formed immediately in England (or Scotland or Wales) and seek immediate Orthodox oversight while they prepare themselves for formal reception. A Western Rite Orthodox Prayer Book already exists - it is just a matter of them making contact with us.

Missions in the UK are dear to Father's heart. He is always searching for those who wish to live out their Orthodox theology in an approved Western liturgical form.

You can contact Fr. Michael here. You can also reach him through the St. Petroc Monastery website or through his online discussion site, Ely Forum.

Thank you for contacting me. I pray your correspondence is a fruitful one, and Godspeed to you on your journey home.

From the Mailbag: Canonizing Uncanonized Saints

Q: I find that these unilateral glorifications [of saints] cause me no small disturbance. It would be more appropriate to say, in the case of those not yet revealed by God and recognized by the Church to be saints, "requiem aeternam" instead of "ora pro nobis," as we have no way of knowing with certainty greater than our own feeble reason whether or not they have indeed obtained boldness before the throne of the Most High.

A: Thank you for your comment, my friend; I truly appreciate your feedback, although I disagree with your sweeping conclusion. As the Most Unique School of Orthodoxy reminds us, this is precisely how (some) glorifications occur in Orthodoxy: a holy person is commemorated by a local following after his or her repose and later recognized by the Church. Here's a representative description:

For the first thousand years of the history of the Church saints were recognized without any formal rite of canonization. Local congregations of the faithful simply began to remember certain well-known Christians in their liturgical gatherings, to ask them for help in prayer, to visit their relics, which frequently remained vehicles of the Holy Spirit, curing the sick in soul and body, as they had during earthly life...

The Holy Orthodox Church never developed any comparable methods for canonizing her saints [to that of Roman Catholicism]. The situation remained very much determined by local practices, local cults, and local traditions. Holy men and women continued to be recognized as such during their own lifetime; they continued to be venerated (honored) after their death; Christian people continued to ask for their prayers and to visit their shrines.

In time, especially in the Slavic Churches, a more disciplined method of canonization became the rule, due to the influence of the example of the western Christians. But no Orthodox Church has developed a system as detailed and as legalistic as that of the western groups.

Although committees may ultimately confer church recognition of an individual's sainthood, that's far from endorsing the notion that one must wait for that recognition to ask for the prayers of a righteous Orthodox; in fact, as long as the individual in question was both righteous and Orthodox, it instructs the opposite. Without such a local cultus, the likelihood of Church recognition would be at best remote.

Your comment was not submitted to a post that had anything to do with asking for prayers of anyone, but I assume you were referring to the category on this blog called "saints (uncanonized)." As the name states, these are holy Orthodox people who are not yet canonized by the Church. You will note I have added only three names to this list:

• Dom Denis Chambault, a holy Benedictine Orthodox monk and acknowledged healer;
  
• His Holiness ALEXANDER III (Tahan), Patriarch of Antioch, who renovated the patriarchate and approved the Western Rite patriarchate-wide; and
• Fr. Alexander Turner, the pioneer who gave up the episcopacy to lead his diocese into Orthodoxy, becoming the seed of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.
  

All are long reposed; Dom Denis manifested the miraculous gift of healing; and I know at least two of the three had a cultus at the times of their deaths. And I stress, this is merely my private view (apparently shared by others); it's hardly a pronouncement that I feel must be shared by all. This blog doesn't take itself that seriously. I certainly respect your opinion.

Since we are on good terms, I don't mind telling you, as the Orthodox told the Non-Jurors, it appears you "were in great fear where no fear was." But it's hardly a big deal if you don't follow this practice, my friend.

From the Mailbag: Which Jurisdictions Have a Western Rite?

Q: What are the Orthodox Churches that currently allow Western rites? I know OCA and Antioch do, but does anyone else?

A: Through the wonders of the internet, this question comes from overseas. We're glad to have inquirers of Orthodoxy, whether in its Western Rite expression or not, around the world. I know North American jurisdictionalism and the attendant issues of who allows or disallows Western Rite worship must be as confusing from afar as they are unedifying up close. I hope this clarifies things a bit.

A large number of Orthodox churches have celebrated, approved, or agreed to the concept of a Western Rite within the last 140 years, including among others Constantinople (briefly), Antioch, Alexandria, Moscow, ROCOR (when it was not yet in communion with Moscow), Romania, and Poland.

Only two canonical Orthodox jurisdictions officially allow the use of Western Rite worship at this time: the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).

In Antioch, Western Rite Orthodox worship was approved by the 167th patriarch of Antioch, H.H. ALEXANDER III (Tahan) in 1958. The largest concentration of Western Rite parishes, under the Antiochian patriarchate or anywhere in the world, is in North America under the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate. In the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand, there are also Western Rite parishes.

In North America, ROCOR currently has one monastery with a mission, Christminster of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and one bi-ritual parish, that being St. Benedict of Nursia in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, pastored by Protopriest Fr. Anthony Nelson. Outside of North America, ROCOR has one monastery: St. Petroc, in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. That monastery celebrates the Sarum Liturgy as approved by ROCOR (N.B.: Not the "Old Sarum Rite Missal," a radically different liturgy, which Fr. Michael of St. Petroc has described in negative terms). St. Petroc has a number of dependencies around the world, which celebrate either Sarum or The English Liturgy.

Unfortunately, the OCA not only does not have any Western Rite churches under its care, but I have been told the OCA gave a firm (official or unofficial?) "no" to the Western Rite a number of years ago. If this is so, it is disappointing and at odds with its own history within Russian Orthodoxy. However, the OCA certainly has no Western Rite parishes at this time and has a somewhat dismissive comment about the WR on its website.

There are reports of Moscow Patriarchal churches celebrating the Liturgy of St. Gregory and/or the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, as well as an OCA establishment using Western Rite prayers. However, neither church has any official information available, so one couldn't say anything about such reports.

I hope that helps. Thanks for writing!

From the Mailbag: A Western Rite Liturgical Calendar?

Q: Do you know where I can get a Western Rite liturgical calendar?

A: Yes. The annual Ordo of the Western Rite Vicariate is available for the year 2008. The cost is $12 per copy, and the Ordo can be ordered from:

St. Luke's Priory Press
1325 E. Queen Ave.
Spokane, WA 99207-3371

Materials can also be ordered by calling St. Nicholas Orthodox Church (AWRV) at 509-484-1604. All of us here are proud of Archipriest Bernard Kinnick's attention to the Priory Press.

Otherwise, one can also find a 2008 wall calendar from this website. It is $12.01 (that one cent makes a big difference!) or $8 to download.

I hope this is what you're looking for!

From the Mailbag: Education of Western Rite Priests?

Q: Hi Ben,

Love the blog and have been a reader for a long time. I was wondering if you would mind providing some details on education for ordinands. Obviously, most clergy come from other churches and did seminary long ago. But does the Western Rite Vicariate send people to seminary again? Where do they go?

A: Thanks for the question, as well as your kind words about this small blog.

In a nutshell, our Western Rite Orthodox students have the same theological education as Byzantine Orthodox students. They go to an Orthodox seminary and study Eastern Orthodox theology from Orthodox professors alongside Byzantine seminarians. As I've noted (and sometimes been disparaged for), "Western Rite Orthodox do not have a unique or different approach to theology from our Eastern Orthodox brethren."

As with (more) Byzantine "converts," some Western Rite parishes joined en masse. To avoid leaving them clergy-less, these priests (who usually had seminary degrees) went through St. Stephen's Course, with its Master's program through Balamand University. Others have gone on to get their Doctor of Ministry through the Archdiocesan program. (I know, at a minimum, Fr. Joseph Gentile [AWRV] did so a few years ago.)

Since these seminary chapels celebrate the Byzantine rite, where do Western Rite Vicariate students learn about liturgics? Through the St. George Institute, Fr. Edward Hughes visits Antiochian WRV seminarians to instruct them in the liturgical aspects of serving the Western Rite. (Fr. Hughes is a fine priest and an outstanding teacher.) Subdn. Benjamin Andersen, who worshiped at St. Mark's AWRV in Denver, served another Western Rite mission while at St. Vlad's.

I'm not certain how ROCOR handles this matter, but Fr. Michael of St. Petroc Monastery seems favorably disposed to having students learn via the University of Joensuu (Finland)'s Orthodox Theology program, followed by hands-on liturgical training. (And of course, Fr. Anthony Nelson, who has a bi-ritual parish in Oklahoma City, graduated from Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville.)

To be brief, Western Rite Orthodox priests have the same theological training as Eastern Orthodox, because they have the same faith as Eastern Orthodox. At present, our seminarians are trained liturgically in a hands-on manner — and from what I've seen, are trained well. At a minimum, perhaps the relationships WRO develop with their fellow students at seminary, through St. Stephen's Course and/or through other Orthodox educational programs will demonstrate that Eastern and Western Rite Orthodox share a common faith and will help unite them in a unity of the heart, even as the Eucharist unites them in a mystical union all Its own.

A "Coup" in Oklahoma City? Nope

It seems the internet reports of the "death," or even stumble, of the new Antiochian Western Rite mission in Oklahoma City have been greatly exaggerated.

The once-and-future priest (Lord willing, of course) of that mission, Fr. Mark Wallace, formerly of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, responded to such a claim online:

On May 6, we had 52 people become “official catechumens.” Out of that total only 3 families have decided to “go East” and join St. Elijah Antiochian Orthodox Church. [Which is an enormous, beautiful, and welcoming Byzantine Orthodox church - BJ.] ...[O]ne family has 7 children. One other family has 2 kids, and the third “family” is an engaged couple. It’s true that some are still deciding on whether or not to continue on the Orthodox trail. If you’ve done the math, that means 15 are going East and 7 are undecided. So, now we’re down to a solidly committed core group of 30 from the original, plus we’re adding at least 4 more new faces who have joined us since we’ve been Orthodox catechumens.

I just love how people hear stuff and go off and run with amazing conclusions; such as Guest IV’s post of 9/29 which said:

“For many of them, the change presented a huge disappointment. There is a very small group that is continuing on, attempting to establish a Western Rite Church.”

Many? Huge? Very small? How are we defining these terms?

I will tell you that our parish contributions are still sufficient to support me as their full-time (lay) pastor. AND we have a store-front space that we are in the beginning stages of “building out” which will accommodate 75-80 people.

So, this small mission of the Antiochian Western Rite is still large enough to finance a full-time clergy, a building and expansion project, and attract new people, despite spending months without its own sacramental services and without any date set for the clergy's ordination. That in itself refutes certain myths about Western Rite Orthodox missions spread by some.

Interestingly, this post also refutes another frequent claim (again, by some): that Byzantine Orthodox just can't accept the Western Rite, especially the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, and feel they cannot worship in it if they do attend. This post recounts:

Recently, we hosted a retired Western Rite Orthodox priest who came to teach our community and serve the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon on a Sunday morning. A liturgy cannot be served unless there is at least 1 chrismated Orthodox person present in addition to the priest. Since our group is not yet chrismated, we had about 10 people from St. Elijah attend. Also, we had several visitors from the community attend which brought our total to 50 (give or take 1). The response was overwhelmingly positive by the St. Elijah people (who had never been to a WR Mass) as well as the others.

The prospective priest notes this is hard work — and phony internet rumors don't help. But he has a promise that he is serving God in the process. What more could he ever want?

When will be chrismated? When will I be ordained? I’m not sure...I’ll keep you posted when I know...

Is it easy? Heck no...It’s probably one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do. However, I do know that God is in this adventure and I have the confidence of receiving “the faith, once delivered to the saints” and it will never change.

Yours in Christ,
The Priest
[formerly known as Fr. Mark] [LOL! - BJ]
St. Andrew Orthodox Church [a mission in formation]
Oklahoma City, OK

May God establish and bless this mission.

Q: What About New Western Rite Priests?

Q: Ben, I'm excited by the existence of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy, but I have a reservation. I've heard from a Continuing Anglican that the Orthodox Church is not ordaining "Western Rite priests de Novo," meaning if you want to be a WR priest, you have to be ordained before you become Orthodox. This would mean once the convert priest who started the mission dies, it would not get a new priest and would eventually wither, a back door way to kill the Western Rite. What will happen to Western Rite churches when their priests die?

A: This is false in every particular, and positively monstrous: in addition to presenting Antiochian bishops as reveling in sheep-stealing, it also implies a bait-and-switch is going on.

This is a variant on the old saw that "the Western Rite is temporary and will be phased out," and it is equally false. Anyone born into the WRV or who converts as a layman can be ordained to the holy priesthood, just as Byzantine laymen can be ordained priests. I'm told our bishops prefer ordaining "cradle" WRO, since they do not have to unlearn some of the things "convert" clergy do.

Of course there can be new, "de Novo" priests of the succeeding generations. To give one example: just a few years ago, when Fr. Stephen Walinski decided to retire as from St. Vincent of Lerins Orthodox Church (WRV) in Omaha, Nebraska, Bp. BASIL promptly ordained Fr. Theodore Eklund as priest-in-charge. Fr. Eklund was, at that time, a subdeacon at a Western Rite Orthodox church and had never been ordained elsewhere -- and he is not the only person to be ordained in the WRV without being clergy in another church first.

I first encountered this same myth several years ago, probably from the same Continuing Anglican (who was affiliated with a small Continuing Anglican group and with The Anglican Breviary). Its effect would be to make any catholic-minded Westerner who heard it think ill of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate and go elsewhere.

Of perhaps the large influx of recent Western Rite parishes to the Antiochian Archdiocese, complete with clergy, has confused someone else?

Either way, this shows the perils of going to those outside the canonical Western Rite for information on it, whether Continuing Anglicans or vagantes spreading myths on the internet.

Thanks for writing!

How Many Recent Western Rite Missions?

On this post Fr. Andrew asked, "How many new parishes of the AWRV [Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate] have been formed in the past couple years?" Taking a quick count off-the-top-of-my-head from the last few months:

• Holy Trinity of Lynchburg, VA. Led by Fr. Alban Waggener, formerly Bishop Robert Waggener of the Diocese of the Holy Cross, whom Bp. THOMAS ordained last September.
• St. Paul of Houston, TX. Led by Fr. Richard Petranek, the group received its name about a year ago and was chrismated (and Fr. Petranek was ordained) last November.
  
• Holy Incarnation of Detroit, MI. Led by Fr. John Fenton, who was ordained in February.
• St. Patrick in Warrenton, VA. Led by Fr. Patrick Cardine, formerly of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the parish was chrismatied en masse by Bp. THOMAS in March.
• Sts. Peter and Paul in Hot Springs, AR. Led by Fr. John Denzil, formerly of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, who was ordained June 24.
  
• The new AWRV mission in Oklahoma City, OK. Formerly of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the group is being formed now.
• A new AWRV mission is being formed south of Boston, MA. All Saints of S. Weymouth, MA, is the parent.
  

Update: Eric Jobe comments, "There is another one in Jacksonville, TX, though I know nothing yet about it. They will be working with St. Paul's in Houston to get started. I believe they are also from the CEC." Thanks, Eric!

I believe this is more than any time in the past several years. Additionally, there are other CEC parishes in the reception or discernment process, and of course there are talks with others yet.

We have much to be thankful for. Deo gratias. May God continue His loving favor in leading souls to His Holy Church.

"Converts"?

I read these comments quite some time ago and intended to make a post of them. Fr. Thurman's recent post gave me the impetus to do it. Two friends, also Orthodox bloggers, had good insights on the idea of "converts." Let's begin with Eric John's comments on conversion from the blog "Orthodixie."

When people start talking about "converting" to Orthodoxy, I begin to wonder: "What does that really mean?" Most so-called "converts" to Orthodoxy are Christians, former Roman Catholics and Protestants. As such, they are merely returning to the true Church. Quite unlike pagans, Hindus, Mohammedans, etc., who are embracing the revelation of Christ. Roman Catholics and Protestants already know Christ, even if nominally. I don't like it when all the non-Orthodox are thrown into one category: either Orthodox or not. There are degrees of Orthodoxy because the Roman Catholics and Protestants have their roots in Orthodoxy. These Christians have forgotten their roots, but the others had no Christian roots in the first place. Thus, I don't see that other Christians being received into the Orthodox Church have to undergo a process whereby they are converted to Christ (one can argue whether or not conversion in Orthodoxy is to Christ or to an idol of Orthodoxy), rather they simply come into the fullness of the Christian faith. I'm not sure that such a thing really calls for the inner change that conversion to Christ does.

Important insights — made the more pleasant by his un-PC reference to Muslims (look again if you must). Thus, when Christians join the Orthodox Church, they must forsake their "former delusions," but it is also clear they are not accepting a new religion, like Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

Next, I offer these words from Eric Jobe. (Yes, they are two different people, like me and Subdn. Benjamin Andersen):

As a catechumen, I dealt with many feelings of inadequacy that were very discouraging. Watching small children receive the sacraments while I was made to wait an interminable amount of time until my own Chrismation was very troubling. I was often made to hear that I was "not yet Orthodox" even though I had been enrolled as a catecumen and, for all intents and purposes, identified myself fully with the Orthodox faith. While these feelings were no doubt from the Enemy, they were perhaps aggrevated by the attitude of the faithful towards those 'outside' of the faith as well as those who are 'newly illumined'.

Of course, for many, it would seem, 'newly illumined' really means 'not yet fully illumined' or 'not as illumuned as we are.' This phrase, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, is used to establish , in my opinion, an us/them mentality that is harmful to the unity of the parish community and the Church as whole.

As I posted several months ago, I feel that the Orthodox Church has not yet found a reasonable and agreeable position on how to deal with the number of converts who are entering the Church. We continue the tired old disitinction between 'convert' and 'cradle' (albeit a necessary distinction). We hear about 'convert baggage' and 'ueberfrommichkeit' among the zealous covnerts who are desparately trying to 'blend in' and not stick out as one of those pejoritavely-termed 'converts'.

...Approaching Pascha, I thought that those feelings of inadequacy and isolation would go away once I was fully received into the Church through the sacrament of Chrismation. Unfortunately, they have not. If the catechumen/faithful distinction was no longer there, the newly-illumind/illumined-longer-than-you distinction remains. The us/them mentality remains.

To be sure, we are all at different levels of maturity in the faith. Some of us are 'newly illumined' and new to the ways of the faith, new to the 'phronema' or 'mind of the Church', while others are more advanced in the Way. Yet I do not believe that the relative progress of individuals in thier journey toward salvation should create an artificial and defacto hierarchy among the laity.

...If there is a problem here, is it not in part because of a lack of proper and sufficient catechesis before and after one is received into the Church? If one wrongly articulates the faith, is it not possibly due to a failure to teach the Orthodox faith in the proper manner?

...But then again, I am only 'newly illumined.' What do I know?

This is worthy of exploration on its own. For the purposes of our ongoing discussion — Eric, just imagine: numerous vagantes, particularly grouped around the Yahoo Group Occidentalis, condescendingly refer to lifelong Orthodox as "unconverted Orthodox," because they do not celebrate a Byzantine Liturgy or the "Old Sarum Rite Missal," a recent, homemade "Western" innovation nearly indistinguishable from Byzantium. Evidently, only after Western Rite Orthodox follow the vagantes' every decree can we become "newly illumined" know-nothings. Then, Eric, you can lord over us! :)

From the Mailbag: Good Pre-Schism British Prayer Source?

Q: Ben, can you recommend a good source for the Orthodox prayers of Old England, something that contains pre-Schism British prayers (in coherent English, please) from a verifiable source? I am interested in learning about and praying with the pre-Schism British Church.

A: Certainly. By far the best collection of various prayers from pre-Schism England is a wonderful little volume entitled, Christ the Golden-Blossom: A Treasury of Anglo-Saxon Prayer by Douglas Dales. In addition to being a bona fide scholar (the kind with degrees) -- and the author of several other well-received titles on Orthodox England -- Dales is the Chaplain and Head of Religious Studies at Marlborough College. Christ the Golden-Blossom selects and translates fitting prayers from the pre-Schism era. Dales arranges the Orthodox prayers and readings from the saints, first according to the major feasts of the Temporale (the Church Year), then commemorates the major pre-Schism saints of the Anglo-Saxon Sanctorale -- again with a reading by or about the saint in question, a brief biography, and appropriate collect(s). The book is also a beauty to behold, with photographs, rare artwork, and what one might call early British iconography on nearly every page.

The reason I recommend this text is your (rightful) concern with a book's underlying sources and trustworthiness. Christ the Golden-Blossom draws all its prayers from three sources: the Nunnaminster Codex of the ninth century, the Canterbury Benedicitional, and the Portiforium of St. Wulfstan. Most helpful, Dales lists the original source underneath each prayer. It is also easily available, inexpensive, and somewhat comprehensive (as a personal prayer book and devotional). With appropriate searching, you can find it as low as $14.50 a copy, brand new, in a beautifully illustrated hardback with rare illuminations. Used, one can find it at $8.

The only drawback to mention is that Dales has translated these beautiful prayers into modern English. However, the rarity of the prayers, beauty of presentation, and devotional insight make that worth overlooking. One can easily "Elizabethify" the translation without much more than changing "You" to "Thee" and adding an "eth" or "est" where required. I've quoted at least one of its prayers on this blog (where I performed such a minor tweak).

If you are interested in the Hours as prayed in pre-Schism times, you should get a copy of the Monastic Diurnal and begin a fruitful oblature as an Orthodox Benedictine. If you are committed to using only Sarum prayers, a number of items are available from archive.org. You could contact our friend Fr. Michael of St. Petroc Monastery; his long-awaited Saint Colman Prayer Book (not St. Colman PB!) will include a small and adapted Breviary more than fitting for any dedicated non-Monastic.

Several other "Sarum Psalters," "Old Sarum Rite Missals," and "Old England" prayer books have been published over the years by various vagante and Pseudodox groups. These works, often described by the learned as "fanciful" (at the most charitable), are unverified individual works not authorized by the Orthodox Church, nor used within Her. One would be well-advised to put as much space as possible between oneself as such materials.

From the "Mailbag": Which Fast is "Easier," Western or Eastern Rite?

This is actually a compilation of a number of e-mails asking me to compare the Eastern and Western fasting practices and a direct question someone broached in person; hence, "mailbag" is in quotation marks above. The question I am continually asked is which rite's fast is "easier" (as though such a thing could be judged, or would be spiritually edifying if it could).

My studious answer is: It all depends. According to the Antiochian usage (more about ROCOR WRITE later):

In the Western Rite, one could, perhaps oversimply, summarize the fasting and abstinence rules (which should be read in full here) by saying the emphasis is put on the amount of food eaten and the times of abstinence required. The simple version is those physically capable should eat one (or one-and-a-quarter) meal a day, not before the afternoon, even on fasting days outside penitential seasons. The variety of food permitted is also more closely regulated during Lent and Advent than during the rest of the year, but the outstanding feature (to my humble reading) is abstinence and moderation: that one literally deprive himself of food.

In the Byzantine Rite, again perhaps oversimply, one can say the emphasis is placed on the kinds of foods eaten. Sometimes the guidelines do not mention restricting the amount of food eaten, sometimes they do (during Lent). [1] In practice, the emphasis in most Orthodox churches of any jurisdiction seems to be that one may not eat meat, dairy, fish, wine, or oil, though one may eat shellfish or vegan fare, with little mention made of amount.

So, which is more difficult: giving up certain foods or limiting the times and amounts of food?

At the risk of wearing out one of my favorite phrases: The Church's two rites are just different ways of doing the same thing. Think of them as two sides of one coin. Both are forms of purgation — and sensible adjustments to both amount and variety of food should be combined in an ascetic fast. Coptic Pope Shenouda III has written an important statement to those who emphasize the kinds of food permitted:

A period of abstinence is essential, since we would simply be vegetarians if we ate without observing it from the beginning of the day. The word fasting means abstinence or cessation. It is therefore necessary to refrain from eating for a certain period of time.

Similarly, it's important not to indulge our favorite foods, even if they are permissible, as the fast is meant to starve our appetite for pleasure and restore our food's proper role as a building block of life, not life's end.

Both concepts are important — but not as important as what gets lost by those who obsess over the legalistic, physical requirements about how a true Christian should never eat before afternoon (but deprives himself none of his favorite foods) or how a true Christian never eats meat during Lent (but helps himself to seven plates of spaghetti a day). Adherence to the letter of the law allows indulgences of another kind. Some Orthodox churches even host "all you can eat" seafood buffets during Lent. [2] Worse, though, are the indulgences of pride and self-satisfaction we find in condemning those we deem less "rigorous" than ourselves (and of course, our fasting is always the most rigorous). What is this but Publicanism: "God, I thank Thee that I am not like other men"?

The Antiochian Archdiocese adds the vital part of fasting is not pharisaically peering into various rules and regulations (and ajudging others insufficiently attentive or overly harsh). Fasting is a tool that must lead to our metanoia and metamorphosis:

Fasting is more than not eating food. Saint John Chrysostom teaches that it is more important to fast from sin. For example, besides controlling what goes into our mouths, we must control what comes out of our mouths as well. Are our words pleasing to God, or do we curse God or our brother?

The other members of the body also need to fast: our eyes from seeing evil, our ears from hearing evil, our limbs from participating in anything that is not of God. Most important of all, we need to control our thoughts, for thoughts are the source of our actions, whether good or evil.

Fasting is not an end in itself. Our goal is an inner change of heart. The Lenten Fast is called “ascetic.” This refers to actions of self-denial and spiritual training which are central to fasting.

As some of the saints note, the demons never eat nor sleep, yet they are helped not one whit by it. By becoming free of our dependence on food, particularly as a form of entertainment (!), we are freer to act in accordance with our own nature. We lessen the grip the flesh has over us and gain the freedom to respond in the spirit, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal. 5:17). Strengthened in the inner man, we can respond more readily and completely to Christ's ceaseless overtures of love.

The Orthodox Church's different approved fasting regulations should not become a cause of strife or condemnation of our brethren. (In the stirring words of the great St. Ephrem the Syrian, which the Byzantines pray during Lent, "Grant me to see my own errors and not to judge my brother.") They should inspire us to follow our own approved discipline, with the principles of true fasting undergirding both halves of our Church. Thus, we will live a balanced and transformative fast, maturing from glory to glory in Christ, which is His wish for us (Eph. 3:14-21).

NOTES:
1. The Antiochian Archdiocese adds some emphasis on the amount of food to be consumed, recommending total fasting during certain periods of Lent. "According to what was done in the monasteries, one meal a day is eaten on weekdays and two meals on weekends of Great Lent." However, "No restriction is placed on the amount of food during the meal."
2. I decided against adding a link to such a parish, because I didn't want to single any church out...but I've seen a number; do a Google search if you want proof of this phenomenon.

What Do I Need to Chant the Office?

Here's another post "From the Mailbag."

Q: "What do I need to chant the Divine Office as the Western Rite Orthodox do"?

A: I'm happy you wish to enter into the prayer life of the Church by praying Her hours. Naturally, not everyone is given to or, in some cases, capable of chanting, and recitation is perfectly acceptable, as well.

What books you need depend on which approved form of the Office you're praying. As I've noted, the Antiochian WRV has two approved offices: the Breviarium Monasticum, which is the observance laid down by St. Benedict in his venerable Rule, was first approved when the first WRO parishes were formed in America, before jurisdictionalism. In 1977, the AWRV (and later Alexandria and others) approved the Hours of St. Tikhon, which adaptated Matins/Evensong from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer according to the "1904 Russian Observations Upon the American Prayer Book."

To chant the Benedictine Office, you need a copy of The Monastic Diurnal and The Monastic Diurnal Noted. The companion Matins volumes are forthcoming from Lancelot Andrewes Press. (In addition to being the unbroken observance of the AWRV, Fr. James Deschene of Christminster Monastery in RI prays these hours.)

To chant St. Tikhon's Office, it depends on how much of the office you wish to chant. If you chant everything but the Psalms, you can download PDFs of Tikhonite Matins and Vespers, along with a copy of The Antiphoner, from the St. Gregory the Great (WRV) Orthodox Church in Washington, D.C. [Subdn. Benjamin points out peculiarities of the Antiphoner in our comments section. - BJ.] To chant the Psalms, you will need a good psalter: Saint Dunstan's Plainsong Psalter is the only one used by WRO. (The only trouble: its Ordinary omits one prayer the AWRV includes. If you wish, you can paste it into the book, and you have everything [and more].)

You will note all the books you need to buy have been published, at no small cost, by Lancelot Andrewes Press. For making these vital works readily available -- at reasonable prices, no less! -- we owe them a debt not measured in money. (But it wouldn't hurt if you bought six copies of each.) :)

As for other official or semi-official sources of the hours -- for recitation alone -- you can download the Offices and Prayers of the Oblates of St. Benedict (PDF), a shorter form of the Benedictine Office. St. Michael's in Whittier, CA, published this for use by its Oblates, who wish to pray as much of the Office as could be expected of a layman.

Fr. Jack Witbrock, a canonical WRO priest in the Antiochian Church in New Zealand, has revised the Roman Breviary for Orthodox use. As it stands, its layout is...involved...but it's still worth a look. Apparently, it's used by his church.

Last but certainly not least, Fr. Michael of St. Petroc Monastery in Tasmania keeps threatening to publish the St. Colman Prayer Book, which would be the hours for use with the only Sarum Mass approved by ROCOR. It should include much more, as well, and as he's described its contents to me, it should be a valuable book.

Those are all the resources produced by or in use by canonical Western Orthodox. All other alleged texts are either from non-canonical sources or of dubious scholarship (or both). At any rate, they have not been approved by the Orthodox Church.

Good luck, and may God bless you as you draw closer to Him (and His Bride) through praying the Hours. Indeed, may it lead to an increase in those pursuing Orthodox monasticism.

Happy Feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Western Rite Missionaries

Sts. Cyril and Methodius, co-patrons of Europe with St. Benedict.
I nearly missed it, but here's a most important post: Today is the feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. They are commonly remembered as "The Apostles to the Slavs" and associated with the Byzantine liturgy -- indeed, an OCA priest friend insists the Jesuits opposed their missionary work.* However, these famous missionaries celebrated both Eastern and Western Rite liturgies. When they set out on their great missionary journey, they found opposition from German missionaries. Invited to Rome by Pope Nicholas I (pope at the time of the Photian Schism), Nicholas died before they arrived, but his successor heard their case. Ultimately, he placed their Western Rite liturgical books upon his altar and blessed their missionary work -- which was, in modern nomenclature, "bi-ritualistic." Indeed, according to Fr. Edward Hughes, the only parishes these great saints personally founded to survive were Western Rite parishes in Dalmatia. (Of course, subsequent waves of Byzantine missionaries built upon their work to popularize the Byzantine Rite in Eastern Europe, Deo gratias!)

These missionary saints are everlasting witnesses that 1) the Orthodox Church was never strictly Byzantine Rite, even in Eastern Europe, nor was it meant to be; and 2) the Church's most enlightened sons appreciate the full breadth of Her liturgical heritage, Eastern and Western.

Almighty everlasting God, Who by Thy blessed bishops and confessors Cyril and
Methodius didst vouchsafe to call teh Slavic peoples to the knowledge of Thy
Name: grant that we who glory in their festival may be joined unto their
fellowship. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee and
the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

Sts. Cyril and Methodius, orate pro nobis!

* - Ignatius of Loyola founded the Society of Jesus, or Jesuits, to counter the spread of Protestantism, several centuries after Sts. Cyril and Methodius's translation.

From the Mailbag: Byzantine Missions "Proper"?

Q: I read a message posted on an online forum by a purported expert on Western Rite Orthodoxy stating there are "Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate folks who feel thatthe Byzantine rite is not an appropriate tool for mission to Westernlands, that to be proper this has to occur by means of the Western rite." Is this true?

A. I have never heard, seen, or read of a single AWRV priest, writer, or layman saying anything of the sort (much less several Antiochian "folks"). I've only read Western Rite Christians express profound gratitude at the Orthodoxy's concession and good sense in blessing a Western Rite (beginning in 1870 for the "Tridentine" Liturgy of St. Gregory, and in 1904 for the Liturgy of St. Tikhon).

What could be "improper" about Orthodox bishops doing what they have done since they first set foot in Alaska centuries ago? Not only is a Byzantine mission "proper," but there is clearly some segment of the population that is at home in the Byzantine Rite, and another at home with either rite. God has blessed many in the West to come into Orthodoxy through the Byzantine Rite, and may He continue to bless such work. But numerical acceptance has precious little to do with the "propriety" of those serving God in canonical Orthodox missions.

Certainly, the Western Rite is more culturally amenable and familiar -- after all, we are in the West -- and mission-minded people would be wise to expand Western Orthodoxy's scope and visibility.

Most people initially investigate the Orthodox Church for reasons other than liturgy: Her unwavering defense of the truths of the Nicene Creed, Her apostolic foundations, Her steadfast refusal to compromise the moral standards of Christianity or bend to modern secular whims, Her ancient and changeless faith, etc. Most are drawn by their (correct) belief that Orthodoxy is the true Church. Because of the present dearth of canonincal Western Rite churches -- a situation that desperately needs corrected -- some inquirers learn to love the Byzantine rite (as I do), some tolerate it out of necessity, some persist despite it, and some abandon Orthodoxy altogether. I have received many e-mails from crestfallen inquirers who tell me they would gladly attend a Western Rite parish, if there were one around, but feel they cannot convert to Orthodoxy because of liturgy.

Before one judges them too harshly, recall there is more to the "Byzantine Rite" than the text of a eucharistic liturgy. Whatever the merits of the rite in theory, they are incarnated within the realities of the local parish. Thus, its piety, language, culture, and ethos play a vital role in acceptance or rejection of the rite and of Orthodoxy. The horror stories one reads of (insert ethnicity) giving visitors the cold shoulder, etc., cause pilgrims to reject the Orthodox Catholic Church as a whole.

Thankfully, many of these problems are absent from the Western Rite. The parishes are reverent, dignified, welcoming, and worship-oriented. In my experience, they are completely free of ethnic exclusivity and overzealous convert fanaticism. On top of this, the approved liturgies and devotions of the Western Rite are familiar and fully Orthodox, allowing visitors to pray and give thanks to God. It does not require those who accept the fullness of Orthodoxy to needlessly reject the legitimate portions of their own heritage. They do not have to take foreign language night courses or regain their bearings in a different liturgical tradition. If one can provide all this in a way that is fully approved and regarded as Orthodox by the Church, in a time of Western ecclesiastical disintegration, it would seem wise to invest in this mission strategy. This should give new impetus and import to establishing Western Rite missions throughout the West.

There is also a related but wholly different question to that of whether Byzantine missions are "proper": whether Byzantine missions represent "Western Orthodoxy." Many, including Bp. Kallistos Ware in his book The Orthodox Church, state their goal is to "baptize" the West: accept those elements of Western culture that are compatible with Orthodoxy, cleanse it of those that are incompatible, and return the West to the communion she enjoyed as part of the undivided Church of the first millenium. If that is their goal, it seems to assume some appropriation of historically normative Western praxis will take place on some level, as opposed to demanding Westerners become subsumed into the host parish's dominant ethnicity. The late bishop of the French Orthodox Church, Jean of St. Denys, delineated the differences between the Western Church vs. the Church in the West in this article.

But again, this is wholly independent of whether Byzantine missions are "proper."

Thank you for asking this and allowing us to clear this up.

From the Mailbag: Whitsunday?

A question from the mailbag: "Why is the Feast of Pentecost sometimes called "Whitsunday" in the Western Rite -- 'White Sunday' -- when the liturgical color is red?"

Answer: Yes, the terminology at first seems contradictory: a priest clad in red vestments presides over "White Sunday." The reasons is because those who had been baptized/chrismated on Easter again put on their white robes; hence, the church was filled with new Christians clad in white. (O for those days!) The liturgical color red indicates the Holy Spirit, Who descended upon the disciples and lit upon them as "tongues of fire." I hope this explains why a "red letter day" is referred to as "white."

Thanks for your question.

The Monastic Diurnal and Western Rite Hours

Considering we just commemorated an Orthodox Benedictine monk, it's also an excellent time to answer this question from the mailbag.

Q: Is it true the Antiochian Western Rite hours (Matins, Vespers, etc.) are "throughly Protestant," simply the BCP rite, and recognizing this, the Antiochian WRV has "recently" appointed the Monastic Diurnal as an ad hoc stop-gap?

A: No, in its entirety. I've dealt with the charge of the alleged "Protestantism" of the Liturgy and hours of St. Tikhon here. As I wrote, no Protestant would be comfortable with the Marian devotions customary at our parishes, our iconography, nor our Orthodox theology. And even the bare BCP -- as distinct from our Antiochian Tikhonite hours -- largely collated the medieval church's hours (Matins and Lauds into Morning Prayer; Vespers and Compline into Evening Prayer), streamlining them for lay participation -- originally in a parish setting (daily), then later at home.

More importantly, the Monastic Diurnal is not a "new" observance: it has always been an authorized prayer book of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate. (To be fair, I do not know what Hours were prayed by the very first WRO in America, in 1927-33. However, I strongly suspect it was the MD or another Roman form.) Since the Liturgy of St. Tikhon was not celebrated in the AWRV until 1977, it should be obvious the Tikhonite hours were not used before then, either. The Church's ancient Benedictine services were the exclusive use before that.

Benjamin Andersen sent an informative historical note about this very situation recently. I'm glad to give him "a blog from beyond the cyber-grave":

The religious order which was received into the Antiochian Church and became the Western Rite Vicariate (in 1958), the Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil, used the Oxford MD [Monastic Diurnal] as its official office book. Ever since, as I understand, the Monastic Office [Breviarium Monasticum - BJ] has been the standard for clergy (even married clergy) for their private recitation, and the standard in our Roman (Gregorian) Rite churches for public celebration.

With regard to the use of the MD according to our Orthodox guidelines,

(1) We are to recite it in accordance with our version of the Western church kalendar...and the current Paschal calculations of the Orthodox world.

(2) We are avoid expressions of certain controversial doctrinal issues, such as the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit (e.g. we have a slighly altered sixth verse of the hymn Veni Creator Spiritus, appointed for Vespers on Pentecost).

Otherwise, the Antiochian Church regards the Benedictine Divine Office to be fully Orthodox, especially since it's essentially what is set forth by Our Holy Father Benedict (a saint high esteemed by both East and West) in his Rule, and used by many Saints and countless pious monastic souls long before the tragic schism.

We're eternally grateful, Subdeacon Benjamin. (I hope the blog wasn't too indelicate a hint.)

Clearly, the source of this question is confused about the Western Rite in general, or an inaccurate source of information. Thank you for the chance to clear this up!

Got questions? Got myths? Send 'em my way.