OrthodoxWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Sarum Use

2008-04-16T15:26:00Z

Joesuaiden: /* Old Sarum Rite */

Well, technically it isn't a tradition of the pre-Schism West, as Sarum Cathedral was dedicated in 1092, and the Sarum as known from the texts dates from New Salisbury in the 13th c. That it is essentially no different than Pre-Schism Frankish and Celtic-Saxon Roman traditions is witnessed to by contemporaries, but the Use itself is definitely post-Schism. All surviving documents of the Sarum use are post-LePoore, in fact.

: Noted. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 21:27, 24 Mar 2005 (CST)

Another minor point: the "Old Sarum Rite" is not a version of the Sarum use of the Roman rite. Its relationship is unclear and tenuous to Sarum at this point. If one compares merely the ritual (the printed text) there are many anomalies and differences with the "Old Sarum Rite" that distinguish it from the Sarum Use. Anglo-Roman is a better classification for this rite, as it is in English and is basically a Roman rite. However, its sources vary widely and retain not enough Sarum material to even be considered a 'version'. The ceremonial and much of the rite is based upon finding Byzantine analogues in Western customs that were either quite singular, irregular, or modern misinterpretations of antique material. The wording I used originally was to precisely note this relationship... it is not a version, but a new rite of its own that has never been served outside of the past few decades, and then only in the USA. It is a work of liturgical archaeology, and has not been vetted by liturgists with experience in Western Rite towards whether it does (or can) do what it purports to represent: Anglo-Saxon liturgy of the 9th c. - Aristibule

: Please feel free to note all this information in the article. By using "version," I didn't mean to imply that it was taken from the non-"Old" Sarum Use.--[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 17:49, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I would suggest a revert from the February 20, 2006 edit by YBeayf - far from a 'incorrect sentence', the lineage of the English Orthodox liturgies (St. Tikhon's AWRV and the English Rite ROCOR) goes back through both the Scottish-American BCP and English BCP traditions. The former tradition is rooted in the latter, which in itself is a heavily edited version of the Henrician Sarum (the Sarum rite with some items in English, the removal of references to the Papacy, and some later saints.) If someone is going to make a change based upon something being incorrect, they should provide an argument for the 'why' of it. However, we know the liturgical tradition in England went from a multitude of local Cathedral uses, to a majority using Sarum or Sarum-based liturgy, to the direction for Sarum to be used by all churches, to the Henrician Sarum, then to the first BCP based upon the work of the former. The BCP tradition also borrowed elements from other Eastern and Western rites at that time, but there is no reason to believe that its primary source was anything other than the Henrician Sarum already approved for use by the same Convocation. - [[User:Aristibule|Aristibule]]07:13, 22 Feb 2006.

::No, the English BCP communion service is not rooted in the Sarum mass. It of course contains some of the same elements, but consists of portions common to all Western liturgies combined with texts and rubrics made up from whole cloth by Cranmer. The BCP communion service was not a continuation of the Sarum rite, but a new, thoroughly Protestantized service with a few bits filched from the authentic Catholic rite of England. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 14:51, March 2, 2006 (CST)

:It seems, to an outsider, that both sides may have justification to their position. Perhaps both views, with their supporting evidence, should be noted in the article (as 'contention', for instance)? -- {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 18:17, March 3, 2006 (CST)

:One supposes, then one will have to make allowance for all sorts of silliness by way of 'contention'. The facts are that the Sarum Use had become the sole use of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales on the Eve of the Reformation. During the reign of Henry VIII it was edited both for removal of all references to the Papacy, later Roman Catholic saints, and the first translations into English. The First Prayer Book was primarily based upon this use (which was the use of the realm), along with scholarly materials (Lutheran, Spanish, and Oriental liturgies), and the work of Convocation. Cranmer only had a part, not being the primary author of the first BCP, but the second BCP. The 'silliness' comes from the contention that the bulk of the BCP tradition's source material, being the Roman rite, is *not* from the Sarum use when it would have been near impossible to have been from anything else (particularly the 1570 Roman Mass, as the recent weblore has it from those who try to claim no connection between the Sarum Use and the Prayer Book tradition.) It also does not take into account the variety in what is called Sarum Use - a recent blog post by a newly ordained anti-WRO ECUSA minister seems to be the origin of all this 'contention', based upon his comparison of a single version of the ordinary of the Sarum Use with the 1549 BCP, and not taking into account at all the Henrician Sarum (which also contain some of the same deletions as found in the 1549 BCP.) I should also point out that the various Prayer Books changed over time - Rome still considered the Henrician Sarum and 1549 BCP to be 'Catholic rites'. The 1552 BCP, being what Cranmer wanted to begin with (but couldn't get past Convocation on the first try), and later English versions that restored what 1552 deleted still are in the lineage of the 1549 and Sarum. Even the Scottish liturgy, though it was far more changed by further contemporary scholarship; particularly as to the liturgy of St. Clement and St. James. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 16:12, March 7, 2006 (CST)

One last point on 'YBeayf''s criticisms. He calls the BCP 1549 "Protestantized service with a few bits filched from the authentic Catholic rite of England." Of course, the authentic Catholic rite of England *is* the Sarum Use. It had been the majority use for 300 years previously (as well as Ireland and Scotland.) As for 'Protestantized', of course, but to be '-ized', one has to have an original to changed. That original would be - the sole authentic Catholic rite readily available to the English: the Sarum Use. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 16:22, March 7, 2006 (CST)
:No, I didn't say that. I said "English BCP communion service", without specifying a year. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer is not what first comes to mind to most people when one mentions the "BCP".
:I have not seen this blog posting which you reference; rest assured that any contention here is purely of my own making. My objection to saying the BCP (post-1552) is rooted in the Sarum usage of the Roman rite is that the essence of the mass, the offertory and canon, are changed beyond recognition. Of course the general structure of the BCP service mirrors the Sarum usage, but it is IMO rather tendentious to claim this roots the BCP service in the Sarum usage when the most important parts of the Sarum are not carried over, and the framework of the BCP service and the Sarum usage are common to all Latin rites. Nevertheless, I will cease fighting to have that sentence removed. I have, however, added a small clarification, which I hope will be allowed to stand. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 17:42, March 8, 2006 (CST)

:: This "...in that the creators of the ''Book of Common Prayer'' used the Sarum missal as a springboard for their reformed liturgy." is not a clarification, but simply redundant repetition of 'primary origin with Sarum use'. They say the exact same thing, but without the colloquialism of 'springboard'. I'm not sure what one means by 'most important parts of the Sarum', but it doesn't change the fact of *primary origin*. See: http://flickr.com/photos/21182585@N00/1434369/ for a chart describing the origins of the rites. The ROCOR English Use is from the 1549 BCP with restorations according to Sarum, York, the Gothic Missal. Answering Fr. Lev's post, the lineage of the St. Tikhon's is not all that far removed. The American 1928 BCP was a more catholicized form of the earlier American Prayer Book, that tradition having its origin with the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy (that which Seabury brought from Scotland to America). The Scottish Non-Jurors use not only had the indirect source of Laud's prayer book, but also has evidence of using the 1549 BCP, Sarum, and other uses (especially the contemporary translations of the liturgies of St. Clement, St. James, etc.) More below... [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:41, March 12, 2006 (CST)

:::No, they don't say the same thing. One implies that the BCP tradition was a simple continuation of the Sarum. The other makes it clear that there was a break, and that the creators of the BCP used the Sarum rite as a template for their own, reformed, heretical liturgy. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 22:26, March 12, 2006 (CST)

::::That is reading more into the syntax than is there. 'Primary origin' is precisely what it is. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 23:58, March 13, 2006 (CST)

== The Book of Common Prayer and Sarum ==

The Liturgy of St Tikhon used in the AWRV is based upon the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church, which is quite a distance from the first BCP,the English Prayer Book of 1549. When some thought the 1549 patient of a Catholic interpretation, Cranmer revised it in 1552 to exclude such Catholic interpretation. Under Queen Elizabeth I, who desperately wanted unity in her kingdom, the 1559 edition came out as a compromise book that would be something between the "Catholic" 1549 and the "Protestant" 1552.

Four centuries later, the American BCP of 1928 had precious little that could be said to partake in the heritage of the pre-Reformation Sarum. A goodly amount of the Liturgy of St Tikhon is borrowed from the Tridentine. This is not in any way a criticism of the AWRV usage -- I am simply saying that the historical connections between the Liturgy of St Tikhon and Sarum are pretty thin. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:29, March 8, 2006 (CST)

The 1552, and 1559 editions have nothing to do with the Orthodox Prayer Book derived liturgies. And important point to note with the American 1928 is that it doesn't have 'more distance' between it, but returns far closer to older forms than intervening American BCPs. Saying 'pretty thin' and 'precious little' are pov, while the fact that the 1928 American BCP has a lineage with a primary origin in the Sarum Use of the Roman rite is non-pov. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:41, March 12, 2006 (CST)

In the first place, since this is a "talk" page, I would assume that one may express a POV. Second, Ari's proitests not withstanding, the American 1928 is part of the tradition of the 1552, 1559, etc. A simple and example: the 1928 uses the compromise 1559 formula for administering communion. The 1549 used "The body of our Lorde Jesus Christe whiche was geven for thee, preserve thy bodye and soule unto everlasting lyfe." In order to deny the Real Presence, the 1552 was changed to: "Take and eate this, in remembraunce that Christ dyed for thee, and feede on him in thy hearte by faythe, with thankesgeving." Queen Elizabeth's 1559 version, which was designed to be a book that both "Catholic" and "Protestant" Anglicans could use, simply put the two contradictory formulas together: "The bodie of our lord Jesu Christ, which was geven for the, preserve thy body and soule into everlastinge life: and take and eate this in remembraunce that Christ died for thee, feede on him in thine heart by faith, with thankesgevynge." And this is what you find in the 1928: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." Third, this can't fairly be described as POV -- it simply reflects the scholarship on the Anglican Prayer Book tradition. One could point out other such differences. One more that comes to mind is that the Psalter of the 1928 moved even further away from the LXX in favor of the Masoretic Texts. It is simply false to claim that the 1928 has its primary origin in Sarum. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:40, March 12, 2006 (CST)

It is no false claim - the lineage is clear, and the BCP tradition as a whole descends from the Sarum Use of the Roman rite. It really isn't that difficult a concept. That the American BCP is further down the line isn't the contention: of course it is. However, ultimately the trail leads back to the Sarum Use.... in the case of the American BCP tradition, through the Scottish BCP tradition, the Non-Jurors liturgy, etc. And - most importantly, whomever 'Fr Lev' is he is conflating the Orthodox Prayer Book derived liturgies with the American 1928 BCP: they are not one and the same. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 23:58, March 13, 2006 (CST)

I suppose it is some small sign of progress that Ari has gone from saying "And important point to note with the American 1928 is that it doesn't have 'more distance' between it, but returns far closer to older forms than intervening American BCPs" above to now acknowledging the 1928 to be "further down the line." Yes, there are a number of influences and sources in the 1928 revision, but it is far removed from Sarum in text and theology. I gave a very specific example of how the theology of real presence was watered down after the 1549 through the formula for administering communion. That, at least, was reparied in the SASB version. But the St Tikhon liturgy of the SASB was based firstly on the 1928 BCP (as are many other elements of the SASB). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 08:52, March 14, 2006 (CST)

::I think this is some good conversation, with some very interesting detail. Just a word to keep things civil - please avoid ad hominem attacks like "whoever so-and-so is" -- these aren't necessary or helpful! Let's focus on history and fact, presenting arguments based on evidence. Please provide as full citations as possible. The talk page is the proper place to note POV's and divergences of opinion.
::Finally, I'm not sure why Western Rite topics are some of the most contentious on the wiki. From the outside, it doesn't seem like much of a big deal. Authenticity doesn't need to be based on an esoteric historical trail of influence, but follows episcopal blessing and acceptance by the Church. Then again, I don't have a personal stake in any of this, and I realize WR people may feel that they are fighting hard to keep alive a particular vision of the catholicity of the Church. Peace to you! {{User:FrJohn/sig}}

::: Fr. John, the issue is that what we have is outsiders here presenting a view that is rather political (and not academic - I am presenting an academic view, and most often the current state of scholarship, as well as the actual use of the Western Rite Orthodox.) The goal of these constant re-edits seem to be the smearing of the Western Rite as actually used in the Church, and arguments towards its replacement. Hence the focus on the 'SASB' (again, not the book the Metropolitan, Vicariate, or Liturgical Commission have insisted as the 'official texts' repeatedly), and rather ignorant statements on our ROCOR Western Rite use as well (which at present includes not only Sarum and Benedictine Roman uses, but BCP derived English use, and the Neo-Gallican approved under St. John the Wonderworker). As such, these are acts of vandalism - which brings back to another point I think we've made before - that anonymity is unhelpful to this project, and the importance of veracity of sources. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 23:06, March 26, 2006 (CST)

::::If you're referring to me in this paragraph, you're way off-base. I'm a huge proponent of the Western Rite; I merely strongly dislike Anglican usage (hey, I'm Irish-Italian -- it's in my blood) and think Roman usage should form the basis of an Orthodox WR. I'm also far from anonymous -- this username is the only one I use online, and plenty of people know me under it. If you want, I have no problem giving my name (Michael M.) and affiliation (Antiochian). [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 16:13, March 27, 2006 (CST)

Ari needs to be careful when he imputes bad motives to people, as well as when he mis-states facts. I haven't fopcused on the SASB -- I merely corrected the false statements made that the book is not authorized for use and that it is used by only one parish in the AWRV. I have said nothing negative about the SASB, nor do I have the slightest interest in "smearing" the Western Rite. Moreover, I've provided EVIDENCE. Anyone can check the SASB (it is available as a download from the parish in Whittier) and confirm that I have correctly quoted the Metropolitan's letter of authorization. I have provided the names of three AWRV parishes that use the SASB; anyone can contact them to confirm their use of the book. I have provided "veracity of sources," while Ari simply remains in denial. I don't see what the problem is with the SASB. The reference to the restored Gallican rite is inaccurate. Not only have I pointed out why "Neo-Gallican" is an inappropriate label, the rite was first authorized by the Patriachate of Moscow more than a decade before St John of Shanghai and San Francisco, along with Metropolitan Anastassy, approved its use within ROCOR. I would appreciate it if Ari would clarify exactly whom he is calling a vandal. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 08:44, March 27, 2006 (CST)

Ari, I don't appreciate you calling my edit "vandalism". The "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" doesn't have its primary origin with the Sarum Rite, or with the '49 BCP, either. Saying it has its primary origin in the Sarum Rite, without further qualification, is misleading and inaccurate. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 11:55, March 14, 2006 (CST)

: None of this is vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the wiki. This is instead a content dispute. Please keep to the issues rather than characterizing disagreement as vandalism. Vandalism is when we get ads or obscenities posted here, not arguments over content and POV. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 14:14, March 27, 2006 (CST)

:: Father Deacon, I would respectfully note that it *is* vandalism. St. Tikhon's is *not* descended from the 1552 (the true prayer book of Cranmer). The lineage is Sarum, to 1549 BCP, to the Non-Juror liturgy, to the American BCP's (the 1928 restoring much that was removed in intervening American editions.) However, a pov without basis continues to be inserted linking St. Tikhon's to 1552! That simply isn't so! The primary origin of the 1549 BCP, and of all descending from that rite, is the Sarum use. YBeayf claims no vandalism, but continues edits with false information due to a 'strong dislike' for 'Anglican usage' (by which he means, the majority *Orthodox* Western Rite use.) "Fr.Lev", however ignores the statements of the authorities of the AWRV as to the official texts (one can easily check with the AWRV as to its veracity). The motives are not 'imputed' they are *latent* in the pov - the goal is obviously derision of the Orthodox Western Rite as it exists, and the attempt to smear it as 'Zwinglian'/'Cranmerian', etc. - sure, zeal not according not according to knowledge, but also definitely vandalism. - [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 18:04, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

::: Vandalism, as defined by the administration, is when (as recently happened) an article gets renamed to "Eutychius of Constantinople on Wheels!", not when editors disagree over what an article should contain. Please feel free to disagree on content and work out a consensus amongst those interested in editing the article, but calling such disagreements vandalism doesn't help anything. This is a content/POV dispute, not vandalism.

::: That aside, if this dispute cannot be resolved, then we can protect the article until it can be worked out, reduce its content to something agreeable (and documentable) to all parties, or detail the variant views in separate sections. (My preference would be the last option.) Whatever happens, though, imputing motives to other editors (true or not) doesn't help anyone, and generally can tend to inflame passions and not improve articles. Let us '''all''' keep to discussions of fact, and not whether a particular editor has some hidden agenda or not. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 20:57, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

Ari, if you would, please trace the Liturgy of St. Tikhon back to the Sarum rite, giving all intermediate steps. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 16:02, March 27, 2006 (CST)

: YBeayf, You can find the whole in Subdeacon Benjamin Andersen's thesis for his MDiv at St. Vlad's Seminary, hopefully to be published soon (from Lancelot Andrewes press). From comparing notes, its says the same as the research we have: the St. Tikhon's is an Orthodox version of the Anglican/American Missal service (a Catholic restoration of the 1928). The 1928, in its turn, was a heavily Catholicized revision of the more protestant 1892 BCP. They in turn have their origin (as the whole American BCP tradition does) with the liturgy of the Scottish Non-Jurors 1718. The Non-Juror liturgy used the 1549 BCP, the Sarum (which was the national Scottish use), and Primitive/Eastern liturgies as its source documents (primarily that of St. Clement and the liturgy of St. James.) Also important were the ceremonial survivals of the Scottish Episcopal Church (which never had the puritanizing tendencies that occurred in the Anglican Church, and retained Sarum customs and even the 1549 BCP until the attempt to impose Laud's book, over which the 1718 was a vast improvement.) So - to put it simply: late Sarum> Henrician Sarum > 1549 > (Laud's )> 1718 Non-Juror > (American BCP tradition (1789,1892,1928)) > American/Anglican Missal > St. Tikhon's. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: this is not a history of 'continual degradation', but many of the latter steps are returns to much that intervening forms removed. In parentheses are intermediate steps which are technically intermediate, but have minimal bearing on the final liturgy! Important to note as well: that the Syriac, Greek, Old Roman, Gallican, Mozarabic all were liturgical influences on various stages in the development as well. To say that the St. Tikhon's is simply American 1928 BCP, of course, is an understatement - properly, St. Tikhon's is an Orthodox form of the *Anglican Missal*. I post this in hopes you might learn something, rather than spreading more erroneous information like that found on 'Orthodox forums'. (I should note, our ROCOR English Rite also has the 1549 BCP & 1718 Non-Juror rites as texts, as well as those uses of Sarum and York - not to be confused with the Sarum Use we have as well.) However, the *primary source document*, the original on which the tradition is based *is* the Sarum use. Part of the issue we have with detractors is because they spread the *same* misinformation over and over again - not knowing whereof they speak. I'm pretty sure that if you knew anything about our Orthodox use of the Roman rite (AWRV and Christminster), you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss 'Anglican Use'... you might be surprised at the provenance of that use as well, and how *alike* they are (especially in AWRV). - [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 18:47, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

This account is only partially true. (1) The Liturgy of St Tikhon is not based on the Anglican Missal. Fr Joseph Angwin based it upon the 1928 American BCP. The Roman elements were taken from the Liturgy of St Gregory so that the two rites would match on those particulars. As it happens, the Anglican Missal used those same Roman elements (that have always been foreign to official Anglican liturgies). But the actual lineage isn't to the Anglican Missal. (2) In any event, the latter was never an authorized liturgical book within official Anglicanism. (3) I have never seen any scholar claim that ‘the 1928, in its turn, was a heavily Catholicized revision of the more protestant 1892 BCP.' Please name several specific ways in which the 1928 is a Catholic advance over the 1892. (4) The claim that the Sarum is the primary source of the 1549 is misleading. The anaphora is rather different, not to mention the ritual. (5) It is a gross overstatement (at best) to say that the American BCP tradition has its origin in the non-Jurors liturgy. Most of the 1789 BCP was a slightly edited version of the 1662, although there is influence from the Scottish BCP. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 20:48, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

As I wrote elsewhere, the Liturgy of St Tikhon, being based on the 1928 BCP, shows elements from the English BCP tradition, including the 1552 BCP. One example is the exhortation, 'Ye who do tuly and earnestly repent you of your sins....' In the 1549, this came after the canon; in the 1552, it is moved to before the ''sursum corda''. This 1552 position is used in the ''Orthodox Missal''. In the canon itself, the 1549's prayer that the bread and wine 'may be unto us the body and blood' is changed in the 1552 to 'may be partakers of the body and blood,' a change Cranmer made to 'remove any suspicion of transubstantiation.' The ''Orthodox Missal'' follows the 1552. So to claim that the 1552 is not a source for the Liturgy of St Tikhon is clearly false. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:02, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

== Sarum, 1549, etc. ==

The 1549 BCP was a distinct change in text and theology from the Sarum Usage -- toward a Reformation point of view. There were further changes made in the 1552 to make it more "Protestant," which are reflected in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. There were further changes made in the 1559 (as a compromise), which are also reflected in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. This shouldn't be surprising, as the Liturgy of St Tikhon was taken primarly from the American 1928 BCP, which drew on the long Prayer Book tradition of the Church of England and therefore includes elements of the 1549, 1552, 1559, etc. I know this from having taught Anglican liturgy, having made a detailed study of the relevant BCP's, etc. That the Liturgy of St Tikhon was primarily based upon the 1928 BCP is not only clear to anyone who has used both texts, but I was also told this by the priest who prepared the Liturgy of St Tikhon. The Liturgy of St Tikhon was based upon the 1928 with certain "Anglo-Catholic" adaptations. This was a pastoral decision to meet the needs of converts to Orthodoxy who were used to using the 1928 (with Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox amendments). While there isn't space on this discussion page, sometime in the next couple of months I will produce a comparison of the eucharistic prayers of Sarum, 1549, 1552, 1559, and the American 1928. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 11:54, March 28, 2006 (CST)

== "Old Sarum Rite" removed, and why ==

The text said this. For reasons I will go through right now, there were so many errors and accusations I removed the text.

''"Another liturgy using a similar name is the '''Old Sarum Rite''',"''

This is false. The Monastery of the Holy Name usually just refers to it as "Sarum Rite", and this is simply made up.

''"compiled by a [[monastery]] of [[Old Catholic]] origin within the [[Holy Synod of Milan]], based upon many various early rites of Western Europe, including Sarum, and many details from minority texts."''

This is also false. It has some details from minority texts of *local Sarum usages*, but its base text is solely the Sarum rite.
''
"It is a modern construction (deemed a reconstruction by its supporters),"''

It is absolutely not deemed a "reconstruction" by any partisan of the Milan Synod. The author of the above must be talking about the Gallican rite, or flatly lying.

''"and it has been criticized as being a pastiche rather than an actual revived liturgy. This liturgy is not in use by any mainstream Western Rite Orthodox."''

Because it (a) is simply the Sarum rite with occasional, local pre-schism English variations (which can be confirmed by simply checking the text itself) then logically (b) it is virtually identical to the Sarum usage on the part of the ROCOR, something only a few within ROCOR deny, the majority of Western rite members of ROCOR agreeing that Milan partisans are using the exact same text.

There were so many problems with this paragraph I simply removed it. To "debate" whether a name is being used when it isn't, in any substantial capacity, to claim something is "claimed to be a reconstruction" when no one has claimed anything to be a translation, and to deliberately misrepresent facts has no place in an encyclopedia.

Talk:Sarum Use

2008-04-16T15:24:44Z

Joesuaiden: /* "Old Sarum Rite" removed, and why */ new section

Well, technically it isn't a tradition of the pre-Schism West, as Sarum Cathedral was dedicated in 1092, and the Sarum as known from the texts dates from New Salisbury in the 13th c. That it is essentially no different than Pre-Schism Frankish and Celtic-Saxon Roman traditions is witnessed to by contemporaries, but the Use itself is definitely post-Schism. All surviving documents of the Sarum use are post-LePoore, in fact.

: Noted. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 21:27, 24 Mar 2005 (CST)

Another minor point: the "Old Sarum Rite" is not a version of the Sarum use of the Roman rite. Its relationship is unclear and tenuous to Sarum at this point. If one compares merely the ritual (the printed text) there are many anomalies and differences with the "Old Sarum Rite" that distinguish it from the Sarum Use. Anglo-Roman is a better classification for this rite, as it is in English and is basically a Roman rite. However, its sources vary widely and retain not enough Sarum material to even be considered a 'version'. The ceremonial and much of the rite is based upon finding Byzantine analogues in Western customs that were either quite singular, irregular, or modern misinterpretations of antique material. The wording I used originally was to precisely note this relationship... it is not a version, but a new rite of its own that has never been served outside of the past few decades, and then only in the USA. It is a work of liturgical archaeology, and has not been vetted by liturgists with experience in Western Rite towards whether it does (or can) do what it purports to represent: Anglo-Saxon liturgy of the 9th c. - Aristibule

: Please feel free to note all this information in the article. By using "version," I didn't mean to imply that it was taken from the non-"Old" Sarum Use.--[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 17:49, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I would suggest a revert from the February 20, 2006 edit by YBeayf - far from a 'incorrect sentence', the lineage of the English Orthodox liturgies (St. Tikhon's AWRV and the English Rite ROCOR) goes back through both the Scottish-American BCP and English BCP traditions. The former tradition is rooted in the latter, which in itself is a heavily edited version of the Henrician Sarum (the Sarum rite with some items in English, the removal of references to the Papacy, and some later saints.) If someone is going to make a change based upon something being incorrect, they should provide an argument for the 'why' of it. However, we know the liturgical tradition in England went from a multitude of local Cathedral uses, to a majority using Sarum or Sarum-based liturgy, to the direction for Sarum to be used by all churches, to the Henrician Sarum, then to the first BCP based upon the work of the former. The BCP tradition also borrowed elements from other Eastern and Western rites at that time, but there is no reason to believe that its primary source was anything other than the Henrician Sarum already approved for use by the same Convocation. - [[User:Aristibule|Aristibule]]07:13, 22 Feb 2006.

::No, the English BCP communion service is not rooted in the Sarum mass. It of course contains some of the same elements, but consists of portions common to all Western liturgies combined with texts and rubrics made up from whole cloth by Cranmer. The BCP communion service was not a continuation of the Sarum rite, but a new, thoroughly Protestantized service with a few bits filched from the authentic Catholic rite of England. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 14:51, March 2, 2006 (CST)

:It seems, to an outsider, that both sides may have justification to their position. Perhaps both views, with their supporting evidence, should be noted in the article (as 'contention', for instance)? -- {{User:Pistevo/sig}} 18:17, March 3, 2006 (CST)

:One supposes, then one will have to make allowance for all sorts of silliness by way of 'contention'. The facts are that the Sarum Use had become the sole use of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales on the Eve of the Reformation. During the reign of Henry VIII it was edited both for removal of all references to the Papacy, later Roman Catholic saints, and the first translations into English. The First Prayer Book was primarily based upon this use (which was the use of the realm), along with scholarly materials (Lutheran, Spanish, and Oriental liturgies), and the work of Convocation. Cranmer only had a part, not being the primary author of the first BCP, but the second BCP. The 'silliness' comes from the contention that the bulk of the BCP tradition's source material, being the Roman rite, is *not* from the Sarum use when it would have been near impossible to have been from anything else (particularly the 1570 Roman Mass, as the recent weblore has it from those who try to claim no connection between the Sarum Use and the Prayer Book tradition.) It also does not take into account the variety in what is called Sarum Use - a recent blog post by a newly ordained anti-WRO ECUSA minister seems to be the origin of all this 'contention', based upon his comparison of a single version of the ordinary of the Sarum Use with the 1549 BCP, and not taking into account at all the Henrician Sarum (which also contain some of the same deletions as found in the 1549 BCP.) I should also point out that the various Prayer Books changed over time - Rome still considered the Henrician Sarum and 1549 BCP to be 'Catholic rites'. The 1552 BCP, being what Cranmer wanted to begin with (but couldn't get past Convocation on the first try), and later English versions that restored what 1552 deleted still are in the lineage of the 1549 and Sarum. Even the Scottish liturgy, though it was far more changed by further contemporary scholarship; particularly as to the liturgy of St. Clement and St. James. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 16:12, March 7, 2006 (CST)

One last point on 'YBeayf''s criticisms. He calls the BCP 1549 "Protestantized service with a few bits filched from the authentic Catholic rite of England." Of course, the authentic Catholic rite of England *is* the Sarum Use. It had been the majority use for 300 years previously (as well as Ireland and Scotland.) As for 'Protestantized', of course, but to be '-ized', one has to have an original to changed. That original would be - the sole authentic Catholic rite readily available to the English: the Sarum Use. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 16:22, March 7, 2006 (CST)
:No, I didn't say that. I said "English BCP communion service", without specifying a year. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer is not what first comes to mind to most people when one mentions the "BCP".
:I have not seen this blog posting which you reference; rest assured that any contention here is purely of my own making. My objection to saying the BCP (post-1552) is rooted in the Sarum usage of the Roman rite is that the essence of the mass, the offertory and canon, are changed beyond recognition. Of course the general structure of the BCP service mirrors the Sarum usage, but it is IMO rather tendentious to claim this roots the BCP service in the Sarum usage when the most important parts of the Sarum are not carried over, and the framework of the BCP service and the Sarum usage are common to all Latin rites. Nevertheless, I will cease fighting to have that sentence removed. I have, however, added a small clarification, which I hope will be allowed to stand. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 17:42, March 8, 2006 (CST)

:: This "...in that the creators of the ''Book of Common Prayer'' used the Sarum missal as a springboard for their reformed liturgy." is not a clarification, but simply redundant repetition of 'primary origin with Sarum use'. They say the exact same thing, but without the colloquialism of 'springboard'. I'm not sure what one means by 'most important parts of the Sarum', but it doesn't change the fact of *primary origin*. See: http://flickr.com/photos/21182585@N00/1434369/ for a chart describing the origins of the rites. The ROCOR English Use is from the 1549 BCP with restorations according to Sarum, York, the Gothic Missal. Answering Fr. Lev's post, the lineage of the St. Tikhon's is not all that far removed. The American 1928 BCP was a more catholicized form of the earlier American Prayer Book, that tradition having its origin with the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy (that which Seabury brought from Scotland to America). The Scottish Non-Jurors use not only had the indirect source of Laud's prayer book, but also has evidence of using the 1549 BCP, Sarum, and other uses (especially the contemporary translations of the liturgies of St. Clement, St. James, etc.) More below... [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:41, March 12, 2006 (CST)

:::No, they don't say the same thing. One implies that the BCP tradition was a simple continuation of the Sarum. The other makes it clear that there was a break, and that the creators of the BCP used the Sarum rite as a template for their own, reformed, heretical liturgy. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 22:26, March 12, 2006 (CST)

::::That is reading more into the syntax than is there. 'Primary origin' is precisely what it is. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 23:58, March 13, 2006 (CST)

== The Book of Common Prayer and Sarum ==

The Liturgy of St Tikhon used in the AWRV is based upon the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church, which is quite a distance from the first BCP,the English Prayer Book of 1549. When some thought the 1549 patient of a Catholic interpretation, Cranmer revised it in 1552 to exclude such Catholic interpretation. Under Queen Elizabeth I, who desperately wanted unity in her kingdom, the 1559 edition came out as a compromise book that would be something between the "Catholic" 1549 and the "Protestant" 1552.

Four centuries later, the American BCP of 1928 had precious little that could be said to partake in the heritage of the pre-Reformation Sarum. A goodly amount of the Liturgy of St Tikhon is borrowed from the Tridentine. This is not in any way a criticism of the AWRV usage -- I am simply saying that the historical connections between the Liturgy of St Tikhon and Sarum are pretty thin. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:29, March 8, 2006 (CST)

The 1552, and 1559 editions have nothing to do with the Orthodox Prayer Book derived liturgies. And important point to note with the American 1928 is that it doesn't have 'more distance' between it, but returns far closer to older forms than intervening American BCPs. Saying 'pretty thin' and 'precious little' are pov, while the fact that the 1928 American BCP has a lineage with a primary origin in the Sarum Use of the Roman rite is non-pov. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:41, March 12, 2006 (CST)

In the first place, since this is a "talk" page, I would assume that one may express a POV. Second, Ari's proitests not withstanding, the American 1928 is part of the tradition of the 1552, 1559, etc. A simple and example: the 1928 uses the compromise 1559 formula for administering communion. The 1549 used "The body of our Lorde Jesus Christe whiche was geven for thee, preserve thy bodye and soule unto everlasting lyfe." In order to deny the Real Presence, the 1552 was changed to: "Take and eate this, in remembraunce that Christ dyed for thee, and feede on him in thy hearte by faythe, with thankesgeving." Queen Elizabeth's 1559 version, which was designed to be a book that both "Catholic" and "Protestant" Anglicans could use, simply put the two contradictory formulas together: "The bodie of our lord Jesu Christ, which was geven for the, preserve thy body and soule into everlastinge life: and take and eate this in remembraunce that Christ died for thee, feede on him in thine heart by faith, with thankesgevynge." And this is what you find in the 1928: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." Third, this can't fairly be described as POV -- it simply reflects the scholarship on the Anglican Prayer Book tradition. One could point out other such differences. One more that comes to mind is that the Psalter of the 1928 moved even further away from the LXX in favor of the Masoretic Texts. It is simply false to claim that the 1928 has its primary origin in Sarum. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:40, March 12, 2006 (CST)

It is no false claim - the lineage is clear, and the BCP tradition as a whole descends from the Sarum Use of the Roman rite. It really isn't that difficult a concept. That the American BCP is further down the line isn't the contention: of course it is. However, ultimately the trail leads back to the Sarum Use.... in the case of the American BCP tradition, through the Scottish BCP tradition, the Non-Jurors liturgy, etc. And - most importantly, whomever 'Fr Lev' is he is conflating the Orthodox Prayer Book derived liturgies with the American 1928 BCP: they are not one and the same. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 23:58, March 13, 2006 (CST)

I suppose it is some small sign of progress that Ari has gone from saying "And important point to note with the American 1928 is that it doesn't have 'more distance' between it, but returns far closer to older forms than intervening American BCPs" above to now acknowledging the 1928 to be "further down the line." Yes, there are a number of influences and sources in the 1928 revision, but it is far removed from Sarum in text and theology. I gave a very specific example of how the theology of real presence was watered down after the 1549 through the formula for administering communion. That, at least, was reparied in the SASB version. But the St Tikhon liturgy of the SASB was based firstly on the 1928 BCP (as are many other elements of the SASB). --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 08:52, March 14, 2006 (CST)

::I think this is some good conversation, with some very interesting detail. Just a word to keep things civil - please avoid ad hominem attacks like "whoever so-and-so is" -- these aren't necessary or helpful! Let's focus on history and fact, presenting arguments based on evidence. Please provide as full citations as possible. The talk page is the proper place to note POV's and divergences of opinion.
::Finally, I'm not sure why Western Rite topics are some of the most contentious on the wiki. From the outside, it doesn't seem like much of a big deal. Authenticity doesn't need to be based on an esoteric historical trail of influence, but follows episcopal blessing and acceptance by the Church. Then again, I don't have a personal stake in any of this, and I realize WR people may feel that they are fighting hard to keep alive a particular vision of the catholicity of the Church. Peace to you! {{User:FrJohn/sig}}

::: Fr. John, the issue is that what we have is outsiders here presenting a view that is rather political (and not academic - I am presenting an academic view, and most often the current state of scholarship, as well as the actual use of the Western Rite Orthodox.) The goal of these constant re-edits seem to be the smearing of the Western Rite as actually used in the Church, and arguments towards its replacement. Hence the focus on the 'SASB' (again, not the book the Metropolitan, Vicariate, or Liturgical Commission have insisted as the 'official texts' repeatedly), and rather ignorant statements on our ROCOR Western Rite use as well (which at present includes not only Sarum and Benedictine Roman uses, but BCP derived English use, and the Neo-Gallican approved under St. John the Wonderworker). As such, these are acts of vandalism - which brings back to another point I think we've made before - that anonymity is unhelpful to this project, and the importance of veracity of sources. [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 23:06, March 26, 2006 (CST)

::::If you're referring to me in this paragraph, you're way off-base. I'm a huge proponent of the Western Rite; I merely strongly dislike Anglican usage (hey, I'm Irish-Italian -- it's in my blood) and think Roman usage should form the basis of an Orthodox WR. I'm also far from anonymous -- this username is the only one I use online, and plenty of people know me under it. If you want, I have no problem giving my name (Michael M.) and affiliation (Antiochian). [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 16:13, March 27, 2006 (CST)

Ari needs to be careful when he imputes bad motives to people, as well as when he mis-states facts. I haven't fopcused on the SASB -- I merely corrected the false statements made that the book is not authorized for use and that it is used by only one parish in the AWRV. I have said nothing negative about the SASB, nor do I have the slightest interest in "smearing" the Western Rite. Moreover, I've provided EVIDENCE. Anyone can check the SASB (it is available as a download from the parish in Whittier) and confirm that I have correctly quoted the Metropolitan's letter of authorization. I have provided the names of three AWRV parishes that use the SASB; anyone can contact them to confirm their use of the book. I have provided "veracity of sources," while Ari simply remains in denial. I don't see what the problem is with the SASB. The reference to the restored Gallican rite is inaccurate. Not only have I pointed out why "Neo-Gallican" is an inappropriate label, the rite was first authorized by the Patriachate of Moscow more than a decade before St John of Shanghai and San Francisco, along with Metropolitan Anastassy, approved its use within ROCOR. I would appreciate it if Ari would clarify exactly whom he is calling a vandal. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 08:44, March 27, 2006 (CST)

Ari, I don't appreciate you calling my edit "vandalism". The "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" doesn't have its primary origin with the Sarum Rite, or with the '49 BCP, either. Saying it has its primary origin in the Sarum Rite, without further qualification, is misleading and inaccurate. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 11:55, March 14, 2006 (CST)

: None of this is vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the wiki. This is instead a content dispute. Please keep to the issues rather than characterizing disagreement as vandalism. Vandalism is when we get ads or obscenities posted here, not arguments over content and POV. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 14:14, March 27, 2006 (CST)

:: Father Deacon, I would respectfully note that it *is* vandalism. St. Tikhon's is *not* descended from the 1552 (the true prayer book of Cranmer). The lineage is Sarum, to 1549 BCP, to the Non-Juror liturgy, to the American BCP's (the 1928 restoring much that was removed in intervening American editions.) However, a pov without basis continues to be inserted linking St. Tikhon's to 1552! That simply isn't so! The primary origin of the 1549 BCP, and of all descending from that rite, is the Sarum use. YBeayf claims no vandalism, but continues edits with false information due to a 'strong dislike' for 'Anglican usage' (by which he means, the majority *Orthodox* Western Rite use.) "Fr.Lev", however ignores the statements of the authorities of the AWRV as to the official texts (one can easily check with the AWRV as to its veracity). The motives are not 'imputed' they are *latent* in the pov - the goal is obviously derision of the Orthodox Western Rite as it exists, and the attempt to smear it as 'Zwinglian'/'Cranmerian', etc. - sure, zeal not according not according to knowledge, but also definitely vandalism. - [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 18:04, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

::: Vandalism, as defined by the administration, is when (as recently happened) an article gets renamed to "Eutychius of Constantinople on Wheels!", not when editors disagree over what an article should contain. Please feel free to disagree on content and work out a consensus amongst those interested in editing the article, but calling such disagreements vandalism doesn't help anything. This is a content/POV dispute, not vandalism.

::: That aside, if this dispute cannot be resolved, then we can protect the article until it can be worked out, reduce its content to something agreeable (and documentable) to all parties, or detail the variant views in separate sections. (My preference would be the last option.) Whatever happens, though, imputing motives to other editors (true or not) doesn't help anyone, and generally can tend to inflame passions and not improve articles. Let us '''all''' keep to discussions of fact, and not whether a particular editor has some hidden agenda or not. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 20:57, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

Ari, if you would, please trace the Liturgy of St. Tikhon back to the Sarum rite, giving all intermediate steps. [[User:YBeayf|YBeayf]] 16:02, March 27, 2006 (CST)

: YBeayf, You can find the whole in Subdeacon Benjamin Andersen's thesis for his MDiv at St. Vlad's Seminary, hopefully to be published soon (from Lancelot Andrewes press). From comparing notes, its says the same as the research we have: the St. Tikhon's is an Orthodox version of the Anglican/American Missal service (a Catholic restoration of the 1928). The 1928, in its turn, was a heavily Catholicized revision of the more protestant 1892 BCP. They in turn have their origin (as the whole American BCP tradition does) with the liturgy of the Scottish Non-Jurors 1718. The Non-Juror liturgy used the 1549 BCP, the Sarum (which was the national Scottish use), and Primitive/Eastern liturgies as its source documents (primarily that of St. Clement and the liturgy of St. James.) Also important were the ceremonial survivals of the Scottish Episcopal Church (which never had the puritanizing tendencies that occurred in the Anglican Church, and retained Sarum customs and even the 1549 BCP until the attempt to impose Laud's book, over which the 1718 was a vast improvement.) So - to put it simply: late Sarum> Henrician Sarum > 1549 > (Laud's )> 1718 Non-Juror > (American BCP tradition (1789,1892,1928)) > American/Anglican Missal > St. Tikhon's. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: this is not a history of 'continual degradation', but many of the latter steps are returns to much that intervening forms removed. In parentheses are intermediate steps which are technically intermediate, but have minimal bearing on the final liturgy! Important to note as well: that the Syriac, Greek, Old Roman, Gallican, Mozarabic all were liturgical influences on various stages in the development as well. To say that the St. Tikhon's is simply American 1928 BCP, of course, is an understatement - properly, St. Tikhon's is an Orthodox form of the *Anglican Missal*. I post this in hopes you might learn something, rather than spreading more erroneous information like that found on 'Orthodox forums'. (I should note, our ROCOR English Rite also has the 1549 BCP & 1718 Non-Juror rites as texts, as well as those uses of Sarum and York - not to be confused with the Sarum Use we have as well.) However, the *primary source document*, the original on which the tradition is based *is* the Sarum use. Part of the issue we have with detractors is because they spread the *same* misinformation over and over again - not knowing whereof they speak. I'm pretty sure that if you knew anything about our Orthodox use of the Roman rite (AWRV and Christminster), you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss 'Anglican Use'... you might be surprised at the provenance of that use as well, and how *alike* they are (especially in AWRV). - [[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 18:47, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

This account is only partially true. (1) The Liturgy of St Tikhon is not based on the Anglican Missal. Fr Joseph Angwin based it upon the 1928 American BCP. The Roman elements were taken from the Liturgy of St Gregory so that the two rites would match on those particulars. As it happens, the Anglican Missal used those same Roman elements (that have always been foreign to official Anglican liturgies). But the actual lineage isn't to the Anglican Missal. (2) In any event, the latter was never an authorized liturgical book within official Anglicanism. (3) I have never seen any scholar claim that ‘the 1928, in its turn, was a heavily Catholicized revision of the more protestant 1892 BCP.' Please name several specific ways in which the 1928 is a Catholic advance over the 1892. (4) The claim that the Sarum is the primary source of the 1549 is misleading. The anaphora is rather different, not to mention the ritual. (5) It is a gross overstatement (at best) to say that the American BCP tradition has its origin in the non-Jurors liturgy. Most of the 1789 BCP was a slightly edited version of the 1662, although there is influence from the Scottish BCP. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 20:48, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

As I wrote elsewhere, the Liturgy of St Tikhon, being based on the 1928 BCP, shows elements from the English BCP tradition, including the 1552 BCP. One example is the exhortation, 'Ye who do tuly and earnestly repent you of your sins....' In the 1549, this came after the canon; in the 1552, it is moved to before the ''sursum corda''. This 1552 position is used in the ''Orthodox Missal''. In the canon itself, the 1549's prayer that the bread and wine 'may be unto us the body and blood' is changed in the 1552 to 'may be partakers of the body and blood,' a change Cranmer made to 'remove any suspicion of transubstantiation.' The ''Orthodox Missal'' follows the 1552. So to claim that the 1552 is not a source for the Liturgy of St Tikhon is clearly false. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:02, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

== Sarum, 1549, etc. ==

The 1549 BCP was a distinct change in text and theology from the Sarum Usage -- toward a Reformation point of view. There were further changes made in the 1552 to make it more "Protestant," which are reflected in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. There were further changes made in the 1559 (as a compromise), which are also reflected in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. This shouldn't be surprising, as the Liturgy of St Tikhon was taken primarly from the American 1928 BCP, which drew on the long Prayer Book tradition of the Church of England and therefore includes elements of the 1549, 1552, 1559, etc. I know this from having taught Anglican liturgy, having made a detailed study of the relevant BCP's, etc. That the Liturgy of St Tikhon was primarily based upon the 1928 BCP is not only clear to anyone who has used both texts, but I was also told this by the priest who prepared the Liturgy of St Tikhon. The Liturgy of St Tikhon was based upon the 1928 with certain "Anglo-Catholic" adaptations. This was a pastoral decision to meet the needs of converts to Orthodoxy who were used to using the 1928 (with Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox amendments). While there isn't space on this discussion page, sometime in the next couple of months I will produce a comparison of the eucharistic prayers of Sarum, 1549, 1552, 1559, and the American 1928. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 11:54, March 28, 2006 (CST)

== "Old Sarum Rite" removed, and why ==

The text said this. For reasons I will go through right now, there were so many errors and accusations I removed the text.

==Old Sarum Rite==
"Another liturgy using a similar name is the '''Old Sarum Rite''',"

This is false. The Monastery of the Holy Name usually just refers to it as "Sarum Rite", and this is simply made up.

"compiled by a [[monastery]] of [[Old Catholic]] origin within the [[Holy Synod of Milan]], based upon many various early rites of Western Europe, including Sarum, and many details from minority texts."

This is also false. It has some details from minority texts of *Sarum rites*, but its base text is solely the Sarum rite.

"It is a modern construction (deemed a reconstruction by its supporters),"

It is absolutely not deemed a "reconstruction" by any partisan of the Milan Synod. The author of the above must be talking about the Gallican rite, or flatly lying.

"and it has been criticized as being a pastiche rather than an actual revived liturgy. This liturgy is not in use by any mainstream Western Rite Orthodox."

Because it (a) is simply the Sarum rite with occasional, local pre-schism English variations (which can be confirmed by simply checking the text itself) then logically (b) it is virtually identical to the Sarum usage on the part of the ROCOR, something only a few within ROCOR deny, the majority of Western rite members of ROCOR agreeing that Milan partisans are using the exact same text.

There were so many problems with this paragraph I simply removed it. To "debate" whether a name is being used when it isn't, in any substantial capacity, to claim something is "claimed to be a reconstruction" when no one has claimed anything to be a translation, and to deliberately misrepresent facts has no place in an encyclopedia.

Sarum Use

2008-04-16T15:18:11Z

Joesuaiden: Removed completely partisan statement on "reconstruction" and "Old Sarum Rite" for inaccurate statement. See discussion.

{{disputed}}

{{westernrite}}The '''Sarum Rite''', also called the '''Rite of Salisbury''', is a [[Western Rite]] liturgical tradition which coalesced in the 11th century West and in the contemporary [[Orthodox Church]]. It is more properly termed a '''Use''' of the [[Roman Rite]].

==History==
The origins of the rite are with the ancient local usages of the Insular Churches, ie those of Great Britain and Ireland. The earliest rites of those regions belonged to the family of rites called [[Gallican Rite]]. With the coming of St. [[Augustine of Canterbury]] to England in AD 597, a new rite was introduced into Britain: that of the [[Church of Rome]]. St. Augustine had been directed by Pope St. Gregory the Great (also called St. [[Gregory the Dialogist]]) to respect the Gallican customs that were already in place. Beginning with this period, and later with the rule of Charlemagne on the Continent, the Gallican and Roman rites were mixed. In England, the Second Council of Cloveshoe in 747 under St. [[Cuthbert of Lindisfarne]] included the canon that the rite of those "speaking the English tongue" would be the Roman rite. During the period of the Celtic and Saxon churches, there developed several related local variants or Uses of the Roman Rite, called ''Gallo-Roman'' to distinguish from the old Roman rite. The rites used in France, northern Spain, Portugal, the Low Countries, Germany, and Scandinavia were similar.

In 1066, the Normans invaded England. There were some abortive attempts at changing entirely to the related uses of northern France. However, monasteries particularly in the western parts of the island (especially Sherbourne Abbey and Glastonbury Abbey) proved intransigent. The Norman bishop of Sarum, Osmund, arranged the services for his new [[cathedral]] according to the practices that he saw around him—both Norman and Saxon/Celtic, inventing nothing. The Sarum rite as known was probably arranged by Richard Le Poore, who moved the See from Old Sarum to New Salisbury in the 13th c. From this period, the Sarum enjoyed the sterling reputation as being the best liturgy anywhere in the West, and thus had influence on the liturgy of other local churches in the Isles and the Continent (notable among them being Braga in Portugal and Nidaros/Trondheim in Norway). Other related local uses continued as well, such as York, Bangor, Hereford, and Durham.

The Sarum Use was one of the first to be published on the new printing presses in the early days of the Reformation. The complete service books for the whole rite survive. The rite was commanded for the whole realm of Great Britain during the reign of Queen Mary. It was also the primary source text for the Book of Common Prayer of the [[Anglican Communion|Anglican Church]].

The rite was revived particularly by the Orthodox party of the Anglo-Catholic or Tractarian movement in the 19th c. Church of England. In the mid-19th c., the services were translated into English by such as G. H. Palmer, and became either the preferred liturgy or preferred liturgical model for the non-Romanizing part of the Anglo-Catholic movement (also called Orthodox Anglo-Catholic or Prayer Book Catholic). The ceremonial and customs of the rite were the major influence in the development of the English Use, partly through the efforts of Percy Dearmer, author of ''The Parson's Handbook''. The old English Catholic Clergy Brotherhood also maintained a tradition of Sarum Use through the period of Catholic persecution in England. Attempts to revive the Sarum rite amongst the Roman Catholics included proponents such as A. W. N. Pugin and Bishop Wilson of Tasmania. The Sarum rite was suggested, but rejected, for use in the new Westminster Cathedral in 1903.

The [[Western Rite]] Orthodox [[Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow]], as well as the ROCOR English Use liturgy, have their primary origin with the Sarum Use of the Roman rite. The Sarum Rite in English and French is also used by the Western Rite Orthodox in the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]]. In North America, the Sarum Rite is also used in about half the parishes of the [[Holy Synod of Milan]], with [[The Abbey of the Holy Name (West Milford, New Jersey)]] utilizing the full liturgical cycle of the Sarum use.

==Sources==
*''The Church of our Fathers'', Daniel Rock, 1849.
*''The Sarum Missal in English'' , F. E. Warren, 1911.
*''The Use of Sarum'', ed. W. H. Frere, 1898.
*''The Sarum Missal edited from three Early Manuscripts'', J. Wickham Legg, 1916.
*''The Parson's Handbook'' Percy Dearmer, 1957.
*[http://anglicansociety.org/corner/sarum_use.html ''The Sarum Use''] by Rev'd. Canon Professor J. Robert Wright.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13479a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Sarum Rite]
*[http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/English.htm Project Canterbury: the Sarum Missal]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20070425132558/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/#THE%20ROOTS ''The Roots of the Orthodox Liturgy in the West''], archive from the website of Saint Petroc Monastery
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20070208083242/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm ''The Divine Liturgy of Sarum as used in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad''], archive from the website of Saint Petroc Monastery


==External link==
*[http://www.archive.org/details/churchofsarum00unknuoft ''The Liturgy of the Church of Sarum, together with the kalendar of the same church'']. Translated from the Latin, with a preface and explanatory notes by Charles Walker, with an introduction by T.T. Carter. London J.T. Hayes (1886). The Internet Archive.

[[Category:Liturgics]]
[[Category:Western Rite]]

The Abbey of the Holy Name (West Milford, New Jersey)

2007-12-09T04:05:26Z

Joesuaiden: Per the Abbot of the Monastery, Fr Augustine was never made a Bishop

The '''Abbey of the Holy Name''' is a [[Western Rite]] [[monastery]] of the [[Old Calendarists|Old Calendarist]] [[Holy Synod of Milan]] established in West Milford, New Jersey with the blessing of Metropolitan William in 1973 and Metropolitan Joseph prior to his repose in 1990. The abbey was the continuing monastic institution which succeeded St. Dunstan's Priory in Woodstock, New York, following its destruction by fire in 1948, and its temporary relocation thereafter to Overlook Mountain, which is still the present site of the Milan Synod Western Rite Orthodox Parish of the Holy Transfiguration.

St. Dunstan's had been moved to Woodstock, New York, in 1940 by Metropolitan William when he transferred the priory and his see from Waukegan, Illinois. In 1973, Schema-Abbot John (LoBue) was elected by the St. Dunstan community to replace Abbot Augustine Whitfield when the latter established the Monastery of Mount Royal in Jacksonville, Florida. Schema-Abbot John was assigned to find a new location for the abbey, which was moved later that year to West Milford, New Jersey. In 1978, the name of the abbey was changed to ''Abbey of the Holy Name'' and, on [[September 21]], 1980, Schema-Abbot John was consecrated Bishop of the Northeast (USA) by First Hierarch Metropolitan Joseph and Archbishop Hilarion of Texas. Since then the abbey has housed the diocesan offices and the St. Gregory Orthodox Liturgical Press. Many ecclesiastical dignitaries have visited the abbey during its existence, including Archbishop [[Hilarion (Kapral) of Sydney|Hilarion of Australia]] ([[ROCOR]]) and Bishop Germaine of Paris ([[Orthodox Church of France|ECOF]]). The Blessed Elder (Schema-Bishop) Theodore (Irtel) of Old Valaam lived the last 7 years of his life at the abbey and reposed there on [[November 21]], 1997.

The abbey is within the [[Old Calendarists|Old Calendar]] jurisdiction of the ''Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas'' (AOMWEA) since 1997, which is more commonly known as the [[Holy Synod of Milan]]. Prior to that date, these churches connected with the abbey constituted the Western Rite Exarchate of the [[Church of Russia|Russian Patriarchal Church]] under Exarch William. Due to alleged manipulations of KGB interference they left the Moscow Patriarchate and came into communion with the [[Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church in Exile]] under Archbishop Palladios, one of the founders of SCOBA. Under Palladios' leadership permission was granted to establish this Western Rite church on its own as the ''Synod of Orthodox Bishops of the Western Rite'' with parishes and monasteries in America, Great Britain and Yugoslavia. In 1972, after the repose of Abp. Palladios, these churches severed all relationship with the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate]] due to latter's extensive involvement in Ecumenism. In 1997, the bishops of the Milan Synod, which had by then received a second Tomos of Autonomy in connection with the [[Church of Ukraine (Kiev Patriarchate)|Ukrainian Patriachate]] by Patriarch Voldymir of Kiev, received the bishops of the Western Rite Synod into the Milan Synod by a new granting of [[ordination|cheirothesia]]. At the same time Bishop John, who had served as [[locum tenens]] for First Hierarch after the repose of Metropolitan Joseph in 1990, was given the position of Archbishop of New York and New Jersey.

==External link==
*[http://holynameabbey.org Monastery website]

[[Category:Western Rite]]
[[Category:Old Calendarist Monasteries]]
[[Category:Monasteries]]

Talk:Old Calendarists

2007-12-09T03:15:35Z

Joesuaiden: /* HOCNA */

Is it really right to classify [[ROCOR]] as "Old Calendarist"? Their separation didn't have anything to do with the calendar change, and they're apparently on the verge of reunion with Moscow, anyhow. --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 13:00, 28 Feb 2005 (CST)

== '''Archbishop Gregory (Dormition Skete / Colorado)''' ==

How should his eminence be classified? As a separate jurisdiction? [[User:Eddieuny|Eddieuny]] 21:18, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: Good question. What does he call his jurisdiction? Are there any other bishops in it with him? [http://www.buenavistaco.com/GOC/ds-history.html Their website] describes them as "temporarily independent." I'd hate to make up a name for them if they didn't have their own, but they are probably worth a mention. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 21:48, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: Oh, here we go: http://www.roacamerica.org/

: It seems they're the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America." —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 22:15, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)

: It appears that Archbishop Gregory has changed his church's name to the "Genuine Orthodox Church of America." [http://www.gocamerica.org link title]. However, this may be ambiguous as the Metropolis of the GOC-Chrysostomite under Metropolitan Pavlos is called GOC as is the Makarian Synod's presence in America. --[[User:Anastasios|Anastasios]] 14:07, February 20, 2006 (CST)

==Article bias?==
I received this feedback today from someone. Any comments? Thanks, [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

:Interesting. I think this article illustrates some of the problems with a publicly edited encyclopedia. Just a couple examples...

::Headed by Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, the synod has twelve bishops and is enjoying a period of relative stability amidst intermittent persecution on the part of the state church. One bishop, Gregory (George) of Colorado, recently went into schism, but took no parishes with him save four, calling themselves the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America.

:This seems very biased in favor of Valentine and against Gregory (note that I am not the least bit fond of either of them).

Hi, this is Joseph Suaiden writing from a new account. While I am no longer part of ROAC, I still wouldn't retratct that. When Gregory discovered the Synod was issuing an order to appear at a Synodal trial, he fled the US, and hid in Greece for somewhere around a month, with only his followers able to communicate with him. In fact, they are now down to ONE active parish in America. So much for the "Genuine Orthodox Church of America". [[User:JoeSuaiden|Joseph Suaiden]]

::In 2001, after the ROCOR made a clear commitment to union with the Moscow Patriarchate, the head of the ROCOR synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, retired in clear disgust from the proceedings.

::Almost immediately afterwards, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Varnava of Cannes, and the two of the Russian bishops of ROCOR, separated from the ROCOR and made new bishops. The proceedings that led up to these events are well documented on the Internet and the treatment of the retired head of the ROCOR was painful to watch, for even the most casual observer.

:Again, obvious bias in favor of the Mansonville schismatics (yes, I have a personal interest here).

I don't see why it couldn't be worded a bit more neutrally. The original bulk of the article was taken by permission from a text written by a scholar in the field (who is himself, I believe, in one of these groups), [[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]]. In any event, it's curious that the person who wrote to you didn't see instead the inherent ''strengths'' of a publicly editable encyclopedia and come contribute.

::I don't know precisely what is the issue here-- frankly, even Bishops of the ROCOR admitted that the event was handled badly, and Bp Michael was disciplined for his involvement in the videotaped incident, regardless of whether or not Mansonville was schismatic. I'll try to be careful; I have been updating my base text to reflect a number of recent changes-- there are now three mansonville groups, to start with.... [[User:JoeSuaiden|Joseph Suaiden]]

I'll work with those passages to see if I can "neutralize" them a bit. —[[User:ASDamick|Dcn. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Randompage|random]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] 15:15, 22 Jul 2005 (EDT)

== "Kiousis Synod" ==

I changed the eponym for the "Kiousis" Synod to "Chrysostomite". This is how it is known and referred to in Greece. The alternative "Kiousis Synod" is used in polemical contexts by its detractors. "Chrysostomite" is commonly used to refer to both Chrysostom of Florina (as opposed to Matthewite) and Chrysostom (Kiousis) of Athens (as opposed to Auxentite). I also corrected the timeline of the Florenite ordinations and the removal of Auxentios in 1986.

Leonidas

:Thanks Leonidas! Good to see you here - [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]

== Walling off vs In Resistance ==

It seems that these terms are used more by the Exarchate of the Synod in Resistance in their literature interchangeably. I have not seen this terminology used in any of my church's (GOC-Chrysostomite under Metropolitan Pavlos of Astoria) publications in English (although we don't have a large publishing arm!), but I am not sure how these matters are discussed in Greek. From our POV, we are not "in resistance" as we are the local Church of Greece and its American Metropolis (sorry if this offends anyone in the New Calendar Church, but I am just stating the official view) so there is nothing to "resist." Walling off implies that we hold the State Church of Greece to be on equal footing, but just a separate part. I don't see any difference between walling off and being in resistance.

To break the discussion down to "Synods condemning New Calendarists as Graceless" and "those not" would be futile as well, as all the Greek Synods except the Synod in Resistance have done so, yet there have been vocal critics of this policy even within these synods (i.e. Metropolitan Petros of Astoria).

In other words, I don't quite have the answer (although I will think about it some more) but I hope I have pointed out some potential ambiguities.

[[User:Anastasios|Anastasios]] 14:53, February 20, 2006 (CST)

== Changes ==

Some changes that needed to be made:

a) Clarification of the 1995 split in Kiousis Synod: Only Euthymios of Thessaloniki was charged with moral infractions.
b) Cyprianite Ecclesiology is not widely considered heretical among Greek Old Calendarists, regardless of a 1987 Synodal Decision by the Kiousis Synod. "Cyprianite Eccelsiology" is generally found objectionable because it is seen to blurr the distinction (the boundary created by the act of breaking communion and "walling-off") between World Orthodoxy and the Old Calendar Church and mostly because it is percieved to have been articulted in order to justify divisions within the Old Calendar Church: namely the existance of the Synod in Resistance.
c) The reference to a Cyprianite priest in Georgia erased: this isn't the place for invective against individuals.

Leonidas

== Egyptian "Old Calendarists" ==

The jurisdictions, affiliations, and ordinations mentioned in this entry--and the "Holy Synod of bishops headed by Max Michel"--are all highly questionable, if not completely bogus. This jurisidiciton is not a mainstream Old Calendar jurisdiction and it is not recognized by anyone. It really doesn't have a place here, at least in this article.

In general, the Old Calendar movement is Greek as it came as a reaction to the Calendar Reforms of the 1920's in the Greek-speaking churches of Constantinople and Greece.

The Russian Church Abroad came to be associated with this movement in the 1960's as its hierarchs restored the Florenite hiearchy in 1960 after the death of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina. Especially under Metropolitan Philaret, the ROCA took an interest in the Greek Old Calendarists, involving itself even in the efforts for reconciliation between Florinites and Matthewites in 1972.

The ROCA and its splinter groups thus come to be included in discussions on the Old Calendar only a) in view of the above described involvement in the ecclesiastic life of the Greek Old Calendar Church and b) in regards to the movment to resist Ecumenism by abstaining from communion with the "World Orthodox" jurisdictions.

A working definition, then, of who and what should be included in this article would be those jurisdicitions which fall into the category of Greek Old Calendarist-ROCA: all those jurisdictions which trace their origins from the ROCA or from the Greek Florenites or Matthewites.

[[User:Leonidas|Leonidas]]

:Thanks for the explanation and clarifying comments, Leonidas. It's helpful for making sense of the situation. Maybe the material on Max Michel should be moved to [[Episcopi vagantes]]? — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
:P. S. Just noticed we don't have a listing there - maybe that's just as well.

::Thanks very much for the note. As far as I know, Max Michel has been "ordained" by an Old Calendarist group in the States (see http://www.oldorthodox.org/synodcommunion.html ), so please advise. Does this group belong to mainstream Old Calendarists? Max has recently published on his Web site his alleged "Apostolic succession", which, as he claims, goes back to Sts Andrew and Peter through those Old Calendarist "bishops" who "ordained" him in the States ( http://www.bishopmaximus.com/articles_body.php?id=129 ). --[[User:Arbible|Arbible]] 04:44, September 18, 2006 (CDT)

:I expect that Leonidas would know if they had any regard among the mainstream Greek-American Old-Calendarists. (I don't know many Old-Claendarists, but Leonides, a personal friend, knows more about the movement as anyone I've ever met.) The claim to "apostolic succession" is a familiar trope which, in an Orthodox context, I think is almost meaningless. As I see it, we understand that apostolic succession must mean much more than a mere linear succession; it requires communion with the body of the Church. The ancient dictum "unus Christianus, nullus Christianus" (one Christian is no Christian) certainly applies to bishops, conveniently located far off and bolstered with self-aggrandizing claims to their own succession. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

::Some background: http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6883

Max was ordained by "Mar Melchisedek" (your first hint it is not a real Old Calendarist is the Syriac title) of the "Eparchy of Nebraska" (second clue as we don't use the term Eparchy). As the background, Mar Melchisedek was ordained by the Timotheos group if I am correct, which has its origins in Joachim Souris, a bishop ordained by Arsenios Saltas, who was ordained by the infamous Christopher Contageorge, of proto-vagante fame. This Souris went to Greece and established himself as an "Archbishop" of the Old Calendarists even though we already had a Synod. These people are vagantes and have no association with us whatsoever.
[[User:Anastasios|Anastasios]]

===Deletion===
[[User:HSAD|HSAD]], please explain your deletion. If you delete this again without explanation, your account will be suspended from OrthodoxWiki. You are welcome to contest facts, if that is the issue, but you may not simply suppress the conversation. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

== HOCNA ==

At the present time, Fr. John is editing the aticle written on HOCNA. We have provided many links to primary documents. Too much has been made of the moral accusations (made by by witnesses unworthy to make allegations against a clergyman) and not by the infractions against the Anathema of 1983 against Ecumenism which all the bishops of ROCOR signed in 1983. I have put "The Holy Orthodox Church in North America: In 1986, the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA were accused of moral crimes. The accusers were not worthy witnesses according to Sacred Canons and the monastery asked for a canonical investigation and trial for 11 months before giving up hope. At the same time, the clergy that were to become HOCNA noted that even before the moral accusations were given serious consideration by the bishops of ROCOR, there were many violations of the Anathema Against Ecumenism that all the Bishops of ROCOR had signed in 1983. When it became clear by the bishop's silence in regard to the violations of the Anathema and also the indiscreet spreading of slander against Holy Transfiguration Monastery that their protests were considered tiresome and were not being delt with in a pastoral way, they, with approximately one-thirteeth of the North American parishes of the ROCOR, left the ROCOR"

There is also misinformation on when administrative unity was lost with Greece. The bishops in North America never broke communion with Archbishop Auxentios, but with Archbishop Maximos after he had consecrated bishops without the permission of the other bishops.

The main issues that presently prevent administrative unity between HOCNA and one of the synods in Greece are respect for diocesan boundries and suspicion of the Kollivades traditions in HOCNA such as frequent Holy Communion (weekly in the parishes and daily in the monasteries if there are no impediments), the canonicity of the icon of the Holy Trinity other than the Hospitality of Abraham, etc. which are not part of the general fabric of Church life among the "True Orthodox" in Greece with the exception, perhaps, of the Synod of Arcbishop Cyprian of Fili. Another impediment was the issue of the "deposition" of Archbishop Auxentios which has now, glory be to God, been retracted by both the Chrysostomite and Makarian Synods and is no longer an issue.

Finally, I would question the assertion that the "Old Calendar" synods in Bulgaria and Romania give the Holy Mysteries to those who follow the New Calendar or are involved in Ecumenism. I do not think they do. Perhaps in Greece the Synod of Cyprian of Fili does, but not in these other Synods, though obviously their differing practices have not made them break communion with Archbishop Cyprian.[[User:Fr. Sergius|Fr. Sergius]] 21:28, January 5, 2007 (PST)

And this is perhaps the difficulty of a publicly edited encyclopedia. This version of the HOCNA story is absolutely subjective. The idea that NONE of the accusers were worthy witnesses is irrelevant, because what became HOCNA didn't stay to stand trial to begin with. They stayed for 11 months, but when just as the trial would really happen, they left. Then they claimed they ran out of patience after the fact.

The retraction by the Chrysostomite and Makarian Synods of Auxentios and his Bishops had specific provisions REFUSING to recognize HOCNA. Certainly I believe in both sides being represented in any story. But I would like to see where there is any credence given to the other side in your story. Admitting that moral charges were lobbed at Fr Panteleimon alone-- and then proceeding to smash away at its invalidity--is not objective writing, and I am sure that you are aware of this.

In the end, I am sure that people will lack the resources to stop HOCNA's attempt to control the traditional Orthodox internet. Having lived in HTM, I am aware of the access that the approved fathers have to the internet. The rest of us can answer folks, and then we go back to our jobs. Sadly, for some, this IS their job.-- [[JoeSuaiden|Joseph Suaiden]]

Talk:Old Calendarists

2007-12-09T02:59:41Z

Joesuaiden: /* Article bias? */

Old Calendarists

2007-12-09T01:44:52Z

Joesuaiden: /* Divisions within Russia abroad */

{{expert}}

'''Old Calendarists''' are groups of Orthodox Christians who are in various levels of "resistance" against the mainstream Orthodox churches, identified mainly by their insistence on the use of the Julian Calendar. They are to be distinguished from the mainstream churches which simply follow the [[Julian Calendar]] yet remain in [[full communion]] with most or all of world Orthodoxy. Many Old Calendarists today say that their concerns about [[ecumenism]] are more significant than calendar issues.

The mainstream churches have varying positions on different Old Calendarist churches, ranging from an active desire to restore unity to a denial of the Old Calendarists' Orthodoxy.

Some Old Calendarist groups are styled as '''True Orthodox''' or '''Genuine Orthodox''', and both terms are used in this article. Some may also style themselves '''Traditionalist Orthodox'''.
{{TOCright}}

==History==
===Greece===
In 1924, the [[bishop]]s of the [[Church of Greece]] implemented the calendar change discussed at the pan-Orthodox congress. Afterwards, the former [[Primate]] of the Church of Greece, [[Germanos of Demetrias]], retired in protest. Lay groups and [[brotherhoods]] formed to keep the use of the [[Julian calendar]] (or the "Orthodox calendar," as they prefer it to be called) alive, despite state persecution (Greece was an Orthodox country, and the Church enjoyed certain privileges from the state) and finally, in 1935, three bishops, certain that waiting for a reversal of the calendar change was irresponsible to their flocks, immediately declared their separation from the official Church and declared that the calendar change was a schismatic act.

====The Florinite/Matthewite schism====
By the 1940s, two parties had formed within the Church of Greece: the [[Florinites]] (under Metropolitan [[Chrysostom of Florina]]) and the [[Matthewites]] (under Bp. [[Matthew of Bresthena]]). The issue had been the former's vacillation on whether the mysteries of the State Church were still grace-filled. Both sides had their respective justifications for their positions, and both were violently persecuted by the state. The Matthewites were holding a more consistently applied position. That they labelled the Florinites as a whole as opportunists who were trying to ingratiate themselves with the state was unfortunate, and not altogether true for the followers of Metropolitan Chrysostom, and so the parties became psychologically distinct.

In the end, a real physical division was formed, whereas a real doctrinal division ended: Bishop Matthew singlehandedly consecrated another bishop, and together they made more new bishops. After the death of Bishop Matthew, however, Chrysostom of Florina reaffirmed the decision of 1935 declaring the New Calendar State Church as [[schism]]atic. (The reasons for this are unclear, and speculations give various answers.) In any case, the Matthewites proceeded to elect Archbishop Agathagelos to the rank of Primate of Athens in 1958.

We will deal first with the major divisions of the Florinites, since their divisions have generally been larger and more permanent in nature, and then the Matthewites.

====Divisions within the Florinites====
After the death of Metropolitan Chrysostom, the Florinites had no bishops, and Metropolitan Chrysostom advised his flock to go under the protection of the Matthewite bishops. Fearing the repercussions, however, the Florinites opted to seek a new hierarchy and appealed to Bishops of the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]] to help them. In 1960, Archimandrite Akakios Pappas was made a bishop with the title of Bishop of Talantion for these communities without the official blessing of the ROCOR Synod by [http://www.roca.org/life_of_archbishop_seraphim.htm Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago] and Bp. Theophilos Ionescu, a Romanian New Calendar Bishop under the ROCOR. The following year, the ROCOR elected and ordained Archimandrite Petros Astyfides as Bishop of Astoria in order to serve as archpastor of the Greek Old Calendarist immigrant communities in the United States and Canada. Later Bp. Akakios of Talantion and Archbishop Leonty of Chile (ROCOR) ordained five more bishops in Greece. Thus in 1961, Akakios of Talantion became the new First-Hierarch of the restored Florinite Synod. He died, however, in 1963. The Synod thus proceeded to elect Auxentios Pastras, Bishop of Gardikion, to be their new leader as Archbishop of Athens. The ROCOR under Metropolitan Philaret eventually recognized the validity of the secret consecrations in 1969.

All of the current divisions of the Florinites come from one of the groups below:

'''The Auxentios Synod''': The First Florinite Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece was fraught with problems by the 1970s, and two major separations occurred during the lifetime of Archbishop Auxentios. However, few doubt that Archbishop Auxentios himself was of a saintly character, albeit a poor bishop. Recently there have been attempts to rehabilitate his memory (Archbishop Auxentios died in 1994); most of his synod, barely held together by the 1980s, dissolved after his death into the three jurisdictions listed below. In 1986, Auxentios was removed from the Archdiocese of Athens and the leadership of the Old Calendar Church of Greece by a majority the Florinite bishops on account of a series of controversial episcopal ordinations conducted in the early 1980s with his apparent consent. Having the support of the dissenting minority of bishops, Auxentios proceeded to re-form his Synod, appealing for help to the [[Holy Synod of Milan|Bishops of the West]], then independent, but under his omophor, for assistance. He died in 1994, having failed to reconcile with the parishes of the Florinite Synod under Chrysostom Kiousis. The remaining parishes of the Auxentios Synod, however, elected Archbishop Maximos of Kephalonia to the throne of Athens on [[January 7]], 1995. In response to Maximos' request to revisit the ROCOR investigation of Fr Panteleimon (Metropoulos) of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, the parishes loyal to Auxentios under the American Bishops organized around Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston (see HOCNA), left the Synod, and elected Makarios of Toronto as locum tenens of the see of Athens.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)|The Chrysostomite Synod]]''': Amidst charges of maladministration, the majority of the Florinite synod chose in 1986 a new leader in Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis), who demonstrated rather effectively that the True Orthodox in Greece were a force to be reckoned with. Choosing to take on the Greek legal system, court cases were held where it was demonstrated that the Old Calendarists of Greece were not schismatics. Though their public reputation had been tarnished over nearly two decades of divisions, their legal existence was, and is presently, safe. The synod of Chrysostom of Athens is today the largest synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece.

'''The [[Holy Synod in Resistance|Synod-in-Resistance]] of Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili''': While this church's official [[ecclesiology]] is peculiar, the amount of work that Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili and his synod have done to assist True Orthodox throughout the world is impressive, and must be noted. The church itself is rather small, but has been very effective in presenting intellectual arguments against the New Calendar State Church. It is headed by another defector from the Auxentios Synod, Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) of Fili, and holds an ecclesiology of “sick" and “healthy" churches, thus avoiding the repercussions that inevitably follow referring to the majority as subject to a schismatic body. Their ecclesiology is considered heretical by the more rigorist elements of the True Orthodox who have been influenced by Matthewite positions.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)|The Synod of Archbishop Makarios of Athens (Lamian Synod)]]''': In 1995, a resistance faction of six bishops formed within the synod of Chrysostom (Kiousis) and separated itself over what they claimed to be a series of canonical infractions, headed by Metropolitan Kallinikos of Lamia. The charges related to the trial of Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Euthymios (Orphanos), who had been charged with moral infractions, and the election of Bishop Vikentios (Malamatenios) of Avlona as Metropolitan of Peiraeus. By early 1997, the bishops headed by Kallinikos of Lamia had fragmented into three groups, one of which reconciled with Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis). A second group, Paisios Loulourgas (Met. of America) and Vikentios Malamatenios (titular Bp. of Avlona), submitted to the Ecumenical Patiarchate. Later that same year, Kallinikos of Lamia and Euthymios of Thessaloniki proceeded to ordain five [[bishop|titular bishop]]s in an attempt to create a new synod. In 2003, they finally decided to elect a primate, and elected Makarios (Kavakides) of Athens. A good deal of their membership was then lost, as many who did not see themselves as separate from the Kiousis synod were forced to decide between the two.

====Divisions within the Matthewites====
For all the negative press the Matthewites have received over the years due to the strictness of their position, their church has been strangely free from long lasting schisms. Only two separations are worthy of note from the main body, and while they had the potential to destroy the unity that exists within the Matthewite True Orthodox Church of Greece, they did not.

The first Primate of Athens selected by the Matthewites was Agathangelos of Athens, who reposed in 1967. Andreas of Athens, one of the original three bishops made, was elected to the primacy in 1972; unitl his death in 2005 he was one of the oldest and longest-reigning of Orthodox bishops in the world.

'''[[True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)|The Synod of Archbishop Nicholas]]''': In February, 2003, Archbishop Andreas of Athens retired, and Archbishop Nicholas of Athens, considered by many to have a progressive vision for the Matthewite church, was elected. Extremely popular with younger Matthewites, Archbishop Nicholas seems generally poised to keep the Matthewite synod united. However, it has been advanced that Archbishop Andreas retired in violation of the canons.

'''The Kirykite faction''': Not a schism proper, Metropolitan Kirykos and two other bishops of the synod refused to recognize the retirement of Archbishop Andreas or the enthronement of the new Archbishop, but continued to remain a member of the Synod of Archbishop Nicholas. The risk of schism exists, but is small—one of Kyrikos' vocal supporters have since died; another Matthewite Bishop of the Synod has passed on recently in Metr Gorgonios, and there were rumors he too supported Metropolitan Kirykos.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)|The Gregorian Synod]]''': Under the primacy of Andreas of Athens, there were virtually no divisions in the Matthewites until 1995, when Metropolitan Gregory of Messinia separated with a small majority of the synod (five versus four), ostensibly over the issue of the "God the Father" [[icon]] and the related issues of Western-style icons in general. However, with the deaths of three of their bishops, the remaining two split, one remaining completely alone from the eldest hierarch, and the with Gregorios of Messinia naming three more bishops (Abramios, Pavlos, and Nectarios).

For all intents and purposes, it would appear that there are still only two actual Matthewite synods.

====Other groupings====
There was once a list posted of over 30 True Orthodox Greek Churches. This is in fact an unrealistic number. The number comes from an Old Internet listing of Bishops and Synods, some of whom had no following, and had one, if any Bishop. A demented compilation designed to confuse as well as [[convert]], this infamous list indicated even temporary unions as existing jurisdictions. As well, even the Moscow Patriarchate was involved in the formation of one of these Bishops (Joachim Souris), and so the author is limiting the discussion to True Orthodox Churches with actual memberships and hierarchies-- in other words, actual Churches.

===Russia===
====Inside Russia====
With the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, Orthodox bishops in Russia began to apply [[Ukaz No. 362]] of Patriarch St. [[Tikhon of Moscow|Tikhon]] and became administratively independent until such time as they could operate freely.

Ukaz No. 362 was written to preserve the Orthodox Church in times of persecution so that the Churches could survive. It gives the bishops of the Russian Church, temporarily, the right to self-govern apart from each other until such time as they can organize. It is considered by some to be a masterpiece of self-preservation in a time where the rules of canonical order could not be followed to the letter due to the difficulty of travel and so forth.

The number of catacomb churches in Russia is to date fairly large, and even today no one knows where all of them are. The history of the different catacomb [[episcopate]]s since 1927 is still not completely documented. There are also questions as to the legitimacy of certain catacomb bishops. Sadly, these questions will have to be determined by a future all-Russian Council.

====The True ("Free") Russian Orthodox Church and its divisions====
In 1990, ROCOR had announced that a bishop had secretly been consecrated to assist the believers in Russia (Bishop Varnava of Cannes), who then proceeded, with the blessing of the Synod, to make more bishops for Russia, the most prominent being Bishop Valentine of Suzdal and Lazarus of Tambov.

'''[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church|The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]]''': The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) is by far the largest of the Russian True Orthodox Churches, with hundreds of parishes in Russia and abroad, and also one of the most controversial. Headed by Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, the synod has twelve bishops and is enjoying a period of intense persecution on the part of the [[Church of Russia|state church]]. One bishop, Gregory (George/Abu Asaly) of Colorado, recently parted ways with the ROAC synod after having been both canonically retired and excommunicated. He initially took 2 parishes in America with him but they have now left him along with most of his monastics and parishioners. His group is the self-styled the '''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of America]]'''[http://www.gocamerica.org/] (Not to be confused with the newly autonomous Genuine Greek Orthodox Church in America headed by Metropolitan Pavlos of Astoria that is in communion with its mother Church, the GOC headed by Archbishop Chrysostomos II.) Gregory and his believers numbering in the teens believes himself to be the last bishop left in America.

'''[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)|The True Russian Orthodox Church]]''': Bp. Lazarus of Tambov, himself well-known in Russia, rejoined the ROCOR after the Free Russian Orthodox Church broke communion with ROCOR then later left again after the formation of Metropolitan Vitaly's [[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]] (ROCOR-V). He and Bishop Benjamin of Kuban consecrated a new set of bishops and currently have a couple dozen parishes in Russia.

====Russian True Orthodoxy today====
Today the situation is considerably clearer than it was 20 years ago; many of the groups that exist today have either been merged into other jurisdictions or have formed small, independent groups, administratively separate from the rest of the church. Much of their current history is tied together with ROCOR, as most of the original Catacomb bishops had been killed during state persecutions or died in hiding.

====Outside Russia====
The History of the Russian church outside Russia is best summarized by St. [[John Maximovitch|John (Maximovitch)]], Archbishop of Shanghai and San Fransisco, who reposed in 1966:

:In November of 1921 in Sremsky-Karlovtsy in Yugoslavia the first Sobor abroad was held, in which in addition to 24 bishops, representatives of the clergy and laity took part. Being thus the voice of all Russians who had succeeded in leaving the Soviet authority, the Sobor considered itself obligated to express its opinion regarding the situation in Russia, where all the rest of the population of Russia was languishing under the oppression of that authority. The Sobor appealed to the Genoa Conference with the request not to support the Bolshevik regime and to help the Russian people to become free of it.

Thus was formed the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]] (ROCOR), which held, until recently, the banner of Russian True Orthodoxy outside of the Russian territory.

====Divisions within Russia abroad====
The Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) enjoyed relative stability until after the death of Metropolitan Philaret of New York (+1985) and is currently in the process of uniting with Moscow. Since the death of Metropolitan Philaret (regarded as a [[saint]] by many Old Calendarists), three major groupings of True Orthodox Churches can be categorized.

'''[[Holy Orthodox Church in North America|The Holy Orthodox Church in North America]]''': In 1986, after the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA were accused of moral crimes and called to spiritual court. The entire New England Deanery of ROCOR, with the exception of one priest, had repeatedly asked for a canonical investigation of the trustworthiness of the persons making the moral accusations for a period of 11 months.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Clergy%20Letter,%20Sept.%2016-29,%201986.pdf]] These same clergy had also expressed concerns over violations of the Anathema Against Ecumenism which all the bishops of ROCOR had signed in 1983.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/November%208.pdf]] Several days before the monks were called to spiritual court [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Dec.%209,%201986.pdf]] they left the ROCOR [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Departure%20from%20ROCOR%20Letter.pdf]]
and were received by Metopolitan Akakios and Metropolitan Gabriel, two bishops who had not attended the Synod meetings of Archbishop Auxentios because of various administrative problems. The monks had lost confidence that the bishops would be unbiased since they were receiving testimony from witnesses that cannot make accusations against a clergyman according to the Sacred Canons (see above). Several weeks later approximately one-thirteenth of the North American parishes of the ROCOR and one-sixth of the clergy, following Holy Transfiguration Monastery's example, also went under Metropolitans Akakios and Gabriel.

Later, when cooperation ceased between Metropolitans Akakios and Gabriel in 1997, the clergy of HOCNA asked to be received directly under the then allegedly deposed Archbishop Auxentios. Although the Synod of Archbishop Chrysosostom II in 1986 considered Archbishop Auxentios deposed, in 1998 they rehabilitated him [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Archbishop%20Auxentios~Deposition~.pdf]]. Another group of bishops formerly under Archbishop Chrysostom II, but now known as the Lamian Synod presently under Archbishop Makarius also declared the deposition of Archbishop Auxentios uncanonical and void on April 1/14, 1997.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Lamia%20on%20Auxentios.pdf]] It is worthy of note that HTM changed its opinion on Archbishop Auxentios after Akakios and Gabriel broke communion with each other-- raising the obvious question of whether they were intent on creating their own Synod.

After obtaining 2 bishops and two suffragan bishops, the group left the successor of Archbishop Auxentios, Archbishop Maximos, after claiming they had deposed him for uncanonically consecrating two individuals to the episcopate without the permission of the rest of the synod.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Maximus%20defrockment.pdf]] It is worth noting that Maximos claimed the "Americans were trying to take control" by not assisting in the consecrations of Bishops for Greece, which at this point were becoming sorely needed. After the "defrockment" (it is virtually impossible to defrock the first-hierarch without a majority of the votes, which in this case would have been required, as well as a canonical trial, which was also not done) they elected Athanasios of Larisa to be their Bishop, until Athanasios learned that members of the "American Church" had questioned his qualifications as a Bishop. Alone at last, the American parishes incorporporated themselves as Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) in 1987. Currently the HOCNA synod, which in 2001 declared itself administratively independent of its extant mother Church in Greece, has five bishops.

From 1999 to 2001 the Lamian Synod approached HOCNA to establish full administrative unity, but this attempt failed for various reasons. [[http://www.homb.org/Archived_Docs_HTM/LamiansToHOCNA.pdf]]
'''The True ("Free") Russian Orthodox Church''': In 1994, the majority of the parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox Church (see above) broke communion with the ROCOR over their sudden inclination towards union with the Moscow Patriarchate, made manifest by their desire to "break apart" the Russian parishes. In time, a number of American parishes have joines the FROC, now known as the ROAC.

In 2001, after the ROCOR made a clear commitment to union with the Moscow Patriarchate, the head of the ROCOR synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, retired from the proceedings.

Almost immediately afterwards, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Varnava of Cannes, and two of the Russian bishops of ROCOR, separated with the rest of the ROCOR synod and made new bishops. The proceedings that led up to these events are well documented on the Internet and the treatment of the retired head of the ROCOR has been regarded as shameful by many in the majority group, including allegations that Vitaly is unfit for service and is being used as a figurehead. Since then, Metropolitan Vitaly has headed the reorganized ROCOR from his home in Mansonville. Until recently, they were known as the [[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]], having since returned to the original name of ROCOR in many documents.

'''[[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile|The Russian Church in Exile]]''': The Russian Church in Exile has since primarily split into three parts—the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (North America), an independent European branch that the other branches to not accept, and the [[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)|True Russian Orthodox Church in Russia]]. Both claim to be under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Vitaly. However, the Russian Church in Exile immediately made new bishops for Russia; most of the Russian parishes of the ROCOR are still under the RTOC. Most recently, in 2004, the community of [[Esphigmenou Monastery (Athos)|Esphigmenou]] (the sole monastery of the [[Mount Athos|Holy Mountain]] that still refuses to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch since the calendar change) has declared its recognition of Metropolitan Vitaly as the only possible legitimate First-Hierarch of ROCOR.

'''The continuing Russian Orthodox Church Abroad parishes under Bishop Agafangel of Odessa''': After the signing of the documents of union in 2006, the remaining parishes of the ROCOR against the union-- approximately 1/3 of the parishes and monastic institutions per Archbishop Mark of Berlin and considerably larger than the other separations from the ROCOR-- went under Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Ukraine, and are currently preparing to ordain new Bishops for the preservation of the ROCOR.

====Other groupings====
The amount of confusion among the remaining Russian True Orthodox parishes is not really worthy of note, as most have almost no visible membership, though two groups of historical value are the church under Ambrose (Von Sievers) and the [[Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church]]. Questions about their legitimacy and ecclesiology abound, however, and due to their small membership, there is a serious question as to how much discussion such groups actually merit, since they are usually reabsorbed into larger churches. Another new group that is worthy of note is the [[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyacheslav)|Russian True-Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Vyacheslav)]] which actually derives its episcopate from the [[Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church|Ukrainian Autocephalous Church]].

===Other national churches===
Other countries have been given True Orthodox hierarchies by the above groups.

====Romania====
The history of True Orthodoxy in Romania has a rich history and goes back to 1924. Most of the faithful are currently under the omophor of Metropolitan Vlasie of Romania and his subordinate bishops. Romania was given Bishops by the synod under Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili (see above).

One parish is under the Lamian Synod (see above).

====Bulgaria====
The majority of the faithful are under the Cyprianites (see "Cyprian of Fili" above) and comprise a few dozen parishes, their bishop being Photios of Triaditsa.

Two churches are under Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, and two left with Bishop Gregory of Colorado during his departure.

====Georgia====
In Georgia, dozens of [[monastics]] fled the official Patriarchate of Georgia in protest over [[ecumenism]] in 1998. HOCNA (see above) absorbed many of them, and they style themselves the [[True Orthodox Church of Georgia]]. They currently have no bishop and are administratively under North America.

====Ukraine====
The situation in Ukraine deserves its own paper and is beyond the scope of this article. The churches there deserve mention, however, since most of the Russian groups have parishes in Ukraine (ROAC has two Bishops in Ukraine.) Worthy of note is the [[Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church]] (UAOC) under Metropolitan Methody Kuriakov; while the ecclesiology of the UAOC is not particularly firm, they consecrated bishops for at least one True Orthodox group in Russia.

==Churches "in resistance"==
These churches refrain from [[concelebration]] with the mainstream Orthodox churches, but do not consider themselves [[schism]]atic, nor have they declared a break in [[full communion|communion]] with the mainstream churches. They will also commune the faithful of those churches.

* [[Holy Synod in Resistance]] ("Cyprianites"), a [[Florinites|Florinite]] church
* [[Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania]]
* [[Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria]]
* [[Holy Synod of Milan]], a [[Florinites|Florinite]] church

==Churches which are "walled off"==
These churches refrain from both [[concelebration]] and [[full communion|communion]] with the mainstream Orthodox churches, regarding the hierarchies of the official churches to have apostasized and placed themselves outside Orthodoxy. The view of these Old Calendarists, commonly self-designated as "True Orthodox" towards official Orthodox priests and laity varies.

===Greece===
*[[Florinites]]
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)]] ("Chrysostomite Synod"), under Archbishop Chrysostom of Athens
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)]], under Archbishop Makarios of Athens

*[[Matthewites]]
**[[True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)]], under Archbishop Nicholas of Athens
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)]], under Metropolitan Gregory of Messinia

===Russia===
*[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]], FROC/ROAC ("Suzdalites"), under Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal
*[[Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church]], under Metropolitan Theodosie
*[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)]], under Archbishop Lazarus of Tambov
*[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyatcheslav)]], under Metropolitan Vyatcheslav

===America===
*[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America]], the FROC/ROAC in the United States of America
*[[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]] (ROCE), also known as ROCOR (V), under Metropolitan Vitaly of Montreal
*[[Genuine Orthodox Church of America]], under Archbishop Gregory of Denver
*[[Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America]], under Metropolitan Pavlos of Astoria, the "Chrysostomite" Metropolitan Diocese for America
*[[Holy Orthodox Church in North America]] (HOCNA), under Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto

===Elsewhere===
*[[True Orthodox Church of Georgia]]

==Ecclesiastical status==
The ecclesiastical and canonical status of the various Old Calendarist jurisdictions is complex. Some regard themselves as being the only true Orthodox Christians and thus view the mainstream Orthodox Church as being in apostasy. As such, they do not share either communion or concelebration with the mainstream churches. Other Old Calendarists (typically those "in resistance") have suspended concelebrations with mainstream clergy, but will still commune the faithful of mainstream jurisdictions. They thus see themselves as a reform movement within the Orthodox Church. The question of canonicity follows much the same sort of patterns.

Views from the mainstream Orthodox on the Old Calendarists range from trying to heal the various breaks in communion or concelebration to outright declarations that such groups are themselves apostates, that is, no longer Orthodox.

==Sources==
*[http://www.geocities.com/joesuaiden/trueorthodox/trueorthodoxchurch.html The True Orthodox Church: A Brief Overview] (major portions of text used by permission)

==External links==
*[http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anti-patristic-stance-old-calendarist-zealots.aspx Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists] by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory (Grigoriou), Mount Athos
* [http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg.aspx?eccpageID=53&IndexView=toc Eastern Christian Churches: The Old Calendar Orthodox Churches] by Ronald Roberson, a Roman Catholic priest and scholar
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/ Paradosis: The Original Internet E-mail Forum for Traditionalists]
* [http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/ The Euphrosynos Café: A Portal and Forum for all Old Calendar Orthodox Churches] by Father Nikolai Stanosheck, a [[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church|ROAC]] deacon
**[http://euphrosynoscafe.com/map/ Map of some Old Calendarist parishes in the West]

===Jurisdictions===
* [http://www.roac.ru/ Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]
* [http://www.roacusa.org/ Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America]
* [http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/ Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece], official website of Chrysostomite Synod
** [http://www.thegreekorthodoxchurch.com/ Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America], diocesan website of the Metropolis of America (Chrysostomite)
* [http://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/ Swedish Exarchate of the Holy Synod in Resistance]

[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Jurisdictions]]
[[Category:Old Calendarist Jurisdictions|*]]

Old Calendarists

2007-12-09T01:34:20Z

Joesuaiden: /* Divisions within Russia abroad */

{{expert}}

'''Old Calendarists''' are groups of Orthodox Christians who are in various levels of "resistance" against the mainstream Orthodox churches, identified mainly by their insistence on the use of the Julian Calendar. They are to be distinguished from the mainstream churches which simply follow the [[Julian Calendar]] yet remain in [[full communion]] with most or all of world Orthodoxy. Many Old Calendarists today say that their concerns about [[ecumenism]] are more significant than calendar issues.

The mainstream churches have varying positions on different Old Calendarist churches, ranging from an active desire to restore unity to a denial of the Old Calendarists' Orthodoxy.

Some Old Calendarist groups are styled as '''True Orthodox''' or '''Genuine Orthodox''', and both terms are used in this article. Some may also style themselves '''Traditionalist Orthodox'''.
{{TOCright}}

==History==
===Greece===
In 1924, the [[bishop]]s of the [[Church of Greece]] implemented the calendar change discussed at the pan-Orthodox congress. Afterwards, the former [[Primate]] of the Church of Greece, [[Germanos of Demetrias]], retired in protest. Lay groups and [[brotherhoods]] formed to keep the use of the [[Julian calendar]] (or the "Orthodox calendar," as they prefer it to be called) alive, despite state persecution (Greece was an Orthodox country, and the Church enjoyed certain privileges from the state) and finally, in 1935, three bishops, certain that waiting for a reversal of the calendar change was irresponsible to their flocks, immediately declared their separation from the official Church and declared that the calendar change was a schismatic act.

====The Florinite/Matthewite schism====
By the 1940s, two parties had formed within the Church of Greece: the [[Florinites]] (under Metropolitan [[Chrysostom of Florina]]) and the [[Matthewites]] (under Bp. [[Matthew of Bresthena]]). The issue had been the former's vacillation on whether the mysteries of the State Church were still grace-filled. Both sides had their respective justifications for their positions, and both were violently persecuted by the state. The Matthewites were holding a more consistently applied position. That they labelled the Florinites as a whole as opportunists who were trying to ingratiate themselves with the state was unfortunate, and not altogether true for the followers of Metropolitan Chrysostom, and so the parties became psychologically distinct.

In the end, a real physical division was formed, whereas a real doctrinal division ended: Bishop Matthew singlehandedly consecrated another bishop, and together they made more new bishops. After the death of Bishop Matthew, however, Chrysostom of Florina reaffirmed the decision of 1935 declaring the New Calendar State Church as [[schism]]atic. (The reasons for this are unclear, and speculations give various answers.) In any case, the Matthewites proceeded to elect Archbishop Agathagelos to the rank of Primate of Athens in 1958.

We will deal first with the major divisions of the Florinites, since their divisions have generally been larger and more permanent in nature, and then the Matthewites.

====Divisions within the Florinites====
After the death of Metropolitan Chrysostom, the Florinites had no bishops, and Metropolitan Chrysostom advised his flock to go under the protection of the Matthewite bishops. Fearing the repercussions, however, the Florinites opted to seek a new hierarchy and appealed to Bishops of the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]] to help them. In 1960, Archimandrite Akakios Pappas was made a bishop with the title of Bishop of Talantion for these communities without the official blessing of the ROCOR Synod by [http://www.roca.org/life_of_archbishop_seraphim.htm Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago] and Bp. Theophilos Ionescu, a Romanian New Calendar Bishop under the ROCOR. The following year, the ROCOR elected and ordained Archimandrite Petros Astyfides as Bishop of Astoria in order to serve as archpastor of the Greek Old Calendarist immigrant communities in the United States and Canada. Later Bp. Akakios of Talantion and Archbishop Leonty of Chile (ROCOR) ordained five more bishops in Greece. Thus in 1961, Akakios of Talantion became the new First-Hierarch of the restored Florinite Synod. He died, however, in 1963. The Synod thus proceeded to elect Auxentios Pastras, Bishop of Gardikion, to be their new leader as Archbishop of Athens. The ROCOR under Metropolitan Philaret eventually recognized the validity of the secret consecrations in 1969.

All of the current divisions of the Florinites come from one of the groups below:

'''The Auxentios Synod''': The First Florinite Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece was fraught with problems by the 1970s, and two major separations occurred during the lifetime of Archbishop Auxentios. However, few doubt that Archbishop Auxentios himself was of a saintly character, albeit a poor bishop. Recently there have been attempts to rehabilitate his memory (Archbishop Auxentios died in 1994); most of his synod, barely held together by the 1980s, dissolved after his death into the three jurisdictions listed below. In 1986, Auxentios was removed from the Archdiocese of Athens and the leadership of the Old Calendar Church of Greece by a majority the Florinite bishops on account of a series of controversial episcopal ordinations conducted in the early 1980s with his apparent consent. Having the support of the dissenting minority of bishops, Auxentios proceeded to re-form his Synod, appealing for help to the [[Holy Synod of Milan|Bishops of the West]], then independent, but under his omophor, for assistance. He died in 1994, having failed to reconcile with the parishes of the Florinite Synod under Chrysostom Kiousis. The remaining parishes of the Auxentios Synod, however, elected Archbishop Maximos of Kephalonia to the throne of Athens on [[January 7]], 1995. In response to Maximos' request to revisit the ROCOR investigation of Fr Panteleimon (Metropoulos) of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, the parishes loyal to Auxentios under the American Bishops organized around Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston (see HOCNA), left the Synod, and elected Makarios of Toronto as locum tenens of the see of Athens.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)|The Chrysostomite Synod]]''': Amidst charges of maladministration, the majority of the Florinite synod chose in 1986 a new leader in Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis), who demonstrated rather effectively that the True Orthodox in Greece were a force to be reckoned with. Choosing to take on the Greek legal system, court cases were held where it was demonstrated that the Old Calendarists of Greece were not schismatics. Though their public reputation had been tarnished over nearly two decades of divisions, their legal existence was, and is presently, safe. The synod of Chrysostom of Athens is today the largest synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece.

'''The [[Holy Synod in Resistance|Synod-in-Resistance]] of Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili''': While this church's official [[ecclesiology]] is peculiar, the amount of work that Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili and his synod have done to assist True Orthodox throughout the world is impressive, and must be noted. The church itself is rather small, but has been very effective in presenting intellectual arguments against the New Calendar State Church. It is headed by another defector from the Auxentios Synod, Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) of Fili, and holds an ecclesiology of “sick" and “healthy" churches, thus avoiding the repercussions that inevitably follow referring to the majority as subject to a schismatic body. Their ecclesiology is considered heretical by the more rigorist elements of the True Orthodox who have been influenced by Matthewite positions.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)|The Synod of Archbishop Makarios of Athens (Lamian Synod)]]''': In 1995, a resistance faction of six bishops formed within the synod of Chrysostom (Kiousis) and separated itself over what they claimed to be a series of canonical infractions, headed by Metropolitan Kallinikos of Lamia. The charges related to the trial of Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Euthymios (Orphanos), who had been charged with moral infractions, and the election of Bishop Vikentios (Malamatenios) of Avlona as Metropolitan of Peiraeus. By early 1997, the bishops headed by Kallinikos of Lamia had fragmented into three groups, one of which reconciled with Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis). A second group, Paisios Loulourgas (Met. of America) and Vikentios Malamatenios (titular Bp. of Avlona), submitted to the Ecumenical Patiarchate. Later that same year, Kallinikos of Lamia and Euthymios of Thessaloniki proceeded to ordain five [[bishop|titular bishop]]s in an attempt to create a new synod. In 2003, they finally decided to elect a primate, and elected Makarios (Kavakides) of Athens. A good deal of their membership was then lost, as many who did not see themselves as separate from the Kiousis synod were forced to decide between the two.

====Divisions within the Matthewites====
For all the negative press the Matthewites have received over the years due to the strictness of their position, their church has been strangely free from long lasting schisms. Only two separations are worthy of note from the main body, and while they had the potential to destroy the unity that exists within the Matthewite True Orthodox Church of Greece, they did not.

The first Primate of Athens selected by the Matthewites was Agathangelos of Athens, who reposed in 1967. Andreas of Athens, one of the original three bishops made, was elected to the primacy in 1972; unitl his death in 2005 he was one of the oldest and longest-reigning of Orthodox bishops in the world.

'''[[True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)|The Synod of Archbishop Nicholas]]''': In February, 2003, Archbishop Andreas of Athens retired, and Archbishop Nicholas of Athens, considered by many to have a progressive vision for the Matthewite church, was elected. Extremely popular with younger Matthewites, Archbishop Nicholas seems generally poised to keep the Matthewite synod united. However, it has been advanced that Archbishop Andreas retired in violation of the canons.

'''The Kirykite faction''': Not a schism proper, Metropolitan Kirykos and two other bishops of the synod refused to recognize the retirement of Archbishop Andreas or the enthronement of the new Archbishop, but continued to remain a member of the Synod of Archbishop Nicholas. The risk of schism exists, but is small—one of Kyrikos' vocal supporters have since died; another Matthewite Bishop of the Synod has passed on recently in Metr Gorgonios, and there were rumors he too supported Metropolitan Kirykos.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)|The Gregorian Synod]]''': Under the primacy of Andreas of Athens, there were virtually no divisions in the Matthewites until 1995, when Metropolitan Gregory of Messinia separated with a small majority of the synod (five versus four), ostensibly over the issue of the "God the Father" [[icon]] and the related issues of Western-style icons in general. However, with the deaths of three of their bishops, the remaining two split, one remaining completely alone from the eldest hierarch, and the with Gregorios of Messinia naming three more bishops (Abramios, Pavlos, and Nectarios).

For all intents and purposes, it would appear that there are still only two actual Matthewite synods.

====Other groupings====
There was once a list posted of over 30 True Orthodox Greek Churches. This is in fact an unrealistic number. The number comes from an Old Internet listing of Bishops and Synods, some of whom had no following, and had one, if any Bishop. A demented compilation designed to confuse as well as [[convert]], this infamous list indicated even temporary unions as existing jurisdictions. As well, even the Moscow Patriarchate was involved in the formation of one of these Bishops (Joachim Souris), and so the author is limiting the discussion to True Orthodox Churches with actual memberships and hierarchies-- in other words, actual Churches.

===Russia===
====Inside Russia====
With the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, Orthodox bishops in Russia began to apply [[Ukaz No. 362]] of Patriarch St. [[Tikhon of Moscow|Tikhon]] and became administratively independent until such time as they could operate freely.

Ukaz No. 362 was written to preserve the Orthodox Church in times of persecution so that the Churches could survive. It gives the bishops of the Russian Church, temporarily, the right to self-govern apart from each other until such time as they can organize. It is considered by some to be a masterpiece of self-preservation in a time where the rules of canonical order could not be followed to the letter due to the difficulty of travel and so forth.

The number of catacomb churches in Russia is to date fairly large, and even today no one knows where all of them are. The history of the different catacomb [[episcopate]]s since 1927 is still not completely documented. There are also questions as to the legitimacy of certain catacomb bishops. Sadly, these questions will have to be determined by a future all-Russian Council.

====The True ("Free") Russian Orthodox Church and its divisions====
In 1990, ROCOR had announced that a bishop had secretly been consecrated to assist the believers in Russia (Bishop Varnava of Cannes), who then proceeded, with the blessing of the Synod, to make more bishops for Russia, the most prominent being Bishop Valentine of Suzdal and Lazarus of Tambov.

'''[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church|The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]]''': The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) is by far the largest of the Russian True Orthodox Churches, with hundreds of parishes in Russia and abroad, and also one of the most controversial. Headed by Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, the synod has twelve bishops and is enjoying a period of intense persecution on the part of the [[Church of Russia|state church]]. One bishop, Gregory (George/Abu Asaly) of Colorado, recently parted ways with the ROAC synod after having been both canonically retired and excommunicated. He initially took 2 parishes in America with him but they have now left him along with most of his monastics and parishioners. His group is the self-styled the '''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of America]]'''[http://www.gocamerica.org/] (Not to be confused with the newly autonomous Genuine Greek Orthodox Church in America headed by Metropolitan Pavlos of Astoria that is in communion with its mother Church, the GOC headed by Archbishop Chrysostomos II.) Gregory and his believers numbering in the teens believes himself to be the last bishop left in America.

'''[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)|The True Russian Orthodox Church]]''': Bp. Lazarus of Tambov, himself well-known in Russia, rejoined the ROCOR after the Free Russian Orthodox Church broke communion with ROCOR then later left again after the formation of Metropolitan Vitaly's [[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]] (ROCOR-V). He and Bishop Benjamin of Kuban consecrated a new set of bishops and currently have a couple dozen parishes in Russia.

====Russian True Orthodoxy today====
Today the situation is considerably clearer than it was 20 years ago; many of the groups that exist today have either been merged into other jurisdictions or have formed small, independent groups, administratively separate from the rest of the church. Much of their current history is tied together with ROCOR, as most of the original Catacomb bishops had been killed during state persecutions or died in hiding.

====Outside Russia====
The History of the Russian church outside Russia is best summarized by St. [[John Maximovitch|John (Maximovitch)]], Archbishop of Shanghai and San Fransisco, who reposed in 1966:

:In November of 1921 in Sremsky-Karlovtsy in Yugoslavia the first Sobor abroad was held, in which in addition to 24 bishops, representatives of the clergy and laity took part. Being thus the voice of all Russians who had succeeded in leaving the Soviet authority, the Sobor considered itself obligated to express its opinion regarding the situation in Russia, where all the rest of the population of Russia was languishing under the oppression of that authority. The Sobor appealed to the Genoa Conference with the request not to support the Bolshevik regime and to help the Russian people to become free of it.

Thus was formed the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]] (ROCOR), which held, until recently, the banner of Russian True Orthodoxy outside of the Russian territory.

====Divisions within Russia abroad====
The Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) enjoyed relative stability until after the death of Metropolitan Philaret of New York (+1985) and is currently in the process of uniting with Moscow. Since the death of Metropolitan Philaret (regarded as a [[saint]] by many Old Calendarists), three major groupings of True Orthodox Churches can be categorized.

'''[[Holy Orthodox Church in North America|The Holy Orthodox Church in North America]]''': In 1986, after the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA were accused of moral crimes and called to spiritual court. The entire New England Deanery of ROCOR, with the exception of one priest, had repeatedly asked for a canonical investigation of the trustworthiness of the persons making the moral accusations for a period of 11 months.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Clergy%20Letter,%20Sept.%2016-29,%201986.pdf]] These same clergy had also expressed concerns over violations of the Anathema Against Ecumenism which all the bishops of ROCOR had signed in 1983.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/November%208.pdf]] Several days before the monks were called to spiritual court [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Dec.%209,%201986.pdf]] they left the ROCOR [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Departure%20from%20ROCOR%20Letter.pdf]]
and were received by Metopolitan Akakios and Metropolitan Gabriel, two bishops who had not attended the Synod meetings of Archbishop Auxentios because of various administrative problems. The monks had lost confidence that the bishops would be unbiased since they were receiving testimony from witnesses that cannot make accusations against a clergyman according to the Sacred Canons (see above). Several weeks later approximately one-thirteenth of the North American parishes of the ROCOR and one-sixth of the clergy, following Holy Transfiguration Monastery's example, also went under Metropolitans Akakios and Gabriel.

Later, when cooperation ceased between Metropolitans Akakios and Gabriel in 1997, the clergy of HOCNA asked to be received directly under the then allegedly deposed Archbishop Auxentios. Although the Synod of Archbishop Chrysosostom II in 1986 considered Archbishop Auxentios deposed, in 1998 they rehabilitated him [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Archbishop%20Auxentios~Deposition~.pdf]]. Another group of bishops formerly under Archbishop Chrysostom II, but now known as the Lamian Synod presently under Archbishop Makarius also declared the deposition of Archbishop Auxentios uncanonical and void on April 1/14, 1997.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Lamia%20on%20Auxentios.pdf]]

After obtaining 2 bishops and two suffragan bishops, the group left the successor of Archbishop Auxentios, Archbishop Maximos, after they had deposed him for uncanonically consecrating two individuals to the episcopate without the permission of the rest of the synod.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Maximus%20defrockment.pdf]] They incorporporated themselves as Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) in 1987. Currently the HOCNA synod, which in 2001 declared itself administratively independent of its extant mother Church in Greece, has five bishops.

From 1999 to 2001 the Lamian Synod approached HOCNA to establish full administrative unity, but this attempt failed for various reasons. [[http://www.homb.org/Archived_Docs_HTM/LamiansToHOCNA.pdf]]
'''The True ("Free") Russian Orthodox Church''': In 1994, the majority of the parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox Church (see above) broke communion with the ROCOR over their sudden inclination towards union with the Moscow Patriarchate, made manifest by their desire to "break apart" the Russian parishes. In time, a number of American parishes have joines the FROC, now known as the ROAC.

In 2001, after the ROCOR made a clear commitment to union with the Moscow Patriarchate, the head of the ROCOR synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, retired from the proceedings.

Almost immediately afterwards, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Varnava of Cannes, and two of the Russian bishops of ROCOR, separated with the rest of the ROCOR synod and made new bishops. The proceedings that led up to these events are well documented on the Internet and the treatment of the retired head of the ROCOR has been regarded as shameful by many in the majority group, including allegations that Vitaly is unfit for service and is being used as a figurehead. Since then, Metropolitan Vitaly has headed the reorganized ROCOR from his home in Mansonville. Until recently, they were known as the [[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]], having since returned to the original name of ROCOR in many documents.

'''[[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile|The Russian Church in Exile]]''': The Russian Church in Exile has since primarily split into three parts—the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (North America), an independent European branch that the other branches to not accept, and the [[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)|True Russian Orthodox Church in Russia]]. Both claim to be under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Vitaly. However, the Russian Church in Exile immediately made new bishops for Russia; most of the Russian parishes of the ROCOR are still under the RTOC. Most recently, in 2004, the community of [[Esphigmenou Monastery (Athos)|Esphigmenou]] (the sole monastery of the [[Mount Athos|Holy Mountain]] that still refuses to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch since the calendar change) has declared its recognition of Metropolitan Vitaly as the only possible legitimate First-Hierarch of ROCOR.

'''The continuing Russian Orthodox Church Abroad parishes under Bishop Agafangel of Odessa''': After the signing of the documents of union in 2006, the remaining parishes of the ROCOR against the union-- approximately 1/3 of the parishes and monastic institutions per Archbishop Mark of Berlin and considerably larger than the other separations from the ROCOR-- went under Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Ukraine, and are currently preparing to ordain new Bishops for the preservation of the ROCOR.

====Other groupings====
The amount of confusion among the remaining Russian True Orthodox parishes is not really worthy of note, as most have almost no visible membership, though two groups of historical value are the church under Ambrose (Von Sievers) and the [[Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church]]. Questions about their legitimacy and ecclesiology abound, however, and due to their small membership, there is a serious question as to how much discussion such groups actually merit, since they are usually reabsorbed into larger churches. Another new group that is worthy of note is the [[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyacheslav)|Russian True-Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Vyacheslav)]] which actually derives its episcopate from the [[Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church|Ukrainian Autocephalous Church]].

===Other national churches===
Other countries have been given True Orthodox hierarchies by the above groups.

====Romania====
The history of True Orthodoxy in Romania has a rich history and goes back to 1924. Most of the faithful are currently under the omophor of Metropolitan Vlasie of Romania and his subordinate bishops. Romania was given Bishops by the synod under Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili (see above).

One parish is under the Lamian Synod (see above).

====Bulgaria====
The majority of the faithful are under the Cyprianites (see "Cyprian of Fili" above) and comprise a few dozen parishes, their bishop being Photios of Triaditsa.

Two churches are under Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, and two left with Bishop Gregory of Colorado during his departure.

====Georgia====
In Georgia, dozens of [[monastics]] fled the official Patriarchate of Georgia in protest over [[ecumenism]] in 1998. HOCNA (see above) absorbed many of them, and they style themselves the [[True Orthodox Church of Georgia]]. They currently have no bishop and are administratively under North America.

====Ukraine====
The situation in Ukraine deserves its own paper and is beyond the scope of this article. The churches there deserve mention, however, since most of the Russian groups have parishes in Ukraine (ROAC has two Bishops in Ukraine.) Worthy of note is the [[Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church]] (UAOC) under Metropolitan Methody Kuriakov; while the ecclesiology of the UAOC is not particularly firm, they consecrated bishops for at least one True Orthodox group in Russia.

==Churches "in resistance"==
These churches refrain from [[concelebration]] with the mainstream Orthodox churches, but do not consider themselves [[schism]]atic, nor have they declared a break in [[full communion|communion]] with the mainstream churches. They will also commune the faithful of those churches.

* [[Holy Synod in Resistance]] ("Cyprianites"), a [[Florinites|Florinite]] church
* [[Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania]]
* [[Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria]]
* [[Holy Synod of Milan]], a [[Florinites|Florinite]] church

==Churches which are "walled off"==
These churches refrain from both [[concelebration]] and [[full communion|communion]] with the mainstream Orthodox churches, regarding the hierarchies of the official churches to have apostasized and placed themselves outside Orthodoxy. The view of these Old Calendarists, commonly self-designated as "True Orthodox" towards official Orthodox priests and laity varies.

===Greece===
*[[Florinites]]
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)]] ("Chrysostomite Synod"), under Archbishop Chrysostom of Athens
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)]], under Archbishop Makarios of Athens

*[[Matthewites]]
**[[True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)]], under Archbishop Nicholas of Athens
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)]], under Metropolitan Gregory of Messinia

===Russia===
*[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]], FROC/ROAC ("Suzdalites"), under Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal
*[[Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church]], under Metropolitan Theodosie
*[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)]], under Archbishop Lazarus of Tambov
*[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyatcheslav)]], under Metropolitan Vyatcheslav

===America===
*[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America]], the FROC/ROAC in the United States of America
*[[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]] (ROCE), also known as ROCOR (V), under Metropolitan Vitaly of Montreal
*[[Genuine Orthodox Church of America]], under Archbishop Gregory of Denver
*[[Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America]], under Metropolitan Pavlos of Astoria, the "Chrysostomite" Metropolitan Diocese for America
*[[Holy Orthodox Church in North America]] (HOCNA), under Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto

===Elsewhere===
*[[True Orthodox Church of Georgia]]

==Ecclesiastical status==
The ecclesiastical and canonical status of the various Old Calendarist jurisdictions is complex. Some regard themselves as being the only true Orthodox Christians and thus view the mainstream Orthodox Church as being in apostasy. As such, they do not share either communion or concelebration with the mainstream churches. Other Old Calendarists (typically those "in resistance") have suspended concelebrations with mainstream clergy, but will still commune the faithful of mainstream jurisdictions. They thus see themselves as a reform movement within the Orthodox Church. The question of canonicity follows much the same sort of patterns.

Views from the mainstream Orthodox on the Old Calendarists range from trying to heal the various breaks in communion or concelebration to outright declarations that such groups are themselves apostates, that is, no longer Orthodox.

==Sources==
*[http://www.geocities.com/joesuaiden/trueorthodox/trueorthodoxchurch.html The True Orthodox Church: A Brief Overview] (major portions of text used by permission)

==External links==
*[http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anti-patristic-stance-old-calendarist-zealots.aspx Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists] by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory (Grigoriou), Mount Athos
* [http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg.aspx?eccpageID=53&IndexView=toc Eastern Christian Churches: The Old Calendar Orthodox Churches] by Ronald Roberson, a Roman Catholic priest and scholar
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/ Paradosis: The Original Internet E-mail Forum for Traditionalists]
* [http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/ The Euphrosynos Café: A Portal and Forum for all Old Calendar Orthodox Churches] by Father Nikolai Stanosheck, a [[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church|ROAC]] deacon
**[http://euphrosynoscafe.com/map/ Map of some Old Calendarist parishes in the West]

===Jurisdictions===
* [http://www.roac.ru/ Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]
* [http://www.roacusa.org/ Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America]
* [http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/ Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece], official website of Chrysostomite Synod
** [http://www.thegreekorthodoxchurch.com/ Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America], diocesan website of the Metropolis of America (Chrysostomite)
* [http://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/ Swedish Exarchate of the Holy Synod in Resistance]

[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Jurisdictions]]
[[Category:Old Calendarist Jurisdictions|*]]

Old Calendarists

2007-12-09T01:27:32Z

Joesuaiden: /* Greece */

{{expert}}

'''Old Calendarists''' are groups of Orthodox Christians who are in various levels of "resistance" against the mainstream Orthodox churches, identified mainly by their insistence on the use of the Julian Calendar. They are to be distinguished from the mainstream churches which simply follow the [[Julian Calendar]] yet remain in [[full communion]] with most or all of world Orthodoxy. Many Old Calendarists today say that their concerns about [[ecumenism]] are more significant than calendar issues.

The mainstream churches have varying positions on different Old Calendarist churches, ranging from an active desire to restore unity to a denial of the Old Calendarists' Orthodoxy.

Some Old Calendarist groups are styled as '''True Orthodox''' or '''Genuine Orthodox''', and both terms are used in this article. Some may also style themselves '''Traditionalist Orthodox'''.
{{TOCright}}

==History==
===Greece===
In 1924, the [[bishop]]s of the [[Church of Greece]] implemented the calendar change discussed at the pan-Orthodox congress. Afterwards, the former [[Primate]] of the Church of Greece, [[Germanos of Demetrias]], retired in protest. Lay groups and [[brotherhoods]] formed to keep the use of the [[Julian calendar]] (or the "Orthodox calendar," as they prefer it to be called) alive, despite state persecution (Greece was an Orthodox country, and the Church enjoyed certain privileges from the state) and finally, in 1935, three bishops, certain that waiting for a reversal of the calendar change was irresponsible to their flocks, immediately declared their separation from the official Church and declared that the calendar change was a schismatic act.

====The Florinite/Matthewite schism====
By the 1940s, two parties had formed within the Church of Greece: the [[Florinites]] (under Metropolitan [[Chrysostom of Florina]]) and the [[Matthewites]] (under Bp. [[Matthew of Bresthena]]). The issue had been the former's vacillation on whether the mysteries of the State Church were still grace-filled. Both sides had their respective justifications for their positions, and both were violently persecuted by the state. The Matthewites were holding a more consistently applied position. That they labelled the Florinites as a whole as opportunists who were trying to ingratiate themselves with the state was unfortunate, and not altogether true for the followers of Metropolitan Chrysostom, and so the parties became psychologically distinct.

In the end, a real physical division was formed, whereas a real doctrinal division ended: Bishop Matthew singlehandedly consecrated another bishop, and together they made more new bishops. After the death of Bishop Matthew, however, Chrysostom of Florina reaffirmed the decision of 1935 declaring the New Calendar State Church as [[schism]]atic. (The reasons for this are unclear, and speculations give various answers.) In any case, the Matthewites proceeded to elect Archbishop Agathagelos to the rank of Primate of Athens in 1958.

We will deal first with the major divisions of the Florinites, since their divisions have generally been larger and more permanent in nature, and then the Matthewites.

====Divisions within the Florinites====
After the death of Metropolitan Chrysostom, the Florinites had no bishops, and Metropolitan Chrysostom advised his flock to go under the protection of the Matthewite bishops. Fearing the repercussions, however, the Florinites opted to seek a new hierarchy and appealed to Bishops of the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]] to help them. In 1960, Archimandrite Akakios Pappas was made a bishop with the title of Bishop of Talantion for these communities without the official blessing of the ROCOR Synod by [http://www.roca.org/life_of_archbishop_seraphim.htm Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago] and Bp. Theophilos Ionescu, a Romanian New Calendar Bishop under the ROCOR. The following year, the ROCOR elected and ordained Archimandrite Petros Astyfides as Bishop of Astoria in order to serve as archpastor of the Greek Old Calendarist immigrant communities in the United States and Canada. Later Bp. Akakios of Talantion and Archbishop Leonty of Chile (ROCOR) ordained five more bishops in Greece. Thus in 1961, Akakios of Talantion became the new First-Hierarch of the restored Florinite Synod. He died, however, in 1963. The Synod thus proceeded to elect Auxentios Pastras, Bishop of Gardikion, to be their new leader as Archbishop of Athens. The ROCOR under Metropolitan Philaret eventually recognized the validity of the secret consecrations in 1969.

All of the current divisions of the Florinites come from one of the groups below:

'''The Auxentios Synod''': The First Florinite Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece was fraught with problems by the 1970s, and two major separations occurred during the lifetime of Archbishop Auxentios. However, few doubt that Archbishop Auxentios himself was of a saintly character, albeit a poor bishop. Recently there have been attempts to rehabilitate his memory (Archbishop Auxentios died in 1994); most of his synod, barely held together by the 1980s, dissolved after his death into the three jurisdictions listed below. In 1986, Auxentios was removed from the Archdiocese of Athens and the leadership of the Old Calendar Church of Greece by a majority the Florinite bishops on account of a series of controversial episcopal ordinations conducted in the early 1980s with his apparent consent. Having the support of the dissenting minority of bishops, Auxentios proceeded to re-form his Synod, appealing for help to the [[Holy Synod of Milan|Bishops of the West]], then independent, but under his omophor, for assistance. He died in 1994, having failed to reconcile with the parishes of the Florinite Synod under Chrysostom Kiousis. The remaining parishes of the Auxentios Synod, however, elected Archbishop Maximos of Kephalonia to the throne of Athens on [[January 7]], 1995. In response to Maximos' request to revisit the ROCOR investigation of Fr Panteleimon (Metropoulos) of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, the parishes loyal to Auxentios under the American Bishops organized around Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston (see HOCNA), left the Synod, and elected Makarios of Toronto as locum tenens of the see of Athens.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)|The Chrysostomite Synod]]''': Amidst charges of maladministration, the majority of the Florinite synod chose in 1986 a new leader in Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis), who demonstrated rather effectively that the True Orthodox in Greece were a force to be reckoned with. Choosing to take on the Greek legal system, court cases were held where it was demonstrated that the Old Calendarists of Greece were not schismatics. Though their public reputation had been tarnished over nearly two decades of divisions, their legal existence was, and is presently, safe. The synod of Chrysostom of Athens is today the largest synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece.

'''The [[Holy Synod in Resistance|Synod-in-Resistance]] of Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili''': While this church's official [[ecclesiology]] is peculiar, the amount of work that Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili and his synod have done to assist True Orthodox throughout the world is impressive, and must be noted. The church itself is rather small, but has been very effective in presenting intellectual arguments against the New Calendar State Church. It is headed by another defector from the Auxentios Synod, Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) of Fili, and holds an ecclesiology of “sick" and “healthy" churches, thus avoiding the repercussions that inevitably follow referring to the majority as subject to a schismatic body. Their ecclesiology is considered heretical by the more rigorist elements of the True Orthodox who have been influenced by Matthewite positions.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)|The Synod of Archbishop Makarios of Athens (Lamian Synod)]]''': In 1995, a resistance faction of six bishops formed within the synod of Chrysostom (Kiousis) and separated itself over what they claimed to be a series of canonical infractions, headed by Metropolitan Kallinikos of Lamia. The charges related to the trial of Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Euthymios (Orphanos), who had been charged with moral infractions, and the election of Bishop Vikentios (Malamatenios) of Avlona as Metropolitan of Peiraeus. By early 1997, the bishops headed by Kallinikos of Lamia had fragmented into three groups, one of which reconciled with Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis). A second group, Paisios Loulourgas (Met. of America) and Vikentios Malamatenios (titular Bp. of Avlona), submitted to the Ecumenical Patiarchate. Later that same year, Kallinikos of Lamia and Euthymios of Thessaloniki proceeded to ordain five [[bishop|titular bishop]]s in an attempt to create a new synod. In 2003, they finally decided to elect a primate, and elected Makarios (Kavakides) of Athens. A good deal of their membership was then lost, as many who did not see themselves as separate from the Kiousis synod were forced to decide between the two.

====Divisions within the Matthewites====
For all the negative press the Matthewites have received over the years due to the strictness of their position, their church has been strangely free from long lasting schisms. Only two separations are worthy of note from the main body, and while they had the potential to destroy the unity that exists within the Matthewite True Orthodox Church of Greece, they did not.

The first Primate of Athens selected by the Matthewites was Agathangelos of Athens, who reposed in 1967. Andreas of Athens, one of the original three bishops made, was elected to the primacy in 1972; unitl his death in 2005 he was one of the oldest and longest-reigning of Orthodox bishops in the world.

'''[[True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)|The Synod of Archbishop Nicholas]]''': In February, 2003, Archbishop Andreas of Athens retired, and Archbishop Nicholas of Athens, considered by many to have a progressive vision for the Matthewite church, was elected. Extremely popular with younger Matthewites, Archbishop Nicholas seems generally poised to keep the Matthewite synod united. However, it has been advanced that Archbishop Andreas retired in violation of the canons.

'''The Kirykite faction''': Not a schism proper, Metropolitan Kirykos and two other bishops of the synod refused to recognize the retirement of Archbishop Andreas or the enthronement of the new Archbishop, but continued to remain a member of the Synod of Archbishop Nicholas. The risk of schism exists, but is small—one of Kyrikos' vocal supporters have since died; another Matthewite Bishop of the Synod has passed on recently in Metr Gorgonios, and there were rumors he too supported Metropolitan Kirykos.

'''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)|The Gregorian Synod]]''': Under the primacy of Andreas of Athens, there were virtually no divisions in the Matthewites until 1995, when Metropolitan Gregory of Messinia separated with a small majority of the synod (five versus four), ostensibly over the issue of the "God the Father" [[icon]] and the related issues of Western-style icons in general. However, with the deaths of three of their bishops, the remaining two split, one remaining completely alone from the eldest hierarch, and the with Gregorios of Messinia naming three more bishops (Abramios, Pavlos, and Nectarios).

For all intents and purposes, it would appear that there are still only two actual Matthewite synods.

====Other groupings====
There was once a list posted of over 30 True Orthodox Greek Churches. This is in fact an unrealistic number. The number comes from an Old Internet listing of Bishops and Synods, some of whom had no following, and had one, if any Bishop. A demented compilation designed to confuse as well as [[convert]], this infamous list indicated even temporary unions as existing jurisdictions. As well, even the Moscow Patriarchate was involved in the formation of one of these Bishops (Joachim Souris), and so the author is limiting the discussion to True Orthodox Churches with actual memberships and hierarchies-- in other words, actual Churches.

===Russia===
====Inside Russia====
With the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, Orthodox bishops in Russia began to apply [[Ukaz No. 362]] of Patriarch St. [[Tikhon of Moscow|Tikhon]] and became administratively independent until such time as they could operate freely.

Ukaz No. 362 was written to preserve the Orthodox Church in times of persecution so that the Churches could survive. It gives the bishops of the Russian Church, temporarily, the right to self-govern apart from each other until such time as they can organize. It is considered by some to be a masterpiece of self-preservation in a time where the rules of canonical order could not be followed to the letter due to the difficulty of travel and so forth.

The number of catacomb churches in Russia is to date fairly large, and even today no one knows where all of them are. The history of the different catacomb [[episcopate]]s since 1927 is still not completely documented. There are also questions as to the legitimacy of certain catacomb bishops. Sadly, these questions will have to be determined by a future all-Russian Council.

====The True ("Free") Russian Orthodox Church and its divisions====
In 1990, ROCOR had announced that a bishop had secretly been consecrated to assist the believers in Russia (Bishop Varnava of Cannes), who then proceeded, with the blessing of the Synod, to make more bishops for Russia, the most prominent being Bishop Valentine of Suzdal and Lazarus of Tambov.

'''[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church|The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]]''': The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) is by far the largest of the Russian True Orthodox Churches, with hundreds of parishes in Russia and abroad, and also one of the most controversial. Headed by Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, the synod has twelve bishops and is enjoying a period of intense persecution on the part of the [[Church of Russia|state church]]. One bishop, Gregory (George/Abu Asaly) of Colorado, recently parted ways with the ROAC synod after having been both canonically retired and excommunicated. He initially took 2 parishes in America with him but they have now left him along with most of his monastics and parishioners. His group is the self-styled the '''[[Genuine Orthodox Church of America]]'''[http://www.gocamerica.org/] (Not to be confused with the newly autonomous Genuine Greek Orthodox Church in America headed by Metropolitan Pavlos of Astoria that is in communion with its mother Church, the GOC headed by Archbishop Chrysostomos II.) Gregory and his believers numbering in the teens believes himself to be the last bishop left in America.

'''[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)|The True Russian Orthodox Church]]''': Bp. Lazarus of Tambov, himself well-known in Russia, rejoined the ROCOR after the Free Russian Orthodox Church broke communion with ROCOR then later left again after the formation of Metropolitan Vitaly's [[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]] (ROCOR-V). He and Bishop Benjamin of Kuban consecrated a new set of bishops and currently have a couple dozen parishes in Russia.

====Russian True Orthodoxy today====
Today the situation is considerably clearer than it was 20 years ago; many of the groups that exist today have either been merged into other jurisdictions or have formed small, independent groups, administratively separate from the rest of the church. Much of their current history is tied together with ROCOR, as most of the original Catacomb bishops had been killed during state persecutions or died in hiding.

====Outside Russia====
The History of the Russian church outside Russia is best summarized by St. [[John Maximovitch|John (Maximovitch)]], Archbishop of Shanghai and San Fransisco, who reposed in 1966:

:In November of 1921 in Sremsky-Karlovtsy in Yugoslavia the first Sobor abroad was held, in which in addition to 24 bishops, representatives of the clergy and laity took part. Being thus the voice of all Russians who had succeeded in leaving the Soviet authority, the Sobor considered itself obligated to express its opinion regarding the situation in Russia, where all the rest of the population of Russia was languishing under the oppression of that authority. The Sobor appealed to the Genoa Conference with the request not to support the Bolshevik regime and to help the Russian people to become free of it.

Thus was formed the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]] (ROCOR), which held, until recently, the banner of Russian True Orthodoxy outside of the Russian territory.

====Divisions within Russia abroad====
The Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) enjoyed relative stability until after the death of Metropolitan Philaret of New York (+1985) and is currently in the process of uniting with Moscow. Since the death of Metropolitan Philaret (regarded as a [[saint]] by many Old Calendarists), three major groupings of True Orthodox Churches can be categorized.

'''[[Holy Orthodox Church in North America|The Holy Orthodox Church in North America]]''': In 1986, after the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA were accused of moral crimes and called to spiritual court. The entire New England Deanery of ROCOR, with the exception of one priest, had repeatedly asked for a canonical investigation of the trustworthiness of the persons making the moral accusations for a period of 11 months.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Clergy%20Letter,%20Sept.%2016-29,%201986.pdf]] These same clergy had also expressed concerns over violations of the Anathema Against Ecumenism which all the bishops of ROCOR had signed in 1983.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/November%208.pdf]] Several days before the monks were called to spiritual court [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Dec.%209,%201986.pdf]] they left the ROCOR [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Departure%20from%20ROCOR%20Letter.pdf]]
and were received by Metopolitan Akakios and Metropolitan Gabriel, two bishops who had not attended the Synod meetings of Archbishop Auxentios because of various administrative problems. The monks had lost confidence that the bishops would be unbiased since they were receiving testimony from witnesses that cannot make accusations against a clergyman according to the Sacred Canons (see above). Several weeks later approximately one-thirteenth of the North American parishes of the ROCOR and one-sixth of the clergy, following Holy Transfiguration Monastery's example, also went under Metropolitans Akakios and Gabriel.

Later, when cooperation ceased between Metropolitans Akakios and Gabriel in 1997, the clergy of HOCNA asked to be received directly under the then allegedly deposed Archbishop Auxentios. Although the Synod of Archbishop Chrysosostom II in 1986 considered Archbishop Auxentios deposed, in 1998 they rehabilitated him [[http://www.homb.org/archives/Archbishop%20Auxentios~Deposition~.pdf]]. Another group of bishops formerly under Archbishop Chrysostom II, but now known as the Lamian Synod presently under Archbishop Makarius also declared the deposition of Archbishop Auxentios uncanonical and void on April 1/14, 1997.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Lamia%20on%20Auxentios.pdf]]

After obtaining 2 bishops and two suffragan bishops, the group left the successor of Archbishop Auxentios, Archbishop Maximos, after they had deposed him for uncanonically consecrating two individuals to the episcopate without the permission of the rest of the synod.[[http://www.homb.org/archives/Maximus%20defrockment.pdf]] They incorporporated themselves as Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) in 1987. Currently the HOCNA synod, which in 2001 declared itself administratively independent of its extant mother Church in Greece, has five bishops.

From 1999 to 2001 the Lamian Synod approached HOCNA to establish full administrative unity, but this attempt failed for various reasons. [[http://www.homb.org/Archived_Docs_HTM/LamiansToHOCNA.pdf]]
'''The True ("Free") Russian Orthodox Church''': In 1994, the majority of the parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox Church (see above) broke communion with the ROCOR over their sudden inclination towards union with the Moscow Patriarchate, made manifest by their desire to "break apart" the Russian parishes. In time, a number of American parishes have joines the FROC, now known as the ROAC.

In 2001, after the ROCOR made a clear commitment to union with the Moscow Patriarchate, the head of the ROCOR synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, retired from the proceedings.

Almost immediately afterwards, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Varnava of Cannes, and two of the Russian bishops of ROCOR, separated with the rest of the ROCOR synod and made new bishops. The proceedings that led up to these events are well documented on the Internet and the treatment of the retired head of the ROCOR has been regarded as shameful by many in the majority group, including allegations that Vitaly is unfit for service and is being used as a figurehead. Since then, Metropolitan Vitaly has headed the reorganized ROCOR from his home in Mansonville. Until recently, they were known as the [[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]], having since returned to the original name of ROCOR in many documents.

'''[[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile|The Russian Church in Exile]]''': The Russian Church in Exile has since primarily split into three parts—the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (North America), an independent European branch that the other branches to not accept, and the [[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)|True Russian Orthodox Church in Russia]]. Both claim to be under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Vitaly. However, the Russian Church in Exile immediately made new bishops for Russia; most of the Russian parishes of the ROCOR are still under the RTOC. Most recently, in 2004, the community of [[Esphigmenou Monastery (Athos)|Esphigmenou]] (the sole monastery of the [[Mount Athos|Holy Mountain]] that still refuses to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch since the calendar change) has declared its recognition of Metropolitan Vitaly as the only possible legitimate First-Hierarch of ROCOR.

====Other groupings====
The amount of confusion among the remaining Russian True Orthodox parishes is not really worthy of note, as most have almost no visible membership, though two groups of historical value are the church under Ambrose (Von Sievers) and the [[Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church]]. Questions about their legitimacy and ecclesiology abound, however, and due to their small membership, there is a serious question as to how much discussion such groups actually merit, since they are usually reabsorbed into larger churches. Another new group that is worthy of note is the [[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyacheslav)|Russian True-Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Vyacheslav)]] which actually derives its episcopate from the [[Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church|Ukrainian Autocephalous Church]].

===Other national churches===
Other countries have been given True Orthodox hierarchies by the above groups.

====Romania====
The history of True Orthodoxy in Romania has a rich history and goes back to 1924. Most of the faithful are currently under the omophor of Metropolitan Vlasie of Romania and his subordinate bishops. Romania was given Bishops by the synod under Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili (see above).

One parish is under the Lamian Synod (see above).

====Bulgaria====
The majority of the faithful are under the Cyprianites (see "Cyprian of Fili" above) and comprise a few dozen parishes, their bishop being Photios of Triaditsa.

Two churches are under Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, and two left with Bishop Gregory of Colorado during his departure.

====Georgia====
In Georgia, dozens of [[monastics]] fled the official Patriarchate of Georgia in protest over [[ecumenism]] in 1998. HOCNA (see above) absorbed many of them, and they style themselves the [[True Orthodox Church of Georgia]]. They currently have no bishop and are administratively under North America.

====Ukraine====
The situation in Ukraine deserves its own paper and is beyond the scope of this article. The churches there deserve mention, however, since most of the Russian groups have parishes in Ukraine (ROAC has two Bishops in Ukraine.) Worthy of note is the [[Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church]] (UAOC) under Metropolitan Methody Kuriakov; while the ecclesiology of the UAOC is not particularly firm, they consecrated bishops for at least one True Orthodox group in Russia.

==Churches "in resistance"==
These churches refrain from [[concelebration]] with the mainstream Orthodox churches, but do not consider themselves [[schism]]atic, nor have they declared a break in [[full communion|communion]] with the mainstream churches. They will also commune the faithful of those churches.

* [[Holy Synod in Resistance]] ("Cyprianites"), a [[Florinites|Florinite]] church
* [[Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania]]
* [[Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria]]
* [[Holy Synod of Milan]], a [[Florinites|Florinite]] church

==Churches which are "walled off"==
These churches refrain from both [[concelebration]] and [[full communion|communion]] with the mainstream Orthodox churches, regarding the hierarchies of the official churches to have apostasized and placed themselves outside Orthodoxy. The view of these Old Calendarists, commonly self-designated as "True Orthodox" towards official Orthodox priests and laity varies.

===Greece===
*[[Florinites]]
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)]] ("Chrysostomite Synod"), under Archbishop Chrysostom of Athens
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)]], under Archbishop Makarios of Athens

*[[Matthewites]]
**[[True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)]], under Archbishop Nicholas of Athens
**[[Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)]], under Metropolitan Gregory of Messinia

===Russia===
*[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]], FROC/ROAC ("Suzdalites"), under Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal
*[[Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church]], under Metropolitan Theodosie
*[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)]], under Archbishop Lazarus of Tambov
*[[Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyatcheslav)]], under Metropolitan Vyatcheslav

===America===
*[[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America]], the FROC/ROAC in the United States of America
*[[Russian Orthodox Church in Exile]] (ROCE), also known as ROCOR (V), under Metropolitan Vitaly of Montreal
*[[Genuine Orthodox Church of America]], under Archbishop Gregory of Denver
*[[Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America]], under Metropolitan Pavlos of Astoria, the "Chrysostomite" Metropolitan Diocese for America
*[[Holy Orthodox Church in North America]] (HOCNA), under Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto

===Elsewhere===
*[[True Orthodox Church of Georgia]]

==Ecclesiastical status==
The ecclesiastical and canonical status of the various Old Calendarist jurisdictions is complex. Some regard themselves as being the only true Orthodox Christians and thus view the mainstream Orthodox Church as being in apostasy. As such, they do not share either communion or concelebration with the mainstream churches. Other Old Calendarists (typically those "in resistance") have suspended concelebrations with mainstream clergy, but will still commune the faithful of mainstream jurisdictions. They thus see themselves as a reform movement within the Orthodox Church. The question of canonicity follows much the same sort of patterns.

Views from the mainstream Orthodox on the Old Calendarists range from trying to heal the various breaks in communion or concelebration to outright declarations that such groups are themselves apostates, that is, no longer Orthodox.

==Sources==
*[http://www.geocities.com/joesuaiden/trueorthodox/trueorthodoxchurch.html The True Orthodox Church: A Brief Overview] (major portions of text used by permission)

==External links==
*[http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anti-patristic-stance-old-calendarist-zealots.aspx Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists] by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory (Grigoriou), Mount Athos
* [http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg.aspx?eccpageID=53&IndexView=toc Eastern Christian Churches: The Old Calendar Orthodox Churches] by Ronald Roberson, a Roman Catholic priest and scholar
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/ Paradosis: The Original Internet E-mail Forum for Traditionalists]
* [http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/ The Euphrosynos Café: A Portal and Forum for all Old Calendar Orthodox Churches] by Father Nikolai Stanosheck, a [[Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church|ROAC]] deacon
**[http://euphrosynoscafe.com/map/ Map of some Old Calendarist parishes in the West]

===Jurisdictions===
* [http://www.roac.ru/ Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church]
* [http://www.roacusa.org/ Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America]
* [http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/ Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece], official website of Chrysostomite Synod
** [http://www.thegreekorthodoxchurch.com/ Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America], diocesan website of the Metropolis of America (Chrysostomite)
* [http://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/ Swedish Exarchate of the Holy Synod in Resistance]

[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Jurisdictions]]
[[Category:Old Calendarist Jurisdictions|*]]

Western Rite

2007-12-09T01:18:52Z

Joesuaiden: /* Congregations */

The '''Western Rite''' is a strand of Orthodox Christian worship based on the liturgical traditions of the ancient pre-[[Great Schism|Schism]] Orthodox Church of the West. Western Rite Orthodox Christians hold in common the full Orthodox faith with their brethren of the Byzantine Rite, and at present, all of the [[bishop]]s who care for such [[parish]]es are themselves followers of the Byzantine Rite.
{{westernrite}}
==Modern History==
===The Nineteenth Century===
:''Main article: [[Western Rite in the Nineteenth Century]]''
In 1864, 44-year-old [[Joseph Julian Overbeck]], a former German [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] priest who had left the priesthood, disillusioned with papal supremacy, became Lutheran and later married, was [[chrismation|chrismated]] into the [[Orthodox Church]]. He then published, in 1866, ''Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism'' which contained the groundings for his work for the next twenty years. A year later, be began publishing a periodical, ''Orthodox Catholic Review'', aimed at putting forward Orthodoxy and rejecting Catholicism and Protestantism.

1867 saw Overbeck, with 122 signatures from the Oxford Movement, petition the Church of Russia for the establishment of a Western Rite church in full communion with the Eastern Rite. A seven-member synodal commission was then formed, and invited Overbeck to attend. The idea was approved, and Overbeck set about submitting a draft of the proposed Western liturgy. The base of Overbeck's submission was the 1570 rite which added in an epiclesis and the Trisagion hymn. This rite was submitted in 1871, and was examined and approved by the commission. Overbeck focused his efforts on the Old Catholic movement, who had rejected Papal Infallibility. He continued to engage in polemics with Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox converts using the Byzantine rite.

In 1876, Overbeck issued an appeal to the various Holy Synods, travelling to Constantinople in 1879. There he met the Ecumenical Patriarch, who authorised him to deliver sermons and apologetics. in 1881, some success was had when the Ecumenical Patriarchate agreed that the West had a right to a Western church and rite.

However, it went no further. Overbeck's marriage after his Catholic ordination was a canonical impediment to the priesthood, the Holy Synod of Greece vetoed his scheme amongst the Orthodox Churches, the ''Orthodox Catholic Review'' ended its run, and by 1892 he admitted failure due to the Church of Greece of the time. Overbeck reposed in 1905.

===The Twentieth Century===
[[Image:Fon-du-Lac Circus.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Episcopalian Consecration of Reginald Weller as co-adjutor bishop of Fond-du-Lac, 1900.]]
:''Main article: [[Western Rite in the Twentieth Century]]''
The Western Rite continued. In 1890 a Swiss Old Catholic parish in Wisconsin, pastored by Fr Joseph Rene Vilatte, was received by Bp Vladimir (Sokolovsky); however, Fr Vilatte soon led the church into Old Catholicism. In 1911 Arnold Harris Mathew, an Old Catholic bishop, entered into union with the Patriarchate of Antioch, but parted ways soon after, leaving behind a model for future Western Rite groupings to join Orthodoxy. In 1926 the six-parish ''Polish Catholic National Church'' was received into the Polish Orthodox Church, flourishing until wiped out by the Nazis. [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-five.html] [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-four.html]

St. Tikhon's involvement in the Western Rite has been one more enduring. While he was head of the Russian mission in America, some Episcopalians were interested in the possibility of joining Orthodoxy while retaining Anglican liturgics. St. Tikhon, sending the 1892 Book of Common Prayer, enquired as to the viability of such an idea; in 1904, the Holy Synod admitted its possibility, including many notes on how the BCP could be used in an Orthodox manner. St. Tikhon did not receive any Episcopalians who used revised Anglican forms, but it lay the groundwork for the reception and liturgics of the [[Western Rite Vicariate]]. [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-five.html]

There has been a significant [[Orthodox Church of France|Western Rite movement in France]], the largest remaining group thereof being the ''Union des Associations Cultuelles Orthodoxes de Rite Occidental'' (UACORO - the Union of Western Rite Orthodox Worship Associations).

====The United States====
The Antiochian Archdiocese received the most stable and successful group of Western Rite parishes, the [[Society of Clerks Secular of St. Basil]], in 1961. Upon reception, they became the Western Rite Vicariate, and their leader, Alexander Turner, becoming an Orthodox priest and the Vicar-General of the Vicariate until 1971. At his repose, Fr Paul W.S. Schneirla became Vicar-General.

Besides the parishes that were in the former Society, other parishes have been received into the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese, especially because ofthe theological and practical devolution of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. Added to this, several Western Rite missions have been founded, some growing into full parish status.

The Church of Russia received a New York Old Catholic community in 1962 as Mount Royal Monastery, which later moved to Woodstock, New York, under Archbishop John (Wendland) of the Russian Exarchate of North America. Later, this community was received by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, under Archbishop Nikon (Rklitzsky). In 1993, the monastery was renamed to Christminster and moved to Providence, Rhode Island, under Bishop [[Hilarion (Kapral) of Sydney|Hilarion of Manhattan]] (since transferred). Its present abbot is Dom [[James (Deschene)|James Deschene]].

====Elsewhere====
In 1995, the Church of Antioch also established a British Deanery to absorb converts from the Church of England. Not all of these parishes are Western Rite.

Western Rite Orthodoxy, in [[Orthodoxy in Australasia|Australia and New Zealand]], has arisen mostly from Anglican and Continuing Anglican communities. Archbishop Hilarion (Kapral) of Sydney, ROCOR, received some communities under his omophorion; while others have been received by Bishop [[Gibran (Ramlawey) of Australia and New Zealand|Gibran]] and Metropolitan Archbishop [[Paul (Saliba) of Australia and New Zealand|Paul]], both under the Church of Antioch.

Other small groups following the Western Rite have been received, but usually have either had little impact, or have declared their independence soon after their reception.

Some Western Rite parishes are also in the Oriental Orthodox churches. The Syrian patriarchate of Antioch consecrated Antonio Francisco Xavier Alvarez as Archbishop of Ceylon, Goa and India in 1889, authorizing a Roman rite diocese under him; in 1891, the Syrians consecrated the aforementioned Joseph René Vilatte as archbishop for the American Old Catholics.

==Liturgy==
North American Western Rite parishes generally follow one (or sometimes both) of two types of traditional Western liturgical traditions. The majority celebrate the [[Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow]], which is an adaptation of the [[Eucharist|Communion]] service from the 1928 Anglican ''Book of Common Prayer'' and ''The Anglican Missal in the American Edition,'' as their Sunday liturgy. Until 1977, all Western Rite parishes celebrated only the [[Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great]], which is a modified form of the ancient Mass known to Roman Catholics before the liturgical reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s. Many parishes within the Western Rite Vicariate continue to celebrate the Gregorian liturgy. However, most WRV parishes celebrate more than one weekly liturgy, and many of the Tikhonite parishes celebrate the Gregorian liturgy on weekdays. The complete Roman rite of Benediction is also authorized.

The Western Rite liturgy has much less repetition than its corresponding elements in the Byzantine rite, and generally has a more brisk, succinct manner to it. Celebrants wear distinctive Western vestments, and the faithful follow pious devotional customs particular to their tradition, as well.

The development of the current use within the [[Western Rite Vicariate]] is of particular note:

:Metropolitan Antony was well aware that the Western Rite was "a work for specialists." The new Western Rite usage of the Archdiocese was to be guided by "a Commission of Orthodox Theologians," an advisory committee of qualified clerics or laymen to advise the Metropolitan and determine "the mode of reception of groups desiring to employ the Western Rite, and the character of the rites to be used, as well as the authorization of official liturgical texts." The first WRV Commission, convened by Metropolitan Antony in 1958, was composed of Fathers Paul Schneirla, Stephen Upson, [[Alexander Schmemann]] and [[John Meyendorff]]. Schneirla, Schmemann, and Meyendorff in particular had seen the Western Rite up close in France, as it had been approved in the Russian Ukase of 1936. Schneirla recalls Schmemann's work in particular as being key, as he was familiar with the Liturgical Movement within the Roman Catholic and Anglican communions. Schmemann was particularly instrumental in joining together the separate Rites of Initiation of the Rituale Romanum – Baptism, Confirmation and First Holy Communion – into one unified rite, according to the Orthodox understanding.

:In January of 1962, the official Western Rite Directory was issued, "establishing liturgical usages and customs and discipline," drawing on principles gleaned from the 1904 Moscow Synodal response to Saint Tikhon, the authorization of Western Rite offices by Metropolitan Gerassimos (Messarah) of Beirut, and the 1932 Russian Ukase of Metropolitan Sergius.[http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-eight.html]

Ironically, before his committed and pivotal involvement with the architecture of the current usage of the Western Rite, Fr. Schmemann had criticized it in a response to a 1958 article Fr. Schneirla wrote in ''The Word''.[http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html] However, after his criticisms, Fr. Schmemann worked to establish the Western Rite Vicariate and, later still, taught at the Western Rite seminary in Paris.

==Congregations==
By far the largest group of these parishes is represented by the [[Western Rite Vicariate]] of the [[Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America]]. Other Antiochian Western Rite parishes exist in the [[Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand]].

The [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]] (ROCOR) also has a small number of Western Rite parishes in addition to two monasteries, one located in Tasmania and another in Rhode Island which follows Benedictine liturgical traditions. The former, St. Petroc Monastery, uses the [[Sarum Rite]] liturgy in English. Missions and Parishes of the ROCOR Western Rite in Tasmania use either the Sarum or "The English Liturgy," an English Use service based upon the 1549 Anglican ''Book of Common Prayer'' but incorporating certain elements of the Sarum Use.

The [[abbot]], Dom Augustin (Whitfield), who led the latter monastery of Mount Royal, now named [[Christminster (Providence, Rhode Island)|Christminster]] (or Christ the Savior Monastery), into communion with ROCOR, once remarked to St. [[John Maximovitch]] that it was difficult to promote Western Rite Orthodoxy, whereupon the saint replied: "Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies." [http://www.christminster.org/history.htm]

The [[Orthodox Church of France]]—which is currently of ambiguous status with regard to world Orthodoxy, but at one time was cared for by St. [[John Maximovitch]] and later by the [[Church of Romania]]—also uses a Western Rite liturgy based on ancient Gallican liturgical materials, though often supplemented by Byzantine elements.

In addition, the [[Holy Synod of Milan]], an [[Old Calendarist]] group, has a number of communities (including one monastery, in the United States, in West Milford, New Jersey, the Abbey of the Holy Name) which worship according to Western rites, including a restored [[Sarum Rite]], which differs somewhat from that used in ROCOR. The Milan Synod has invested considerable effort in restoring the pre-schism Orthodox uses of the West, rather than sanitized modern usages.

It should also be noted that there are a number of groups who follow various Western rites, so-called, and may call themselves Orthodox but are not part of or in communion with the historic [[Orthodox Church]].

==Criticism==
:''Main article: [[Western Rite Criticism]]''
The Western Rite in the Orthodox Church is not without its critics. Objections are made in regards to desire for liturgical uniformity within Orthodoxy and fears that Western Rite vicariates or similar Western Rite practices have produced a para-ecclesiastic organization within the Church. Some question the sincerity of Western Rite parishes as all or mostly-convert groups. Finally, lack of organic liturgical continuity for the Western Rite troubles some Orthodox Christians.

Whether the Western Rite will survive in the Orthodox Church and be accepted by the majority who follow the Byzantine Rite remains yet to be seen. In the meantime, the Byzantine Rite bishops who oversee Western Rite parishes—and many who oversee no Western Rite parishes—continue to declare their Western flocks to be Orthodox Christians and regard them as fully in communion with the rest of the Church.

On the other hand, some Byzantine Rite Orthodox Christians do not recognize the Orthodoxy of those in the Western Rite (despite their being under the jurisdiction of Byzantine Rite bishops with whom they themselves are in communion), and will not attend the [[Eucharist]] at Western Rite parishes, declaring them to be "Roman Catholics," "[[schism]]atics," or "reverse [[Uniates]]." However, no Orthodox parish may deny the Eucharist to visiting faithful of the canonical Western Rite, regardless of their feelings about the concept of Western Rite Orthodoxy. As yet, there are no schisms within the episcopacy of the Orthodox Church regarding the issue of Western Rite parishes.

==See also==
* [[Western Rite Vicariate]]
* [[Sarum Rite]]
* [[Gallican Rite]]
* [[Stowe Missal]]
* [[Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow]]
* [[Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great]]
* [[Western Rite Service Books]]
* [[Liturgy of St. Tikhon (text)]]
* [[Saint Petroc Monastery (Cascades, Australia)|Saint Petroc Monastery]], Australia
* [[Christ the Savior Monastery (Providence, Rhode Island)|Christ the Savior Monastery]], USA
* [[Vestments]]

==Sources==
* ''Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity'', pp. 364-365, 514-515
* [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/ Occidentalis]: Orthodox Catholic Christianity in the Western Rite tradition (permission required)
* [http://www.westernorthodox.com/western-rite Introduction to the Orthodox Western Rite]
* [[Wikipedia:Western Rite Orthodoxy]]

==External links==
* [http://www.westernorthodox.com/ Western Orthodoxy]
* [http://spot.colorado.edu/~ashtonm/owpp/westernrite.htm The Unofficial Western Rite Orthodoxy Website]
* [http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America]
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070425132558/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/ Saint Petroc Monastery ROCOR Tasmania] (archive)
* [http://www.christminster.org Christ the Savior Monastery ROCOR Rhode Island]
* [http://www.occidentalorthodox.org.uk/ Worldwide directory of canonical Western Rite Orthodox communities]
* [http://members.cox.net/frnicholas/parishes.htm Western Rite Parishes] (North America, with links to parish sites)

===Liturgies===
* [http://members.aol.com/FrNicholas/liturgy.htm Text of the Liturgy of Saint Gregory]
* [http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/tikhon.PDF Text of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon]
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070208083242/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm Text of the Sarum Rite Liturgy] as corrected for use within [[ROCOR]] by His Grace Archbishop Hilarion (archive)
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070515074421/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/english.htm Text of the English Liturgy] (archive)
* [http://www.stmichaelwhittier.org/resources/osboff7.pdf Office and Prayers of the Oblates of St. Benedict] (PDF) - Western Rite oblates.
* [http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgics.html Liturgical Texts Project] (PDF) - Compilation of numerous liturgical texts.

===Book===
* ''[http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23809 Children of the Promise: An Introduction to Western Rite Orthodoxy]'', by Fr. Michael Keiser. ISBN 9781418475826

===Introduction and History===
* A Short History of the Western Rite Vicariate, by [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/ Benjamin Andersen]: [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/short-history-of-western-rite.html Part 1], [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-two.html Part 2], [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-three.html Part 3], [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-four.html Part 4], [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-five.html Part 5], [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-six.html Part 6], [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-seven.html Part 7], [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-eight.html Part 8], [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2004/09/western-rite-history-part-nine.html Part 9] (permission required)
* [http://www.occidentalorthodox.org.uk/ Occidental Orthodox Christianity] Dedicated to the furtherance of the Western Rite within canonical Orthodoxy.
* [http://www.westernorthodox.com/wrbooklet An Introduction to Western Rite Orthodoxy], An electronic version of the now out-of-print Conciliar Press booklet; edited by Fr. Michael Trigg, Ph.D.
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070513122757/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/ Orthodox Resurgence] Movement for Western Christians seeking reception in the Orthodox Western Rite. (archive)
* [http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/alcuin/tract12.html "Observations on the American Book of Common Prayer,"] the Holy Synod of Russia's guidelines for suiting the 1892 Book of Common Prayer for celebration within Orthodoxy.
*[http://www.westernorthodox.com/turner The Western Rite: Its Fascinating Past and Its Promising Future], by Fr. [[Alexander Turner]]
*[http://www.westernorthodox.com/overbeck.pdf The Western Rite and the Eastern Church: Dr. J. J. Overbeck and his scheme for the re-establishment of the Orthodox Church in the West (PDF)], by Fr. David F. Abramtsov, University of Pittsburgh, 1959
*[http://www.westernorthodox.com/anthony On the Western Rite Edict of Metropolitan Anthony (Bashir)], by Fr. David Abramstov, in addition to an excerpt from the report of Metropolitan Anthony (Bashir) to the 1958 Archdiocesan Convention
*[http://www.christminster.org/write.htm Western Orthodox Christians: Who Are They?], from [[Christminster (Providence, Rhode Island)]], a Benedictine Monastery under [[ROCOR]]
*[http://www.christminster.org/history.htm History of Christminster]
*[http://www.westernorthodox.com/whatis What is Western-Rite Orthodoxy?], by Fr. Patrick McCauley
*[http://www.westernorthodox.com/twain The Twain Meet], by Fr. Paul W.S. Schneirla
* [http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/janfeb/westernrites.htm Western Rite Orthodox in our midst: Ad Fontes!], by Dr. Alexander Roman

===Video===
*[http://stpaulsorthodox.org/Media/SaintPaul.wmv Video] on the Western Rite from St. Paul Orthodox Church, Houston, Texas

===Apologias===
* [http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/03/message-from-metropolitan-western-rite.html Met. PHILIP (Saliba)'s Promise]: Western Rite churches will not be Byzantized.
* [http://www.westernorthodox.com/basil Comments on the Western Rite] by Bishop [[Basil (Essey) of Wichita]]
* [http://www.westernorthodox.com/Lux-Occidentalis Lux Occidentalis (PDF)] ''The Orthodox Western Rite and the Liturgical Tradition of Western Orthodox Christianity, with reference to The Orthodox Missal, Saint Luke's Priory Press, Stanton, NJ, 1995'' by the Rev'd John Charles Connely
* [http://www.westernorthodox.com/greekdenver Doctrinal Issues: Western Rite Orthodoxy], from the ''Diocesan News for Clergy and Laity'' (February 1995), Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver
* [http://www.saintpeterorthodox.org/write.htm Western Rite Orthodoxy: Its history, its validity, and its opportunity], by Annette Milkovich, including an interview with Fr. Paul W.S. Schneirla, constituting a rough Western Rite "FAQ"
* [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/ Occidentalis - A Weblog of Orthodox Catholic Christianity in the Western Rite tradition] (permission required)
* [http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/sergius.html On the Question of Western Orthodoxy], by Patriarch [[Sergius I (Stragorodsky) of Moscow]] in a letter to [[Vladimir Lossky]]

===Criticism===
* [http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html The Western Rite], by Fr. [[Alexander Schmemann]]
* [http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/schmemann.html Notes and Comments on the "Western Rite"], ibid.
* [http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/news-encyclical.html News: Bishop Anthony Issues Encyclical on "Western Rite"]
* [http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/correspondence.html Correspondence on the Western Rite] between Bishop [[Anthony (Gergiannakis) of San Francisco]] and Fr. Paul W.S. Schneirla
* [http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/ware.html Some Thoughts on the "Western Rite" In Orthodoxy], by Bishop [[Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia]]
* [http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/tsichlis.html The Western Rite - Some Final Comments], by Fr. [[Steven Peter Tsichlis]]
* [http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/johnson.html The "Western Rite": Is It Right for the Orthodox?], by Fr. Michael Johnson

===News and Views===
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070222203921/http://homepage.mac.com/gthurman/iblog/C931234280/index.html Fr. Matthew Thurman's blog, Western Rite section] (archive) - consisting primarily of original documents written by Fr. Alexander Turner and other WRV clergy.
* [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com Occidentalis] - maintained by Subdn. Benjamin Andersen (WRV), this blog is a source for this OrthodoxWiki entry. (permission required)
* [http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com Western Orthodoxy] - Breaking news and views on the Western Rite.

===Listservs===
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/westernriteorthodoxy/ Western Rite Orthodoxy]: Discussion of Western Rite Orthodoxy, focusing the [[Western Rite Vicariate]] (Antiochian). Most active participants are members of the Antiochian WRV.
* [http://p097.ezboard.com/belyforum The Ely Forum]: "Dedicated to the theological and liturgical heritage of The Church in the British Isles, the ancient Patriarchates of the Undivided Church and the restoration of our genuine heritage of Orthodox Christianity in the West. A place of sane, sensible, lively, discussion between Christian gentlemen." Founded by Fr. Michael of St. Petroc Monastery (ROCOR).
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis/ Occidentalis]: Dedicated to promoting the "Old Sarum Rite Missal" published by a monk formerly of the Milan Synod.

[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Jurisdictions]]
[[Category:Liturgics]]
[[Category:Western Rite]]

Sarum Use

2007-12-09T01:12:32Z

Joesuaiden: /* History */

{{disputed}}

{{westernrite}}The '''Sarum Rite''', also called the '''Rite of Salisbury''', is a [[Western Rite]] liturgical tradition which coalesced in the 11th century West and in the contemporary [[Orthodox Church]]. It is more properly termed a '''Use''' of the [[Roman Rite]].

==History==
The origins of the rite are with the ancient local usages of the Insular Churches, ie those of Great Britain and Ireland. The earliest rites of those regions belonged to the family of rites called [[Gallican Rite]]. With the coming of St. [[Augustine of Canterbury]] to England in AD 597, a new rite was introduced into Britain: that of the [[Church of Rome]]. St. Augustine had been directed by Pope St. Gregory the Great (also called St. [[Gregory the Dialogist]]) to respect the Gallican customs that were already in place. Beginning with this period, and later with the rule of Charlemagne on the Continent, the Gallican and Roman rites were mixed. In England, the Second Council of Cloveshoe in 747 under St. [[Cuthbert of Lindisfarne]] included the canon that the rite of those "speaking the English tongue" would be the Roman rite. During the period of the Celtic and Saxon churches, there developed several related local variants or Uses of the Roman Rite, called ''Gallo-Roman'' to distinguish from the old Roman rite. The rites used in France, northern Spain, Portugal, the Low Countries, Germany, and Scandinavia were similar.

In 1066, the Normans invaded England. There were some abortive attempts at changing entirely to the related uses of northern France. However, monasteries particularly in the western parts of the island (especially Sherbourne Abbey and Glastonbury Abbey) proved intransigent. The Norman bishop of Sarum, Osmund, arranged the services for his new [[cathedral]] according to the practices that he saw around him—both Norman and Saxon/Celtic, inventing nothing. The Sarum rite as known was probably arranged by Richard Le Poore, who moved the See from Old Sarum to New Salisbury in the 13th c. From this period, the Sarum enjoyed the sterling reputation as being the best liturgy anywhere in the West, and thus had influence on the liturgy of other local churches in the Isles and the Continent (notable among them being Braga in Portugal and Nidaros/Trondheim in Norway). Other related local uses continued as well, such as York, Bangor, Hereford, and Durham.

The Sarum Use was one of the first to be published on the new printing presses in the early days of the Reformation. The complete service books for the whole rite survive. The rite was commanded for the whole realm of Great Britain during the reign of Queen Mary. It was also the primary source text for the Book of Common Prayer of the [[Anglican Communion|Anglican Church]].

The rite was revived particularly by the Orthodox party of the Anglo-Catholic or Tractarian movement in the 19th c. Church of England. In the mid-19th c., the services were translated into English by such as G. H. Palmer, and became either the preferred liturgy or preferred liturgical model for the non-Romanizing part of the Anglo-Catholic movement (also called Orthodox Anglo-Catholic or Prayer Book Catholic). The ceremonial and customs of the rite were the major influence in the development of the English Use, partly through the efforts of Percy Dearmer, author of ''The Parson's Handbook''. The old English Catholic Clergy Brotherhood also maintained a tradition of Sarum Use through the period of Catholic persecution in England. Attempts to revive the Sarum rite amongst the Roman Catholics included proponents such as A. W. N. Pugin and Bishop Wilson of Tasmania. The Sarum rite was suggested, but rejected, for use in the new Westminster Cathedral in 1903.

The [[Western Rite]] Orthodox [[Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow]], as well as the ROCOR English Use liturgy, have their primary origin with the Sarum Use of the Roman rite. The Sarum Rite in English and French is also used by the Western Rite Orthodox in the [[Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia]]. In North America, the Sarum Rite is also used in about half the parishes of the [[Holy Synod of Milan]], with [[The Abbey of the Holy Name (West Milford, New Jersey)]] utilizing the full liturgical cycle of the Sarum use.

==Old Sarum Rite==
Another liturgy using a similar name is the '''Old Sarum Rite''', compiled by a [[monastery]] of [[Old Catholic]] origin within the [[Holy Synod of Milan]], based upon many various early rites of Western Europe, including Sarum, and many details from minority texts. It is a modern construction (deemed a reconstruction by its supporters), and it has been criticized as being a pastiche rather than an actual revived liturgy. This liturgy is not in use by any mainstream Western Rite Orthodox.

==Sources==
*''The Church of our Fathers'', Daniel Rock, 1849.
*''The Sarum Missal in English'' , F. E. Warren, 1911.
*''The Use of Sarum'', ed. W. H. Frere, 1898.
*''The Sarum Missal edited from three Early Manuscripts'', J. Wickham Legg, 1916.
*''The Parson's Handbook'' Percy Dearmer, 1957.
*[http://anglicansociety.org/corner/sarum_use.html ''The Sarum Use''] by Rev'd. Canon Professor J. Robert Wright.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13479a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Sarum Rite]
*[http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/English.htm Project Canterbury: the Sarum Missal]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20070425132558/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/#THE%20ROOTS ''The Roots of the Orthodox Liturgy in the West''], archive from the website of Saint Petroc Monastery
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20070208083242/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm ''The Divine Liturgy of Sarum as used in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad''], archive from the website of Saint Petroc Monastery


==External link==
*[http://www.archive.org/details/churchofsarum00unknuoft ''The Liturgy of the Church of Sarum, together with the kalendar of the same church'']. Translated from the Latin, with a preface and explanatory notes by Charles Walker, with an introduction by T.T. Carter. London J.T. Hayes (1886). The Internet Archive.

[[Category:Liturgics]]
[[Category:Western Rite]]

Holy Synod of Milan

2007-12-09T01:07:07Z

Joesuaiden: /* External links */

The '''Holy Synod of Milan''' originated as a [[diocese]] for Western Europe of an [[Old Calendarist]] Greek Orthodox Church (see also ''[[Florinites]]''). The full name of this jurisdiction is the '''Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Milan, Western Europe and the Americas'''.

==History==
The diocese was granted a [[tomos]] of [[autonomy]] in 1984 from Archbishop Auxentios in order to pursue missionary work among the non-Orthodox people of the West. The title of the Synod at this time was the ''Metropolia of Western Europe''. After the transference of its first Chief Hierarch, Metropolitan Gabriel of Portugal, to the [[autocephaly|autocephalous]] [[Church of Poland]], Bishop Evloghios of Milan was chosen as second Chief Hierarch and elevated to the rank of [[metropolitan]].

Today Metropolitan Evloghios remains at the helm of the Holy Synod of bishops of the Church of Milan, which comprises eight [[diocese]]s, four in Europe and four in America, as well as missionary deaneries in England, Spain and South Africa. The Milan Synod uses the [[Julian calendar]] exclusively, and "firmly resists the [[heresy|heresies]] of false [[ecumenism]] and trans-religious syncretism."[http://www.odox.net/Synod.htm]

Since 1997 the Milan Synod includes a number of [[Western Rite]] communities, mainly in the United States, who worship according to pre-schismatic (historically Orthodox) liturgical traditions with the support of the Metropolitan and of the [[Holy Synod]] of Bishops. The principal rite of the Synod of Milan is the Byzantine Rite of the Orthodox Church, celebrated most commonly in the Slavic style but in some parishes in the Greek style.

==Ecclesiastical status==
As with many of the [[Old Calendarist]] jurisdictions, the Milan Synod is not currently in communion with the mainstream Orthodox churches.

==Related articles==
*[[The Abbey of the Holy Name (West Milford, New Jersey)]]

==Sources==
*[http://www.odox.net/Synod.htm The Holy Synod of Milan] (from [http://www.odox.net/ Odox.net])

==External links==
* http://www.ortodossi.eu Official Website of the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Milan (Holy Synod of Milan) (Italian, with Some English and Spanish)
* [http://www.orthodoxwest.net Official Website of the Archdiocese of New York and Eastern America, Milan Synod]
* [http://www.milansynodusa.org New Milan Synod Website for American Parishes] (English)

[[Category:Jurisdictions]]
[[Category:Old Calendarist Jurisdictions]]