Western Orthodox Christian

The General Opinion of the Papacy in the West From the 10th century Up Until the Schism

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:03:00 +0000

Archbishop Arnulf of Rheims, in the late 10th century, expressed a general, and sarcastic, but, true opinion of the papcy of his day:

"Are any bold enough to maintain that the priests of the Lord all over the world are to take their law from monsters of guilt like these—men branded with ignominy, illiterate men, and ignorant alike of things human and divine? If, holy fathers, we are bound to weigh in the balance the lives, the morals, and the attainments of the humblest candidate for the priestly office, how much more ought we to look to the fitness of him who aspires to be the Lord and Master of all priests! Yet how would it fare with us, if it should happen that the man the most deficient in all these virtues, unworthy of the lowest place in the priesthood, should be chosen to fill the highest place of all? What would you say of such a one, when you see him sitting upon the throne glittering in purple and gold? Must he not be the "Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God and showing himself as God"?

One can almost detect the sarcasm of Tertullian.

So, when someone wonders why the Western portions of the Church, before they schismatic away, didn't just obey the Pope's commands to drop the filioque insertion, we can see here an example of what they generally thought of the occupants of St. Peter's Throne in Rome. By the time you get to Benedict IX, you find out that people thought he was basically a demon; however, when you had a good Pope, like Sylvester in the early 11th century, people are still suspicious. It was only until they got Gregory VII, after the initial schism, that you see massive centralization, basically because he was backed up big time by Cluny, and other monasteries and local churches. But even somone like Benno Meissen in Germany, could hardly stand Gregory VII, calling him a sorcerer, accusing him of torturing people, necromancy and witchcraft, as well as doubting the Real Presence, and excommunicating people unjustly.

By the time anyone in the West, after the Schism, came to mount a large and organized resistance to Papism, it was already too late, and the issues like the filioque had been too long defended. Thus, by the late 1400s, they had little to stand on. Especially do to the Anselmian and later Aquinian and other dogmatizations of filioquism.

Readings for the Octave Day of Epiphany (the Midnight Office)

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:43:00 +0000

The Midnight Office, or Night Vigil, has 12 readings and 12 responsories, amid the 12 psalms, and 3 canticles, and over 12 Antiphons that are sung (the 15 Gradual Psalms, and in some cases, the 30 Psalms, are sung before the Night Vigil begins).

The Night Vigil is divided into three Nocturns. Each Nocturn has 6 Psalms; after each Nocturn, 4 readings a read, with 4 responsories each.

The Western Orthodox cursus should consist of Vespers, then Compline, the Gradual Psalms, and then the Night Vigils, with Lauds (Orthros) chanted in the morning, before dawn. The Night Vigil by itself can be up to 3 hours, when done with all the appropriate prolix chant; if done without the prolix chant it can be 2.5 hrs. Depending upon timing, some monasteries and parishes will sing Vespers, Compline and Vigils all together; others will sing Vigils together with Lauds, in the early morning, thus forming what is often called Matins (which is a combination of Vigils and Lauds).

Here are the 12 Readings and Responsories that will be used for tonight's Night Vigil, which will celebrate the great Octave Day of Epiphany, or Theophany. The 8th day after the Feast is celebrated with only less solemnity than the feast itself, for example, it has no tropes for the Proper Chants. For those interesed, the proper invitatory, psalms, and antiphons are here on pg. 112

Octave of Epiphany

The readings for the Nocturns, however, are below.
Readings
Nocturn 1

Lesson 1 First Corinthians 7:1-14
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

R. Today when the Lord was baptized in Jordan, the heavens were opened; and lo, the Spirit like a dove descending and lighting upon Him, and the voice of the Father saying: x This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I Am well pleased.
V. The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, x This is My...

Lesson 2
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent, for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

R. The Holy Ghost was seen like a dove, the Father's voice was heard: x This is My Beloved Son , in Whom I Am well pleased.
V. The heavens were opened unto Him, and the voice of the Father declared: x This is My...

Lesson 3
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

R. The kings of Tharsis and of the isles shall give presents; x The kings of Arabia and Saba shall bring gifts to the Lord God.
V. All they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense. x The kings...

Lesson 4
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

R. This day which is breaking is holy; come, ye nations, and worship the Lord. x Today a great light is come down upon the earth.
V. This is the day which the Lord hath made: we will rejoice and be glad in it. x Today..
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
x. Today...

Nocturn 2
Sermon by St. Gregory Nazianzen (the Theologian)
On the Holy Light
Lesson5
I cannot contain myself for joy; I am elated and buoyed up. Heedless of my own weakness I strive to take up the office, or rather the service, of the great John, and though I am not a forerunner, I do come from the desert. Christ is enlightened, or rather, by His brightness He enlightens us: Christ is Baptized; let us go down into the water with Him, that we may also come up with Him.

R. Arise, shine, O Jerusalem, for thy light is come; x And the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
V. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. x And the...

Lesson 6
John is baptizing, and Jesus comes to him, to sanctify the Baptist, and to do more than that, to drown the old Adm in the waters, and above all, to hallow the waters of Jordan; He Who is Spirit and Flesh gives to all Who are ever to be baptized the sanctification of water and of the Spirit. The Baptist will not receive Him, but Jesus strives with Him. I, says John, have need to be baptized of Thee. The candle speaks to the Sun, the voice talks to the Word.

R. All they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and incense, and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord. x. Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.
V. The kings of Tharsis and of the isles shall give presents, the kings of Arabia and Saba shall bring gifts. x.Alleluia...

Lesson 7
Jesus came up out of the water, bringing up with Him the sunken world, and He saw the heavens, not divided, but opened; after He Himself had closed them long ago against Adam and ourselves, when paradise was shut and guarded by a fiery sword.

R. There came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star, x And are come to worship the Lord.
V. We have seen His star in the east. x And are...

Lesson 8
And the Holy Ghost testifies of Him Who is of One Substance with Himself. From heaven the Witness comes; He comes from Him unto Whom He bears witness.

R. Herod enquired of the wise men: What sign have ye seen concerning Him that is born King? We have seen a star shining, the brightness whereof enlightens the world. X And we have known, and are come to worship the Lord.
V. There came wise me from the east, seeking the face of the Lord, and saying, x And we
Glory be....
x And we...

Nocturn 3

The Lesson from the Holy Gospel according to John
Lesson 9 John Ch. 1
John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Homily by St. Augustine, Bishop
Homily 6 on John
Before the Lord came to be baptized by John in Jordan, John knew Him, as is plain from those words in which he says, Comest Thou to me to be baptized? I have need to be baptized of Thee. Yea, but he knew Him to be the Lord, knew Him to be the Son of God. How do we prove that he knew already that it was He Who should baptize with the Holy Ghost? Before He came to the river, when many were running together to John to be baptized he said unto them, I indeed baptize you with water; but He Who cometh after me is mightier than I, Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire; already he knew this also.

R. The star which the wise men saw in the east went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was: x And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
V. And when they were come into the house, they say the young Child with Mary His Mother,a nd fell down and worshipped Him. x And when they...

Lesson 10
What then did he learn by the dove, so that (which God forbid we should think) he may not afterwards be found a liar; what but this, that there was to be this peculiarity in Christ, that although many ministers, whether righteous or unrighteous, should baptize, yet the sanctity of baptism would be ascribed to Him only on Whom the dove descended, and of Whom it was said, This is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost? Pete may baptize, still this is He which baptizeth; Paul may baptize, still this is He which baptizeth; Judas may baptize, still this is HE which baptizeth.

R. When the wise men saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy: x And when they were come into the house, they say the young Child with Mary His Mother, and fell down and worshipped Him; and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
V. The star which the wise men saw in the east went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. x And when...

Lesson 11
For if the sanctity of baptism depend upon the degrees of merit of the persons who baptize, then because the merits are diverse, the baptisms will be diverse also; and the better the minister is supposed to be, so much the better will the thing received be accounted. Even the Saints themselves, (understand, brethren), the good men who belong to the dove, who have part and lot in the city of Jerusalem, even the good themselves in the Church, of whom the Apostle saith, The Lord knoweth them that are His, are variously endued with grace; they are not all alike in merit; some are holier than others, some are better than others.

R. Thy light is come, O Jerusalem, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. x And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
V. Thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. x And the ....

Lesson 12
Why then, if one man, for example be baptized by this righteous saint, another by another of inferior merit with God, of an inferior grad, of inferior continence, of inferior life, why, notwithstanding, ts that which they have received one, and the like, and equal, unless because, This is He which Baptizeth?

R. This is the wondrous day on which the Saviour of the world was manifested, He Whom Prophets foretold and Angels announced: x Whose star the wise men saw with exceeding great joy and presented unto Him gifts.
V. This day which is breaking and is holy: come, ye nations, and worship the Lord. x Whose star..
Glory be...
x. Whose star....

Then the Te Deum is Sung, after which the Gospel is read
John 1:29-34

What Will Antioch Not Do? That is, When is a Consecration Not a Consecration?

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:40:00 +0000

As proof that people are using economia as an excuse to do whatever, watch this video of the consecration service of three Antiochian bishops as the same time:

Here

Notice, that Bishop Thomas, the bald fellow with glasses who is closest to the Patriarch in the Altar, NEVER ONCE, during the service of consecration at the Holy Table, has the Patriarch place his hand on him. So, apparently, the Apostles, and the Tradition of the Church, which states that ordination consists in the laying on of hands with prayer, has been abrogated by the modernist/ecumenist Patriarch of Antioch who has now abolished the laying on of hands and prayer, and replaced it with just hanging his omophor on someones head, while he reads a prayer without an actual laying of hands during the prayer as the Euchologion states.

It is true, before each of the candidates entered the altar, the patriarch blessed them on the head with the Invocation of the Holy Trinity, but, as far as I know, the Byzantine rite ordination requires the Bishop to place his omophor AND hands on the persons head while he reads the prayer "The Grace Divine...." Since when has ordination become simply by the fiat of a Patriarch without laying on of hands? How can these men, especially Bishop Thomas of AOC be actually bishops in any sense? How about the other candidates, who don't even have the chief-consecrator touch their head?

Multiple ordinations is an aberration enough, but, at least Phillip Saliba, when he ordained all those 'evangelical orthodox' folks, read the essential ordination prayer on each one, with his hands on them. Now apparently, Antioch believes you don't even need to touch the candidate head, just hang the omophor on them, and read a prayer, and bam! You change the Apostolic Tradition.

Even in the pre-Schism west, were they did practice multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy, the ordaining bishop, in the case of priests, physically HAD to lay his hands on each of them (as the Canons of the Synod of Carthage in the early centuries state). In the case of a bishop, the Gospel book had to be layed on the candidates head by the other bishops, and the chief-consecrator and the co-consecratores, all read the first four prayers together, and then the chief-consecrator held his hand on the candidates head for preface prayer. Even in those places where the consecrator simply layed his hands on the candidates head, he did say, "Receive the Holy Ghost", and then chanted the consecration prayer with hands outstretched, and then anointed the head with Holy Chrism. If, more than one bishop was ordained, this had to be repeated in each case.

Was the Patriarch's blessing of each candidates head, in the video above, the blessing he gave to them before they entered the altar, whereby he made the sign of cross and put his hand on their head, done with the understanding and intention of somehow imitating the pre-schism Western Orthodox rite or even post-schsim papist ritual at least??? Maybe he did? Maybe the form was just enough? But, that's very doubtful, and illustrative of both laziness, lack of caring about the sacrament, and rushing things, as well as complete disregard for the ritual of the Church of Christ.

In one case in Spain in the 7th century, when a bishop had laid hands in silence upon the deacon to be made priest, and was then to chant the preface of consecration over him, the Bishop (who was very old,) delegated the singing of the ordination prayer to his Archpriest. That was declared invalid and non-gracefilled by a synod of the Church; in other words, it must be the chief-consecrator who lays hands on and reads the prayer, otherwise, you could just have the bishop not lay hands on at all, and just read a prayer; however, if that's the case, then what is ordination and the laying of hands to it???

Therefore, how can a man ordained as such be a bishop, if the essential aspects of ordination in the Euchologion (that is, laying on of hands, while the consecrator prays the prayer of consecration), is completely absent? This is not just an issue of multiple ordination, which is against the normative tradition of the Church for the past 1000 years, but, it is a case in which the requirements that the Holy Fathers set down for ordination in the Euchologion are not even followed. No laying on of hands? No bishop.

Observations on the Western Orthodox Ordination Rite and that of the Modern Romans

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:25:00 +0000

The Western Orthodox ordinal, has remained unchanged for centuries, actually, for a 1,000 years. The Roman church, despite its schism from the Orthodox Church, and its devolution into heresy after the, retained the basic ordinal as it has in the pre-schism period. It actually retained this ordinal until 1970. This explains why the Russian Church was able to exercise economy on its part in accepting their priests as priests by the office of vesting; that is, the Roman church retained the form of apostolic succession and priesthood, despite their heresies. In this manner, the Monophysites (Armenians, Syro-Jacobites, Copts), and Nestorians, also retained the forms of apostolic succession and priesthood. The Seventh Ecumenical Council states that Monophysites, Nestorians, Severians (Monothelites), and Iconoclasts clergy could be accepted back into the Church by confession of Faith, or sigilion. That is, they profess the Orthodox Faith, and are accepted, since they retained the forms of apostolic succession and priesthood, despite lacking the grace of those forms. The same was true for the Papists; despite their heresies, they retain the basically accurate doctrine of the priesthood and the form of succession. The same was true for their other sacraments, the major departures in forms being the fact that, after the Council of Trent, as St. Nikodemos of the Holy Moutnain observes, they lost the canonical form of baptism; that is, they opted for the extreme form (trine effusion, or pouring of water on the head thrice in the Name of the Trinity), instead of the normative form (triple immersion), which the Westerns had practiced up unto that point. However, as the Didache, Apostolic Constitutions, St. Cyprian, and others state, effusion can be accepted as a form of baptim in extreme circumstances, thus, it falls within the limits of the Church to accept the forms of such baptisms performed by the heterodox, assuming all things else are in line (that is, the heterodox retain the Christian doctrine of baptismal regeneration, etc,). Thus, subsequent forms build upon the form of baptism, such as Chrismation, and then ordination, can be accepted.

The Greek Church, however, beginning in the 17th century, took a stricter approach, which is entirely legitimate since it can choose to exercise such or not; and it began to baptise Latins. The Russian church, however would accept Latins, Uniates, and Armenians by confession, and would Chrismate those whose baptismal forms had been performed in the Name of the Holy Trinity, with the understanding of a Sacrament (baptismal regeneration), and with the minimal form (thrice effusion, thus, the Lutherans such as St. Alexandra, etc, who were chrismated).

Economy depends upon their being a basic form. If the form is absent, then economy is impossible to be exercised. Thus, a Muslim can't be chrismated; a Mormon confirmation can't be accepted; a Methodist bishop can't under any circumstances be accepted as a bishop. A Baptist Pastor can't just go out, start performing ordinations according to the Byzantine Euchologion and expect the people he ordained to be accepted by vesting. The forms of baptism are essentially absent here. None of these can convey the forms of chrismation (confirmation), because that form depends upon the correct form of apostolic succession and priesthood.

For those groups that have these forms, the Church may choose to exercise leniency or strictness.

However, in our modern world, the exercise of leniency, even in legitimate cases has been occasion for many to promote the heterodox teaching of ecumenism and the branch theory. Thus, we have the case of the modernist OCA claiming that Chrismations of Roman Catholics are not real chrismations, but, simple blessings. This problem is compounded, because the Soviet Patriarchate, and the OCA, and other groups of World 'Orthodox' protest that the 'Russian Church used to just vest Roman priests' therefore we can do the same. This, however, ignores the question about whether the Vatican has even retained the forms of apostolic succession and priesthood that it had when the old Russian Church implemented its policy 300 YEARS AGO. If they haven't, then one of their clergy can no more be received by vesting, than a Lutheran minister.

I contend that the Vatican has (relatively recently in scope of time) essentially destroyed their forms of apostolic succession and priesthood. I maintain, per normative Orthodox ecclesial teaching, that they did not have the grace of the form, but, just had the form, when the form was in order. I also maintain, however, that now they lack not only the grace, but, the form, meaning economy is impossible to be exercised in their sacraments (excepting baptism under circumstances, such as Uniate baptisms, etc). When did this change take place? It took place with the promulgation and use of the Novus Ordo Pontificals in the late 60s and early 70s.

Let's examine some key aspects of the Western Orthodox Ordination of Priests, which was the same as what was used by the Papists after the schism, with what the Papists did in their Novus Ordo rite.

Keep in mind, that the Roman Church kept the same Ordinal as it had before the Schism, until 1970. That ordinal was dependent upon conveying upon them the form of apostolic succession, though not the grace. If the form was absent, then economy can't be exercised. Economy can be exercised ONLY where there is proper form.

I won't go through the entire service, but, I'll pick out some of the noticeable differences and changes..

When a deacon is to be made a priest, he kneels before the Bishop, who says the following to him:

It behooveth a Priest to Offer, to bless, to preside, to preach, to consecrated, and to baptise.

This same admonition, which had been kept in the Roman church, was abolished in the new rite of ordination.

The Bishop blesses the head of the priest and pronounces the Consecration of Priests chanting during such:

"...and by the compliance of Thy people transform bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son by an immaculate blessing;"

This was abolished in the novus ordo rite.
The Bishop, after the Veni Creator is intoned by him, anoints the priestly hands with the Most Holy Chrism, mixed with Oil of the Catechumens, and as he anoints the hands, in the form of the Holy Cross (for the priests old were anointed) he pronounces this blessing:

Deign to consecrate and to sancti+fy, O Lord, these hands, by this annointing and our bene+diction; that whatsoever they shall consecrate may be consecrated, and whatsoever they shall bless may be blessed and sanctified. In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The novus ordo roman rite completely abolished this prayer.

After this consecration, the Bishop then did according to the ancient rubrics, which even the Roman church continued until 1970:

And then the Bishop shall wipe his hands, and take the paten with oblations, and the chalice with wine, and give the ordinand the cup of the chalice, with the paten, between his forefingers (2nd finger) and ring (4th) finger, the hands remaining anointed, and doing this, the Bishop shall say:

Receive the power to Offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate the Mass, whether for the living or for the departed. In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This was abolished in the novus ordo rite.

After the Ablutions, but before the Postcommunion prayers, the Bishop then layed hands on the priest, and spoke this prayer:

Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou shalt forgive, they shall be forgiven them, and whose thou shalt retain, they shall be retained.

This was completely abolished in the new rite of Rome.

After this, the Bishop then pronounced this blessing upon the ordinand's head:

May the blessing of God the Fa+ther, and the S+on, and the Holy + Ghost, descend upon thee; that thou mayst be blessed in the priestly order, and offer pleasing sacrifices for the sins and offences of the people to Almighty God, to Whom is honour and glory, through all the ages of ages. Amen.

This was abolished in the novus ordo.

You see, we can learn as much from what is removed, as we can from what is retained; indeed, you can learn more from what a person doesn't want to say, than what they want to say.

The traditional prayers as the bishop put each vestment upon the priest were removed also.

All these things being removed, tampered, destroyed, altered, abolished; removed the NO even further from the Orthodox understanding of priesthood than the Roman church had ever been. As a result, the form of apostolic succession and priesthood ceased to be there. The Western Rite Ordination is generally regarded as a whole rite, whereby one part signifies what is done at a later part, and is a process of ordination with several laying on of hands by the bishop, blessing of hands and head, and prayers for the Sacerdotal office. That the modernist Patriarchates apparently don't care about these matters is disturbing, if not unsurprising, sadly. It is one thing for a person to be ignorant of these changes, to make honest mistakes not knowing any better; however, it is quite another thing to ignore such an important matter for the sake of 'ecumenical understanding' and other such heretical blather.

Reading for the Sixth Day in the Octave of Epiphany for Vigils

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:02:00 +0000

Lesson 1
The Holy Gospel according to Matthew
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?

Homily by St. Ambrose Bishop
Bk.2 on Luck Ch. 2
What are these gifts of the King, frankincense for God, myrrh for His Dying for us. One is the token of a King, another is used in holy worship of Divine Power, and the third betokens veneration in burial of the dead, as it preserves the body from corruption. As we read and hear of these gifts, brethren, let us present similar gifts from our treasures. For we have treasure in earthen vessels. You confess that what you are in yourselves is not of your own creation, but is Christ's; how much more should you confess that all you possess is His?!

R. The star which the wise men saw in the east went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was: x And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
V. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His Mother, and fell down and worshipped Him. x And when they...

Lesson 2
The wise men present gifts out of their treasures. Would you know how they are rewarded? The star appears to them, but it is not seen where Herod is. Then it is seen again where Christ is, and shows them the way. Therefore this star is the way, and the way is Christ; for in the Mystery of the Incarnation, Christ is a star. there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel. Finally, where Christ is, there is the star. He Himself is the bright and morning star. Therefore by His own Light He Reveals Himself.

R. When the wise men saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy; x And when they were come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His Mother, and fell down and worshipped Him; and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
V. The star which the wise men saw in the east went before them, till it came and stood over, where the young Child was. x And when...

Lesson 3
There is further evidence. The wise men came by one way and returned by another. They had seen Christ, they had known Him, and therefore they returned better men than they had come. There are indeed two ways: one leads to destruction and the other to the Kingdom. One that leads to Herod, is the way of sinners: the other that returns to our fatherland, is Christ. Here in this life we dwell in exile, as it is written, My soul hath long dwelt as an exile.

R.Thy light is come, O Jerusalem, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. x And the Gentiles shall come to light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
V. Thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. x And the Gentiles...
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
x. And the Gentiles...

Reading for the 5th day in the Octave of Epiphany, for Night Vigils

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:04:00 +0000

Reading for the 5th day in the Octave of Epiphany, for Night Vigils

Lesson 1
Lesson from the Gospel of Matthew Ch. 2:1-12
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews?..

Homily by St. Jerome, Priest
Bk. 1 Commentary on Matthew, Ch. 2
For we have seen his star in the east. The star rose in the east, so that the birth of Christ could be revealed to the Gentiles, to the confusion of the Jews; they knew that He would come, because they had the prophecy of Balaam whose successors they were: see the Book of Numbers. The wise men were led to Judea by the sign of the star for this reason; that the priests, being asked by the wise me where Christ was born, might be inexcusable in their ignorance of his coming.

R. Arise, shine, O Jerusalem, for thy light is come; x And the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
V. And the Gentiles shall come tot he thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. x And the...

Lesson 2
And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea. This is a mistake of the copyists. In my opinion the Hebrew version accords with what the Evangelist originally said, namely, Judah, and not Judea. Is there a Bethlehem in any other nation, that would account for this description? for Judea being specifically mentioned here? But Judah is named, because there is another Bethlehem in Galilee; see the Book of Joshua. Finally, the passe quoted from Micah the Prophet does itself prove this, as it says, Thou Bethlehem of Judah.

R. All they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and incense, and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord. x Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.
V. The kings of Tharsis and of the isles shall give presents, the kings of Arabia and Saba shall brings gifts. x Alleluia...

Lesson 3
And when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Juvencus the Priest has aptly expressed the mystic meaning of these gifts, in one verse: Frankincense, gold, and myrrh they bring, As gifts to God, and Man, and King. And being warned of God in a dread that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. Because they had presented gifts to God, the warning they received came, not from an Angel, but from Gho Himself, an even greater privilege than that of Joseph. They returned into their own country another way, and were thus kept free from contact with the unbelieving Jews.

R. There came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born? For we have seen his star, x And are come to worship the Lord.
V. We have seen his star in the east. x And are...
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
x. And are...

Reading During the Epiphany Octave

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:13:00 +0000

This Monday is the 4th day in the Octave of Epiphany. Certain Major Feasts have Octaves, which are the eight days of the Feast. On the 8th day after the feast, the Octave Day is celebrated, with similar solemnity to the Feast Day itself, but, lessened. Epiphany is the celebration of the Visitation of the Magi to Christ (the Three Wise Men), as well as celebrating His Baptism by John in the Jordan, and, also celebrates the miracle of the Wedding at Cana (whereby, the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary successfully petitioned Christ to perform a miracle before he began his major public ministry in Galilee, thus demonstrating that, though He is her God, He has chosen to become a Woman's Son, and listens to her petitions for man's salvation even today). Epiphany is also called Theophany; Epiphany is from the Greek word that means "manifestation", and Theophany means the 'vision of God'. The Three Events celebrated demonstrate God's manifestations to men on earth; first when He was just Born in the flesh, second, When His Baptism inaugurated His High Priestly Ministry and the declaration that He was indeed the Eternal and Uncreated Son of God, Who took Manhood into Himself; and thirdly, the Miracle whereby He changed water into wine at the petition of His Mother.

In Baptism, we are cleansed of our sins and born anew; however, the Son of God had no sins he needed to be cleansed of, since He is Supremely Good and Holy. We are baptised for the remission of sins; He was Baptized to provide remission of sins to a guilty world, and to begin His Priestly work of reconciling the universe, especially mankind to the Godhead. As the Apostle Paul states, God's victory is conquer evil, sin, death, and the Devil not by the showiness of old, but, by the weakest things; thus, proving that God's power is unlimited, and that He has truly become a Man, while also being God. As the Apostle said, "Great is the Mystery of Godliness, God was manifest in the Flesh!"

Here are the Readings from the Night Vigils and their responsories:

Lesson 1
Holy Gospel according to Matthew ch. 2:1-2
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews?

Homily by St. Gregory the Great, Homily 10 on the Gospels
The wise men have much to teach us, in that they departed into their own country another way. As the result of a warning they did something that shows us how we, in our turn, should act. Our own country is paradise: once we have known Jesus we are forbidden to return to it by the same way that we came. For we left it by way of our pride, of our disobedience, by following after the concupiscence of the eyes, by tasting of forbidden fruit: but we must return thither by tears of repentance, by obedience, by contempt of all things earthly, by restraining fleshly appetites.

R. Today when the Lord was Baptized in Jordan the heavens were opened; and lo, the Spirit like a dove descending and lighting upon Him, and the voice of the Father saying: x This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I Am well pleased.
V. The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, x This is my...

Lesson 2
Then let us depart into our own country another way. We left the joys of paradise for the paths of pleasure: we are recalled by the way of weeping. In fear and trembling we must ever hold before the eyes of our heart, on the one side our guilty deeds, on the other the dread of the Last Judgment. Let us consider that the dread Judge will surely come, and that though He threatens judgment He is yet waiting: though He inspires us with fear on account of our sins yet does He stay His Hand: and He refrains from hastening His Advent for this reason: that when He does come He may find less to condemn.

R. The Holy Ghost was seen like a dove, the Father's voice was heard: x This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.
V. The heavens were opened unto Him, and the voice of the Father declared: x This is My...

Lesson 3
Let us make amends for our sins with weeping, and in the words of the Psalmist, Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving. Let no false pleasures deceive us, no vain delights seduce us. For the Judge is nigh at hand, even He Who said, Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. And Solomon too declared, Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of the mirth is heaviness; and again, I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it? and again, It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

R. The kings of Tharsis and of the isles shall give presents; x The kings of Arabia and Saba shall bring gifts to the Lord God.
V. All they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and incense. x The kings...
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
x The kings...

Theophany

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:46:00 +0000

I pray every one had a joyful and prayerful Theophany (Epiphany). The Feast of the Epiphany celebrates three events: The Baptism of Christ, the Visitation of the Magi, and the Wedding in Cana. The Waters are blessed after Vespers, traditionally, according to the customs of our Holy Fathers of the Orthodox West.

An Appeal for Aid

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:47:00 +0000

To The Beloved Clergy and Laity of our Church,

The past year (2011) has seen many marked improvements and changes. Many of these we can see in our own interior struggles as well as in our exterior conditions. For us at the Abbey of the Holy Name, which is the administrative and spiritual center of our Church, we have witnessed the rapid construction of our new church. For several years the old stone superstructure sat on the property with no work; but, thanks to the God blessed windfalls of a few generous people, as well as the steady support, we were able to begin construction anew.

A few of our clergy, especially those who had contractor and construction skills, have provided them completely free of charge, which meant only the cost of building materials was needed, as well as gasoline to drive back and forth to get the materials. However, in the process, we have also experienced several set backs, that have led to unexpected expenses; such as the kitchen sink completely failing and needing to be replaced, water pipes freezing, the need for insulation to prevent further freezing, unexpected medical expenses, charitable giving on the part of the Monastery to help others, and other unexpected events.

I know many already give generously to us, and I know that the many who can't, are just as valuable Christian souls to us as those who can. And if nothing monetarily can be bestowed, then the offering of prayers, moliebens, and other services are greatly appreciated. We remember all the benefactors at our monastery when we sing the 15 Gradual Psalms prior to the Midnight Office.

However, for those who can do anything, or pass this problem along, we would greatly appreciate it. As a result of all the above enumerated problems, we have sunk deeper into the red as concerns our upcoming tax bill in April. As we are unable financially to pay the bill quarterly, we are forced to pay so yearly, which, unfortunately, means that the government ads additional 'fees' to our late payment. We are currently about 3,000 dollars past the red line. Now, if we could abstain from eating almost entirely, as well as using little to no electricity, and other extreme austerities (including forsaking heating oil, for which we pray for a continual light winter to help), we could make the bill, with room to spare. Sadly, our conditions do not enable us (especially with the people we care for here), to take such extreme measures at the present time (or, at least, we would be very loathe to enforce such measures for fear of any further medical complications).

If it is at all possible, to remember us during this time, it would be greatly appreciated. Even if nothing can be given, we ask to pray that somehow the Lord would bestow something on us, even at the last moment.

Yesterday, when our kitchen sink broke, we had to remove it. In the process, we had to buy a new one from the Home Depot. During this trip, the three of us who went, were constantly thinking about how we could manage to do this. During the trip, our Metropolitan, Vladyka JOHN, was hit in the head with a board from car on the outside of the building (as Fr. Augutine, myself, and Fr. John, were loading up the materials just purchased). Vladyka had already been worried greatly about this matter of finances, additionally, he had forgotten to take his medicines earlier that morning, so, he was in not too good shape. Fr. Deacon John had to insist that he drive (since Vladyka, much to our chagrin likes to drive himself), and Vladyka was having many difficulties. He has tingling in his arms and fingers, his blood pressure was highly elevated, and he could barely operate as he should. Several of our clergy insisted he go to the hospital, but, he refused, saying that he was alright. He will be going to the physician this Thursday, so, I pray that we all pray he will be fine.

Forgive me for writing anything here that may put too much upon us as individuals, but, I believe that all Christian souls under the omophor of Vladyka John have a responsibility to help or remember him. This is not to imply that you have not helped in the past, are helping, or doing whatever you can, in whatever means you can, to help. But, it is, I believe, a simple reminder, of the fact that our situation at the monastery here, hangs on by a thread. If God should so will or allow, that we loose the monastery, we will continue, because the Gospel cannot be stopped by loss of buildings; but, it would be a blow to our work, as we would have no stable base to carry on the various works we conduct from here.

All this above, is in addition to the upcoming consecration of Archimandrite Michael, who is currently a Bishop-Elect, to the Holy Episcopate. As we currently have many missionary opportunities in South America, a future Bishop Michael will be a great help. Fr. Michael suffered greatly when he, the Abbot, was expelled from his small monastery and residence in Florida, when one of our previous priests (who owned the land the monastery was on) was coaxed to go to the Sergianist-Ecumenist Mosocw Patriarchate. Fr. Michael could not consent to this under any circumstances, and thus, he was evicted. He finally, after some time (and much prayers from us, and what we could do), able to get a small apartment, and then, convert and baptise a few people. As there are many Spanish-speaking groups of people in South America who are interested in joining our Holy Metropolitan Church, and these groups wish to be traditional and true Orthodox Christians, the consecration of Fr. Michael is important in this work. Vladyka JOHN, does not speak Spanish, and he is getting older, and thus, his ability to travel, in conjunction with his other functions is now much limited in these southern regions of the globe.

So, in conclusion, and without meaning to sound too presumptuous, I ask for all your prayers, and good works, and any contributions to the specific issues I have addressed.

With many fond memories, and hopefully more in the future, and praying that God will help us in this time of need,

In Christ our Lord,

Hierodeacon Augustine
Abbey of the Holy Name

Contact Information

Telephone: 973-838-8795
FAX: 973-838-2228
Postal address: 100 Abbey Lane, W. Milford, NJ 07480-3909 USA

No Glory for Man, But Glory to God

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:02:00 +0000

Again, this may not be true of all Anglicans, but, many I have encountered, and
many other persons and groups.

The Glory we should be seeking is the Glory of God. It seems like the Imperial
Era of the Church has ended. No more grand emperors and gigantic cathedrals
with the holy emperor and the holy patriarch, etc, etc. It always surprises me that the
displays that are given to the Pope (such as carrying him about on the sedia gestatoria , only he gets his foot kissed, etc), were really 'privileges' that the
Eastern Emperors conveyed on the Pope (who was, what? 12th or something in the
Byzantine Court hierarchy protocol?).

The Roman (Byzantine) Empire died, it's emperor, who sought the glory of the
world (keeping his empire, but, betraying the Faith), lost both the glory of the
world, and his own soul (unless he repented before death). What profit?

The Russian Empire is over; destroyed from without (yes), but, only from help
from within.

The downfall of the Orthodox West, as I've written elsewhere, was linked to its
pride. The same pride that made it resist its own Orthodox Popes commands to
remove the filioque (like Pope St. Leo III), but, then when a German took over
the office, it suddenly became time to seriously 'listen' to many of the things
the Pope said (of course, there were bumps on the way, like Bishop Menno and the
Investiture Controversy).

The west for centuries had stood against all the great heresies, like Arianism,
Monophysitism, Monothelitism, and Iconoclasm. The Arians Germanic tribes lasted
longer in the West, after the Arian court party was defeated in the East. The
Arians rampaged in Spain (with many a martyr to boot). The Orthodox Western
churches would have no communion with the Eastern Patriarchs during the later
5th century, due to Accacius, and the Greek Monophysite take over of the Eastern
sees; Rome only restored communion under the Emperor Justin (uncle of Justinian)
when Constantinople agreed to remove the offending Monophysite or so, names off the
diptychs for the departed. The Orthodox Western church, fought its own
vigorous battle against the creeping of Monothelitism in its own Italy, but won
under St. Severus, St. Martin, etc, to help the Orthodox in the East. And the
Orthodox Pope stood against the heretical Iconoclasm of the East, and the own
ignorant political buffonery Iconoclasm being pushed by Frankish political
authorities. So, when their own problems creeped upon them, they didn't think
to look, since they had thought "How could heresy come from us? We've been
fighting heresy! We could never do that!" Thus, the filioque, the Schism, and
the filioquist dogma takes hold, being bolstered by the new found centralization
of the papacy.

In retrospect, it looks easy to spot things.

In modern times, we've seen the same thing happening. First we see the glimmer
of the branch theory/ecumenism taking root in Protestantism, then spreading to
the Old Catholic and Anglican movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. It then
begins to creep around in the Orthodox Patriarchates, and finally, it explodes
on the scene in the 1920s and after.

So, one side that sees the fall of its ancient brothers, succumbs gradually to
its own new born heresy, and many, like the ancients, don't recognize it.

Let's not seek the world glory, or the glory of any man or institution, above
the Glory to Jesus Christ, His Church, and the Gospel, which are not aspects of
some institution. The Church of Christ is just as much powerful with the angels
and saints present in the Mass, with only a priest and a few people (or a priest
and no mortals, if that be the case), as it was in the greatest temples ever
build to God in their heydays.

-Fr. Augustine

St. Stephan the Protomartyr and Deacon

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:52:00 +0000

The Feast of St. Stephan the Deacon and Proto-martyr was celebrated yesterday. Since my scanner is down until I can get a new usb cable to replace the old one, here are some of the propers.

Processional Responsory (used by Clergy, for the Procession from the Quire in the Church)
Saint of God, elect and precious, Protomartyr Stephan, bright with thy love of amplest measure, shining round thee like a Light; who to God commendest, dying, them that did thee all despite; plead that we, who truly love thee, may have portion in thy name.
V. Glitters now thy crown above thee, figured in thy sacred name; in the dreadful Day of Judgment fearing neither sin nor shame, plead that we, who truly love thee, may have portion in thy name.
Prose. All the ends of the world praise thee the Protomartyr.
V. Who first running to the glorious crown of martyrdom,
V. Today, filled with sacred grace,
V. Thou followest the foot-steps of the Lord,
V. The Sight of Whom,
V. Thou didst obtain,
V. In the Father's Glory.
V. That thou mighest be struck while pleading for the pardon of the stone-throwers' crimes. Plead that we, who truly love thee, may have portion in thy name.

Processional Antiphon (used by clergy, for the procession back from the church into the quire)
Today the Christ is Born; today hat a Saviour appeared; today on Earth Angels are singing; Archangels rejoicing; today the righteous exult and say: "Glory to God in the Highest," alleluia.

The Mass for St. Stephan, also, is one of the only Masses to have tropes for the Introit, Offertory, and Communion.

Chrismtas Liturgy

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:36:00 +0000

Holy Nativity services are perhaps the longest of the year. When done in full, they extend from Vespers on the night of Dec. 24 (which is First Vespers of Nativity) to the late morning of Dec. 25. Usually, it has come to be broken up, but, not always and everywhere. You can find the services linked here to my scribd page:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965250/All-Night-Vigil-of-Holy-Nativity

Merry Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:15:00 +0000

Christ is Born! Let us Glorify Him!

I pray everyone had a good celebration of the Nativity of Christ this past Saturday.

A few days before Nativity we had two baptisms at the monastery's new church, using the new, large, baptismal font. Because the font was so big, it presented no problems whatsoever of immersion.
We're still waiting for the occupancy permit and electrical work is done, so we can be finally finished.
We've also finished the new volume of the Little Offices of the Mother of God (that is, those offices that are used everyday in addition to the regular hours). Anyone seeking a copy should contact the monastery here.

Missionary endeavours are still going fine. Work of service books and music books is still continuing. True Orthodoxy is still progressing as always. It is always the prayer of the Christian faithful that those who are not part of the Orthodox Church may come to be part of Her, or those who left at varying points should return.

Merry Christmas,

Fr.Augustine

St. Thomas the Apostle

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:01:00 +0000

Today is the Feast of St.Thomas the Apostle! St. Thomas, intercede for us.

How To Get Sold Down the River From Pros

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:42:00 +0000

A happy secular new year to everyone. I for one, though, like counting the new year starting on Annuncation (and on the traditional Julian Church Calendar).

What have we seen this past year, in review? Well, a few things. The World 'Orthodox' Patriarchates have gone deeper, and deeper into the ecumenical and modernist heresies for which they have been condemned by the Orthodox Church; indeed, they've demonstrated a greater desire for false unity with Papists and other heretics.

We've also seen that the Moscow Patriarchate has becoming increasingly closer to the Vatican. And just only a few years ago the rump organization left over from ROCOR, after it's numerous divisions over the past last decade due to its increasing acceptance over the past 10 years of the ecumenical and modernist heresies, all under the banner of the heresy of Sergianism, has promoted the use of the 'Western rite' (or whatever they call it now a days). Is this not strange? The 'ROCOR'-MP, is 'Russian', why are they so intent upon promoting something that isn't 'Russian'? Is this just pure, disinterested missionary altruism on their part? Hardly. As with all things planned by Moscow, and carried out by their willing servitors in the ROCOR-MP hierarchy, there is some mercenary motive. Men such as the sycophantic Fr. John Shaw, now styled 'Bishop Jerome', as well as the apostate Archbishop Hilarion, now styled 'Metropolitan Hilarion', and the rest of the apostate bishops in ROCOR, have proven themselves to have been nothing more than 'hirelings' who had no concern for the sheep. Even the old ROCOR always had the hidden ecumenist/modernist streak in it, which was exemplified by such people as Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, as well as a few others. It also had its fair share of renovationists, such as the 'right-wing' renovationism of the Panteleimonites, who sought to promote the ridiculous notion that all the pre-schism Western saints, were not saints (thus, they strove to get rid of the veneration of St. Edward the Royal Martyr, who suffered martyrdom in England in the 9th century). This type of renovationism, like the Parisian-Schmemannite renovationism, are types that are very easy to spot. The rest, in the end, at least those in power, proved totally uncaring, and more concerned about money (keeping Jordanville open, etc), than the faith.

So, it is no wonder, that, being the mercenaries that they are, they would seek to promote the 'Western rite', at least, that is, Kapral and Shaw. The rest either don't care, or are hostile, mostly because they aren't sure how the masters in Moscow will ultimately rule on such a matter. After all, Moscow wants the Ukrainian Uniates given to them; if Rome will give the Uniates to Moscow, then Moscow will be more than willing to sign on a dotted line of false union; in fact, I dare say the reason the Phanar hasn't been able to have it's great council of union with Rome, has been the Sergianists in Moscow have been holding things up until they have the Uniates under their belt. You see, the whole Uniate question is a red herring. If Moscow was really an Orthodox Church, it shouldn't be 'negotiating' with a false heretical church like the Vatican, as if it was an equal; but, the fact that the Uniate question has transformed into a question of 'whose territory this is' has revealed that they don't care (that is, the Sergianist/Ecumenist heretics) about theology. They just care about 'numbers' and 'control'.

If Moscow continues to build up a 'Western rite', it will have a bargaining chip with the Papists. Let's say they get a lot more 'Western rite' people to join, well, at that point, Rome may become more pliable. If Rome becomes more pliable, and Rome and Moscow reach an agreement, then the order from Moscow will be 'Either drop the Western rite parishes entirely, or they all switch to Eastern." I'm surprised that not many of the MP Western riters see this yet (though, to be honest, most probably don't care, as a large portion seem to care more about acceptability by large groups). This happened before, in the 60s and 70s; after the Papist Vatican II council, thousand of Papists sought to become Orthodox under Moscow (not knowing any better), and Western Rite at that; then they began to attack Papism virulently; as a result, Moscow dropped them once it reached other agreements with the Vatican. Do they really think that the servitors of the Sergianist/Ecumenist heretics in Moscow will 'go up to bat' if it means their skin? Would someone like Boss Kapral (aka 'Metropolitan Hilarion), who once attended the Glorification of St. Glicherie the Confessor of Romania, as well as telling several people that he would never join with Moscow, not to mention helping sell Met. Vitaly down the river (and, of course, there are the accounts of him just recommending potential converts just become Roman Catholic, yes, he did this back in the 90s), would Boss Kapral, and Consigliari Shaw, really risk deposition or harsh penalization to protect you? If Boss Kapral could attend the Glorification of St. Glicherie who was the heroic confessor of true Orthodoxy in Romania, against the Romanian New Calendar Ecumenist Patriarchate, and then would 'change' his mind, to join the very forces that wanted people like St. Glicherie and others dead, can you really trust him?

If Boss Kapral and his gang, are amateurs when it comes to this stuff, what does one imagine the trained atheist murderers in cassocks in Moscow can do? You think Boss Kapral is something? Maybe you should take a look at the deceptive and lying lot in Moscow, who, went to and fro throughout the earth, deceiving lots of well minded and gullible folks, and then betraying them once they got the chance! And then after the betrayal was over, the gullible folks would often walk away thinking that their betrayers 'hadn't really meant it, it was just political'! After all, once you betray Christ, participate in helping kill millions of Christians, renounce the Faith in favour of the ecumenical heresy, and are trained in KGB school, what is destroying the Faith of a few thousand people in Western Europe? Boss Kapral's got nothing on that, but, he's learning, I can assure you of that! He'll get better, and then when the time comes, you won't know what happened; you might even walk away 'thanking him' for what he did! But, Boss Kapral had better watch out; Boss Chemodakov is waiting in the knock him out. After all, Boss Chemodakov (aka, Bp. Gabriel), used to be the driver for Met. Vitaly, until it came time to help sell him down the river. And of course, Boss Loukianoff (aka Bishop Peter), has already been making his moves, and the 'western rite' issue is just the thing he needs to catapult him to power.

It was a gang of thieves 50 years ago that wanted St. John dead (except for a few good bishops). The same gang of thieves and liars, and traitors and opportunist, still ran things years afterward, and were ready to do whatever they could to sabotage anything (remember Archbishop Anthony of Geneva and the others who threatened schism in the 70s over the tough stance against Moscow? or his public concelebrations with the ecumenists, done in order to anger the True Orthodox in Greece? or other accounts). An amazing structure, where even a chauffeur can too rise to later betray his master. Yes, if you join, you too can later become a Boss (of course, you can't ever get in top, since, you have to be Russian for that).

And you know what, all that could have been 'barely' tolerable. All the incipient ecumenism being practiced under the radar, all the treacheries and scam, all of that, could have been 'barely' tolerable, if you knew you were still part of the True Church, despite the sorry lot of bishops you had. You still had the anathemas on the books, and lip service was payed, and their was always a strong contingent fighting constantly to keep the Synod from going right over the precipice (aka, joining officially with World Orthodoxy, and fighting to prevent all the attempts). They hung on by a thread, and just barely. But, then it ended, and the spineless and cowardly thieves, who had no real concern for theology, finally after enough years, got rid of all their enemies (that is, the True Orthodox), and caused enough to leave who were interested in defending True Orthodoxy, that they could finally take over, and pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible masses. And the atheological thieves in Manhattan came under the tutelage of the atheistic opportunist murdering two-face ecumenists in cassocks in Moscow.

So, 'Western rite'? No, they don't care about that. Now forgive me for this next shocking analogy, but, it is the truth for not only the 'Western rite' people in ROCOR-MP, but for all of all in it: You are a pawn in a system, and when the system runs you over, either you will come to your senses, or, you are going to be like a toothless old haggard crack prostitute beat up by a pimp; that is, you might still be thanking 'Metropolitan' Hilarion and 'Patriarch' Kyril for how 'generous' they've been.

Sounds like it could almost be a movie; except that real life is much more horrible than fiction, and it's real.

-Fr. Augustine

Preface for the Second Sunday in Advent

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:54:00 +0000

We are still in Advent, so, for those who did read the previously posted propers here, here are the Prefaces for the past Second and Third Sundays:

Second Sunday:

Thou Who didst excel with Thine indescribable gift; that human nature, preserved in Thy Likeness, but rendered dissimilar through sin and death, might in no way vanish in eternal damnation; but, whence sin hath contracted the debt of death, thence Thine immense devotion might restore life. And the crime of the first virgin might be atoned for by the new and undefiled Virgin Mary; who, greeted by the Angel, and overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, deigned to give birth to Him Who by His Own Will surrendered all to be Born. And she marveled at the soundness even of the body and, having delighted in taking on fruitfulness, she rejoiced that she would make ready to be a Parent of Him, Who is Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Third Sunday

By Whose Incarnation was brought about the salvation of the world. And by His Passion was obtained the Redemption of mankind which He had created. May He Who set us free from the shdows of hell bring us, we beseech Thee, to eternal reward. And may He justify us at His Second Coming Who redeemed us in His First. So that as much as His Exaltedness may keep us from all evil, so much may His Humility raise us up to Life.

Why Is The True Orthodox Westerner So Feared and Maligned?

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:25:00 +0000

Indeed, the 'why?' of the question and title is so central to almost all the theological problems the Church is confronted with today. But, doesn't that sound like a lot? Not at all if you understand the history of it. The Orthodox Church existed in both East, West, North and South all the way up to the mid 11th century; if you want to push it further, you can say that people in the far out hinterlands of the West were not affected by mysteriological sacramental grace question for a few more decades, but, that's not that important to address right now.

However, what is important is that, despite the fact the West was beginning to slowly succumb to the temptation of pride, it was still, formally, part of the Church. Then, like a lightning strike, that ended; yes, perhaps the tree had begun to experience some rot, I don't deny that. The immorality of the Popes in the 10th century, was only 'offset' (if that's the right word or way of looking at it) by their Orthodoxy, and their adherence to the traditional Creed. They're children, due to ignorance, misunderstanding, and sometimes simple disobedience and pride, had begun to, or had already changed the Creed, by inserting 'filioque'. Yet, this had not grown to the proportions of full-blown heresy yet, but, the groundwork was laid for the schism and heresy to come. So, yes, as I've dealt with partially here, there were issues. And when the storm came, so did the lightning, and the rain, and floods; and the Church that was once built upon the Rock of the St. Peter's Confession of Christ to be the Son of the Living God, the Church which had for so long defended the true Creed, in both textual purity, and in the faith, the Church that had martyred Orthodox Popes, and would so often stand up against heretical emperors and patriarchs and councils, would finally be washed away on earth.

She had stood so long, and so bravely, and had contended against the ancient Serpent, the wicked beast of old. Sts. Sylvester, Damasus, and others endured attacks and slander. The threats of emperors could not move them, and they defended the Blessed and Holy Confessor of the Faith, Athanasius, even when the whole world turned against him. When emperors and patriarchs, and synods and conventicles, met, and when condemnation and slander of the worst kind was uttered against the holy man, Athanasius, they stood by him. When the army sought after his head, and would make no bones about slaughtering who they could to find him, the Orthodox Church of Rome stood by him. When the emperor sent threats and armies, and exiled popes, the Orthodox Church of Rome would not abandon St. Athanasius. Why? Because it was for the sake of Jesus Christ that they supported him; it was for the True Faith, and no emperor with his sword, or patriarchs and synods with their words and blasphemies, could change the Truth. The One Who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", had meant such, and the holy Orthodox Roman Church didn't forget the charge committed to her bishops in their consecration, anymore than St. Athanasius would forget the Gospel, Scriptures, and Traditions he had known from childhood.

When the wicked Emperor Zeno, and the whole of the East, fell under Monophysitic domination, and they persecuted the Orthodox, and when the West fell under the sword of the Visigothic Arain barbarian kings, and when the Church of North Africa experienced the worst devestation, when Spain saw the blood of her martyrs spilled by the sword of the Western Visigothic Arians (for the eastern Arians were gone, and known only as a small shadow what they were only 200 years before), and the Orthodox in the East persecuted, hounded, or harrased, the Orthodox Church of Rome, and her Orthodox Popes stood by the Faith. When they seemed surrounded, and marginalized, and forced into the worst of positions, they would always rise to defend the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

And when heresy came to the world once more, when the Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, in the 7th century had invented the teaching of monothelitism to 'reconcile' the Monophysites, then it seemed like all would fall. St. Soprhonius dies, and the heresy takes his See. And then Honorius of Rome, it's Pope, who had been known as a missionary, who had done so much good, and who had known St. Gregory the Dialogist, the Great, failed to sanctify the Church with the Apostolic Teaching, but, instead, countenanced, and promoted the heresy of monothelitism and monoenergism. How the mighty had fallen! All the sees ruled by heretics; and the world in darkness and disarray. But, it wasn't long before the resisters, those who resisted for Christ, who had never renounced the Truth, and who had not communicated with the heretics, began to rise. Honorius the Heretic died, and the Orthodox of Rome elected Pope Severinus, who, refused steadfastly to sign the Ecthesis of Sergius of Constantinople. The emperor plundered Rome, and ransacked the residence of her bishop. As for his short reign of less than a year, Pope Severinus declared steadfastly that the Lord Jesus Christ was in Two Natures and Two Wills, and this in an holy synod of Orthodox bishops of the West. And then the old man, full of years, and kind and generous to the poor, and who had upheld the Faith of the Church passed to his reward, yet, hated by the authorities of this world. Then followed John IV, who, while declaring Monothelitism an heresy, sought, rather clumsily, to exculpate Honorius from heresy, for it was too much for the Orthodox Romans to believe that Honorius could actually have meant what he said. And thus we see the beginning of a fault; a fault of piety, and one that would rather believe what was ought rather than what was, but, a fault nevertheless (I will dwell on this later).

And then came the Holy Theodore, commemorated by the Holy Orthodox Church on May 18th, who, while over an hundred years old, yet still with the vigour of youth, would confront the emperor and the world with their betrayal of the Gospel. So enraged was the Monothelite Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, that he had holy Altars of the Roman Church destroyed. Yet, St. Theodore endeavoured and planned the Lateran Synod of 649, which was to condemn, once again, the heresy of monothelitism, which was the heresy of compromise, the heresy of placation, and the heresy of ignoring the truth, for it was the heresy of the world and its court party, and historians. But, the blessed man too passed away. And so, we come at last to that Confessor of the Faith, that stalwart friend of Orthodoxy and St. Maximus, the good and holy Pope St. Martin.

St. Martin defended the truth Faith, and was ever the friend of St. Maximus. Together they held the Lateran Synod of 649, and condemned the heresy of monothelitism, depriving of the priesthood those who taught this wicked teaching. And for this, they would suffer greatly. St. Maximus would have has tongue pulled out, and St. Martin, who was so energetic in warning his brother bishops of this heresy, was arrested by the imperial army. He was dragged through the world, imprisoned, tortured, and made a public spectacle with indignity after indignity, and then, haggard and wearied of the wickedness of this life, he passed from an earthly seat, to an heavenly one. Starved and abused, slandered and maligned, mocked in the mockery of the supposed 'justice' of Caesar's court, the holy man was tortured, and then exiled. His torture stopped by the Monothelite Patriarch Paul, yet, St. Martin would not consent to union with the Church of Constantinople, for how could he forget the words of Holy Maximus the Confessor, "Though the whole universe hold communion with the patriarch, so, I will not, as long as he is in heresy." In his exiled, suffering from his wounds, he died of starvation and sickness.

Should I continue with the Orthodox Popes who contended against iconoclasm, both the dogmatic form found in the East, and the non-dogmatic, but, political and ignorant form promulgated in synods of ignorant bishops in the West? The whole world comes against Christ, and the Roman Church stood. But, it was not to be so forever. Pride, that is the key. Yes, so many Popes had defended the Faith on all sides, and the lands converted by Roman Church remembered that. Yet, they too began to feel a false sense of elation. The East had produced heresy after heresy, and the West had stood against it. Why, the West could not be produce such teachings, they thought. And thus, just as John IV had refused to believe the plain words of Honorius, so, would the West fall into this temptation, but writ large.

And it fell, and it fell mightily, and it changed mightily. The Mass, the Divine Liturgy of the Holy Fathers Leo, Gelasius, Gregory Dialogist, Martin, as well as Ambrose, and Sts. Isidore and Leander, and St. Patrick, and innumerable holy Father of the Church, was to be the first casualty in this aftermath. First the Great Schism, and then, to justify itself, the Filioque was dogmatically defined and defended, and what was in the shadows, and would only arise infrequently, would become the Dogma of the schismatic, and now heretical Roman Church. The mighty, again, are fallen indeed. But, if the doctrine of the Trinity can be altered, what a small thing it is to alter the Liturgy! What a smaller thing it is to alter the Fasts! And what a small thing it is, to go along as if it is alright!

The Liturgy, shorn of her Offertory verses, deprived of her Tropes, and emaciated with the loss of her prefaces, and the end of the communion as it was, both in the proper arrangement of the chant as it was accorded in the Liber Antiphonale of St. Gregory, and in the actual administration of Holy Communion in both kinds. And those Liturgies that could not be so knowledgeably manipulated (for the schismatic Romans knew their own 'rite', they could alter that, but, that of Milan and Spain, they were not so learned it), they were to be abolished. Spain's Liturgy and Sacraments are to be subsumed under Roman domination, and no matter how many tests the Liturgy of Sts. Isidore and Leander is put too, it is not to be used. Milan fights for her life to retain the use of St. Ambrose. And, now, like a condescending lord, or an abusive and tyrannical pater familias, the Papist 'grants' such minor privileges here and there. "Yes, O Spaniard, you may celebrate such Masses, but, only in 7 churches." And, "Yes, O Milan, you may keep what we allow of your rites."

Indeed, such thanks they owe to that 'Church'. Such 'grants' to be given in 'thanks' to that which was celebrated by martyrs and saints and holy fathers whose holiness far outweighed that of Gregory the VII, or Innocent the III! When was such a thing heard of in the world before? When the Uses of the Holy Fathers were to be 'sanctioned' by the grants and condescension of men who had but contempt for them! Who now could control such people, and make them feel as if they were somehow 'special'. And 'special' how? Because they were now allowed to do what they had always done by right of their holy fathers? How can a right be made a privilege? By the man who calls himself 'Vicarius Filii Dei', or 'Vicarius Christi', that is, 'Vicar of the Son of God', and 'Vicar of Christ'. By the same ones who would grant kings and emperors 'rights' to nations and lands that they never owned, and who would assume to himself power and titles that only the degenerate empires had fallen too. Was it not enough for the Faith to be changed? Was it not enough for the Mass to be altered? Was it not enough for Fasts and Days to be moved and abolished? Was it not enough? And then for all of this culminate in a man claiming to be the only personal representative of Jesus Christ on Earth! Where was the memory of the following fathers:

"Even the authority of this See [that is, Rome] CANNOT grant or alter anything against the statutes of the Fathers, for amongst us antiquity flourishes with unshaken root, to which the statutes of the fathers enjoin reverence." (Pope St. Zosimus to the Bishops of France)

"The law of every Synod which the consent of the universal Church has approved, no See ought more fully to execute that the chief See." (Pope St. Gelasius to the Bishops of Dardania)

"Let the laws rule us, not we the laws." (Pope Celestinus I, to the Bishops of Illyricum)

"Those things are very wicked and very bad, which are shown to be contrary to the most holy Canons." (Pope St. Leo the Great)

"If ye keep not the Canons, and if ye wish to destroy the statutes of our forefathers, I know not who ye are." (Pope St. Gregory the Great, the Dialogist)

"We cannot destroy the Ecclesiastical Canons, who are defenders and keepers of the Canons, not their transgressors." (Pope St. Martin the Confessor)

"We cannot change the boundaries set before by the Fathers." (Pope Leo IV)

And, soon enough, men such courage as St. Dunstan would be no where to be found.

But, the cry is made, "The Mass is ancient despite all this!" Indeed, but, ancient to what? Yes, O Modernist, if by Mass you mean the post-schism, late Trentine codification of it, is ancient in comparison to the work of the Novus Ordo, Presbyterians, Prayer-Book Anglicans, or Anglican Missilists. Indeed, but, what comparison is that? You have the Ordinary, but, you have the propers ripped out. You have the shinning skeleton, whose bones are neat and look healthy, but, you have not the muscle and tissue. Can such bones live?

So, the Orthodox Westerner, he come along, and he cries and says, "Come away! Come away and come out of her! Roman and World 'Orthodox' alike! Do you have a bowl of porridge for a birthright? Do you have fools gold for the real? Do you prefer the 'prayerbook' and 'missal' of Cranmer, Laud, Dearmer, and others to the works of St. Gregory and St. Oswald? You claim a patrimony! Indeed, you claim right! But, your patrimony is not the works of heretics, and modernists, of men who claim the 'Orthodox' faith but betray the memory of the confessors of Antioch or Russia, or any of the ancient martyrs. Your patrimony is you real ancient Orthodox Fathers. Your patrimony is St. Leo, St. Martin, St. Gregory, St. Patrick, St. Isidore, St. Leander, St. Eulalia, St. Germanus, St. Boniface, St. Theodore, St. Augustine, St. Oswald, St. Aethelwold, and St. Dunstan. They're work was betrayed, and now it is mutilated, and presented to you in nice velvet bound books of half-truths and decadence. And You, O Romans, you who have endured so much and suffered under such a long yoke, and have succumbed to the lies and distortions of both popes, their lackeys, the deceived alike. Who have rebuked all your lives the heresy of protestantism, but, now have seen such heresy overcome you everywhere. Why will ye resist any long? Is the Mother of God pleased that you should endure any longer away from the Orthodox Church of your old Fathers and Mothers? Has she not poured out her prayers before the Throne of Grace like an endless flood of water upon the mountain side? Ye seek the Old Mass, but, the Old Mass is here; ye seek the Old Ways, and the Old Ways are here; ye seek the Sacraments, and the Sacraments are here. seek no longer. And, ye, Orthodox struggler, whose fathers in spirit are our fathers in spirit, whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers, did not sit by in the old lands as the spirit of antichrist (that is, of false doctrine and praxis) sets stakes and reigns; your old fathers in Greece and Russia, were men of old, and not willing to so lightly sign over the Faith for the new born teachings of the Masons, and modernist, and ecumenist; they may have been a simple folk, but, the Gospel is not often understood by the wise of this world, but, it is only by the 'foolishness' of us men, that the truth of the Faith can be perceived in a simplicity of spirit, a truth that the 'educated' laughed at, and sought to distort, so as to appease the world. Why do ye assail other men, who remember their old Fathers? Their old martyrs, who are Orthodox? Why do ye assail the Liturgy of Saints because it is not exactly as the Liturgy as you know it? Does Truth end with a year? Do saints in modern times possess no discernment? Do the prayers of holy men of old, not still come up before the ears of God? Ye are our brothers, and ye stab us in the back with hatred! We fight on the parapits, and and ye have nothing good to say but attacks that remind us of the harsh discords of Eustathian against Meletian in the Church of Antioch! If ye care not about us, then be silent about us, and we will not attack you, for that is not our desire; we seek battle against the enemies of Orthodoxy, men who are oftentimes unawares, but, ye seek a spirit of domination of control, and have given yourself, so unawares, to be allies, against your intention and wills, of the modernist and ecumenist! They hate the Orthodox Prayers of the Old West! And why? Why? Because they indite them! The very use of such prayers says to those men, 'Ye are wrong; ye have erred, and in seeking truth, O poor Ecuemnists, ye have not been given such, and now we offer this, and will it be rejected!", and it says to those who are not only ignorant, but, malicious, and dare I say, malicious and knowledgeable, 'Ye men of wickedness, who put truth for falsehood, and a false Gospel for a True One, did Christ not Die once for all men, and ye spit upon his Cross by seeking not to convert by the Words of Truth, the non-Orthodox, but ye instead seek to mix light and darkness? Is it hatred, to warn a man in a burning house that building is almost consumed? Is it hatred to say, all is coming down, and you have set the fire and let it rage, get out and come into our house, that edifice cannot be saved, but, come out, and there are many mansions in Our Father's house.' And so, all ye, all who have not understood, or have maligned, or have sought only to stir trouble, or those who did these things, but, had no intention of doing them, resign to the Holy Father of the West that they were Holy Fathers."

And the Orthodox Westerner cries such, and he is hated. Hated from one side and the other; maligned and lied about, slandered and untruths told about. Laughed at, and berated, feared and libeled. But, for what? Because he brings that unwanted truth, that these lands, these people, who make up the mass of this country and all western countries and peoples, are not returning to something that never existed in the blood of their old father. They are returning to the place that their old and ancient Orthodox Fathers had. Everyone sees the mistakes of old, and they know how to not repeat them, but, some wish to not look at this. They wish to ignore all this, or they wish to attack it; but, whichever it maybe, the Truth will not be stopped, His Kingdom shall have no end. The Orthodox Westerner cannot have his cries silenced, he seeks not domination, abdication, or consolidation of all his brothers into one uniform 'rite' (or whatever word is current in 'liturgical scholarship); the Orthodox Westerner says, "All are valuable, and salutary. I favour all, and all are of the Church that are FROM the Church! But, I stand against the heresies of Rome, the heresies of Protestantism, the heresies of monophysitism, monothelitism, nestorianism, and the heresies of ecumensim in World 'Orthodox'. Do you not see, my friend, Rome wishes to say, 'All things western are ours!' and the World 'Orthodox' seek to say, 'All things eastern are ours.' And they make this play of fights in the uniates of Rome, but, is it a fight over doctrinal truth, or over territory? Has Orthodoxy, my friend been reduced to 'whose' territory this is? And 'whose' rite this is? Do you not see this trick? Do you not see further that they must destroy the Western Orthodox use? They must pollute it, and control it, and do so, so that it never becomes a threat to their ecumenical endeavours and heresies. For a time it may reside, but, against such a force as is coming, it will not remain, for the World Orthodox, whatever use or rite or whatever they do, has no life in itself, like the Arians, and Iconoclasts of old. Why does the Roman, my friend, either sympathize and convert to True Orthodoxy, or hate with a passion the Old Orthodox Mass of the West? Because he sees in it something he cannot have, and he either want its (and thus converts and fulfills the prayers poured out by his saintly old Orthodox fathers in heaven), or he fights against it, or ignores it, since he cannot come to terms with what the Devil has done to so many of his poor ancestors! Why does the World Orthodox hate it, or seek to control it? Because it would destroy the very ground work of modern ecumenism, which teaches that there is no one 'true Church'; the Old Orthodox Western Mass and Sacraments, and prayers rather show that the Papists are in heresy, and thus, they must renounce their errors and return to the ways of the ancient Orthodox Fathers whom they left long ago. And, why do some True Orthodox hate it? Because they cannot perceive of the Orthodox West, which still lives, and lives in heaven and on earth."

And the Orthodox Westerner walks along, and will come along this path as often as he needs too. He does not care how small or how big he is; his old Orthodox Fathers did not care. He does not care about how maligned and ridiculed he is, can he be better than his Father, St. Martin of Rome? He sees the souls wondering, and he says, "Who is going to them? Who seeks to show them the path of their old fathers?" And to those who come from a people that had never had Orthodoxy, he says, "Who is going to them? Who seeks to show them the path of how to have old fathers? Let our fathers be their fathers, and let us be brothers."

We have two simple options: We have Orthodoxy, which is Life in Jesus Christ through His Holy Mysteries, or we have Death, which is the abyss of darkness that the Devil and his demons seeks to drag all men too. For the Orthodox Westerner he chooses Life.

-Fr. Augustine

The Problem of Canonical Authority and Divisions Among Bishops and Faithful

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:13:00 +0000

Who Is The Authority When There Is No Clear Authority?

One of the persistent issues that has affected Orthodox Christians in the past 30 years, has been the issue of clear, evident, and appropriate canonical authority. Since the Church of Greece (True Orthodox Church in Greece) experienced a crisis beginning in the late 70s, and early 80s, this problems has been magnified many fold. This becomes especially troublesome when no side in a dispute, seems willing to accept an outside arbiter (or, worse, an outside arbiter is not to be found). But, has this been an issue without precedent in Orthodox history? Certainly not. We can begin by examining the precedents formed in the past, especially the parallels and analogues presented in the situation of the Orthodox Church of Antioch during the whole Arian heresy. So, let's get a little historical background to think about.

Read More Here.

No 'Exotic Rite', Only an Orthodox Rite!

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:07:00 +0000

The Gallican, Ambrosian, and Hispanic ('Mozarabic') uses of the Orthodox West have each 6 Sundays in Advent in their liturgical calendar. Their fasts begin the day after St. Martin's day, so, on November 12 is when the Advent Fast begins, with its liturgical commemoration on the next occuring Sunday beginning the Advent liturgical season. Thus, these uses have a a fast 43 day fast, which is a little longer (I believe) than the Eastern Nativity Fast, but, just by a few days; from what I recall, also, St. Theodore of Tarsus, who became Archbishop of Canterbury, in the 7th century, had re-enforced a purely 40 day fast. So, there were some minor difference. Late, in Rome, the Advent fasting season, which seems to have varied in length from century to century, was eventually, by the 9th century, reduced to about 28 days, since it was reduced to its Four Sundays in Advent (though, some earlier Orthodox books in Italy which follow the Roman Liturgy list their being 5). Ok. I've gone over a lot of this before.

However, I'd like to draw some more similarities. As I've shown in a previous post the Prefaces, or Inlatios, for the First Sundays in Advent in the Gallican and Old Roman Liturgy were the same (and just as a refresher, the Prefaces changed every Sunday, and nearly every day, there were over and 100, 150 or more of them, and they were sung by the Priest prior to the people singing the Sanctus). The Ambrosian Liturgy, also has a large variable number of Prefaces (about 200), which were maintained, surprisingly (!), even after the Great Schism, and all the centralizing tendencies of the Papist Authorities. While Roman formalized and extended its reduction of the Preface number to 12, 13, or so, the Ambrosian in Milan, even though they were papists, had to fight tooth and nail to preserve the use of St. Ambrose of Milan, but, they retained much. What I find as an additional testimony to the patristic and Orthodoxy unity expressed in the West, is the fact that the Ambrosian Preface for the First Sunday in Advent, is the following:

"Cui proprium ac singulare est quod bonus est et nulla umquam a te es commutatione diversus. Propitiare supplicibus et ecclesiae tuae misericordiam quam confitetur ostende, manifestans plebi taue Unigeniti tui mirabile sacramentum. Ut in universitate nationum, perficiatur quod per Verbi tui evangelium promisisti, Et habeat plenitudo adoptionis, quod praetulit testificatio veritatis, per eundem,"

Does it sound familiar? It should, it is almost word for word (except for minor spelling here and there) as the Gallican Inlatio, and it bears just a little difference in word placement from the Gallican and Old Roman Orthodox versions (such as "ac singulare est" instead of "est ac singulare"). It is definitely closer to the Gallican Orthodox preface for what I believe are obvious reasons as regards the re-formulation by the Orthodox authorities in England, France and Rome of the 9th and10th century as to when the liturgical season of Advent should begin.

But, again, should we be surprised about this? That when you compare the Old Roman (and all its minor local variations, which don't really amount to any more of a difference between the Great Church of Constantinople and that of Moscow, or at most, the difference between the Old Rite and New Rite), the Ambrosian, the Hispanic, the Gallican, (and I could throw in the Celtic) were all not these weird exotic 'rites and rituals' that were so amazingly different and difficult that people and priests were bewildered out of their chairs as they observed them. Instead, they were all a common Orthodox family of patrisitic liturgies, etc., whose basic format was all very similar, and they're prayers composed by dozens of martyrs, confessors, saints, holy monks and bishops, and people, who, once again as I've said before, would often being saying these very prayers right before their blood was poured out at the Sacred Altar (such as in the case of the Hispanic Martyrs who suffered for centuries under the harsh torture and persecution of tyrannical Visigothic Arian kings and nobles and Arian bishop who persecuted the Spaniards to near death, and then the Muslims, who, with, to be frank, the help of some less than scrupulous Jewish merchants providing some funds [sorry to sound so un-pc]), or the case of St. Martin the Confessor, the Holy Orthodox Pope of Rome, who suffered the worst torture, to only die from his wounds, for the Pure Confession of the Orthodox Faith in the Two Wills of Christ, when all the world seemed to turn against him and St. Maximus. Will Orthodox say that those are not our martyrs, and our saints? We were in communion with them, they suffered in the West, and the Hispanic Martyrs suffered under the persecution of Arians, while the Eastern people enjoyed Orthodox emperors (and some decadence). It does not mean that everything that their descendants would later do was right (certainly the filioque insertion was wrong, and would lead to heresy and schism in the 11th century, but, do we blame St. Eulalia or the other martyrs for that? If we can celebrate St. Lucian the Martyr of Antioch, who erred worse, what sense does it make to throw St. Isidore out of the calendar??)

So, where is this 'exoticness' and such? I think all this charge is precipitated by 1) a Misunderstanding and complete lack of knowledge of the writings, teachings, prayers, and services composed by our Holy Fathers Ambrose, Leo, Gelasius, Gregory, Isidore, Germanus, Theodore, Martin, and who they were and what they were about, and 2) by certain folks, who in the past, made a great deal of trouble with their own 'playing' around with the Liturgies of the Church, as if they were things to be changed on a whim, or to be altered to ones fancy, and thus, leading to great instability; but, this same spirit is at work in the modernist attempt to shorten the entire Liturgy, or the proponents of having the Proskimidia performed in the middle of the Nave! What it means is you need competent, sane, and stable people, or at least bishops who have the capacity to know what their clergy are doing, and if they can't to have men who do, and so, can regulate things. This means the True Orthodox position must be enforce both as regards Liturgy (that which is ancient and patrisitc, and which follows the canons, altering as little as possible in regards to the Liturgy, and nothing as regards to the canons, except the purely minor economies allowed by the Holy Fathers), and to how the clergy behave and act. I am happy to say that my experience with Bishops as regards this, has been exceedingly good, and I'm thankful to God for that. My Synod has done a good job so far as regards keeping those requirements.

The Roman Catholics and the modernist 'Orthodox' have promoted a very modernistic Western 'rite', and one that abides by their concepts of ecumenism and modernism. They have no real desire to return people to the heritage of their Ancient Orthodox Fathers prior to the Schism, and to let them continue; instead, they use the 'Western rite' as a bridge to either bargain with Rome (as meager as it is), or perhaps even to allow many to join, unchanged, and then garner in the proper, money, and what wealth they can. They despise the Liturgies of the Orthodox West, because they inhibit and by their very nature accuse the Papists of their errors (and that can't be). They've toned down their own faithful enough that they don't know what Liturgy is. And on the other hand, the purist 'Byzantinist' True Orthodox have no regard for the saints of the Orthodox West; many of them, have concocted a ridiculous theory that states the West ceased Orthodoxy in the 8th century or so, which means the Orthodox Church was in communion with a Patriarch and Bishops that were heretics, and this for nearly 300 years! The Holy Ghost apparently did such a bad job as to not be able to tell them to break communion with the West in all this period (this is not to say there were not problems in the West). But, far be it from us to promote such blasphemy as regards how the Spirit of the Lord operates. Or worse, they know the truth about the Orthodox West (for, are they going to the extreme of some, who take even St. Isidore of Seville and St. Theodore of Canterbury out of the calendar??), but, they are so ethno-nationalist in their view of Orthodoxy that they have halted any understanding? Or, perhaps worse, they just don't care; and apathy, my friends, is the worst of all enemies in these matters; for you can argue with historical errors, you can even argue with ethnicists, but, you can't argue with those who just don't care, for they present only an empty void to throw words into.

-Fr. Augustine

All Valuable

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:19:00 +0000

What I find to be one of the good aspects of my Synod, is that we promote the use of all Orthodox uses, including the Western Orthodox ones. The 'Western rite' has move beyond the point of being something used just to attract some older folks who remember the 'old mass'. For example, I never remembered the 'old roman mass', b/c until I became True Orthodox I had never been to one. I had only been to Eastern Liturgies; so, coming from a generally aliturgical protestant background I was just as unfamiliar with the Eastern Orthodox as the Western Orthodox liturgy.

I was attracted to Western Orthodoxy from the point of view that it was what my ancestors did before the Schism. It was at first very difficult to understand, I didn't know why this was done, or why that was done; and I lacked a lot of knowledge. But, as the weeks and months went one, I became used to it. My only experience before of any 'Orthodox' liturgical worship was that conducted in Greek Archdiocese and various Phanar (or jurisdictions under the Phanar) churches; so, in a 'strange' twist to many, my only exposure to 'Eastern liturgies' was in the ecumenist/modernist heterodox World 'Orthodox' jurisdictions. My first experience with a True Orthodox Liturgy was the Western Orthodox Mass of St. Gregory and the other holy fathers who followed after him. So, for a long time, I found it difficult to relate to the experiences of others who came from different backgrounds, but, after some time, I was able to relate a little better, bit, by bit.

The Western Orthodox uses don't appeal to me from an 'antiquarian' idea of being interested in liturgical development, etc, etc., or from a 'nostalgic' feeling of what was in the 1960s (if 'liturgical scholarship' has taught me anything, it is that the Tridentine Mass had reached a low state, only to followed much lower by the Roman Catholic Novus Ordo), but, they appeal to me because those were the prayers I was baptised with, or the priest used to baptise me, and the same to Chrismate me, and the same to give me Communion, and to hear my confession, and to give me the monastic habit, or to give me Holy Orders. It was all I knew, and the Eastern Liturgy was something I remembered from my heterodox past as something used by modernist/ecumenist World 'Orthodox', but, also, something I knew was widely used by the True Orthodox as well (though, since I rarely left the monastery, I had seen it only a few times since then, so, it became a very 'theoretical' subject for me).

I think it is a great mistake to say that one 'Western rite' is somehow superior to the other, that is, as long as it is Orthodox. Thus, to say that the 'Sarum' Use is superior to the Ambrosian, Hispanic, or Gallican is a sure folly. They are all appropriate, and are to be promoted, as long as they are done as they should be done, which isn't that difficult. That is, they are not antiquarian pieces of interest, or museum pieces, but, Liturgies and rites to be prayed and celebrated, and taught, and preached as part of the Christian life. If we start to treat one use as somehow 'too difficult', or 'too exotic' when they are really not, we fall into the same trap that others have, who castigated the early attempts to translate all the necessary material that was need for the 'Sarum' or Old English use.

Years ago, a Russian bishop who had initially been very favourable to the Western rite, was turned off against it, because a priest made an horrible mess (which is to say things lightly). The Bishop came to the conclusion that no one was mature enough to do things properly, and that when the decades or centuries had passed when they were, they could then begin to do so. So, one priest messes things up, and the whole Western 'rite' is blamed? One priest uses a bad translation, is incompetent, is immoral, and destroys his congregation or people, or whatever, and the whole use is castigated as unable to attract people.

How many people were upset at Met. John because he was 'wasting' all his time translating these some odd 100 prefaces for the 'Sarum' Mass, as well as the other mass of material that took 30 years to put together (tropes, etc)? People also said, 'This is too complicated, no one is going to be attracted to it. We should just stick with a modified Tridentine Mass, and make a few modifications. That's all. No one is going to be interested in this Old Roman Usage. It's got to much variability, and is too dificult for people and priest to use."
Well, those critics have been silenced by the progress and force of history and experience. It didn't prove difficult, even though it had more variability than the Byzantine Liturgy. I think the same can be said for any opponents of the Hispanic Rite, or Gallican Use, or whatever. "Let's just have these folks use the Sarum, because it's close enough to the Tridentine Mass, they'll only have to make a few modification. We had some bad priest years ago who messed up because he didn't do the Hispanic/Gallican/etc, properly. Therefore we know that it wont attract. Therefore, they must only use the SArum, and that must be the only one encouraged, because the Hispanic/Gallican, etc, is too complicated. It's got too much variability, and is too difficult for people and priest to use."

Well, it seems as each Use is restored, it has to go through the same battle. Attacked, castigated, or maligned as being 'unattractive', or 'too unfamiliar', while it has not been given an honest chance at promotion, and it being censured because of one bad priest in the past. Just as the Russian bishop in the past was too quick to draw conclusions from a bad priest's mucking up things, so, I think we are too quick too draw conclusions based upon our experience of a bad priest mucking up the Gallican/HIspanic/ Ambrosian, etc. After all, these are just beginning to be restored, and we remember the criticism that the Old Roman ('Sarum') would never be acceptable, or usable, because it was too variable, so the same criticism have been leveled against the Hispanic and Gallican usages. What people don't understand they are sometimes afraid of, or they fear allowing others to do; even if this thing is something so venerable as the ancient Orthodox heritage of a people. Can we promote one of our heritages over another?

Preface for the Conception of the Theotokos

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:31:00 +0000

The Preface for the Conception of the Most Holy Mother of God and Blessed Ever-Virgin Theotokos Mary, which is chanted out loud in a very solemn tone by the Priest just before the Sanctus:

It is very meet and just, right and available for our salvation, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God. Through Christ Our Lord, the Solemnity of the Conception of Whose Virgin Mother we are recalling with devout minds. May we not remain silent concerning the proclamations of Thy magnificence. And she whom Thou didst so sanctify before birth, before conception Thou didst so overshadow her with the manifestation of the Holy Ghost, and by the power of the Most High, that she was deemed fit to be accounted the Temple of the Lord, the Chapel of the Holy ghost, the ruler of the world, the Queen of Heaven, the Spouse of Christ, and the fertile Mother of the Only Son of God, and after childing, to be perpetually adorned with the emblems of Virginity. And therefore, with Angels and Archangels, with Thrones and Dominions, and with all the Hosts of Heaven, we chant the Hymn of thy Glory, without end,sayining:

Holy...

Anachronism and the Ancient

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:34:00 +0000

Anachronism and the Ancient

I often hear that the 'Sarum rite' is not English, not post-schism, and that it is really an importation from France. Well, that's true. But, it is also true that 'Sarum' is merely an anachronism, when you want to refer to that which was done in England prior to the Schism. If you wanted to be 'technical' you could say 'the Rite of Sherbornne Cathedral' or something like that. The fact is that all the different uses throughout all the different monastic cathedrals (for all the cathedrals were monastic by that time and all the bishops, after the 10th century reforms of Sts. Oswald, Aethelwold, and Dunstan) were not at all dissimilar, even in minor points. Indeed, if you look at continental sources, they weren't noticeably different. It would be the equivalent of leaving Constantinople and then going to look at the Liturgikon at the Church in Smyrna. And then, going from Smyrna to Kiev, and their differences would be like that between Winchester and Cologne.

Sarum is used as a place word, almost. Indeed, it probably is more improper than not, since by the time of the 14th century, the old Liturgy had been reduced heavily, and that was around the time that Sarum became 'famous'. But, let me go over a few criticisms.

1. "The Roman Mass used to be very simple, and Trent just made it like it was 1,000 years before."
Well, that's not quite true. As I've dealt with here and to a lesser extent, but more polemically here, the old Roman Liturgy was different from that formulated at Trent and by the decrees of the Pius V. For example, the Offertory verses (which were, strangely enough, still being published in several editions by not only Solesmes, but also by other publishers; the noticeable two are the Offertoriale Triplex and then the one published by the French Society of St. John the Evangelist). And, I don't think anyone in there right mind is going to the dispute the Liber Antiphonale of St. Gregory the Great as being authentic, just for the sake of saying there were no Offertory verses. But, we also had the hundreds of prefaces found in the oldest extant ROMAN sacramentary, the Leonine Sacramentary. I said Roman, because there has been a modernist tendency, in recent times to ascribe anything that a 'liturgical reformer' doesn't like to 'Gallican' influence. Yep, if it was from France it must be bad! Now, of course, there was 'Gallican' influence, just like there was 'Syrian' influence to put the Agnus Dei in the Mass, or 'Greek' influence to put the Trisagion in the Good Friday services. Do we remove the Agnus Dei, the Trisagion, and any prayers that we think might not have been used by "Pure Roman" saints in the 4th century? Don't we recognize St. Gregory, St. Sergius, St. Zachary, Sts. Gregory the II and III, as well as St. Leo III (not to mention the First!)?
So, the two big things that Trent and the committees afterwards ignored, in a long train of abuses steming from the time after the schism of the West into heresy and loss of grace, were two aspects of the Roman Liturgy that were the most documented from 'ancient times', that is, the Offertory Verses, and the Prefaces! I omit mention of the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries, since people, again, like to cry 'Gallican influence!!!'

2. "There are no liturgical books from around the time of the Schism!"
Once again, this is not accurate. I named a few up above (I could name a few Carolingian sacramentaries also), and there are more. When it comes to the Breviary, or the book that contains the arrangement of the Hours of the Day, or the Divine Office, it is well documented. For a monk it is no issue, since he must use the scheme outlined in the rule of St. Benedict, for the Psalter and other offices. As for the Antiphons, Responsories, Hymns, etc, well, just turn to the Worcester Portiforium, and similar books.I think one would be surprised to learn that they didn't much change many aspects of the Divine Office, even after the Schism. As for The Processional Antiphons and Responsories that were used, they had only minor variation from country to country. Comparing the Processionals used in the Portiforium Wulfstani (which was originally from Worcester and thus might appropriately be named 'Oswaldi'), with the even late 16th century Processional of Augsburg is like comparing apples to, well, apples; yes, some are bright red, and some are dark red, but, they're still apples. For some reason, the monasteries didn't change that much (probably their conservative spirit) in regards to the Divine Office; the biggest changes were the post-schism suppression of the daily office of All Saints, which was largely optional in larger monasteries.

3. "I'm not English in origin. I'm Italian, or German, etc.. (insert ethnic group), therefore, I can't 'relate' to something done in England by a few people 1,000 years ago."

Well, would you be surprised to know that what was 'done in England by a few people 1,000 years ago', wasn't that much different than that done in France, or Germany, or Denmark, or even Italy, 1,000 years ago? One of the good aspects about the education of the laity is that they become better informed about their faith; however, a possible side effect is that they become so 'over-educated', that they will search for any possible differences between an English bishop in 1040, and a German bishop in 1040, and then look at an Italian bishop in 1040, and then point out differences (mostly from prayers that people never heard, such as the Offertory prayers), and then proclaim "These were so different; therefore, because all of our ethnic groups are mixed, we can't decide which to use; therefore, let's use none! Oh what a world, what a world!"
There was a great deal of going back and forth. St. Oswald, who was the great monastic reformer of England, was born of Danish parents, and was educated by a Frankish scholar named Frithegod, and he had his important monastic formation at the famed French monastery in Fleury; he also possibly traveled to Rome. Does anyone realized how 'broad' that makes ones formation in the middle ages, especially prior to the years 1000?
I guess all the French and German monks who came to live at his monasteries, or others in pre-Schism England should have started to complain and throw an hissy fit because they thought the secret offertory prayers may not have been in the arrangement of 'Suscipe, Sancte Pater", then 'Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas" at the end, but, instead, O! shock to the world, they were in the aggrangement of 'Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", and then, at the end, they only had the prayer 'Accipe, Sancte Pater.." They used a different Latin imperative verb! Oh, one can see the great struggles over this, and the blood in the monasteries, as Fr. Brunhald leads his valiant German contingent against Fr. Aethelred, over this burning question of minute Offertory differences between the German abbey they came from, and these barbaric Saxon (never mind they both had common ancestors from Saxony, that just muddles the water) who have only monks for bishops (but, Fr. Brunhald wouldn't object if they made him a bishop, after all, German bishops, even if they are monks, are much better than these Anglo-Saxon barbarians). And then we can imagine Fr. Michel, the imported French prior rousing his French immigrant monks from Fleury, to attack both sides while they battle each other, because he remembers that his Missal had the additional Offertory Prayer"Immola Domino sacrificium laudis..". And, after after all, he can't stand the fact that these people under St. Oswald speak a barbaric tongue. Oh! Heaven above have mercy!
Ok. Let's be honest. Stuff like that didn't happen over something as minute as the arrangement of the Offertory Prayers, or who had an additional one, or who did have this one. The Offertories were all pretty similar, with "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", "In spiritu humilitatis", "Veni sanctificator", etc.
There were much bigger fights in England by the secular canons in the cathedrals who were used to living a dissolute life (well, by our terms today, they probably lived much 'holier' lives than the average priest or monk), and refused to stop, and so, St. Oswald and St. Dunstan, had the king send in the army to evict them.

To close, 'Sarum' is itself an anacronism. We could use 'Old English Usage', but, then I'm sure people would object to it being to pro-British. But, the truth is, there was little major differences, before the schism, and for a time afterward, between what priests in different places were doing. They all had the same propers for the mass, even the Roman Church was importing Sacramentaries from French and German monasteries by the 10th century. If we said "Western Orthodox usage", that would be more accurate (since we believe that the West prior to the Schism was in communion with the East, and therefore a part of the Orthodox Church"), but, I'm even sure some would object that the entire Iberian lands were using something noticeably different (and they had their own venerable Liturgy from the Fathers, which is also so well documented in the Liber Ordinum of pre-schism times). Therefore, all we have is 'terms', and a 'anachronism', to rely on describing things. We could say, "We use the very general and broad usage of all the churches in the West prior to the Schism, except for Spain and Milan, and we furthermore, generally tend to favour the minute differences as they were done in the monasteries of England, with additional devotional material from German and French monasteries", but, I doubt that would fit properly on a book cover. Maybe it is best to say, "We are following the spirit of Orthodoxy that our ancestor did", that might be a better description of how people handled things, than any of the scholarly titles in all the world.

-Fr. Augustine

Presanctified/Dry Masses

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 07:44:00 +0000

Prudentius of Troyes, in the 9th century, records an early form of a 'Dry' Mass with Communion. Prudentius, though obviously not a sympathetic person in many aspects (especially his early views on free will, though, he did come to a correct position before his death), is important because he recorded some common practices. In Bishop Prudentius' 'Pontifical, he writes "On the Sick and those Near Death', he says:

If, however, the infirm is detained in bed, and he cannot go to church or to Mass, the priest should take the Book of the Sacraments, having a stole around his robe, and should come to the sick man with the higest devtion and salute him with the Divine Word. In the first place let him read the Collect, then the Epistle pertaining to the day, and then the Gospel. Then he shall say,"The Lord be with you" "Lift up your hearts." Let us give thanks". Then follows the Preface and then the Sanctus. Then, he shall say "Let us pray. Admonished by divine precepts", and then the Our Father, then "Through all the ages of ages" (the end of the Prayer of Embolism). Afterward he communicates him (the sick man). Then follows the Posct Communion prayer.

We see above the very basics. This version takes the part of the communion of the sick and infirm. The Orthodox in the West tended to form any 'new' offices or any additional services into the format of the Divine Office (since all the multitudinous variations of the Little Office of the Virign, the Apostles, etc, which can be used anytime), the Litany, and taking the basic non-consecratory form of the Mass, and adapting it.

The above form is a Presanctified service, in the basic sense of the word, and in the sense of it being attached to the Ordinary and Proper of a Mass.

-Fr. Augustine

Orthodoxy is More

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:44:00 +0000

Orthodoxy is more than just simple or complicated studies of Liturgies, Rites, Ceremonies, etc. It is more than just 'Form', it is also, and essentially, 'Substance'. The substance of the Faith, is Our Lord Jesus Christ, and what He Taught and Did; everything flows from that. If someone doesn't have love for Jesus Christ, then all the Liturgies and such in the world won't matter a bit at the Judgment we must face after our death. IF we don't grasp what all the prayers of the Church are teaching us, which is repetance toward Christ, and Love of God, and by extension, of our neighbors, then we have missed the point.

The reason I post so much about different aspects of the Liturgy, is to demonstrate not just 'ritual curiousities', indeed, such an obsession is on that leads to no real faith; but, instead, the reason I post what I do, is to encourage people to actually read and pray and think upon what the prayers say! Think about what the Priest chants so solemnly and loudly on the First Sunday in Advent in the Orthodox Old Roman Liturgy, where he concludes and chants, "through John the Great-Man, we might come to Our Same Lord the God-Man, Who came in a hidden manner in order to redeem us, and so will He shine forth when He shall come openly to judge us."

Think about all that. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, according to the Apostle in Hebrews. He came in an hidden manner, Born in a manger that was in a cave, in the most poverty stricken condition; God Himself was Born a Babe, for you and me, and He did this not out of any necessity (for God is the only One Who is Perfectly Free), but, of His Own Love, which is Perfect Charity, and self-giving. God took Humanity into HImself, and became a Man, and made a Woman His True Mother. John came preaching the Lamb of God, and pointing not to himself, though he was, according to Christ God Himself, the greatest man born of women; instead, he pointed to Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. And remember, just as all things were hidden, or done in relative 'obscurity' in the First Advent of Christ, so, in HIs Second Advent, when all the world is in chaos, and evil seems as if it is to be triumphan, the Lord will come suddenly, and all this world, and its doings will come to an end, before so Tremendous a Judge. The Saints and Fathers say we should absolutely take advantage of the time now, for now is the time of mercy and repentance, and we must do what we so resist doing, that is the hard things of actually repentanting. This means, that those who sit on the border fence, between living a life pleasing to God, whether it be they are still in deadly sins or lapsed in their Faith, or, for that matter, those who are still have a dissonance between World 'Orthodox' and true Orthodoxy, they must all go all in. There will be no excuses at the Judgment. If the righteous shall scarcely be saved, then where will the ungodly (which is us) be?

The Fixed Offertory Prayers Part 1, Some Observations

noreply@blogger.com (FatherAugustine Fetter) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:28:00 +0000

There are a number of different variations on the fixed Offertory Prayers used in the Western Orthodox Mass of the True Orthodox Church. Sometimes they range from a few, to quite a few

Here is a standard set used by the Priest as he Offers the bread and wine:

"Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation, which I an unworthy sinner offer in Thy Honour, and in that of Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin and all Thy Saints, for my sins and offences, and for the salvation of the living, and for the repose of all the faithful departed. May this new sacrifice be acceptable to Almighty God. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Then the Prayer "Ignosce Domine".

As the priest says this prayer, while the cantor chants the variable Offertory chant and verses, the priest makes several motions. He lifts the Paten (which holds the bread), and the Chalice (which contains the wine), when he begins to say "In the Name..." he makes the Sign of the Cross with the Chalice and Paten over the Altar Table. If a Deacon is present, the Deacon holds the Chalice while the Prayer is said. After this prayer is finished, the priest veils the gifts, and censes directly over the gifts three times in the Sign of the Cross, and then makes two clockwise circles over them, and then one counter-clockwise circle. The Priest then censes all around the Holy Altar. He then proceeds to wash his hands, and say:

"Cleanse me, O Lord, from all pollution of mind and body, that being cleansed I may be able to perform the Holy Work of the Lord."

Then, having returned to the Altar, with his head bowed, and body inclined, his hands are joined together, and the Priest says:

"In the spirit of humility, and with a contrite heart may we be accepted, O Lord, of Thee; and may our sacrifice be in such wise in Thy Sight, that it may be accepted of Thee this day, and be pleasing unto Thee, O Lord my God."

The priest blesses the Gifts and says:

"Come, O Holy Ghost, and Bless and Sanctify this Sacrifice prepared for the praise and glory of Thy Name."

The the Prayer: "Accipiat Domine", is contained in the Leofric Missal of the 10th century, as well as the two "Memento" prayers, similar to those contained in the Anaphora, or Canon, of the Mass.

Then making the Sign of the Cross over himself he says:

"In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Then the Priest turns to the people and says in a normal speaking voice:

"Brothers and sisters, pray for me, that my and your sacrifice may be alike acceptabel unto the Lord our God."

And the people respond:

"May the Grace of the Holy Ghost illuminate thy heart and thy lips, that the Lord may deign to accept this sacrifice of praise at thy hands, for our sins and offense."

The Priest then turns back to the Holy Table, and begins to say the Variable Offertory Prayerys, which are termed 'Secrets', or 'Super Oblata'. In common practice, by the time the Priest turns to say, "Brothers and Sisters", the cantors are still singing, and the Altar servers respond on the part of the congregation. The reason is says, "Brothers and sisters", has two possible reasons, both are probably true; obviously women were never aloud into the Holy Place, the Sanctuary, excepting in convents where nuns were blessed to go inside the Sanctuary in order to clean. In appropraite practice, no men should ever enter the Sanctuary, unless the Bishop, or at least an Abbot (or Archimandrite) should give them the lowest grade of clerical tonsure (thus, the modern practices of allowing untonsured children to serve in the Altar is not in strict accordance with how things should be conducted). This goes to some obscure arguments about whether the Priest chanted the variable Offertory Prayers outloud at one point prior to the 8th century, or so, and thus would he be speaking directly and audibly to a congregation. The other likely explanation, is that in convents of nuns, while the nuns were not in the Sanctuary, or even in the presbytery or choir area (which was also screened off), the nuns were in areas that were to the right and left of the Sanctuary, though grilled off. Thus, the Priest would be speaking to the Altar servers, but, also to the Nuns who could see him through the grilled off section to the right and left.

The variable Offertory prayers, or Secrets, change from day to day, and the Priest should be praying these by chanting then in a distinct voice, but, they are inaudible due to the Choir singing. Even if the Offertory chant should end sooner, the Priest should not chant the Prayers outloud, as the Collects and Postcommunions are done.

Nevertheless, the above is a general scheme.

Let us look at other variations of the Offertory Prayers, which were known in the middle ages by the name, "The Little Canon".

In many churches, the Offertory did indeed take on the length of the Canon, so great was the devotion of the clergy to the rite of Offering. In the Missa Illyrica, which is generally representative of the imperial churches and abbeys and episcopal seats, the Offertory is long, intense, and beautiful. Let us take a look at a few of the prayers:

The Priest kisses the Holy Altar and says this prayer to Christ God:
I pray Thee, O Lord Almighty God, that through the graces of Thy Saints, whose relics are contained here, that Thou woulds vouchsafe to me the forgiveness of all my sins through their intercessions, Who livest and reignest with God the Father, in the Unity of the Holy Ghost, God, through all the ages of ages. Amen.

The Priest then takes the Offering which has been presented to him and says:

I offer this creature, O Lord, as a sacrifice to Thee, for the remission of all my sins, and for Thy faithful, both the all the living and the departed. I Offer Thee my sacrifice, O Lord and Creator, as a propitiation for my sins, and of all Thy People, O Lord, that Thou mayest give us pardon of our sins. I Offer Thee my sacrifice, O Lord Creator, for the king and our bishop, for all the clergy, and for all the Christian people, as a propitiation and praise, and I ask Lord, that thou mayest give us eternal life.

Then the Priest says:
Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation, for thy servan N. who offers, and grant that it may be pleasing in Thy Sight, Who livest and reignest, God, through all the ages of ages. Amen.

May this Sacrifice be acceptable to Almighty God for all His Saints.

Receive Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, this immaculate sacrifice, that, though I am an unowrthy servant of Thine I nevertheless offer this to Theem, my Living and True God, and I beg Thee humbly for the Etenral Salvation of the whole Church. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the Unity of the Holy Ghost, God, through all the ages of ages. Amen.

Receive, Most Merciful Father, the Sacrifice of Propitiation and Praise, to Thee I offer, though I am an unworthy servant of Thine, but, Thou dost know my works, and though I have sinned against Thee in Thy Sigh, and I am not worth to offer unto Thee the Sacrifice, Thou are yet Gracious, and Merciful, and forgivest me, and wast merciful to graciousl accept and forgive me.

The following are said at the Holy Altar by the Pirest:

Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation, which I Offer to Thee in memory of the Incarnation, Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of all Thy Saints, who from the beginning of the world have been well pleasing unto Thee, and of those whose festival we celebrate today, and whose names are here, as an honour of advantage for them, but to us for salvation, and that they may deign to intercede in heaven for us all, which commemoration we keep on the earth.

Hear, O Lord my voice, when I pray unto Thee, while I offer up my hands in Thy Holy Temple. Lord hear my prayer, and let my cry come unto Thee.

Several longer prayers follow. The Priest then takes the Gifts which he has been offering up, and place thems upon the Altar. He then blesses the Paten with the bread upon it and says:

"Sanctify, O Lord, this host, in order that it may become the Body of Thine Only-Begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Who livest and reignest with Thee and the Holy Ghost, God, Through all the ages of ages. Amen."

Then the deacon receives wine from the subdeacon, and mixes it with water, in the chalices saying:

O God, Who wonderfully created the dignity of human nature, and more marvelously restored it, we beseech Thee, Give us of this water and wine to be partakers of His Divinty, Who vouchsafed to partake of our Humanity, Jesus Christ.

Then the Deacon lifs the Chalice over the Altar, and the Priest says:

Immolate to the Lord for a sacrifice of praise, and pay Thy vows to the Most High...

The Priest says, Offering the Chalice:

We offer Thee, O Lord, the Chalice of Salvation, and pray Thy clemency, so that in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty, this may go up as a sweet smell.
O Lord God Jesus Christ, Who of Thy Passion on the Cross, and from whose side came forth both Blood and Water, and by which Thou didst consecrate the Church, and from which Flow Thou has chosen to receive this sacrifice lain on Thy Altar, grant O Most Merciful One, that this may avail for the Redemption of our own solus, and also that of the whole world, it going up in Thy Sight. Who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, God, through all the ages of ages. Amen.

The Priest then blesses the Chalice saying:

"Sanctify, O Lord, this chalice offered to Thee, that it may become the Blood of Thy Only-Begotten Son Our Lord Jesus Christ. Who..."

Then the Priest blesses them both and says:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, this is new sacrifices is sealed up, ordained, sanctified, and blessed."

Then he says thsi Prayer to the Holy Ghost over the oblation:

"Come O Almighty and Everlasting God the Sanctifier, and bless this sacrifice prepared for Thee. Who..."

Then taking the censer from the Deacon, the Priest says:

Through the Intercession of the Holy Archangel Gabriel, standing at the right hand of the altar of incesne, and of all His elect, may the Lord deign to bless this incense, and receive it for a sweet savour.

As the Priest censes the Gifts he says this prayer:

We are mindful, O Eternal God, Almighty Father, of the Most Glorious Passiion, Ressurection, and Ascension into Heaven, of Thy Son. We ask of Thy Majesty, therefore, that this incense ascend, together with the prayers of our humility in the sight of Thy clemency, and we pray that the invisible and incomprehensible majesty of the Holy Ghost may come down, O Lord, as He came down upon the victims of the Fathers, and thus the fulness of the power of the Godhead, through such, may come upont his bread and this chalice. Through..."

The Offertory in the Missa Illyrica, which is representative of Hierarchical Liturgies in France and Germany, and that celebrated in the cathedrals by priests, and by Abbots in monasteries, goes on for some length.

In other Offertories, found in books from the 8th and 9th centuries, it is similar, though in such lenght as that found in Missa Illyrica. Many of these Prayers, which represent the though of the Fathers and Saints of the period, speak, as above, quite clearly about the role of the Holy Ghost in the transformation of the elements. The different, perhaps in our minds, is due to the fact that they considered the whole Offertory Prayers to be Part of the Anaphora, and thus, if they prayed for the Holy Ghost to bless the Gifts to become the Body and Blood of Christ 15 minutes ago, and they were completing this Prayer of Consecration 15 minutes later, as they finished the Words of Institution, it would make little sense to the saints of that period to put another Epiklesis after such (though, In Spain and France they often did do this, such as in the prayer contained in the Hispanic Missals). Though, in modern Western Orthodox usage, to avoid any controversy, precipated by the Latin church after the Schism, it is necessary to insert such an invariable epiclesis immediately after the Narration of Institution.

Thus, for many of the ancient Western Fathers, their epiclesis came before the Words of Institution, and thus, the Words were the completing of the Consecration by the Holy Ghost.