A paruchia is a Western equivalent of the Eastern podvorje or metochia. Monastic houses and missions/parishes attached to such monastic institutions can be set up with approval of the ordinary of a diocese. Individual laymen, and societies of laymen may associate freely with any monastery (on Mt. Athos, in Greece, Jerusalem, Russia, etc.) Of course, St. Patrick's synod only covered the area he 'ruled' from (and, Ireland took a long while to be under a single see - there were overlapping parishes and monasteries from various Paruchia: Columban, Culdee, Patrician, and others up until those bodies were absorbed by the Austin Canons, Cistercians or others (just a tangent - Canons Regular are pre-Schism, as is the Rule of St. Augustine - why yet no Orthodox Austin Canons?)

Fr. David confirmed this again with me today: he writes that Vladyka specifically gave his blessing to continue helping Fr. Augustine in the continuation of the work of Mt. Royal: which includes the Mt. Royal rite. Also, that they normally use the Mt. Royal ' "Benedictine" (so-called) usage of pre-Schism England' with the ' "Holyrood/Saint Petroc" Sarum on High Feasts.' This is just as we've witnessed when there. (Fr. David had kindly done more Sarum when our family visits - and even some Latin as he knows we like it - but above all with appropriate Benedictine simplicity.) Our society here similiarly uses the Saint Colman Prayer Book (and music from Christminster) - along with the Saint Dunstan Psalter.

The language is essentially the same between Mount Royal, Christminster, and Saint Petroc. "World without end" is used by all, as is other "Bishop Cosin" style Traditional English language, the corrected Coverdale Psalter, etc. "Contemporary" English just isn't as beautiful as the Traditional English (which harkens back to our Englisc tongue).

To be clear: the Saint Petroc usage (the Saint Colman Prayer Book) includes three forms of liturgy: a Sarum use (not the full cathedral Sarum rite but a Sarum use for missions), an English liturgy (primarily Sarum with a handful of items from the Non-Juror liturgy, Gothic, York.. or following the wording of the 1549 BCP in a few instances), and the Gregorian rite (which is the Christminster/Mount Royal liturgy.) The offices are Sarum based upon the Clewer translation. There is also a recension of the Lorrha-Stowe Missal which is to be included in the supplementary book (though I do not know if/when it will be approved to serve - I'd push for it, as we have it in use elsewhere in the Russian Church, there is no legislation ever suppressing it, and it could be argued that it falls under the 1936 Ukaze - which allows for Gallican rite - also still used in ROCOR.)

I, of course, am not a Latinist - as I am not a Latin. I may sometimes pray a prayer in Latin, study it - but I think some caution should be exercised in pushing a 'Latin mindset' or agenda onto the English. I *am* an Anglo-Saxonist (and Celticist, and Nordicist) - I speak English, pray primarly in English (and Englisc, Welsh or Irish sometimes as often as we use Hebrew/Aramaic, or Greek.) I am also a Roman in the sense that Fr. John Romanides meant - where again I am not 'Latin' or 'Frank' anymore than a 'Hellene'. My worry with translations isn't so much keeping it like the original language (eg Latin, Greek, etc.) but that the target language (English) be fully respected, understood, and convention followed (yes, a very conservative idea - as I'm contrary to radical or liberal altering of language, or even of prayers.) I feel the same about any target language - but most strongly about my Mother Tongue. That worry also crosses over into liturgy: especially when something can seem 'Mozhellenic', or another 'Novus Ordo' (noting - the Protestant and Vatican II 'liturgists' also believed they were going 'ad fontes' against 'Medieval liturgy' (Late Sarum in particular as the favorite target of the English Reformers, as well as the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, etc.) On those counts, the liturgy, language, ceremonial, ornaments, customs and rubrics of Mount Royal, Christminster and Saint Petroc (and Holyrood) do not transgress - they follow what has primarily been the tradition of Russian Orthodox Western rite: correcting rather than overturning, keeping the baby and out only with the bathwater. That seems to 'jibe' entirely with the recent message of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church:

The evangelization of God's people, but also of those who do not believe in Christ, constitutes the supreme duty of the Church. This duty must not be fulfilled in an aggressive manner, or by various forms of proselytism, but with love, humility and respect for the identity of each individual and the cultural particularity of each people. ...


The OSRM series *as it has been in the past* (and based upon the revision so far released) just doesn't interest me as a Western Orthodox Christian. We'll happily stick with what we've already got in that case - liturgy that was developed in the Orthodox Church over some years, under an Orthodox hierarch. Asking to make suggestions, to discuss in detail form, content or style - that can be done privately. Some years ago, when we still had private correspondence, I had examined the OSRM materials (not counting the Benedictional or Companion). I could find differences in form, content, style as relates to language, liturgy, rubrics ...and polemics (not found in any other Western rite liturgical material that I know of.) Our clergy have also noted the peculiarities of the OSRM in the past, and numbers of us laymen (and laywomen) have seen the differences as well. They differences are there: so far. My wife finds the 'OPOE' translations confusing and possibly even erroneous. As an educator, she complains that 'born of the Father' rather than 'begotten of the Father' could possibly be misunderstood in the Arian sense - as born (which happens once in time) by a Father rather than eternally begotten by the Father, but born once in Time by the Mother of God.) The Magnificat in the OPOE was just one example - previously I had done a 'color coded' comparison of it with the Jordanville and Saint Petroc/Christminster/Mount Royal translations where the latter four all are more similar to each other than OPOE's Magnificat is to either the Jordanville or ROCOR WRITE (not counting the antiphons in the Byzantine Magnificat of course.) One phrase that stands out is 'looked upon' rather than 'regarded' - which when chanted can sound like: "Look, Ed, a pond". I would have pointed them out in detail before - but no one asked then (or now): and it didn't matter then (it only matters now in the same way New Skete's usage matters, unless there are plans to impose such materials on the rest of us.)

Has Fr. Michael, Fr. Barry, Fr. James, Fr. David or any laymen of those communities (oblates or in the Saint Petroc paruchia) been asked to help go over the OSRM material being imported into the Orthodox Church? I own most of the SHP materials (except for the Benedictional, the Companion and OSRM itself - though the latter is held by two libraries now, one of which I have visited.) *If* anyone was asking my advice as to compiling yet more new liturgical books for use by us Western Orthodox in ROCOR (and I don't know that it has ever been asked) - I would hope they would follow what has already been done by Fr. Augustine (Whitfield), Fr. James (Deschene), and Fr. Michael (Wood) (the latter two followed what was done by the former.) And, having taken their advice - follow it?

And, this isn't just a Western rite issue - the same goes for Byzantine rite. There are good translations, and some not so good. Some prefer 'New Skete', GOARCH, or Fr. Ephrem (Lash) - some of us prefer Jordanville or Hapgood. Some 'special issues' that Byzantine translations suffer from should not have a bearing on Western rite in English: especially the use of 'Greeklish' - that special 'code' that some Orthodox in the English-speaking world have developed to keep from being understood by other English speakers. (Theotokos when one can use Mother of God, zona for cincture, etc.) English is not an inadequate language - and previous translators often knew more than they are given credit for (world without end being a good example - it follows the original sense of the Semitic, and as it isn't a phrase to itself - reiterates that the 'world' or reality of the Trinity 'as it was in (eternally) in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be (eternally) is ..unending. Just like we say in the Creed: ..and His Kingdom shall have no end.)

York Forum is not a 'Western Orthodox forum' but about the 'Ecclesia Anglicana' tradition - not anti-Anglican : though we Western Orthodox have been welcomed to participate here. (Even a mixed Salopian 'Celt' like me - yes, with all the other English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, German, French etc. mixed in.) Occidentalis/OrthodoxWest have been primarily Milan Synod forums since 2001 at least. There are Orthodox clergy who have been banned from posting on either forum (mostly for asking 'uncomfortable questions'.) Even in recent weeks they have had much misinformation passed around there about Western Orthodox (ROCOR) clergy - especially those of our paruchia (including the ongoing false claim that we use 'Book of Common Prayer' offices, or 'Cranmerian prayers', or 'Protestant rites', etc.) Fr. David says he no longer participates there. Fr. Augustine , Fr. Barry, Fr. James do not either. Fr. James prefers anyone having questions to contact him directly rather than discuss it on a list or forum - he finds lists/forums unhealthy. Since other forums purporting to be for Western Orthodox had made conditions uncomfortable for us Western Orthodox (ROCOR or elsewise): Ely forum remains the only forum focusing on Western Orthodoxy where ROCOR Western rite can be freely discussed without the conversation being hijacked, trolls let run loose, our clergy subjected to disinformation campaigns, or pressure placed to adopt someone else's rite. Of course, that is particular to the Saint Petroc paruchia. Otherwise - for ROCOR WRITE altogether - the best place to discuss it is *with* our clergy (Fr. James, Fr. David, Fr. Michael, Fr. Barry.)

The "Western Captivity" fuss is a watchword of a 'school' in the Russian diaspora (St. Sergius and St. Vladimir's - Bulgakov, Berdyaev, etc.)
That school had some clash with Fr. Vladimir Lossky and L'ECOF (not all but some of the troubles of the latter - I believe - came from the opposition of the 'Parisians' and their complaints about anything 'Western'.) There is an opposite school as well (such as Fr. John Romanides, and many Old Calendarist Greeks.) Fr. Seraphim Rose's introduction to his translation of Fr. Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" describes these various schools, how they contrast with the Patristic Orthodox Theology (the 'Royal Path' as represented by the pre-Revolutionary Kiev Academy), and how Fr. Michael's Russian theology is from this latter ancient tradition.

Regarding cheirotonia - and how Fr. David and Fr. Michael explained it, is that it *is* an ordination: the prayers are said for the ordination, the laying on of hands, vesting - it is rather like reception by chrismation (which is not 'accepting' baptism but correcting - so, receiving by cheirotonia is not 'accepting orders' but correcting them.) 'Accepting orders' would be by simple vesting - which I think has normally only been done with clergy coming from the Roman Catholic or 'Lesser Eastern Churches'. Some newcomers might not be aware - but we've already discussed Anglican Orders on this board - and how the Orthodox as well as Rome views them (as well as how the Dutch Touch might change the Roman view, but that the Orthodox view has tended in the past to only accept the possibility in the case of a mass reunion - otherwise, Anglican clergy are chrismated and ordained. I think I had been mistaken in the past that some received Orthodox baptism rather than chrismation.) If one wants to know why Anglican clergy are not simply 'recognized in their orders', Old Catholic/Renovationist bishops received as mitred archpriests, or Milan Synod clergy have not been simply 'transferred from another jurisdiction' - ask our bishops who did the receiving.

As to CeltList - they have 'donnybrooks' especially... which is fine if one enjoys that sort of thing. York Forum is far safer - especially for those conservatively or traditionally minded. (Thanks again LeoXIII!) image

www.orthodoxresurgence.com
--------------
"When the ship is holed, let the man who can swim swim" - St. Gildas the Wise, Fragments of Lost Letters.