Latinized New "ROCOR"

[Priest Siluan]

Father Deacon Joseph:

What do you think about "Adoptionism" in the "Mozarabic", or rather "Visigothic" Rite and its? According what little I know the Visigothic Rite would have been "purified" from this heresy by Rome. I say Visigothic, because for me is better than "Hispanic", because in other regions of the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic islands also has been used the "Byzantine Rite".

[Priest Siluan]

Exactly why do you keep throwing Sarum rite in with the Gallican reconstruction? The Sarum rite is a well-attested pre-schism liturgy, like the Mozarabic, with literally hundreds of manuscripts available for reference. It's not a reconstructed liturgy at all! Yet this is the third or fourth time you've said that, I've addressed it, and you repeat it without a shred of proof!

Of course, thanks Fr. Aidan and other, who are the fathers of the modern "Old Sarum"...

Then you know less about Mexican culture than you think: there are a number of imported Mozarabic customs for centuries among the Mexican Catholics. The first printed edition of the Mozarabic rite was done in Mexico; Mozarabic Bishops and priests were always there. A number of customs survive in Latin American Catholicism in general, not just in Mexico. And were the two rites done together, although neither would be a Roman Mass, I am certain that a native Mexican would feel the Mozarabic is more familiar and more preserving of indigenous custom.

Yes, maybe, they also have syncretic traditions, product of their Aztec past, however that is not (and never was) Orthodox...

[Suaidan]

Father Deacon Joseph:

What do you think about "Adoptionism" in the "Mozarabic", or rather "Visigothic" Rite and its? According what little I know the Visigothic Rite would have been "purified" from this heresy by Rome.

This is incorrect. The rite was in fact investigated in a conciliar fashion in the West, and the charge of adoptionism was dropped. The original charge was due to the fact that adoptionists had altered the Hispanic rite texts.

I say Visigothic, because for me is better than "Hispanic", because in other regions of the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic islands also has been used the "Byzantine Rite".

This owuld be incorrect, since (a) it was the rite used throughout Hispania (as the land was known before its division into Spain and Portugal), and we would apply the land a rite is in, not an ethnic appellation (b) it was historically used, even fused with the word "Mozarabic" (c) it was not originally compiled or imported by the Visigoths at all (who were using an Arian rite), but native clergy of the region (Gallo-Roman; both Sts Isidore and Leander were Gallo-Roman) and later, with the martyrdom of St Hermengildo, eventually became the state faith (d) and to reiterate the jurisdiction and rite of Spain was consistent until the 9-10th century, when Franks began installing Roman rite monasteries there.

I didn't make up the term "Hispanic Rite". If you like using "Visigothic" for some reason though to my knowledge that would be somewhat inaccurate. "Toledan", if you find it personally offensive to call it "Hispanic", is better.

I know of no area that natively used the Byzantine Rite in Spain that was not due to a foreign migration, but I'd love to hear such an explanation.

[Suaidan]

Of course, thanks Fr. Aidan and other, who are the fathers of the modern "Old Sarum"...

Let me see if I can explain this again. The difference between the translations of the Old Roman Rites such as the Sarum and the originals are the languages. Thus, no one in our Church or formerly in our Church, is a "Father" of anything, but a translator.

Speaking of which, many of the first major English translations of Orthodox texts in the 1800's were done by WESTERN RITE ORTHODOX, such as Shann.

Yes, maybe, they also have syncretic traditions, product of their Aztec past, however that is not (and never was) Orthodox...

Father Siluan, I didn't bring up the Mexican population. You did, in case you've forgotten, arguing they would prefer the Byzantine rite. Now when someone says "you are wrong", you point to "Aztec syncretism". To me there is nothing worse for missionary work than blaming the people one would wish to evangelize for things beyond their control.

I am not telling you to use the Hispanic rite. I know your position already. I am defending what we do, but I think you must be under the impression I think you should become Western rite. I wouldn't force that on anyone. So why the positional hostility?

[Priest Siluan]

This is incorrect. The rite was in fact investigated in a conciliar fashion in the West, and the charge of adoptionism was dropped. The original charge was due to the fact that adoptionists had altered the Hispanic rite texts.

Thank you, Father Joseph, for every explanation, I find this topic very interesting in terms of historical issues. It is very fascinating the Christianity in the Iberian peninsula in time of Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar ("El Cid") and of course, before too. As you know El Cid was a protector of the "Mozarabic Rite", he was born in times of Pre-Schism Church.

This owuld be incorrect, since (a) it was the rite used throughout Hispania (as the land was known before its division into Spain and Portugal), and we would apply the land a rite is in, not an ethnic appellation (b) it was historically used, even fused with the word "Mozarabic" (c) it was not originally compiled or imported by the Visigoths at all (who were using an Arian rite), but native clergy of the region (Gallo-Roman; both Sts Isidore and Leander were Gallo-Roman) and later, with the martyrdom of St Hermengildo, eventually became the state faith (d) and to reiterate the jurisdiction and rite of Spain was consistent until the 9-10th century, when Franks began installing Roman rite monasteries there.

I didn't make up the term "Hispanic Rite". If you like using "Visigothic" for some reason though to my knowledge that would be somewhat inaccurate. "Toledan", if you find it personally offensive to call it "Hispanic", is better.

Yes, "Toledan" is right and better.

I know of no area that natively used the Byzantine Rite in Spain that was not due to a foreign migration, but I'd love to hear such an explanation.

You are right, but I think Spain and Portugal, in many ways and even to this day has been influenced by the Mediterranean culture, the "Byzantine" (or rather the Eastern Roman) culture was/is not a stranger to them at all. Moreover, for example, in medieval times the Spanish Flag had a Bicephalous eagle. Culturally Spain has been less Western than we could think. Today in Spain there is many Spanish people who is studiyng "their" Byzantine cultural legacy.

[Priest Siluan]

[
Let me see if I can explain this again. The difference between the translations of the Old Roman Rites such as the Sarum and the originals are the languages. Thus, no one in our Church or formerly in our Church, is a "Father" of anything, but a translator.

Speaking of which, many of the first major English translations of Orthodox texts in the 1800's were done by WESTERN RITE ORTHODOX, such as Shann.

Thank you again, dear Father for this information.

Father Siluan, I didn't bring up the Mexican population. You did, in case you've forgotten, arguing they would prefer the Byzantine rite. Now when someone says "you are wrong", you point to "Aztec syncretism". To me there is nothing worse for missionary work than blaming the people one would wish to evangelize for things beyond their control.

Orthodox Mexican people who is working seriously there know about what I told here. The most of Orthodox (or rather "World Orthodox") prefer Byzantine rite and they think Mexico (and every place in Latin America, surely) needs to be TRULY Christianized

I am not telling you to use the Hispanic rite. I know your position already. I am defending what we do, but I think you must be under the impression I think you should become Western rite. I wouldn't force that on anyone. So why the positional hostility?

Of course, I would not do, for me personally and for many background questions which you now, any "Western Rite" are very strange. But, otherwise, I think it is not practical missionally, because to people, it is so foreign to people than "Byzantine" one and even it is and it could be really "good" to sow confusions. And just like the ROCOR resolution of 1978 says, the "Western Rites" have not had any success where their have been implemented, I do not see that in USA or anywhere else have been successful, the whole matter only has been good for raising confusions and useless disputes.