I have received a few emails asking about my recent ordination to the Orthodox priesthood and my concern for the Orthodox western (i.e. early medieval) rites. I would like to speak briefly about this presently.

It is one of my missions in the world to restore the ancient western liturgies of the Orthodox Church. In other words, we are speaking of the liturgies that were mutilated or repressed by the papacy after its schism from the universal church. The Papal church separated itself from Christianity when it fell out of communion from Jerusalem and Antioch around 1100. It lost grace and sacraments, according to the canons of Carthage and elsewhere, at this time, and it will remain so until the last judgement, since their heresies have been pronounced as dogma, making certain they cannot be removed.

Prior to the development of papalism, that is, the utter domination of Rome over the entire western church, the western rites were fully Orthodox, and bore no relation to what is called "Tridentine" today; “Tridentine, a word often used, takes its derevation from the Council of Trent, called after the German reformation, in order to reform the Church of Rome. The “mass for all time” as traditional Catholics like to claim, is a product of a major rewrite after the Council of Trent. Keep in mind that I use "papalist" to refer to Roman Catholics who do the Liturgy of Trent. The novus ordo, is a separate church entirely, created in the late 1960s, which separated itself from the church of Trent, and created its own liturgy, that formulated by an ecumenical commission in the early 1970s.

However, the liturgy of Trent has little relation to the ancient western liturgies, differences that Roman Catholic intellectuals apparently have never heard of before. Only the Orthodox Church, that is, the Catholic Church, has sought to understand and even perform these rites. The Orthodox church has a priori permission to perform only the rites whose tradition reaches to pre-schism times. The ancient western rites such as the Mozarabic, Sarum/Roman, or Gallic existed prior to 1054, and thus are an integral part of the tradition of the church. Liturgies such as that of Trent, or the Anglican, developed after, quite a bit after, and thus, the church has no right to perform them.

As a priest, I perform the Liturgy of Pope Gregory the Dialogist. This is the Roman rite of the early middle ages, codified by St. Gregory and sent to England with St. Augustine of Kent (sometimes called Augustine of Canterbury). It is sometimes called the "Sarum" rite (i.e. the Liturgy if Salisbury), which is a nickname and highly informal. It would be like calling the Liturgy of St. John the "Liturgy of the Greeks," or "The Liturgy of the southern Balkans." We have many missals and sacramentaries from this era, and we can see how radically this differs from the Renaissance "Catholic" rite of Trent. Let me speak of the major differences.

One of the first things that strikes a worshiper in the ancient western rite is the lack of pews. This is a pet peeve for me. Pews are ugly. They destroy the architectural continuity of the churches they are installed in. Peasants were forced to pay for these monstrosities. But more importantly, they completely cut off an entire range of worship central to the ancient Orthodox and Catholic Church. They cut off the prostrations, bows and movements common to ancient worship, both east and west. Pews regiment the congregation. The papalists, demanding complete uniformity in worship after Trent, created a system of clicking where the usher would click, and all would rise; he would click, and all would kneel, etc. It is absurd and has no historical foundations.

Another major peeve of mine is the organ. This, again, has not historical foundation, and, with only a handful of exception, was entirely absent from the early medieval church. The first organs, huge, expensive monsters paid for by the bilked peasantry, blasted their way into “corporate worship” around the time Bach was working. Now, I enjoy his organ music, but this has nothing to do with liturgy.

There is no mumbling at the altar. Catholics, thinking that the Trent mass is the "mass for all time" sit in their pews while a priest prays inaudibly at the altar. At high mass–there was no such distinction in the ancient Roman rite–the choir sings hymns, while the mass is going on inaudibly at the altar. This, again, has no historical foundation, though there are reason for its development. First, Trent dealt with the question of illiterate priests who had memorized the liturgy. Because these were sounds that made no sense to them, they mumbled these almost inaudibly. Secondly, after Trent, the clergy were a sequestered class. Of course, this had been going on for a long time prior. They had nothing to do with the laity, and as such, they developed a corporate consciousness that led to them saying mass for themselves, without reference to the congregation (though there are some ritualized references). Third, because many people had lost contact with the ritualized Latin of the Roman rite, people really did not need to hear the mass. Therefore, it became a private conversation between the priest and God. Traditionally, the mass was chanted clearly, in plainchant.

The only place where the service was spoken quietly was at the Secret. It is called a Secret for this reason. If the mass was meant to be mumbled the entire mass would be called “the Secret”. The fact that they explicitly set aside these two lines as a "Secret" suggests that the rest of the mass was not to be mumbled. The canon is another matter: it is, and has always been, a private conversation between the priest and God. It was said in a low, but audible, voice. This harkens to the Old Testament model where only the high Priest could utter the name of God at the holy of holies. After the resurrection, all priests can go into the holy of holies (i.e. the altar at the canon) and pronounce God's name.

Now, the mass itself was never said in isolation. Mass was always ensconced and contextualized as part of the Benedictine hours. Incidentally, it is my opinion that the western rite, so long as it is Roman in origin, can also properly be called the Benedictine Rite. If the mass was said in the evening, it was done after Vigils, if in the morning, it was done after Prime or Terce. The "breviary" was never meant as a private conversation between the sequestered clergy and God. It was done in public. This is a radical innovation in the "traditional" Trentian era.

In the ancient Roman rite, priests were not sequestered. They were elected by the local congregation, and were largely married men. Celibate priests become monks or canons. Priests were a part of the community, sharing its joys and sorrows; its poverty and prosperity. They had normal jobs. They led normal lives. They were not a separate caste. There is a direct correlation between an unmarried priesthood and the mumbling of the liturgy and other abuses. Once the priests became a separate estate and were sequestered from the population, mass and the hours became "their" thing. The people had the rosary and other completely private devotions. Many Trentians today have never heard the ancient Vesperal rites, or a real Vigil service.

Ancient Catholic Churches had a Rood screen. These were forcibly removed during the Renaissance. The Rood screen is identical to the eastern iconostas (icon stand). It was a screen, sometimes as high as the ceiling, sometimes maybe 5 or 6 feet high, that separated the altar from the nave. Trentians have the communion rail, which is a vestige of the screen. The altar was not merely the holy table, but was the entirety of the chancel. These were part and parcel of ancient Orthodox worship, and local congregations, controlling for their financial state, have no right to deviate from this standard.

The communion bread is another matter. Many ancient sources from England refer to the communion bread as the fermentum, suggesting that it was leavened bread. There are some sources–very few–that show unleavened bread in use among Roman rite churches prior to the schism. Galician or Mozarabic rite churches never used unleavened bread. The papal church after Trent suppressed the ancient and venerable Galician rite permanently (though the Holy Roman Empire in Gaul had suppressed it in some areas previously); separate rites imply separate jurisdiction.

The ancient calendar was completely rewritten by Gregory VII during the Renaissance. The method of figuring the date of Easter was also rewritten. Unfortunately for the Catholics, the First Ecumenical Synod dogmatized the methodology of calculating the date of Easter. Only the Orthodox Catholic church maintains this ancient method.

Now, the Gregorian, or Roman liturgy used in the early middle ages is substantially different from the papalist "mass of all time," codified by Pope Pius V after the Council of Trent. In fact, many Catholics who attend "Latin Mass" churches would not recognize the ancient Roman liturgy if done properly. Allow me to take this piece by piece. The beginning of the Latin Mass used by modern papalists is Psalm 42, said as a dialogue between the priest and the server. Of course, there were no "servers" in the Roman rite, the "server" was at one time a tonsured subdeacon or possibly an acolyte. In the Gregorian rite, this psalm is said as part of the proskomede, a service completely removed at Trent and likely, prior. The proskomede is the service of preparation, where psalm 42 was said, as well as the prayers that, at Trent, became the "offertory," a set of prayers with no historical justification, inserted as a sort of “mini-canon.”. These prayers (the “offering of the host and chalice” in some Roman missals) were said prior to the liturgy. The offertory that is said as a "proper" prayer, however, is historically legitimate. The prayers of the proskomede were removed at Trent and made a part of the liturgy.

Many papalist/Trentians do not realize that the Kyrie was normally done with verses, at least on feast days. The Trentians removed these verses. The Kyrie, from Greek sources was actually the western image of the Byzantine litany. One would pray for rain, or the royal family, for the church and its benefactors, etc., and after each petition one would chant the Kyrie. This was completely removed in the "mass for all time."

In the ancient English sacramentaries, prior to the Gloria, a bidding prayer was used. Now these were also lists of petitions, ending with "....though Christ our Lord, Amen." The 7th century sacramentary of Leofric of Exeter has a lengthy bidding prayer, but there were many versions. These were eliminated in the making of the "mass for all time." In fact, local custom dictated the form of many liturgical prayers, but, threatened at the independence these practices implied, all was eliminated, and Trent was meant to crate a stripped-down, or sekeletal, mass for all Roman Catholics. Much of value was lost in this mis-translation.

The first public prayer during the liturgy was the Introit, followed, at the end of the procession, by the bidding of the bedes, as mentioned above, though this is largely an English custom. Once the priest was ensconced at the altar, then the confession was said.

I have already mentioned the later invention of the offertory prayer. In the ancient rites, the offertory consisted of the prayer from the propers, then "In spiritu humilitatis. . ." The next prayer, the "Veni sanctificator. . ." was rewritten to eliminate the mention of the "Holy Ghost," changing it to "the comforter." This is important, for, since the insertion of the filioque, the Holy Ghost was less and less mentioned throughout the liturgy in the High Middle Ages.

Then, the 25th psalm was said after the washing of the fingers. This is a much later addition, not to be seen in any of the ancient manuscripts of the Latin rite in existence, though in itself not a liturgical violation, only a historical one. Another area where the mention of the Holy Ghost was excised was after the "Orate Fratres," which reads, in the Trentian rite: "May the Lord receive the sacrifice at your hands, to the praise and glory of his name, for our benefit and that of the whole Church." The ancient texts read: "May the grace of the Holy Spirit enlighten thy heart and lips, and the Lord graciously accept this sacrifice of praise, at thy hands, for our sins and our offences." This is a substantial dogmatic change.

After the fraction, in a rather harsh act of liturgical vandalism, the Trentians removed the service of the "blessing with the mysteries." This was removed to make way for the service of Benediction, unknown up until that time. The service of the blessing in the ancient Roman rite is said only in the Synod of Milan, and it goes like this (though there are variations depending on the feast or season):

May almighty God adorn you with the gift of His compassion and in His mercy, make you fruitful with the abundance of eternal blessing, Amen.

With the arm of the Divine Power, may He everywhere defend you, Who doth gladden them that hope in Him with the everlasting joy of blessedness, Amen.

May he bestow upon you in this age the prosperities of peace and safety, and, in the age to come, may He grant you a crown of life with all the saints, Amen.

Which may He deign to grant, whose kingdom and power remain without end, unto the ages, Amen.

After the Agnus Dei, the prayers of peace are nowhere to be found in the ancient texts, and neither is the ejaculation, "Panem coelestem. . ."

Baptism was done though immersion. Chrisimation was done by a priest. Communion was given to babies. Confession was done in the open. Communion was given under both kinds, through intinction. Once the wafers began to be used around the 11th century with any regularity in the west, the ancient custom of the antidoron was eliminated. This is another proof that the use of unleavened bread is an innovation. There are many sacramentaries where the blessing of the antidoron bread (and, depending on the year, vegetables and fruits, hence the washing of the hands) is made clear, but there is no antidoron in the azamite usage. During the ancient proskemedia prayers in the west (all but abandoned in the after the schism), the four sides of the circular lamb were cut off, becoming the antidoron. The circle became a square, a central metaphor in Christian aesthetics. The circle always represent divinity; the square, humanity with its mundane concerns. The circular lamb becoming a square represents the divinity entering into the realm of humanity. This is why altar tables always have to be a square or rectangle, it represents humanity offering up the unbloody sacrifice. All of this was eliminated after the schism, and dogmatized as part of the “Catholic church” at Trent.

It really need not be said that the Creed was exclusively said without te filioque. Now, this controversy often evokes rolling eyes from people, people who know nothing about the real, practical import of this notion. St. Photios the Great aside, this issue goes straight to the heart of the papalist idea of itself and its power. The practical import of this controversy was only in part the manner n which it was imposed. More importantly, the issue of the filioque was papal power, and the papacy's demand for universal jurisdiction. One central mark of the papalist sect is the near complete absence of the Holy Spirit. The papacy takes the place of the Spirit. What I mean is that the Spirit, in ancient dogmatics, was the "shepherd" of the Church on earth. It guided men to truth, and therefore, both east and west, all prayer began with an invocation to the Holy Spirit (i.e. Heavenly King, Comforter, spirit of Truth. . . ) The Spirit is the realm of prophesy, of independence; of a spirit filled life above and beyond that of an earthly organization. This has always been the realm of skete monks, prophets and fools-for-Christ's-sake. All of this needed to go as the Catholic church began to develop itself. The concept is this: according to the papal party, Christ gave the Spirit to Peter. Peter then gives the spirit to the world. Therefore, the pope gives the spirit to the world. This is the real historical import of the filioque controversy.

The filioque clause gives the pope the right, given a certain interpretation of Christ's relation to Peter, to claim to be the font of the spirit. Therefore, indulgences are the direct result of the filioque controversy. No filioque, no papacy. Once the pope became the "font" of the spirit, (and the notion of "vicar of Christ," if one assumes to the filioque to be proper, automatically makes the pope the vicar of the Spirit), the epiclisis was removed from the Roman liturgy. In the west, the epiclisis is found in every single ancient liturgical text. The only rational reason, from the papal point of view, that it was removed was that the epiclisis implied the independence of the Spirit's power and action, something anathema to the papal ideology. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then the Spirit's action is embedded in papal ideology, and the epiclisis is redundant. It is true that St. Ambrose believed that the words of institution were sufficient for the transmutation; St. John of Damascus believed that the epiclisis was necessary. The Ambrosian liturgy contains, of course, the epiclisis, as do all ancient liturgies, regardless of their origin. To the extent that a church stresses the organization above all else, the realm of the Spirit diminishes.

In fact, the Catholics can be understood as a movement in ancient western Europe that sought to rebuild Roman institutions under the guidance of the papacy. Therefore, papal history is one where the popes seek earthly power above all things. And therefore, papal dogma becomes a buttress of papal power. The popes were so vehement about opposing the monophysite heresy because in doing so, it supported the claim of St. Leo the Great's central role in leading the effort against it at Chalcedon. The defense of Chalcedon and the attacks on the heresy of Monotheletism, in other words, was a defense of Leo and the papacy. This is not to diminish to role of the great pope, but it is to say that his successors used his blessed memory to buttress their own claims to power. In other words, papal dogmatics is about papal prestige and power.

It might be noted that the condemnation of pope Honorius of sorry memory was a part of the papal oath-until the schism. Once the east was cast off, the popes then needed to cultivate the image of being infallible, and, therefore, the condemnation of Honorius in the oath was removed. It might be ironic to some that the Orthodox church as canonized more ancient popes than the papalists have.

The ancient western liturgies almost universally contained the trisagion: "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us." (The Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus is another prayer entirely, though it goes by the same name). While of Greek origin, the west adopted it with enthusiasm, and understood it, as in the East, to be the most sacred part of the liturgy of the word/catechumens. The difference between the western rites is where it was located. But this is of small import. When the Anglican liturgy was submitted to St. Philaret of Moscow for correction into a proper Orthodox rite, he insisted, using western documentation, that the trisagion be re-included. Among the Trentians, the triasgion is included only in the Good Friday services, and is mistranslated from the Greek.

The service of peace was also included in most western liturgies. In the Sarum usage, the kiss of peace was not the touchy-feely silliness of the novus ordo, but was, from ancient sources, the kissing of a peace icon, usually an icon of Christ's passion (usually the "Holy Napkin"). Except for the Synod of Milan, this ancient custom has disappeared.

Communion was given through intinction, or with a spoon, as per the Byzantine usage. Communion was always taken standing, not kneeling. In the Sarum usage, the trisagion is normally chanted after communion, though that was not the only location.

To conclude the service, the antidoron is blessed and distributed, with each Orthodox person kissing the cross and taking a piece of the blessed (but not consecrated) bread. Only Orthodox people can receive antidoron, and is not for "everyone" that attends the service-this is also made clear in the ancient sacramentaries.

In many instances, the following service in the hours (depending on the time) is then chanted. In other cases, prayers for the dead are chanted, though not on a Sunday. The prayers after liturgy among the benighted "Latin Mass" people are of recent origin, and have no traditional standing, liturgically speaking.

Of course, there are many other rather serious differences between the ancient western rites and the radical rewriting of the tradition by Trent and its cohorts. The "Latin Mass" crowd has been conditioned to think they have a "traditional liturgy," without the slightest clue how radically reworked their Trent liturgy is. They have no clue how much they have lost, and how little of the western tradition they in fact have, and, in fact, if the modern "Latin Mass" Catholic were to see or read the ancient Roman rite, it would be almost completely foreign. Only western rite Orthodoxy has bothered to do the proper research into the ancient texts (many of which are imprisoned in the bowels of the Vatican), and thus resurrect the ancient liturgies.

It is the responsibility of all Orthodox men of western ethnic background to understand the traditions of their Orthodox ancestors. As much as I love the Slavs, I am Irish, and therefore, I have a responsibility to my own people, liturgically speaking. I have a responsibility to venerate the saints of my own kin, such as St. Kevin or St. Bride, and venerate their memory according to ancient Orthodox usage, which was identical in the west to what is in the east. I serve the Orthodox Slavic race by showing how their veneration of the memory of the saints is identical to my own Irish people 1500 years ago.

What greater compliment can I give? As my friends in Serbia have said: "We are of one race, we all have the blood of Christ in our veins." But the manifestation of this oneness (without ever altering the ethnic traditions of any Orthodox people-Israel was divided into 12 tribes, Orthodoxy is divided into ethnic groups, all worshiping the same God) can only be made clear through the resurrection of the method by which these traditions were communicated to the people, that is, through liturgy. It is your responsibility, as an Orthodox westerner, whether French, Irish, Spanish, Norse, or Saxon, to understand the lives of the western Orthodox saints, saints who would not recognize the church that was codified at Trent. It is your responsibility to your ancestors to understand that western tradition of centuries ago, a tradition vandalized and raped by the Catholics, long graceless and worried solely about worldly power.

It is your responsibility to assist us in the resurrection of ancient traditions, violated and repressed by rampaging Protestants, where millions of pages of ancient documents were burned during their "Reformation." Centuries prior to that, thousands of pages of documents were burned by the pagan Vikings. In Ireland, Celtic monasteries were pillaged by English invaders at the behest of the pope. Incidentally, it is amusing how easily the Irish forget that it was pope Adrian IV (Breakspeare) who authorized the invasion/papalization of Ireland through the agency of Henry II. Who knows what was lost? Who knows what was taken from us? It's only by God's grace we have any documentation at all! Western rite Orthodoxy is a rape victim: confused, misunderstood and often assaulted by ignorant, and quite often, guilty, people. Protestants, Catholics and modern secularists have all equally heaped scorn on the ancient traditions, traditions almost completely destroyed by years of heresy, demonism, capitalism and gracelessness.

The point of Holy Protection Orthodox Mission/Hermitage is to assist, in some small way, to resurrect and revitalize these ancient traditions. To undo, in some small way, the damage of the papalists, pagans, Protestants and modernists–in short, the world.

My patron in the priesthood in the Priest/Prophet St. Ezra of the Old Testament, who received a commission from God to take a handful of Israelites from Babylon (the world) and back into Jerusalem (the church), and to rebuild the temple (both literally and metaphorically), and the proper order of the ancient Hebrew services, long forgotten in the lengthy and painful exile. What better patron can I take? Who in the Scriptures more accurately represents the nature of our labors in these horrid times? In the book of Ezra, even the True Israelites gave the saint nothing but grief during his labors in rebuilding the Temple. All wanted to be in charge, and it was always "their" way that was the best. I expect little worldly glory in my labors, and I expect nothing but grief from even good Orthodox, many of which are frankly, too dumb to fully grasp the nature of our work. I expect harsh condemnation, persecution and calumny. I expect to be libeled and attacked, including by those who wear cassocks. It has begun already.

The Orthodox world is not, at the moment, known for its charity. Slurs and insults are thrown around on a regular basis. One slur, one that has been used against me and the Synod of Milan is "vagante." The word is an insult, a little like calling me an "a**hole." It really has no other meaning than that in general usage. Most definitely it is a "fighting word," and has led to fist-cuffs on more than one occasion.

Given that the people who use it have little theological education, let me define it in real terms. "Vagante" means, in normal usage, "self-ordained." Literally, however, it means "standing alone," which, in itself, is not a slur. However, on the silly blogs, it is used as an insult; it is used to attack a jurisdiction one does not like or understand. Normally, "vagante" is used to describe a group that has no ecclesial pedigree that places them within the Orthodox faith. This is not the proper meaning, however.

Now, the Old Calendarists are not "vagantes," in the common use of the word. These separations exist over substantial theological disagreements with the "SCOBA jurisdictions" over the recognition of the sacraments of heretics, the attacks on monasticism, the alteration of the calendar, the rejection of fasting, acceptance of Masonry, pro-abortion views (by some), membership in the WCC, etc. These are deadly serious issues that certainly justify separating oneself from SCOBA. We certainly have canonical recognition for this attitude. Our status might be odd from the point of view of SCOBA, but that is far from "vagante." The definition of "canonical," used universally in SCOBA usually means the "church with the most money," or "the church with the most mainstream appeal." Otherwise, it means that "church recognized by the Phanar." Such fools have not the first clue of the nature of the church or its organization. They wear a church like a new suit: they want something to compliment them, to place them within the mainstream, to receive praise and acceptance by the world.

Now, there are real vagante groups. I include in this the Ukrainian "autocephalists" in Cleveland and Alaska (who have no parishes), the "Montenegrin Orthodox Church," and a few others, all told, amounting to maybe 5,000 people total. Many are merely a website. Often, these groups have a theology that is only quasi-Orthodox. These groups have no legitimate succession, and simply want to have their own private church, to run as they please. They have a minimal knowledge of theology and, as a result, usually become a hodge-podge of nonsense. They generally have no parishes, or presence of any kind other than the web. Check out these idiots: here, here, here, here, here, here here, and, here.

As I have said elsewhere, Milan derives from the synod of +AUXENTIOS of Athens, the leader of the moderate Old Calendarists of Greece until his repose in 1994, regularized by the Synod Abroad under the saintly +PHILARET of New York. We do stand alone for the moment, but are certainly canonical in the sense that we are properly ordained and consecrated, and have a strong sucession from AUXENTIOS and PHILARET. Milan, truth be told, has been a model of stability in the ocean of Old Calendarism.

Therefore, to deny the orders of the Auxentian Synod, or Milan, or the Synod Abroad (as the OCA used to) is just plain stupid, and, as you have noticed, gets my dander up. But to summarize: "schism" over the questions brought up by membership in the WCC are covered by the canons as legitimate. The integrity of the faith is at stake, right down to the very nature of the Church and its structure. The "schism" here is merely a preventative measure; a temporary set up until a synod can settle the issues involved. On the other hand, a schism for reasons other than this is a true "schism" and is condemned. For these, prayer is our only recourse.

What is particularly sickening is the “western rite” Antiocheans, who are purely Anglican in ritual and theology, daring to call the Milan Synod “graceless” and “schismatic.” These Anglican interlopers, without a shred of knowledge or interest in Orthodoxy, have now made themselves judges of who is Orthodox and who is not. Therefore, I ask that the curse-word "vagante" be used only in appropriate setting, and defined properly-MRJ

Dear Friend:

I appreciate the measured tone of your communications. It speaks much about your character.

I would direct you to my webjournal, where the ecclesial lineage of Milan is laid out. Unfortunately, Milan does very little to defend itself. Apparently that's my job. It might also interest you to know that Milan co-consecrated the American hierarchy of the Etna group, in CA.

The comment by Bishop +HILARION of ROCOR was related to me by Bishop +JOHN himself, some time ago. I do respect the ROCOR western rite very much, and +HILARION as a hierarch. Bishop +JOHN remains on very good terms with the western rite in the Synod Abroad and Antioch, as a matter of course, through disagrees with them on a few points of liturgical authenticity.

It might interest you when our God bearing ender, Blessed Theodore of Pskov, considered a saint by most Old Calendarists, who reposed at the Milan Monastery in New Jersey, was in a coma, it was the gracious bishop +HILARION who sent to us a part of the Iveron icon of the Theotokos, which was placed on the head of the elder, who very quickly after awoke, immediately launched into a 3 hour lecture on the spiritual life.

The ROCOR regularized +AUXENTIOS of Athens, who created Milan in the late 1970s (formalized as autonomous in 1984). When his synod fell apart, the ROCOR under +VITALY withdrew communion until the situation can be worked out, but was never a comment on his Orthodoxy. And the Greek Old Calendarists continue to be divided, most unfortunately. Auxentios and +PHILARET were very friendly, and clearly of one mind. The situation is tragic, but is a far cry from leading to "vagantism." The Synod of CYPRIAN was reunited to AUXENTIOS through the Milan consecration of their American bishops. MAKARIOS, separating himself from CHRYSOSTOMOS II, himself reentered the synod of AUXENTIOS, leaving a unified Old Calendar witness in Greece of MAKARIOS and CYPRIAN, both close to Milan (though Milan only has a mandate in western Europe and the Americas). There was a short lived union of VITALY and CYPRIAN in 1992, and now a loose union of AGAFANGEL and CYPRIAN. Hence, Milan maintains good relations with CYPRIAN, MAXIMOS, MAKARIOS and AGAFANGEL. Since we have no mandate in Russia, we have no relations with VALENTIN, but basically accept his position and authenticity.

I certainly hope this has assisted you, and I thank you for contacting me directly, rather than listing to what the bloggers are saying about me, and those like me.

Just to clarify matters a bit further: As far as the ROCOR is concerned, Abp. +JOHN has said that the reason the western rite part of the Milan synod cannot join ROCOR is that the Russians do not permit western rite parishes, only monasteries. On ths matter, the ROCOR has made itself very clear upon accepting western monasteries under their protection. This is also true of most Greek Old Calendar groups, who do not permit western-rite Orthodoxy at all.

Allow me to quote Archbishop +JOHN himself on these matters, as he communicated them to me recently:

We encourage the western rite, and call all canonical western rite groups brothers. However, St. John Maximovitch only sanctioned the usage of western rites that existed prior to the schism of 1054. Therefore, we cannot accept the rites of the Anglicans as authentic representations of the early medieval era in England, that have been used in some other jurisdictions such as at Antioch. We truly accept their sacraments and support them, but cannot permit the use of a liturgy that developed much later.

And further, +JOHN states,

"Bishop [at that time, archbishop now] +HILARION of the Synod Abroad encouraged Fr. Michael Woods in Tazmania to contact me about western rite liturgics as he was applying for membership in the Synod Abroad. In fact. Fr. Michael, a man who I respect, called me about this as a result, some years ago. We spoke for a long time on liturgical issues, and parted friends. However, he does not do the Sarum rite but once a year, but does the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Following St. John, we cannot in good conscience do the old Anglican liturgy, but the Sarum rite in its fullness. Allow me to reiterate however: we do accept the grace of the sacraments of the AOC and ROCOR, and believe they are pleasing to God, but disagree over some liturgical matters that I think are important.

Fr. James of Christminster (now in Canada) and I have also corresponded, and I have gladly sent him some liturgical materials he needed. But I believe that Fr. James wants to do a version of the Roman Tridentine rite, rather than the Sarum. I am willing to co-operate however, with all western rite clergy, regardless of jurisdiction, so as to iron out our differences in a friendly and Christian spirit.

So at least, you don't just hear it from me second hand, but from Milan's western-rite hierarch himself. And I certainly encourage you to contact him if you have any more questions on these matters. Bishop +JOHN is very easy going and easy to speak with, and makes it a point to take calls and emails from those with legitimate quetions and concerns about Milan and the Sarum rite, and I certianly ask you to pray for all us as we suffer.

In Christ,

Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, Ph.D.
A wretched and arrogant sinner