Questions for SST

[FrRobSST]

iwonder:

The SST is a relatively new Church formed with similarities to the Orthodox. They deny Papal infallibly as no one man in the chair of Peter can speak infallibly for God. Since they believe this, they also deny Christ. Incarnate, Christ as a man, spoke for God. Infallibly. Therefore, who knows who they are?

Sadly, this is a gross misrepresentation of both our viewpoint and the doctrine of the Incarnation.

The Synod of Saint Timothy is a synodical fellowship within the Church founded by Christ and built upon the foundation of the Apostles. We are not a Church, we are a Synod.

It is correct that we deny the concept of both infalliblity and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, mainly because we see no biblical or patristic evidence for either case to be made.

We do not deny Christ. Christ was incarnate, as the Creed states, God of God, and incarnate of the virgin Mary and made man. Jesus the Christ, our Messiah, is true God and True man (this is the doctrine of the hypostatic union) and thus I would reject your claim that we reject Christ. We do not. JEsus Christ, while on earth, was Immanuel, God with us. He took on our flesh, but never did he reject or sunder himself from his godhead. He was God with us. Peter was not, thus we do not view him as infalliable in matters of faith and morals.

Rob+

 

[FrRobSST]

iwonder:

I guess a more appropriate question is who knows what manner of Christians these are?
Peter denied Christ three times. Judas betrayed Him. Both are Christians. So, you say the SST are Christians? I ask what manner of Christian? They have already denied the Pope in the Chair of Peter as Christ’s successor. So now what type of Christian are we talking about?

Christ does not have a successor, for no-one need or could succeed him in his redemptive work. According to the teachings of the Church united with Rome, the soverign Roman Pontiff is the vicar of Christ, not the Successor of Christ. To be a vicar is to be a spokesperson for an individual who is absent. The term Vicar was popularlly used in english in England to describe a parish priest. He was the vicar of his bishop.

We acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter, just as we acknowledge the Bishop of Antioch (of which there is now nearly 15 or 16) to be the successors of Peter. But we also recongize in Christian history that not all bishops have been either successors of or fully united with the successor at Rome of Peter. This has occured for many reasons.

Sadly, we are not in Communion with Rome, but we join with our Brothers in Sisters who are in praying for the day when the dream of John Paul II and the current Roman Pontiff will come to fruition, and we will again be united in the bonds of fraternal charity and intercommunion.

Rob+

 

[FrRobSST]

MrS:

Personnally, and perhaps a bit bluntly, I think a Christian either is or is not a Christian…

IS, if they not only believe in Christ, not only follow His teachings, but also accept everything, everything, He gave to us (sacraments, Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium etc etc etc)

IS NOT, if they deny even one teaching.

Guess that puts our separated brethren on real shaky ground… can they even think of calling themselves Christian if they, for example, deny John 6:

or Matthew 16:18

or if they choose their own interpretations of Romans etc…

I say no.

It is my belief that if an individual can profess the Nicene Creed, the same creed you profess at Mass in the Latin Rite, every Sunday (without the Filioque, as it is not a part of the original version of the Creed) then you are a Christian.

This is also the stated belief of our Synod.

Rob+

 

[iwonder]

MrS:

Personnally, and perhaps a bit bluntly, I think a Christian either is or is not a Christian…

IS, if they not only believe in Christ, not only follow His teachings, but also accept everything, everything, He gave to us (sacraments, Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium etc etc etc)

IS NOT, if they deny even one teaching.

Guess that puts our separated brethren on real shaky ground… can they even think of calling themselves Christian if they, for example, deny John 6:

or Matthew 16:18

or if they choose their own interpretations of Romans etc…

I say no.

Notice the title- Non Catholic Religions. Under that we have: LDS, Islam, and Eastern Orthodox. Why everyone insists the Orthodox are not Protestants is beyond me. Maybe because they claim they are Catholic. But there is a reason Orthodox is placed under non catholic religions.

 

[MrS]

FrRobSST:

It is my belief that if an individual can profess the Nicene Creed, the same creed you profess at Mass in the Latin Rite, every Sunday (without the Filioque, as it is not a part of the original version of the Creed) then you are a Christian.

This is also the stated belief of our Synod.

Rob+

would that then eliminate non-Catholics from being “Christian”?

 

[iwonder]

FrRobSST:

Sadly, this is a gross misrepresentation of both our viewpoint and the doctrine of the Incarnation.

The Synod of Saint Timothy is a synodical fellowship within the Church founded by Christ and built upon the foundation of the Apostles. We are not a Church, we are a Synod.

It is correct that we deny the concept of both infalliblity and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, mainly because we see no biblical or patristic evidence for either case to be made.

We do not deny Christ. Christ was incarnate, as the Creed states, God of God, and incarnate of the virgin Mary and made man. Jesus the Christ, our Messiah, is true God and True man (this is the doctrine of the hypostatic union) and thus I would reject your claim that we reject Christ. We do not. JEsus Christ, while on earth, was Immanuel, God with us. He took on our flesh, but never did he reject or sunder himself from his godhead. He was God with us. Peter was not, thus we do not view him as infalliable in matters of faith and morals.

Rob+

x

You like Scripture don’t you.
“He who denies you, denies me.”
“Peter-the Rock”
“Feed my sheep”
“You will deny me three times.”
To name a few.
but never the less, since you claim the Pope is not infallible, ex cathedra, (ex cathedra a fine point for he has the support of the Church in this,) for the reasons stated above, for you say Peter was not God with us, than apparently God is not now with you, and you are subject to gross error, yourself. And if God is not with you, according to your distinctions between Christ and Peter outlined above, then Christ is not with you as well. For if Christ was with you, then he would be with Peter as well. Which would of course nullify your argument altogether.So again, according to your definitions above of God Incarnate and Peter- please explain what makes your Synod Christian?

 

[FrRobSST]

iwonder:

xbut never the less, since you claim the Pope is not infallible, ex cathedra, (ex cathedra a fine point for he has the support of the Church in this,) for the reasons stated above, for you say Peter was not God with us, than apparently God is not now with you, and you are subject to gross error, yourself. And if God is not with you, according to your distinctions between Christ and Peter outlined above, then Christ is not with you as well. For if Christ was with you, then he would be with Peter as well. Which would of course nullify your argument altogether.So again, according to your definitions above of God Incarnate and Peter- please explain what makes your Synod Christian?

You do yourself and all of your brothers and sisters a great injustice. I have NEVER seen any document issued by the Vatican which states that Peter himself or any of his successors at Rome have been “God with us”.

To even intimate such a belief is quite an assult on the unique nature of Jesus Christ, sinless, true God and true Man. There is NO ONE ELSE who fits that bill.

Please, IWonder, PLEASE… I ask you for your own sake to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church… you will not find a single reference to Saint Peter the Apostle as “God with us”. He is the Vicar of Christ in the teaching of the Churches in union with Rome… even the dogmatic proclamation of Papal Infallibility states that the Roman Pontiff is infallaible only in matters of faith and morals… Jesus was infalliable in ALL things as is God. To state that Peter is a fresh incarnation of Immanuel (God with us) is dangerous and contrary to the faith of the Churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff… and it only further serves to drive wedges between Christians.

Rob+

 

[FrRobSST]

MrS:

would that then eliminate non-Catholics from being “Christian”?

It depends. The word Catholic means universal, which means holding to the faith once delivered to the saints and worshipping in that faith and ecclesial body.

However, when the other articles of the Creeds are invalidated, people go from being catholic christians to being gnostic christians.

Eventually, especially in our era, many gnostic christians just pass Christianity and head to gnosticisim.

For example, I work with a Nazarene. He professes the Nicene Creed. While I wouldn’t shove the Body and Blood of our Savior down his throat, I will acknowledge him as a Christian.

I work with another individual who is a Oneness Pentecostal. He does not believe in the Trinity, but does follow Jesus’ teachings (though in a rather warped manner at times). I would consider him a gnostic with his Christianity in doubt because I don’t really think he worships the same God I do (I worship a Triune God, Father, Son, Spirit… he does not).

Does that help give perspective?

Rob+

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

FrRobSST:

We do not believe any one local has jurisdiction over any other local Church, thus we do not accept the claim of universal jurisdiction of any Church. Such a claim is not supported by the scriptures of by the most ancient traditions of the Church which state that where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. We believe that the College of Bishops in apostolic succession are the earthly authority of the Church, mirroring the conciliar arrangement seen in the Acts of the Apostles. Within the Church there are rites, synods, districts, etc… but they are of human origin, not necessary for salvation … what is necessary is following the apostolic model of having a bishop, who with his deacons and presbyters ministers to the needs of the people. These bishops are in the apostolic succession, or else they are not bishops. Local Churches choose to recognize each other in the bonds of communion. Those churches united to the Roman Pontiff are united in Communion with an acceptance of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. OUr Churches are united in communion with an acceptance of conciliar goverment.

What you say has a ring of truth to it but it ingores the fact that the way the Church is structured today is an aberration.

There is rightly, going by the ancient Church, one bishop per city. Dioceses/Eparchies do not extend into the territory of another one.

Also no Synod of Bishops (how many bishops do you have anyways) has ever just appeared out of no where.

So this goes back to what my question was getting at, where do you get your authority?

I am a bit confused about your statement here, can you clarify?

A vagante Church in Orthodoxy is a Church with no canonicity. In essence, your made up and can not truely trace your Church back to any part of the True Church.

Yes. All clergy may be married, provided the spouse consents to their ordination or the bishop gives a dispensation. We vow to be chaste, not celibate. Some clergy may take, however, a self-imposed vow of celibacy.

The idea of a married episcopacy was abandoned along time ago in the Church.

Not only did you create your own Church but you went so far as to create a new liturgy for it. This is why I see you as a new group and not the extension of the True Church.

 

[FrRobSST]

ByzCath:

What you say has a ring of truth to it but it ingores the fact that the way the Church is structured today is an aberration.

And we do not believe that the abberation should be continued.

So this goes back to what my question was getting at, where do you get your authority?

From our Constitution:
8. We acknowledge that the authority of this Synod is derived from Christ, the head of all things to the Church, and we declare that this Synod shall have jurisdiction in matters of faith and morals, insofar as the law of Christ allows, within those ministries and congregations that have freely chosen to associate with us.

A vagante Church in Orthodoxy is a Church with no canonicity. In essence, your made up and can not truely trace your Church back to any part of the True Church.

While a bishop would need to give you more direct lineages, I can say that we all have tracings back through Roman, Byzantine, Oriental, and Coptic lines of Apostolic Succession.

The idea of a married episcopacy was abandoned along time ago in the Church.

Which does not change the fact that the Scriptures and Ancient Tradition permit it.

Not only did you create your own Church but you went so far as to create a new liturgy for it. This is why I see you as a new group and not the extension of the True Church.

This isn’t really the place to get into a lengthy discussion on Liturgy, but at one point there was no fixed liturgy, each local church followed a framework.

Our having our own rites is no different than the Latin Rite having a rite, the Byzantine Rite having a rite, etc.

Rob+

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

FrRobSST:

And we do not believe that the abberation should be continued.

Yet you continue it.

While a bishop would need to give you more direct lineages, I can say that we all have tracings back through Roman, Byzantine, Oriental, and Coptic lines of Apostolic Succession.

While I understand the lineage idea, I still have trouble buying into the irregular creation of bishops outside of a Church and a true jurisdiction in order to create a Church.

This isn’t really the place to get into a lengthy discussion on Liturgy, but at one point there was no fixed liturgy, each local church followed a framework.

This is true, but why was a new rite created?

Our having our own rites is no different than the Latin Rite having a rite, the Byzantine Rite having a rite, etc.

True again, but these rites can trace back to ancient times in the Church. From my glance at yours on the web site it appears to be something new, something cobbled together, not a rite that has been around for a long time.

 

[gelsbern]

ByzCath:

Yet you continue it.

This is in regards to your earlier statement of

There is rightly, going by the ancient Church, one bishop per city. Dioceses/Eparchies do not extend into the territory of another one.

I think there is a miscommunications. The Synod holds to the idea of one bishop per city, or possibly a metropolitan area. The only time a bishop might have temporary jurisdiction in an area outside his city/metropolitan area is when there is a presbyter in a different city who is not yet met the requirements for the episcopate, since a priest cannot operate without a bishop. Once the presbyter meets the requirements for the episcopate and is consecrated a bishop, then the jurisdiction of the other bishop ceases.

While I understand the lineage idea, I still have trouble buying into the irregular creation of bishops outside of a Church and a true jurisdiction in order to create a Church.

Again we did not create a Church, Christ created THE Church. With that being said the jurisdiction for the creation of a Synod and the consecration of bishops comes through the episcopate. St. Ignatius of Antioch (which by the way is what we model our governance by) stated “Wheresoever, the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”

 

[FrRobSST]

ByzCath:

Yet you continue it.

No, we don’t. One bishop per area, unless there is a very specific need. Deacon Greg’s post is right on in this regard.

While I understand the lineage idea, I still have trouble buying into the irregular creation of bishops outside of a Church and a true jurisdiction in order to create a Church.

I don’t have all the documentation at hand myself to explain everything, I am just a presbyter. One of our bishops would be better suited to explain, but in short, several of the bishops were granted autocephaly by their consecrating bodies. Further, our understanding of authority is different than Rome. We look to no single authority, we look to a council of bishops. Our bishops are recognized by other bishops in other Synods, and we are all in communion with one another.

This is true, but why was a new rite created?

Because there is no reason not to create one. It is not necessary that all Christians in all places should employ the same liturgy. So long as the Liturgy expounds on the truths of our faith, and follows a general framework of repentance, instruction, intercession, and eucharist… it is a valid liturgy (we do require certain things, an explicit invocation of the Spirit on the elements in all seven sacraments, etc…).

True again, but these rites can trace back to ancient times in the Church. From my glance at yours on the web site it appears to be something new, something cobbled together, not a rite that has been around for a long time.

I can trace back pretty much everything in our rite to a preceeding rite. I have enough liturgy books at home and in my office to bury a small child. The range from ancient Greek to modern English… we actually have a Western Rite and an Eastern Rite (new versions will be posted in July on our site) that both can be traced back in their elements to the Patristic era.

Rob+

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you Father Deacon Greg and Father Rob for your patience and replies.

FrRobSST:

No, we don’t. One bishop per area, unless there is a very specific need. Deacon Greg’s post is right on in this regard.

Think you misunderstand what I am saying.

Where your bishop is there is already a Latin Catholic Bishop, a Byzantine Catholic Bishop, a Melkite Catholic Bishop, a Ukrainian Catholic Bishop, a Maronite Catholic Bishop, and a number of bishops from the various Orthodox Churches. This is the aberation I am talking about,

I don’t have all the documentation at hand myself to explain everything, I am just a presbyter. One of our bishops would be better suited to explain, but in short, several of the bishops were granted autocephaly by their consecrating bodies. Further, our understanding of authority is different than Rome. We look to no single authority, we look to a council of bishops. Our bishops are recognized by other bishops in other Synods, and we are all in communion with one another.

Ok, thank you for spelling this out, it makes some sense.

Because there is no reason not to create one. It is not necessary that all Christians in all places should employ the same liturgy. So long as the Liturgy expounds on the truths of our faith, and follows a general framework of repentance, instruction, intercession, and eucharist… it is a valid liturgy (we do require certain things, an explicit invocation of the Spirit on the elements in all seven sacraments, etc…).

I can trace back pretty much everything in our rite to a preceeding rite. I have enough liturgy books at home and in my office to bury a small child. The range from ancient Greek to modern English… we actually have a Western Rite and an Eastern Rite (new versions will be posted in July on our site) that both can be traced back in their elements to the Patristic era.

Ok, I can understand this, even if (at this time) I do not agree with it.

While you may be able to trace everything within your rite to a preceeding rite, it seems to me that it is a cobbleing together of elements from various different rites into one, that is something that just doesn’t right right to me.

But then as you say your just a presbyter, at present I am just an applicant hopeing to be accepted into the pre-noviate.

 

[FrRobSST]

ByzCath:

Thank you Father Deacon Greg and Father Rob for your patience and replies.

No problem. The internet is a great blessing, and it will truly help the cause of Christian unity. Likewise, I think I speak for Deacon Greg when I say that we appreciate both the candor and the charity in your posts.

Where your bishop is there is already a Latin Catholic Bishop, a Byzantine Catholic Bishop, a Melkite Catholic Bishop, a Ukrainian Catholic Bishop, a Maronite Catholic Bishop, and a number of bishops from the various Orthodox Churches. This is the aberation I am talking about,

True, and our view is that each parish church should be pastored by a bishop, regardless of rite, unless there simply is no possible way to properly consecrate a bishop (age, inavilibility of a proper candidate, etc…). A good way to look at is is taking the town I live in as an example.

In town we have two Latin Rite parishes in union with Rome and a hospital that is run at least on paper by the Latin Rite Sisters of the Holy Cross. St. Mary’s serves the Ironwood neighborhood and has about 2500 families on it’s roster. St. Ambrose serves the Speedway neighborhood, and has a roster of 2100 families (these figures are from 1994, they may have changed). The hospital is in close vicinity to Ironwood. I live just outside the city limits, so for arguments sake, let’s say I pastored a parish in my neighborhood, my parish would serve the Indian Mounds neighborhood.

Now, by one method of madness, both Latin Rite parishes would be pastored by bishops, the congregation I was a part of should have a bishop, and the hospital should be served by a priest of the nearest parish (or, by agreement of the bishops, by priests from all three). Note, this scenario implies that Rome and us were in full communion. Another alternative would be that one of the parishes would be a cathedral and that the bishop would celebrate Sunday Mass at the Cathedral and that the other parishes would provide supplemental masses on weekdays only. The parish that was a cathedral would be pastored by the Bishop directly, as would the outlying parishes, but daily mass at those outlying parishes would be celebrated by presbyters.

That would be in a perfect world… alas, ours is fallen.

While you may be able to trace everything within your rite to a preceeding rite, it seems to me that it is a cobbleing together of elements from various different rites into one, that is something that just doesn’t right right to me.

But that is what the Latin Rite is. Elements of the Mass of Pius V were taken from various sources. The Latin rite itself did not have a single rite (really still does not) until the publication of the 1580 Missale Romanum (I think I have my date right). Each diocese in England had their own redaction of the Mass, each just that much different than the other. The Latin Rite itself includes elements of the Liturgy of St. Hippolytus, material adapted from the Didache, items from the Eastern Liturgy, stuff imported from North Africa, etc. There were also a great deal of Latin rite version… there is the Gallacian Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic, the Sarum, etc, etc, etc.

All liturgy as we have it today, either in Latin or the Vernacular, is cobbled together from ancient sources.

But then as you say your just a presbyter, at present I am just an applicant hopeing to be accepted into the pre-noviate.

Best wishes… if it is OK, I shall be in prayer for your vocation.

Rob+

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

FrRobSST:

No problem. The internet is a great blessing, and it will truly help the cause of Christian unity. Likewise, I think I speak for Deacon Greg when I say that we appreciate both the candor and the charity in your posts.

Thank you, sometimes I wonder if my posts are charitable.

True, and our view is that each parish church should be pastored by a bishop, regardless of rite, unless there simply is no possible way to properly consecrate a bishop (age, inavilibility of a proper candidate, etc…). A good way to look at is is taking the town I live in as an example.

In town we have two Latin Rite parishes in union with Rome and a hospital that is run at least on paper by the Latin Rite Sisters of the Holy Cross. St. Mary’s serves the Ironwood neighborhood and has about 2500 families on it’s roster. St. Ambrose serves the Speedway neighborhood, and has a roster of 2100 families (these figures are from 1994, they may have changed). The hospital is in close vicinity to Ironwood. I live just outside the city limits, so for arguments sake, let’s say I pastored a parish in my neighborhood, my parish would serve the Indian Mounds neighborhood.

Now, by one method of madness, both Latin Rite parishes would be pastored by bishops, the congregation I was a part of should have a bishop, and the hospital should be served by a priest of the nearest parish (or, by agreement of the bishops, by priests from all three). Note, this scenario implies that Rome and us were in full communion. Another alternative would be that one of the parishes would be a cathedral and that the bishop would celebrate Sunday Mass at the Cathedral and that the other parishes would provide supplemental masses on weekdays only. The parish that was a cathedral would be pastored by the Bishop directly, as would the outlying parishes, but daily mass at those outlying parishes would be celebrated by presbyters.

That would be in a perfect world… alas, ours is fallen.

Yes that is how it was in the very early Church but the sheer numbers of parishes I think would preclude a bishop in each parish.

But that is what the Latin Rite is. Elements of the Mass of Pius V were taken from various sources. The Latin rite itself did not have a single rite (really still does not) until the publication of the 1580 Missale Romanum (I think I have my date right). Each diocese in England had their own redaction of the Mass, each just that much different than the other. The Latin Rite itself includes elements of the Liturgy of St. Hippolytus, material adapted from the Didache, items from the Eastern Liturgy, stuff imported from North Africa, etc. There were also a great deal of Latin rite version… there is the Gallacian Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic, the Sarum, etc, etc, etc.

All liturgy as we have it today, either in Latin or the Vernacular, is cobbled together from ancient sources.

Yes that is true about the Mass in the Latin Church but I do not think that the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is such a thing.

Best wishes… if it is OK, I shall be in prayer for your vocation.

I never turn down prayers! I will pray for you and your Synod also. if that is OK.

 

[Steve_Green]

This actually sounds like a form of a new conservative episcopalisn church trying to get around the papal thing while trying to be married, while trying not to be to obstructive to women, while not trying to be too hard on adherents (no obligatory Sunday mass) while trying to be all things to all people (note the different liturgies borrowed from East and West) .

It really, when you think about it comes down to authority. Rejection of the pope of Rome or not. Did Jesus establish a church on the person of Peter or not? I say yes period. The schismatics say yes kindof sorta, you choose .

 

[FrRobSST]

Steve Green:

This actually sounds like a form of a new conservative episcopalisn church trying to get around the papal thing while trying to be married, while trying not to be to obstructive to women, while not trying to be too hard on adherents (no obligatory Sunday mass) while trying to be all things to all people (note the different liturgies borrowed from East and West) .

Hrm… well, kinda hard to edit through all this, but where on earth do you get the idea that we don’t have our people going to Sunday Mass? All Christians are expected to attend the Eucharist on all Sundays and Solemnities unless prevented by legitimate cause.

And trying to be all things to all people? Not sure what that is about. We found those things that best fit our viewpoint and made it a part of our Liturgy. We have a lot of eastern views… especially on Sacramental theology… so it makes sense that we have an epiclesis.

Your own Roman Liturgy after Vatican II borrowed a bit from the east. Now every Eucharistic Prayer has a fairly specific epiclesis, that’s pretty eastern to me. The Kyrie is the remnant of the full Litany of Entrance (similar to the one used at the beginning of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom).

In fact, since Rome has not demanded conformity within the Latin Rite (there are subrites, the Ambrosian, the Mozarabic, the Anglican use, some religious orders have their own rites, at least they did) and has embraced the East, theology and liturgy… it seems to me that Rome itself is equally as guilty as we are of trying to be all things to all people. I think Saint Paul had something to say about that

It really, when you think about it comes down to authority. Rejection of the pope of Rome or not. Did Jesus establish a church on the person of Peter or not? I say yes period. The schismatics say yes kindof sorta, you choose .

We say that he established the Church upon the foundation of the Apostolic College, which survives today in the Episcopal College, that being all validly consecrated bishops in Apostolic Succession who uphold the moral values and adhere to the faith expressed in the Nicene Creed.

Rob+

 

[FrRobSST]

ByzCath:

Thank you, sometimes I wonder if my posts are charitable.

Yes, ByzCath, they are… and I would gladly buy you a cup of coffee and tell you that to your face.

Yes that is how it was in the very early Church but the sheer numbers of parishes I think would preclude a bishop in each parish.

Not really. Everyone who is now a parish pastor would be a bishop. That simple. The ultimate power of the Keys rests in the Bishops of the Church. They excommunicate and return to fellowship. They should know everyone under their jurisdiction well, and should be able to justly make decisions regarding Church discipline.

Yes that is true about the Mass in the Latin Church but I do not think that the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is such a thing.

I highly recommend the standard, “The Shape of the Liturgy” by Dom Gregory Dix, OSB, for an outstanding history of the Liturgy. I also recommend “Prayers of the Eucharist” by Jasper and Cuming to see the way the various liturgical and verbal elements came together both in east and west. The various eastern rites share a lot in common, as do the western rites, and both have slightly different styles that take into account their origins. The Eastern Rites have more semitic influences, and the semitic influence is more strongly felt in the ANtiochean liturgies than the Byzantine ones. At the same time, the Byzantine Liturgy has derivatives from earlier liturgies. Another good book on the subject os Fr. Robert Taft, S.J.'s history of the Liturgy of the Hours titled “Liturgy of the Hours in the East and West”.

I never turn down prayers! I will pray for you and your Synod also. if that is OK.

We’ll take the prayers… and let us both pray for an end to the divisions that are in the Church… may we indeed all be one as God is one!

Your servant,
Rob+