What is Western About it?

“Indeed, one does not have to be an “authority on the West” in order to know that liturgical development in the West was shaped to a degree unknown in the East by various theologies, the succession of which – and the clashes of one with another – constitute western religious history. Scholasticism, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, etc., have all resulted in sometimes radical liturgical metamorphoses and all have had a decisive impact on worship. Therefore, one should speak today not of the western rite, but of western rites, deeply – if not radically – differing from one another, yet all reflecting in one way or another, the western theological tragedy and fragmentation. This does not mean that all these rites are “heretical” and simply to be condemned. It only means that, from an Orthodox point of view, their evaluation in terms merely of “deletions” and “additions” is – to say the least – inadequate. For the irony of our present situation is that while some western Christians come to Orthodoxy in order to salvage the rite they cherish ( Book of Common Prayer , Tridentine Mass, etc.) from liturgical reforms they abhor, some of these reforms, at least in abstacto , are closer to the structures and spirit of the early western rite – and thus to the Orthodox liturgical tradition – than the later rite, those precisely that the Orthodox Church is supposed to “sanction” and to “adopt.” – Father Alexander Schmemann (1920-1983) (SVTQ 24/4, 1980) The Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Issue No. 5, May 1996

Archbishop Weakland finds defects in the post-Vatican II liturgy

This is just another interesting article concerning an internal discussion of Roman Catholics on their liturgy.

The Criterion is not Recovery but the present Liturgy

Perhaps the criterion for evaluating liturgical thought is not a presumed recovery of something that died away, which assumes the neutrality or spirituality of the mind doing the recovery, but in fact the present liturgical rite as expressing the living Spirit.

“It is my deep conviction that the eastern liturgical tradition is alone today in having preserved, in spite of all historical “deficiencies”, the fullness of the Church’s lex orandi and constitutes, therefore, the criterion for all liturgical evaluations.” – Father Alexander Schmemann (1920-1983) (SVTQ 24/4, 1980) The Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Issue No. 5, May 1996

Reservations: Bishop Kallistos (Ware)

“I understand that there are “western rite” groups in the USA which are using what is basically an Anglican rite, with a Byzantine epiclesis inserted into it. I have some reservations here.

The Anglican service is in large part the work of Cranmer, who was Zwinglian in his theology (i.e., he did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist): do we make his rite “Orthodox” simply by inserting a Byzantine epiclesis? Indeed, is it right to take the Byzantine epiclesis and insert it into a western liturgical text where it does not properly belong? It is said that St. Tikhon of Moscow, while Archbishop of North America at the start of this century, blessed a rite of this sort. But how carefully was he able to examine the question? And if he were living today, would he recommend the same course? If we Orthodox are indeed to use a western rite, then there needs to be a full discussion on a pan-Orthodox level to clarify what western rite we should employ.” – Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, The Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Issue No. 5, May 1996

Unity vs. Diversity

“I will speak only of the situation in Britain, for I am not qualified to express an opinion about America. Here in Britain we Orthodox, few though we are in numbers, are fragmented into a multiplicity of “jurisdictions”; but at least we are united in the use of the same rite – the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. If a “western rite” is introduced here, it will add still further to our fragmentation. Is this desirable? . . . Is this pastorally helpful? – Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, The Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Issue No. 5, May 1996

Nothing Ethnic About Eastern Rite

Excellent Response to the Ethnicity Argument and the Cultural Argument:

“If we wish to help western persons joining Orthodoxy, the best way is to offer them the possibility of attending the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the English language. There is nothing “oriental” or “ethnic” about this Liturgy. True, it was written in Greek and not in Latin; but then Plato and Sophocles wrote in Greek, yet we recognize them as part of our shared European culture. The same is true of St. John Chrysostom. We English can feel thoroughly at home in his Liturgy – as I know from my own experience.” – Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, The Priest. A Newsletter for the Clergy of the Diocese of San Francisco. Issue No. 5, May 1996 [emphasis added]

It is reasonable to ask…

“We are now witnessing a dismantling of the traditional values and piety on which our [Roman Catholic] faith rests. Added to this state of affairs is the shocking assimilation of Protestant ideas brought into the Church under the guise of the misunderstood term ecumenism with a resulting growing estrangement from the ancient [Orthodox] Churches of the East; that is, a turning away from the common tradition that had been shared by the East and the West.”

It is reasonable to ask whether, in creating a rite specifically for those fleeing the dismantling of their confessions, we risk dismantling our own confession in the process, which has never been something shared with the heterodox over “bare essentials” of doctrine (itself a Protestant notion) which merely need a bit of help. Make no mistake, good, old-fashioned Anglican, Protestant, and Roman Catholic thinking, piety, and worship are more alien to us, than their latest innovations are to the refugees. They still have far more in common with each other, than either their ecumenist or continuing jurisdictions have with Holy Orthodoxy, and a hasty, inadequate catechesis, quick ordinations, and relatively instant mission creation without sufficient time to live the Orthodox Faith (assuming their host churches can really teach them that at all), is unfair to them, offensive to the confessions they’ve fled, and dangerous to the salvation of all involved, ourselves included.

As one current Anglican said, “If they’re going to convert to Orthodoxy, they should convert to Orthodoxy, and not just treat it as a door to remaining Anglican but without the responsibility to live in a Anglican community.”

Psychological Negativism

Fr. Alexander (Schmemann) responding to an article of Dr. Andrew Sopko: But where, in my opinion, he is wrong is in ascribing the responsibility for the forthcoming failure of the Orthodox Western rite to the Orthodox of the Byzantine rite, to their multisecular “psychological negativism” towards the West in general and the Western liturgy in particular, negativism rooted in their “ignorance of the West and its ways.” It is this sweeping indictment that I wish to challenge here, not for any “apologetical” reasons, but because it obscures, I am sure, the real issues and places the entire debate on the Western rite in a wrong perspective. [ full commentary here ]

What are the Decisive Factors?

Fr. Alexander Schmemann: Let me begin by stating that I do not deny the existence among the Eastern rite Orthodox of the “negativism” denounced by Dr. Sopko and which indeed is very often emotional and irrational. Nor would I minimize their “ignorance of the West,” although Dr. Sopko’s somewhat condescending remark deploring the absence among Orthodox theologians and scholars of “authorities on the West”(?) seems to reveal another — this time his own — ignorance. My point is simply this: however real and regrettable, these “realities” are not the decisive factors in the failure, one after another, of the various experimentations within the Orthodox Church with the Western rite. [ full article ]

Eastern and Western Rites are Already Mutually Informed

Fr. Alexander Schmemann: And he does not understand this because for him the Eastern and the Western rites are two entirely different and self-contained “blocks” ruling out, as an impure “hybridization,” all contacts and mutual influences. This, however, is wrong, first of all — historically. He should know that in a sense the entire history of Christian worship can be termed a history of constant “hybridizations,” if only this word is deprived of its “negative” connotations. Before their separation, the East and the West liturgically influenced one another for centuries. And there is no exaggeration in saying that the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom’s liturgy is infinitely “closer” to the Roman anaphora of the same period than the service of Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer is to, for example, the Tridentine Mass. [full article]