www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Interesting statements about the Western Rite

Yep, here a link.
I'm sure that some of you have already read this article, but this discussion can be interesting.
Does the Orthodox Church need the Western rite?

Sorry, the link:

an easrier one.

http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/

[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: Remie ]

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

Dear Remie,

Does the Orthodox Church need Western Rites?

Probably not. It is perhaps too ensconced in its own Eastern Rite chauvinism, as are many Eastern Catholics, to want to generally bother.

But Western Rite Orthodoxy does point to the unity of the Church before 1054 and that general union between East and West can be inspired with a vision that exists materially today.

Alex

Greetings, and Peace,

I belong to a Western Rite parish of the Antiochian Archdiocese.

I have found a little bit of this negative sentiment from my eastern bretheren, but I've found a lot of hospitality as well.

There is quite a lot of Pan-Orthodox activity here in North Texas, and we are always well received. We're grateful for the hospitality shown to us.

Things said like those in the link you posted are discouraging for us, of course. We usually just fall back on the assurance we get from our own bishops.

We're also excited about the ecumenical implications of the fact that after centuries of separation the Holy Synod of Antioch was able to recognize a couple of western expressions of Christianity as Orthodox.

I think the most troubling thing of all in the above link was the quote from Schmemman (partly because he's a hero of mine):


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.


Ouch!!

This hurts not only for me and my parish but it also hurts for all of my Roman Catholic brethren.
Does Schmemman really mean to say that the fullness of the Church's lex orandi is not preserved in Novus Ordo? Do others here believe that? Ouch!!

If that's true then the majority of Christians in the world are bereft of the Church's lex orandi.

I've loved everything else that I've read from Schmemman on this notion of 'lex orandi' but I honestly thought that it was something that could be found on both sides of the schism. Can it really? Or is it only among the Eastern Catholics that Rome fosters the fullness of the lex orandi?

I pray that God will heal us, and that I will be able to go work out my own salvation without getting too distracted by this scandal of division.

Pained,

David

Dear David,

Yes, you've put your finger on a very important matter.

We Easterners do tend to be "Eastern Chauvinists" a term coined by Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky.

He told Bl. Leonid Fyodorov to avoid being one (he was Russian you know ) and so Leonid made his profession of Catholic faith before the Tomb of St Ignatius Loyola of the Jesuits.

Is that ecumenical or what?

Fr. John made statements on this topic that I also thought bordered on this type of chauvinism, with apologies to the good man of God!

But I think that the East has engaged in so much triumphalism with respect to its "trueness" and has been separated from both West and from the Oriental Churches that this attitude is perhaps unavoidable.

One "good" thing about the Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches is that we've always been able to have a window in both directions, East and West, and know them both.

Schmemann also reacted very negatively to a former student of his, who later achieved a Ph.D., who wrote on the Anglican tradition and how it could be linked organically to Orthodoxy.

But Schmemann was all right, for the most part nevertheless .

Anyone today who criticizes Western Rite Orthodoxy should be referred to Fr. Schneirla of the Antiochian Church for a talking to . . er. . . an enlightening conversation!

Alex

My own sense is that Fr. Alexander was referring to the entirety of the Eastern lex orandi ... not simply the divine liturgy. Much of the Eastern lex orandi is contained in kontakia and troparia, and in the other liturgical services. In these areas, the Byzantine rite is "richer" in content than the present Latin rite is -- and I suspect that this is probably what he was getting at.

In any case, Fr. Schmemann was a big-time critic of everything -- both the Latin West and its influence on Orthodoxy as well as certain tendencies within Orthodoxy itself. I don't think anyone agrees with every single thing that Fr. Schmemann wrote.

Brendan

Thanks Alex and Brendan,

Yes, Fr. Schmemman was a big-time critic of things in East and West. He also had some positive things to say about the West, too however.

I just find it hard to believe, especially given the eucharistic nature of his writings, the deep commitment to joy, that he would say something that exclusive. Perhaps that is why he was convinced that Orthodoxy was IT even though he could at times be so critical of it.

I mean, really, the notion of lex orandi plays a big role in his thought. I don't care if he's talking about the Divine Liturgy plus everything else. Given what else he says about the importance of lex orandi, to say that the fullness of it is only in the east... well, it's quite a thing to say.

I still love the man, believe him to be holy and desire his prayers, but it's surprising.

David

David --

It might be surprising, but I have found that there are many surprises in his works. For example, if you read his writings about the Orthodox participation in the ecumenical dialogue -- in which he himself participated -- you will see very much the idea that Orthodoxy -- and only Orthodoxy -- is fully the Church and that the Orthodox idea in ecumenical dialogue is to bring everyone back into the fold -- not in an aggressive way, or in a Byzantinizing way, but in a patient, compassionate way. I think that's surprising, given that he was such a long-term participant in the ecumenical dialogue himself -- but there it is. I think he definitely was a convinced Orthodox Christian who believed in the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as "Church".

I think that while he also appreciated many things in the West (and was a Westerner himself, really), his critiques of the West seem more biting or stinging than his critiques of the East. I can remember reading the classic "Of Water and the Spirit" several years ago and remarking that much of his insghtful analysis --directed as it was at the so-called Latin influence in the *Orthodox* Church -- nevertheless was a scathing attack on Western views on these matters -- because he was critiquing not only the fact that Orthodox had adapted some Western usages and understandings that were proper to the West and not Orthodoxy, but rather also the substantive content of these Western usages and understandings. In all, it was quite a stinging critique of Western theology and use in many respects -- albeit, *indirectly*, because he was writing about Orthodoxy. I think when you look at that and reflect on it, the lex orandi comment noted above makes more sense -- or at least seems less out of place with the remainder of his oevre.

Brendan

Dear David,

Its funny you should mention Fr. Schmemann's intercession!

I included a quote from him in my doctoral dissertation and, to this day, believe his intercession helped me get through my oral exam.

And it was a quote from his book on the Eucharist. An agnostic professor was so intrigued by his discussion of "symbol" and "reality" that he asked that I include it in the body of my dissertation.

That was the only amendment I needed to make and the whole thing was the main point of interest in my two-hour ordeal .

Fr. Schmemann was also critical of the canonization of Pontius Pilate as a saint in the Ethiopian Church.

There was just no keeping the man happy .

But, with all due respect to Brendan the Theologian and all you (Eastern) Orthodox Christians, I think the temptation to Eastern chauvinism is just too great in this matter.

I don't blame youz guyz in the East since the Eastern Church is so beautiful.

But the Western Tridentine, Sarum, Milanese, Gallican, Mozarabic and other Rites are just as beautiful and fruitful in holiness as the Eastern Rites.

Perhaps we Easterners just need to get out (to the Western Churches) more . . .

I remember reading about how, when a Western Bishop died, the monks in his diocese were obligated to recite the Psalter 600 times for the repose of his soul.

And that takes a while . . .

What holiness!

Alex

I just don't know how to respond to this.
It is clear to me that Fr. Alexander could only have said these things about the Lex Orandi if he believed, as Brendan says, that the Orthodox Churches are uniquely the Church.

I love my church. I do. But am I convinced that it is uniquely the church? No, I'm not convinced of that and I never have been. I used to try to figure out which church was uniquely the church but kinda gave up on that, opting instead to leave it up tho the hierarchs to sort things out and fix this division which is obviously sinful.
I guess I have since the time of my chrismation just operated on some sort of "two lung" theory.

Is this acceptable?

Is there an ecclesiology that can make sense of Orthodoxy being the church but not uniquely the church?

Am I out of bounds holding this view as an Orthodox Christian?

My priest assures me that I have no obligation to believe that the Roman Church is inauthentic or illegitimate in any way.

I'm not trying to go over his head or anything (I'll still give him the last word), but I'm interested in your opinions on these questions.

Peace,

David

Dear David,

As an Orthodox Christian, you certainly don't have to believe that the West is totally "out of it."

To hold that the Orthodox Church is not uniquely "the Church" seems to mean that you are on the way to becoming a Catholic .

And you are always welcome, brother!!

But the fact is that there is a break between East and West.

I know I am out of Communion with my Orthodox brothers and sisters and that brings me pain.

And I believe that this is not God's Will for His Church.

Religious faith is a matter of personal conviction, to be sure. But we need to be understanding of others who don't share the Truth as we do .

That is because religious faith has the component of interpretation built into it and that is the wild-card. Brendan can look at the historic church documents on the Papacy and come to the conclusion that the Roman Church is wrong about the Pope.

I can look at the same documents, say this is right, the other is over-blown (you should hear my RC friends!), but, overall, the papacy needs reform, but I'll stay with it nevertheless.

I also believe that the Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches share in the same fullness, even though we are not in union yet (we have Rites though! ).

My problem is that I don't see how a Council, or a theological term can or should send division through the Church. That happens, but I believe the Catholic Church has become more understanding of historical processes, reasons behind why people excommunicated each other as well as sensitive to the fact that the other Churches have basically the same truth and Apostolic reality as it does.

I don't say that there is completely no difference or that we are not really separated - only that it really isn't such a big deal after all.

If that makes me a relativist, at least I feel at peace with God and ecclesial history.

We pray for the unity of Christ's Church and I believe the Western Rites in Orthodoxy are an expression not only of a unity that was formerly in existence, but they are there as a promise of a future unity that is already in the making as we write to each other.

This will happen in God's way, not ours.

May He Who prayed that all may be One, even as the Father and He are one, bring us to that unity.

Alex

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

The fact is that the Eastern Church never denied the orthodoxy of the Latin Rite or refused to accept it(except azyma but this is a different thing). Recently the creation of the western rite vicariate in the Antiochian Church brought this discussion again.
The situation of the anglican rite is more complex because it has nothing to do woth the ancient rites of the church.
And yes, I think that the actitude of the Greek Bishop is very chauvinist�� when he says that Orthodox priests must try to avoid contact with the western rite.

But Alex, *we* are the Eastern Church too, and even more so...don't believe me? Look at a map, and you'll realise why we call the Byzantine Churches "Western" right along with the Latins!

And amend the above to read "Byzantine (or Constantinopolitan or Eastern Chalcedonian or whatever) chauvinism". We've got too many rites to unilaterally feel chauvinistic about one or the other, unlike you guys. :p

Dear Catholicos,

So amended!

Alex