www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West universal rite?

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago made the following comments at a recent meeting of the Catholic bishops (Roman church).

"In the fifth chapter of Liturgiam authenticam there's an extraordinary claim made about the Roman Rite. It states that the Roman Rite has a singular "capacity for assimilating into itself spoken and sung texts, gestures and rites derived from the customs and the genius of diverse nations and particular churches ... into a harmonious unity that transcends the boundaries of any single region". There are many people, not only liturgists but anthropologists and others, who would say there's no such thing as a universal cultural artifact. But that claim is made for the Roman Rite - only if, however, the presupposition is also valid: namely, that the development of such a rite as a cultural artifact is in constant conversation with every culture that is developed in, in our case, the two-thousand-year old history of the rite."

My question to the posters here is how do you regard the Byzantine rite(s) as far as being adaptive to diverse cultures? I have followed the discussions on this board from evangelization to theology to liturgy. It seems that the ethnic question - or more broadly the "Eastern v. Western" mindset problem, keeps coming up as an obstacle. Is Orthodox/Byzantine praxis capable of further inculturation? Or is it only for "our" people [I mean no disrespect, I'm Slavic with a Rusyn mother even though I am in the Latin church].

P.S. You'll note that I specified Roman church in the beginning of this post as regards the USCCB meeting. Does anyone know if the Eastern prelates in union with Rome also attend? Do they have their own meeting? What of the Orthodox who are not in union with the Holy See, do they have a similar meeting?

Benedictine:

Yes, the Eastern Bishops attend and do have a voice, but they do not vote on anything particular to the Latin Church.

The Byzantine Rite has demonstrated a remarkable flexibility to adapt to the culture in which it finds itself. This Rite is already used in over 100 different languages and every continent (except Antarctica -- and it was used once there for the US Navy!).

What characterized the Latin Rite was its lack of inculturation! No matter where you went the language and usage was identical! Of course, this caused some significant problems (in japan, for example, white is a sign of mourning, and using it for joyful celebrations was culturally jarring). With the advent of Vatican II the Latin Rite has demonstrated a greater awareness of the need for ritual enculturation. Of course, the fact that permission had been given to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in Chinese in the 1700s was remarkable (it never happened, BTW). Similarly, the Latin Church gave Cyril and Methodius permission to use whatever language was locally acceptable when they were working with the Slavs (at that time Latin was normative).

Even so, the existence of multiple Rites within the Church speaks of the need to be open to the various cultural demands and suggests that universal rite" would be neither universal nor right.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Benedictine --

As Fr. Ed has pointed out, the quote posted is quite ironic -- I guess perceptions in the Latin Church have come full circle, at least perhaps somewhat.

Historically, the Latin Rite was just that -- the *Latin* rite, in Latin *only*, and therefore linguistically the same throughout the world, in every culture. The spread of the Latin Rite was not a case of inculturation, but a case of (forced) adoption of Latin culture wherever it went. In the Byzantine Churches, a different tack was taken from very beginning, with local languages being used for liturgical celebrations, and a true attempt, therefore, at bringing the rite to the local people, in terms that meshed, at least linguistically, with their culture. Therefore, to me at least, it's somewhat humorous to read the suggestion that the Latin Rite is somehow more adaptive -- if anything, in the course of history, it has been much less so than the Byzantine Rite.

Rite and culture are linked -- there is a religious culture that goes together with a particular rite. In the case of the Byzantines, although they translated and adopted other local elements when conducting missionary work among the Slavs, nevertheless the Byzantine religious culture (which was itself the heir to a wondrous blend of different elements, it was a coalescence or synthesis itself) became a part of the national life of Russia, Serbia, etc. In the case of these countries, which then became virtually 100% Orthodox Christian, the *entire* culture, political/social, etc., became influenced by Byzantine culture -- not just religious culture -- although these other Byzantine cultural values were largely transmitted through the Church. That was, therefore, the model that the Byzantine Rite followed -- adaptive to local customs and languages, but nonetheless importing a good deal of Byzantine culture.

Today, of course, the model has to be different. Evangleization is not taking place in countries that will become 100% Orthodox. Therefore, the *other* cultural values that could be characterized as "Byzantine", are not really translateable (nor should they be translated), for example, in North America. The cultural elements that are translateable are the Byzantine religious cultural elements -- which can be utilized in any culture. The tough part comes in discerning what elements should be translateable into the local culture (if that culture is not an Orthodox culture) and what elements should not be -- and to a certain extent this involves a discernment of what elements of the local culture are compatible with Orthodoxy and which ones are not. We know that the extremes of complete assimilation and complete disassociation are to be avoided -- but beyond that, there is much disagreement about where the balance should be struck.

The Latin Rite is largely in the same boat in countries like the USA that are not 'Catholic culture' countries. I would rather see more commonality in this respect than difference -- with perhaps the main difference being that the post-Vatican-II Latin Rite has made assimilation much more possible (certainly not mandated or a foregone conclusion .. but easier) than it was before.

Brendan

Dear Friends,

When we even refer to the "Byzantine" Rite or patrimony, we are already actually referring to a spiritual-cultural amalgam of three traditions: Latin, Greek and Slavic.

The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition was and is a great "inculturator."

When St Volodymyr/Vladimir baptized Rus', the Byzantine Churchmen went to work to adapt the new faith to the culture of the Eastern Slavs e.g. by extending the Book of Needs to include many blessings for the daily work and life of the people. There are four blessings, for example, for beekeepers etc.

A good example of this occurred in 1815 in San Francisco when the Spanish took over California from the Russians. An Orthodox Aleutian convert, Peter, refused to become Catholic on the grounds he was already baptized an Orthodox Christian.

When told he was in schism and needed to be brought to the Catholic Church, he maintained his faith and suffered martyrdom for it.

Even at that early stage of Christian development, the Orthodox Church had become culturally intimate with the Aleutian and other peoples of Alaska.

However, it would be wrong to say that the Byzantine Church did not impose its rite on other peoples who were used to other traditions. That is a blight on our history.

The Russians imposed their traditions on Georgians, Ukrainians etc. via spiritual Russification. Then there was the matter of Hellenization . . .

I guess no one's perfect, eh?

Merry Christmas!

p.s. Brendan, do individual parishes of the OCA celebrate according to the true, er, old calendar?

If you celebrate according to the new calendar, why couldn't your celebration of the Theophany on the 6th be a kind of Armenian Christmas?

I am just a little concerned about you guys' cultural roots, that's all . . .

Alex

Good discussion!

Here's another salient quote from LA (Liturigicam Authenicam):

"This characteristic is particularly evident in its [the Roman Rite's]orations, which exhibit a capacity to transcend the limits of their original situation so as to become the prayers of Christians in any time or place. In preparing all translations of the liturgical books, the greatest care is to be taken to maintain the identity and unitary expression of the Roman Rite, not as a sort of historical monument, but rather as a manifestation of the theological realities of ecclesial communion and unity. The work of inculturation, of which the translation into vernacular languages is a part, is not therefore to be considered an avenue for the creation of new varieties or families of rites; on the contrary, it should be recognized that any adaptations introduced out of cultural or pastoral necessity thereby become part of the Roman Rite, and are to be inserted into it in a harmonious way."

Do any agree with this? Can the prayers of a particular Rite "transcend" time & place to become the prayers of a new group of people? And just so you don't misunderstand me and conclude that I am a gusher for all things Roman - can the same be said of the Byzantine Rite(s)? I believe so. That is why I, an American raised Roman Catholic find the Divine Liturgy meaningful. Some would claim that this is only due to my Slavic heritage which sort of predisposes me. In fact one of my liturgy professors unkindly dismisses the Eastern rites as "holy babble" and he is not surprised that disgruntled RC traditionalists are flocking to Byzantine churches since they replicate the "bad old days" of Trindentine liturgics (his opinion, not mine!). Some liturgists believes that old rites are time bound, that new ones and new sacraments need to be fashioned to speak to contemporary people (see my comments in the thread entitled "salvation events in the divine liturgy" on this BBS).

It seems to me that this would forstall any adoption of Eastern or traditional Western Christianity as far as evangelization is concerned. Instead a new form of worship is called for.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Benedictine,

I suspect that there are many "liturgists" who would agree with your instructor, sorry to say. Yet, it is just this flippant approach to liturgics that really does distress more serious minded seekers. It is easy to see through many of these innovations as just another form of advertizement. (Then again, perhaps, that's all this cultural anti-culture we call America, is.) Are we simply a culture based upon hyperbole? If that is so then "whatever works" is what we ought to be doing if your liturgics instructor is to be taken seriously.

But, have you seen what this approach really produces? I don't just mean in some of the more innovative Latin Rite Churches, I mean in popular American Christianity as a whole. Hint, watch TBN.

The larger question is this: "Is there a content to the American "culture" beyond hyperbole?" This might be a valuable topic of discussion.

Dan Lauffer

"p.s. Brendan, do individual parishes of the OCA celebrate according to the true, er, old calendar?"

Wiht episcopal permission, yes.

Dear Benedictine,

(Are you a Benedictine Oblate? Just wondering!)

The point you raise is very important.

The Roman or Latin Rite has indeed spread itself a bit thin in respect of liturgics. Yet, it maintains a solid, central control of local churches and their rites.

This reflects not so much the Latin understanding of "Rite" but of the Church or ecclesiology.

As we know, the basic Roman model of the Church is, at the risk of simplifying, that the Bishop of Rome is at the centre and the world is like his diocese.

The Eastern Church's Eucharistic model of the Church, with the "whole" present in the "part," is one which charateristically lends itself to the creation of diverse Rites within varied cultural contexts, in many respects embodied within a Particular Church headed by its own hierarchy.

Having one's own hierarchy is perhaps the best guarantee for the maintenance of one's own Rite and Particular Church identity and this is characteristic of the Eastern Churches.

Some would say, like our friend Brendan, that North America should have one overriding jurisdiction and that Orthodox canon law requires this etc.

I and many others would disagree with this as a kind of latent Roman model of church unity. (Take it easy, Brendan, take it easy!).

Western Churches/Rites have been suppressed under Roman Rite domination, including the Celtic, Gallican, Mozarabic and other Rites.

Recently, however, the Mozarabic Rite was allowed to resurface in Spain. The local Celtic and other historical spiritual heritages are flourishing. But the idea of a Particular Western Church with a Patriarch in the same sense of an Eastern Patriarch is not an option.

The Hispanic and African-American Catholic heritages have, previously, sought a Patriarchate along Eastern Catholic lines to best preserve and keep their Rites.

And the fact that there were not, de iure, western Patriarchates doesn't mean there weren't any "de facto."

The Polish Church operated largely as a Particular Church as did others. Many Italian bishops would often outrightly reject papal commands, such as the law pertaining to reserving beatification to the Holy See alone.

The Roman Catholic Church has come a long way in terms of culturally adapting itself to local traditions.

The sensitivity of various groups, when it occurs, is about how the West may, once more, understand the nature of the Particular Church as the ultimate embodiment and guardian of a Particular religious tradition and Rite.

(Olga, if I'm not focused here, then I'm leaving . . .).

Alex

Benedictine,

Let me address the specific question you asked: can the orations (prayers) transcend time & space to become the prayers of a new group of peoples. Yes and no. (I'll bet you're glad you're getting an explicit answer).

In the Latin understanding, prayer is "the lifting of heart and mind to God." How do we do that? Do we need a "prayerspeak" -- a lexicon of prayer? No, we need an awareness of God so that we can then have an awareness of our need to communicate with God. That communication is, in fact, prayer.

Can we take words that others have formed and use them as facilely as we might use our own? Clearly the answer is yes -- after some period of time. However, this statement is not unique to the Latin Rite, it would apply to any Rite.

Edward, deacon and sinner

The Old Roman rite assimilated some eastern influences but can be considered the oldest one, because didn't suffer modifications since the Council of Trent.
I disagree with the "universal rite". Just remember that in the later 60's, some liturgists got that idea and the result was the infamous Novus Ordo liturgy.

Dear Orthodox Catholic,

To answer your question - no I'm not a Benedictine oblate, I'm a Benedictine monk [I made my solemn profession this past August]. I asked for & received the name Elias in order to honor my Eastern Christian heritage. Most people don't know who or what the name means - I get called by all kinds of strange "approximations" = Ellis, Eliam, Alias, etc.

Now about some of the things you mentioned...

I'm uncomfortable with the notion of particular churches for each unique ethnic group such as Hispanics, African-Americans, etc. I just can't shake from my mind the infamous phrase "separate but equal" when thinking about having particular Black and Hispanic churches. Doesn't this line of thinking give credence to the charge that Orthodoxy is too "foreign" for Western [white] Americans? That it is only for certain particular national groups, i.e Slavs and Near Easterners? Is our worship so tied to ethnicity that it must be tailor made to different groups? That everyone needs to be in his/her own little Christianized subculture.

That is why I think in a church like the Roman church with it's international scope they speak of a universal rite that can be inculturated. I would argue, as many have here that the Byzantine rite also fills this purpose. Didn't I see posted somewhere on this BBS a parish that uses Spanish for the Divine Liturgy?

I guess the question boils down to how much diversity can be allowed before communion is weakened. Is the best model [notice I am NOT questioning the legitimacy of models, so please no replies that I wish all to be Roman rite - I definitely DO NOT!] communion between culturally & ethnically homogenous churches or unity between people of various cultures and races in one "sui juris" church body (again NOT implying that there can be ONLY ONE particular church)?

Thoughts anyone?

Quite alot. I will first start off by admitting that multiple "rites" among the same social group is an oddity of whichthe Church has no real rationale for other than pastoral reality. It is not a model but an exception to the model.

With that settled, let us realize that we are close to the low point of diversity in the present day. The early church had great diversity. The patriarchates were later inventions that helped with the evolution of a common rite within each patriarchate. The western religious orders played a signficiant role in western uniformity (as Franciscans and Domenicans went about celebratingLiturgy from their books, they created a uniformity). The Litugical Movement first action was the supression of various old forms, particularly in France, that were considered schlocky.

Kurt,

It seems were talking "past" each other. When I said how much diversity can there be before unity is weakened, I was speaking 'within' one particular church. It seems to me that you and other posters are advocating one ethinic/social group = one rite as ideal. I am not putting forward the idea of multiple rites for the same ethnic/social group BUT multiple ethnic/social groups in one rite (like the Latin rite). See the difference? I can't see how we can avoid an unhealthy nationalism if every ethnic/social group has to have its own specific rite. Can't two people from completely different ethnic/social backgrounds find a spiritual home in the same church? If the answer is no, then I can't see much of a future for Byzantine-Orthodox-Eastern Christianity in the North America. That is unless there is a huge influx of Slavic & Middle Eastern immigrants.

Is cult (form of worship) so tied to a culture (way of life) that it is non-transferrable? Is inculturation a doomed enterprise? If so I guess we really do need to re-invent the wheel like the progressive liturgists are advocating. They say "Were not in Rome, Byzantium, Moscow, etc. but America - hence we need an American church with American rituals for the 21st cent."

So much for tradition.

Yes, "cult flows from culture" is a rather revered and ancient Catholic saying.

But I think implicit in that saying,or at least the way people use it is that cult develops and develops communally. I think we Byzantines might be slightly more aware that the starting point is not uniformity than then a question of how much diversity can be permitted, but the reverse, diveristy that through culture forms a cult.

I know this is at best only a partialy response to you. Could you elaborate some more?

K.

"Can't two people from completely different ethnic/social backgrounds find a spiritual home in the same church?"

Christ is baptized in the Jordan!

My answer is yes in regards to the Byzantine Churches. My experience with different parishes is limited, but with the two I know, this is the case. I have seen in the Ukrainian parish in St Joe, Mo. the cradles Immigrants mesh well with the newer American converts (Don can probably testify to this a bit better). In our Ruthenian parish, we have Ukrainian Immigrants, those who come from a strong German social backround, a Welshman, and regular American Joes, among others. It all works very well, and with great fluidity.

God bless.