This article has been doing the rounds. The Impossible “Road Map” of Peace with the Lefebvrists. I usually lack interest in this flogged and sterile subject. The Novus Ordo conservatives tell the SSPX to submit as if the current Pontiff were still Pius IX or Boniface VIII. On the other side, what does one have to submit to?
Apart from the old minority sedevacantist breakaways and Bishop Williamson, the SSPX has been remarkably stable and apparently united over the forty-four years since its foundation in Switzerland and spread to every country where it has seminaries, schools, churches, chapels, religious communities and traditionalist laity. That is quite an achievement. To what can we attribute this stability and constancy?
It might seem to be incoherent to claim the Pope is the head of the Church, with the old papal ecclesiology – and then disobey him. But, for all that incoherence, they stay together and avoid the fragmentation known by the sedevacantists who claim a more rigorously cogent intellectual position.
Over the fifteen odd years I spent in the RC Church, I appreciated (as I became informed about the issues) the notions of religious freedom and “emancipation” of the Jews along with other matters intended to make it possible for a medieval autocratic monarchy to enter into dialogue with the modern world or die from lack of finance. On the other hand, the style of Vatican II is vacuous, clerical and verbose. I noticed that way of talking in order to say nothing, and the Anglican clergy, the clergy of any institutional church are specialists at a certain type of verbal expression.
One thing I can say for the present Pope is that, theologian though he is, his expression (at least as translated from German into English) is clear and comprehensible. He talks as clearly as any ordinary non-clerical educated person. At the same time, he is caught between the idea of handing everything to the traditionalists and “saving” something of what John XXIII, Paul VI and Jean Paul II sought to do. On one side, Vatican II is not negotiable, and on the other side, it is an obstacle motivating that kind of conservatism that resists the correction of anything, fostering a “new orthodoxy”.
This article shows causes for criticising Vatican II itself, and not merely the implementation and the well-kn,own catalogue of liturgical and pastoral abuses along with abusive ecumenical activities and heterodox theology. Daring to criticise an Ecumenical Council (“ecumenical” only for the RC Church) is really impertinent, especially if you are in the “official” Church!
What sort of language should have been used? Thomism? I lapped up Thomism as a young convert, as it all seemed so logical and wholesome. It brought certitude, condemning everything to the contrary, but it took the catholicity away from the Church. We hear about “pastoral language”. What is “pastoral language”. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. Is it the post-modern idea that language and words should not mean anything objectively, and only convey “feelings”? Of course, I was a very little child during the Vatican II years, and in an Anglican family that was quite estranged from the Church. But I was alive throughout the 1960’s, and was learning to express myself in English – the language people spoke – at school, at home and in the shops, everywhere – seemed to be clear enough to understand. Should not the Church be close to the people by speaking in clear language?
The bottom line seems not to be language but clericalism. A friend of mine quipped, saying they had made priests take off the cassock, bowdlerised the Mass, but they had kept the important thing: authority and the means of collecting money to finance it. The continuation of clericalism reveals how superficial the conciliar language really was. The clergy are pre-conciliar with only a different appearance. I don’t like the SSPX either for the same reason. They have cassocks and the old liturgy, but they are just as arrogant and pig-headed. Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the snake eating its own tail!
It’s interesting to look at the conditions required of Rome – if peace with the traditionalists is desired:
– that Rome would guarantee to the Lefebvrists the right to celebrate the Mass and the sacraments exclusively according to the rite of St. Pius V;
– and that the obedience required for Vatican II would be brought back within the limits of its “false-pastoral” language, and therefore be subject to criticisms and reservations.
These two conditions would be on the fulfilment of two other conditions:
– the first, advanced in December of 2011 by the bishop of Astana in Kazakistan, Athanasius Schneider, is the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new “Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the “modern-day errors”;
– The second, already proposed by the theologian Brunero Gherardini to the supreme magisterium of the Church, is a “revision of the conciliar and magisterial documents of the last half century,” to be done “in the light of Tradition.”
Those are quite interesting ideas. The exclusive use of the old liturgical books is already a reality with most of the Ecclesia Dei clerical institutes. I haven’t heard of any of them being required to use the Novus Ordo. At least that was so when I was at Gricigliano. We even had pre-1962 things like folded chasubles and bits and pieces from the pre-Pius XII Holy Week services! We could prance around just as if we were in the 1920’s or the 1720’s for that matter!
There is a sense of disappointment that Benedict XVI is unwilling to put his Church into a neo-Thomist cocoon after having seen the stimulating developments of ressourcement theology, often labelled as “neo-Modernist” by the Roman School. At the same time, we seem to have entered a period of sclerosis and inertia like in the final years of John Paul II. Nice things are said, but very little of interest is done, at least as far as it should go.
Can this thing be resolved by compromise as Archbishop Hepworth had hoped for the TAC at a different level? The sedevacantists are accusing Bishop Fellay of “selling out”, but the SSPX still plays a deal-killing game of maintaining the old theories concerning the fault of modern Jews for the death of Christ and the question of whether Judaism still has any salvific validity! What would happen if both “sides” did lay down their weapons? What the SSPX would want would be the capitulation of Rome, which might seem preposterous, but it is the only outcome for those fostering pre-concilar Catholicism as incompatible the two systems are with each other.
The idea would be to get Rome back to the nineteenth century, or the 1900’s at the zenith of anti-Modernism. That is why it is the Society of St Pius X. All criticism of Vatican II would be through this perspective, and perhaps it would all be scrapped and anathematised. But the “restored” Church would not be like it was before, but would become über-integralist in its ideology, ever shrinking and ever more unpleasant.
One bishop really does want to go back to Quanta Cura and the Syllabus! Is this really the kind of Church we want even if we prefer the traditional liturgy? A triumph of the Roman School and the condemnation of all the good theology along with the bad theology of the twentieth century? We would be back to the triumphalistic apologetics on a wider scale and an ever reinforced clericalism.
In my thinking, this is an aspect of dystopia, as sure a Big Brother, telescreens and people being tortured with their worst fears because they fell in love. Some readers of this blog might lap it up like a cat licking the cream, until they find themselves on the receiving end of their system that can only work with a two-bit dictator at its service making the right people “disappear”.
Between the restored two-bit Piuspäpst Church and the free-for-all of the present liberals and so forth, it really is a choice between Scylla and Charybdis – because the ship gets just as wrecked on one or the other.
The Blue Flower 
Fr Anthony,
Excellent post.
Dale, Just fyi…Feb. 2013 issue of Antiochian Archdiocese magazine, The Word, has two articles involving our bishops and the WR. Bishop John, Auxiliary Bishop of the WR Vicariate, presided at the recent Pilgrimage at the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, Mesquite, Texas; the Shrine was established by our WR priest, Fr. Keller. Also, Bishop Thomas attended a recent ROCOR WR ordination (of a former Anglican priest, Fr. Mark Rowe, Florida) in New York, where the ROCOR Bishop Jerome (Manhattan & Vicar of the Diocese of Eastern America) presided. Reportedly, Bishop Jerome presides at both rites, is fluent in Latin; he said most of the ordination Mass in Latin and wore western vestments. Is nice to see our WR cooperating with ROCOR’s WR.
Michael,
I infer from the photos of the ordination that Fr. Nathan Monk is now fully incardinated in AOCA?
I’m happy (or sorry, depending on points of view) that WR is not an option in the whole Europe, or the temptation to skip Bosphorus would be haunting me, especially in light of recent events in Catholic Church.
Simone, Yes, this is USA and not Europe. The article does say that “Other ROCOR priests who assisted in the [ordination] service included Father Anthony Bondi and Father Nathan Monk.” So Frs. Bondi & Monk appear to be ROCOR clergy. A Fr. James Hamrick, who has a mission church in Maryland, is also mentioned as being ROCOC clergy. About all I know is that ROCOR has been rather aggressive these past few years in USA trying to start WR mission churches. (The one in my area hasn’t seen much growth or activity; the priest is former French Orthodox and they use ROCOR’s Gallican liturgy.) I doubt ROCOR has much money or resources to support these missions. Only time will tell which ones are fruitful.
I asked because I knew Fr. Monk (originally an Old Catholic priest) had some issue being incardinated in AOCA; apparently he then swapped to ROCOR. I hope the best for him and his family.
Simone, I’m not sure anyone would have an “issue” tied to ROCOR and ordination. The local ROCOR priest in my area (former ECUSA before going French Orthodox), was thrice married & twice divorced. ROCOR re-baptized, chrismated, and re-married him before his ordination. ROCOR only recently joined SCOBA in USA. ROCOR doesn’t appear to accept any non-Orthodox communion’s sacraments.
I can’t get ROCOR clergy to explain the relationship between the sacraments for all the converts to the other SCOBA jurisdictions (who don’t tend to re-baptize: at least I haven’t seen the Antiochians, OCA, or Greek Archdioceses do this with all the converts I’ve seen go thru them) and whether ROCOR accepts them as Orthodox. Because if they are Orthodox, then ROCOR can’t and shouldn’t be re-baptizing anyone who has already been baptized nor ordaining men who are canonically ineligible for ordination! Oddly, ROCOR appear appear to accept as Orthodox the converts into rest of SCOBA. A friend of mine is former Protestant who was chrismated into GOC, but not re-baptized, and has communed at ROCOR liturgy where the ROCOR priest knows about his conversion process, which didn’t involve being re-baptized. (If you can’t tell, I’m not a fan of ROCOR. There seems to be something…odd…with their ecclesiology and sacramental understanding.)
Well Michael, since the new patriarch is the same individual who forced all of the western rite parishes in England to go Byzantine and has continued to support the anti-western rite rantings of Hallam, we shall see….
As for the so-called western rite in ROCOR, I did post access to their official western liturgy…good luck; and it does not matter if that liturgical mess is celebrated in Latin or Swahili, it is a liturgical monster.
One may also mention that this Mr Rowe now dresses up with three barred cross, Russian riassa and podriasknik, and one suspects, like all of the other clergy of that groups sports a kamilavka and has declared that he is a ‘Russian” priest. Oh, he is now growing a beard and one supposes a ponytail as well.
Is this your supposed western rite?
Please, keep it calm!
Orthodoxy, according to what I’ve learned from a variety of sources, does seem to have room for a variety of opinions as to what needs to be repeated at conversion. ROCOR is not alone in insisting on redoing everything from Baptism on. Most, it appears, will accept even Protestant Baptism and some will accept RC confirmation and even ordination, while others will not.. One thing Orthodox are clear on, however, is Ekonomia. What the church through its bishops has decided in such matters is to be regarded as sealed in heaven and earth. ROCOR isn’t being capricious in keeping up its restrictive practices while yet recognizing what other jurisdictions have accepted. Western/Augustinian thinking on validity and such matters is not necessarily relevant to the EO mind, and what we in the West see as an inconsistency doesn’t appear as such at all in the East. At least that is how it has been explained to me by several Orthodox.
Ed, this is not really all that true. Although the Byzantines might wish you to think so. It was not too long ago that the ROCOR was actually rebaptising people coming to them from the Moscow Patriarchate! Since at that time they believed that Moscow had lost all grace because of their involvement with the Communists; of course the ROCOR was safely casting these aspersions whilst living freely in the west, which they also profess to hate. And these inconsistencies do indeed bother many Orthodox. Ekonomia is very much the same as a dispensation, and is not really supposed to be applied to the validity of Sacraments, and if you have been told that validity or invalidity of Sacraments is not really a concern of the Orthodox, you have not been told the truth.
Michael, in the Antiochian Archdiocese a whole community, including its priest, who submitted to Byzantium in San Juan Capistrano, California, at St John the New Theologian Antiochian Church were all rebaptised by immersion. This action was taken as a personal demand of the Byzantine rite Evangelical pastor, who had never been rebaptised himself! What was interesting is that the level of education of the priest in question, was such that he did not even know the proper manner to baptise according to Orthodox tradition; which is to submerged the front of head first, he did it according the American Baptist tradition of back of head first. For quite some time they had this mass baptism posted on their web, but it has now been removed; it was actually quite comical.
Many of Antioch’s Byzantine rite Evangelical insta-priests are demanding rebaptism of converts.
Dale, I’m more than a bit put off by your cavalier dismissal of ROCOR’s Western Rite as “a monster’. I’ve read the text and would love to see it done. It’s an intriguing example of the adaptation of the Roman Rite to a somewhat different theological atmosphere, more successful in some respects, to my mind, than the forms in use by the Antiochians. It’s dignified, and the structural differences, such as the early preparation of the elements are not dissimilar to many (perhaps the majority) of Medieval Latin rites, such as Sarum. You may or may not like such usages, but so long as the various fragments of the Church are separated, it will be necessary to adjust ones practice when moving from one to the other.
Ed, if one believes that to have validity our liturgical traditions must be thoroughly Byzantinised, the the ROCOR western rite is for you! I do not believe so; but it does show the inability for the Byzantines to really accept any tradition other than the Byzantine as valid or Orthodox. It is a liturgical mess and, please excuse me, a self-invented liturgical monster. I can only ask them to leave my traditions alone…and these people dare to condemn eastern rite Roman Catholics as westernised!
[Moderator: Not Dr William Tighe. The e-mail address that sent this is now on moderated status and may not use William Tighe’s name.]
For all the times I’ve been annoyed at Dale for exaggerating the problems as worse than reality, this time I am finding more agreement with him. The Orthodox Church does need to have a more consistent view on the validity of the holy mysteries/sacraments that occur outside it’s boundaries. Under most circumstances it would most certainly scandalous to allow a many times remarried man to be ordained, but without having any facts at my disposal I take it as hearsay worth remembering.
Many traditional anglicans and catholics, if you can get them to use english at all, they want the hieratic 16th c. english that they grew up with. (Even those who didnt grow up with it tend to prefer it once exposed to it.) One can argue that this makes the Antiochian approach somewhat superior. Using the same Sarum mass as Fr. Anthony Chadwick or Fr. Aidan would also be a superior direction. ROCOR seems to allow this, but in reality few are paying the Sarum any mind !
Besides the contemporary language and litany, ROCOR version of “the mass of st. gregory” being promoted above all other versions is still easily superior to the novus ordo. Yet there is a rather suspicious old testament reading, making for a total of three readings in their mass. No one has ever explained to me where this third reading comes from historically.
The addition of the “Deprecatio Gelasii” litany itself in theory is nice because in its original text it is very beautiful and theologically profound. What bothers me is that this is barely noticeable in the ROCOR translation which bears very little resemblence to the original text. So even though that deprecatio/litany has not been used in over 1200 years, if they are going to add it, they ought to at least translate correctly what it actually says. Instead it has been drastically edited from the original latin words with entire sentences of importance being missing. (In Ireland the “Deprecatio sancti Martini pro populo” may have been in use until the 11th c.).There are a few other poor choices of translation in it where “you-know-who” seems to intentionally have kept certain aspects of translations in it identical to that of the novus ordo english of 1973 (and sometimes 2011, which is not as bad). By no means does it make the Mass non-orthodox, but it does make the translation is ripe for criticism. If the powers that be at ROCOR clean up the translation to match more closely what the antiochians use, I think all interested parties would be pleased. I suspect Vladyka Jerome Shaw is aware of these deficiencies and overtime may issue corrections. In fact, we are praying that he will !
The resistance that certain ROCOR priests (and subdeacons) have to traditional hieratic english language is also a problem , because that means that, unlike in Antioch’s WR vicariate, instead of being able to reuse the best of the anglo-catholics materials, they are going to have to reinvent all their liturgical music all over again to suit “contemporary language”. It is one thing to change two of three of the words, but to overhaul it completely such as to make the vast tradition of anglican church music unusuable is a tragedy.
Some of this may seem picky, but if you are a priest or monk who comteplates celebrating it for many years of your life they are genuine complaints.
As regards the liturgy and OT readings–“Yet there is a rather suspicious old testament reading, making for a total of three readings in their mass. No one has ever explained to me where this third reading comes from historically”–this issue is briefly discussed by these three major studies, see Gregory Dix (The Shape of the Liturgy, 2nd Ed., 1945), Luther Reed (The Lutheran Liturgy, 2nd Ed., 1959), and Frank Senn (Christian Liturgy, Catholic & Evangelical, 1997). They all point out how the early Christian church read from the OT but that over time the OT readings went to zero in most traditions.
As Reed points out: “The twofold lesson of the synagogue was continued in the early services of the Christians. Soon selections from the Epistles were added, and a little later passages from the various Gospels. The next step reduced the lessons from the [OT] to one, which, with the [NT] Epistle and Gospel, gave a threefold Lesson. This is still in use in the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic liturgies.” (Chpt. XV, The Liturgical Lessons, The [OT] Lesson: The Epistle: The Graual: The Gospel, p. 288)
Per Senn’s discussion of the 4th-5th-6th centuries: “Similar devlopments in the liturgy of the word occurred in the liturgies of both the new and the old Rome. The [OT] lesson with its responsorial pslam fell out of use, so that the readings were reduced from three to two.” (Chpt. 4, The Patristic Liturgical Synthesis, p. 126)
Dix’s discussion is in Chpt. XIII, The Completion of the Shape of the Liturgy, in the sub-section “The Lections and Chants” (p. 470-472): “But towards the end of the fourth century the growth of other elements in the synaxis brought about the limitation of the lections in most churches to three, (1) from the O.T., (2) the apostolic writings and (3) the gospel, as a normal rule. In Africa, Spain, and Gaul, and perhaps in some other churches, it was then customary on martyrs’ feats to substitute for the O.T. lection an account of the martyr…. In the fifth century the church of Constantinople began to reduce the normal three lections to two by the abolition of the first (from the O.T.). Rome followed suit in the late fifth or early sixth century, though the process was slower at Rome; the full three lections are still found provided for a few days a year in the seventh century Roman lectionary list known as the ‘Wurzburg Capitulary’. … It is sometimes suggested that the possession of three lections is a characteristic of the ‘Gallican’ rite while two is ‘Roman’. But all rites, or at all events all Western rites, were three lection rites in the early fifth century. The retention of three lections therefore gives no real clue to the origin of a particular rite; it is at best one indication of its later history.”
No, I have very occasionally used a nom-de-blog, but not recently, and never here,
Whoever — some other “William Tighe?” — wrote this, it wasn’t me. Mrs. Gyapong, please check the provenance of this posting; there was a spammer from the region of Birmingham, England, who used to place rude comments under my name on the Anglo-Catholic blog. Christian Campbell found out that his comments were coming from a fictitious address “muhlenberg.org,” whereas mine come from “muhlenberg.edu.”
“Mrs. Gyapong, please check the provenance of this posting …”
Wrong person; I should have written “Fr. Chadwick,” not “Mrs. Gyapong.” I was flustered; please excuse the mistake.
I let through a comment with an e-mail address with “Dom Desiderius” in it. I had trouble a while ago by a troll using “Desiderius”. Whether they are the same, I don’t know. If the real William Tighe is not using the “desiderius” handle, I’ll take action.
I’ve never used any name other than my own, and certainly not “desiderius.”
Please see the “pseudo-Tighe” comment which I have annotated. That e-mail address is now on moderated status and he may not use your name. This is a clear abuse that I will not allow.
Bill, I don’t believe there’s any question but that very early Christian liturgy made much of OT readings and that 3 or more readings were normal. The Roman Rite (prior to V2) contains traces of that in such anomalies as Ember Day propers, the Easter Vigil, and the Good Friday liturgy. The developed plan of two readings only has been in place, both East and West, for centuries, and one may question whether reintroduction of a third lesson is wise, but there’s not much doubt where it actually came from. IF I favored major changes (though I don’t), this is one I would deeply appreciate.
ed, Per Dix, “Indeed it may be said that the process of ‘dropping’ the O.T. lesson was never completed at all in the Roman rite, since the Wednesday and Saturday Ember Days still retain two and five O.T. lections each in the Roman missal; and on the weekdays of Lent and certain other days it is not the O.T. lesson but the epistle which has vanished.” (p. 471)
“For all the times I’ve been annoyed at Dale for exaggerating the problems as worse than reality”; I know exactly how you feel Dr Tighe, every time you attack a very good priest from Denver over very minor issues concerning the Antiochian Anglican Use, I feel the same!
Dale, please take note above. The comment to which you respond did not come (as indicated above) from our Dr. Tighe, but from someone else entirely using that name.
Thanks Ed…and I do apologise to Dr Tighe, but I also think that the real Dr Tighe’s minor problems with the differences between the 1977 edition of the Anglican use, and the one appearing in the BCP are really too, too minor to be a problem…and theologically, there is no real difference (albeit, I do have to admit that I seriously do believe that there have been times in which I very much annoy the real Dr Tighe!).
But whomever this new “Dr Tighe” is, I think that some of his criticisms of the very Byzantinised ROCOR “Gregorian liturgy” are very valid. My own preference, and I have been very honest in this, is the productions made of the western rite by Antioch; they are not inventions or recreations, but simply the western rite that most of us were raised with, they are a living tradition. Let us hope that they do continue, although I do not really see this as happening.
Dale, Are you actually saying something positive about our Antiochian WR? Is this the real Dale? 😉
Michael, my issue has never been with the western rite as it exists on paper with the Antiochians! It has rather been with its lack of support and respect from the Byzantines and the fact that most of the parishes are eventually byzantinised, especially in England and the Philippines. An Anglican priest whom I know recently visited the parish in Lynchburg, Virginia, he rang to give me his interpretation: “The books looked completely western, but the celebration of the rite was completely eastern, and disagreeable so.” He has decided not to pursue this possibility. My own fairly recent experience in St Mark’s, Denver, was the same; very, very byzantinised.
Dale, Could you please be very specific when you say, “My own fairly recent experience in St Mark’s, Denver, was the same; very, very byzantinised.” What exactly does that mean? Both for you and your Anglican priest friend about the Virginian WR parish?
I’m esp. curious because my priest in Omaha, Fr. Theodore, who is still there, came from St. Mark’s, Denver, to us around 2005. (Thinking he’d been a sub-deacon at St. Mark’s before being ordained and then assigned to us.) I’ve heard nothing but good things about St. Mark’s. Isn’t it one of the oldest High Church parishes out West? If you are ever in Omaha, check out St. Vincent’s of Lerins. (And stay for coffee hour and chat with Fr. Theodore.)
Did St. Mark’s priest not follow the Antiochian WR liturgy and rubrics? Is the church filled with icons? An iconostasis? Uses byzanine hymns, chants, and tones? Too heavy on the incense? Did you talk with the priest after the liturgy about your observations? Of course, there are some additions and alterations from the high church Anglican liturgies I see in ACA (e.g., the pre-communion prayer, “I believe and I confess….”).
Hello Michael. When attending St Mark’s, firstly everyone crosses in the modern Greek manner; but the real issue was during the offertory, the deacon took the censer, used it in the Greek manner, and began to cense the ikons, people etc by walking all over the place (as is done in the Russian church at the beginning of the Mass); you most likely know that in our tradition the altar is censed by the priest, the censer is then given to the thurifer who censes only the people. I have posted for you to see the really bizarre censing of the altar by the priest at St Nicholas in Spokane. Strange is not the word for it.
The priest who visited Lynchburg declared that there was a small ikonostasis set up before the altar and that all of the censing was done with a small Greek censer with bells and the censing was done completely in the Greek manner, with the priest walking up and down the aisles censing everyone; basically the whole of the tradition had been byzantinised. He was also rather surprised to see most of the women dressed like gypsies with tents covering their heads; usually one equates this type of excess only with ROCOR converts. The walls in both churches are covered in ikons in the brick-a-brac fashion so evident in ROCOR convert parishes, and these were also censed in the byzantine manner.
It goes on and on…
One can only conclude that if one loves our ancestral traditions, Byzantium is not a safe place to be…
Dale, Not sure if you’re being a bit pedantic and overly mindful of adiaphora (e.g., censing, though I claim no expertise on the liturgical use of incense in Western Christendom prior to the Reformation). Do keep in mind that our WR is attempting to worship in accord with the mind of a united Christendom before the schism, not to preserve Anglicanism. Being EO and then worshipping WR, I think I and my kids, who were chrismated ER, were one of the few who made the sign of the Cross from right to left and with the position of fingers. Of course, I suspect most of our churches will have some icons; ours are mainly on the back wall, with stations of the cross on all the walls. We have a communion rail but no iconostasis. Our former priest longed for a rood beam/screen!
As regards incense, have you studied the rubrics in the official 1995 Antiochian WR Missal for our Anglican-derived liturgy? Per it:
– Before the Introit, “At High Mass, incense is set with appropriate prayers, after which the altar and Priest are censed.”
– After the Creed, during the Offertory verse, hymn and collection, “At High mass, incense is set with the following prayers… The Oblations, altar, Priest, servers, and people are censed while the Priest says: ‘May this incense….’ As the Priest gives up the thurible, he says, ‘The Lord kindle in us….’ The Priest now washes his hands, saying….”
Michael, I think that you completely misunderstood my posting. It is not a question of the use of incense, but properly censing the altar, oblations and people according to the rubrics. The places that I have seen following the complete byzantine practice in this matter, although the western tradition, if properly followed, has its own rules…why copy those of Byzantium, unless this is simply, as it has proven to be in many instances, first step towards further byzantinisation?
Here is the proper manner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o401iVk5B54
Here is a so-called western rite version, but still more western than what is done at St Mark’s where the deacon walks all over the church swinging the censer in the byzantine manner up and down the whole church: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBLTP4ojITs
What is done in the ROCOR is simply bizarre, they even celebrate the western rite with klabooks and kamilavkas instead of the biretta!
Although you may not see too much of a difference, if one were to introduce the western tradition of censing into the Byzantine church, there would be an uproar!
Dale, I got your point which is why I posted the rubrics. The churches you mention appear not to be following them. At my WR church in Omaha no one went around the church willy-nilly censing everything and everything. Done IAW the rubrics in a dignified and reasonable manner. Wish you would’ve said something to the priest; would be interesting to know what he is thinking.
My experience with Byzantine liturgies was enriched by having been in the USAF for 5 years where we EO with military chaplains had to worship in purpose-built Western Churches (e.g., Texas, Philippines, Omaha). So no iconostasis. Few icons, maybe just 2 big portable ones. Little incense. Pews with kneelers. Often worshipped in camoflaged BDUs w/combat boots on. A simplicity of worship that was most refreshing. No revolts by the worshippers. Oddly or interestingly, even though Omaha had 2 beautiful ER churches, we had a lot of local EOs come to worship with us in our Protestant church! I was married by an EO military chaplain in such a church!
I’ll never forget the beautiful SAC Chapel in Omaha. The stain-glass windows filled with nuclear bomber squadron, group, and wing insignia. Nothin’ like worshipping below a B-47 delivering devestation from above with SAC thunderbolts everywhere. We knew a cigar-chomping Gen. Curtiss LeMay was looking down on us, taking in his beloved SAC.
As for ROCOR, no argument here. They exist in their own unique world.
Isn’t in inevitable that, for better AND for worse, liturgical traditions will “cross-pollinate,” often to a considerable extent, and that sometimes this will (as has happened throughout history) result in one tradition entirely superseding another?
The only exception of which I can think is among the Oriental Orthodox churches and, perhaps a bit cynically, I attribute that to the relative isolation of the four churches that historically comprise that communion (the South Indian church dates only from the 17th Century), and the absence of any central ecclesiastical and political focus for those churches since their definitive split with the Chalcedonians in the third quarter of the Sixth Century, which effectively prevented any one of its liturgical traditions from marginalizing, and then superseding, the others.
Dr Tighe (you are the real Dr Tighe?); I think another example of avoiding the destruction of one tradition over another is within the Roman Catholic Church. Even in close proximity to Rome itself the eastern rite of the Italo-Greeks has been preserved and is a living tradition. It seems that the need to destroy all traditions other than one is mostly a Byzantine Orthodox fixation.
Here is a Greek Catholic mass from Italy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcahKnm0ed4
The false “William Tighe” (“Desiderius”) is on moderated status – and I recognise all true William Tighe comments as such because of the e-mail address, hidden from blog readers, is the right one.
Dale, Are these ER Italo-Greek priests married? Or is papal-mandated celibacy the requirement?
Michael, in Europe there is no mandated celibacy for byzantine rite clergy, even in the west. Almost all eastern rite Roman Catholic clergy that I even met were all married.
In America, because of the Irish, the situation was and is vastly different. The Irish fixation on clerical celibacy rates up there with the BVM and the Pope!
I am pleased and excited to see this video. It illustrates how far Rome has come from the way it only recently treated all the Eastern rites. Some years ago I followed the Italo-Greek-Albanians (they have been labeled in a variety of ways). Only a few decades ago they were considered to be the most Latinized of all Byzantines, the iconostasis, for example, being nearly unknown and the Italian churches being filled with statuary. In those I frequently attended weekday Masses in both Ukrainian and Maronite churches. The Ukrainian services were entirely spoken, in the same kind of mumbled tones as in the Latin Low Masses of the same day. The Maronites did include some chanting and some incese, but the vestments were Western, in the fiddleback style. In both churches I saw lace albs of the most extreme type, both churches had confessional booths and lots of statues, and, in the US, at least, priestly celibacy was enforced among all the Easter rite. In the past Rome tolerated the Eastern rites as second-class Catholics, and imposed, if it did not actually impose, a great deal of Latinization. Moreover, at that time it was nearly impossible for a Latin Rite Catholic to transfer to an Eastern Rite, and rather easy for the reverse to occur. It sure looked like a deliberate attempt to cause Eastern rites to die by attrition.
Yes, things have changed in the Papal Communion, and the Eastern rites are being encouraged to return to a more authentic form, and this video is a highly encouraging example. Rome has only in very recent years abandoned its apparent disapproval and begun to encourage authentic Eastern traditions.
Speaking of ‘fixations”, I think I detect a very strong anti-Byzantine fixation here.
Ed, but when it comes to respecting other apostolic traditions, I am afraid that when one mentions the “Byzantines” it is only possible to be anti-Byzantine; they have not only destroyed all vestiges of a western rite amongst themselves, actually murdering tens of thousands of “Latins” in 1182, but destroyed all other eastern rites as well whenever their political power allowed them to do so.
Although the eastern rites were often Latinised, Rome never destroyed these rites as have the Byzantines. I have always found it almost comical that the Byzantine Orthodox will condemn the Latinisation (often very minor) of Byzantine traditions in Rome, but have not problem with Byzantinising our traditions.
One can find on youtube old newsreals from many years ago about Greek Catholic villages in the South of italy, and the priests are all dressed as Greek priests and the rites, even many years, ago are not all that Latinised. What I have found interesting is that many of the traditions condemned as Latinisations amongst the Ukrainians and Rusyns are actually older traditions that predate the Russian novus ordo of 1666 since the unions predate the liturgical changes of that time.
Ed, I have been looking for the newsreels, and cannot locate them! I watched them about four years ago, and was myself rather shocked at how very “Orthodox” the communities looked in the late 1940s.
One my seminary professors had, before he converted to Orthodoxy, been a priest of the diocese of Lungro, and he declared that in the small villages the traditions were very well preserved although most of the people spoke Italian except for the very elderly (He was assigned to Lungro in the late 50’s).
Such a thing would be impossible in the Byzantine church. One may criticise Rome for many things, but not when it comes to catholicity (In the sense that they are not, much like the Oriental Orthodox, limited to a single cultural expression).
Out of curiosity, what happened in 1182?
BTW, the actual enemy for albanian communities has not been the Vatican but depopulation. They inhabits remote villages in Puglia, Calabria and Sicily, that lost half of their population in 1950s when a massive inter-italian migration from south to industrialised north occurred. The phenomenon was quite impressive, to the point that, for example, in Turin a greek-catholic parish was established for italo-albanian (arbereshe migrants). This parish functioned until some years ago when mgr. Bugliari, first and last archipriest, retired, and the church was destinated to greek catholics migrated in the meanwhile to italy from eastern europe. Arbereshe‘s descendants in Turin have disappeared due to aging, dispersion in the big city or secularization. The original communities in Sicily and Calabria still suffer from depopulation to urban areas. In Puglia, arbereshe no longer exists if not as folklore, Divine Liturgy is no longer celebrated there and it’s a shame due to the deep byzantine roots this region once had (see for example the byzantine cave-monasteries at Grotte di Massafra:http://www.terredelmediterraneo.org/itinerari/massafra.htm, or http://www.byzantinemuseum.gr/en/calendar/?acd=1357603200&nid=1519)
1182 saw a great massacre of Latin Christians in Constantinople. It was a massacre in which Venetians suffered particularly heavily. The future Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo (1192-1205), a principle “mover” of the attack and capture of Constantinople by the forces of the Fourth Crusade, lost family members, a brother IIRC, in the massacre, and his “diverting” of the Crusaders (who were being transported by the Venetians) to Constantinople was said to be inspired by, among other reasons, a desire for revenge.
Dale, Will be interesting to see how Rome treats the Anglican patrimony of the Ordinariates, esp. their liturgy and liturgics? Only time will tell. But seems like there is a lot of real concern and serious angst even amongst the Ordinariates?
Over the past 50 or so years Rome has become much friendlier to the East, both within their uniates and to the Patriarchs. But that always seems so…tactical, as if they know they need to act a certain way to entice. Yet it never seems fully convincing. If history has shown us anything, what Rome gives grudgingly, Rome can quickly take away. Rome is to their uniates a lot like the PRC is to Hong Kong? And to the East like PRC is to Taiwan?
Dale, Bringing up an event from the 1180s is hardly indicative of anything relevant here. Anyone interested in that ancient history should study the history of the Byzantine Empire, the Crusades, the medieval period, etc. A very complex history. Never forget the Byzantine Empire was fighting for its existence against West, nascent Slavs, and Muslim armies.
For example, in 1147 the Norman king Roger of Sicily’s war fleet captured Corfu and ravaged the east coast of Greece (and stole the secret of silk manufacturing). Venice covets Dalmatia; the Empire and Venice go to war in 1172. The tyrant Andronicus who seized the throne and launched this particular persecution also ticked off the Bulgarians, who successfully revolted. And his actions led King William II of Sicily to again invade the Empire.
If you want a great summary overview of the Byzantine Empire, with a ton of maps and pictures, I strongly recommend Roger Michael Kean’s Forgotten Power, Byzantium, Bulwark of Christendom (Thalmus Publishing, UK (2006)). Kean is British.
You know, this discussion looks a lot like outsiders condemning churches for acting in accord with what they claim to be. This is what I mean: If I accepted Rome’s claim to be the one true Church, I would need forthwith to become an RC. If I do not accept such a claim, I am not eligible to be RC. If I accepted Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one true Church, I would need to become Orthodox. If not, I can’t. I see it as being a simple as that. The transition would have to be made, regardless of questions of various ‘rites’ of things like ‘latinization’ or ‘byzantinization’. Both churches claim plenipotentiary rights to make such decisions for their faithful. Were I within either organization, I would then have as much voice as is permitted, to campaign for whatever I felt to be appropriate. It seems a bit hubritical for those of us who stand outside both, because of failure to accept their basic claims of authority, to be heaping scorn on them for exercizing rights they claim to have. Yes, I have opinions as to what I would like to see both communions do and allow in liturgical matters, but such changes would not solve the ultimate reason that I am not in either communion. Ultimately, then, it is none of my business.
“Dale, Bringing up an event from the 1180s is hardly indicative of anything relevant here.”
I incline to agree — BUT, change “1182” to “1204,” and then try telling it to the Greeks.
Dr Tighe, you beat me to the punch! I was going to say the exact same thing!!!
Since none of us appear to be of Greek origin, bringing up events from 1182 or 1204 AD isn’t productive to us as confessing Christians today. That is just ancient history. And for those particular dates, mostly political history. Both the Empire and the Republic of Venice are long gone. Those who lose empires or dreams do have long memories. Just ask an American Southerner about the War Between the States, and specific events like Sherman’s March to the Sea. Or an Irishman about the mid-19th century famine.
Michael, I think that Dr Tighe is using “Greeks” in the sense of using “Roman” to describe a specific Church, either Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Actually, the mentioning of 1204 is often done on non-Greek convert sites on the Internet. But if I, as a westerner, and Latin, had been in Constantinople in 1182, I would have been murdered along with the rest of my co-religionists by jeering mobs of Orthodox.
Dale, I have no doubt but that EOs, regardless as to whether they are Greek or not, can readily confuse religion and politics like Westerners. But do keep in mind that whether you’re talking one of the many falls of Rome, 1182, 1204, the fall of Constantinople, or the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna, these are all political events! They are not, in and of themselves, inherently religious in nature. So whether it is Emperor, King, or Sultan, he is doing something to benefit himself and his realm! That goes for Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, or British Empire. (I see someone was recently commemorating the early 20th century massacre victims in India by the British at Amritsar; machine guns worked better than swords.).
I think a good case can be seen in the Russian Church’s attitude toward the political martyrdom of Czar Nicholas and in the Anglican sphere with the political martyrdom of Charles I (30 Jan 1949). These were about new political regimes needing to destroy the old political regimes. Charles’ Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, was the religious martyr (10 Jan 1645), and his death paved the way for the new Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) to supercede the old Anglican ways. Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky had to accomplish their political change (during a time of world war) before commencing to eliminating religion; those opposed to Charles changed the religious view first before eliminating the political threat (after a period of civil war)?
Dale, When looking at political events that appear to coincide with religious events, keep the respective players in mind. Never forget someone like Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who balanced fighting Turk or Lutheran in light of his political and economic situation, as did his Lutheran German opponents. Or Cardinal Richelieu who could sacrifice RC or Protestant in the service of his King and nation. Did rules or leaders like Charles V or the Cardinal ever truly do anything involving the public sphere of religion without first and foremost considering the political impact as being paramount?
Michael, yes and no. During the massacres of 1182 the Orthodox also broke into every Latin church in Constantinople and desecrated the Sacrament; they also murdered the very elderly bishop of the Latins and tied his head to the tail of a dog laughing as they chased the dog through the streets flowing with the blood of murdered Latins. also, although the Pope did excommunicate those Crusaders who ravaged Constantinople in 1204, the Orthodox have never even apologised for 1182. Of course the Orthodox have never bothered to even admit to their serious crimes against the Copts and Syrians either; who were so oppressed under the Byzantines that they considered the victory of the Muslims as a relief. Yet, the Byzantines seem to demand apologies from everyone else.
Dale, Those who obsess about the past, whether viewing it as halcyon or dystopian, and somehow want to “apply” it to today aren’t being realistic about then or now. I hope you study the political, military, and economic competition between the Empire, Venice, and the other key players in the period of say 700-1400 AD. All the rulers used religion as a weapon to advance their goals. Sadly, each religion allowed itself to be so used. And the faithful were often willing to do terrible things in the name of their faith. I pray you don’t blame the Jewish people of today for Christ’s crucifixion. Don’t we all want apologies from someone? Guess the best place for us all is to acknowledge our own sins and ask forgiveness of others? Let sleeping dogs lie; let the dead bury the dead?
“In those days I frequently attended . . .” Sorry for the bad typing.
Normally I keep out of these threads that discuss and pick apart different liturgical usages, partly because I am not familiar enough with the minutiae of them or with the dizzying diversity of churches, communions, unions, affiliations etc. But partly because, whilst I, like everyone, respond positively to some forms of worship and not to others, I hold the attitude that liturgies and sacramental forms and theologies are man-made and imperfect, and that the fact that they are used as the basis of many regrettable forms of exclusion – reserving a space for some that might be cogently supportive of a good – fills me with some sickening of heart.
But, taking the time to read this longish thread, I can’t help feeling it has strayed considerably from a very important – and perhaps the central – point in Father’s original post. And that is that the cat-and-mouse stand-off between Rome and the SSPX highlights a very real problem for those who are feeling as if something is missing from the economy of church and spiritual and religious life or who feel opposed to the turmoil and disintegration of orthodox Christianity: namely, that the reduction of diagnosis to a simplistic crisis of faith caused by liberalism and secularism from one side, and to a simplistic crisis of love caused by dogmatism and irrelevance from the other, leaves many people with Hobson’s choice: take the old liturgy and the old piety with all that comes with it or the new liturgy and anti-piety with all that comes with that. For many people, this is is simply intolerable. The love of the beautiful and the hunger for the numinous may incline one to sensuous mystery liturgy, and that same love and hunger might very frequently repel one from the demands of intellectual and behavioural conformity that those who provide the liturgy make a condition sine qua non, because one thinks such demands are wrong and destructive.
Father Chadwick’s article draws attention to the great dilemma – which does one value most: free, personal religious self-determination or beautiful liturgy? Put another way, which is least tolerable: oppressive, bigoted or at least territorial, tribal sectarianism or dull, uninspiring, uncomfortable, mundane assembly? One hesitates to let the horrible truth dawn: Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, is a beautiful idea but an often ugly reality!
Well, perhaps that is putting it too strongly. But it is a real problem. It seems frequently impossible to retain some tradition without getting beaten over the head with traditionalism. It seems impossible to attempt to break down barriers without finding oneself surrounded by religious liturgical minimalism and ignorance. This is why some part of me concludes that we each ought to admit that our religious aspirations may only be happily fulfilled with a degree of syncretism and eclecticism, both of belief and practice.
I don’t know how this thread missed this important point. It is something by which I think many people are made unhappy and alienated. Religion operates at a wordless, intuitive level as well as, and at different times than, the intellectualising and volitional level. My own assessment is that Rome and the SSPX both use the liturgy as weapons in the struggle for intellectual dominance and political power. I think liturgy should rather be the work and food for the heart, and not a reward for behavioral conformity or an exercise in doctrinal purity. It is too easy to get bogged down into a position of saying “my liturgy’s better than yours”. What do we do when we want what we think is good liturgy but cannot get it without what we think is bad religion?
Stephen K, Some very interesting and trenchant thoughts. (I will confess my repugnance for the anti-semitic and Piux IX-type thinking by the SSPX is most off putting to me.)
We are dealing with people and with people of very strong wills. All of us always should keep in mind that we are a sinful people living in a fallen world. That includes clergy and laity. And, most especially, bishops! Our sinfulness, esp. pride and envy, are reflected in our actions inside the Church, towards each other, and even including the liturgy.
Unfortunately, in this particular case we are dealing with extremes and extremists. Almost akin to ideology. And tied to some very old and strong currents of history. I think it reflects that ongoing worldwide war within the RCC. The partisans of Trent fighting a rearguard action against the partisans of Vatican II. A medieval, scholastic, Counter-Reformation model versus a more modern, emotive, post-Reformation model? Piux IX vs JP II?
So when it comes to these particular partisans, yes they do use whatever they can to defend and advance their ideas. That includes liturgy and liturgics. Yet both agree that the model is a top-down imposition or maintenance of whatever the leadership demands. This is a fight they want the laity to be but mere followers. There is no real organic growth, change, or adaptation. That which should naturally occur over time in the healthy life of the Church. Though that isn’t unique to the RCC. Anglicans have the same battles (to the battlefront with the 1928 BCP to meet the heretics of 1979!). Orthodoxy exists in its ancient form, resistent to even minor change, though the faithful don’t appear to desire anything too radical over time.
Maybe we can blame it on some idea of a perfect or imperial church on earth that wrongly believes it can and must have some one perfect liturgy? In the East one liturgy comes to dominate through Emperors and Islamic conquest. In the West imperial and papal authority drive the other rites to extinction and elimination, then they are replaced by an updated master model (Trent and then Vatican II). So I think our Antiochians did the best they could with what they had when creating our WR liturgies and liturgics. I pray it doesn’t become fossilized over time. And I take solace every now and then by studying the 1958 joint Lutheran liturgy that was the zenith of pre-Vatican II English liturgies, done by committee so very well, but sadly consigned to the trash bin of liturgical history so quickly, swept away by the various revolutions of the 1960s. It showed it was possible to do something that was both traditional and modern, in a reasonable, tasteful, and respectful manner. But partisans wouldn’t allow it to take root or last.