Catholic integralism is the true seamless garment.
What would a real Western Orthodoxy look like?
Forgive me if I've covered this before. My latest big post made it past moderation at oh-see dot net. All Western Rite Orthodox end up mimicking the Byzantine Rite (the sound of a score of hammers hastily hanging up Byzantine icons, for example), the mirror of self-latinizations by Byzantine Catholics. It disrespects perfectly good rites and hurts your witness. My challenge: come up with a form of church that's entirely in harmony with the Orthodox ethos but all Western. The answer of course is an early medieval look and feel, a lot like non-Romanizing High Anglicans but only using the traditional Roman Rite minus the filioque (which, to be fair, wasn't originally there). A brand distinct from post-schism Rome.
Oddly the Orthodox are even more accepting of the Book of Common Prayer than we are; I guess they think they and the Anglicans share a common enemy, us. (We're the church worth getting mad at!) Over the past century they've always been friendlier with the Anglicans than with us.
The reactions reveal why Western Rite Orthodoxy after a century and a quarter has never lasted beyond the converts. The online Orthodox (mostly converts) are so anti-Western they attack the word "Mass." They defend the self-byzantinization (I'm convinced this stuff appeals to outsiders who mainly want a new identity, like "transgenders") since we're heretics so we deserve it. Talk about going where you're not wanted! And for all its problems and ill treatment, Byzantine Catholicism is centuries-old real communities.
Why do I bother with this board? I'm not interested in leaving the church! Because these alternative ways of doing Catholicism fascinate me. In everything that's not doctrine, they can teach us a thing or two. I liked the challenge of illustrating what I believe is a kind of Catholic spirituality, one of many.
Given the trouble brewing in Western society this will probably be my last post for the foreseeable future and possibly ever.
The blessing of the Lord!
John, as we have discussed elsewhere today, I perceive that some Byzantinizations may be unavoidable if the Orthodox are to remain true to their theology . . . their Teachings . . . or rather one Byzantinization in particular. That is the Descending Epiclesis and I am confident you understand why I have mentioned it.
ReplyDeleteTheir only changes to the Roman Mass's text I respect are their editing out the filioque and their not commemorating our post-schism saints. Not one's bigotry messing with the second oldest Eucharistic prayer still in use (the Nestorians' is the oldest, and it doesn't have the words of institution). That's right; the consecration prayer at my Tridentine Mass is older than either of the ones at my Byzantine Liturgy.
Delete"I perceive that some Byzantinizations may be unavoidable if the Orthodox are to remain true to their theology . . . their Teachings . . . or rather one Byzantinization in particular. That is the Descending Epiclesis and I am confident you understand why I have mentioned it."
DeleteSince the Roman Canon never, ever, had a "descending epicesis" I suppose that such Church Fathers as SS Cyprian, Damasus, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gelasius, and Gregory the Great "never were true" to Orthodox Theology; indeed, since the "descending epiclesis" appears to have originated, even in the East, in the Fourth Century, neither were earlier Eastern Fathers.
Or maybe this is a version of the "development of doctrine," a concept which otherwise most Orthodox repudiate?
DeleteThe Byzantine liturgist Saint Nicholas Cabasilas did not consider the Roman canon deficient (he believed it had an "implied epiclesis"), so there's no reason for modern Orthodox to.
DeleteIIRC the Nestorians have a multitude of Eucharistic prayers but only one of them lacks the Institution Narrative and even the one lacking the IN is not an original but a copy from of late antiquity, i.e., close to the First Millennium. The Epiclesis, however, is still central to Orthodox liturgical theology. I can see why they add it even though I don't care for fiddling with the Roman Canon. Yes, I also forgot about the filioque emendations or rather deletions.
ReplyDeleteAll we as Catholics have to believe is that the anaphora completely changes the elements; it really is Christ's sacrifice made present "in an unbloody manner" (both those who tried to say the presence is carnal and the Protestants are wrong). "When" isn't that big a deal. I have no problem saying it happens at the epiclesis in the Byzantine Rite; I do bows (metanias/poklony; crossing oneself and bowing from the waist) at both the words of institution and the epiclesis.
DeleteWelcome Back! Any Thoughts on "Magnum Principium"?
ReplyDeleteSorry to see you exit the blogging world!
ReplyDeletejohn dont leave or give up posting . I remind you of what the Speaker of the Massachussets General Assembly said way back over 200 years ago when there was a meteorite shower that occur ed for a certain time and alarmed the populace that it was THE END. When various members wanted to not proceed with the legislation before them The Speaker said " if this is the end of the world then let us be found at our duty". Applicable to all of us . Oh I am an Aussie who looks forward to your postings
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to see that you might stop posting. I'll take this opportunity to thank you for this blog. I'm an Orthodox convert with some serious regrets. I know I'm not alone, but very few people talk about it. My family has a lot of good reasons to head to Rome, and a few good reasons to stay (like not hurting the godparents' feelings). It's been so good to read your blog and know that others share our concerns. Like, just to take one example, how our priest likes to play Staretz at confession. I wondered if I was a freak or something for having a problem with confessions lasting 45+ minutes with the priest doing almost all the talking, proclaiming himself the Voice of Jesus and then totally misunderstanding the situation, and even bringing up past sins to accuse you with. Or his wife saying, out of the blue, "Occasionally people leave, and it's because they just couldn't handle all our love." Talk about self-idolization.
ReplyDeleteJim C wrote:
ReplyDelete"IIRC the Nestorians have a multitude of Eucharistic prayers but only one of them lacks the Institution Narrative and even the one lacking the IN is not an original but a copy from of late antiquity, i.e., close to the First Millennium."
This is inaccurate. The "Nestorians" have, and have had for well over a millennium, only three anaphoras in use: the Anaphora of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Anaphora of Mar Nestorius, and the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. The first two of these both contain the Words of Institution and are, despite their names, almost certainly compilations of the mid Sixth Century (chronicles record the visit of some Persian ecclesiastics to C'ple in the 540s in a vain attempt to reach union with the Church on the basis of the Council of Chalcedon, but Justinian was more interested in reunion with those within the empire who had rejected Chalcedon, and that they translated a number of Greek liturgical texts into Syriac); Addai & Mari is probably as old as the Roman Canon, that is, prayers that were substantially complete by the mid Fourth Century, even if "tweaked" (and added to) subsequently (where I might disagree with John is that A&M went on being "tweaked" considerably longer than the Roman Canon, with a whole series of prayers, the kushshaspe prayers, being interpolated between portions of the older parts [the "gehanta" prayers] in the eighth or ninth century; these kushshaspe prayers are not included in modern scholarly editions of A&M). There are still reputable scholars who hold that A&M once had an institution narrative which was removed in a Seventh-Century abridgement, although this is a distinctly minority view among such scholars.
The one work in English which is absolutely vital for those wishing to understand A&M in the light of modern scholarship is The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari by A. Gelston (Oxford, 1992: Oxford University Press; ISBN:0-19-826737-1), which contains a careful edition of the text of A&M, a commentary upon it, a discussion of past scholarship on it, and a reconstruction of an earlier form of its text, this last drawing on the one surviving text of an anaphora clearly bearing some historical kinship with A&M, the long-disused Maronite "Third Anaphora of St. Peter."
Not exactly a response but apt to the discussion:
ReplyDeletehttps://ahenobarbus.org/2017/07/20/western-rite-orthodoxy/
Good to hear from you. As a good convert you've correctly picked up the "vibe," the mindset, of your new faith, a faith with which I disagree. Essentially we agree that the Orthodox obviously don't want Western rites, so in an Orthodox setting, although Western rites are in theory possible, they become a stunted hobby religion with no roots and no future. And, I add, not really Western; they invariably imitate the Byzantine Rite and I think are encouraged to. They've had a century and a quarter to put down roots but in that hostile setting it isn't happening and probably never will. And you say you’re fine with that; good riddance. So essentially only Byzantium is the church. I don’t believe that.
DeleteI've been to Ennismore Gardens too, that very Italianate Catholic-looking basilica, formerly All Saints C of E: my first time at Orthodox worship, having been to Byzantine (Ukrainian) Catholic. The friend who took me was half-Russian, going to that cathedral growing up, but had assimilated and left as most second- and third-generation Orthodox in the West do. My take: the indifferent or hostile (to us traditional Roman Catholics) Russians are objectively wrong but acting in good faith, like many of the ROCOR people I knew later. As a dear friend now gone put it, they don't know they're schismatic. Russian Orthodoxy is all they know; we Catholics see an estranged part of us.
I'm not trying to break up Orthodox families, parishes, dioceses, or countries. I'm even pro-Russia. I'm not aiming for individual conversions even though the Catholic Church rightly accepts them, quietly. I want all the Orthodox bishops to come back at the same time (and I realize that is extremely unlikely), then the Catholic Church would leave the Orthodox rite alone. I am all for a loose communion run largely by custom, but one that really includes the West.
For a year so far, my prayer at home, such as it is, has been Byzantine with an icon corner, but I don't fast much, and I go to Divine Liturgy (Ukrainian Catholic) once a month. If my Saturday nights were free I’d go to Vespers at one of the friendlier Russian Orthodox parishes, which is slowly declining as Eastern Christianity in the West, including Catholic versions, does; the Ukrainian Catholic parish is on life support too. (Yes, I go to a Ukrainian Catholic parish and am pro-Russian. It fits a historic Catholic view: bring the tsar back into the church and all would be well. I speak some Russian. And I say “the Ukraine” for the same reason I don’t say “Paree.”)
I'm not a Byzantine Catholic because I wasn't Byzantine to begin with, I'm not trying to attack the teachings of the church (regrettably, many Byzantine Catholic converts do that online and eventually leave for Orthodoxy), I'm not trying to spite Roman Riters, and I'm not trying to assume/fake another identity. Some people are called to make that change within Catholicism (I’ve known some) and I don't rule it out for myself one day, but I'm staying put because I don’t see the need for it. I go to the traditional Latin Mass most Sundays. The church where I don’t have to disown my own traditional Christian culture is home. All the depth and breadth I need is in our teachings (only Catholicism makes sense on divorce and remarriage and on contraception) and our many traditional cultures.