by Jean-François Mayer
Religioscope – May
2002
N.B.: This article resumes, with a few updates, large
extracts from a text named “Must Orthodoxy be Byzantine? Attempts at creating a
western Orthodox rite”, published five years ago in a collective work
called Regards sur l’Orthodoxie.
Mélanges offerts à Jacques Goudet (under
the direction of Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty), Lausanne, L’Age d’Homme, 1997,
pp. 191-213. Religioscope thanks the
publisher Ed. L’Age d’Homme for having authorized this article and takes advantage
of the occasion to remind its readers about the considerable production of this
firm, and especially its major contribution to publishing Slavonic literature.
[1]
Westerners who join the Orthodox
Church feel that they are the legitimate heirs of western Christianity of the
first millennium. This, however, brings up the question about the ways to find
attachments to this heritage: Will this simply be a question of incorporating
it as a fundamental spiritual element of Orthodox tradition, or can we try to
find the specific practices of an Orthodox West, or even “orthodoxise” western
liturgical practices? It is not surprising that some individuals or groups have
attempted to find a western Orthodox way with its own rites. Historically, this
phenomenon has found itself in interaction with several other developments: the
emergence of ecumenical concerns, Anglo-Catholicism, Old Catholicism, the
liturgical research movement, the Russian emigration and the Orthodox diaspora
in general. We will sketch out a summary of the attempts to create a western
Orthodox rite, by endeavouring not to simply repeat already existing studies.
[2]
Orthodoxy and plurality of rites
Over the most recent centuries,
the Orthodox Churches have been confronted by the problem of liturgical
plurality. This was against the reforms of Patriarch Nikon intended to
align Russian practices with those of the Greek Church, which in the 17th century
caused the resistance of the Old Believers. [3] From 1800, those Old Believers
who returned to the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church were allowed to
keep their rite (edinovertsy). [4] In
1845 and the following years, some tens of thousands of Estonians and Latvians
massively joined the Orthodox Church and brought some of their Lutheran usages,
specially hymns into parishes specially instituted for them. [5] Even the use
of the organ would have been introduced into some Baltic Orthodox churches! In
May 1897, 9,000 Nestorians of the Uremia region, with their bishop Jonas, asked
to enter the communion of the Russian Church, and the union was solemnly
celebrated in Saint Petersburg in March 1898. Though some Russian clerics were
favourable for these converts to keep their rites, in a similar way to Roman
Catholic practices in this matter, the Russian missionaries sent to Uremia were
rapidly known for their efforts of bringing the Syrian Oriental liturgical
heritage of the newly received parishes into line with Russian usage. [6]
Finally, we cannot forget that
the presence of uniate groups brought the Orthodox Church to face the question
of the plurality of rites. Also, some authors consider the foundation of
western rite Orthodox communities as “uniatism in reverse” and consider that
this experience “does not so much constitute original creations but rather
conjectural and limited borrowings from the Roman model.” [7]
It can be said in any case that
the Oriental Patriarchs were not at the origin of western rite Orthodox
communities: the initiative always came from western individuals or small
groups of converts (or candidates for conversion).
The Anglican “Non-Juring” bishops of the 18th century
The first case of the question
being asked of western rite Christians entering into communion was that of the
Anglican “Non-Juring” bishops, those who refused to deny their allegiance to
James II (1633-1701) — who converted to Roman Catholicism and was overthrown in
1688 — and to swear an oath to William III whilst the Sovereign to whom
they had sworn loyalty was still living. Some persevered in their separation
after the death of James II and some entered into correspondence with the
Oriental Patriarchs in view of exploring the possibilities of union (but not
all the Non-Jurors approved this step). [8]
This contact was established
through the presence in England (from 1712) of an emissary of the Patriarch of
Alexandria, Archbishop Arsenios of Thebaide, who received several persons into
the Orthodox Church during his stay in England. He was not the first Orthodox
cleric to come, and a Greek chapel had been running for some time in London
during the last quarter of the 17th century. In 1716, a group of Non-Jurors
wrote propositions in view to a “concordat between the Orthodox and Catholic
remnant of the British Churches and the Oriental Catholic and Apostolic
Church,” then entrusted the text to Archbishop Arsenios. He went to Moscow to
take it to Czar Peter the Great, who was interested in the project and gave the
document to the Oriental Patriarchs.
Reading the exchange between the
Non-Jurors and the authorities of the Orthodox Church [9] reveals a fundamental
ecclesiological misunderstanding: the English presented themselves on a footing
of agility in view to union and made rash proposals, for example the
recognition of the Church Jerusalem as the “true mother Church.” They did not
intend to adopt the Orthodox Faith without restriction, but imposed their
conditions. For the liturgy, to draw near to the Oriental Patriarchs, they
proposed the restoration of the old English liturgy “with appropriate additions
and alterations.” They refused to invoke the Mother of God and the Saints, and
showed great reticence faced with the veneration of icons. The common response
of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Alexandria is without any
ambiguity, and immediately emphasizes that the Orthodox Church has always
remained faithful to the doctrine of the Apostles. It refuses to open the door
to any doctrinal compromise with any kind of Protestantism whatsoever. To stay
at the level of the liturgical question, the Patriarchs were very careful: if
the union is truly wanted, the customs should not be “entirely foreign and
diametrically opposed to each other,” which would introduce a cause for
breakdown. [10]
“(…) the
Oriental Orthodox Church recognizes only one liturgy (…), written by the first
Bishop of Jerusalem, James the brother of the Lord, and then abridged on
account of its length by the great Father Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, and then abridged again by John, the Patriarch of Constantinople
the Golden Mouthed (…). It is therefore fitting that those who are called the
remnant of primitive piety should use it when they will be united with us, so
that there should be no point of disagreement between us (…). For the English
liturgy, we have no knowledge of it, not having seen or read it. However, we
feel some suspicion about it, for the reason of the number and variety of
heresies, schisms and sects in this area, fearing that the heretics may have
introduced some corruption or deviation into right Faith. It is therefore
necessary for us to see and read it. We will then approve it as just or reject
it as disagreeing with our immaculate Faith. When we will have considered it
thus, if it needs corrections, we will correct it. If possible, we will give it
the sanction of an authentic form. However, what need of another liturgy have
those who possess the true and sincere liturgy of our divine Father Chrysostome
(…)? If those who call themselves the remnant of primitive piety are prepared
to receive it, they will be more intimately and closely linked with us.” [11]
Later exchanges of correspondence
did not allow the resolution of several points of disagreement, not to mention
the interventions of the “official” Anglican Church to discourage the Oriental
Patriarchs for pursuing talks with a small group of “schismatics.” The
Non-Jurors slowly disappeared.
The passage quoted above shows
under which angle, as from the first mention of a possibility of a western
rite, this problem was tackled, placing the bishops into a dilemma: they could
not absolutely exclude the possibility of a non-Byzantine rite, but they felt
potential dangers linked with its adoption at the same time.
The 19th century context
It was necessary to wait until
the 19th century for the question to return to the agenda. The historical
context was more favourable. In the aftermath of the commotion of the French
Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, there was a “growing push for spiritual
unity,” [12] reinforced by awareness that the growth of impiety was a threat
for all believers. Thus, in 1857, some German bishops took the initiative of an
association to pray for unity between “Greeks” and “Latins,” and the Baron of
Haxthausen wrote to Metropolitan Philaret to try to convince him to launch a
similar initiative in Russia. [13]
There was a growing interest in
England for the Church and the Orthodox Liturgy, which later resulted in
initiatives in view to drawing together. The “Apostles” of the “Catholic
Apostolic” Church (the “Irvingite” movement), which came into being in the England
of the 1830’s, took on considerable liturgical work based on a study of
different existing traditions, and drew up a Eucharistic rite “of Roman for,
English language and Oriental ethos — including a certain number of direct
borrowings from oriental liturgies.” [14]
The Old Catholic movement, from
the reaction against Vatican I, affirmed since the Congress of Munich of
1871 that it aspired to re-establish union with the “Greek Church” the
eucharistic rite published in 1880 by Bishop Edward Herzog (Switzerland) incorporated
the epiclesis, but placed it before the words of institution. [15] For both
national and Christian reasons, General Alexander Kireeff (1832-1910) devoted
nearly forty years of reconciliation efforts between the Orthodox Church and
the Old Catholics, seeing in the latter a “Western Orthodox Sister Church” with
which there was no dogmatic difference and whose hierarchy was considered as
valid. [16]
There was also a greater openness
to the western approaches from the Russian Church, usually the main
interlocutor at this time. [17] The reports of the procurator of the Holy Synod
show the attention given manifestations of sympathy for the Orthodox liturgical
traditions in the Anglican Church (it was noted that, apart from the
translations of the liturgical texts, several Anglican parishes began
“gradually to introduce our liturgical chant”) [18] and the concern to provide
means for non-Orthodox to approach the Church, as much in Russia as in other
countries. [19] Finally, we should not forget the cases of conversions to the
Orthodox Church in the west during the 19th century. That of Father Wladimir
Guettée (1816-1892) is one of the best known, [20] but there were others.
A pioneer of the western rite: J.J. Overbeck
Among these converts, a figure
stands out, who made a golden thread of the western rite in the Orthodox Church
throughout his life: Julian Joseph Overbeck (1821-1905), of German origin,
ordained a Catholic priest in 1845, went over to Protestantism in 1857 and went
to England the same year, where he devoted himself to publishing Syrian
manuscripts (especially the texts of Saint Ephraim the Syrian), then officially
received into the Orthodox Church in London in 1869. [21] A revealing detail:
he would have wanted to take this step from 1865 and himself dates his decisive
encounter with Orthodox tradition from this time. However, according to some
sources, he would first of all have wanted to obtain the recognition of his
Western Orthodox Church plan, and this led him to defer his formal decision.
[22]
From his conversion until his
death, he remained of an indefectible loyalty — despite the disappointments
felt in relation to the realization of some projects. His ecclesiology refuses
any “branch theory”:
“The Orthodox
Church is unquestionably the Church of undivided Christianity, for she rests on
the seven Ecumenical Synods (…). It was also true that the Church of undivided
Christianity was exclusively the authentic Catholic Church, to the exclusion of
any other. The Orthodox Church is also the only and unique Catholic Church, to
the exclusion of any other.
“Neither the
Roman Church nor the Protestant denominations (to which the Anglican Church
belongs) can pretend to be the Catholic Church or parts of it. They are nothing
other than heterodox bodies and are outside the Church.” [23]
It is this very logic that
justifies the re-establishment of a western rite Orthodox Church in Overbeck’s
view: even though the notions of “Oriental Church” and “Orthodox Church”
provisionally coincide, they are not identical or synonyms. He refused any idea
of “orientalizing” western converts and showed his critical attitude towards
another convert, Timothy (Stephen) Hatherly (1827-1905), who tried to set up a
Byzantine Rite Orthodox parish for British converts. Overbeck’s plan to restore
the Western Orthodox Church was entirely something else:
“How can we
transform the present heterodox Western Church into an Orthodox Church and thus
make it like, in essentials, as it was before the schism? – Reject everything
that is heterodox in Roman Catholic teaching and book, and you will have, in
the essentials, the Western Catholic Orthodox Church of before the schism.”
[24]
Overbeck’s idea was therefore to
undertake a task of purifying the existing western rites: we will see this idea
reappear several times. In his enthusiasm and energy, Overbeck, freshly
received into the Orthodox Church, did not consider it necessary first of all
to go ahead with completely revising the liturgical texts to begin the
foundation of a western rite Orthodox community: he promised the Russians that
no more than two months were needed! Indeed, once the Ordo Missae was
revised (a task already undertaken by Overbeck), it would have been enough to
revise the mobile parts progressively throughout the year. The administration
of the Sacraments could be provisionally according to the oriental rite.
Overbeck emphasized the pastoral importance of this work: in his opinion,
parishes using the local language but the oriental rite would never bring in
more than a handful of converts, “whilst thousands would flock to the Western
Orthodox Church, because it corresponds more with their being and western nature.”
[25] His “Western Catholic-Orthodox Liturgy of the Mass,” published in Latin
and English in London towards 1871, [26] essentially follows the Roman Rite,
but adds a Byzantine-style epiclesis.
Overbeck dreamed of the day when
each nationality would have its national Catholic-Orthodox Church, as in the
oriental countries, based on a common Catholic doctrine and the holy canons.
[27] At one time, he believed Old Catholicism would be the vehicle of these
hopes, and thought he could discern a movement of a greater importance that
would go beyond the Protestant Reformation in this reaction against Roman
abuses. [28] However, he was not unaware of the Old Catholics’ hesitations to
take the final step. [29] A few years later, Overbeck had lost all his
illusions about the potential offered by the Old Catholic movement, which had
fatally delayed the realization of his own plans. He denounced their
indifferentism, having underestimated the dogmatic differences. [30] Far from
accepting all the dogmas of the Orthodox Church without reserve, the Old
Catholics were unfortunately nearer to the Anglican “branch theory.” Rather
than follow the advice of Overbeck, who suggested that the Old Catholics should
leave the Anglicans out of it, they wanted to include the Anglicans in their
discussions with the Orthodox. This brought Old Catholicism increasingly to
assimilate itself to Anglicanism. [31]
Faced with this failure, Overbeck
felt forced to pursue his solitary combat for the creation of a western rite
Orthodox Church, based on a petition he wrote in 1867 and sent, bearing several
tens of signatures, to the Holy Synod of the Russian Church in September 1869:
“We are Westerners and must remain Westerners.” [32] Overbeck emphasized the
loyalty of the petitioners, who had never held separate religious services, but
always attended those of the Greek and Russian parishes, in the hope that their
waiting would be answered. The years went by and the group dispersed little by
little. [33]
The authorities of the Russian
Church were seriously interested in Overbeck’s plan, which enjoyed a real
esteem. However, for many reasons, especially the obviously unpromising
perspectives and very strong resistance from the Greek Church, the Holy Synod
finally decided to abandon the project in 1884. However, as Florovsky
underlined, “the question brought up by Overbeck was pertinent.” [34] His
position was awkward for those who dreamed of “reconciliation between the
Churches.” This element must often be considered to make a correct
interpretation of the background of reactions that later accompanied other
attempts to establish western rite Orthodox communities.
Russian Theologians and the Episcopalian Rite
A commission of Russian
theologians had again to look into the question of the western rite in 1904,
following questions asked by the future Patriarch Tikhon (who was then
ministering in the United States) to know if he could authorize the use of the
Episcopalian rite (American Prayer Book)
if a whole American parish went over to the Orthodox Church.
The theologians consulted
revealed ambiguity around some fundamental doctrines in these texts. They
emphasized that it was not only necessary to be attentive to their content, but
also the ecclesial context in which they were written. As they examined the
doubtful points in turn, the commission noted that some rites (that of
ordination for example) were not expressly non-Orthodox, but could contain
“indirect indications” showing that they rested “on a different dogmatic
basis.” [35] From now onwards, the “latent inadequacies” of the rite could not
be authorized without correction.
“When a rite has
been compiled with the special intention of adapting it to Protestant beliefs,
it would not be unreasonable, before admitting its use, to subject it to a
special revision in the opposite sense.” [36]
“The examination
of the Book of Common Prayer leads
to the overall conclusion that what it contains presents comparatively little
material clearly contradicting Orthodox teaching and would therefore not be
admissible in Orthodox worship. This conclusion, however, is not derived from
the notion of the book being really Orthodox, but simply that it was compiled
in a spirit of compromise and that, cleverly avoiding the doctrinal points to
be discussed, it attempts to reconcile truly contradictory tendencies. It would
follow that those who professed Protestantism and their opponents could both
use it in good conscience.” [37]
To allow their use by ex-Anglican
converts, these texts should firstly be revised in the spirit of the Orthodox
Church. The commission also recommended that the clergy should be received with
a fresh conditional ordination. The question seems at any rate to have remained
theoretical and not to have been applied to date.
Western Rite Communities in the United States
During the 20th century,
there were in the United States several cases of attempting to set up western
rite Orthodox communities, both in the jurisdiction of traditional Orthodox
Churches and in a “wildcat” and non-canonical form. Some of these communities
ended up being received into an Orthodox jurisdiction. One of these cases was
the Society of Saint Basil, which came into being indirectly through the action
of Bishop Aftimios Ofiesh (1880-1966), who in 1917 became Bishop of Brooklyn
and head of the Syrian mission within the jurisdiction of the Russian Church in
America. An act signed in 1927 by Metropolitan Plato and several other Russian
bishops in America charged Bishop Aftimios to establish the foundations of an
autonomous American Church, not linked to ethnic origins, and above all
designed for American-born and English-speaking people. However, the time was
hardly right, with all the troubles in the Russian Church. Bishop Aftimios
ended up marrying in 1933. [38]
He has consecrated several
persons, among whom William A. Nichols, who in 1931 was at the origin of the
Society of Saint Basil. This was later directed by Alexander Turner, who
succeeded in getting the group received into the Antiochian jurisdiction in the
United States in 1961 as a western rite community. Indeed, as from 1958, with
the approval of Patriarch Alexander III of Antioch, Metropolitan Anthony
Bashir authorized the use of the western rite in North America. [39]
We cannot say there was a mass
movement towards the western rite in the United States, partly because of the
reticence of most of the bishops. Towards 1970, if the Syrian Archdiocese
firmly continued to support it by explaining that oriental liturgical practice
was “foreign to everything known by western Christians,” voices like Father
Alexander Schmemann on the contrary feared that spreading the western rite
could “dangerous multiply spiritual adventures, examples of which we have seen
all too often in the past, and can only hinder the true progress of Orthodoxy
in the West.” [40]
However, alongside the parishes
of the Antiochian jurisdiction, the Russian Synod in Exile [ROCOR], despite
misadventures that were still fresh in France (we will come back to this
later), had established three western rite parishes in 1968, with Archpriest
George Grabbe as their Dean. These parishes had adopted the old calendar, and a
commission had been established by the Synod to define guidelines for the use
of the western rite. Talking to the faithful of the western rite parish of
Greenwich (Connecticut) in November 1968, Father George Grabbe explained in
what spirit they should go ahead:
“(…) the West
has been separated from Orthodoxy for so many centuries. Life is not static. It
is development and growth. This is why it is impossible to return mechanically
to forms of Christian life that existed in the West more than a thousand years
ago, when it was still Orthodox. To express Orthodoxy again, the western forms
must be enriched by the heritage of the centuries of uninterrupted tradition in
the life of the Orthodox Church. Its experience (…) must become your experience
and be incorporated into western liturgical forms.” [41]
As often in the experience of the
western rite, it also proved to be short-lived. In 1974, in the whole of
America, there remained only two western rite parishes under canonical Orthodox
jurisdiction, both with the Antiochians. [42]
How is it that the movement today
is booming, to the point of counting some thirty parishes in North America in
1996? [43] Paradoxically we need to look for the reasons in the original
religious denominations of the converts, mainly coming from the Episcopalian or
Roman Catholic ranks, and reacting against the liturgical (and sometimes
doctrinal) upheavals in their communities. As Father Paul Schneirla, head of
the Western Rite Vicariate in the Antiochian Archdiocese, recognizes, “we are
not conducting a proselytism program, but we represent an option for those who
have already rejected the changes in their old denomination.” [44]
The liturgical practice
represents a “theologically corrected form of worship previously used by the
Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion.” [45] We remain in the line of
Overbeck’s attempts in the 19th century or the suggestions made by the
1904 commission of theologians. The recent edition of the missal published by
the Western Rite Vicariate contains two liturgies: the “Mass according to the
Rite of Saint Tikhon” and the “Mass according to the Rite of Saint Gregory.”
[46] These are symbolic patronages: the first is a revision of the Anglican
rite, and the second is an adapted Tridentine Mass, close to the version
proposed by Overbeck. Apart from a few details, a Roman Catholic would find the
pre-conciliar liturgy, but celebrated in English. [47] This pure and simple
resuming of a western rite with a few adapted elements avoids the arbitrary
nature of a liturgical reconstruction, but also implies the de facto incorporation of
post-schism elements. It is revealing that the imagery used in the Vicariate’s
publications is often borrowed from medieval or neo-gothic engravings.
Father Alexey Young, an American
priest who collaborates in several Orthodox periodicals asked in 1989 to be
received into the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Archdiocese after
having ministered for years in a parish of the Russian Church in Exile. He was
sensitive to the missionary possibilities that seemed to be opening up and a
form of “re-appropriation” of his own western heritage.” [48] In June 1996, he
resigned from the western rite parish where he served, and asked to return to
the jurisdiction of the Russian Church in Exile. He explained:
“I began to like
the western rite and understand its authentic pre-schism spirituality and its
viable character for our time. (…) However, I am now leaving the western rite
movement – not because I don’t like the rite, but because I believe the
movement itself within the Antiochian Archdiocese has failed. Of course, it
continues to grow numerically (…). However, quantity does not ensure quality,
and the direction of this movement has been largely ineffective. In many cases,
our western rite clergy and faithful have not been adequately instructed,
prepared or guided. They do not understand the spirit of Orthodoxy or
even their own pre-schism western heritage. In most cases, they sought union
with the Orthodox Church above all to preserve a rite that had been abolished
in the Church to which they formerly belonged. This is not an adequate reason
to become Orthodox, and this is not a sufficient justification for a Church to
accept them.” [49]
Apart from the thirty American
parishes, a few western rite parishes in the Antiochian jurisdiction saw the
day in the United Kingdom. They originated in an initiative called Pilgrimage to Orthodoxy. In June 1993,
some twenty Anglican clerics met to examine the “Orthodox option,” faced with
increasingly clear threats of the ordination of women in the Church of England.
Some were drawn to the Byzantine Rite, others to the western rite. They
contacted the Patriarchate of Antioch (which had made it known that it would
not be opposed to receiving British western rite communities) [50] and, in May
1995, Bishop Gabriel Saliby (vicar of the Patriarch of Antioch in western
Europe) went ahead with the diaconal ordination of a first western rite cleric.
This initiative seems to have remained without much impact.
Recreating a pre-schism liturgy? The Catholic-Orthodox Church of France
Until now, we have given
attention to attempts at purifying a Roman or Anglican rite. The allusion made
above in regard to the Celtic rite indicates another possible way, and indeed
followed by some partisans of an Orthodox western rite: attempt to find a
direct link, going back centuries, to the pre-schism Orthodox heritage. Guettée
already worked on a restoration of a Gallican Liturgy, which would have been
celebrated in 1875 at the Academy of theology of Saint Petersburg (without this
initiative coming to anything). The most major and known attempt was born in
France, within the Orthodox Catholic Church of France (ECOF).
We do not wish to go into its
history, which has been told several times, [51] but it is necessary to bring a
few stages of this liturgical and ecclesial adventure to mind. The birth of the
ECOF resulted from the conjunction of two currents: a group of dissident French
Catholics looking for their roots and the will of a few Russians to resurrect
the Orthodox tradition in the west.
The first current grouped around
Irénée (Louis-Charles) Winnaert (1880-1937), [52] a Catholic priest who left
the Roman Church in the aftermath of the Modernist crisis and, having served a
few other communities, set up a small independent Catholic Church, but suffered
from his isolation.
The second was the Confraternity
of Saint Photius, founded in 1925 by eight young emigrated Russians who, far
from weeping in the exile, wanted to take advantage of it to proclaim the
universality of the Orthodox Church and affirm that “each people, each notion
has its personal right in the Orthodox Church, its autocephalous canonical
constitution, the safeguard of its customs, its rites, its liturgical
language.” In this spirit, the Confraternity set up a “commission for France”
from its first year of existence, that envisaged the question of the western
liturgy in its different forms. [53]
Bishop Winnaert and
representatives from the Saint Photius Confraternity entered into relations in
1927. This was followed by a series of contacts with Orthodox hierarchs, with
the support of the Saint Photius Confraternity. This resulted in the decree of
Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow of 16th June 1936 accepting the little
community and allowing it to keep the western rite (a modified Roman Rite).
Article 4 of the decree states: “However, the texts of the services must be
progressively purged from expressions and thoughts that would be inadmissible
for Orthodoxy.” Article 9 says “the parishes united with the Orthodox Church,
using the western rite, shall be designated as the Western Orthodox Church.” The clergy shall wear western liturgical
vestments, but may use oriental vestments when they take part in oriental rite
Orthodox services.
The little community was received
into the Orthodox Church in 1937, whilst Bishop Winnaert was already seriously
ill. He died shortly afterwards, having asked for the priestly ordination of
one of the members of the Saint Photius Confraternity, Eugraph Kovalevsky
(1905-1970), to ensure the future of the Western Orthodox Church (which was later named the Orthodox
Church of France). Eugraph Kovalevsky became a bishop in 1964 under the name of
Jean de Saint-Denis. In the line of the aspirations already shown in the Saint
Photius Confraternity, he undertook liturgical research to try to rediscover
pre-schism western rites and celebrated the Liturgy according to the Ancient Rite of the Gauls in Paris in
May 1945.
Even before the war, there was a
rupture in the budding western rite group. Father Lucien Chambault (1899-1965,
who later became a monk under the name of Denis), rector of the parish left by
Bishop Winnaert, came into conflict with Father Eugraph Kovalevsky. He wanted
to hold onto a revised Roman rite. He then founded a Benedictine-inspired
priory in Paris. There were some faithful (even more considering that Father
Denis had acquired a reputation as a healer and an exorcist, which brought him
many visitors!), [54] but was unable to keep a stable community of the monks
who came to live with him. The western rite parish survived for only two years
after the death of Father Denis. According to the observations of Archimandrite
Barnabas (Burton), who spent two years as a novice in this community
(1960-1962), the western eucharistic rite celebrated “apparently resembled a
Catholic Mass in French, and many Catholics came to the chapel for that
reason.” [55]
The experience led by Eugraph
Kovalevsky went in another direction. It still continues, despite many
upheavals that marks its existence: rupture with the Patriarchate of Moscow in
1953, a short time in the Russian Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
in 1953-1954, followed by a desert pilgrimage for several years out of any
canonical obedience and without a bishop, then an attachment to the Russian
Church in Exile in 1959. This was followed in 1966 by another period of
independent existence, resulting in the reception of the ECOF into the
Patriarchate of Romania in 1972 and the consecration of a new bishop, Father
Gilles Bertrand-Hardy, under the name of Germain de Saint-Denis, to succeed the first deceased bishop.
Finally they broke with Bucharest in 1993, bringing the ECOF again outside any
canonical framework at the time of writing. Furthermore, recently and for
serious reasons, many ECOF clerics found they had no choice other than to leave
their bishop. The question of their future integration, to our knowledge, is
not yet resolved at the time of revising this text (May 2002).
We will not go into a discussion
of the reasons that led to these successive ruptures, mentioned in literature
of a polemical style. It suffices to state that the main cause does not seem to
be the choice of the western rite in itself, but rather various disciplinary
questions and other problems that do not need to be mentioned here.
The enterprise of re-creating an
western rite in France did not only attract western converts, but aroused the
interest of the Russian emigration, which felt that their exile should be the
occasion of bringing something to the West.
Father Eugraph was not the only
one to undertake such enterprises in those years. A bishop of the Patriarchate
of Moscow in France, Bishop Alexis van der Mensbrugghe, who had actively
collaborated in the liturgical work of the Orthodox Church of France before
taking his distance, published his restoration of the western rite — not only
the Gallican rite, but also the Pre-Celestinian Italic rite (the western rite
tradition including these two fundamental variants: Gallican and Italic), for,
“in all its historical probity, the Gallican rite, though it is more archaic in
its first ritual foundation and it its type of euchology, cannot be imposed in
Italy.” [56] Bishop Alexis van der Mensbrugghe himself celebrated this liturgy
in Italian parishes, wearing western vestments, but nothing seems to have
remained of his efforts.
His liturgical work concerns all
the services, and not only the eucharistic rite. [57] Father Eugraph called the
liturgy according to the ancient Gallic rite the Liturgy of Saint Germanus of Paris, for the letters of that bishop
of the 6th century, discovered in the 18th century, represent a
precious document for knowing about the ancient Gallic rite. [58] Of course,
“the liturgy of the Gallican rite celebrated in France during the first
millennium and replaced by the Roman liturgy after the reform of Charlemagne
has not come down to us in the form of a complete text.” [59] In the work of
restoration undertaken, the western texts have been enriched by some oriental
origin elements. [60] The partisans of the ECOF esteem that this would in no
case constitute eclecticism (the ECOF has several times been accused of going
in for “liturgical creation”), but a legitimate compenetration of rites. It is
in poetical language that Father Eugraph described the method used to bring the
joy of this day into Easter Matins, so marked in Orthodox celebrations:
“Easter Matins
in our churches faithfully follow the sober and restrained structure of the
Latin rite with its three nocturnes. However, like three petals of a flower
thoughtfully folded in on itself, under the action of the joy of the eternal
Spring of the Resurrection and as struck by the rays of the sun, the three
Latin nocturnes burst forth, blossom and give hospitality to the divinely
inspired bees, to the hymns of Byzantium.” [61]
Apart from the symbolic
manifestation of such an initiative, why was there a decision to restore a rite
rather than choose the Byzantine Rite or the “orthodoxized” Roman Rite? The
members of the ECOF answer that the first “has never been celebrated as an
organic local rite in western Europe” and would therefore represent “a foreign
introduction without roots”. For the second, it is presented in a form that was
fixed by the Council of Trent and modified by the successive reforms of the
Sovereign Pontiffs, and adopting it would bring them to fall “into a replica of
uniatism.” [62] As for accusations of “archaeological reconstructions,”
the ECOF replies that it is rather the “rebirth of a latent tradition of the
undivided Church which, from the first bishops of Gaul and through some
liturgical currents (monastic and others), was providentially revived by the
encounter with Orthodox tradition.”
“Practically, it is a question of
a new influx of the wealth of the Byzantine Rite and rediscovered Gallican
texts into the liturgical structures originating in France and now perfectly
capable of being scientifically re-established (…). This is the indispensable
and natural procedure for an native Church.” [63]
Orthodoxy and Celtism
The ECOF does not represent the
only contemporary attempt at restoring or (re)creating a western rite, but the
others happened in the fringes of the Orthodox world. We can especially mention
the Patriarchate of Glastonbury and the Celtic Orthodox Church in France. The
lives of these two bodies were linked for years and up to a recent date.
Claiming the spiritual heritage of an ex-Dominican, Jules Ferette, who would
have been consecrated in 1866 as Bishop of Iona by a Jacobite prelate, the
group decided in 1944 to “restore the Gallican liturgical rites of western
Europe,” the structure of which was not Roman “and which had much in common
with the oriental liturgies.”
“The Glastonbury rite does not
pretend to be a reconstruction of any specific Gallican rite, for this would be
impossible seeing the many Gallican formularies exist only in the state of
fragments or in a Romanized form. The compilers have therefore delved into all
the Gallican rites, and where additions were necessary (mostly from the
Byzantine rite), have preserved the Gallican ethos and conserved its customs
and structures even though the precise words were from another origin.” [64]
Called the “Liturgy of Saint
Joseph of Arimathea,” the Glastonbury rite claims to be a neo-Gallican rite in
the same category as the “Liturgy of Saint Germanus of Paris.” [65] In France,
the Celtic Orthodox Church, then in the British Patriarchate jurisdiction, also
published liturgical texts of the “Celtic” or “neo-Celtic.” The source of this
group is in the action of Mar Tugdual, in the world Jean-Pierre Danyel
(1917-1968), received into the Orthodox Church of France in 1949, then who went
his way in the “independent church” world, from 1955 living an eremitical life
in Brittany and cultivating a Celtic spirituality — he was canonized by the
Celtic Church in August 1996.
It would be too lengthy here to
explain the events of attempts to restore a Celtic Orthodox Church. The
Patriarchate of Glastonbury no longer exists, since its British Metropolitan
was received with some of his priests and faithful into the Coptic Church in
1994. At this occasion, the diocese abandoned the Glastonbury rite and,
bringing projects already begun to a conclusion sooner than expected, adopted
the Liturgy of Saint James with the blessing of the Coptic Patriarchate. [66]
The group in Brittany and the other communities formerly in the Glastonbury
jurisdiction, however, remain independent.
Among the attempts to restore
ancient rites, we should briefly mention another attempt to restore the Celtic
rite on the basis of the Stowe Missal (considered by specialists as the most
important document for the study of this rite), on the initiative of Father
Kristopher Dowling, who heads a western rite parish in Akron (Ohio). [67]
The Saint Hilarion Monastery in
Austin (Texas) has restored the Use of Sarum, celebrated in England before the
schism, and publishes very polished editions of the liturgical texts. [68] It
is to be noted that this group, with parishes also in England and Serbia, has
adopted the Julian calendar.
Conclusion
Without giving any judgment,
since the purpose of this panorama is simply to inform, what conclusion can we
draw from all these efforts? As a “mobilizing myth,” the ideal of a western
Orthodox rite is not lacking in attractiveness. We will without doubt continue
to observe attempts in this way, and we cannot exclude the possibility of one
of them really finishing up by taking root and remaining. However, this should
not hide another reality, in a greater number, that of a slow but growing
development of Byzantine rite parishes, in spite of the extreme affirmations of
a few western rite partisans, who adhere to a kind of liturgical nationalism as
they say that the establishment of the Byzantine Rite would be “an
impossibility, an aberration” [69]: “The oriental rite, foreign to France’s
spiritual way, is without profound action and can even give the effect of a
narcotic, or a kind of toxin.” [Sic!]
[70] The Byzantine Rite has been marked by the oriental context in which it
matured, but that does not seem to present an insurmountable obstacle.
A plurality of rites would also
raise the question of the rite to be used in missionary contexts, outside the
western world. Local Byzantine Rite communities have emerged in Africa and
Bengal, as in other parts of the world. If the western rite became more widely
accepted, must it be reserved only for western origin populations, or could its
missionary expansion be envisaged? In the context of globalization, the
Byzantine Rite seems destined to impose itself increasingly as a universal
rite. This does not exclude national inflexions to some practices or the
development of particular characteristics in harmony with the spirit of the
Orthodox tradition as time goes on and following a natural movement within the
local Church.
It is not sure that this would
suffice to remove the accumulated dust of a few centuries to find the Orthodox
tradition. This indeed supposes more than a confession of Orthodox faith. It
does not suffice for High-Church Anglicans or Old Catholics to delete the Filioque in the Creed, recognize
only the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium and hang icons in their
churches to become ipso facto Orthodox,
as the experience of more than a century shows.
At a theoretical level, most
Orthodox bishops would without doubt admit the possible legitimacy of other
rites. In practice, so many fundamental questions and experience bring most of
them to remain reticent or hostiles to the practice of the western rite in
their dioceses. [71]
Jean-François Mayer
[1] Apart
from the various persons who have answered our questions as we prepared this
article, we would particularly like to thank Abba Seraphim (British Orthodox
Church), who generously opened up his library to us, and Fathers Michael Harper
and Jonathan Hemmings (British Antiochian Deanery) for the meeting we had with
them in London in July 1996.
[2] The best
summary on the subject is probably that presented in a series of articles of
Alexis Van Bunnen, “L’Orthodoxie de rite occidental en Europe et aux
Etats-Unis. Assessment and perspectives,” in Irénikon, LIV/1, 1981, pp. 53-61; LIV/2, 1981,
pp. 211-221; LIV/3, 1981, pp. 331-350.
[3] Cf. Paul
Meyendorff, Russia, Ritual, and
Reform: The Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century, Crestwood
(N.Y.), St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991.
[4] Cf.
Antoine Lambrechts, “Le statut ecclésial des Edinovertsy dans l’Eglise russe du
XVIIIe au XXe siècle,” in Irénikon,
LXIV/4, 1991, pp. 451-467. On the present situation of the edinovertsy: Irénikon, LXVII/1, 1994, pp. 133-136.
[5] Wilhelm
Kahle, Die Begegnung des baltischen
Protestantismus mit der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche, Leiden / Köln,
E.J. Brill, 1959, chap. 6.
[6] Ernst
Chr. Suttner, “Die Union der sogenannten Nestorianer aus der Gegend von Urmia
(Persien) mit der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche,” in Ostkirchliche Studien, 44/1, mars 1995, pp. 33-40.
[7]
Jean-Claude Roberti, Les Uniates,
Paris / Montréal, Cerf / Fides, 1992, p. 107.
[8] Cf. H.W.
Langford, “The Non-Jurors and the Eastern Orthodox,” in Eastern Churches Review, 1/2, automne 1966, pp. 118-131;
Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty, L’Eglise
russe face à l’Occident, Paris, O.E.I.L., 1991, 1ère partie.
[9] This
correspondence was published by George Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century. Being the
Correspondence Between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjuring Bishops,
London, 1868 (reprint: New York, AMS Press, 1970).
[10] Ibid., p. 33.
[11] Ibid., pp. 34-35.
[12] Georges
Florovsky, “Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century,” in Collected Works of Georges Florovsky,
vol. 14, Vaduz, Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989, pp. 110-163
(p. 110).
[13] Cf.
“Une correspondance entre le le baron de Haxthausen et André Mouravieff,”
in Istina, July-September 1969,
pp. 342-369; Paul Pierling, Le
Prince Gagarine et ses amis, 1814-1882, Paris, Beauchesne, 1996,
chap. 10.
[14] Columba
Graham Flegg, “Gathered Under
Apostles”. A Study of the Catholic Apostolic Church, Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1992, p. 272.
[15] Petrus
Maan, “The Old Catholic Liturgies”, in Gordon Huelin (dir.), Old Catholics and Anglicans, 1931-1981,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983, pp. 86-95 (pp. 87-88).
[16] Olga
Novikoff, Le Général Alexandre
Kiréeff et l’ancien-catholicisme, new ed. expanded, Berne, Librairie
Staempfli, 1914.
[17] Nicolas
Zernov, The Church of the Eastern
Christians, London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1942,
p. 83.
[18] Mémoire présenté à l’Empereur par le
Procureur général du Saint-Synode, le Comte D. Tolstoy, sur l’activité de
l’administration ecclésiastique orthodoxe depuis juin 1865 jusqu’à janvier 1866,
Paris, Bureau de l’Union chrétienne, 1867, p. 5.
[19] Ibid., pp. 23-24.
[20] Cf.
Jean-Paul Besse, Un précurseur,
Wladimir Guettée, du Gallicanisme à l’Orthodoxie, Lavardac, Monastère
Orthodoxe Saint-Michel, 1992.
[21] Wilhelm
Kahle, Westliche Orthodoxie. Leben
und Ziele Julian Joseph Overbecks, Leiden / Köln, E.J. Brill, 1968.
[22] Ibid., p. 21.
[23] J.J.
Overbeck, Die Providentielle
Stellung des Orthodoxen Russland und sein Beruf zur Wiederherstellung der
rechtgläubigen katholischen Kirche des Abendlands, Halle, 1869,
pp. 50-51.
[24] Ibid., p. 52.
[25] Ibid., pp. 59-60.
[26] We find
the complete reproduction in the study of de G.H. Thomann, The Western Rite in Orthodoxy: Union and
Reunion Schemes of Western and Eastern Churches with Eastern Orthodoxy – A
Brief Historical Outline, 3e ed., Nürnberg, private
publication, 1995, pp. 51-74.
[27] J.J.
Overbeck, Catholic Orthodoxy and
Anglo-Catholicism. A Word about the Intercommunion between the English and the
Orthodox Churches, London, Trübner, 1866, pp. 1-2.
[28] J.J.
Overbeck, Die Wiedervereinigung der
morgen- und abendländischen Kirche. Ein Rückblick auf der Münchener
Altkatholiken-Congress, und ein Vorblick auf die zu lösende Aufgabe. Offener
Brief an den Grafen Dimitry Tolstoy, Halle, 1873, p. 3.
[29] Ibid., p. 22.
[30] J.J.
Overbeck, Die Bonner
Unions-Conferenzen, oder Altkatholicismus und Anglikanismus in ihrem
Verhältniss zur Orthodoxie. Eine Appellation an die Patriarchen und Heiligen
Synoden der orthodox-katholischen Kirche, Halle, 1876, p. 1.
[31] Ibid., pp. 106-107.
[32] Ibid., p. 112.
[33] Ibid., p. 117.
[34]
Florovsky, op. cit.,
p. 134.
[35] Russian Observations upon the American
Prayer Book, London, Mowbray, 1917, p. 9.
[36] Ibid., p. 19.
[37] Ibid., p. 34.
[38]
Constance J. Tarasar (et al.), Orthodox
America, 1794-1976. Development of the Orthodox Church in America,
Syosset (N.Y.), Orthodox Church in America, 1975, pp. 194-198.
[39] Michael
Trigg (dir.), An Introduction to
Western Rite Orthodoxy, Ben Lomond (California), Conciliar Press, 1993,
p. 9.
[40] Diakonia, 5/1, 1970, p. 24.
[41] Orthodoxy, XII/1, January-February 1969,
p. 11.
[42] Diakonia, 10/2, 1975.
[43] This
number is likely to have increased since then, even though we have no recent
statistics. During a visit to Denver (Colorado) in November 2001, we discovered
three western rite communities in that town, two using an Anglican traditional
liturgy and the other using the Tridentine liturgy in English with a few minor
adaptations.
[44] P.W.S.
Schneirla, “The Twain Meet,” in The
Word, May 1993, pp. 3-4.
[45] Patrick
McCauley, “What Is Western-Rite Orthodoxy?”, in The Word, May1993, pp. 5-6.
[46] Orthodox Missal According to the Use of the
Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of
North America, Stanton (New Jersey), Saint Luke’s Priory Press, 1995,
pp. 169-213.
[47] An
edition of the “Rite of Saint Gregory” however contains the Latin-English
bilingual text, which leads us to believe it may also be celebrated in Latin (The Missal. A Service Book for the Use of
Orthodox Christians, Los Angeles, Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
of North America, 1991).
[48] We can
read an article of Father Alexey Young explaining his motivations in M. Trigg, op.cit., pp. 5-10.
[49]
Personal letter of Father Alexey Young, August 4, 1996. We thank Father
Alexey for having allowed us to quote extracts from this letter.
[50] Orthodox Outlook, N° 35, April
1991, p. 5.
[51] In
particular (from a favourbale point of view for the ECOF, but abundantly
documented) the book of Maxime Kovalevsky, Orthodoxie et Occident. Renaissance d’une Eglise locale. L’Eglise
orthodoxe de France, Paris, Carbonnel, 1990.
[52] Vincent
Bourne (pseudonym of Yvonne Winnaert), La
Queste de Vérité d’Irénée Winnaert, Genève, Labor et Fides, 1966.
[53] On the
Saint Photius Confraternity, cf. Vincent Bourne, La Divine Contradiction. L’avenir catholique orthodoxe de la France,
Paris, Librairie des Cinq Continents, 1975, chap. 7.
[54]
Archimandrite Barnabas, Strange
Pilgrimage, Welshpool, Stylite Publishing, 1985, pp. 45-47.
[55] Ibid., p. 55.
[56] Missel ou Livre de la Synaxe liturgique
approuvé et autorisé pour les églises orthodoxes de rit occidental relevant du
Patriarcat de Moscou, Paris, Contacts, 1962, p. 88.
[57] Cf.
Vincent Bourne, La Divine Contradiction.
Le chant et la lutte de l’Orthodoxie, Paris, Ed. Présence Orthodoxe, 1978,
pp. 495-504.
[58] Texte
latin et traduction française de ces lettres in Présence orthodoxe, N° 34-35, 3rd et 4th quarterlies
1976, pp. 17-37.
[59] Mgr
Jean de Saint-Denis, “Etude critique des lettres de saint Germain de Paris,”
in Présence orthodoxe,
N° 20-21, 4th quarterly 1972 et 1st quarterly
1973, pp. 19-30.
[60] For a
summary of borrowings from the Byzantine rite, cf. Présence orthodoxe, N° 36, 1st quarter 1977,
pp. 82-90.
[61] Ibid., p. 75.
[62] M.
Kovalevsky, Orthodoxie et Occident,
pp. 107-108.
[63] Maxime
Kovalevsky, Retrouver la Source
oubliée. Paroles sur la liturgie d’un homme qui chante Dieu, Paris, Ed.
Présence Orthodoxe, 1984, pp. 29-30
[64]
Seraphim Newman-Norton, Fitly Framed
Together. A Summary of the History, Beliefs and Mission of the Orthodox Church
of the British Isles, Glastonbury, Metropolitical Press, 1976, p. 11.
[65] The Divine Liturgy for the Celebration of
the Holy Eucharist According to the Glastonbury Rite, Commonly Called the
Liturgy of Saint Joseph of Arimathea, 6e éd., Glastonbury,
Metropolitical Press, 1979, p. 1.
[66] Abba
Seraphim “The Liturgy of Saint James,” in Glastonbury Bulletin, N° 93, juillet 1996, pp. 102-202.
[67] Celtic Missal. The Liturgy and Diverse
Services from the Lorrha (“Stowe”) Missal, new ed., Akron, Ascension
Western Rite Orthodox Church, 1996.
[68]
Cf. Old Catholic Prayer Book,
Austin, St. Hilarion Press, 1991.
[69] G.
Bornand, “L’Orthodoxie occidentale,” in Cahiers Saint-Irénée, N° 12, Aug-Sept. 1958, pp. 1-22
(p. 14).
[70] Ibid., p. 12.
[71] Thus,
in April 1996, Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco (Greek Archdiocese) said
that he of course recognized the western rite clergy of other jurisdictions as
Orthodox, but that he did not support such initiatives, for liturgical reasons
(the rites have no direct continuity with those of the western Church of the
first centuries, but are largely marked by the debates of the Reformation and
Counter-Reformation) and pastoral reasons (this increases the fragmentation of
the Orthodox Church in America and creates liturgically isolated small groups).
The Antiochian western rite clergy were therefore not authorized to take part
in liturgies in the parishes of the diocese in western vestments, and the Greek
diocesan clergy were not allowed to participate in western rite liturgical
celebrations. Father Charles Connely, rector of the Saint
Mark’s Western Rite Parish (Denver), has responded to this position in the brochure Lux Occidentalis, also
available on the Internet in PDF format:
https://westernorthodox.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/lux-occidentalis.pdf
Translated from the French original
by Fr. Anthony Chadwick, a clergyman of the Anglican Catholic Church (Original
Province).
