By Fr. Stephen Empson
[Webmaster note: This informative article, concerning the unique liturgical
use of the Église catholique orthodoxe de France, was published in 1984
in the journal Axios. I originally posted a manual transcription of the
article in the defunct “Occidentalis” Western Rite Yahoo discussion group decades ago, which has been disseminated in multiple online locations but
likely contains transcription errors. This corrected text is from an AI OCR
text generated from a photocopy of the original article obtained from the University
of Iowa Main Library in Iowa City, Iowa.]
In response to a great number of
requests for a clarification of the terminology Western Orthodoxy
largely from the readership of Axios, we present this paper which touches upon
three major aspects of Western Orthodoxy. The first consideration is
ecclesiological by nature: the historical position of Western Orthodoxy in the
Universal legacy of liturgical materials which issued during the first
flowering of Western Orthodoxy, including the sixth-century Mass structures of
Paris and Rome. We will close this paper with a discussion of the current state
of Western Orthodoxy affairs, including brief comments upon the one Western
Orthodox Diocese now in existence.
For a number of reasons which are
quite obvious, most Orthodox clergy and faithful either have never heard of
Western Orthodoxy, or at best could not offer a workable description of it.
Probably first among these reasons is the fact that the published writings on
Western Orthodoxy would scarcely fill a library shelf. And most of this output
exists in languages other than English. Another reason for the lack of general
knowledge of this subject, at least in English-speaking lands, is the fact that
the very few Orthodox catechisms and concise histories of Orthodoxy, even
should they mention activity in the Christian Western Roman Empire during the
first millennium, do not at all leave the reader with an outright impression of
a thousand-year Western Orthodox era. There is also a general tendency among
the Eastern Orthodox to view things Western with various degrees of repugnance,
perhaps forgetting that the Christian West was not always Roman Catholic.
Most obvious of all is the fact that since the great schism of 1054, Orthodoxy
was at first exclusively Eastern, and to this day remains overwhelmingly
Eastern. And since proclamation of Balsamon [1] the Eastern Church has been
based liturgically upon the much evolved Byzantine Rite [2]. All of this quite
naturally leads the average person into a comfortable belief that Orthodoxy was
always Eastern and Byzantine Rite, and perhaps that this disproportion in the
universality, or catholicity if you will, of Orthodoxy must be maintained forever.
This brings us to our first
general topic: the historical position of The Western Orthodox Church. Roman
Catholic seminaries have always taught that the first thousand years of the
Christian West constitute Roman Catholic Church history. In a sense, of course,
there is truth in such an assumption, for the Christian West was indeed in the
spiritual jurisdiction of Rome, and was indeed Catholic. The Bishop of Rome was
Patriarch of the West, and canonically first-among-equals of the Orthodox
episcopate [3]. However, this understanding of history is partial [4].
Orthodox seminaries have always
featured courses in Church history centered upon Byzantine and Slavic
evolution, and there are countless excellent texts written from this viewpoint.
Rare or nonexistent are courses entitled, for example, “The History of Orthodoxy
in England” or “The Evolution of Liturgical Music in Spain”. The few
specialists in these and other aspects of Western liturgical development must
largely refer to published material by past and present non-Orthodox scholars.
We consider our Holy Orthodox
Church of Christ to be One, Holy, Orthodox, Catholic, Universal and Apostolic.
Each of these characteristics, or parameters if you will, of our Church would
require many printed pages to fully, or even adequately, describe. Our Church
represents and includes within itself a fullness which in some cases
remains to be revealed and in others escapes close scrutiny and human attempts
at categorization and conceptualism.
Among the characteristics of our
Church which are not so elusive is its universality. Let us consider
this term in the context of The Universal Church. A dictionary description will
not suffice in this instance, although it is worth noting that in our Webster
the word “universality” indicates “a universal comprehensiveness” and “unrestricted
versatility or power of adaption or comprehension”. As far as these
descriptions go, they are appropriate. Certainly they refer to the period of
the undivided Orthodox Church of the first millennium, which was indeed
comprehensive: the Church was Eastern and Western, extending to the far corners
of the entire Roman Empire. This was Our Lord’s expectation [5] and the task of
“evangelization” quickly gained momentum after Pentecost [6]. Even in Apostolic
days we can speak of the universal Church, although the balance between East
and West took on a definite shape during the post-Apostolic era. The first
Bishops or overseers took over the work of the Apostles, and inherited the
Apostolic grace. Episcopal sees rooted themselves in the great centers of
population, Rome, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria, of course, but also
in Toledo, Milan, Vienna, Lyons, Paris, Poitiers, Canterbury, York, Whitby and
Lindisfarne. The Church was universal, comprehensive, and certainly versatile.
We read of the great hierarchs of
the East: of Saints Basil, Cyril, John Chrysostom, Photios, Athanasios and
Ignatios. We also read of the great hierarchs of the West: of Saints Ireney of
Lyons, Germain of Auxerre, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Rome, Ambrose of
Milan, Augustine of Canterbury and Wilfrid of York. As we study the exemplary
lives and works of the Eastern Monastic Fathers, and pray that they will
intercede to God in our behalf, we can be assured that Saints Benedict of
Nursia, Martin of Tours, Odo of Cluny, Benedict Bishop of Wearmouth, Boniface
of Fulda and Columba of Iona are entirely at our disposition. The absolute joy
of the resurrected Christ which inspired and impelled the foundation of Studion
Monastery in Constantinople also inspired and impelled the foundation of St.
Denis Abbey, Melrose Abbey and Marmoutier. Even before Isidore and Melitos
projected the great Hagia Sophia, the Merovingian architects had designed a
great cathedral dedicated to Saint Stephen in Paris [7]. Such was the
universality, comprehensiveness and versatility of Orthodoxy: such was the
balance which once prevailed. And so it is that we speak of the undivided
Church: so rich in the various local expressions and manifestations of One
Lord, One Faith, One Baptism [8].
This ideal balance, this
magnificent diversity within an absolute unity of Faith and Dogma could have
been established and maintained only with Divine assistance: the intimate
participation of The Holy Spirit. This Divine Counsel guaranteed the undivided
Church against doctrinal error. The Ecumenical Councils included Eastern and
Western Fathers, who gathered together from the far points of the Empire in
order to defend Orthodoxy against heresy. The Fathers deliberated, and framed
the canons, always guarded and guided by The Holy Spirit. The Bishops, from
East and West, were equal in grace, and the faithful, Eastern and Western,
constituted the “conscience” of the Church. As long as this concept of
ecclesiology prevailed, The Holy Spirit maintained the Church undivided, and
the Church expanded as naturally, successfully and harmoniously as could be
expected. This long period of harmony and balance gradually faded within the
undivided Church in direct proportion to the gradual loss of conciliarity which
occurred as the Patriarchate of Rome became the papacy and the well-known
innovations and corruptions began. Although we understand that 1054 is the
formal date of the Western schism, the seeds of non-conciliarity were planted
in Rome long before, as we shall discover shortly.
As we now consider certain major
examples of liturgical structures which took root in the undivided Church, we
can continue to rejoice in the Church’s universality and power of adaptability.
There is a vast treasury of
Western Orthodox liturgical materials, to a degree unexplored and to an even
greater degree unused. Few of those who have worked on these liturgical
materials in the past have described them in the context of Orthodoxy. Yet these
materials are the very substance and structure of the Orthodox West from
Post-Apostolic times henceforth. The liturgical structures and the music which
adorned them command our reverence, inasmuch as they form an integral part of
the written Tradition of our Church, along with the Holy Scriptures and the
dogmatic and disciplinary canons. We dare to put the early liturgical
structures on this plane because in each instance we have the results of the
intimate participation of The Holy Spirit. Certain men in the course of time
cooperated with The Holy Spirit and The Scriptures took form. Later, other men
sought the participation of The Holy Spirit in order to determine the
“canonical” and “deutero-canonical” books, and to point out those that were
spurious. In issuing the Holy Canons at the Ecumenical Councils, we are
familiar with the terminology, “It seemed right to The Holy Spirit and to
us...” It was the same Holy Spirit who inspired and guided the formation of the
liturgical structures of the early, forming, shaping Church.
The joyous reality of this
veritable Divine participation in the formation of all the early liturgical
structures of the Church should be a major consideration in the study of
Liturgical Theology, yet we do not observe any such emphasis [9]. This is
perhaps the principal reason that the early Orthodox liturgical structures are
researched for the most part by the non-Orthodox, from a purely archaeological
point of view. Of course, there is a major exception to this situation, which
we will discuss at the appropriate time.
We have discussed the fullness,
the universality, the versatility and power of adaption of our Church as it
took root in the East and in the West. We considered Eastern and Western
Bishops, Confessors and Abbots; we see that Byzantine domes and Gothic spires
together led men of old to the contemplation and aspiration of things Divine;
we discovered that The Rule of Saint Benedict and The Rule of The Master, for
example, are just as Orthodox, if you will, as the Rules of Pachomius and Saint
Basil. It is necessary, before discussing actual liturgies, to suggest a
cut-off date, which will enable us to confine our considerations to that period
in history during which such liturgies evolved and flourished. We will suggest
the year 800 as an ideal cut-off date. In this year Charlemagne was crowned as
the first Western Emperor. Charlemagne condemned the Ecumenical Council of 787
in 794. During the pontificates of Popes Stephen III, Stephen IV and Hadrian I
(752-795) the Patriarchate of Rome, for all practical purposes, freed itself
from the East, and pursued its independent course. Year by year, in stages and
degrees, the orthodox Patriarchate of Rome became the monolithic Roman Papacy.
One of the first major proofs of non-conciliarity were Rome’s efforts at uniformity
of liturgical practice (then and ever since).
Charlemagne and Alcuin were given
the task, by Rome, of replacing all local liturgical structures in the West
with the local liturgical structures of Rome. This is the type of legislation
which has come to characterize the Roman Church; unilateral and devoid of the
participation of The Holy Spirit. No Council, Eastern or Western, was called by
anyone concerning this liturgical innovation of the ninth century.
And so it is that we suggest the
year 800 as the end of the flowering of ideal Western Orthodoxy, as one by one
the beautiful, effective and sacred liturgical structures of the West (save the
Roman) were torn out by their roots, the seeds of which had been planted many
centuries earlier by Saints and The Holy Spirit. Suddenly, the worship
structures of millions disappeared from cathedrals, churches and abbeys and
began to take their new places on library shelves. Genuine liturgical
development ceased. Speculation and caprice followed, and even the Roman Rite
in time became infused with Gallican uses [10]. At the same time the archtypal
Roman liturgical chants assumed layer after layer of Gallican stylization [11]
to form a tradition now known somewhat erroneously as Gregorian.
During the period of Western
Orthodox florescence, the principal liturgical structures formed what we now
call the Gallican family. Included in this family are the Gallican Rite, the
Mozarabic Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the West African and the Celtic Rites.
Coeval with the Gallican
structures of Western Europe was the Roman Rite in the City of Rome and its
environs. A number of secondary sources on the Roman Rite have presented this
structure as being somewhat removed from the Gallican family from the point of
view of content, style and focus. This has been the result of comparing more
recent Roman MSS with older Gallican MSS, for example. We have even seen the
sixth century Gallican Mass set side-by-side with the Tridentine Mass for the
purpose of an accurate appraisal of the differences! The Roman structure, by
the time it became “codified” by a liturgical commission under Pope Pius V in
1570, had not only taken on a considerable amount of Gallican uses [12], but
had also lost some of its own original elements [13]. It is beyond the scope of
this paper to present in corresponding columns the Orthodox liturgical
structures of Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Paris, Toledo and
Milan, for the purpose of comparison. But it is sufficient to mention that in
doing so, the scholar must select a particular date, such as 500 or 600, in
order to arrive at reasonable conclusions concerning the differences and
similarities of the several rites. From a theological point of view, we can
consider the liturgical development throughout the Empire to be truly
representative from the post-Apostolic period to the sixth or even the eighth
century. It was a natural, uncomplicated development, which perhaps
significantly took place during the period of the Councils. It is more than
significant that the Council Fathers neither deliberated over current
liturgical use nor framed any canons in this regard.
If the first eight centuries of
the Christian era give us the most ideal picture of Orthodox catholicity,
universality, comprehensibility and adaptability, from both
ecclesiological and liturgical standpoints, thus presenting a truly
Spirit-inspired balance within one Church, then it would seem that these
very liturgical structures should once again take their rightful, legitimate
place within the same one Church.
It must be pointed out that those
who believe in a truly balanced Orthodoxy, and who labor in this direction, are
not merely historians, archaeologists and liturgiologists, although solid
scholarship is certainly required. We first seek the legitimate diversity which
should prevail in the one Church. We seek an East-West balance which will
manifest, in a measure, the catholicity of the Church.
With this in mind, and having
decided upon an ideal, truly representative period of liturgical development,
for our purpose in the Orthodox West, we can touch upon the liturgical legacy
of pre-Carolingian Christianity.
Let us begin with an exposition
and brief history of The Gallican Rite which is actually celebrated in the
parishes of The Orthodox Church of France. This we call The Divine Liturgy
according to Saint Germain, Bishop of Paris (555-576). When we say “according
to” we do not indicate actual authorship, for no early liturgies were written
or composed by an individual.
Saint Germain was born in Autun,
France in 492, and became Abbot of the monastery of Saint-Symphorien in Autun.
In 555 he was appointed Bishop of Paris by King Childebert [14]. This same year
he outlined and commented upon the Divine Liturgy celebrated in the capital (in
a style similar to the Cabasilas Commentary) and sent his observations back to
the Autun monastery. For 1154 years, the Letters of Saint Germain
remained in the monastery. In 1709, this precious MS was discovered by two
Maurist Benedictine liturgiologists, Dom Edmond Martene and Dom Ursin Durand [15].
They published the Letters in their Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum
in 1717. This was reproduced in Patrologia Latina, Volume 72,
wherein also appears the biography of Saint Germain by Saint Venance Fortunat
(535-600), Bishop of Poitiers. Pierre Le Brun (1661-1729), an Oratorian priest,
also worked on the Letters and published them with commentary in 1777 [16].
Other Merovingian MSS serve to substantiate the content of the Gallican
liturgical structures; these fit into four convenient categories. Let us first
mention the writings of the Church Fathers of Gaul:
Saint Sulpice Severe (V. c)
Saint John Cassian (V. c)
Saint Gennadius (V. c)
Saint Gregory of Tours (VI. c)
Saint Venance Fortunat (VI. c)
Saint Avit of Vienne (VI. c)
Saint Sidonius Apollinarius (VI. c)
Saint Faustus of Riez (VI. c)
Saint Caesar of Arles (VI. c)
Saint Aurelian of Arles (VI. c)
each of which amplify particular
aspects of the liturgical structures and church life in general during the
period we now consider [17].
Secondly, we mention the local
Councils of Gaul, the canons and minutes of which present valuable witness to
contemporary liturgical practice:
Council of Agde (509)
Council of Lyons (517)
Council of Vaison (529)
Council of Macon (585)
Council of Rouen (650)
Council of Nantes (658)
and others, which also amplify
certain aspects of church life and corroborate the manuscript of Saint Germain [18].
The writings of the Church Fathers and the Council Canons and minutes are
obviously closely related, and, in addition to their vivid portrayal of
Merovingian church life, they give absolute testimony to the interdependence
and unity that prevailed in Sixth and Seventh century Orthodoxy, a unity of
Faith expressed and experienced within local liturgical structures.
Thirdly, we list a number of
Missals and Sacramentaries. Although the actual order of the Mass, for example,
is not given in these MSS such order is indirectly given. We will find Collects
and Readings for the Temporal and Sanctoral cycles, all given in a particular
order. The Post-Precem Collect (Oratio) points to the Litany which precedes it.
The Post-Nomina Collect points to the Diptychs which precede it, and so forth.
Among the most interesting and valuable MSS in this category are
Missale Gothico-Gallicanum (Autun Missal)
Missale Gallicanum Vetus
Sacramentarium Gallicanum [19]
The Mono Missal [20]
The Stowe Missal [21]
Missale Francorum
The Bobbio Missal
Fourthly, there are the
Lectionaries and Antiphonaries which have the same interest and value as the
Missals and Sacramentaries, in various degrees. Among the principal MSS we
quote:
Fourthly, there are the
Lectionaries and Antiphonaries which have the same interest and value as the
Missals and Sacramentaries, in various degrees. Among the principal MSS we
quote:
The Luxouil Lectionary [22]
The Autun Lectionary [23]
The Bangor Antiphonary [24]
There are numerous published texts which cover the
nineteenth and twentieth century research on The Divine Liturgy according to
Saint Germain of Paris [25]. We now present the structure of this Liturgy:
Introit (Praelegendum)
Call to Silence (Silentium)
Trisagium (Aius)
Kyrie eleison
Canticle of Zachary (Prophetia)
Collects (Orationes)
O.T. Reading (Propheta)
Gradual
Epistle (Apostolus)
Benedicite (Hymnum)
Thrice-Holy before Gospel (Aius ante Evangelium)
Gospel (Evangelium)
Thrice-Holy after Gospel (Sanctus post Evangelium)
Sermon (Homelias)
Catechumen exit (Catechuminum)
Litany (Preces)
Collect of the Litany (Post-Precem)
Great Entrance (Sonus et Laudes)
Diptychs (Diptycha)
Collect of the Diptychs (Post-Nomina)
Kiss of Peace
Collect of the Kiss of Peace (ad Pacem)
Preface and Sanctus (Contestatio)
Collect of the Sanctus (Post-Sanctus)
Institution (Qui pridie)
Breaking of Bread (Confactio)
Immixtion (Commixtio)
The Lord’s Prayer (Orationem Dominicam)
Communion
Trecanon (Trecanum)
Dismissal [26]
At first glance the Liturgy
according to Saint Germain appears quite lengthy, but in fact our average
celebrations, exclusive of extended sermon and communions, require one hour.
The Gallican-type liturgies
contain many proper, or changeable prayers, all very expressive and often quite
colorful. Each of these prayers points explicitly to the dominant theme of the
Sunday, the Feast, or the Saint. For instance, in the Missale
Gothico-Gallicanum, Feast of Saint Sernin, Bishop of Toulouse (November 29)
we are given two opening Collects which serve to introduce the Feast
didactically, a Post-Nomina, an Ad Pacem and a Contestatio [27]. In the Sacramentarium
Gallicanum, Feast of Saint Martin of Tours (November 11) we are given an
O.T. Reading, Epistle and Gospel, in addition to the five prayers just
described. The terms “Sacramentary” and “Missale” each have their proper
significant semantically, although the actual Sacramentaries and Missales in
question are often similar in content, even including those parts proper to the
Lectionaries. The Antiquissimum Lectionarium Gallicanum [28] contains
readings for 42 Sundays and Feasts and for the ordination of Deacon and of
Priest, each set of readings is followed by very interesting historical notes
and observations. Fascinating among the ten introductory paragraphs to this
Lectionary is the discussion of Advent Sundays, which in the early Orthodox
West numbered six, as in the East. Testimony from the Mozarabic and Ambrosian
Sacramentaries is given, both of which give Propers for six Advent Sundays, in
addition to a quotation from Canon 9 of the Council of Macon (585) which points
indirectly to six Advent Sundays, “Ut a feria Sancti Martini (November 11)
usque ad Natale Domini, secunda, quarta et sexta Sabbati jejunetur, et
sacrificia quadragesimali debeant ordine celebrari.”
Another Maurist Benedictine, Dom
John Mabillon, in his “Investigation of the Gallican Use” [29] discusses the
history of the Divine Office in the East and West, the origin and development
of Western liturgical chant.
The Missale Francorum [30]
presents the rubrics and texts for ordinations, consecrations and blessings.
The six orders preliminary to the priesthood mentioned in the writings of Pope
Caius of Rome (+296) are ostiarius, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon and
deacon. The Missale Francorum presents these six orders, and in
addition, the ordination of priests, the consecration of bishops, the
consecration of nuns, the blessing of widows, the consecration of altars,
chalices and patens.
The Deacon of Lyons, Florus
(+860) wrote extensively on many subjects concerning church life up to and
including his own time, and took a prominent part in the public defense of
Orthodoxy. Among his works we find “De actione Missae” [31] which, in
describing the ceremonial (rubrical) aspect of the Gallican Liturgy, serves to
corroborate the content of the liturgy from still another viewpoint.
There is a vast literature on the
Gallican liturgical structures. There is not space at this time to even list
the primary sources properly, and as to the outstanding secondary sources we
must be content to mention, in addition to Martene and Durand, Pierre Le Brun
(+1729), an Oratorian Priest, who in 1777 published a treatise on the Gallican
liturgy [32].
Even more vast is the literature
on the Old Roman Rite, the most valuable testimony being contained in the
numerous recensions of three Sacramentaries: The Leonine, The Gelasian, and The
Gregorian. Most of these Sacramentaries are of French and Swiss origin. Without
elaborating on this subject, which has been widely covered by others, we will
list four Gelasian Sacramentaries personally examined. The first is the
Gelasian Sacramentary of Angouleme (GeA), a Merovingian MS now in the National
Library in Paris, Latin Codex 816; the second is the Gelasian Sacramentary of
Rheinau (GeR), dating from 800, now in the Central Library of Zurich, Codex
Rheinau 30; the third is the Gelasian Sacramentary of Corbie Abbey (GeV),
dating from c. 750, now in the Vatican Library, Codex R.L. 316; the fourth is
the Gelasian Sacramentary of Saint Gall (GeS), a MS dating from c. 825, now in
the Library of Saint-Gallen, Switzerland, Codex 348. These MSS were compared
for the purpose of determining the actual content of the Roman Canon in the
fifth century. Other sources were consulted in order to determine the structure
of the Liturgy of the Word (Mass of the Catechumens) during this same period,
principally Bishop and Wilmart [33] and of course J. A. Jungman [34], the
twentieth-century expert in this field.
The purpose of this research was
to reconstitute the liturgy of Rome, as it was celebrated during the era of
Western Orthodox florescence. The reasons for selecting this ideal and
representative period are outlined earlier in this paper, and these criteria
will affect our future work on the other Western Orthodox rites. When this task
is accomplished, we will have a fairly accurate picture of Western Orthodox
liturgical structures during the same period, prior to their contamination and
compenetration.
The results of our work on the
Old Roman Rite are reproduced below, and it is very satisfying to note that the
Liturgy at that time was indeed a corporate offering of all the worshipers,
whose intimate participation was an absolute necessity (as in all other coeval
rites). No one could have been a passive spectator at “a mysterious ritual
performed by the priest on behalf of others,” to quote R.F. Buxton [35], who
further states in this regard, “between the eighth and fifteenth centuries the
corporate community Mass in which all participated changed into an atomised
multitude of individual low Masses, at which all but priest and assistant were
really passive spectators.” This was of course a gradual process, part and
parcel of the general “heterodoxization” of The West.
We now outline the structure of
the Old Roman Rite, which we entitled The Divine Liturgy according to Saint
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome:
Introit
Great Litany of Saint Gelasius [36]
Collects
O.T. Reading
Gradual
Epistle
Alleluia
Gospel
Sermon
Solemn Prayers of the Faithful [37]
Offertory
Secret
Preface and Sanctus-Benedictus
Canon:
Te igitur
Memento Domine
Communicantes
Hanc igitur
Quam oblationem
Qui pridie
Unde et memores
Supra quae propitio
Supplices Te rogamus
Nobis quoque
Per quem haec-Per ipsum
Lord’s Prayer
Kiss of Peace
Fraction and Commingling
Agnus Dei (VII. c)
Communion
Quod ore sumpsimus
Collect and Dismissal
This liturgy was printed for our
use in January 1984 and has been celebrated in New York on January 25 and June
29 to date. It is not intended for regular Sunday use in the parishes of The
Orthodox Church of France and for this reason the Creed is not included. It
would be positioned after the Solemn Prayers. The Gloria was chanted after the
Kyrie Litany when the Bishop was present and at Easter. Western Orthodox
Parishes which desire to use the Old Roman Rite on a regular basis would chant
the Creed and the Gloria according to the prevailing rubrics, in this case
bypassing ancient legislation. Even though they are subsequent additions to the
old structure, they in no manner upset the integrity of the old Roman Rite.
With regret we must omit any
consideration of other rites at this time, notably the Mozarabic and Ambrosian,
and leap into the third category of this paper: the current state of Western
Orthodox affairs.
Earlier in this paper we stated
that Western Orthodoxy is little understood, either inside or outside of The
Orthodox Church. In addition to the reasons initially given for this situation,
there are others of a different nature that we will now touch upon.
We do not see Western Orthodoxy
as simply a Tridentine Mass or Cranmer Communion Service superimposed upon a
Byzantine liturgical structure. A Rite is very much more than a Mass, and
discussions of Western Orthodoxy cannot be limited to the subject of the
epiclesis (38) or of the merits of the Saints. A rite is an entire liturgical
structure, including the Mass, Lectionary, Sacramental forms, Devotional forms,
Liturgical Music, Ordination and Blessing forms, Temporal and Sanctoral
Calendars, Monastic uses: in other words, all the expressions and
manifestations of Church life. These various manifestations are related to, and
compliment each other intrinsically, together forming a congruous entity known
as a Rite.
Thus, heterodox worship forms
inserted into the Byzantine liturgical structure lose whatever integrity they
possess, and rest most uncomfortably in a setting so alien to them. Heterodox
forms represent quite a different thrust and theological focus, and inevitably
require adjustments. Such forced liturgical hybridization, based upon certain
imaginary needs and accommodations, is neither theologically or aesthetically
satisfying, nor does it constitute a Western Rite or Western Orthodoxy. This
approach, as we observe at present in America, is an unsuccessful experiment.
It has basically amounted to the Byzantine observance minus the
Byzantine Liturgy, its very culmination and synthesis.
Articles have appeared in our
Orthodox journals, attempting to enlighten those interested in the subject of
Western Orthodoxy. Unfortunately they have for the most part dealt with the
American experiments to date. An encouraging departure from this norm appeared
in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2 (1982)
entitled “Some Perspectives on the Western Rite” by Winfield S. Mott. This
author rightly describes a Rite as consisting of an entire liturgical
structure, and the entire article is both interesting and reasonable. The
reader, however, is not informed as to the “Western Rite” itself: which Liturgy
is included within its infrastructure and context? What would, for example,
form the corresponding infrastructure and context of the Tridentine, Anglican
or Lutheran “living” Liturgies? Following the fine Mott article is a brief
statement by George H. M. Dye which wrongly identifies Western Orthodox
liturgical use with the effects of the Renaissance. Western Orthodox use
involves Western Orthodox materials. Not included in this category is the
Tridentine Mass, or ideally any uses after 800, for the several reasons given
previously. Fr. Dye was obviously seeking Orthodoxy as expressed in a
resolutely Occidental manner, which is altogether possible and desirable, but
abandoned his search along the line. At the end of his statement he dismisses
his quest, saying, “…we have no need for the fundamental problems that would be
associated with a western rite in the Orthodox Church”.
In the same quarterly, Volume 24,
Number 24 (1980) appeared a three-part article on the Western Rite. In the
first, Fr. Meyendorff states that the cultural expressions of tenth-century
Byzantium “are unequaled as an expression of the Tradition of the Church”. This
declaration reveals an overview of condescension upon this subject, and the
article, intended to introduce a “debate” on Western Orthodoxy, seems to
approach the subject from a distance. The second article, by Dr. Andrew J.
Sopko, is entitled, “Western Rite Orthodoxy: A Case Study and a Reappraisal”.
The author, in his introduction, fails to adequately describe Western
Orthodoxy, even what he believes it to be. The title of his article gives the
reader an impression that he considers The Tridentine Mass altered and
superimposed upon the Byzantine liturgical structure to constitute Western
Orthodoxy. The parish whose short history is reviewed is at present an Eastern
Orthodox parish, after having experimented with the impossible superimposition
just described. The article contributes little to either an understanding of
Western Orthodoxy or what is happening in the legitimate Western Orthodox
centers. Lastly, the statement “…in Europe, western usage has also been
oriented towards the Roman ‘shape’ with the inclusion of local variations” is
completely in error, now, as it would have been if stated in Merovingian times.
The third article, a closing statement by F. Schmemann, takes exception to some
of Dr. Sopko’s conclusions. It is a lively presentation, as the readers of this
outstanding theologian have come to expect. To mention, however, that Western
liturgical development has always been shaped by a succession of theological
clashes is somewhat exaggerated, especially when considering the period of Western
Orthodox florescence, long before the Renaissance, the Reformation and Trent.
Fr. Schmemann reveals no objection to Western Rite Orthodoxy, declaring wisely...
to have such an objection would mean the loss by the Orthodox Church of her
claims to universality.”
Two and three decades ago those
participating in Western Orthodox life in America were favored with the superb
articles of Fr. Alexander Tyler Turner, whose knowledge of this subject and of
many others seems unsurpassed. Each issue of Orthodoxy was anxiously awaited
and thoroughly read. A brilliant future was projected for Western Orthodoxy,
largely based upon the enthusiastic and qualified thrust of Fr. Turner. It is
truly unfortunate that his movement passed into history for all practical
purposes, now deprived of his energy and focus. It has been reduced to a
laboratory for “Western Rite experiments”. The non-expressed purpose appears to
be eventual Byzantinization, revealing a type of counteruniatism in effect. For
this reason, perhaps, the present leadership of the Western Rite Vicariate in
America accepts as natural the failure of its Western Rite parishes to remain
Western, often stating that this is to be expected [39].
We bring this paper to a close
with a brief discussion of The Orthodox Church of France, a Western Orthodox
Diocese under the leadership of a Western Orthodox Bishop, with parishes in
France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, North and South America. Over 100
major clergy serve in the parishes, monasteries and missions. According to its
statutes and declarations (issued in 1972 by Metr. Nicholas of The Patriarchate
of Romania) it is “…an autonomous Church actually constituted in an autonomous
Diocese, preserving its autonomy in spiritual and administrative questions, in
its Use, and in the independence of its national interests” [40].
Relative to the Western Orthodox
criteria outlined earlier in this paper, we are happy to give the following
quote concerning the activities of The Orthodox Church of France. “It seeks to
bring to light again the primitive sources of the local tradition which had (in
time) been disfigured by historical accretions—the tradition which blossomed
within the borders of the undivided Church during the first seven
centuries...before the centralization effected by Charlemagne...” [41]. The
success of The Orthodox Church of France is undoubtedly due to the theological
and liturgical expertise of its first leader, Fr. Eugraph Kovalevsky (Bp.
John), which was coupled with extraordinary determination and courage.
Since 1972 the Diocese is under
the spiritual leadership of His Grace Bishop Germain, who was born in
Stoke-on-Trent, England, on September 22, 1930. The Diocese sponsors
theological education at its Institute of Saint-Denis in Paris, which
opened on November 15, 1944. Among the first faculty members were Fr. Eugraph,
Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. Louis Bouyer, Fr. Lambert Beauduin and Vladimir
Lossky. Nine courses are given during each of the two semesters per year; the
current professors include The Bishop, Maxime Kovalevsky, Yvonne Winnaert, Fr.
Pierre Deschamps, Igor Reznikov, Fr. Roger Michel Bret and Marie-Madeleine
Davy. Iconography courses are given at the Saint Luke Workshop in Paris
each week. The entire program of education of the Diocese is accredited by the
Academy of Paris. Correspondance courses are given by means of printed texts
and tape recordings (cassettes).
The quarterly journal of the
Diocese is entitled Presence Orthodoxe, which includes a wide spectrum
of subjects of general interest to Orthodox clergy and laity. Another
publication in newspaper format contains articles and the parish chronicles. Editions
Friant publishes texts of former and current theologians of the Diocese,
and the printing of the complete service books has been under the direction of
Maxime Kovalevsky. The complete history of The Orthodox Church of France is
contained in two volumes entitled La Divine Contradiction by Vincent
Bourne.
The old edifice at 96 Boulevard
Auguste-Blanqui in Paris, built as the Old Catholic Church of Saint Denis
(under Utrecht), on October 13, 1946, became the Western Orthodox Parish of
Saint Irenee and in 1964 became the Cathedral of the Diocese.
With this brief outline of some
of the activities of The Orthodox Church of France, we bring this paper to a
close. We hope that the reader now has some new perspectives on Western
Orthodoxy, as it is expressed and experienced in its full and dramatic splendor
within The Orthodox Church of France—a veritable Orthodox reclamation from
liturgical and ecclesiological points of view.
NOTES
1. In 1194 Theodore Balsamon, the rigidly pro-Byzantine canon
lawyer with decidedly caesaropapistic inclinations, declared, “All the Churches
of God ought to follow the custom of New Rome, that is, Constantinople”.
Balsamon fiercely defended the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and
it is only natural that he defended the Rite of New Rome in such manner.
2. The evolution of the Byzantine Rite is covered in The
Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by Casimir Kucharek (Alleluia
Press, 1971) and The Byzantine Divine Liturgy by Melitius Michael
Solovey (CUA Press, 1970).
3. Implied in Canon III of The Second Ecumenical Council and
in Canon XXVIII of The Fourth Ecumenical Council.
4. The Oxford Dictionary of The Christian Church,
whose entries are free of bias states the following (page 1173) on Roman
Catholicism, “The term (Roman Catholicism), which denotes the faith and
practice of all Christians who are in communion with the Pope, is used in
particular of Catholicism as it has developed since the Reformation”. Since the
declarations and precisions of Trent, Roman Catholicism is virtually a
denomination.
5. Matthew 28:19-20.
6. Acts of The Apostles 2:41,44,46.
7. The great Merovingian Cathedral was discovered as
excavation began for an underground parking lot directly in front of Notre Dame
Cathedral in Paris.
8. Ephesians 4:3-6.
9. For instance Introduction to Liturgical Theology by
Alexander Schmemann (Faith Press, 1966) covers the history of the Byzantine
Synthesis. The origin and development of the Ordo are treated as
profound problems and the liturgical situation of contemporary Orthodoxy is
described as a profound liturgical crisis (page 21). The work proceeds somewhat
philosophically and scientifically, and liturgical development is treated as a
human phenomenon rather than a Divine manifestation.
10. In Christian Life and Worship by Gerald Ellard
(Bruce Publishing Company, 1933) the Tridentine Mass, codified in 1570, is
outlined. By that time, twenty-five Gallican prayers had been included in the
Roman Mass, as well as several English, non-Roman Italian and Spanish prayers.
11. Well discussed in “Introits and Archetypes: Some
Archaisms of the Old Roman Chant” by Thomas H. Connolly which appeared in the Journal
of the American Musicological Society, Volume XXV, Number 2 (1972).
12. See Note 10.
13. The principal expressions of the faithful had fallen into
disuse: The Great Kyrie-Litany was reduced to nine responses to no versicles,
recited by the priest and perhaps sung by the choir, and The Solemn Prayers of
the Faithful (The Diptychs) were reduced to Good Friday use.
14. The biography of Saint Germain, Bishop of Paris was
written by Saint Venance Fortunat, Bishop of Poitiers. The complete text is
given in Patrologia Latina, Volume 72, columns 55-78.
15. Dom Edmond Martene (1654-1739) is best known for his
monumental four-volume work De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, first
published in Antwerp in 1736, reprinted in facsimile by Georg Olms Verlag,
Hildesheim in 1969.
16. Father Pierre Le Brun (1661-1729) was one of the first
specialists on the subject of the epiclesis. His principal liturgiological
discoveries and commentaries are contained in Explication de la Messe,
published in Paris in 1777 by Libraire Valade.
17. Patrologia Latina, Volumes 42, 58, 68, 72.
18. Karl Joseph Hefele
(1809-1893) wrote A History of the Ecclesiastical Councils (Konziliengeschichte)
in seven volumes between 1855 and 1890. Volume II covers the Gallican Councils.
Two additional volumes were contributed by Joseph Hergenröther.
19. The Missale Gothico-Gallicanum is reprinted in Patrologia
Latina, Volume 72, columns 225-318. The Missale Gallicanum Vetus is
found in the same volume, columns 339-382. The Sacramentarium Gallicanum
appears in the same volume, columns 447-580.
20. The Mono Missal, named for its publisher in 1850,
is reprinted in Patrologia Latina, Volume 138. Scholars feel that this
Missal is a fifth-century work originating in Auxerre.
21. The Stowe Missal is the oldest-known Celtic Missal,
possibly a sixth-century work. It is so named because it remained for a very
long period in the library of Stowe House in England. This Missal was reprinted
in two volumes by the Henry Bradshaw Society, 1906 and 1915.
22. The Luxeuil Lectionary, a sixth or seventh century MS
representing the use of Luxeuil Abbey (founded by Saint Columbanus), was
reprinted in 1944 by P. Salmon, O.S.B. It was first discovered by Dom Mabillon
in 1683.
23. The Autun Lectionary, representing the use of the Abbey
of Saint Symphorien at Autun was discovered and reprinted by Dom Germain Morin
(1861-1946) in the Revue Benedictine.
24. The Bangor Antiphonary represents the use of Bangor Abbey
(Ireland) and dates from the late seventh century. It is the only known
surviving liturgical authority for the choir office in the Celtic Church, and
is found in Patrologia Latina, Volume 72, columns 583-608.
25. For instance, The Ancient Liturgy of The Church by
Neale and Forbes (1855), Liturgie Gallicane des huits premiers siècles de
l’Eglise by L. Marochesi (1869), The Early Gallican Liturgy by H.
Lucas (1893). Also in the works of Duchesne, Ferotin, Batiffol, Thibaut,
Jenner, Lowe, Capelle, Baumstark, Chadwick and others.
26. The structure and the spirit of the Divine Liturgy
according to Saint Germain of Paris are preserved in its current use. The
very few interpolations, while not found in the MS, are entirely subservient to
the original structure and entirely in the same spirit. Such texts and chants
serve to accompany actions and gestures which have proved useful, if not
necessary, in our time. Archaeologists have criticized these interpolations,
while liturgical theologians have understood them as desirable concessions to
current needs, tastefully accomplished.
27. Patrologia Latina, Volume 72, columns 250-251.
Each of the five entries mentions the Saint by name.
28. Patrologia Latina, Volume 72, columns 171-216.
29. Patrologia Latina, Volume 72, columns 99-168.
30. Patrologia Latina, Volume 72, columns 317-340.
31. Patrologia Latina, Volume 163.
32. See Note 16. The fourth dissertation, beginning on page
228, covers the ancient liturgy of the Churches of Gaul.
33. Edmund Bishop (1846-1917) is best known for his work The
Genius of The Roman Rite, which, along with some of his other studies,
appear in Liturgica Historica (1918). One of Bishop’s closest friends
was Dom Andre Wilmart (1876-1941), a monk of Solesmes, best known for his
edition of the Bobbio Missal (1924).
34. Fr. Jungmann’s text, known in English as The Mass of
The Roman Rite, first published in 1951, was reprinted in 1980 by Christian
Classics, Westminster, MD., and his The Early Liturgy, written in 1949,
was published by The University of Notre Dame Press in 1959.
35. See Eucharist and Institution Narrative by Richard
F. Buxton (Alcuin Club Collections Number 58). Our quotations are found on page
45.
36. The translation we use in our Roman Mass is that of Fr.
Brunner, who provided the English version of Fr. Jungmann’s The Mass of The
Roman Rite (pages 224-226 for The Great Litany of Saint Gelasius).
37. The Solemn Prayers are found in any Tridentine Missal as
part of the Good Friday ritual. They are set to the ancient Roman tone in the
Tridentine Altar Missal (found on pages 155-162 in the Benziger edition).
38. There has been considerable commotion over the epiclesis
in Western Rite studies and discussions, which we feel is quite unnecessary. An
excellent and revealing text on this subject is Eucharist and Holy Spirit
by John H. McKenna (Alcuin Club Collections, Number 57). This text will
enlighten those who would add an additional epiclesis to a Canon, not
recognizing the one already present.
39. From time to time there appears a brief report on the
Western Rite Parishes of The Antiochian Archdiocese at their annual National
Assemblies, the minutes of which are published in The Word.
40. These two quotes are found in Yearbook of The Orthodox
Church.
41. 1978 edition (Verlag Alex Proc. Munich) in the entry
concerning The Orthodox Church of France (Patriarchate of Romania), pages
142-144.
Source: AXIOS: The Orthodox Journal, Vol. 4, Nos. 7
and 8, 1984, pp. 4-11.
