On St. John of San Francisco, St. Seraphim Rose, and the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate

A Message from the defunct “Occidentalis” Western Rite Orthodox Yahoo Discussion Group

 

Message #6416 of 10909

From: ...

Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:01pm

Subject: Re: Status of Liturgy of St. Tikhon 

 

Dear XXXX, this is a touchy issue, but I'll try to treat it gently. My spiritual father here at the monastery is the man formerly known as Fr. Alexey Young, the disciple of Fr. Seraphim Rose. Fr. Alexey Young used to be in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, and was (and is) very interested in the WR. He left the AWRV for a few reasons, and I will try to touch on them tactfully.

The first thing that should be said is that the AWRV liturgy has been blessed for use by the Antiochian hierarchs. The main thing to remember about a liturgy is that, so long as it contains the basic necessary elements of a Christian Eucharistic liturgy, and is celebrated with the blessing of the bishops, it is a valid liturgy. Theoretically, we could compose a liturgy on the spot, and if our bishop permitted us to celebrate it, it would truly be a Eucharistic liturgy. I mean, in times of persecution, I don't think we'll be sticklers about all the rubrics and proper vestments and whatnot. The early Christian liturgies had lots of room for impromptu prayers. So, we have to not be extremist about this, and start calling liturgies "unorthodox" that have no positively, uncompromisingly, unavoidably heretical elements to them.

That said, the Antiochian WR has served, and continues to serve, a good purpose of evangelizing people familiar with a past liturgical tradition, and helping them into Orthodoxy. This is a good and valuable thing, and I don't think that its mission is over.

Now, my observation, and Fr. Alexey Young's observation when he was in the AWRV, is that a lot of people are merely "hiding out" in it. That is to say, many exasperated Episcopalians, Anglicans and Papists, distraught over the flood of changes and impiety in their churches, simply wanted a place to be left alone. They wanted a place where they could keep doing what they were doing, without the rug being pulled out from under them again and again. So, many people have noticed a tendency for people with this mindset (which is certainly not everyone in the AWRV) to not really become Orthodox through and through, but only in merest intellectual confession.

Orthodoxy, by nature, tends not to tamper. Orthodoxy became a safe haven for many AWRV converts. Some of these people, though (and who of us wouldn't sympathize) were more attached to their familiar practices than to Orthodoxy. Fr. Alexey left in despair when he realized that many people in the AWRV were not interested in assimilating Orthodox piety. It was a sort of Western Obsession. It was for Plainchant hobbyists, or Cranmerophiles, or English history buffs who just liked all things English - you get the idea. Essentially, they would agree to excise the Filioque from their creed, but they didn't want to do anything else differently. They did not become Orthodox; rather, they remained Episcopalians or Papists, but without a Filioque and other glaring doctrinal errors. He noticed a lack of harmony with the spirit and piety of the Orthodox Church.

Having known Fr. Seraphim Rose well, and having had contact with St. John, he was very aware of the ancient Orthodox heritage of the West, and found the modern, "Traditional" forms of Episcopalianism and Papism to be much further removed from the ancient West's spirit, than even the modern East was. In the first printing of the book "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church," Fr. Alexey Young wrote the introduction (incidentally, he also wrote an article in the book "An Introduction to the Western Rite," back when he was still in the AWRV. This book is still available). When I arrived here, he encouraged me to read Fr. Seraphim Rose' introduction to the Vita Patrum of St. Gregory of Tours. He is deeply in love with the Orthodox West.

But he didn't find this same excitement in the AWRV. He found an attachment to their familiar forms of piety, regardless of their harmony with Orthodoxy. He remarked to me that one bishop had instructed one of the WR parishes he frequently served at to remove the protestant-style confession of faith from their prayerbooks. The congregation said they would, and then ignored him. For all he knew, that bishop still thinks they have been removed. I don't want to sound inflammatory, but he tells me that a few of the men (including one priest) were actually freemasons. When he brought this to the attention of the (then) dean of the vicariate, he was told to mind his own business and butt out.

So, he gave up and left.

Obviously, I am interested in the Western Rite, and so I asked Fr. Alexey what St. John had to say about it, and what Fr. Seraphim Rose passed down about it. He told me that St. John had definitely envisaged the earliest approved forms of the WR as temporary. He wanted more work and scholarship to be done, and when better forms became available, for those to begin to replace them. St. John celebrated every liturgy before he approved it, so one can hardly say that even the "liturgical archaeology" known as the modern-day reconstruction of the Gallican Rite is "unorthodox." A God-Illumined, modern pillar of Orthodoxy celebrated it and approved it. Fr. Alexey tells me that when a rubric was uncertain, St. John would know during the celebrating what the proper interpretation was, and would often make little "tweaks," speaking with a spiritual authority on what was supposed to happen. So, St. John wanted better forms to be used, but he apparently had a heavenly pipeline helping him to put together the best liturgy he could with the material he had! This is why he insisted on celebrating them beforehand, by the way.

But he wanted more authentic forms to be used. In fact, Fr. Seraphim told Fr. Alexey that St. John believed that the Gallican Liturgy should, in general, not be celebrated as a normal, daily rite because it had been suppressed by the West while it was still Orthodox. That is, because the West eliminated this rite of its own accord before the Schism, St. John believed that the Holy Spirit was behind this. The approval of the Gallican rite as such was intended to be a temporary measure until they could sort out the development of the Roman liturgy, especially as indigenously celebrated in France. St. John believed, according to Fr. Seraphim Rose, that each people had their own Orthodox genius, and contribution to the faith. He felt that Western people would not be able to easily or fully assimilate into Orthodoxy until they reclaimed these aspects of their genius (incidentally, this is why I think Western Orthodox people, even if they have to use Byzantine liturgy right now, should try to decorate their parishes in Ancient Western Orthodox styles, and employ Gregorian Chant rather than Byzantine, and include Latin Trisagions in their liturgies rather than every other language besides Latin!).

Now, my experience with the AWRV has been more positive, because I think that many in the Vicariate are starting to wake up to the far richer and more beautiful inheritance of the Orthodox west. Also, the very nature of the AWRV liturgy is that it primarily is going to appeal to the people who have a "nostalgia" for those Episcopalian or Papist liturgies, in which they were raised, and with which they are comfortable. But Vatican II was a long time ago now, and many of the people old enough to be nostalgic for that liturgy are not with us anymore. While Episcopalianism and Papism certainly retained much that was beautiful from their ancient Western heritage, they lost much of it, as well. And I think that now, what is happening with the WR, is that people who might not have had any liturgical background at all (like myself) are finding their own Orthodox past, and not just a comfortable childhood liturgy. So, I think many people now are finding that they hunger for their Orthodox heritage, and that (comparatively) modern forms of Episcopalian and Papist liturgy are not as appealing. I mean, when we read about the ancient Saints of the West, and want to have a devotion for them, the Old Western Rite has full services written for them. They have all sorts of prayers and other liturgical adornments, which the more modern Episcopalian and Roman Catholic usages have abolished altogether. I suppose they could start restoring them, but then, they would be returning to the older, orthodox liturgy, right?

So, I don't think any balanced person would attack the AWRV's liturgy as unorthodox. It has not implemented all of the required changes set forth by the Russian Church committee which examined their books years ago, but they do have a blessing from the Antiochian bishops to celebrate it. Therefore, it's Orthodox. I think that the AWRV can be praised for having provided a safe harbor for many people seeking the true faith and looking to be pious and faithful to God in a tradition more in line with their own heritage than with Russian or Greek heritages.

That said, I also think that the pool of people to whom such liturgies can appeal (people nostalgic for their familiar worship styles) is rapidly shallowing. And if the old, Orthodox usages are richer, more beautiful, more complete and more fully expressive of Orthodox piety and devotion to the saints, then naturally when Western people start hungering for their ancient Orthodox heritage, their hearts will be drawn to the liturgies that most express that. And, while there is no persecution going on, if we can celebrate the Mass in a manner richer and more deeply expressive of the Faith, then why not prefer it?

So, I don't think that the sentiment is so much "Anti-St. Tikhon Liturgy" as it is "Pro-Genuine-Old-Orthodox-Liturgy." Though, some people, to be sure, do slip into acerbic polemics. The sad thing is, that they make it harder for the more authentically ancient and Orthodox forms of the Western Rite to make progress, when they become such nasty examples of their own platforms. And, it goes both ways. If you talk to the right AWRV person (like Ben Johnson, whose objections Fr. Aidan has been answering), you'll hear just as much vitriol and accusation. For, you see, if many AWRV people's main concern is to see their own, comfortable liturgy remain untouched, then they might feel like the appearance and success of an ancient, Orthodox Western liturgy would once again imperil their own observances, when the comparative nakedness of their observance stood out against it. But I don't think that this is likely; I don't think Antioch would simply dissolve their usage. That would be pastorally insensitive. I think it is perfectly possible for both rites to live together.

So, just pray that everyone can keep being nice to each other. And when people fail, forgive and don't allow their faults to compromise the good cause of loving our Western, Orthodox heritage, no matter how we do that.