“Conclusions” on the Western Rite

Source: CUM ILLI GRAECI SINT, NOS LATINI: Western Rite Orthodoxy and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Jack Turner, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, 2010, Chapter 12, pp. 291-298.

 

 

 

The present study began by asking two questions: ‘what, if anything, in Western Rite Orthodoxy is in conflict with Orthodox spirituality’ and ‘at what point of modification does the Western rite cease to be Western’. In the preceding, we have attempted to come to some conclusions about the state of Western Rite Orthodoxy, most specifically the form found in the AWRV [Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate], but we can also draw more general conclusions about the concept of Western Rite Orthodoxy as a whole. Answering these questions, if only tentatively, is really the beginning of longer term possibilities for the study of Western Rite Orthodoxy; thus, in light of the tentative conclusions to the two questions above, a third question begins to emerge: ‘and where should we go from here’.

Can There Really be Truly Orthodox, Truly Western Rite?

Leo Davis makes the observation that the Christological settlement of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (that Christ is fully human and fully divine) was a Western solution to what was essentially an Eastern problem, and it took a while for the East to come to wholeheartedly accept this alien flavour in their theological diet. [1] Due to the way the liturgical and canonical tradition evolved in the East, and how it has been implemented, it certainly seems the same can be said about the Western rite in Orthodoxy. In one sense, Schmemann is correct in stating the opinion that to be Orthodox is to be Byzantine since the Orthodox East knows no other rite than those of Constantinople and thereby has little recourse to other rites as a source of theology. As such, to truly be Orthodox, the rite, whether it be Byzantine or Western, must express Orthodox theology. In the case of the Western rite, that necessarily means that elements which contradict the Eastern understanding of Christianity must be excised, even if they have been in the liturgy from the beginning, even if they are well beloved devotions of the West. We see this most clearly in the liturgies for chrismation and marriage.

By one standard, for the rite to be ‘Western’ it must be as free from alteration, based on whatever intention, as possible. This is why the decision to develop Western Orthodoxy as a ‘safe haven’ from the process of liturgical change in the Western churches, especially The Episcopal Church, is itself fundamentally flawed. Those individuals who came to Orthodoxy via the Western Rite after the 1970’s did so as a means of preserving their cherished liturgical rites from what they considered as heretical meddling, from what they viewed as overthrowing of two millennia of Christian tradition. Fundamentally, as Western Rite Orthodoxy is constituted now, there is a choice between whether the liturgy will be fully Orthodox and thus subject to liturgical amendment without hesitation or reservation, or if the liturgy will be fully Western, resisting as much change as possible, even if such a change is necessary to bring the rite more fully in line with Orthodox theology. To date, Western Rite Orthodox have done so in an uneven and arguably arbitrary manner, and so long as the Western rite construes itself as a ‘resistance movement’ against NOM [Novus Ordo Missae, the contemporary Roman Rite Missal, which is also reflected in modern Anglican liturgical changes as well], breaking out of this false dichotomy will not happen any time soon.

This is not to suggest that it is impossible for there to be an Orthodox Western Rite, only that the models that have been chosen thus far are insufficient to that task. In the first place, it must be admitted that the rite does need correction to make it Orthodox, and these corrections are more than just minor items such as removing the filioque. Indeed, as has been argued already, some of the changes that were made to the Western rite eucharistic liturgy were unnecessary (especially the epiclesis), while other changes that were important were omitted, and other liturgies were modified badly. Secondly, it should also be admitted that the path the AWRV has taken with regards to liturgy is a difficult one to maintain, primarily because Orthodoxy, again to reference Schememann, should not be a haven for individuals to preserve this or that favoured item against encroachment within their former communions. [2] For that matter, this results in a slippery slope since the natural flow of argument has been that the Tridentine forms are more Orthodox than NOM, but the logical conclusion would be than a liturgical use which survived more or less in tact from before 1054 is consequently even closer to Orthodoxy than the Tridentine rite. And there are proponents of the revised Sarum rites who have made precisely this argument. Thus, those who have supported the Tridentine rite against NOM, even if out of love for the rite, may have inadvertently sowed the seeds for its eventual elimination within the Orthodox Church.

There are a great many factors which go into answer thing original question of if the Orthodox Western rite is fully Orthodox or fully Western. Certainly, there are theological problems with the liturgies that are used by the Western Rite Orthodox, and these items should be corrected. As to the matter of if the Orthodox Western Rite remains Western, there is perhaps an opportunity to approach a firmer answer. At the very least, Western Rite Orthodoxy has lost touch with its ‘Westernness’ through directly denouncing the liturgy of the majority of Western Christians as illegitimate. At the present time, it is more akin to a museum piece from the history of Western Christianity and what things might have looked like in the Orthodox Church had reunion taken place before 1964, but it cannot approach what union would look like if it happened tomorrow. The obvious retort is that there is much to be glad about not having kept apace with in the Western Church, most notably the recent controversies over the place of openly homosexual individuals in the hierarchy of the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches, as well as the ordination of women in those same two bodies several decades ago. Yet, correlation is not causation, and there is no evidence that the two strands are essentially linked to a common impulse. For that matter, advocacy for liturgical reform stretches back past Vatican II into the middle part of the nineteenth century. [3] Thus, in a very real way, Western Rite Orthodoxy remains Western, but only an idealized form of the pre-Vatican II West, and not the West as it actually is today or was historically.

The Future of Western Rite Scholarship

Before the present work, the majority of scholarly investigation into the Western Rite had been concerned primarily with consideration of the ordinary of the AWRV liturgy in the SASB [Saint Andrew Service Book], usually in comparison to the liturgies of the ECOF [Orthodox Catholic Church of France]. Schnerlia and Abramtsov’s histories were hopelessly out of date since both were printed before the AWRV became a functional reality. Furthermore, it is at least important to mention should a recently published review of the most significant secondary literature on the Western rite. [4] In looking through the literature, we can see that most of what has been written to this point is primarily an argument between pro- and anti-Western rite factions as to the validity or desirability of Western rites in general and the orthodoxy of the SASB specifically in more recent works. But, the near exclusive emphasis on the eucharistic liturgy leaves one to the potential conclusion that there is nothing to the Western rite other than GRE [‘Rite of Saint Gregory’] and TIK [‘Rite of Saint Tikhon’], and that other Western liturgies are not worth studying or even fighting over. Even in instances where attempt have been made to broaden the discussion, and here I am thinking specifically of Smith’s article, the attempt has only been feeble, exclusively negative with regards to the AWRV, and highly transitory. On the subject of liturgical studies, while I have criticized individuals such as Andersen who place what is, in my opinion, an unnecessary emphasis on TOM [The Orthodox Missal] as the exclusive expression of Western rite liturgy within the AWRV, I can also say that critics like Woolfenden and Smith are mistaken in their exclusive reliance on the SASB; both documents must be taken inconsideration together.

The present work rectifies the previously deficient state of scholarship in a number of ways. First, the rites themselves are actually studied for what they say, rather than simply described for the unaware, as if such a methodology produced results which were self-explanatory. While the problems noted in the eucharistic liturgies were limited only to a few salient points, such as the elevation or eucharistic bread types, it has gone beyond the scope of previous efforts, aided in no small part to the amount of space which could be dedicated to the subject. Secondly, the discussion is extended beyond the eucharistic liturgy and into the other liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy. Though this development is positive, it must simultaneously be recognized that there is still significant progress that could be made, especially on what are sometimes identified as ‘para-liturgical’ devotions.

Secondly, the historical section is as comprehensive as one is able to make it in the space that is available for a dissertation which primarily focuses on theology and liturgy. In some instances, it is difficult to expand on the work of Schneirla or Abramtsov because their works are foundational to any comprehensive history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, but also because they provide information which does not exist in any extant form that is easily obtainable. By way of example, Abramtsov is the only source for information on the Polish Orthodox National Church that can be found. Furthermore, because of the passage of time, closing the gaps between the death of Alexander Turner and the start of the current century will be exceptionally difficult as many of the important figures during this period have already died. While Schneirla, due to his exceptionally long tenure as the AWRV’s Vicar-General and his vast experience with Western Rite Orthodoxy, remains a valuable source for the history of the AWRV this is still not the same as having the personal account of the principal individuals involved or accurate files. Most of the documentation covering the ECOF is still in French and as a result leaves this aspect of Western rite history closed to many English speaking students of the Western rite. Even so, the ECOF has taken the lead in telling its own story, providing a number of monographs on the subject and these items will need to be included in any future comprehensive history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, and it would be encouraging for the AWRV to follow that example.

Third, the present work takes account of the practical problems that Western Rite Orthodoxy presents to Orthodox ecclesiology and to Orthodoxy’s attempts at rapprochement with the Roman Catholic and other Protestant Churches as currently constituted in the AWRV. Here again, most previous studies which are critical of the Western rite are critical of the rite itself. Where I have chosen to be critical, I am critical not only of the liturgy, though the criticisms I express are very different from those of Stratman or Smith, but also of what Western Rite Orthodoxy can be said to represent: an uncritical adoption of the Western rite with and incomplete understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology and what makes the Western rite specifically Western. It is my assertion that most of the apologists for the Western rite have misplaced their emphases in a desperate attempt to avoid liturgical change while still ‘remain’ within an historic Church. This different critical perspective advances the study of the Western rite forward and points out that there is more implied by Western Rite Orthodoxy than just the celebration of a different ritual form.

Nevertheless, there is still significant room for growth in the study of the Western rite even beyond the current study. Some potential avenues of research involve expanding the scope of the present work, while others would mean going in an entirely different direction. The first area for further consideration would be the history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, and not simply the history of the Orthodox Church of France or the AWRV, no matter how important each of these might individually be. Rather, the recent emergence of the Western Rite has been placed in its proper historical context, both in terms of East-West relations more generally and the interplay between eastern and western liturgical customs more specifically. While there are a number of good, independent histories of eastern and western tensions, the liturgical tensions are often mentioned only in a passing manner. However, liturgy and liturgical customs are at the heart of the Western Rite and so deserve central attention in any consideration of the history of Western Rite Orthodoxy. More importantly, the history has been considered in a dispassionate manner, with no particular agenda pushed in regards to the rightness or truthfulness of the position of one side or the other, that is, Greek or Latin or Anglican. In this regard, the history in Chapters 2 and 3 are an attempt to grasp the facts and provide meaning rather than the more philosophical ‘quest for truth’ which often results in an attempt to press a polemical agenda and which has been characteristic of most Western rite histories written by ‘armature’ historians over the past half century; in that regard, regardless of how limited, the current work is a definite step forward. Still, there is significant work that can still be done, particularly in reconstructing the history of the various parishes that utilize the Western rite, even if one limits their focus exclusively to North America. There are a number of parishes that simply disappeared, some have changed to the Byzantine rite, and some have left the Antiochians or ROCOR for other quarter. Even among those parishes that can be identified as Western rite, a significant amount of detail as to their founding and history remains un-written. Simultaneously, the individual memoirs of AWRV pioneers, at least those who remain alive, should be committed to writing while such a task can still be undertaken.

Secondly, a deeper study of the liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy must be undertaken; it is not sufficient to continue to debate the Orthodoxy of the eucharistic rites in general form any longer. That is not to say that salient points cannot or should not be treated in an in-depth manner, but that generalized discussions of GRE and TIK should not be favoured over the same treatment of other liturgies in the Western rite, such as the so-called ‘para-liturgical’ devotions, and the Western rite in the ROCOR. Furthermore, there is still a significant portion of work which could be done with the variable portions of the liturgy; this is particularly true for festal liturgies which not only have their own proper texts but have their own unique structures. The Triduum and the Paschal Vigil are the best example of these types of proper liturgies, and both have been mentioned in the present study though only briefly.

Third, it would be beneficial to move the study of the Western Rite liturgy away from exclusive focus on the AWRV and to include the liturgies of the French Church, the ROCOR, Holy Synod of Milan, and many of the more important autogenic Western rite churches. Some limited attempts have been made in this direction by Smyth, but his treatment leaves much to be desired in terms of systematic exposition. The course of this sort of study could take a variety of different directions, including direct textual comparisons or individualized treatment followed by extended critique of a Western rite on its own merits. There is certainly nothing limiting scholarly creativity at this point, and it is a substantial undertaking that would require an extensive commitment of time and resources depending on how far into the variable parts of the rite the individual wished to probe.

Finally, if the study of the Western rite is to be undertaken with any sort of seriousness by academics, access to available literature needs to be increased greatly. A comprehensive collection of texts related to Western Rite Orthodoxy within a single library with generous inter-library lending policies seems to be the most desirable solution. However, for this to work out, individuals in possession of documents and literature of value to the study of the movement would need to be donated to a single library as a part of a coordinated effort. It is unfortunate, but likely true, that no single library would be interested enough at this time to acquire the necessary works of its own initiative or out of its own funding. Here again, private individuals with an interest in promoting the study of Western Rite Orthodoxy would need to provide any partner library in question with donated books or targeted contributions. The question of which library would be most conducive to the program is one that needs to be considered. The libraries of the Orthodox seminaries, specifically Holy Cross and St Vladimir’s, are obvious choices. Less obvious are those institutions which already include significant portions of The Basilian and Orthodoxy in their collections who would be willing to circulate them through inter-library lending, as these journals are central to the history of the Western Rite in North America and new copies of which are unlikely to ever be found in private hands for donation.

The reception of new work on the Western rite demonstrates that there is a potential interest for further studies of this type, both within the Orthodoxy and within the broader scholarly community. Future progress will be dictated to some degree by availability and access to materials, but to a greater degree by individuals willing to commit significant time and energy towards the study of the matter. While this author is sufficiently interested to continue the necessary work based on the plans outlined already, there is enough potential work to sustain an entire career in academia. It would certainly be better if a larger number of individuals within the academic community, especially those from a Byzantine rite background, would make study of the subject matter, no matter how limited or brief.

 

NOTES

1. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 207.

2. Schmemann, ‘Some Reflections Upon “A Case Study’”, SVTQ 24.4 (1980) 268.

3. See Chapter 4 above.

4. Cf. J. Turner, ‘The Road Thus Far’, SVTQ 53.4 (2009) 477-505.