Concerns and Possibilities in the Western Rite
The call for a western liturgy in the Orthodox Church raises serious questions. What has been lacking, however, has been a serious sorting-out of the issues involved and examination of how each of those issues relates to each other. The phenomenon of the Western Rite cannot be supported simply because multiplicity of rites, including those of western origin, is an historic reality; nor can it be condemned simply because it is not the Byzantine Rite. In the first case one (tacitly) assumes that all rites are equally beneficial in how they express the Church's adoration of the Creator and the Truth she (the Church) has preserved. To support the latter argument one has to claim a priori that only the Byzantine rite is genuinely expressive of the Faith. It has seemed to me that one should ask, "Are the particular rites being used actually Orthodox expressions of worship? In either case, the assumption is that the dogmatic contents of the liturgical rites themselves are the only issues of importance. It has been the overall tendency so far to treat the issues on this level, without asking, “Are the particular rites being used truly Orthodox expressions of worship?”
There can be no doubt that a multiplicity of rites is possible in theory and that in the Orthodox Church western liturgical forms have been used. Nevertheless, a schism did occur. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if this might not be due to fundamental theological differences. The forms of liturgy being used for the Western Rite in North America are Tridentine and post-Tridentine, although in Europe the pre-Tridentine Gallican Rite is being used. In order to answer our question, then, it is necessary to discern what in the current rites being used is at the core of the tradition, and what evolved from the theology of the Middle Ages. . .
To read more please download these important papers by Mark Harrison.
And for more information on the Pre-Tridentine Mass, see:
My Correspondence with Mark Harrison
Dear Mark Harrison,
I much enjoyed your paper on the Western Rite and the Ordo Primus, a highly detailed description of the Divine Liturgy as celebrated by the Orthodox Patriarchate of Old Rome around the year 700. I was wondering if I could present it on my website. I am a member of an OCA parish in Missouri but have always been interested in the Western Rite since becoming interested in Orthodoxy. Though originaly more sympathetic, I have come to conclusions similar those you expressed in these papers originaly posted on Monachos.net. I believe that the kind of WR represented by the Antiochean WRV could only ever be a temporary economy. The WR as represented by ROCOR is perhaps more legitimate. You make important observations and propose some important solutions.
Also, I have an idea about "rites." I believe that it may be incorrect to refer to the Liturgy of the Church in Constantinople as the "Eastern Rite." It is more like the "Central Rite" and thus the normative liturgical expression of the Orthodox Church. There are actually five rites, roughly corresponding to the points of the compass.
NORTHERN RITE Slavonic/Russian Liturgies of St John Chrysostom, St Basil, & St James |
||
WESTERN RITE Roman Liturgy of St Gregory the Great
|
CENTRAL RITE Byzantine Liturgies of St John Chrysostom, St Basil, & St James. This Rite is normative in Orthodoxy. |
EASTERN RITE Jerusalem Semitic Liturgy of St James
|
SOUTHERN RITE Alexandrian Liturgy of St Mark
|
As you can see, the Eastern Rite and the Southern Rite are the rites currently in use by the Non-Chalcedon Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria. If I am correct, they were in use by the Orthodox Patriarchates as well until a time of normalizing reform similar to what happened in Russia with the Old Believers. Just as an aside, I do not support union with non-Chalcedon Churches without their full acceptance of the Fourth and Sixth Councils. But an Eastern and Southern Rite in the Orthodox Church could help bring in faithful from those Churches to be true Orthodox once more. I believe that the question is whether the Orthodox Church should ultimately standardize (byzantize) the liturgies of all its local Churches to establish a universal and ecumenical common prayer or to embrace an understanding of unity in diversity. Through this way of viewing the problem I am in favor of a Western Rite in the same way I would be in favor of a restored Syrian or Coptic Rite.
Another consequence is that I don't see my parish as serving an "eastern" rite. We are American. Our Orthodoxy is indigenous. We venerate the saints of the west and east as well as America, Japan, and China. I have a deep devotion to the Anglo-Saxon saints, yet I am perfectly happy to pray together with them using the Central Rite, that liturgical tradition that is characteristically Byzantine (East Roman) and Russian. Our liturgy and way of being Orthodox is no less missional and relevant than any other turely Orthodox rite. So I support a western rite if it is done correctly. And if it is done correctly, a western rite will be just as alien, chalenging, and counter cultural as the other Orthodox rites. If it is done correctly, Orthodoxy in all its historic liturgical forms has been and always will be simply theosis through Life in Christ.
Sincerely
Ryan Close
Hi Ryan,
I am afraid I have so very little time to participate in the last few years. The paper was written in the early '90s and as much as I have been tempted to rework it - lots of ideas are there - I just have not had the time. There are too many things pressing for the future.
You might want to add a note that I as the author would love to augment it, but have not had time. I think you have some very interesting ideas that are worth further exploration. Most of all, we definitely agree that a "proper" WR would be just as alien as the Byzantine Rite supposedly is to those who aren't open (at some deeper psychological level) to adapting. What always gets me is that I was very attached to the Anglican Liturgy. I still have a certain love for some elements - and that is part of why I wrote that paper and a couple of others. Yet I easily adapted to the Byzantine Rite and would never wish to go back. I wouldn't mind visiting WR parishes, but I wouldn't adopt any WR. It just isn't where I am.
I maintain as much today as I did when I wrote that paper that the introduction was critical to understand: it is not reasonable to either embrace a specific WR practice simply because WR existed in the Church before the Schism, nor is it reasonable to condemn it simply because it is not the Byzantine Rite. A proper examination of the myriad of issues requires that a person be able to accept WR in theory while being duly (constructively) critical of any particular proposed rite, as the evidence of history warrants.
The issues really are myriad. My parish priest was raised Irish Catholic in the Bronx under the Tridentine Mass. He attended RC seminary. We have had many discussions. Issues that I raise in that paper are definitely significant, as are problems of a reverse unia, and the lack of a living tradition. Even the Sarum Use (which is a more proper term because Sarum is but a local variation on the Roman Rite) is somewhat artificially reconstructed. The hymn "Let all Mortal Flesh" is being used by ROCOR at the Offertory. I loved the Anglican metrical version of that hymn (that's what they use), but it is not truly native to the Sarum Use. Other rites, such as the Gallican or Mozarabic (which were separate rites) are only preserved in part and must be supplemented with outside sources. At least with Sarum there is a fairly complete set of materials. But then the problem arises with feasts that were introduced in the Middle Ages. Sarum may have been born, so to speak in the 9th century or so, but what we have evidence for is much later. Do feasts like Corpus Christi and others have a place in Orthodoxy?
Finally, I was never able to capture on paper the struggle in my heart and soul. The closest I could come was that introduction. I think there is a latent desire to love what Anglicanism could have been, and, some might say, should have been. I think saying "should have" is a bit of a stretch given the centuries that had lapsed between the Norman Conquest and Henry VIII. It is, however, what the Oxford movement sought to recover. Alas, I believe John Cardinal Newman was more on the money as he realized that there was too much water under the bridge and too many competing doctrines and quasi-doctrines to allow Oxford to ever define Anglicanism. Look at where the Anglican Communion is today. Newman would be having a good laugh. In any case, I never found the words to express how much I wanted to love WR, but couldn't because I just didn't see it being truly viable. It could be doctrinally Orthodox, but that is not the same as being viable, because the rite is more than the liturgical texts. Even with the texts, I found that I had questions about certain formulae that might not have been heretical in se, but given history, I had to wonder about their ramifications. One notable example is from the Paschal Vigil - the famous line in the Exultet about the "happy fault… that merited such a great salvation." There's nothing wrong with it in itself - and yet it suggests to my ears the Incarnation was ONLY about redemption from the sin of Adam, and an Augustinian understanding of Romans 5:12, that we are all personally guilty of Adam's sin. Maybe that's just because I live at this end of the time line, and such an idea was never present back when the Exultet was written; however, can we ignore the intervening history? Is that phrase part and parcel of the divergence between East and West over "original sin" as the West understands it? I am not attempting to render an opinion. I have yet, after all these years to arrive at one. The question, however, keeps dangling in my mind.
Then, there are lines in Cramner's canon missae that really raise red flags, and here is where I must return to that commission called by St Tikhon - to a point they raise in general principle - that you cannot ignore the Protestant context in which that prayer was composed, even if the words in se are not heretical; the context fosters serious problems. I cannot not help but think that the Oxford scholars were just as revisionist, though in a "traditionalist" sense, as those Anglicans today who would revise the Trinity, sexuality, etc. When considering the Book of Common Prayer, one is left with what Fr Paul Schneirla calls 'the theology of imprecision,' which itself is counter to a Catholic-Orthodox understanding of Cramner's liturgy.
So, I am sorry that I have not been able to participate [on Monachos.net] or even respond to you in more depth. Your ideas about organizing rites do sound interesting. In short note, I'd have to say that I don't think we can expect the non-Chalcedonians to sign the exact documents set forth by the Ecumenical Councils. However, I do agree that they must agree explicitly that what those Councils teach is THE Orthodox Faith.
I don't see anything in this that I would not wish to see made public. If you find anything worthwhile posting, feel free.
In Christ,
Mark Harrison
Two Paths to Two Western Rites
From the Western Rite Critic
A lot of participants on this site are supporters of Western rites, various Western rite initiatives, or at least some hypothetical restoration of a Western Rite environment in Holy Orthodoxy. We agree with some of them in some respects at least some of the time, if not most of them most all the time. It might seem odd to visit WesternRiteCritic.com and read that statement, but only if you miss the distinctions we’re drawing. That understanding can be gleaned from a number of recent articles but, just to make it explicit, we offer the following chart:
|
WR Enthusiasts
|
Lovers of Western Orthodoxy
|
Now, to be fair, we’ve put words in the mouths of everyone concerned. And it’d be just as fair for you to say, “I don’t think anyone is saying that.” or “I don’t think that’s what they mean by what they’re saying.” It’s an interpretation, to be sure. What we’re saying is that we have seen all these things discussed in one way or another, in one place or many and, if nothing else, it’s helpful to illustrate what we think are indeed two disparate trends which, though you might choose different content, you’ll see if you look.
We encourage you to think about these distinctions, to think about where you are on a map of attitudes toward Western Rites. Indeed, to do it, you have to know what you mean by “Western Rite”. Is that just a matter of a certain text - a different prayer book? Is it an entirely cultual millieu? What does it involve and entail? Would what you really mean amount to the creation of denominations within Orthodoxy, or an artificially imposed (socially engineered) homogeneity? Would it really accomplish the things being claimed for it - is there any evidence to suggest that your version of “Western Rite” would solve the problems it is supposed to solve? Would it create a whole new set of problems? If you’re in one camp or the other, can anything meaningful come of your approach while a significant number of your fellow supporters remain in the other camp? And perhaps: what’s really going on in your own heart? Is it the Cross - that crossroads between public acclaim, the glamour of the world and all its kingdoms, the popularity of Barrabus, the respectability of the Pharisees, the success of the Emperors and Legionaires and, on the other hand, the hard road of quiet salvation, the personal road of stones, the road of rejection even by one’s own family, the road of ascetic feats of which Our Lord said, ‘I go first, you must come after me.’? From where are your ideas and attitudes coming?
Feel free to sound off in the comments section if any of this means anything to you. In any case, while we might have some disagreements over any kind of restoration of Western Rites, and certainly what we’re talking about when we append the article “the” to “Western Rite”, it’s probably clear which path we see as plausible, and which we see as the children of Israel being seduced to bow to the golden calf: ”Come, be more popular, be more accepted, let the world embrace you.” You might not agree with any of this analysis, but that’s OK too. Our goal is to engage you with circumspect thought about what is a divisive topic (divisive is not a bad word, when it’s the calf or the law) - divisive not just for those who support or don’t support some kind of Western Rite environment - but between those who do support it, but don’t agree on what they mean or what they’re supporting.
Oops. The "Cranmerian" Liturgy of St Tikhon
In the spirit of fairness I would like to present this post from a Pro-Western Rite Blog addressing how the Protestant Episcopal liturgy was reformed according to the Russian Observations upon the Prayer Book that I have also provided. Let the reader decide.
In reviewing my recent post on how some critics of the Western Rite refer to it as the "Cranmerian Rite," I realized I had omitted the most important section. True, Thomas Cranmer did not draft the Book of Common Prayer alone, but:
Most importantly, St. Tikhon's Liturgy is not simply the "Book of Common Prayer" rite. The Orthodox Church adapted this material in accordance with the Russian Observations Upon the American Prayer Book to bring it into liturgical and theological conformity with Holy Orthodoxy. Not only were these necessary changes made, but the liturgical commission of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate added rich ceremonial and prayers expressing the Church's liturgical heritage, especially reverence for the Real Presence. Similar to the Anglo-Catholic movement of the day, it incorporated the Western structure of the Mass. Asperges, Introits, graduals, alleluias, tracts, sequences, offertory prayers, prayers at the foot of the altar, communion verses, post-communion prayers, Agnus Deis, Non Sum Dignuses, Last Gospels, and other devotions reappeared where the Protestant Reformation had done its damage, and the Gloria returned to its traditional position: following the Kyrie on most Sundays (outside certain penitential seasons). This was a full, glorious, comprehensive, catholic, Apostolic, and Orthodox liturgy.
No honest human being could describe this as "The Book of Common Prayer." Although Anglo-Catholics would recognize it, and most Western Christians feel an instant and familiar sense of worship while praying it, St. Tikhon's Liturgy far exceeded any edition of the BCP, whatever Cranmer's role in drafting any particular rendition thereof. In other words, describing the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as "Cranmer's Rite" is like describing the United States of America as "Jamestown."
Remember the fallacious logic, the faulty premise, and the blatant misrepresentation the next time you hear St. Tikhon's Liturgy described only as "the Cranmerian Rite," a charge born either of historical ignorance or ecclesiastical envy.
