Sorry, I just can't get that Bananarama song out of my head (thanks to a makeup advert by Boots)...
As little as two years ago I could not conceive of ever leaving the Roman Church, for all her demonstrable want of Liturgy, the tacky culture and ill-informed pieties and all that. But I thought that all this lived alongside the hallowed, the ancient, the venerable and the lofty; that as Sam looked up out of the shadows of Mordor and descried a lonely star, I imagined that the darkness was only a passing thing, and that the Sacred Liturgy was high and beautiful forever beyond the reach of ''Bugninis'' - Bugnini was but a servant or emissary - that for the long defeat of the Traditionalist cause, salvation lay at the end, however dim this hope might be. Of course I was bewildered and deluded. In the six years or so that I have experienced RC ''Traditionalism'' I have come irrevocably to the conclusion that Tradition (understood as something independant of the reigning Pope) is...to be blunt...stone dead in the Roman Church, and that traditionalists are part of this problem. I have given up trying. I am going now to try and live life to the full as a Catholic without having to perpetually sacrifice my catholicity (and fundamentally, my conscience) upon the altar of obedience to the Papal system.
I always believed that communion with the Apostolic See, and the bishops thereof, was a necessary mark of one's catholicity; that the bishop of Rome guaranteed Catholicism, orthodoxy and godliness, and that this was a universal given in the history of the Church, but rejected by the Orthodox and the Protestant Reformers. This may have had at least the semblance of truth at some point in the deeps of Time, but I fail to see how this works nowadays. How can you look to Mother Rome when Mother Rome continually eschews her own Tradition? My personal understanding of Tradition is that the older a particular tradition, custom, law or whatever can be proved to be, the greater auctoritas it carries - and subsequent laws are less. So which is more catholic in the universal sense of obedience to the Tradition of the holy fathers? For Ministers in an Anglican church to use folded chasubles during Lent? Or for Roman Ministers to wear Dalmatics and Tunicles? Again, which is more catholic? For the Celebrant of Mass in an Anglican church to administer the Sacrament under both kinds? Or a Roman Celebrant to do so under one kind only? Christ's ordinance is quite clear on this matter. These are two simple examples, and I could have chosen from a host of others, not just from the Church of England. There are many ways that churches in schism with Rome are more catholic than the Roman Communion. Several friends of mine, at variance with Rome, pray the pre-1911 Roman Office with the pre-Urban VIII hymns. This is more than can be said of RC Traditionalists! As for me, on Sundays and feasts I have taken to reciting Mattins and Evensong according to the Book of Common Prayer (until I can locate and afford a pre-Peasant Breviary that is, and this is much better than bothering with the 1961 Breviary as it is!).
It just seems to me that if I am to remain Catholic, I cannot do so in conscience anymore in the Roman Church. My connexion to the Roman Church has, of late, been little more than a cultural attachment to the city of Rome (as a classicist); her ancientry, and the memory of her ancient orthodoxy. Even as a Traditionalist I didn't take modern(ist) Rome that seriously anyway. St Bede, the father of English history, had a natural affection for the Roman Church and followed the Roman Liturgy of an ancient kind not because it was imposed upon him by the Pope as Pius V, Pius X and Pius XII had done, but because the ancient Roman Liturgy expressed the orthodox Catholic faith of the Church. The Liturgy celebrated in Rome, as the photos in Grey as ash demonstrate, is neither orthodox nor catholic in any meaningful sense, and liturgical legislation in the Roman Church in the last century (especially in the last four years) indicates that Rome is in a state of de facto schism with her own Liturgy; and the fact that Traditionalists welcome this legislation worries me considerably.
In token of this, on Saturday afternoon I prayed the Gradual Psalms (the obligation to recite them privately having been removed by Pius V, in Quire by Pius X) and then burned my copy of Summorum Pontificum. This is a new start for me, and the eschewing of ecclesiastical despotism for a more authentic attachment to the Catholic Church. I do not plan on joining either this or that church any time soon. This is a time of searching for me, and intensive prayer. Pray for me that I may come into that Church which is most pleasing to Almighty God.
Laus Deo semper.
Please, whatever you do, don't leave apostolic Christianity.
ReplyDeleteWorship with Arab or Slavic Byzantine Catholics. If you can't find Easterners in union with Rome, at least hear Divine Liturgy with the Greeks or Russians. Yes, they are in "schism", but that is purely political. Rome has never denied that the canonical Orthodox maintain the true sacraments and the apostolic priesthood.
Don't fall into the Anglo-Catholic trap. The Prayer Book is not the eternal-life-giving unbloody sacrifice. Sure, the Prayer Book can be tarted up with Tridentine ceremonial. Yet at its heart the Prayer Book is a Reformed communion service. I tried to be A-C for a year but reverted to Rome. I knew in my gut that the Anglicans are not apostolic and do not really believe in the Holy Sacrifice. Sure, the A-C's know how to put on a show, but that's all it is. A show. Theatre.
Western apostolic Christianity (i.e. "Roman Catholicism") is in a very dire state today. We now have an artificial liturgy that praises human anthropology rather than the revealed Lord. We traditional Catholics have to hang in there even though the Roman Rite is now in its nuclear winter. A few centuries from now the reformed liturgy will be seen in the same light as Arianism and the iconoclast controversy. Liturgical orthodoxy will triumph in the end, I am certain.
sortacatholic
Sortacatholic repeats a lot of worn-out stuff about Anglo-Catholicism. I think that rather than exhort Patricius about the right path to take, though, we should assure him of our prayers and support in his discernment.
ReplyDeletePlease know of my continued prayers, Patrick.
ReplyDelete"I am going now to try and live life to the full as a Catholic without having to perpetually sacrifice my catholicity (and fundamentally, my conscience) upon the altar of obedience to the Papal system."
ReplyDeleteWell, at least you said "try": but you'll fail. You might end up in a happy place but it won't be Catholic, except according to some sort of definition of "Catholic" which essentially means anything you want it to mean: like your mate who said that his bit of Anglicanism steers between the Scylla of the Protestant reformation and the Charybidis of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, two equal awfulnesses; but not "Catholic" in the sense of being Catholic.
St Bede followed the Roman Rite of an ancient kind because a Pope had sent liturgical books of the Roman Rite as practised in his Household to England with St Augustine. Stop and think what that means for a Catholic in this island, and your choice is either the Gregorian Rite, without any of the mediaeval accretions subsequent to the seventh century, or the Roman Rite as practised by the Pope; or your own Rite, as practised by you and your friends, and with an emphasis on fabrics, and a selection from every reform of the Liturgy from the time of Grrgory until Trent (or whatever date you choose), under a Patrician (et amicorum suorum) Magisterium which owes nothing to anything except the last "authority" any of you have selected.
If that's your idea of Catholicity, then off you go and the best of luck, but my prayers for you are certainly not that you might find what you are looking for.
Next step Presbyterianism!! :O
ReplyDeleteNah i'm a convert to Anglicanism myself though i'm from a Covenanter position. Will pray for you friend and hope that you realise that Christ and catholicity exist outside of the visible confines of the Roman Church.
On another point though (and I do hope you come out from the Roman Church) I just want you to remember that we very rarely find exactly what we want no matter where we go.
Patricius - you might these observations useful:
ReplyDeletehttp://theundercroft.blogspot.com/2011/03/clearing-decks.html
Sure,you may as well start your own church/fashionable chasuble outlet house.It's the only logical solution to your predicament.
ReplyDeletePatricii,
ReplyDeleteThis is very sad news but hardly unexpected as you seem to have been heading this way for many a month now.
I hope you will talk (if you have not already done so) with your PP or another priest you trust for some spiritual guidance. It is a serious matter that you have stopped assisting at Mass on Sundays.
I see you say you are to start a period of "intensive prayer". I would recommend you read anything by J-B Scaramelli SI - here's an example:
http://sedevacantist.com/scarexam.html
or anything by William of St Thierry especially the Meditations.
You will need good solid spiritual guides on your journey.
In caritate Xp.,
Bryan
Dilecte in Domino Patricii
ReplyDeletewhilst I share your revulsion at positivistic papal magisterialism and the destruction it has wrought on the Catholic Liturgy, I am nonplussed at your turning to the BCP. What Cranmer did was equivalent to, indeed worse than, what successive 20th century popes have done to the Roman rites, save that he - or rather the monarch in whose name he acted - had demonstrably (even) less authority to do so, and was moreover motivated by a theological agenda whose guiding principles were manifestly heretical by any standards of apostolic doctrine and praxis.
If you argue that relative antiquity alone gives credibility to the Cranmerian rites, then the logical conclusion is that the MR of 1969 will become respectable and receivable for your spiritual descendants in about 2277 - i.e. at about the same interval of time after their promulgation as separates the publication of the 1662 version of the BCP from your decision to embrace it.
Go East, young man. Orthodoxy is the answer to your dilemma.
I hope you find what you seek. I pray you never leave communion with Peter, as I pray I never shall. Still, I share the same struggles. You're not alone.
ReplyDelete-t
catchusthefoxes.tumblr.com
Tony
ReplyDeleteThe Pope is not "Peter" and Peter is not the Pope. It's a lot of nonsense. Take a look around you. Truth and reality are not mutually exclusive categories. The "Petrine texts" (scriptural and patristic) do not mean what the Roman Church teaches about them. It's an imposture, founded on forgery and political manoeuvring. Full stop.
Anagnostis: Take another look at Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, and note the order of precedence. Indeed, note what the other bishops said when Pope Leo presented his Tome against Monophysitism at that council. If Rome is guilty of posturing, then Constantinople is no less guilty of not only posturing but naked ambition.
ReplyDeletePatricius, I don't know if there was an error, or you simply didn't like my last post. Regardless, I wish you well, and would suggest the Eastern Catholic churches as a good place to start your search, perhaps. You will be in my prayers.
Pachomius
ReplyDeleteI'm perfectly familiar with said Canon. The notion that merely alluding to it implies Unam Sanctam and Pastor Aeternus makes my point, not yours. Similarly, the council Fathers judged that "Peter has spoken through Leo". Read that last sentence again, paying close attention to the verb: my point, not yours.
Don't join any other communion for a long time. But try finding a parish I'm the Russian tradition (oca or rocor) - spend a year in the liturgy and see what it reveals to you. You are almost guaranteed to find others with a similar journey.
ReplyDeleteAnagnostis - have I understood you correctly - you are saying that "Peter has spoken through Leo" is equivalent to saying that the Tradition has spoken through Leo, whereas the Roman Church's understand implies that Peter speaks IN Leo, which is another thing altogether?
ReplyDeleteMarina - I think that's probably about as clear a way of putting it as any; to put it another way, analogically, not ontologically "Peter".
ReplyDeleteLook, nobody with the use of reason and a passing familiarity with Church history doubts that the Roman Church, from the very earliest, exercised a presidential role among the Churches. It's clear too, that to varying degrees, the Popes liked to play up the Petrine connection as a component of their prestige, and that the Easterners, when it suited them, liked to shower the orthodox Bishops of Rome with flowery compliments.
The “developed” doctrine of the Papacy ratcheted up over subsequent centuries and formulated by Vatican I, is something absolutely different in kind. The Fathers of Chalcedon knew nothing whatever of some ontologically unique “Petrine charism” exercised and dispensed exclusively by the Popes. They referred Leo's Tomus to an examining committee whose guiding criterion of orthodoxy was conformity with the doctrine of St Cyril. In pronouncing the work orthodox, they declared that it expressed the faith of St Peter - which was all very felicitous, since its author, as Bishop of the Imperial capital, exercised a primacy among the bishops analogous to the primacy of Peter among the Apostles.
If the Chalcedonian Fathers could have had any inkling of the uses to which such acclamations would be bent in later centuries, they'd have choked on their dried beans and cabbage.
It was stated:
ReplyDelete"I am nonplussed at your turning to the BCP. What Cranmer did was equivalent to, indeed worse than, what successive 20th century popes have done to the Roman rites, save that he - or rather the monarch in whose name he acted - had demonstrably (even) less authority to do so, and was moreover motivated by a theological agenda whose guiding principles were manifestly heretical by any standards of apostolic doctrine and praxis."
Since the King was nine years old at the time, I am really rather wondering what lack of authority you are actually talking about?
The same author goes on to say: "Go East, young man. Orthodoxy is the answer to your dilemma."
Yes, by all means join a denomination that actively hates our ancient Roman traditions. Orthodoxy is so tied to the imperial court of Byzantium, and all that entails, that it is the actual opposite of Catholicity, it is a denomination tied to a single cultural and ethnic expression; it is far, far closer to an ethnic sect than anything. Go to Byzantium at your own peril. You will find it full of people who hate our traditions with such vehemence that the most fanatical novus ordo supporter of Roman Catholicism looks like Roman rite traditionalist!
"Orthodoxy is so tied to the imperial court of Byzantium etc., etc."
ReplyDeleteWell here's a puzzle. Said court disappeared 700 years ago, and look! - there's Orthodoxy in full vigour,; enjoying, in fact, quite a startling reflorescence.
I never cease to be amazed at the readiness of people to offer vehement opinions on things they know absolutely nothing about...
Excuse me...but has not your leader, the pro-abortionist Ecumenical Patriarch, on several occasions stated that "Orthodoxy is Hellenism and Hellenism is Orthodoxy"? The cultural fixation of the Byzantine denomination is very, very much tied to Byzantine culture to the exclusion of all others...regardless of their Apostolicity. According to the Greeks every Orthodox outside of the traditional confines of their Empire are living in a diaspora (I have actually heard this from pulpits in Greek churches).
ReplyDelete"reflorescence," is that a Byzantine euphemism for their rather small collection of self-loathing western converts?
Rather, to the renewal of monasticism, liturgy and patristic theology in the 20th century. A roll-call of significant figures would include a rather smaller contingent of Greeks than others. I'm struggling to identify the diasporist Emperor-worshippers among them. Most of them seem concerned to communicate the proposition that Orthodoxy is true; having spent most of my life in "Traditional Catholicism", that burgeoning (culturally integrist) system of strategies for refusing to come to the correct conclusion about pretty nearly everything, I tend to agree with them.
ReplyDeleteLook - mutatis mutandis, the philhellenism you're denouncing is little different in principle from the cult of romanitas, except insofar as it's more plausibly founded; and you're far more likely nowadays to hear ethnocentricity and the diaspora mentality denounced from the pulpit (as, recently, in the Thyateira Archdiocesan bulletin).
No-one in Orthodoxy or out of it is competent to decriminalise abortion.
It was stated:
ReplyDelete"as, recently, in the Thyateira Archdiocesan bulletin,"
Where, pray tell, is this Thyateira? It certainly cannot be part of that Byzantine Empire that has ceased to exist for 700 years? Perhaps it is located just outside of Canterbury?
Where is this getting us, Dale? You know very well why these titular anomalies continue to be observed. The fact is that Orthodox Bishops are required in the canonical territory of a western patriarchate that no longer transmits the Apostolic faith. That's all. Gnats and camels...
ReplyDelete"The fact is that Orthodox Bishops are required in the canonical territory of a western patriarchate that no longer transmits the Apostolic faith."
ReplyDeleteHuh?
Sorry Dale - what bit don't you get? The Orthodox are not Roman Catholics. Orthodoxy regards Roman Catholicism as a heresy (several heresies, actually). You don't have to agree with them to recognise that this is their position.
ReplyDeleteSo Rome is heretical...fine and dandy by me...and hence has no true ecclesiastical existence; but your attachment to a long dead empire, the Byzantine, is so strong that you continue to name sees after empty cities of a lost empire? If what you say is true, than what stops the Greeks from using the name of the western city in which the bishop and his cathedral reside? This simply shows that your denomination is still very, very much tied to Byzantium as its ecclesiastical department.
ReplyDeleteYou have not at all dealt with the real issue, which is the fact that your denomination is limited to a single cultural expression; this makes accepting your position as the True Faith a bit hard to accept. Catholicity (Not, since you do not really seem to get most of this, Roman) does indeed mean that the Church exists beyond culture as well as time and place...your denomination does not; one might say perhaps only Roman Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy seem to realise that the Church is larger than the culture of an Empire even you admit is long dead.
Thank you for letting me know that you are not Roman Catholics...I fail to understand why that is germane, but I have noticed a tendency when ever inconsistencies are pointed out to the Byzantines, the first thing they yell out is, "We are not Roman Catholics!"
“Water...?” said the fish.
ReplyDelete"what do mean, water? What 'water'?”
For my part I note a characteristic inability on the part of too many RC's to engage with Orthodoxy without that tell-tale note of anger and sarcasm, unmistakeably suggestive of deep insecurity. You shouldn't have to rely on that, or on merely amplifying your caricatures. What genuinely baffles me though, is your blindness to the extent to which your substantive accusations cry out to be turned straight back at you. Roman Catholicism, when I was a boy, was overwhelmingly monoglot, mono-cultural and integrist. In fact, one could argue that, as the hegemony of romanitas began somewhat to be relaxed in recent years, Latin Christianity has degenerated into propositional formlessness, so great had been its reliance on monolithic, monocultural expression (hence today's somewhat desperate attempts to re-bottle the spilled essence: old wine in new skins). I'm reminded of these splendid photos of Archbishop Lefebvre celebrating pontifically in Dakar, surrounded by African clergy in their little lace cottas, all of them formed in the notion that Christianity is co-extensive with Latin culture, the Latin Fathers, Latin law and Latin order, in subjection to the Pontifex Maximus.
Doesn't the Roman Church name bishops to titular sees? You know very well that it does, and often for precisely the same reasons as the Orthodox:
“So Rome is heretical...and hence has no true ecclesiastical existence”
That's not a conclusion one is required to insist upon. I certainly don't subscribe to it. But in any case, Rome has been, and is is nowadays, also very reticent about naming bishops for ancient sees in the former canonical territory of “schismatics”. It is generally agreed that, for the time being and for absolutely sound pastoral reasons, notwithstanding the length and depth of our estrangement and without prejudice to our respective claims to Catholicity, that particular Rubicon is best left uncrossed.
...continues....
Now, to be fair to you, it's undoubtedly true that, sociologically and historically, a Greek/Slav/Arab diaspora exists in the West, and that this has been the principle vector for the dissemination of Eastern Orthodoxy in western lands during the past century or so.
ReplyDeleteIt's also true that, for equally comprehensible reasons arising from four centuries of Turkokratia, a great many Greeks to this day maintain no distinction at all between being Greek and being Orthodox. It's true that Greeks tend to be very proud of their Byzantine antecedents and their Hellenic patrimony; it's true that the Orthodox Liturgy, as celebrated in the Greek use most notably, retains (to borrow scholastic terminology) “accidental” elements unmistakeably “Byzantine”. So what?
I'll go further: it's true that many Orthodox (myself among them), together with objective people generally, would indeed consider that Hellenistic culture (rather than “Byzantium”), together with the Hebraic, has of necessity a unique and permanent value and relevance in Christian Tradition as the milieu of the Incarnation itself and of the embryonic Christian Church. Greek is the language of the New Testament Scriptures, the ancient liturgies (including the Roman), the Councils, the overwhelming majority of Fathers, etc, etc. I don't need to emphasise the point further, nor to contrast it with those claims, only recently sidelined in the Latin Church, for the uniquely privileged character and authority of the Latin Vulgate.
I can today, in England, easily attend the Divine Liturgy entirely in English, in communion with the Orthodox throughout the world, without the necessity of invoking “Byzantium” at any level whatsoever. If the Greek language in my (predominantly) culturally Greek parish is more usual, this seems to me a very small price to pay (shared by the first native Catholics in these islands) for rock-solid possession of Catholic, Apostolic Tradition.
The local RC bishop is on record as denying the value nowadays of the idea of “salvation”. Gnats and camels...
Goodness gracious, I am not even, nor have I ever been a Roman Catholic.
ReplyDeleteBut when I do attend a Catholic church I usually attend the Byzantine rite Catholic parish not far from my home. Regardless of lace cottas, which makes sense when one is converting pagans with no ancient Apostolic tradition this makes sense, but in Ethiopia, as an example, the Catholic church utilizes their ancient liturgical traditions...of course we do know that if Copts or Ethiopians joined the Greek religion, they are expected to adopt the Greek rite...so much for Catholicity. You do not seem able to understand this...typical for the Greeks and their running convert lackey dogs (sorry couldn't resist!).
You have said, once again I fail to understand why, the following:
"The local RC bishop is on record as denying the value nowadays of the idea of “salvation”. Gnats and camels..."
This coming from a denomination whose ecumenical leader has declared in support of abortion on demand...perhaps you should not even be casting sand at others...glass houses you know...(please google "Not so pro-life Patriarch"...then get back to me with more excuses!)
You may be shocked by this, but yes, Great Britain does indeed have an ancient tradition of Apostolic origin, lusting after the ways of foreigners, especially Greeks, is pathetic at best...
lusting after the ways of foreigners is pathetic at best...
ReplyDeleteSo it is. So is the obverse. Here are the facts: if you're looking for the perfect, sinless, pristine Church, unmarked by history or culture, you won't find it on the planet. If, on the other hand, you wish to unite yourself in a realisable way with stable, normative, Chalcedonian, Apostolic, Catholic Christianity in order to be saved within it, at this point in history you have no option but to "go East", because you won't find it anywhere else. For most Brits, this probably will entail a certain amount of cultural awkwardness and inconvenience, but that's a very small price to pay. The Ark stank, no doubt, and was filled with animals - but it saved.
As to whether or not your accusations against the present EP can be made to stand up, I honestly can't be bothered to find out. I couldn't care less (which rather gives the lie to your accusation of Byzantium-fixation). If he, or anybody else, maintains unorthodox views, that's what they are: un-Orthodox. Full stop. If the Ecumenical Patriarch itself were to vanish overnight it wouldn't make a scrap of difference theologically (however tragic for the Christian inhabitants of Istanbul).
Goodness gracious, I am not even, nor have I ever been a Roman Catholic.
My mistake - apologies. If you're a displaced soul in the grip of cognitive dissonance, an ecclesiastical tourist or a religion addict, that would also explain your slightly hysterical rudeness.
lusting after the ways of foreigners is pathetic at best...
ReplyDeleteSo it is. So is the obverse. Here are the facts: if you're looking for the perfect, sinless, pristine Church, unmarked by history or culture, you won't find it on the planet. If, on the other hand, you wish to unite yourself in a realisable way with stable, normative, Chalcedonian, Apostolic, Catholic Christianity – nothing added, nothing taken away - in order to be saved within it, at this point in history you have no option but to "go East", because you won't find it anywhere else. For most Brits, this probably will entail a certain amount of cultural awkwardness and inconvenience, but that's a very small price to pay. The Ark stank, no doubt, and was filled with animals - but it saved.
As to whether or not your accusations against the present EP can be made to stand up, I honestly can't be bothered to find out. I couldn't care less. If he, or anybody else, maintains unorthodox views, that's what they remain: un-Orthodox. Full stop. If the Ecumenical Patriarchate were itself to disappear tomorrow it wouldn't make a scrap of difference theologically (however tragic for the Christian inhabitants of Istanbul).
Goodness gracious, I am not even, nor have I ever been a Roman Catholic.
My mistake - apologies. If you're a displaced soul in the grip of cognitive dissonance, an ecclesiastical tourist or a religion addict, that would also explain your slightly hysterical rudeness.
Could someone please explain why Greeks are so opposed to Western Rite Orthodoxy - that is somethign I have never understood, as it seems a 'knee-jerk' reaction from my perspective?
ReplyDeleteHello Rubricarius,
ReplyDeleteThey are oppposed because for the Greeks Hellenism is Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy is Hellenism. They conceive of Orthodoxy simply as an ethno/cultural/religious expression of Byzantium.
But I for one, welcome their honesty. The so-called western rite is simply a bait-and-switch inducement for property, at least that is the situation in the United States, Australia and now the Philippines (At least in the Philippines it is openly admitted that it is simply a temporary inducement until the "regular" liturgy of St. John's can be learnt, this information is directly from an Australian priest, D'Alton). The Russians admitted in 1979 that "there is no place for a western rite in the Russian Church."
This rejection of catholicity along with their open support for abortion is truly problematic for many of us.
I never cease to be amazed at the misconceptions of Orthodoxy presented by Papists and papist-minded persons; it seems that they are condemned to project their own perverted and erroneous notions of Christianity onto Christ’s Church. I suppose that this is hardly surprising since they do not belong to that Church. Roman Catholicism is NOT the Church; it is not even a part of the Church. The Western Patriarchate departed from the rest of the Church about a thousand years ago: there is no longer a ‘Roman Church’.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Papists cannot conceive of a Church without, what they would call, a ‘visible head’, nor can they envisage the fact that other Christians might have another model in mind. The repeated references, above, to the Œcumenical Patriarch as the “leader” of the Orthodox Church confirm that Papists are, indeed, constrained to their one mode of thinking. The Church, on the other hand, regards such an idea as blasphemous: the Œcumenical Patriarch has no more right to call himself the “leader” of the Church than has the Pope of Rome to claim universal jurisdiction. The Church has only one Head: Jesus Christ. The Œcumenical Patriarch may currently hold a primacy of honour among bishops—in the same way that the Pope of Rome’s predecessors did when they were still members of the Church—, but that remains an historical accident.
Secondly, —judging by some of the comments made above—many Papists appear to equate Orthodoxy with Hellenism and the Greek Church; it seems to have escaped their attention that the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox belongs to the Russian Church. That majority risibly dismisses the claims of the Œcumenical Patriarchate to have jurisdiction over the ‘Diaspora’; in fact, for a large number of that majority, the Œcumenical Patriarchate represents, at best, an embarrassment. Important institutions of the Greek Church, including such a ‘spiritual conscience’ of Orthodoxy as Mount Athos, hold similar views. Moreover, the Greek Orthodox Church does not form a part of the Œcumenical Patriarchate, but is an Autocephalous Church in its own right. In fact, judged purely by membership, the Œcumenical Patriarchate ranks seventh in size among the Local Orthodox Churches—after those of Russia, Romania, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Georgia—; and even that position is only held by virtue of the Greeks in the ‘Diaspora’, over whom the Œcumenical Patriarchate claims jurisdiction. Furthermore, if Papists knew anything of the history of liturgy—they know nothing, after all, about the history of their own—, they would realize just how much modern Greek usage has evolved. The “reforms” of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow, in the middle of the seventeenth century, represent a wholesale—and uncritical—adoption of contemporary Greek practice. Bearing in mind that the Russian liturgical books have—to all intents and purposes—remained unchanged from that time, the extent to which the Greeks have diverged since then is all too clear. So, what is this single ethnic and cultural expression, this exclusive attachment to the Byzantine Imperial Court of which certain Papists accuse the Church?
Cont…
ReplyDeleteThirdly, most Papists fail to appreciate Orthodoxy’s liturgical diversity. The modern ‘Byzantine’ Rite so-called is a hybrid—a “mongrel”, as Robert Taft calls it. Its origins are to be found in the Antiochene Rite; but it has developed organically throughout its history. To single out just a few of the influences upon it, it has incorporated, at different times, the Studite Typikon of the Great Church, the Sabbaitic Typikon of Jerusalem and the Holy Mountain, and even ceremonial elements of Western Rites. It prescribes three different forms of the Eucharistic Liturgy for use at different times of the year: those of St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great, and St Gregory, Pope of Rome (the Liturgy of the Pre-Hallowed Gifts). Furthermore, in several places in the world, it has maintained an—at least, yearly unbroken—celebration of the Liturgy of St James the Brother of the Lord. The celebration of that Liturgy once or twice per year has recently spread throughout the Orthodox world. More recently still, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) has approved a form, both in Church Slavonic and English, of the Alexandrian Liturgy of St Mark for use once a year on the saint’s feast-day. ROCOR—the Orthodox jurisdiction that has, perhaps, most borne witness to Orthodoxy during the twentieth century—is, arguably, the most liturgically accommodating of the Churches. Its current First Hierarch, Metropolitan Hilarion, actively promotes Western Rite Orthodoxy. He has assisted at Western Rite Orthodox functions, and has made all Western Rite communities in ROCOR stavropegic: namely, directly answerable to him. Furthermore, both ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate have, for decades, been prepared to reconcile with Old Believers, and allow them to maintain the use of the Russian Old Rite. Until his recent repose, ROCOR even counted the Old Believer Hierarch Daniel as one of its bishops. Moreover, the Church is NOT averse to giving Her bishops titles of ancient Western sees; one thinks of the Ever-Memorable Bishop Nicholas of London, who reposed in the Lord in 1931.
In conclusion, Orthodoxy IS the Church; and, Patrick, you do not need to “Go East”. You simply need to rediscover the Faith of your ancestors that existed in these Isles before the Norman invasion, when this land still belonged to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Here is the Russian Orthodox Outside of Russia's condemnation of the western rite:
ReplyDelete"RESOLVED: The Western rite in its present form was introduced after the apostasy of the West from the Orthodox Church and is not in accord with the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church with which it had been united for the course of many centurles. It does not reflect the Orthodox Church's liturgical tradition. Thus, it does not satisfy converts to Orthodoxy when they familiarize themselves with it to a greater degree, and has nowhere enjoyed success. In consequence of the above, the Council of Bishops does not recognize it as possible to permit the Western Rite in the Russian Church."
– ROCOR prohibition on the Western Rite, published in January of 1979
[this has been downloaded from their own site, and the grammatical and typos are original]
Here are pictures of a celebration of a so-called western rite within the Russian Church...personally, if you see anything western about it, other than the use of a Gothic style phelon, please let me know:
"http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/2009/07/western-rite-days-in-florida.html"
Finally, Fr. Andrew Philip has admitted that the western rite within the Russian Church is only a temporary offering until the people are ready for to adopt the Greek rite.
Once again, my contention, proven by history, is that the Byzantine Church is just that, the Byzantine Church.
In conclusion, the use of the word Papist is usually considered rude. I should mention again that I am not a Roman Catholic, have never been a Roman Catholic, and will never become a Roman Catholic.
If anything my position is closer to that of the Oriental Orthodox, that one should be united in the Faith of Christ, and not in such secondary issues such as uniformity of liturgical tradition, Calendars, or beards even!
Surely it's not entirely unreasonable to point out that the western rite (however defined, at whatever stage in its dissolution) has already failed - in the West!
ReplyDeleteI must confess to being a little confused about exactly what point Dale was attempting to make.
ReplyDeleteIn the first place, he provided the text of a resolution made by a ROCOR Council of Bishops more than thirty years ago, which recognized impossibility in permitting the Western Rite “in its present form”.
His purpose, surely, cannot have been to demonstrate that the use of the Western Rite is forbidden in the ROCOR. If it had been, then why did he then go on to give the address of a web-page describing several services conducted according to the Sarum Use, between 16th and 18th June, 2009, in the church of a ROCOR Community? That very web-page indicates that those services had been carried out in a form approved by the ROCOR in September 2008.
Dale then implied that he recognized nothing “western” in these services. I note that Dale—or his namesake—had made a similar assertion in a comment posted to the web-page in question. Fr Aidan replied, there, to that comment:
“Here's what was ‘really western’ in these services:
“- all the text
- all the chant
- all the rubrics
- all the vestments
“No rites were mixed together.
“Label on the tin: ‘No traditions were destroyed in the making of this service. Certified 100% Mishmash-Free.’
“If it is felt that there was something non-western about the services, I encourage that thing to be identified so that it can be discussed.”
It would appear that that particular Dale has yet to take up Fr Aidan’s invitation to identify any non-western element, at least in the forum of that web-page.
Returning to the posting above, made on this blog-spot, Dale wrote,
“Finally, Fr. Andrew Philip has admitted that the western rite within the Russian Church is only a temporary offering until the people are ready for to adopt [sic] the Greek rite.”
Perhaps Dale was referring to Protopriest Andrew Phillips? If so, then I may assure Dale that: 1) any such ‘admission’ on the part of Fr Andrew would have constituted the expression of a private opinion on his part, and, 2) the people of the Russian Church will NEVER be ready to adopt the “Greek rite”.
Furthermore, Dale’s use of “Finally” was ambiguous. Was he suggesting that Fr Andrew has at last come to such an admission, or was the use of this word intended to be some indication that Dale was about to conclude his posting? It would appear not to have been the latter, for two paragraphs later Dale began again “In conclusion”.
Dale next stated a tautology: that the Byzantine Church is the Byzantine Church. I can only respond that, of course, it is! I might also add that I pointed out in my own comments above that the Byzantine Church—that of Constantinople—, even though its primate enjoys a primacy of honour as a result of historical accident, ranks seventh among the fifteen Autocephalous Churches in terms of size.
Dale then seemed to take some sort of personal offence at my use of the word ‘Papist’. This is curious for two reasons: 1) I had addressed none of my earlier comments at Dale, 2) he immediately avowed that he was not a Roman Catholic. Why, then, did he choose to identify with this word?
Finally, Dale claimed an affinity to the position of those he termed “Oriental Orthodox”; I assume that they are those whom the Church condemned at the Fourth Œcumenical Council as being Monophysite heretics. If so, was Dale suggesting that we ought to be “united in the Faith of Christ” in a form that is heretical? Am I to understand that for him “such secondary issues such as uniformity of liturgical tradition, Calendars, or beards even” are to be condemned before Orthodoxy? (I don’t actually think that anyone has ever insisted upon evenly trimmed beards, by the way!)
To which religious confession does Dale belong? I am mildly curious to know this; he seems to be particularly devoted to the apophatic approach on this question.
I must confess to being a little confused about exactly what point Dale was attempting to make.
ReplyDeleteIn the first place, he provided the text of a resolution made by a ROCOR Council of Bishops more than thirty years ago, which recognized impossibility in permitting the Western Rite “in its present form”.
His purpose, surely, cannot have been to demonstrate that the use of the Western Rite is forbidden in the ROCOR. If it had been, then why did he then go on to give the address of a web-page describing several services conducted according to the Sarum Use, between 16th and 18th June, 2009, in the church of a ROCOR Community? That very web-page indicates that those services had been carried out in a form approved by the ROCOR in September 2008.
Dale then implied that he recognized nothing “western” in these services. I note that Dale—or his namesake—had made a similar assertion in a comment posted to the web-page in question. Fr Aidan replied, there, to that comment:
“Here's what was ‘really western’ in these services:
“- all the text
- all the chant
- all the rubrics
- all the vestments
“No rites were mixed together.
“Label on the tin: ‘No traditions were destroyed in the making of this service. Certified 100% Mishmash-Free.’
“If it is felt that there was something non-western about the services, I encourage that thing to be identified so that it can be discussed.”
It would appear that that particular Dale has yet to take up Fr Aidan’s invitation to identify any non-western element, at least in the forum of that web-page.
Returning to the posting above, made on this blog-spot, Dale wrote,
“Finally, Fr. Andrew Philip has admitted that the western rite within the Russian Church is only a temporary offering until the people are ready for to adopt [sic] the Greek rite.”
Perhaps Dale was referring to Protopriest Andrew Phillips? If so, then I may assure Dale that: 1) any such ‘admission’ on the part of Fr Andrew would have constituted the expression of a private opinion on his part, and, 2) the people of the Russian Church will NEVER be ready to adopt the “Greek rite”.
Furthermore, Dale’s use of “Finally” was ambiguous. Was he suggesting that Fr Andrew has at last come to such an admission, or was the use of this word intended to be some indication that Dale was about to conclude his posting? It would appear not to have been the latter, for two paragraphs later Dale began again “In conclusion”.
Dale next stated a tautology: that the Byzantine Church is the Byzantine Church. I can only respond that, of course, it is! I might also add that I pointed out in my own comments above that the Byzantine Church—that of Constantinople—, even though its primate enjoys a primacy of honour as a result of historical accident, ranks seventh among the fifteen Autocephalous Churches in terms of size.
Dale then seemed to take some sort of personal offence at my use of the word ‘Papist’. This is curious for two reasons: 1) I had addressed none of my earlier comments at Dale, 2) he immediately avowed that he was not a Roman Catholic. Why, then, did he choose to identify with this word?
Finally, Dale claimed an affinity to the position of those he termed “Oriental Orthodox”; I assume that they are those whom the Church condemned at the Fourth Œcumenical Council as being Monophysite heretics. If so, was Dale suggesting that we ought to be “united in the Faith of Christ” in a form that is heretical? Am I to understand that for him “such secondary issues such as uniformity of liturgical tradition, Calendars, or beards even” are to be condemned before Orthodoxy? (I don’t actually think that anyone has ever insisted upon evenly trimmed beards, by the way!)
To which religious confession does Dale belong? I am mildly curious to know this; he seems to be particularly devoted to the apophatic approach.
"the people of the Russian Church will NEVER be ready to adopt the “Greek rite”
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr Oriental has forgotten Patriarch Nikon and the Old Believer schism over the adoption of the "Greek Rite." Most of the rest of the above comment is about on the same intellectual level. Whatever...
Perhaps Mr Dale has forgotten that I had already stated in an earlier comment “The ‘reforms’ of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow, in the middle of the seventeenth century, represent a wholesale—and uncritical—adoption of contemporary Greek practice.” Perhaps he had forgotten to read that comment. Perhaps he has forgotten that the English modal verb ‘will’ may be used as an auxiliary to indicate plain futurity in the third person plural, or may express resolve or desire, either in the present or the future, but not in the past, which requires ‘would’. Perhaps, when he exclaimed “I am not a Roman Catholic, have never been a Roman Catholic, and will never become a Roman Catholic”, he had forgotten his earlier observation “I have noticed a tendency when ever [sic] inconsistencies are pointed out to the Byzantines, the first thing they yell out is, ‘We are not Roman Catholics!’” Perhaps, preoccupied with judging my intellectual integrity, he has forgotten to address any of the issues I have raised.
ReplyDelete