www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Fr Alexander Schmemann and rubrics

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

I misread the spelling of Father Serge's reply. I thought he meant the Paschal Gamble and I wondered what kind of gamble we did on Pascha.

So I get the prize today for being totally clueless.

BOB

To those who disagree with Fr. Alexander:

What liturgical points of his do you disagree with? I've read most of his books/articles and they don't seem all that radical.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Yes, I am curious as well...

It's been a while since I read it, but in the Introduction to Liturgical theology book, he seems to posit that the typikon (and by extension other practices) have become weighed down by an excess of unnecessary or even detrimental content. The net effect of this being an obscuring or moving away from the "early church". Overall it did not seem in line with Orthodox thinking to me.

There is a detailed review of the work here written by Fr. Michael Pomazansky. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx

The only work by Fr. Schmemann that I have read (so far) is "For the Life of the World." I thought it was an excellent meditation and reflection on the Eucharist.

Also, journals aren't like regular books. They are places for people to record their passing thoughts. And, some thoughts are worth keeping and some are worth being passed over...

-- John

AMM,

As you note, there was something of feud between Fr. Alexander and ROCOR, so I am not inclined to give much, if any weight, to its member's critiques of Fr. Alexander.

Fr. Alexander didn't advocate abolishing the typicon but understanding its many layers from different times and contexts and realizing how it might be adapted to the parish context. He was against absolutizing the typicon in its every detail.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Orhers besides the Russian Church Abroad have reseverations about these things. As Russia re-established its seminaries during the 1990s after Perestroika, both Schmemann and Meyerdorf were banned from their libraries and classrooms. There was even a case of bookburning at one seminary. I have a feeling that seminarians may now be allowed to read them but have no certain information?

Then you shouldn't give much weight to a large portion of Fr. Alexander's journal, including what's in the opening post.

I look at the arguments themselves. Fr. Michael's essay seems balanced and reasonable to me, so I do not dismiss it out of hand.


I don't think I stated or is it stated in the essay I posted that he advocated abolishing the typikon. The issue is what I stated in my previous post.

I'm sorry I don't find that in the book.

"but it is impossible to deny that in the overall design of the Ordo, in its essential and eternal logic, it was, is and always will be the Ordoof the Church's worship, a living and vital revelation of her doctrine about herself, of her own self-understanding and self-definition" (Schmemann Pg 219 Intro to Liturgical Theology).

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

At the risk of being offensive, as on outsider looking in, may I suggest that what I read in this quote is a man looking at the externals of how the Church expresses the Faith once received and wondering aloud if much of it sinks into the people who are experiencing it. I've been to Orthodox DLs and Presanctified Liturgies, to Vespers, and to Holy Week services. I've been edified and nourished. I've also been to some where the whole approach seems to have been to rush through and "take" some bare minimum that I couldn't follow--once I went to a Vespers where the priest announced the pages we would be turning to, skipping 10 to 15 at a clip. When this happens, I don't ask why or what's going on because I am a guest in a brother's house. Is this the way things are to be? If so, why is all the other skipped material printed in the service books? Forgive me, again, I'm a man who is trying to understand a different approach to God through completely looking through the eyes of those for whom this is the way things ought to be.

Maybe I'm completely off base, but I think what Father is saying is that he got the feeling that people had that "cozy" feeling because once they did the service that that was all that was necessary. Something like I get when people have given up meat twice a year for a day, gone to confession once or twice a year, gone to Liturgy rather regularly and think that's all there is to being a Catholic. Maybe what he's hinting at is the idea of minimalism--what do I have to do outwardly.

Maybe I'm off base, but when I go to the Liturgy--whether I drop into an Orthodox parish or my own--I see it as a deep encounter with God that makes me squirm. It's, to me, akin to an extended examination of conscience. God speaks to me, I respond with the rest of my brethren, He comes to me in the Eucharist, and no matter how much I prepare it's not enough. Not that I go out in some kind of despair. It's a matter of being reminded that He has started the process of establishing the relationship, He's drawn me in, He's gifted me with the Gift Sublime--the Gift that I cannot deserve, I cannot merit, I cannot thank Him enough for, and I cannot return a gift in kind of any kind. In other words, it's not about how much I do, it's how the Church has mediated our relationship liturgically and what effect it ought to ahve on each of us individually and collectively.

I see the "cozy" "warm and fuzzy" people get in my own Church and I can thoroughly understand his wondering about it all. But then I remind myself that I answer for no one but me. I have to absorb whatever I can to the extent of the faith gift I've been given. If I miss or mess up, I'm the one who's poorer for it all. And then I've got to out and live out what I've received. It doesn't end with getting the rubrics right; it's only just begun.

Maybe it's about the whited sepulchre. All formal and good on the outside but did any of the purification offered get inside. I ask myself that every time I don't seem to be the kind of example I think a good Christian ought to be. And it's not about looking down on someone else who doesn't see what I see. It's about wishing that they'd get the grace to see the riches they are presented with.

But, then, maybe I'm the one out in left field with Father.

In Christ,

BOB

Then I think you should explore the section where he talks about what he perceives as the monastic takeover of the church and the changes to the typikon that came about. That is one example. Read Fr. Michael's essay if you can for more.


I think you're still thinking somehow somebody is arguing that he said toss the typikon out. The issue is not about throwing the typikon out, but reforming it to peel away the strata which cloud it and move it away from the purity of the early church. That is what Fr. Schmemann was getting at, and which to me is not in line with Orthodox thinking.

Basically, I look at his writings as a mix of good and not so good. For the life of the world is a really good book. I find his journals very disturbing, and I have been told they were heavily edited before publication to remove a lot. The liturgical theology book to me I think reflects the period, specifically the 60's; and secondly reflects the methods and tendencies of those who he was drawing on such as Dix. The historical view of many of those sources would now likely be considered fairly problematic in a number of ways.

I am thankful a program of liturgical reform has not gained acceptance in the church. Reform it seems has a nasty tendency to manifest itself as destruction.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Before we get into an argument, permit me to interject some additional information.

Fr. Schmemann, in his private thoughts, took exception that "religion" was undermining "faith." For those who may wonder what the difference is between faith and religion, bear with me while I try to explain (I invite a better explanation from someone more articulate than myself.)

"Faith" is a deep feeling from the soul, as shaped by the Church and the Holy Spirit, of God's love, mercy and brotherly yet Divine care of me as a person -- created in the image of God, receiving the Gift of Redemption, and baptized as an heir to the Kingdom.

"Religion" is adherence to Church rituals, customs and traditions (small "t"). This adherence may be a very enthusiastic embrace (everything MUST be done according to the letter of the law), or a minimumist "least I can do and still be in good graces" member.

I have shown the extremes of both faith and religion to distinguish the two. In real life there is much more "gray" area and so it can become controversial because it becomes more subjective rather than objective, as we are beginning to see in this thread.

I hope that I haven't offended anyone, but Fr Schmemann and posters on this forum have presented some "food for thought" which, if discussed with fraternal love, will fully nourish our beloved Churches to become more meaningful components of the lives of our members.

Glory to Him forever,
Fr Deacon Paul

The Liturgy as a weapon of mass destruction, and cause of ecclesial crisis!

Not my words but Pope Benedict's...

"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”


"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation."
Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~

Forgive me if I was seeming argumentative. I am also not trying to argue against Fr. Alexander, but show that his legacy is perceived differently by different people.

AMM,

I reread the sections in question and Fr. Michael's essay. I am sorry, I don't find it except in Fr. Michael's twisting of Fr. Alexander's words so that he can deride them.

Fr. Deacon Lance