Dear brothers and sisters,

When Christ founded His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church did he invision two "versions" of it: the Eastern version and the Western version?

I ask this question because some of the posters on this Forum assume that the existence of such a situation is by divine right and unto the ages of ages, in saecula saecularum. Might it be that such a dichotomy is an accident of history? It seems that the prayer of Christ was and is "that they might be ONE." Is it dangerous to think that Christ is standing as High Priest praying for the perpetual existence of 2 (or more) ways of worshiping Him in preference to our unity?

Please know that I am not saying that the East should fold into the West or vice versa. The Roman Rite is not what it was when St Peter "said mass" in Rome. Nor is the Byzantine Liturgy the same as what St James prayed in Jerusalem. These rites developed and flowered as the Church grew and matured. Is the Church worth dividing over them?

I mean as much as we traditionalists love ancient liturgy, we must recognize that St Peter and St Paul did not wear chausables, stoles, ring sanctus bells, sing Gregorian chant, or even use Latin! Moreover, St John the Theologian didn't say the Divine Liturgy of St Chrysostom behind an iconostasis or wear a Byzantine crown/mitre.

I'm not knocking any of this stuff. I love it! But should we be grinding our teeth at trying to preserve liturgical rites at the sake of Church unity? That's the question the Holy Spririt asks in my heart.

I don't think Christ really cares if the a priest is wearing Slavonic or Gothic vestments. Whether or not a liturgy is Latinized or Byzantinized. What does really matter is our unity. [Is Christ angered or pleased when an Orthodox Christian prays the rosary to His Blessed Mother? Is Christ angered or pleased when a Roman Catholic prays the Akathist to His Blessed Mother the Theotokos?]

As our Lord Jesus prayed to the Father:
"I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me." (John 17:23 )

in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Well, we know that in the Acts of the Apostles themselves there were already two "Rites" - the Hebraic Rite of Jerusalem and that of the Hellenic converts - and there was tension between them with respect to their traditions.

The "East" is more than just Byzantium. It includes the original Apostolic communities founded by Peter et al.

The organization and development of theological diversity are things for the benefit of the human members of the Body of Christ. Christ told His Apostles to teach "all nations" and this was interpreted, by St Cyril and Methodius for one, as being a clarion call to the Church to adapt to all cultures and societies.

There never was, nor can there be, one spiritual culture of Christianity.

When certain imperial Churches thought that to impose such uniformity to create a "universal" Church, whether the Roman, Byzantine or other Churches, the result was ecclesial imperialism that was resented and that was eventually cast off via splintering.

Some have argued that the Reformation was a reaction by northern European peoples of the southern European spiritual culture of the Church of Rome that was foreign to the northerners etc.

And Easterners are no more convinced of their right to be Eastern than Westerners are convinced of their own doctrinal and ecclesial superiority and therefore of their "right" to be the "universal" expression of Christianity.

Alex

Marshall,

Interesting question. I don't think that their is an East and West in heaven-on-earth. But Church is not an invisible reality. It is incarnational.

The Acts of the Apostles is a unique testimonial to how the Church was meant for both the Jew and the Greek. From a literary perspective, it is neat how the first half deals with the Church of Jerusalem and Peter and the second half deals with the Church of the Gentiles and Paul often in simultaneous parallel readings

Yet unique and particular developments in liturgy, theology, spirituality and discipline DID develop within both communities ... and many more too. These four patrimonial vehicles of our rite or faith-expression-lived-in-community help us on the road to Theosis.

Unfortunately, many who opt for a generic or one particular supreme rite do injustice to the incarnational aspect of church. The "generics" believe in an invisible church that exists in the ideal world; the "supremicists" believe that only one way is the rite(!) way. Both are unjust.

Here is an analogy: our four Gospels. The generics who can't deal with diversity or local particularity take the side of Tatian's Diatesseron. All accounts are fused into ONE mega-Gospel to avoid the problem of discrepencies thus losing the particular theology of each Evangelist meant for that particular community. The agenda or theology of the generic total is more apparent than the parts and we miss a better understanding of those parts.

The supremicists take the side of Marcion, who eliminated all those Gospels for ONE Gospel that didn't agree with his anti-Semitic agenda. In church history, this is reflected in the supremist notion that Catholicism = Latin theology. Period. We know the troubles that this can bring, especially when the experiences and learned responses of a particular people are different.

Neither are "catholic" and neither are "just."
The reality of all this is that the Church accepted all four Gospels with all their synoptic discrepencies and differences with John's Gospel.

Joe

Dear Marshall:


It's heartening that an Anglican should rekindle our interest in this otherwise "hot potato."

In his 1995 encyclical "Ut Unum Sint," His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, reminded us again, after more than 30 years of Vatican 2, that ". . . the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the "signs of the times."

The Catholic Church's "irrevocable commitment" was affirmed by Pope Paul VI when he issued the decree on ecumenism "Unitatis Redintegratio" way back in 1964 so that we all might be One.

I think the ARCIC (and its successor) has produced beneficial results as it continues to do, as well as the International Commission (and the North American Dialogue) involving the Catholic and Orthodox Churches did and continues to do.

Some progress has been achieved, likewise, with the Lutheran World Federation and with the Oriental Churches.

Selected theologians from the Orthodox Churches are now meeting with Catholic theologians in Rome in closed-door sessions for in-depth discussions on the "role" of the Pope/Papacy/Petrine Ministry in a united Church.

Hopefully, this thread will produce insightful, and fraternal, discussions.

Thanks for bringing it up.

AmdG

Dear everyone,

I heartily agree with all. But I'm most interested in what Alex said about SS Cyril and Methodius. If rites are really only reflections of in Church "in cultural context" (e.g. Hebraic, Greek, Latin, or whatever) then why the heck is the OCA imposing Slavonization upon Orthodox Americans and their native culture?

Moreover, America is a nation that loves the guitar, lively drum beats, and songs that include a chorus. That is our culture. So why is it that some moan and groan about folksy masses? They are merely practicing the principle of SS Cyril and Methodius, i.e. bringing the Gospel to a culture in a package that they relate to.

I used to be one that bemoaned Vatican 2 and saw it a Pandora's Box. But now I agree with John Paul 2. It is the hope for the next millenium. Basically, we need to evangelize the world in an incarnational way, i.e. meet people wear they are. We shouldn't expect Africans and Chinamen to worship Christ in the Roman way, the Russian way, the Greek way, the English way, etc. Liturgical forms should stay in tact but focusing on the Western Way and the Eastern Way is totally irrelevent to today's situation. Eastern Christians live in the west and Western Christians live in the east. Actually there are probably more RCs east of Constantinople than there are Orthodox. "East" and "West" is no way to define the Church. 500 hundred years ago, yes. But today is a different world. Patrimonies are merging and converging.

Anyway, just some more of my ramblings.

to the Pantocrator through the Theotokos,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Actually, your post is quite the insight into the whole issue of evangelization and inculturation of the Gospel - several threads could be devoted to it.

My own view is that inculturation can and should reflect a linkage between two aspects: the historical and the contemporary.

I remember being in Catholic catechism class when this issue came up. Someone said that "bread and wine" for Communion is an anachronism since no one today has bread and wine as a meal as in the days of Christ.

There are many other aspects of modern Christian ritual that connect us with the Biblical as well as the Roman imperial past of the Church (and certainly what is "Byzantine" is part of the "New Roman" imperial tradition).

But you raised the issue of "Slavonization."

And I think that a number of our Slavic Churches in North America do indeed see themselves as embodiments of Slavic heritage that are part and parcel of the, for example, Kyivan Church etc.

But I know that for many, the Slavic cultures and traditions are foreign to them, people do lose any emotional or other linkage to them and then there is the issue of converts.

I was in an OCA Church some time ago and while the "feel" of the place was definitely "Russian" (I think that is more a product of the Canadian multicultural scene, though, rather than a rule for the OCA) - so much was in English, including the sermon, that everyone felt involved in the liturgy.

On the other hand, I know Anglicans who have sought out Orthodoxy, but who felt more at home in the Western Rites of the Antiochian Church. For them, anything "Byzantine" as a whole felt foreign, English liturgies or not.

There is also the issue of Western Church dominance in North America. What is perceived as "mainstream" is, in effect, the Western liturgical tradition.

Perhaps that is the way things are. But the Byzantine and other Eastern traditions have been successfully adapted to other national spiritual cultures around the world too.

The fact that we have cupolas and other aspects of the Byzantine heritage is really a symbolic link to the Church's past in the first millennium when the liturgy and doctrines were formulated via praxis.

That doesn't mean we cannot adapt other things to the North American situation. I'm not ready for that adaptation myself yet . But there are many, many who are and more power to jurisdictions and individuals in the process of that formation.

There will always be a tension between cupolas and contemporary ways of expressing devotion.

But we need the cupolas to remind us that we are part of an historic Church, a Church that has developed across several spiritual cultures, and that continues to develop by being grafted onto the North American cultural tree.

Save the cupolas!

Alex