Trying to be somewhat organized and logical, I'll take the first part first. The WRO are not so much in love with Trent as they are committed to a sense of history. (By-the-way, my use of the pronoun "they" should not be construed to mean that I don't include myself among the Orthodox as a previous commenter accused me--I am an Orthodox. I simply try to write as objectively as possible.) The Latin Mass was used throughout Europe prior to the Schism. The Sarum use is really only a (French) variant of the Latin Mass brought to England by the Normans. The very simple and primitive form of the Roman Mass continued to form the core of most Western Christians from the earliest of days. The Council of Trent did not create a new Mass. They only codified the Roman use (with several Gallican additions) and surpressed any use that was not at least 200 years old. Monastic and Religious Orders were allowed to continue with their own use and calendars. From this view, the Missal of St. Pius V was not anything particularly new but something which gave a more consistent order.
I think this was inevitable at the time it occurred because of the advent of the printing press. Some of the little variations might perhaps be blamed on the fact that missals were written by hand rather than printed. Nevertheless, things had got out of hand with troped Kyries and the like. The very sober and ancient Roman Rite has been preserved for us by the Missal of Trent and its successors.
The Sarum use does have some aficionados among the WRO, but I am not convinced in its appropriateness for a couple of reasons. First of all, speaking purely from the Orthodox position, it is a use that was developed purely in post-schism France and then imported to England via the Normans. I know that many have been promoting the Sarum use as part of an English patrimony, but really that's bullocks. The English used it following 1066, or even later, and they developed it some into the use of York and Hereford, etc. Prior to this the normative Roman use was to be found in England as that is what St. Augustine of Canterbury brought with him from St. Gregory the Great (remember Whitby where the Roman use won the day?). Actually the Sarum use is but one of the many variations of the basic Northern European use. Even Scandinavia used something quite similar. Sarum represents a romantic notion of English Catholicism and expects far too much from it.
Furthermore, the Sarum use (and any of the northern European variants) have long since ceased to be used. They are but a vague memory which is occasionally trotted out in a sample Mass which is pieced together as best as one can interpret. I am personally very reluctant to give much credence to academic recreations of liturgies. The 19th century saw at least two (possibly more) recreations of the Gallican Rite and which were wildly different depending upon how one understood the core of the Rite, whether it was from the Roman family or the Antiochian family. One simply doesn't really know the answer, and so it is largely still left to speculation. Pay your money and take your chance. That is not organic and healthy worship. I could also put forward the example of the Novus Ordo as well, which in many places was based on bad liturgical scholarship and which has since been disproved. Perhaps I'm jaded, but it doesn't make me at all comfortable at trying to recreate a Sarum use.
Both of these observations should give great pause to those who are interested in an Anglican Ordinariates as well concerning the Sarum Use. Coupled to that, in the case of the Anglican Ordinariates, the facts that even the recalcitrant Roman Catholics did not continue to use the Sarum use even though it was allowed following the Reformation and the fact that most Anglo-Catholics used the normal Roman Rite means that there is a legitimate historical and experienced stream of the Roman Rite among both the English Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic. This has not entirely faded into memory either. There are several parishes in England that still use the English Missal (though most do indeed use the Novus Ordo). And there are many more in the United States and elsewhere where the use of an Altar Missal according to the older rubrics still are the assumed practice.
Another reason that the WRO embrace the altar missal as received through the Roman Rite is one of historical authority. In the late 1800s the Holy Synod of Moscow authorized the Roman Missal for Orthodox Use with very minor alterations. They did not authorized creating a museum liturgy, or a scholarly recreation of an earlier use. The Rite which was authorized was the common use of the day. It was not an exotic Rite or ceremonial, and could be found in virtually every Roman Catholic parish around the world at that time. The one great distinction was that it was to be celebrated in the vernacular. (I'll address the inclusion of the Epiclesis, or Invocation in another post.) That Rite was also authorized by Metropolitan Antony Bashir in 1958 when the Antiochian Archdiocese blessed the Western Rite Vicariate. Notice that there was never authorized a Novus Ordo form of the Mass for the WRV, and that the purpose of the WR was to simply live what it had received. It is an historical accident, if you will, that the general use of the West and the WRV are different. But the WRV is bound to the rubrics of the older missals and not the Novus Ordo.
Now for the second part of the comment. I am not aware of Fr. Schmemann having said that the Novus Ordo was more in line with the Orthodox, but if he did, I wouldn't be too surprised. I would very much disagree with him about that though. Fr. Schmemann was heavily influenced by the liturgical scholarship of that time--which created the Novus Ordo--and so that's not surprising to me at all. There are many things which he wrote that I think are profoundly beautify and absolutely spot on. But he is not an infallible teacher and I don't think he would have thought of himself to be so either. This is no knock against either his scholarship nor his priesthood, just a point that he was part of a era and that effected his perspective. It is also interesting to note that he often opined in class several liturgical possibilities but that he never acted upon them personally. His students sometimes did, but never did. Within the past few years, liturgical theology has largely been re-written and it supports the old Mass more than the new. Yet there are still some who are stuck in the 50s-70s works and haven't dug their way of them yet. Pity. It just slows the recovery of the authentic life of the Church.
As far as I'm concerned the best liturgical life--because it never completely ceased to exist in the lives of the faithful throughout the Novus Ordo period, and therefore is still alive--can be found in the English Missal of the Roman Rite. Most people are pretty well convinced now of the value of the vernacular. That's one thing that has been largely accepted, but I would caution that Latin should not be forgotten amongst those who use the Roman Rite. I remember at the end of one Mass I celebrated, it was one of the feasts of our Lady, I sang the Salve Regina in Latin (in the common mode rather than in the 1st mode). It was beautiful. We sang the Ecce Sacerdos in Latin (by Stadtler) when the bishop came. Latin ought not to be lost. But the English used should be an elevated English, of which I think that "Prayer Book" English is the absolute best and sanctified by centuries of use.
The English Missal tradition (and here I'm off topic, but I don't mind) represents the principle stream of European Christianity throughout the centuries in a marvelous linguistic package. It's theology is ancient--not Calvinistic or Reformation, but truly Catholic. It is rich in its applicability to the real daily lives of Christians in all their difficulties and needs. It springs from the very trunk of the Tradition rather than merely an off-shoot. This is why I think many of us WRO love the "Mass of Trent," because it's not the Mass of Trent, but the Mass of the Church throughout the centuries.
“Our missal is that of Pius V. We may be very thankful that his Commission [at the Council of Trent] was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition. Essentially the missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is transformed from the Gelasian book, which depends upon the Leonine collection. We find the prayer of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our Fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God … There is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.” – Adrian Fortescue, *The Mass: A History of the Roman Rite* (p. 213).
ReplyDelete“The Tridentine liturgical reform, initiated in order to correct abuse and ensure doctrinal orthodoxy, was thoroughly traditional. It produced nothing radically new. It promulgates – and facilitated by the development of the printing press – published a missal that could be used uniformly throughout the Roman rite, without prejudice to venerable local uses, which it respected. Neither clergy nor laymen were astounded by this reform, and there is no evidence of disparity between the mandate of the Council and the work of its liturgical commission. It was another growth of the living organism that is the Roman rite, involving little substantial change.” – Dom Alcuin Reid, "The Organic Development of the Liturgy* (p. 44).
“The missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short the missal of 1570 was in essentials the usage of the mainstream of medieval European Liturgy which included England and its rites … The missal of 1570 was essentially traditional.” – Dom David Knowles (quoted in Reid, p. 44).
Thank you for these quotes. They clearly show what I was writing about and prove my thesis.
ReplyDeleteYes, any decent liturgical historian is aware of the how truly ancient the so-called "tridentine" missal really is. It is tiresome to hear so many anti-western rite Byzantine Orthodox condemn the roman rite in the Antiochian wrv by name calling of this sort. Many of these people live in a Sarum make-believe world in one of the more donatist Russian groups.
ReplyDeleteI am also very troubled by the present demand that western rite orthodox make the sign of the cross in the modern Greek manner as well. The right to left form is extremely ancient and is the form used by all Oriental Orthodox; did not Christ ascend to sit at the right hand of the Father? And crossing with five fingers in remembrance of the five wounds of Christ is far, far more ancient than the three fingers of the modern Greek usage, which used to be with two fingers still in use by the Russian Old Believers.
I've been told that it was originally the custom for WRV clergy and faithful to make the sign of the Cross in the Latin manner (which I've also heard described as the "Benedictine" way). At some point – I think in the early to mid 1990's – there was a massive shift to the Greek way. The process, as I understand, was helped along by one or more bishops berating the WRV faithful.
ReplyDeleteAn argument sometimes heard is that WRO should bless themselves "the Orthodox way" because they may be mistaken for Roman Catholics and prevented from receiving Holy Communion when attending Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgies. (As if most folks aren't smart enough to learn two ways of making the sign of the Cross.)
And then there's the quote from Innocent III (I think) which is inevitably brought out to prove that Latins used to do it the Greek way long, long ago. As long as we're into antiquarian one-upmanship, I like to bring up the really, really ancient way of making the sign of the Cross with the thumb on the forehead, as described by Tertullian ... and then of course there's the old Muscovite way.
A tiny handful of WRV folks, not unlike those tenacious Old Believers, continue to bless themselves in the Latin manner, except when worshipping in the Byzantine Rite.
Either way it is the sign of the Cross, which I think is the universal mind of the Church. One could easily get too caught up with this. I remember being told to sign myself the "Greek" way because we were now Orthodox, until then I hadn't thought too much about it.
ReplyDeleteI do know that it seems more "clean" liturgically at a WR Mass to sign the Western way because one usually joins ones hand before his breast after making the sign of the Cross, which then is a simple movement. Signing the other way round one has to approach with the right hand in a back-hand motion before joining hands. It's not a big deal, but it just isn't as tidy.
I have also heard about Pope Innocent III, but I have never actually seen an academic reference to this, and do wonder if it is not a canard.
ReplyDeleteWhat is strange is that many Byzantines condemn the Oriental Orthodox manner of making the sign of the cross as something that they copied from the Latins, whilst at the same time stating that the Latins made the sign of the cross in the Greek manner!!! These people are right even if they are wrong!!! One cannot win with such a mentality.
I find it strange that it is all right for Old Rite Russians to continue to cross with two fingers, but not all right (especially in the so-called ROCOR western rite parishes) for westerners to cross in a far, far more ancient manner. I think that this is simply indicative on the bigotry of the Byzantines...which bodes badly for any western rite amongst them. Little things do matter.
Fr. John, you wrote - "Furthermore, the Sarum use (and any of the northern European variants) have long since ceased to be used."
ReplyDeleteExcept - it was served by the English old Catholics (such as at Grace Dieu) in the 19th c., from whence it was picked up by some Anglo-Catholics. Its use continued until recent memory in a few places.
The Dominican use is also one of those Northern Catholic rites. After Vatican II its use dropped out of favor, but there were still a few places where they continued it - though irregularly. It is also experiencing a revival in the post-Motu Proprio era (as it is included in the allowance for the Extraordinary Form by Rome. See here for an example: http://www.op-stjoseph.org/preaching//dominican_rite/home/ .) Dominican, Sarum - pretty much the same. If Rome can have diversity - I don't see what the problem is for us Western Orthodox: or even why we would all have to convert to the Franciscan use of the Roman rite. Then again - I'm still waiting to see an Orthodox of the 'Latin Rite' wear preaching bands like St. John Vianney.
So - we're not all gone: either in Rome, nor here under Russia.
As for the sign of the cross: yes, in ROCOR we do the little cross (a continuation of custom), and a way that looks Eastern but was done over a century ago in Cornwall and South Wales - and as Aelfric of Eynsham noted they did over a thousand years ago (again, continuity.)
Dale - the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Sign of the Cross might be a help to you. Herbert Thurston wrote the article almost 100 years ago, and the whole set is marked: Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
I have read that the "Novus Ordo" Mass, with many if not most of its post-1960s Anglophone Roman Catholic tedious "music" and "ditties," has been authorized for use in an Antiochian WRV in the Philippines. Do you know anything about this? Can you conform it?
ReplyDeleteWilliam
ReplyDeleteI believe that that is true. Metropolitan Paul brought in a large group whom I was told were in the midst of an ethnic struggle. I can't recall exactly what it was now, but it seems that some of their local customs were being suppressed or some like.
Met. Paul, having been a priest in Washington D.C. in the Antiochian Archdiocese, knew that we have a WRV here (as well as having a small one in Australia and New Zealand himself) and so he allowed them to all come in with virtually no changes at all. My suspicion is that he never really understood what the WR is.
This has caused quite a scandal. I believe they use the Novus Ordo and even unleavened bread (which I'm not against except in terms of obedience, certainly not in theology--though many Orthodox would disagree with me on this). They use all of the current Novus Ordo customs as they have received them (and like them). I was told that the Greeks won't count the chrismations and ordinations of these folks as valid.
Generally speaking those in the Antiochian WRV here are rather embarrassed about what has happened there, because it certainly undercuts what has been the focus of the "experiment" in WRO here.
Ari,
ReplyDeleteYes, I have heard Fr. Michael's assertion that when he was a child he remembers old, and most likely senile, people making the sign of the cross in the Greek manner, but I sincerely doubt it.
I find it strange that the ROCOR would insist on the modern Greek manner when it is known that the original Greek manner was to make the sign of the cross with two fingers, as do the Old Believers, and not three. It would appear that if the west actually ever crossed in the Greek manner, it would have been with two instead of three fingers (can Fr. Michael verify how many fingers his oldsters used?). Of course, the Russian Church used to burn people for using the older form.
of course this still does not explain why the most conservative of all churches, the Oriental Orthodox, make the sign of the cross from left to right...even in the most isolated of Christendom, India and Ethiopia. Almost forgot! They learnt if from the Crusaders! Who if one believes some of the rhetoric, were actually making the sign of the cross a la Grec.
Even amongst the Romans there is a group that,for some reason, believes that all that the Byzantines do is more ancient than their own Latin traditions...this includes free-standing altars as well.
Senile, eh? Seriously - it is how I learned the sign of the cross before I ever darkened the door of any Eastern church. I was taught that way by Old Catholics, who also made the same claim as Fr. Michael - it being an older Western custom. And, of course, we have the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia - that monumental work of post-Newman English Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteSo...as I understand your argument; the Oriental Orthodox did not learn to cross left from the Crusaders, a contention that I have often heard, but the Crusaders learnt to cross left to right from the Oriental Orthodox!
ReplyDeleteWhat about the fingers, what about the fingers!!!!!
What about the fingers? Some cross with three, some with two - originally it was with one (or the thumb.) I've never seen anyone cross with 'five'- unless we mean palm to face. The Latin form (as do my kin who are 'Notre Dame' Irish ) is with a more 'relaxed' hand, but you are still only touching with one, or two, fingers. Maybe it is more important that the sign of the cross is being made?
ReplyDeleteAs for the three fingers - no, not entirely Greek. As the Roman Catholics have noted, it was not unheard of in the West: "A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But if he do the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token. With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity" (Thorpe, "The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church" I, 462) That is quoting Aelfric of Eynesham. It is how I learned to make the sign of the cross as well (from someone of Scots ecclesiastical heritage) - at least a decade before meeting a Greek. It is how the Ancren Riwle directs as well. I already knew plenty of Copts, Armenians, and Assyrians a decade before meeting a Byzantine. They didn't nitpick about the manner of making the sign of the cross - though one Armenian did tell me that I did it like the Russians. So - I'll keep doing it the way I learned it. I don't care if the Greeks mimic our old British custom, laugh at anyone who calls it 'Greek', and see no reason to have to go 'Notre Dame Irish' (or Italian, or 'Anglo-Catholic') to be more Orthodox, or more English (as if my ethnicity was in question: for the record, Adams are Salopian, but Kentish anciently. Wakefields are Kentish. We were in Virginia 400 years ago, helped found the Carolinas - and my maternal family was early in Maryland. Like many Southerners, my English ancestors are allied with families Scots, Welsh, Irish, French, Palatine German, Moravian, Swedish, German/Sephardic Jewish, and Native American. I'm also descended from United Empire Loyalists of Canada, and some Prussians whose village church was Cistercian.)
As for 'Byzantine' people attending Western rite - in my experience, they will, and do. That certainly is in the case with ROCOR WRITE: where we have seen Russians, Greeks, Serbs all attend. In America, it certainly was not unusual for Orthdox to attend Roman Catholic, Methodist Episcopal or Protestant Episcopalian parishes. I've helped chant at the funeral of an Antiochian Orthodox lady held at an Episcopalian parish in Alabama where she raised her children (she remained, died, and was buried as Orthodox - though most of her children are now Episcopalian.) I think that gives lie to the idea that Orthodox people will not attend an Orthodox parish that has services similar to the Roman or Anglican: they have for generations here.
I do understand the point about bias in some Orthodox parishes. We had that ill treatment at a Greek chapel nearby. I kept my Western customs - and... they accused me of being Russian. (I don't even *look* Russian, and the only Russian custom we practiced was bringing a Pascha basket for blessing along with the other Russians...after being accused of being Russian. Sure, I'm descended from St. Vladimir - but that's because I'm descended from the Plantagenets.)
That being said: I'm not the one getting all Fundie or OCD about fingers. I hope that people wash them. I hope they make the sign of the cross reverently and prayerfully. And we'll continue to do it the way I was taught: whether or not the Greeks do it that way too (Hellenism and a stopped clock do have some things in common after all, eh?)
Ari, I do appreciate your openness, it is nice to know that one may continue to bless oneself in the traditional, left to right, with five fingers, form of the cross in the ROCOR western rite. Of course, you also informed us that Catholic converts are NOT re-baptized. You really need to get with Fr. Keller on that one.
ReplyDelete