The Liturgy of St. Gregory and the Invocation (Epiclesis)

One of the strangest things that exists in the WRV Liturgy of St. Gregory is an epiclesis following the words of Institution. It simply does not belong. When the WR was first authorized by the Holy Synod of Moscow, they required the addition of the epiclesis in the Mass of St. Peter (the old Latin Canon of the Roman Rite) so as not to scandalize Orthodox who were ignorant of the WR and its authenticity. They made clear that it was not done for any theological cause at all and that the old Roman Canon stood as completely valid as it was.

For some time in Russia the argument had been made, perhaps trying to parallel arguments made in the West regarding the moment of consecration, that the bread and wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the epiclesis, or invocation of the Holy Spirit. For those who had been taught this, it would have been noticed and they may well have thought that the sacrifice had not been offered. Okay. That might be understandable in the pastoral situation of late 19th c. Russia, but the parishes which Overbeck was trying to plant were not in Russia. Much less were those which Mathew tried to establish in England. Nevertheless, the WRV of the Antiochian Archdiocese received the tradition of an invocation in the Canon through Moscow.

This is an oddity because even St. Nicholas of Cabasilas pointed out that the invocation did occur in the West, but it did so during the offertory (i.e., "Veni, sanctificator omnipotens æterne Deus, et benedic hoc sacrificium, tuo sancto nomini præparatum.") rather than after the Words of Institution as is done in the Antiochian (the so-called "Byzantine") Rite. It is at least alluded that both some sort of invocation and the Words of Institution are necessary for a valid Eucharist, the order may differ depending upon the Rite. This is not necessarily so, because one of the monophysite liturgies (Chaldean?, I can't recall now which one) does not have the Words of Institution, and the Coptic liturgy calls down not the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, but the Son. Be that as it may, the most normative Christian pattern would certainly include some sort of an invocation and the Words of Institution.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue suggested in his commentary, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, that there seems to have been an invocation somewhere near to the Supra quæ propitio in the Leonine Sacramentary but which was lost to the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great, but what its form might have been is unknonwn. More recent scholarship has called into question that there was an invocation in the Roman Mass at all.

Whatever may be the case, we know that the Canon of the Roman Rite was virtually unchanged from the time of St. Gregory the Great until 1962 when St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary was added in two places. When the Council of Florence was convened there was never any concern whatsoever given by the Orthodox about the Rite of Rome. The bread was discussed, and various other things but the Rite itself was never held as problematic.

This being the case, I do not like the fact--even with the authority of the Holy Synod of Moscow and Antioch--that the Roman Rite has been altered for "pastoral reasons." I wish it were possible to get back to the authentic Rite since it cannot be shown to be defective in any sense whatsoever. In fact, it is more ancient than and is at least a venerable as the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom. I make no comment regarding the Liturgy of St. Tikhon and its reworking at all as my concern and focus has always been the Roman Rite.

But I don't think that anything will change and more's the pity. We could have the real root and trunk, rather than a paste job.

The Mass of St. Peter (or, The Liturgy of St. Gregory)

A received a question/comment via email from a reader of this blog that I thought was worthy of an entry. He wrote: "I really don't understand with the WRO are so in love with Trent. Didn't Fr. Schmemann write somewhere that the Novus Ordo was more in line with Orthodox thinking?"

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.

Altar Missals and Lectionaries

It is no surprise that I have been working on producing an altar missal. I've been at it for several years now and all of the text is almost complete. I have laid out some of the text already so that I have my templates ready to finish the missal within a couple of months.

One of the things that has been of some interest to me because of the work I've been doing is the lectionary itself. While what I have worked on thus far has been directly pointed to the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate (WRV), it certainly has broader application because there are many who are working on missals at the moment, notably our WRV and those considering the Anglican Ordinariates. I would suspect that there may be some Old Catholics and others who are also working on missals as well.

Some General Thoughts about a new Missal
It would be very tempting to simply reprint an older missal for use today. This has been beautifully done by Lancelot Andrewes Press printing the American Missal. It was supplemented with a couple Canons and a few manuscript Masses so that it can be used by our parishes which use the Liturgy of St. Tikhon (the Anglican form). It can still be used by Anglican parishes without any alteration in their parishes as it stands. Of the two Anglican missals common in the United States the more functional missal was the American rather than the Anglican, notably in the Prefaces which were printed complete without having to flip pages twice to sing a preface. But its typeface was especially unattractive in its early 1950s form (it was better typeset in 1928). The Anglican Missal was better typeset but was more difficult to use. And neither the American nor the Anglican Missals were set in red and black throughout the missal which makes them more difficult to use. I remember hearing one priest accidentally reading the rubrics out loud in the Mass and fading out his voice when he realized what he was doing. Of all the older Anglican Missals--which are necessary to refer to because they alone had everything in the English language--the English Missal is the best.

Missals need to be entirely typeset anew. This allows the calendar to be kept current with Saints who have been glorified/canonized since they were last published. It also allows us to use very clear digital fonts for publication (may our Lord keep us from using Times Roman in everything, how ghastly this font is in liturgical books, fine for newspapers but dreadful elsewhere!). I would also suggest that all books should have a similar "look" that are used within a rite. For example, the missal and the ritual should have a similar quality and texture. Rubrics should be red throughout the missal.

These are general observations but it is helpful to have a model Missal. For my part, I find that the old missals from Ratisbon are the ideal model. The Anglican Missals (of virtually all varieties) never quite came to that high water mark. Although there were other good printers, in the US the Benziger Brothers were most common, I don't think the German firm can be equalled for beauty, clarity and artwork. As a graphic designer, I believe that this should be the model and ideal of all missals that are being worked on currently for whatever community--although there should be some updating of some of its visual typography but this is better to be left to those who have developed this craft.

The Source Text
The source of the text is a necessary issue for all who work on a missal. In this case I am not referring to Anglican vs. Roman sources, but the translations themselves. I don't think that a missal ought to be produced using the contemporary idiom--in that case simply use the Novus Ordo. For the WRV, contemporary language is not allowed, so for us it is a mute point. There are very important reasons for keeping a hieratic language in liturgical worship, but that is for another post.

I argued for the use of the Douay for quite some time. It clearly represents the generally accepted Scriptural text of the West (even the text before the East-West schism). It was largely reworked by Bp. Challoner and often the text from the Authorized Version was taken up wholesale. The Psalter is easier to set to the authentic Gregorian melodies as well. I would still welcome this text, but I am not as set on it as I once was.

The Authorized Version (aka, King James Version) is one of the great anchors of the English language, and as such it would be very difficult to discard it out of hand. I would suggest that it ought to be corrected in those few places that it differs from the traditional text in content. The Coverdale Psalter is again the psalter that has been used liturgically by English speaking people for so long that it doesn't make sense not to use it. I don't believe that the RSV should be used in an altar missal, perhaps for a Novus Ordo sacramentary, but not a traditional missal. For one thing its use of pronoun number is contemporary and would be out of place in a traditionally styled language. Is St. Paul writing to one or to many? Contemporary language cannot make that distinction.

The Lectionary
Turning to the Lectionary itself one comes to more complicated issues and in some cases these will answered by the appropriateness to the group who will use the missal. For example in our WRV some parishes use the old Latin Mass in English (with some odd alterations), while some use a altar missal form of Anglican heritage. For the Latinate group the Roman lectionary is very appropriate, while for the Anglican group a lectionary based upon the BCP is the most appropriate. My own work has been directed largely towards the Roman Use. Having two different missals for our two uses of WR works well for us (here I think the American Missal reprint ought to be authorized for our St. Tikhon parishes), but for others this will not work so well.

I'm not sure at all what Old Catholics might need--or if they even have any sense of consistency any longer so that they might know. The large diversity of Old Catholics boggles the mind. Continuing Anglicans who intend to remain continuing have other issues as well. I would suggest that they should produce their own missals and cease using the old standards. It seems a little more complete, but perhaps they have not reached that age of maturity yet.

Those who are planning on entering the Anglican Ordinariates have a couple of questions to resolve which makes it a more difficult item. Currently the Anglican Use parishes use a form of the modern NO lectionary: a 3-year Sunday Cycle and a 2-year daily cycle. This works well if you have a sacramentary and a separate lectionary. It's disastrous if you are celebrating using the older rubrics! The resulting missal would take a tug boat to move it about. To make something like this practical in a real missal would take five volumes. The cost would be too prohibitive to produce. They also currently use the Catholic version of the RSV.

For what it's worth, I think the 3-year cycle should be left for those who will use the Novus Ordo Mass (along with the RSV) and the traditional 1-year cycle should be used by those who will use the traditional Mass. Those who use the Extraordinary Form of Mass are required to use the old lectionary (and calendar) and not to use the the modern lectionary. I believe this should apply equally to those who use the EF in the vernacular as well. I also question the need of the 3-year cycle. The Church (East and West) used the 1-year cycle for at least 1600 years and it made Saints. The Mass lectionary is not about reading through the entire Bible. In all current and ancient lectionaries there are large bits that are not included. A single year also helps to reinforce to the people the mind of the Church. They actually learn what Gospel goes with what feast. This is a good thing which is upset by a 3-year cycle. I would hope--and even plead--that those who are working on this will not introduce something as novel as this into the older use. Remember the parable of the wine-skins.

In addition to the lectionary cycle, those looking at the Anglicanorum Coetibus will also have to look at which lectionary they will use. Will it largely be the BCP lectionary, supplemented by the Roman Missal as was done in the American and Anglican Missals? Will they keep the Sundays after Trinity or will they go to the Sundays after Pentecost instead. Currently the Anglican Use uses the modern lectionary and calendar so it would seem reasonable that the traditional form would use the Roman lectionary as well. Certainly Septuagesima needs to be kept in the traditional form. But there are some Gospels in the Roman lectionary that ought to be exchanged for those in the Anglican lectionary. I have in mind some of the feasts of the B.V. Mary which are only two verses in the Roman use and much fuller in the Anglican. Surely this would be a welcome addition. Again, perhaps the English Missal--having both the Roman Use and the Anglican Use in it--is the best resolution for all, leaving the selection to the individual parish. There will be more prefaces that will require setting as well, for example the Preface of Advent.

The End… Finally
I know that there are many who are working on their own drafts. This is a very large project which also means that there will not be a new missal for any of us very quickly. But an altar missal is the most practical and beautiful of books and it ought to be thought out well on the lines of the older books. Of all the books required for the altar, none is more important than the altar missal. For the Mass is the heart of the Christian Faith.

I would welcome the opportunity to work with others as they proceed on their missal projects. We may well be able to supplement each others work in the spirit of charity and affection. Whatever is done, the missal must look beautiful as well as be functional. Mere pragmatism is an unacceptable offering to God.

The Transfiguration

It is an absolute foundation stone that it is the Resurrection of Christ that is the characteristic Feast and focus of the Christian Faith. As St. Paul clearly writes, if Christ is not risen from the dead, we are above all to be pitied. Nothing makes sense without the Resurrection. But having said that, the most characteristic Feast as touches our incorporation into Christ is his Transfiguration. (see Matthew 17:1-8)

There are many themes present in this Feast: it contains an epiphany of the Trinity, it shows the fulfillment of the Old Testament in Christ, and much more. Yet I am always struck by the fact that everything around our Lord is changed. What has been hidden is revealed about everything. Christ did not reach a higher degree at his Transfiguration, rather, the glory that he always had with the Father from the beginning was manifested to the three chosen apostles. They were granted the grace to see what already was present.

And yet there is a change of the elements around our Lord that is striking. Our Lord's clothes become whiter than any fuller could make them. His clothes began to radiate the Light of Christ. When we speak of a Christian's "ministry" we need to be very careful unless we try to clericalize the laity and laicize the clergy, making all ministries interchangeable. The principle ministry of the Christian is his cooperation with God in his own sanctification. The Christian's primary work is to become a Saint.

Very often we assume that this means being set free from our passions and to reach the point of no longer committing personal sins. And in a sense this is true, but it is only the very beginning aspect of our sanctification. To be free from sin still does not mean that we have perfected the virtues, and perfecting the virtues doesn't mean that we have achieved a complete union with God yet. But we often are mislead to assume the bare minimum is the goal because we don't know any better.

The Transfiguration shows that part of our complete union with God is the transfiguration of all that is around us. Even our Lord's clothes began to shine forth with his light. And here is the principle reason that I post this on my Western blog. We must transfigure everything around us including our cultures, our times, our homes, and everything about us. We cannot shed off what we have been formed of so that it is not transfigured and glorified, for all things must be brought into union with Christ. And this includes the Western Rite and all of its music and heritage.

If Christianity is simply about "getting to heaven," then none of this really matters because we can all get to heaven in any liturgical rite. But if Christianity is about the transfiguration of the universe in the glory of Christ, then we must offer ourselves and all that we are made of. Therefore anything that would eliminate, or limit, any of the life of Christ as it has been expressed historically is not fully Christian. I have long stated that one is required to love (not merely tolerate) all of the various liturgical expressions of the Church because they are the movement of the Body of Christ in the Spirit to the Father. That does not mean that we need to be comfortable in all of the Rites, but we need to love them all objectively. This is an essential element of Christianity's redemption of all the created Cosmos.

The Western Rite(s) transfigured many lives into great Saints. St. Gregory the Great (or the Dialogos as he is known in the East) never used the Eastern Rite in his life. St. Benedict of Nursia was nourished with the Latin Mass of St. Leo using unleavened bread. St. John Cassian understood so well that the Eastern approach did not work for Italians and so he altered the monastic life that he had learned in Egypt and Mt. Sinai for those in Italy in his Conferences. St. Leo the Great used the sacramentary of the Mass which he promulgated using a western form of chant and the Latin language. St. Martin of Tours, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Rome, and countless more were fully sanctified and are remembered in every Orthodox Church around the world, and none of them ever used the Rites of the East. Their sanctity was and is the same, but their personal culture was Latin, not Greek.

We must firmly reject the ideal of some sort of globalized Byzantium (like a franchised corporation), and embrace the historic understanding of the universal Church which held a unity in diversity. We must be truly "Catholic," (as in the Creed: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) or else we will not participate in the Faith of Christ, nor shall we extend his Transfiguration to the entire created cosmos but only to approved outlets.

Let us all have a greater sense of our work in transfiguring the world around us in our sanctification. Let us bring all things to Christ that he may bless and dwell in them. Let us rejoice in all that bears the light of Christ. And let us remember that nothing is to be withheld from him even if it does not conform to another's tastes or culture.

The Land of Silent Bell Towers

One of the most beautiful sounds in my mind is the sound of church bells calling out. The campanological songs that one remembers in the old movies that were set in England (like Mr. Chips) come to mind. The image of the great bells being rung out in the movie Becket is stirring. But here, in the United States, our bell towers are silent. It seems so strange to me that churches would erect a building with small little towers appended to one or both sides of the front as if they were a necessary decoration only. If churches did purchase bells, they were usually penuriously limited in scope, usually with only one to three bells. This is fine if the church happens to be a small mission type. But if it is a genuine parish church it should actually be an embarrassment. Very few churches in the United States built a well-proportioned, heavy bell tower and far fewer filled it appropriately.

Bells are very much a part of our historic heritage--and this goes throughout the entire Christian world, not only in the West. Churches built towers, campaniles, and filled them bells to sing out to the community at large. The bells marked the great feasts, important moments of the liturgical services, certain daily devotions (like the Angelus), the time of the day, weddings, funerals, deaths and even civil dangers. Bells were a familiar voice of the entire community. They were part of the family in an existential sense.

The bells have not completely ceased ringing out in Europe, and in some places there has been a little renaissance of the campanological art. But in the United States, our towers are largely silent even when they have bells. We seem too timid to proclaim the faith beyond the interior of the church building by ringing a bell. We fear the complaint of neighbors, and perhaps a complete change of 2-1/2 hours may be out of the question here, surely 15 minutes or so shouldn't be out of the question.

I recall the story about bells from a former parishioner who was from Denmark. She said that before she embraced her Christian faith, she used to get irritated by the sound of the bells on Sunday mornings in Denmark. They would ring throughout the city and it disturbed her. Later, she embraced her faith very devoutly and when she revisited her native country, her attitude to the ringing of bells was markedly different. She loved the sound of them. I have read that there is a real link to one's love of the faith and how one responds the ringing of bells. The bells crash through one's comfortable experience of leisure and call to mind the community that is larger and has more claim on oneself as well as piercing the false wall one builds up against the worship of God in his Church. It is unsettling to sit and enjoy the morning coffee and Sunday paper with the sound of the Church calling to one. It should be so.

Bells are evangelical. They proclaim the Gospel of Christ throughout the area (they can actually be heard a mile or so away when hung properly). They sanctify the time and space that we live in, and so they are not popular with the secularist. They are an habitual voice of faith proclaimed. They speak out that there is a Christian church present, that the worship of God is taking place and as such they are perhaps some of the most cost efficient tools for "getting the word out" about one's community.

They are also comforting. There is something about the sound of a strong and large tenor bell (the largest and deepest bell in a peal, or set, of bells) in a church tower that brings a sense of solidity to one's heart. The slow, steady tolling of the bell at a funeral helps the heart find a beat to live by which aids it to stay afloat in the midst of sorrow. The bells mourn with the bereaved, showing the sadness of all of creation at the loss of a son of God. The comfort of the toll reaches near to a sacramental experience.

What is more celebratory than when near the midnight hour in the cold and frosty dark, the bells sing out in a peal to announce the birth of Christ? They begin with the treble bells and move down sequentially to the tenor, and then they begin moving through a complicated mathematical dance of joy. The darkness comes alive in thanksgiving and exuberance.

And while bells are common to the entire Christian tradition, there is certainly a particular character that is Western. The bells themselves are different. In the Christian East they are cast and hung as they are. In the West, they are turned upside down and turned on a special lathe following their casting so that they may be tuned musically. The West tunes a bell to speak or ring out five distinct tones in the bell. Easterners make an argument that their bells are more Christian because they take the bell as a unique personality as given by God and allow it to speak with its own voice. That certainly represents one campanological school's religious description. It is certainly a nice allegory. But we must note that there is nothing at all dogmatic about it though it a nice way of explaining their approach. The Western approach is not empty of an equally valid and edifying allegory. Bells are tuned just as we fallen human beings must be perfected in our lives until at last we can sing more perfectly the praises of God. The turning becomes an image, or icon, of our spiritual struggles. It's an argument that is equally valid, and, to me, more powerful of where are right now, what is required of us and the beauty of a transfigured life.

The Eastern school is also entirely based on a rhythmic system, which is why the bells don't need to be tuned since it is the rhythm that is important and not the musical tonality. This helps to point out why the East never developed an equivalent of the Carillon so popular among the Belgians who mastered it. Bells are purchased in the East specified by the physical weight of the bell. In the West, they are purchased both by weight and the musical note. Every Western peal of bells can be classified by its musical harmony (diatonic and so forth) and whether or not it is flat, sharp or natural. This would never be thought of amongst the Easterners.

The West is not homogenous in its campanology however. There are some places in which rhythm plays a greater part, although it was never the exclusive focus. Most country parish churches in Italy had three bells, while larger churches had many more. The same was largely true throughout the Mediterranean. But as one moved north the number of bells increased. And as one crossed the English Channel, the theory of bell ringing changed as well.

The English tradition of change ringing is perhaps the most highly developed of all the Western campanological schools. Dedicated teams still practice and play the bells even in smaller parish churches throughout the land. It is an organic and overwhelmingly physical musical experience. The bells seem to even add a little sense of clarity to those who benefit from the work of the bell ringers.

How tragic it is that our towers stand silent. What a farce it is that we so quickly adopt electronic loud speakers to sound out an artificial ring. What does that say about our faith? Is "artificial" really acceptable or an apt description of our faith? Perhaps it is for some. I can accept that one might not be able to have a ready-at-hand team of bell-ringers for every Mass, for every funeral (and sadly, not even for every Sunday), but ought not one strive for this? I would suggest that the ideal is to have bells hung in towers so that they can be rung by hand by use of ropes, and optionally, when necessary, by an electrical motor that swings the bell. I think it is still important that the bells be swung to ring out. It also seems to me that a normal parish church ought to have a peal of six to eight bells, anchored by a goodly sized tenor of at least 10cwt. This would not be a terribly expensive peal and it would be capable a great diversity and beauty. And it ought to be noted that the bells will last for a thousand years being cast of good bell bronze. The investment in a proper peal is very little over the centuries. But we don't think in terms of permanence any longer. A great example of a good parish peal is Bradford Abbas, consisting of 6 bells (13cwt-2-21 in F). A recording of this peal is here: http://www.freewebs.com/timrose2/towerbells.htm


What would our land be like if the bells began to sing? What would the little country churches that dot our country find if they consistently proclaimed the gospel with bells? I'm not sure that I can answer that with any certainty because I'm not sure how many people would recoil because of their spiritual state rather than be moved by the bells. Yet, I am certain that those who hold the faith would be encouraged, comforted and made more aware of their spiritual lives on a day-to-day, and minute-by-minute basis and surely this could help us begin to rebuild the faith in this formless world.

Seven Steps through Difficult Times

On my other blog, "PadreTex", I posted an article about how to deal with difficult times. Those of us who love the Western Rite and our heritage often find ourselves in such conflict. I commend that article to you (you can find the link on the side bar).

I'll be posting a new article here in the next day or two.

Culture: Local, Regional, and Universal

There's an old rag, "Never ask a man where he's from. If he's from Texas, he'll tell you. If not, you don't want to embarrass him." Everybody knows where I'm from and even this past week it was pointed out that, as a Texan, it puts me at a disadvantage to understand my parishioners because I'm two degrees removed from them: (1) I'm not from the Middle-Eastern culture, and (2) I'm not a Michigander. My assumptions and way of speaking is not immediately understood by them, and theirs is not immediately understood by me. That's a pretty fair comment I think. I have often said to any one who would listen that in assigning clergy, it is important to remember that the United States is not a homogenous culture. It is actually quite regional. We should expect that. Keep in mind that Texas is the size of France, which is known to have a distinct culture.

Why should I bring this up in relation to the Church? Because it is easily assumed that Christianity has only one culture, or that it should only have a singular culture. This is not quite the same thing as phyletism but it can certainly be one of its assumptions (phyletism is the heresy which holds that one's own ethnicity or culture is superior to all others and acts to suppress or subvert other cultures--without action it is only bigotry). I would like to suggest that Christian culture must be seen as a parallel to ecclesiological order. It is unavoidable. Remember Christ became a very specific human being, in a specific historic time, with a specific culture. If we are real human beings, we will have a real culture that is ours and this will impact the life of the Church.

So how do we begin to make heads or tails out of this, and what is the core of Christian culture? Christian culture exists on a local level, a regional level and a universal level (this should sound familiar to the Ravenna Agreement), but it works slightly differently than ecclesiological authority which operates through the Eucharist and is therefore complete locally as well as universally. In Christian culture the common general elements are found in the universal level and then become more specific as one moves down to the local level.

At the universal Christian level are such things as the Sacraments which must be held, the Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers of the Church, etc. These are not just simple and general, but there are some specific things here that cannot be cast off. For example the basic shape of the Eucharist is part of the universal culture of the Church. It begins with preparation, hymns, readings from the Scriptures one always being taken from one of the four the Gospels another usually from one of the Epistles, or in some cases from the Old Testament. There is always the offering of the gifts of wheat bread and real wine from grapes. The consecration of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ which include the words of Christ (except in one ancient liturgy) and often an invocation of the Holy Spirit (although not universal in the ancient liturgies). There are the communions and a dismissal.

This is the universal shape which can be recognized in all Eucharistic liturgies around the world. The exact words used and the ceremonials which attended the Eucharistic liturgies were made specific on the regional level. At one time there were a great number of various liturgies (or rites) and now there are relatively few. It is common to speak of two major ritual families: the Eastern and the Western, both of which have several variants. For example in the Western there is the Roman, Gallican (French), Mozarabic (Spanish), and Ambrosian (Milanese) Rites. By far the most common of these Latin Rites is the Roman. But it had local variations too such that, if one is aware of the details, one can tell the difference between English customs and German ones.

This is quite important really because it allows the local culture to take both the universal and regional and make them real in a profoundly personal and obedient manner. It reinforces the Gospel itself and the real personality of those around the altar. When a local culture takes the universal and regional, digests it, interiorizes it and embraces it, it gives it back in a marvelously new manner. The local temperament is expressed and understood.

This historical organic life can be challenged and upset in places like the United States which has been characterized both by immigration and migration. Regional religious culture can undone when a large group from another region immigrate. It can also upset things when local character is not understood or is undervalued. The United States is essentially an English culture with some modification. Its cultural roots and biases are English. Its laws are English, both civil and common law (except from Louisiana which has a mix of English and French law). Her religious life was also formed with an English temperament. That's unavoidable since the Church of England was the established Church in most of the early colonies.

With immigration from Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean there has been a large influx of a different regional culture. It is still Christian culture for it holds to the universal pattern as established in the early Church and the Scriptures, but it has as its base a different set of assumptions and resolutions. It's world view is different. Even here the local variations can create tension (i.e., between the Greeks and the Russians, etc.).

But what happens when the later regional mind comes into immediate contact with an established regional culture? They don't seem to mix and create something new. They tend to polarize against one another. They also insist on the conformity of any "converts" into their own regional culture. In the long run the later culture dies--unless it has an incredibly large number--because by the third generation many of its children are gone. The only hope for a long lasting second culture, is that it and not the founding culture adapt to new circumstances. This is true because all of the externals of the civilization and locality are all ready set and are not up for grabs. If this doesn't happen, then the new group becomes increasingly disconnected with the real needs and concerns of those around, becoming nothing more than ethnic enclaves and ghettos with no real formative power.

This is what I think is under the hood of the experience of Orthodoxy in this country. Its culture has been strongly established within its Byzantine history (partly because of the abuse of the Ottoman Turks and the Communists) and is so rigid as to be set in stone. Recovering a "more Orthodox" mind is done by becoming more Greek or whatever. The monasteries of Fr. Ephraim spring to mind. But in parishes there is a disconnect. Children go to the Episcopal Church, or the Roman Catholic Church or whatever and it is not seen as a problem to many families. The children cannot connect to the attendant culture of the parent's parish because the world they live in is not the old country. The local life they have cannot support the local manifestations of a village ten-thousand miles away.

I have already written about the tragedy of people giving up their own culture to adopt a new one. They don't become something new, they only really are able to reject what they are and thereby become nothing, "a man without a country," without a father and mother.

The culture of the United States can only find its real ultimate cultural life in the old Latin Mass. English culture ultimately springs from this as does all of European culture. There are so many unconscious connections to this regional liturgical life in our culture that it would be impossible to list them all. But they are still present in an intuitive sense. Even if we can't quite put our finger on it, we know that there should be something there. It is here that the regional and local cultures must once again begin to live. Authentic life demands it. Sanity demands it. A healthy integrated life demands it. Oremus. (Let us pray.)