Orthodox Reflections

By Benjamin Dixon, a conservative political operative and commentator from North Carolina. Benjamin is a member of  ROCOR. He currently serves as the Veterans Committee Chairman for the Young Republican National Federation. You can follow Ben on Substack at Where the Wasteland Ends. Reprinted by permission. 

I recently read an article posted on Orthodox Reflections by Fr. James Krueger entitled “Why Venerate Saints of the West and Reject the Liturgies They Celebrated?” What was so confusing about this article was that it claimed the broad opposition to the Western Rite was caused by their adherence to the liturgy and patterns of the pre-Schism Orthodox West… But this is patently false. The Western Rite has not resurrected these liturgies but instead adopted a very slightly modified form of liturgics from modern High Anglican/Catholic practices.

While this is not a commentary on the piety or Orthodoxy of those following the Western Rite (many of whom I know to be deeply pious and defenders of the faith) I believe that Fr. James and proponents of the Western Rite have vastly overestimated the cultural value of Western liturgics, the ability to truly resurrect the ancient liturgies and practices of the Orthodox West – much less use them as an effective tool to convert Americans – and have, seemingly, forgotten exactly how Orthodox Tradition is transmitted.

Supposed Supporters & Origins of the WR Liturgy

People in the Western Rite often try to use the words and actions of St. Tikhon of Moscow or St. John of Shanghai to show that the Church “used to understand” that Orthodoxy was “too foreign” and in need of a Western style liturgy. They will note the approval of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as proof, claiming that he personally put together this liturgy to help convert Westerners. But St. Tikhon did not have an in-depth role in the actual editing and approval of the WR liturgy – which is little more than a slightly modified Anglican High Mass. Nor was it done for general missionary purposes, but as an act of economia. There was, in the early twentieth century, hope for a legitimate union with the Episcopalians in America.1

Sts. Tikhon of Moscow, Sabastian of Jackson, and John (Kochurov) of Chicago in New York for the elevation of an Anglican Bishop – they did not participate in the consecration.

In Western Europe, a number of Catholic parishes went into schism with Rome and sought shelter under the omophorion of the Russian Church, forming the Western Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate (then under Metropolitan Sergius). Sometime later, they were received into ROCOR; in 1966, a Russian priest was tonsured a monk by St. John of Shanghai and shortly thereafter consecrated Bishop Jean-Nectaire of Saint-Denis. Bishop Jean-Nectaire worked hard to correct the Mass and hymnals of the community under his care, and while these were conformed to Orthodox teaching in word, they still carried the modern Roman Catholic spirit and differed in form very little from the mass as it had been celebrated since the time of the Catholic counter-reformation. After the death of Bp. Jean-Nectaire, the group went into schism and fragmented.2

We can see then that this was an act of compassion, of economia, not a campaign to revive a Western Orthodox Church on an earlier model. Those who attempt to use St. John of Shanghai’s “don’t let anyone tell you that you have to be Eastern to be Orthodox,” as a call to revive the Western Rite are mistaken. Saint John is making the point that one doesn’t have to become Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.. to become Orthodox, not that Orthodoxy is “eastern” and must be modified to be accepted in the West.

Scroll Down to Continue

Too Foreign for Americans?

Fr. James is essentially making the argument that Orthodoxy is too foreign for Americans. Where is this coming from? The only people I see making the argument that Americans can’t convert because the Orthodox liturgy is too “foreign” to American culture are the Protestant pastors trying to explain to their congregation why they need to stop converting to Orthodoxy. The entire premise has been disproven over the last century – and in the midst of the current surge of conversions. As large waves of inquirers and catechumens come into the Church, none of them are saying “you know, I’d be much more willing to convert if this looked more like the Catholic Church up the road.” My job affords me the opportunity to attend parishes across the country, so I’m not saying this as someone who doesn’t get around to other parishes – I’ll touch on my experiences visiting WR parishes here shortly.3

The primary obstacle for many Americans is linguistic, not liturgical. In immigrant parishes where there is a lack of English or resistance to implementing English, it can be a bit more difficult to retain converts – they will find an English liturgy.4 This is why St. Tikhon of Moscow said that the single most important task for the health and growth of Orthodoxy in America was the translation of the service texts into English.5

Any time the question of whether or not Orthodoxy is too foreign for Americans is raised, I can only wonder if we are to likewise believe that Orthodoxy was too foreign when the Apostles went to Egypt or Ethiopia? What about Galatia? Georgia? Persia? Italy? Britain? What about China?

Of course not, nor is that the case in America today.

It’s not like the Apostles arrived in Gaul, looked around and said “Okay, how do we invent a liturgy which speaks to their local pagan customs?” They certainly didn’t try to resurrect practices from a thousand years before their arrival to make the liturgy “relevant” to the people they were converting. But this is precisely what Fr. James is insisting we do. He tries to use St. Gregory the Great’s instruction to St. Augustine of Canterbury to show that there is precedence for this. But even a cursory glance at the text shows this is not the case.

St. Gregory suggests that St. Augustine repurpose the pagan temples, tearing down the altars and idols, and replacing them with an altar of God and the relics of saints.6 Because the locals sacrificed oxen (sacrifices involves eating) that he should institute a parish feast day on the anniversary of its establishment, dedicating the food to God – a normative Christian practice. Thus, the experienced St. Gregory instructs the less experienced St. Augustine on how to show the Christian religion as the fulfilment of what the Britons already believed.7

Thus, Fr. James’ argument, as genuine as it may have been, simply doesn’t follow. The Liturgy which St. Augustine, like Sts. Cyril and Methodius, taught to the people of the British Isles was the same he had served for years beforehand. Nor was an “authentic Gallic/Anglo-Saxon Rite” something which appeared overnight. Instead, the Anglo-Saxons received the Tradition passed to them from the missionaries who baptized them, and over time local practices began to differ.8 This is the Orthodox model.9

The Question of Culture & Roots?

“As a convert to Orthodoxy and a canonical Orthodox priest with a blessing to celebrate the ancient Roman Liturgy, I am often struck by the sheer lack of regard that some Orthodox folks show toward these cultural roots.” – From the article

If Fr. James is struck by the sheer lack of regard that some Orthodox show towards these “cultural roots,” just wait until he sees the lack of regard most Americans have for these supposed roots. Fr. James is arguing that Americans feel some cultural connection to the ancient English, Scottish, or Irish Church, but this is virtually never the case. Most don’t know their own family history beyond their grandparents, and don’t really care to.

Culture is not exactly a storehouse from which you can draw out whatever you want so long as it existed once upon a time. Culture is a living societal consciousness, and American culture today, at its very best, is fighting for the “traditional values” of Evangelical Protestantism and the Nuclear Family – in other words, fighting for the world of the 1950s/1960s. In the instances in which Americans do feel some connection with Europe, it is 18-19th century Europe during the Imperial-Revolutionary Age towards which they look.

The Western Rite in Reality

And this is precisely why the only place the Western Rite seems to have taken root in any measurable way is in places like the upper Midwest – strongholds of more “traditional” (ie., Vatican I/pre-Vatican II) Catholicism. Visiting WR parishes in the Midwest over the last two years, most of those I’ve met were, frankly, still very much Roman Catholics.10

By and large, they ended up in these parishes not because they saw the errors of Roman Catholicism and were actively, consciously rejecting them but because they felt Pope Francis was a heretic and Vatican II was a mistake; because Roman Catholics believe Orthodox Christians are merely “separated brethren with valid sacraments,” they came to a Western Rite parish. It appears that the Western Rite is less popular as a return to some Western Orthodox roots than as a rejection of the Vatican II Papacy and more acceptable landing than Sedevacantism.

Midwestern Western Rite Parish (Pat. of Antioch). Notice the statuary on the left, surrounded by votive and vigil lamps.

The Western Rite liturgy is not, nor was it ever a return to the ancient rites of the Church, but rather a modification of modern Roman Catholic-Anglican practice – practices born of the West’s abandonment of Orthodoxy.

If the Western Rite were truly seeking to an authentic and legitimate return to the ancient Western Orthodox Rite, they would stop wearing 18th century Gothic vestments and Anglican collars, instead wearing vestments similar to those worn by the Greeks and Balkan churches today – which are closer to historical Orthodox vestments in the West than what is used today; they would put a hard stop to eucharistic adoration; they would set up an iconostasis, the presence of which was, according to archeologists, nearly universal (contrary to the myths pushed on seemingly every Western Rite parish’s about us page), or at the very least set up a rood screen; toss out the organs and take down the statues and other depictions which contradict the canons of the Ecumenical Councils11 – instead filling their churches with icons and vigil lamps as was the standard practice during the first 800 years in the Western churches.

As noble as it may seem to attempt the resurrection of the ancient Western Rite, simply having service books and archeological evidence of how temples may have been structured is not enough to resurrect these ancient liturgies.12 If you don’t believe me, give an Evangelical a Hieratikon and tell him to celebrate the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

I want to be clear; I understand the evangelistic motivations of Fr. James and others who are supportive of the Western Rite. These motivations are noble, it’s the methodology that is flawed. Simply put, the Western Rite is inauthentic as an expression of ancient Western piety, it is culturally irrelevant to Americans and as such has no worth as a missionary tool. But beyond these two important considerations is a far more important question, and that question is this: Do we have the right or authority to introduce a set of liturgical practices which are wholly unknown to the faithful and foreign to the living expression of Orthodox piety?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Holy Tradition & Liturgical Reformationism

Holy Tradition does not belong to us, it belongs to the whole of the Church. Our duty is to receive the Tradition which has been delivered to us, to preserve and pass it on unmolested to those who come after us – not to invent our own based on personal preference.

The Church is not a human organization whose rules and operational models can simply be upended at will. She is a living organism, the union of all in Christ and it is He who determines her direction – not the whims of these or those. This isn’t a problem exclusive to the Western Rite either but seems to be infecting those Orthodox Christians most zealous for an “American Orthodoxy.”

It has become far too common for individual clergy or parishes to introduce liturgical innovations, to arbitrarily “resurrect” some practice out of personal preference. And this is really the bottom line: we do not just make up practices; nor do we say “well, this was done in (place) in (year), so, it’s Orthodox and we can do it now.” No!

I frequently see this in OCA parishes when I’m traveling. Individual parishes will adopt some novel practice simply because the priest (a scholar involved in translations) has translated a manuscript fragment. Seemingly every OCA parish in the South has adopted a practice of the entire parish making prostrations on Sunday during the Anaphora. I asked a priest about it and was told “this used to be a common practice in ____.” … Maybe it was, but that’s not our practice now, that’s not what we received, and perhaps it was done away with because it violates the good order of the Church – such as the rule that we don’t make prostrations on Sundays.

The heart of the issue is this: when you try to resurrect practices which have fallen out of the living witness of Tradition, there is always the risk (regardless of one’s intentions) of misunderstanding the purpose, intent, and execution of that practice and bringing dangerous innovations into the Church.13

When we seek to uproot one of the landmarks set by our fathers, we quickly find that everything becomes relative. Our position then, is not a demand for uniformity in liturgical expression but for organic expressions. And frankly the Western Rite is artificial and foreign to the mind of the Church.

Conclusion

The Orthodoxy of Byzantium was foreign to the Nordic-Slavic paganism of Rus’ when St. Vladimir was baptized. In spite of that his emissaries returned with this message, “we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, but we know this: God dwells there in the midst of men.” And this is the experience of converts generation after generation, century after century, nation after nation. People are not looking for something culturally relevant, they are looking for Christ – and that is precisely what we have to offer them.

After the Baptism of Rus, it took several hundred years for a uniquely Russian Orthodoxy to emerge. Authentically American or Western expressions of the liturgy,14 festal celebrations and practices, et al are coming; but these must come organically and doesn’t happen overnight. It requires time and patience, and more than anything it requires sanctity. For a genuine American Orthodoxy to emerge, we must first cultivate saints, as it is the saints of a nation which shape its character. This is not something we can force, and if we do try to force it, we will fall into error.

This truth, so clearly missed by our friends in the Western Rite and elsewhere, is summed up concisely in the Editor’s Preface from I.M. Kontzevitch’s Acquisition of the Holy Spirit:

“At various stages in the history of Western civilization, Christianity has made inroads and created saints who have become national heroes; and these heroes have set the tone for the specific characteristics of their respective nations. In one way or another these nations, becoming infused with holiness, have developed indigenous qualities of sanctity which have colored the essence of their arts, literature and customs.

 

Christian ethnic characteristics are valid only if they stem from the genuine acquisition of the Holy Spirit. This unites all in Christ, and thus to the state of Adam before the Fall, to the paradisiacal state for which man was made. But if there is no link and there is estrangement from that initial source – the traditional, historical path of acquiring the Holy Spirit – then the result is separation, peculiarity and oddity, a source of strife and discord. The historical acquisition of the Holy Spirit as reflected in local, national churches has created a heavenly choir composed of earthly men and women who have transfigured themselves into saints – friends of God.” – Acquisition of the Holy Spirit: Orthodox Ascetic Theology, P. 11; St. Herman’s Brotherhood Press15

Our job is to be faithful to that which we have received. We absolutely should revere the Western Saints, ask for their intercessions, and emulate their virtue. But we should also emulate their zealous adherence to the tradition which they received. Only by safeguarding our tradition, which the Russians, Greeks, et al.. have passed to us can we hope to see an authentic Western piety come into being.

1 The friendly dialogue between the Russian and Anglican churches in America was largely of the Anglican bishops intentionally misleading the Orthodox bishops to believe that the differences in their beliefs were minimal and could be easily overcome. Removing any errors from the existing Anglican liturgy was part of the effort to see if a union were possible. Many, like St. Raphael of Brooklyn had allowed for their parishioners to attend Anglican parishes if an Orthodox parish wasn’t available, and even to be communed in an emergency situation where an Orthodox priest was not available. Once it became clear just how far the Anglicans were far from Orthodoxy, this all came to an abrupt halt. Saint Raphael issued a letter to the Anglican communion at the conclusion of this ordeal, which was quite spicy.

2 Saint John was a big proponent of restoring the veneration of Western saints. It’s a stretch to say that he was a “proponent” of the Western Rite, so much as wanting to provide a home for Catholic communities in Western Europe who wished to come into the Church. An act of compassion upon this group, and a recognition that pre-schism saints deserve to be known and commemorated is different than saying we should invent new rites to evangelize a specific land – a move which would be wholly at odds with Orthodox tradition, its history of missionary work, and St. John’s own received theology.

3 Last year the number of parishes I attended was higher than the number of times I could attend my home parish.

4 Granted, foreign language parishes have an at least equally hard time keeping second generation cradles in the Church; but that is, again, a language issue.

5 see intro to Hapgood Service Book, Antiochian Archdiocese of America

6 Precisely as had been done with the Parthenon and innumerable Roman Basilicas

7 Someone might point to St. Gregory’s allowing the locals to build huts around the temple during the feast as proof of something more going on, but that is not the case. Most Christian feasts are celebrated for not one day, but several. For a newly planted church in an unchurched land, many would be traveling from days away, it makes sense for them to build temporary shelters to be near and fully participate in the festal occasion. We see the Jews doing precisely this in Ezra, building tents around the temple complex during the feast.

8 We often forget how much more isolated people were in the ancient world compared to our own – although not as isolated as we often like to imagine. Put another way, we fail to understand just how revolutionary planes, trains, automobiles, radio, television, and the internet have been. Just look at the variety of local accents across America even a century ago. Someone in New York City could tell who was from Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx simply by the way they spoke, and this was in the same city. People from Boston, depending on class, had different accents. What we call a Southern accent today is a charecterization, in reality there were innumerable Southern accents. The Virginia Tidewater accent differed from that of the Piedmont Region, which differed from those in the Shenandoah Valley or Southwest near Bristol. These differed from Charleston, which differed from Atlanta, Louisiana, Alabama, etc… The television and internet have resulted in a more general American accent. And that’s just local variation in language! Just like language, the liturgy of Wessex differed in little ways from those of Essex, and the practices of the two were more similar than not once compared to the practices of the Irish or Frankish Churches. Across the vast breadth of the ancient world these local variations were always accepted so long as they were doctrinally sound, pilgrims and other travelers would often comment on the “curious practices” of a certain land they passed through. We also see throughout the Church’s history where variations in some local churches had to be corrected by a larger regional/national or ecumenical council (See the Council of Trullo for examples).

9 There are many great books now available in English on what we might call Orthodox Missiology. See, for example, Fr. Michael Oleksa; Orthodox Alaska: A Theology of Mission, SVS Press, New York 1992

10 This is not true universally of WR Orthodox, I know several who are very pious and fiercely Orthodox. What I have noticed is that the WR Parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese are basically the Wild West, while there’s a bit more continuity in the WR ROCOR parishes.

11 Not only were Iconostasis fairly standard in the West in larger churches, but those only able to afford a Rood Screen would place a large curtain behind it to fully obscure the altar outside of key moments (those which elsewhere would see the opening of the curtain and doors). Many surviving screens in England have evidence of having previously housed images in between their pillars and lattice work. Style and decoration varied by region, but this is the standard pattern according to the sources and recent research, a sampling of which is below.

Eamon Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, p. 110-112, 292-293 (inset), among others; Yale University Press | Vladimir Moss, Saints of England’s Golden Age; Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies | St. Gregory of Tours, Vita Patrum, p. 72-73; Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press | St. Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, Introduction by O.M Dalton; Oxford Press, 1927 | Eusebius of Caesarea; History of the Church, Book X, 4; Penguin Books

12 See, for example Canon 82 of the Council of Trullo

13 And I’d like to remind our WR friends that the Sarum Rite is not a pre-schism rite, but a pre-Reformation rite – ie., still a Papist rite.

14 For example: there were instances in the ancient Western Church where (because of plague and ecclesial chaos) mass ordinations were carried out to quickly repopulate the ranks of the clergy. Because there was “precedence,” a number of WR clergymen were ordained en masse here in America. While I won’t get into the many scandals these have been involved in, it should suffice to say that the results of this action have ensured another mass ordination will never occur in the American churches.

Being charitable, we could say that a well-intentioned desire to restore the “deaconess,” has resulted in Alexandria’s establishment of a female diaconate – a novelty foreign to the Church. We also see this in some scholars’ desire to use the ancient practice of “brother-making” in parts of Byzantium as a means of justifying sodomy and homosexual unions in the Church.

15 Let’s not forget that only the “Eastern” Orthodox Church has maintained the ancient Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great (or the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts)

16 Excerpt from Editors Preface, by Herman Podmoshensky