« Advent on the way | Main | Summing up »

December 01, 2006

What the Patriarch preached

Fr. Z notes the Ecumenical Patriarch's homily yesterday and annotates it.

The homily was on liturgy - its definition and power.  The homily, whether purposefully or not, highlights a division between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy less frequently noted than issues of papal authority and other questions of ecclesiology and theology.

Many folks, with only a superficial understanding of either or both churches, sees relatively formal liturgies, the importance of Eucharist and male priests and thinks, "So? What's the big difference?" A lot, particularly since the Second Vatican Council. The salient question is...why would the Orthodox want to "reunite" (whatever that would mean), or more dramatically, be in any sense under the authority of a structure in which the theology of liturgy, as it's been lived out on the ground, has turned into a free-for-all?

(And I don't mean just moments of silliness here and there. I mean the unofficial theology of liturgy that has come to pervade the practice, as in: liturgy is essentially a palette on which to paint whatever picture of the perceived needs of the local community that I believe my (as presider or liturgical planner) gifts and talents call me to create.)

The text of the homily at Zenit

With the grace of God, Your Holiness, we have been blessed to enter the joy of the Kingdom, to "see the true light and receive the heavenly Spirit." Every celebration of the Divine Liturgy is a powerful and inspiring con-celebration of heaven and of history. Every Divine Liturgy is both an anamnesis of the past and an anticipation of the Kingdom. We are convinced that during this Divine Liturgy, we have once again been transferred spiritually in three directions: toward the kingdom of heaven where the angels celebrate; toward the celebration of the liturgy through the centuries; and toward the heavenly kingdom to come.

This overwhelming continuity with heaven as well as with history means that the Orthodox liturgy is the mystical experience and profound conviction that "Christ is and ever shall be in our midst!" For in Christ, there is a deep connection between past, present, and future. In this way, the liturgy is more than merely the recollection of Christ's words and acts. It is the realization of the very presence of Christ Himself, who has promised to be wherever two or three are gathered in His name.

At the same time, we recognize that the rule of prayer is the rule of faith ("lex orandi lex credendi"), that the doctrines of the Person of Christ and of the Holy Trinity have left an indelible mark on the liturgy, which comprises one of the undefined doctrines, "revealed to us in mystery," of which St. Basil the Great so eloquently spoke. This is why, in liturgy, we are reminded of the need to reach unity in faith as well as in prayer. Therefore, we kneel in humility and repentance before the living God and our Lord Jesus Christ, whose precious Name we bear and yet at the same time whose seamless garment we have divided. We confess in sorrow that we are not yet able to celebrate the holy sacraments in unity. And we pray that the day may come when this sacramental unity will be realized in its fullness.

And yet, Your Holiness and beloved brother in Christ, this con-celebration of heaven and earth, of history and time, brings us closer to each other today through the blessing of the presence, together with all the saints, of the predecessors of our Modesty, namely St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom. We are honored to venerate the relics of these two spiritual giants after the solemn restoration of their sacred relics in this holy church two years ago when they were graciously returned to us by the venerable Pope John Paul II. Just as, at that time, during our Thronal Feast, we welcomed and placed their saintly relics on the Patriarchal Throne, chanting "Behold your throne!", so today we gather in their living presence and eternal memory as we celebrate the Liturgy named in honor of St. John Chrysostom.

Thus our worship coincides with the same joyous worship in heaven and throughout history. Indeed, as St. John Chrysostom himself affirms: "Those in heaven and those on earth form a single festival, a shared thanksgiving, one choir" (PG 56.97). Heaven and earth offer one prayer, one feast, one doxology. The Divine Liturgy is at once the heavenly kingdom and our home, "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21.1), the ground and center where all things find their true meaning. The Liturgy teaches us to broaden our horizon and vision, to speak the language of love and communion, but also to learn that we must be with one another in spite of our differences and even divisions. In its spacious embrace, it includes the whole world, the communion of saints, and all of God's creation. The entire universe becomes "a cosmic liturgy", to recall the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor. This kind of Liturgy can never grow old or outdated.

(Note that I'm not arguing for anything in particular except a re-examination of our assumptions about liturgy here on the ground. We don't need to be externally like the Orthodox. The Orthodox are the Orthodox, the Eastern Rite Church are what they are. We have traditions, they have traditions.  But the issue is our stance - what is the liturgy for? In our vigor to remind ourselves of the presence of God in the uniqueness of the present moment and allow ourselves to awakened to that, much else seems to have been lost.)

Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink

Comments

I teach the seniors in a Catholic high school. Yesterday we were talking about the import of the Pope's visit to Turkey. As I was describing the beautiful richness of the Orthodox liturgy I began to ask myself Amy's question: "Why in the world would they want to reunite with the Latin Church when when the only constant in liturgy is the idea that it's always in flux."

The prevelance of the four-hymn sandwich, bare churches, bad translations and the like need to held up to the Orthodox tradition and a simple question asked: "Shouldn't the Latin liturgy look more like the Orthodox than it does the Lutheran?"

The answer is "yes". We need to stop the madness and return to our roots. Then the East might be more willing to listen to the necessary invitation to reunion.

Posted by: Fr. Dan Andrews at Dec 1, 2006 10:23:35 AM

Fr. Andrews

WOW! WOW! Just reading this had me desiring to run to my parish church and get on knees. The above reflects incredible TRUTHS of our most Holy Triune God's love for us.

Peace to all on this blessed penitential Friday.

Ohevin

Posted by: Ohevin at Dec 1, 2006 10:29:02 AM

PS.
Do you think the Patriarch was sending a no so subtle message to Cardinal Arinze and the folks in Rome?

Posted by: Ohevin at Dec 1, 2006 10:32:51 AM

This is why it would be awesome for the Pope to proclaim the motu proprio from the Hagia Sophia on his visit.

Posted by: tim at Dec 1, 2006 10:40:47 AM

It's my experience that many Orthodox laity and clergy who have attended a Roman Catholic Mass in the last 40 years are scandalized at what they see and hear. I've heard it over and over again. And I'm not talking about Halloween costumes and nuttines, but basic things like the priest facing the people for the entire Mass, lay ministers of communion, and women and girls serving in the sanctuary.

Posted by: tony c at Dec 1, 2006 10:48:53 AM

Meanwhile, pray for those of us in the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. We are supposed to get new official liturgy books soon, which, in this writer's humble opinion, represent a departure from the ancient liturgy, and will only make the division between Orthodox and Catholic sharper.

Posted by: Karl at Dec 1, 2006 10:50:55 AM

And isn't it neat he ends with Maximus the Confessor, who spent time in Rome and had good things to say about the Latins!

Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Dec 1, 2006 11:10:47 AM

When I was a child and teen, back in the dark ages of the late 50s early 60s, we were taught that we blessed ourselves with Holy Water because when we stepped into the Church for Mass, we were entering 'heaven' with all the angels and saints and participating in the heavenly liturgy. I was raised in the good old 'Roman' Catholic Church, not the Eastern and not Orthodox. No one ever teaches that anymore. There are all kinds of explanations but that isn't one of them I hear, even from quite orthodox Catholics. What happened?

I recognize that the Mass has become the theatre of the presider, however, when did the teaching actually change? Or were we taught incorrectly?

Posted by: Chris at Dec 1, 2006 11:38:46 AM

The celebration of the liturgy in most suburban American parishes is in a seemingly parallel universe to that of Orthodox Christianity. Yes, we have the Word and the Eucharist, but the "ornamentation" by other ghastly, ugly, cheesy goings-ons must be endured weekly. The Liturgy of the Word is altered to make it gender-neutral or to omit passages that are perceived to be offensive ie: "Wives, obey your husbands". Eucharistic ministers freely blessing young children and adding "God Bless You" after each administration of the Host...Clapping, hand-holding, kissing between boyfriends and girlfriends and family members in the pew, bare midriffs in low riding, shabby bluejeans, tee shirts with tacky sayings, cell phones ringing...Aargh....with the current degradation of the wider culture we won't see a reformation of the liturgy and music in our lifetime, but there are stirrings...

Posted by: UintaSusan at Dec 1, 2006 11:40:21 AM

The salient question is...why would the Orthodox want to "reunite" (whatever that would mean), or more dramatically, be in any sense under the authority of a structure in which the theology of liturgy, as it's been lived out on the ground, has turned into a free-for-all?

Because, for all of the Catholic Church's human faults, it is led by the successor of Peter, whom Christ put in charge of the Church and whom is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit?

Which, of course, isn't a convincing argument for the Orthodox, who do not share the Catholic view of Petrine primacy. But, well, that is the real reason that the Orthodox don't want to reunite with us.

I know that some aren't fond of current Catholic liturgical practices, but, honestly, how much progress towards rapprochement with the Orthodox was made in the 500 years in between between the Council of Florence and Vatican II (when the liturgy was rather tightly controlled by Rome)? Any concerns about liturgy are a sideshow compared to disagreements about the scope of papal authority.

(This is not to say that I don't have my own concerns about the state of Catholic liturgy, but how it is perceived by Eastern Christians who will never under any realistic scenario be forced to regularly celebrate it is not one of them.)

Posted by: Bill H at Dec 1, 2006 11:45:27 AM

Yes, Bill, you hit the nail on the head. It's their rejection of the Petrine primacy that sustains the schism.

Posted by: UintaSusan at Dec 1, 2006 11:49:53 AM

I'd suggest, Bill, that the issues of the authority of Rome and the liturgical issues are not unrelated.

As in...this is the fruit of papal authority? This is what happens in a legalistically-based institution, rather one, as the Orthodox would say of themselves, in which it is understood that the power and authority of God lives and is accessed in the Church as a whole, experienced in a particular moment in the liturgy?

Posted by: mac at Dec 1, 2006 11:50:34 AM

Anyway, it's the Petrine succession and primacy that keeps me in thrall. I hope that doesn't sound off, but if there is anything Catholic elementary education impressed me with most, it's that Peter, the first pope, is the one to whom Jesus handed the keys to the Kingdom and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!

Jesus might be weeping at the state of our liturgical abuses, but He's ever so patient with us and will send good men and women to repair His Church...

Posted by: UintaSusan at Dec 1, 2006 11:59:23 AM

Dittos mac.

Posted by: Fr. Dan Andrews at Dec 1, 2006 12:02:10 PM

On the other hand, I think Fr Z is a little too excitable about looking over the shoulders of other peoples' palettes. The handicap of the Roman Rite, both before and after the Council, is that too many priests don't approach the liturgy with sufficient gravity. If you repeat the myth that the Roman liturgy is in bad shape, except for my personal fiefdom, often enough, you start believing it.

Posted by: Todd at Dec 1, 2006 12:10:36 PM

All I know is that the liturgical setting this side of heaven will never eclipse the great gift that we are given by our God in the Mass. God our Saviour re-presents his once for all sacrifice on the altar for us, offered eternally to the Father, and deigns to allow us to unite ourselves with that Sacrifice. And then He gives himself to us in a form so the we can receive him intimately into our bodies, our Bread of Life.

I don't love the Mass because the hymns are great or because the homilies are excellent or because everyone around me is showing proper respect and reverence for what is actually objectively happening (although all these things would be wonderful to have); I love the Mass because God loves me so much that He comes to meet ME at Mass, to offer himself for ME, to be MY spiritual food. He loves ME that much that He would do all those wonderful things for ME so that I might live with Him forever, and I'm floored by it.

Posted by: jpk at Dec 1, 2006 12:15:20 PM

Do we "have the Eucharist" if no one - priest or people - understands what it is? Is the priest's 'ex opere operato' effective if he doesn't really acknowledge or understand what the eucharist is, or what the Church's intention is when she offers it? Does anyone effectively (and worthily) receive communion if they don't believe what it is? I remember St. Paul saying something about eating and drinking damnation...

Posted by: Charles A. at Dec 1, 2006 12:18:05 PM

Re-reading what you wrote, Mac, it strikes me that the Orthodox may simply be another end of the spectrum of "We are Church"--this time far to the right (Maybe..Liturgy is Church?) with maybe too much emphasis on God being present primarily in the Liturgy and not in the faces of their bretheren in the larger culture--the poor, the uncatechised, the sick, etc. I'm no expert, but how much influence has Orthodoxy had on penetrating the larger culture? Western Christianity certainly has lost its way in some respects, but it does leave a profound legacy of charity, law, culure...

Posted by: UintaSusan at Dec 1, 2006 12:21:56 PM

I really do not like the word "scandalized" -- it takes me back to the excuses made by the hierarchy for the various cover ups and other disengenuous behavior.

Posted by: tomjedrz at Dec 1, 2006 12:25:19 PM

If folks are interested in "reform" and "schism" in the Eastern churches related to celebration vs. doctrine (and yes, I know that's shallow) they might read up on the Calendar controversy. Wikipedia's entry on Greek Old Calendarists isn't bad.

Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Dec 1, 2006 12:31:00 PM

What should scandalize us Latins is that nothing in that homily isn't shared by our understanding of liturgy. It's just that we don't live that understanding, generally.

Posted by: JACK at Dec 1, 2006 12:42:29 PM

The Patriarch's homily resonated with me because my chant teacher laid great stress on the unity of the visible Church with the heavenly Church and the angels in the Mass, particularly at the Sanctus, when we sing with the angels.

The Holy Father customarily gives reflections of his journeys after he returns to Rome. I hope to read his reflections from his general audiences and other talks in the not distant future.

Posted by: David S at Dec 1, 2006 12:43:42 PM

how much influence has Orthodoxy had on penetrating the larger culture?

The conversion of Constantine and the first Christian government, the building of Constantinople as the first Christian city, the baptism of Russia/Ukraine, the Cyrillic (St. Cyril) alphabet, the first 7 ecumenical councils, the birth of monasticism, etc.

4 of the 5 great Apostolic Sees are Eastern: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople. Before Paul ended up in Rome, the Church was already established in Syria, Greece and Turkey.

Basically, the East laid the foundation that the West built upon, back when we were one Church.

Posted by: tony c at Dec 1, 2006 12:52:08 PM

The Orthodox would never join the latin rite. If anything, it would become a Catholic rite of it's own. That would allow it to keep it's liturgy. That really isn't an issue. I don't even think recognizing the pope is the big issue. It is the doctrines that previous popes have defined that they would have to accept. Divorce and contraception are accepted in the Orthodox church. The biggest barrier to coming into fuller union with Christ is always obedience. This is no differant.

Posted by: Randy at Dec 1, 2006 1:02:18 PM

Josh Trevino, an American Orthodox Christian, was at the Divine Liturgy and has written a wonderful reflection on the event.

Posted by: Kevin Jones at Dec 1, 2006 2:08:41 PM