Saturday, February 14, 2009

The Nature of the Liturgy












Father Schmemann is spot on - Western theology and praxis have through the course of scholastical ages tended to reduce sacramental economy and efficacy to matters of validity, a rather mechanistic and formalistic view of grace and of the sacramental order. Although the Eastern perspective Father Alexander represents is certainly not Donatist, it is very Cyprianic and insists on the personal nature of the sacramental life, for celebrant and recipients, within the communion of the visible and sacramental Church. The Eastern (and ancient) view is organic, corporate and personalised; it sees the Church as a corporate personality, a living Body, the totus Christus, Head and Members, and the priest-celebrant as much paterfamilias as in persona Christi. This personal emphasis on the paternal role and example of the priesthood, on the priesthood as the moral and spiritual exemplar as well as the sacramental organ and functionary of the Church, is sometimes missing from Western theological discourse. As heirs of the nominalism and scholasticism of the Middle Ages, Anglicans are in this respect almost entirely like their Roman Catholic counterparts: Anglicans have been positively obsessed with the question of 'validity' of Orders, as opposed to efficacy and effectiveness in the sacramental system, since the nineteenth century, thanks mostly to Apostolicae Curae and endless debates about the bare minimalistic requirements for what makes sacraments 'valid.' 'Validity,' it should always be remembered, is not a spiritual but a legal term - any sacrament is valid for the community that celebrates it. Disputes over validity only occur when one church seeks to enter into communion with another.

In the Western approach the validity of the sacraments, as a result of the teaching of Saint Augustine, is often divorced in an unintended and unnatural way from the communion, the koinonia of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and the Great Sacrament. For the Orthodox this is unthinkable - sacraments and sanctity of life cannot be separated from the organic life of the Church as a whole. For the Orthodox, the sacraments are valid because the Church, through the priesthood, administers them, not because an individual priest possesses certain 'powers' not shared by other Christians. It is all the action of the Holy Ghost through appointed means in the communion of the Orthodox Church. For them, it is the Orthodox Church which makes the sacraments 'valid,' for she alone is the mean, sphere and source of grace, the abode of the Holy Ghost. The Orthodox have never attempted to divorce sacrament from Church or to dogmatise the mystery.

As Bishop Kallistos Ware says so perfectly, Apostolic Succession of Order is meaningless and futile without consideration at the same time of the Apostolic Succession of Saints, of holiness, of divinisation and transformed human life and experience by grace. In our effort to insist on the validity of the sacraments administered by unworthy and unholy men, a concern which in itself is necessary for the sacramental assurance of the People of God, we have all too often forgotten that the true purpose of the sacraments and of the priesthood is to make men holy and to raise us into the mystery of theosis, which entails moral conversion, perfection, transformation, a death to sin and a resurrection to new life in the Spirit.

We can so emphasise the cultic and official role of the priesthood, which is assuredly true in itself, that we ignore the priesthood's familial, paternal, catechetical, moral and spiritual role as the nurturer and provider of the Lord's Flock. In Anglicanism, the Ordinal serves as a wonderful corrective to the typical overemphasis in Western Christendom on the individual powers and prerogatives of the ordained priest as a sacrificer and liturgiser, which again are true in themselves, and restores the urgently-needed balance of the priest as sacerdos, minister of the Sacraments, yes, but also as the Pastor, Teacher, and Shepherd of the Church, whose primarily responsibility is the pastoral care, theological instruction and moral edification of those to whom he is sent.

The Orthodox, holding to antiquity, also have not slipped into the later Western penchant for making the liturgy a collection of individuals, each at prayer in his own private sphere of personal devotion, because of their insistence on the fact that the liturgy is a uniquely corporate action of the whole Church in which each person fulfils an indispensable and necessary role. In that setting the priest is not only the celebrant, but the father, president and enabler of the congregation. In the ancient tradition the priest is not seen as one separated or cut-off from the people, 'doing his own thing' at the Altar. Rather, he personifies and expresses in his unique and irreplaceable liturgical role the prayer and action of the whole body. He is in persona ecclesiae, in the person of the Church, as well as in persona Christi. He unites and empowers the laity, as each worshipper brings his own liturgical office to the movement of the whole.

Saint Clement of Rome says every Christian performs his own proper 'liturgy' within the Liturgy of the whole Assembly.

The Eastern Churches have never forgotten this intrinsically corporate and organic nature of liturgical worship: clericalisation therefore never affected the Eastern Rite quite as much as it had the medieval Western. The Eastern Rite has always been in the vernacular or in a sacral version thereof, with hymns sung corporately by the whole congregation, the action of the liturgy taking place before the people, with the exception of the Anaphora behind the icon screen. The liturgy is definitely 'active participation' and therefore always ad orientem, facing East, facing the Lord - as it should be. But the priest continually moves back and forth from the congregation to the Altar, uniting the action of the people in his own ministry and liturgical service.

Anglicanism has done much, through liturgical renewal and revision since 1549, to correct the late medieval clericalised form of the Eucharist and has recovered much of the ancient conception of worship in our own time through the Eastward Position, vestments, Altars, lights, incense, vernacular, hymns and congregational responses. The Anglican Rite simply is the restored and preserved ancient and orthodox Western Rite in all its fulness, as demonstrated by its embrace by the canonical Orthodox Churches. But the medieval mentality remains in some areas of traditional Anglicanism where the priest and his independent cultic role are concerned. After all, Anglicanism is but a special flavour of the Catholic Church of the West; she is ancient Western Catholicism, and has thus inherited the whole history of Western Christianity. I think it is fair to say that we still struggle at times and in places with that individualisation and clericalisation of the Church that arose in the Middle Ages and which actually impoverishes the true significance and meaning of the ordained priest, the sacerdos, in the action of the Mass - and in his life and ministry to the people entrusted to him.

Liturgy is life, and thus how we worship and what attitudes we bring to the liturgy and priesthood affect every aspect of the Church's practical witness, living and experience. If we get the liturgy wrong, we get the Church wrong. And so we must endeavour to get it right!

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have some questions Father,

1. I've attended Eastern Rite worship, and while the priest as president represents the congregation, the corporate "feel" was lacking. As you know in Eastern Rite the congregation is rather passive and with he exception of the reader do not participate in the liturgy unless in secret prayer. Western rite seems to do much more to systematically include the lay in liturgy, both by song and responses. In EO, it is really a liturgy exchanged between choir and priest. Any thoughts?

2. The Cyprian view of church, while not so formal, mechanical, etc. as the West (obsession with form, matter, intent), denies 'branch theory'. How do you reconcile this with claiming Anglicanism as a legitimate Western Orthodox Rite?

3) Furthermore amongst Orthodox there is quite a bit of dislike toward Western worship, and I don't think they would be quite so conciliatory in recognizing the catholicity of Anglicanism. Many of the historic official exchanges between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism have been either extremely tentative or have been withdrawn and disavowed. How can we make progress with Orthodox talks without at least slightly modifying our own venerated liturgy, sic. 1904 Russian report?

Otherwise, I agree with Father Kirby-- pursuing talks with Orthodoxy is our best option-- "intercommunion without absorption". Would this essentially be Anglicanism (Continuuers) as a formally recognized autochephalous church?

Anonymous said...

Beautiful post.

In praxis, Orthodox often fail to live up to ideals. Indeed, in a very health, spirit Orthodox parish, virtually all the parishioners are singing the responses, led by the gifted and skilled voices of the choir, and are also engaged in "liturgical aerobics," not sitting motionless and dumb in the pews. If you ever get to participate in this sort of worship -- Orthodoxy at its best -- you will find yourself truly blest!

Thus, in praxis, I often find that Anglican liturgics are more participatory than most other liturgical traditions. The congregants have a different, more restrained form of liturgical aerobics within the confines of the pews and participate in many responses. Often, the congregation prays certain prayers in unison with the presbyter rather than simply assenting with an Amen. This is what I consider the best form of Philorthodox Anglican common worship.

Anonymous said...

Something interesting I found on WesternOrthodox.com regarding Overbeck and the goal of Westerners to establish our own autocephalous WO church through the Russians.

http://www.westernorthodox.com/overbeck/russian.htm

"Overbeck pointed out to those who might be worried, that his petition to the Russian Holy Synod (drawn up in March, 1867) had no allusion to politics and he stressed that signers would certainly not be examined on their political creed. He was, nevertheless, apprehensive that the political situation had affected his petition numerically. He was quick to point out that whenever the restored Western Church was in possession of a hierarchy of three bishops, she would be entitled to attain full national independence. She then would stand in the same relationship to the Russian Church as any other autocephalous Church. Of course the Russian Church would never be forgotten for her services, but this spirit of gratitude had no bearing on politics."

We have a long way to go to repair the coming Anglican dysphoria. I believe our best bet is to shore up our numbers, establishing a substantial intercommunion amongst Continuuers-- basically a TAC which aims for Russia rather than Rome. We then establish relations with the Orthodox, following Overbeck's path before Newman's. To enter Rome at this point is premature unless we are ready to surrender concilarism and our Anglican Identity. It's only through Orthodoxy that Rome may return to her proper canonical limits. Therefore, we by restoring communion with the East, we can make Moscow and Constantinople's position stronger in the next Great Synod. I believe we will see the Great Synod between East and West in our lifetime, but if we don't get our house in order, i.e, unite continuuers, then we won't have any impact or contribution to it. etc.

The ACC, APCK, and UECNA already have intercommunion pacts, but we are far from establishing it in practice. We still act very much like seperate denominations. To understand what substantial communion would entail (whether within the continuum or with the Greek/Russians), read this great article: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8131

I think we kind of kid ourselves when we say we have intercommunion agreements unless we also are under the same canon, share deliberations in the same synods, share resources, etc..

Anonymous said...

Father Chad,

I think I know where I crossed the line. Please delete my last paragraph where i may belittle the continuum's latest and very important intercommunion pact. Anyone can be critical, but nothing is automatic. I have faith the pact will deepen over time, but patience is required too, and this is a very important event. I am very sincere about seeing Anglicanism prosper. But maybe many Anglicans have different views on what constitutes 'orthodoxy'. Lately I've been thinking a lot of the non-jurors and archbishop sancroft. But there are many influences which shape Anglicanism. I have a lot to learn, God willing.

I enjoy your posts, and provide use material here at my own blog. Thank you.

sincerely,
charles

Voyagis+ said...

I'm cradle Greek Orthodox and have been a "continuing" Anglican Priest some 10 years now. I received my M.Div. from the OCA seminary, St. Vladimir's. A few observations:

The grass is decidedly not greener on Constantinople's side of the fence. It is certainly true that the Western Church has been preoccupied with concerns of instrumentality/modality and a linear view of space/time. The mystagogic teaching of St. Maximos and the Trinitarian speculations of the Cappadocian Fathers would be helpful in resolving the Western controversies surrounding the nature of the Eucharist. However, the EO place excessive emphasis on "ontology" and carry far too much gnostic baggage from the Alexandrians.

"Charles'" comments about EO liturgy are correct. Despite Palamyte propaganda that asserts that EO liturgy is the embodiment of EO theology - the truth is that EO liturgy is largely derived from Byzantine Court ceremony, which itself was devised to over-awe barbarian visitors to Constantinople. Therefore what you have is a ritual and ceremony that bespeak the arrogant authority of the "true church" and NOT the eschatological grandeur of the Age to Come.

Then there is the problem of conversion, if you're not ethnic, your a "convert" and very much a second class citizen; and in no case would they ever continence inter-communion because to do so would be to admit they are not the "one true church."

In closing I'll say that there is much that can be absorbed from other traditions, even the Calvinists, but we must recognize and revere our own specificity; the English Reformation and the BCP have contributed much to our civilization and culture, and provided a refuge from the strife of the Continental Reformation that migrated to America's shores.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Voyagis,

Very interesting comments.

I definitely agree that the Cappadocian Neoplatonic paradigm does a better job of reiterating Christian Revelation in the Hellenic philosophical idiom than the subtly differing Augustinian/Bonaventurean Neoplatonic paradigm.

I'd even go so far as to say that Palamas' energy-essence distinction is likewise a superior heuristic paradigm than that of Thomistic (and certainly Calvinist) Scholasticism. This, however does not commit me to any notion that hardcore Hesychasm should ever be anything other than a voluntary monastic discipline.

Any suggestions for follow reading regarding your point about Alexandrian "gnostic baggage" referring to and ontological overemphasis? I am wondering if you are referring to the monastic captivity of all Orthopraxy since the high middle ages?

Finally, I question your spin on liturgics. While it is an undisputed fact that the Imperial Church co-opted Imperial Court ritual, I am unconvinced that this proves that the Eastern Liturgy were not making a sincere effort to "do" heavenly worship -- as described in Isaiah and Revelations -- on earth. Indeed, the effectiveness of the shock and awe of the Byzantine Court on Barbarians made it a particularly apt vehicle for effectuating worship" in earth as it is in heaven," as demonstrated by the effect of Hagia Sophia on the Slavic emissaries of lore. After all, I don't think Anglican liturgics, at its best, does anything substantively different -- its just a different earthly idiom for expressing heavenly worship and has many core similarities to the Byzantine: Roman senatorial-rank vestments, incense, stylized art, architecture creating a sense of awe and a evoking a feeling of grandeur, etc.

Christ's Peace,

DB

Archbishop Donald Arden

Apostolic Succession - our APA episcopal great-grandfather - on 30th November 1961, William James Hughes, Archbishop of Central Africa, serv...