Eastern Rite in Ireland

[Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha]

The topic of the Syriac-speaking churches is fascinating. In the middle ages, the Assyrian Church of the East was not only the largest Christian church in existence, its membership was larger than all the others - Catholic and Orthodox - put together. The Franciscans who preceded Marco Polo to China found much evidence of work by Nestorian missionaries in China. They also went to Indonesia and elsewhere in the Far East. I am glad someone as authoritive as Philip Jenkins has addressed this topic.

As Hibernicus says, we have much to learn from these people especially in our own generation. The observation about the quality of Irish clerical students now is accurate, as is the description of the SSPX. I think both are doomed to become caricatures of themselves. I found Father Gabriel Burke's letter in this week's (9 July 2009) Irish Catholic very pertinent.

But I think the worst blow struck at the Assyrian Church of the East was the attempted genocide by the Turks during the First World War - the Assyrian Holocaust - which reduced their numbers to a quarter of what it had been. There was a steady leakage since then and the past 15 years in Iraq has further reduced there numbers. Quite possibly, there will soon be no indigenous Iraqi Christians remaining in their homeland. But the loss of the autonomous seminary in Mesopotamia following the massacres sealed the fate of the Assyrian community who are now seeking unity with Rome.

[hibernicus]

Mark Shea discusses a bigoted Orthodox commentator who denounces Catholic spirituality as exemplified by St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Loyola etc as driven by pride. The comments include responses by an Orthodox priest who dissociates himself from the bigot
markshea.blogspot.com/2009/10/same-pathologies-different-communion.html

In fairness to the Orthodox commentator Shea criticises:
(1) There is some truth in his criticism of Catholic spirituality based on self-identification with Jesus - in my historical studies I have come across examples of well-meaning individuals such as Margaret Cusack (the 'Nun of Kenmare') and Professor Alfred O'Rahilly (I still hope to comment on Fr. J.A. Gaughan's biography of him sometime on the "church and state" thread) in whom the practice of mystical identification with Jesus developed into a monstrous self-deceiving egoism in which their own whims were equated with the will of God and any criticism or restraint treated as the devil's work.
(2) There are bigots of equal offensiveness on our side; leaving aside the history of forceful attempts at Latinisation (which helps to explain but does not excuse the equally shameful Orthodox persecutions of Catholics when their situations were reversed) we need only think of Mr. Larsen (I think his first name is James), who when not disfiguring the pages of CHRISTIAN ORDER with attacks on "the heresies of Joseph Ratzinger", likes to claim that the Orthodox are not really Christian at all but neoplatonist and to denounce the Orthodox devotional tradition.

For an example of God's grace at work in post-Schism Orthodoxy, see this link:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_of_Alaska
Briefly summarised: Herman of Alaska was one of a small group of Orthodox monks who accompanied russian settlers to Alaska at the end of the eighteenth century. Discovering how the native Aleuts were being exploited by the settlers, the monks sought to defend them; eventually all died or went back to Russia except Herman, who spent his last years living as a hermit and working for the natives' spiritual and mental welfare (including nursing them during an epidemic). After his death he was forgotten for some decades until the Orthodox bishop of Alaska ordered an investigation into his life and his correspondence was discovered and published. He was canonised in 1970 by the Orthodox Church in America.
I came across his story awhile back because of a casual reference to it on a blog, and thought it reminded me of St. Damien of Molokai, whose canonisation we have just been celebrating. May their intercession help to bring the Catholic and Orthodox churches to renewed communion.

[hibernicus]

Rorate Caeli reports arguments about liturgical change in the Orthodox Churches, with particular reference to the question of whether the whole eucharistic Prayer should be audible. The Comments are interesting as some Eastern Rite Catholics (and possibly a few Orthodox) offer their thoughts on Eastern practice.
www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19978542&postID=5521856570780595747

[hibernicus]

Here are a couple of examples of this. Note the reference to Cardinal Husar's liturgical changes (Ukrainian) in the first, and an Orthodox commenter in the second arguing that the benefits of Orthodox decentralisation are shown by the fact that it prevents the rapid and arbitrary imposition of far-reaching liturgical changes a la the NO.

John V said...
Pope Benedict XVI (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote of how some liturgists were complaining about a "crisis" in the anaphora of the Roman Mass because it was said out loud. The point is that there is a difference between an anaphora that is prayed, and happens to be heard by the faithful (in the patriarch's case because it is caught by a microphone) and an anaphora that is proclaimed for hearing and teaching (as the post-Vatican II reformers and the Ruthenian reformers demand). When it is proclaimed for hearing and teaching it ceases to be prayer.

I've heard some of these Liturgies. The patriarch prays the anaphora during the singing of the "Holy, Holy, Holy" and other parts of the Divine Liturgy. He prays these prayers, and when the singing is through one can often hear him via the microphone. He does not organize his prayer to serve a desire to proclaim or educate. He does not change the anaphora from a prayer of offering to a proclamation for education. And that is the difference. But few people seem to understand.

The Ruthenians have mandated the Latin custom because they want to use the anaphora to educate. And that is precisely why it does not work in that Church. What is needed is liberty for the Spirit to work.

08 February, 2010 15:35

Stephen said...
The Papal-led force for liturgical innovations over the last 40 years or so has not left the Orthodox untouched in some parts. While our decentralization is often cited by many as a weakness, in this instance it was a strength. We have no overarching authority who can impose on all, so for every bishop or Church who fancies a change, another is there to say no.

10 February, 2010 14:14

[hibernicus]

Via Mark Shea. An interesting blog by a Byzantine Catholic based in America [my mistake - the blogger is Eastern Orthodox -HIB], in this post discussing the issue of ordaining married men. The comments are very interesting.
I must say I had not realised the Vatican was quite so stern on this practice; I had thought that the ban on ordaining married men in the Eastern Rites in America was allowed because of the objections of the Latin-rite hierarchy there, not that it was positively commanded and the Eastern Rites informed that their practice was only tolerated as a matter of expediency/regulation. It is also interesting to see that in the 1950s Rumble and Carty were predicting that the Eastern Rites would soon have to adopt the full Latin discipline in this matter.

orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests/

[hibernicus]

Here from the same blog is an article (by an Orthodox writer) on the Orthodox observance of Lent. It is fascinating to see that they do not have Ash Wednesday (with the carnivalesque Shrove Tuesday beforehand) but gradually 'slide' into Lent over a period of weeks. The old Latin observances of Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima bore a certain resemblance to this approach, and their abolition is a case where the liturgical changes have moved us further away from the Orthodox.
orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/forgiveness-vespers/

[hibernicus]

Philip Jenkins has a new book out, THE JESUS WARS, which deals with the Christological disputes culminating in the Council of Chalcedon. (Paperback copies in the Dublin Veritas, where I got mine.)
I must say it makes a depressing read, and a sad contrast with Cardinal Newman's ARIANS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY (partly because there are no continuing Arian churches derived from that era, whereas the disputes described in this book led to the alienation of vast bodies of Nestorian and Coptic Christians from the Church, continuing to the present day). The sight of the successors of St Athanasius using all sorts of unpleasant means (including bribery, intimidation, and odium theologicum of the worst kind) to follow up what they thought was the logical development of his teaching, and ending up by falling into schism, should be a caution to the SSPX and others who so blithely declare themselves present-day Athanasiuses as if that settled the matter. (BTW anyone who calls themselves a Chalcedonian and claims the minor irregularities of Vatican II invalidate it should look at Chalcedon and its preceding councils, which involved significant degrees of outright intimidation and slander and yet made important doctrinal definitions. Jenkins, to be fair, points out that the "losers" - Nestorius, condemned at the Alexandrians' behest for downplaying Jesus' divinity, to some extent on the basis of misrepresentation of his beliefs, and Dioscoros Patriarch of Alexandria who dominated the Robber Council of Ephesus and was deposed at Chalcedon - were equally willing to use force and misrepresentation when they were on top.
I might also add that I was never quite sure why Pope Leo I was called "Leo the Great", not knowing much about him other than his defiance of Attila. His role in forming the Chalcedonian definitions and resisting Alexandrian excesses certainly settles that.
A few points:
(1) This book certainly does give a sense of how Anglican Jenkins is - he argues fairly explicitly that there have always been large bodies of Christians cut off from the "Great Church", he maintains that Rome's primacy was established through a historical accident and that if Emperor Theodosius II had not been killed by a fall from his horse at the relevant time, Alexandria might have emerged as the first See of Christendom. The virtues and achievements of the Oriental Orthodox are implicitly cited as proof that sanctity etc do not depend on communion with a central church, and the view that disputes and diversity are positively good things is very Anglican.

(2) It is written in a very eye-catching style (e.g. the role of the factions at the races is presented as equivalent to football hooliganism as it would be if, every time England played Nigeria, crowds of hooligans waving petrol bombs and machetes and carrying portraits of [Anglican] Archbishops Williams and Akinola attacked each other shouting "Scripture is literally true" and "Scripture in the light of reason"). A comparison with Fr Aidan Nichols' ROME AND THE EASTERN CHURCHES will show that wherever Jenkins has to choose between rival versions of a patriarch's nickname he goes for the more outlandish.

(3) It shows, if further proof were needed, that THE DA VINCI CODE is a real crock. The image of Jesus as divine rather than human was not imposed from above; the idea that Jesus was primarily divine and only secondarily human had considerable popular support and its adherents persevered under the strongest pressure from the Byzantine empire and its ecclesiastical authorities. How could a Constantinian invention of a Divine Jesus have been possible without massive schisms and disputes which would certainly have left some trace in the sources? But I regret to say most of those led astray by the DA VINCI COD will not grasp this, either because they want to believe the drivel propagated by Dan Brown, or because their faith in the church has been so shaken by blunders and scandals that they will believe anything said of the Church after so many scandals have turned out to be true.

[Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha]

Hibernicus,

I will look forward to reading Jenkins' new book - it sounds fascinating.

However, I meant to make an announcement. The Greek-Catholic Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom has moved from St Kevin's Oratory in the Pro-Cathedral to the chapel of Holy Cross College, Clonliffe, Dublin 9 and will now take place there every Sunday at 11 am.

[hibernicus]

An interesting post from Orthocath pointing out that the sacramental and liturgical nature of the eastern Churches (including Copts and Nestorians, who broke away in the fifth century) undercuts Protestant claims that sacramentalism is a later Roman innovation.
Includes interesting clips of Coptic and Assyrian liturgies.
orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/eastern-blind-spot-o-cross-pollination/

[hibernicus]

Interesting piece of news about a synod in Rome re Christians in the Middle East. I wonder is the call for liturgical "simplification" ominous or an inevitable response to circumstance? Wonder who is going to be doing the simplifying.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11509256
The Christians of the Middle East have also been weakened by centuries-old divisions.

Catholics are divided into seven different churches, each with its own traditions going back centuries.

The working document urges the different churches to work with each other in order to wield more influence in Arab societies.

It advises them to open up to other churches and faiths, to simplify their ancient liturgies, and to introduce more Arabic into their services.

[Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha]

Hard to see simplifying happening given the Pope's liturgical policy and policy towards the Eastern Churches.

[hibernicus]

The pope presents a major relic of St Andrew to the Orthodox church in Kazakhstan to mark St. Andrew's Day (30 November).

For those of you who may be unaware of it, the Patriarch of Constantinople considers himself the successor of St Andrew, brother of St Peter. I meant to post a message yesterday suggesting we should pray for him and for those in communion with him, but I forgot. Better late thannever.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/a-st-andrews-day-surprise/

On another note; I recently picked up a second-hand copy of Fr Adrian Fortescue's 1920s book on the Eastern-Rite churches (left incomplete when he died - it has a lot of interesting material on the Italo-Greeks of Southern Italy - I wonder what their position is now?) and was surprised that someone with so much love and admiration for the Eastern Rite churches should be so contemptuous towards the Orthodox. (He is remarkably not to say ignorantly dismissive of their modern theological traditions - in fact he stops just short of saying they have no theology worth the name).

[Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha]

One of the defences of the policy of having Eastern Catholics in communion in Rome is the fact there were always Italo-Greek Catholics on the Italian penninsula. They still exist, even if their numbers are limited, but I believe that migration from Albania in the 20th century increased their numbers.

One feature of the Roman Rite, prior to the liturgical changes, was that there were churches in Southern Italy in which it was mandatory to celebrate Mass in the Roman Rite (now known as the Extraordinary Form) in Greek (of course liturgical Greek) on certain days. Reflective of Byzantine influence.

[hibernicus]

I was looking at some recent issues of CHRISTIAN ORDER in the Central Catholic Library and I noticed a nice review by a traditionalist with Eastern-rite sympathies of a recent book by Fr Anthony Cekada the sedevacantist which argued that the Novus Ordo is invalid. The reviewer points out that Fr Cekada displays remarkable contempt and ignorance towards the Eastern Churches. For example, he lumps the Orthodox, Copts and Nestorians in with the Lutherans, Presbyterians etc as "heretics" as if there was no difference whatsoever between them (whereas of course the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox possess apostolic foundations, valid priestly succession, and ancient liturgies), and he remarks that the Eastern Rite churches practise their rites "at the sufferance of the Vatican" with a clear insinuation that it is a pity that this sufferance was ever extended to them and that they were not simply obliged to adopt the Roman Rite. A very clear example of how certain Radtrads take the view that the TLM as practised in the 1950s was so perfect it could not be improved, and of the ignorance and bigotry this entails in dealing with the Eastern churches.

[hibernicus]

Meanwhile, Damian Thompson reports that the Bishops of England and Wales have been trying to restrict celebrations of the Syro-Malabar Rite on the grounds that it hinders the unity of the Catholic community. How can the bishops do this? There have been regular complaints that they try to interfere with the liturgical and devotional practices of Poles in Britain on the grounds that these are excessively traditional, but however obnoxious these actions may be, the Poles as Latin-rite Catholics do fall under the bishops' authority. Surely the Syro-Malabar Catholics, as adherents of a recognised Rite, should only be answerable to their own bishops (even if this meant there was only one bishop for the whole of Europe, as is the case with some of the smaller eastern rites)?