Regarding Latinization of the Eastern Rites and “Byzantinization” of the Eastern Rites:
From what I wrote before, it naturally follows that each local church that considers itself to be the True Church must naturally feel that it has preserved the True doctrine. If I was a committed Roman Catholic, I should naturally believe that where the West differs theologically from the East in ways that are contradictory and mutually exclusive, the East is where the real error lies. Modern scholars like to interpret contradictory statements in a way that does not necessarily imply contradiction. In the process of doing so they make the very concrete theological expressions of both communions into vague statements that can easily be interpreted however the observer wants it to be. I am of the opinion that if the people who lived hundreds of years ago during some of these controversies did not see a way to reconcile two different beliefs, then we are being presumptuous by assuming that we “understand things better”. A historical scholar reading manuscripts in a 21st library will never be able to explain the motives and the underlying mentality of X-individual better than Y- individual who was X’s neighbor, lived in X’s culture, and spoke X’s language. And if 500 people formed their opinions under the tutelage of Y-individual, then in my book they are also to be trusted more than our presumptuous and all-knowing 21st century scholar. Again, I feel that this was also the way that the Roman Catholic hierarchy and laity operated until around the 1950’s.
It follows then that some Latinism is to be expected and even desired in Eastern Rite Catholicism. I mean, they don’t have to fill their churches with Sacred Heart statues and Polish Catholic paraphernalia. But (for example) it should be mandatory for them to say the filioque. If I’m an honest traditionalist Roman Catholic or a loyal, papal-maximalist Ukrainian Catholic, then I believe that the Holy Roman Church added the filioque to the Universal Creed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was added to express an essential idea and a belief that is important to our understanding of triadology. Furthermore, I would know how the rebellious and schismatic “Orthodox” Churches don’t use it as a way of showing that the Holy Father has no such power to amend the Creed and to show what they believe to be a difference in Trinitarian theology. Just out of plain solidarity and obedience with the Pope and in order to show that I am not some rebellious Greek, I would use the filioque. It is only consistent.
And so it is with a number of other practices. Did some Latinisms go to far? Yes. Were some only introduced out of bias towards Eastern liturgical forms? Sure. But remember, if I were an honest Eastern Catholic, I believe the Catholic Churches in communion with Rome to be the FULLNESS of the Catholic Church. If there were substantial places where Rome differed from the rest of the world after the schism, I should at least consider how She differed since Rome was the one that remained Orthodox in doctrine and free from the poison of schism.
So it is with Orthodox Christians. I have no idea why an Anglican or Roman Catholic would have me believe that when the Church became involved in the Palamite controversy, it was simply arguing “semantics” and describing things in an “Eastern way”. That’s a bunch of B.S. St. Gregory and the Fathers before him and after him are describing reality when they speak of what happens during prayer and during mystical experience. It is experiential and universal. That is why Slavic monks who are descendants of Vikings and live in a country with extensive Western European influence describe the same thing. That is why Romanian monks who speak a Romance language (like Spanish or Italian) and live in country bordering Hungary and looking like this also describe the Uncreated Light. The whole “Eastern” label is really old and lame. Buddhism is Eastern. Shinto is Eastern. Islam is Eastern. Greek is not Eastern. If you study Western philosophy, you read Plato. You don’t read Lao Tzu. The uncreated light is neither Eastern nor Western. It is a description of reality and it is human. If the most authentic, most pure, and least spiritually dangerous and deceptive form of ascetic practice and life of prayer was preserved in the Eastern Roman Empire because that is where the Holy Catholic Church survived… well is that so weird? And expecting this to be normative for all honest Orthodox Christians is not culturally biased or an attempt to Byzantinize anything. It is simply being consistent and honest.
In a relatively recent post, a fellow Orthodox blogger that I often read and even link to on my blog has commented on another recent blog post about how Western Rite Orthodoxy is not the same as Roman Catholic Uniatism. I can think of one really important way that these two concepts are different from each other: In WRO, where was the political involvement and large scale “turning over” of parishes without the majority of the laity knowing what was going on? To put it simply, where in the Western Rite of Orthodoxy has there been something comparable to the Union of Brest-Litovsk. Answer that question, then you can refer to Western Rite Orthodoxy as Uniatism.
Saying that I have the same theology as the rest of the Orthodox world makes me "Byzantine"? That makes no sense to me. There have been pro-Orthodox Anglicans making that claims since the 17th century. Like I said before, if the Orthodox Church is The Church, and I am a convert to the Orthodox Christian faith in a Western Rite parish (hypothetically), then I shouldn’t feel squeamish about being formed by the literature and theological teachings of modern Orthodox saints, fathers, and writers- even if they are Greek speakers or Russian speakers who worship according to the Constantinopolitan Rite. It makes me no more Byzantinized than an Eastern Rite parishioner who draws spiritual nourishment from C.S. Lewis. If I was a Western Rite parishioner and I wanted to know whether the AWRV is really Byzantinized, the only opinion that matter is this one. All those who feel the AWRV is too Byzantine for their tastes should promptly send a message to Metropolitan Philip and explain to him why he is lying. Oh, by the way… when has a Roman Catholic bishop issued a similar promise to not forcibly impose changes in the liturgy of the Anglican Use parishes in the U.S.? I think that shows all of us which is the safer place to call home.
Does the Orthodox Church have to have a Western Rite to be truly Catholic? Absolutely not. The Church is the Church, and it lacks nothing to be the Church. If the Church was reduced to one parish of Ukrainians who barely spoke English and had only 4 elderly parishioners, it would still be the Catholic Church because of what lies in the Chalice on the Holy Altar after the priest has consecrated the gifts. It needs nothing to *be* the Church, but it may indeed lack one thing (or two or five or a hundred) in order to better serve its mission *as* the Church. That is a key distinction. And of course, even though the Church does not need a Western Rite, it would be sorely impoverished- I think- if it did not have one. My next post will explain why I hold that opinion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment