By Fr. David McCready
Part 1: The Witness of Tradition
Cet animal est très méchant. Quand on l’attaque, il se défend. I was reminded of this old French saying the other day, when, in what was quite a stark critique of the western rite, a certain priest-blogger accused those who questioned his theses of being overly defensive! In his hostility to the western rite, this blogger represents, I believe, only a small minority of Orthodox; as a western-rite priest, and, before that, as a western-rite seminarian, I have in general encountered nothing but warmth and welcome from hierarchs, clergy, and lay-people alike, both in the Antiochian Archdiocese, and in other jurisdictions as well. This said, there are some folk who do have honest concerns and questions about the western rite, and it is them especially that I want to address. I shall begin by looking at how Tradition vindicates the principle of a western rite, looking at the witness of the Fathers, at the post-patristic period, and at the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Recently, I visited the western-rite monastery of Our Lady and St Laurence in Colorado. In the monastery there is an altar adorned with several icons, the center two of which depict Basil the Great and Gregory the Dialogist. Both are Orthodox saints, whose names are linked to different liturgies which we continue to celebrate today, one eastern, the other western. The juxtaposition of their icons is thus a reminder that, far from being an innovation, the existence of the western rite in the Orthodoxy is a return to the situation which obtained in the early church, and which endured for a thousand years.1 As Fr Alexander Schmemann comments: ‘The Church has never believed that complete uniformity in ceremonies and prayers is an obligatory condition of her unity, nor has she ever finally identified her lex orandi with any particular … type of worship.’2 When, therefore, critics of the western rite appeal to the Orthodox phronema, we must reply that, if this phronema is the mind of the holy Fathers, then they unanimously support liturgical diversity. The Fathers knew that ‘eastern’ and ‘Orthodox’ are notsynonymous, but that Orthodoxy is, rather, called to spread throughout the entire world, ‘from the rising of the sun to its down-setting’ (Malachi 1, 11). As St Irenaeus writes:
The Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the earth. But as the sun … is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all those who are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth.3
This universality of faith was matched by a variety of liturgical practice, something which the Fathers do not simply record, but which they actively defend. One example of this is provided by St Polycarp, the martyr-disciple of the Evangelist St John. In Polycarp’s day, there was a diversity of customs concerning the celebration of Pascha, and the practice of the Asian church, to which he belonged, diverged from that of the west, represented by Pope St Anicetus. Nonetheless, the two bishops refused to allow the issue to divide them, Anicetus inviting Polycarp to preside at the liturgy before ‘they parted from one another in peace, in concord with the whole church, both those who maintained the one tradition, and those who maintained the other.’4 This event is related to us by another martyr-bishop, Polycarp’s disciple, the afore-mentioned St Irenaeus of Lyons, who reminded Pope St Victor of it, in a dispute over both the date of Pascha and also over the length of the pre-Pascal fast. The latter an issue which still today is raised by opponents of the western rite, but in contrast to them, Irenaeus recalled that the ancient tradition of the Church was ‘to live in peace with each other, while observing different customs.’5 ‘Our difference in fasting, confirms our unity in the faith,’ Irenaeus concluded.6
St Basil provides another example of a similar latitude. In his writings, Basil often appealed to the Latin church.7 However, the reason that he is important for our topic is not so much that he spoke about liturgical diversity between east and west, but that, more fundamentally, he defended the legitimacy of expressing the one faith in different ways, one of his key theses being that unity amongst Orthodox Christians is more important than variations in theological expression. ‘The greatest good,’ he wrote, ‘consists in knitting together the members of Christ’s Body.’8 ‘The one great aim of those who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to unity the churches … now divided from each other.’9 To achieve this unity, Basil maintained that nothing further than the confession of the Nicene faith should be required. ‘Let us seek no more than this,’ he declared, ‘We ought not to insist anything beyond this.’10
From the Greek Fathers, let us now turn to those of the Latin west. In so doing, it is, alas, necessary to recall that, if somemore recent Orthodox theologians have criticized ‘the west,’ it is not the western Fathers they have in mind. A prime illustration of this truth is provided by Fr Georges Florovsky, the architect of the idea that Orthodoxy has suffered a ‘western captivity.’11 It is reported that Florovsky’s favorite Father was none other than St Augustine, and, although the only evidence for this is anecdotal,12 Florovsky yet held Augustine to be ‘a Father of the Church Universal.’13 It is a salutary reminder that Augustine, much maligned by ultra-Orthodox critics, is, in fact, a saint and doctor of the Church, proclaimed as such by the fifth ecumenical council, Constantinople II.14 Similarly, the sixth ecumenical council hailed him as ‘the most blessed and excellent Augustine,’ while the twelfth-century Council of Constantinople (1166-67) cited him as an authority along with St Gregory of Nyssa and St John Damascene.15
For the much-travelled Augustine, differences in custom were a part of life. He records, for example, in his Confessions, how when his mother came from Africa to join him in Milan, she had to modify her religious practice to conform to the local way of doing things.16 It is something he also mentions in a letter to his correspondent Januarius, in which he speaks about the different customs of different churches. ‘Some,’ he says, ‘fast on Saturday, others not. Some receive the Body and Blood of the Lord every day, others on some days only.’ And so, he concludes:
There is no better rule for the wise and serious Christian in this matter, than to conform to the practice which he finds prevailing in the church to which it may be his lot to come. For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary to the faith nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing indifferent, and ought to be observed for the sake of fellowship with those among whom we live.17
It is then that talks about Ambrose, who gave him this advice:
When I visit Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here, I do not fast. On the same principle, you should observe the custom prevailing in whatever church you come to, if you desire neither to give offense by your conduct, nor to find cause of offense in another’s.18
Augustine then goes on to say that he accepted this advice as an oracle, adding:
Often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused … by the contentious pertinacity … of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the Tradition of the universal Church … raise questions … and agitate them with such keenness, that they think everything is wrong except what they do themselves.19
Similar statements appear elsewhere in Augustine’s writings,20 so it is not surprising that we find the same teaching in one of Augustine’s keenest followers, St Gregory the Great, St Gregory the Dialogist. Writing to St Leander of Seville, he sets out the principle that ‘in the unity of the faith, diversity of practice is in no way harmful to the church.’21 ‘The churches in each nation are like separate countries,’ Gregory taught, ‘which, while they be planted in one faith, are distinguished by a diversity of customs.’ 22 Perhaps the most famous illustration of this idea is to be found in Gregory’s response to St Augustine of Canterbury’s perplexity over liturgical divergences. ‘If there is one faith,’ Augustine had asked, ‘why are the usages of the different churches so varied?’23 Gregory replied by saying that, with regard to the English, who are new in the faith, Augustine may employ any liturgical practice which he finds ‘pleasing to the Almighty God,’ be it that ‘of the church of Rome, or that of the Gauls, or of any church whatsoever.’ ‘Choose,’ he counselled, ‘from each different church whatever is pious, religious, and right, and, collecting them, so to say, in a bundle, plant them amongst the English for their use.’24
Thus, we see amongst the Fathers – both Greek and Latin – not simply the passive acceptance of a diversity of rites, but the active teaching of the principle of one faith, multiplicity of customs.
The only argument against the western rite that its opponents can cogently produce from the patristic period are the so-called ‘anti-Latin’ canons of the council of Trullo, a number of which are opposed to western practices and customs. Canons, however, have to be understood in context: to read them in a fundamentalist fashion is to misconstrue their meaning. Trullo itself demonstrates this, changing the canonical tradition very noticeably with regard to the marriage of bishops, which had been allowed since the time of the Apostles. One may note, also, with regard to Trullo, that not all its canons are observed in the east. For example, canon 64 forbids lay people to teach theology, while canon 11 prohibits recourse to Jewish doctors. Perhaps more interestingly, canon 55, which condemns fasting on Saturdays and Sundays, and which is held up as condemning the current western practice of fasting the Ember Days, is ignored by the Byzantine rite in respect of September 14 and August 29, which are observed as fasts, even if these fall on a Sunday. Likewise, canon 90, which forbids kneeling on Sundays, is modified in Byzantine practice.
This all serves to show that the canons are not set in stone: they can be changed or modified.25 In fact, according to George Nedungatt, the imperial desire for ecclesiastical uniformity which lay behind the anti-Roman canons was
rejected as unnecessary and misconceived at the Council of Constantinople held in 880, a council of reconciliation between the sees of Rome and Constantinople after the so-called Photian schism. This council recognized that the diversity of the customs of the two churches, as well as those of the Eastern sees, was legitimate and proper; therefore it should not be a matter for contention or polemics.26
Moreover, according to such canonists as Archbishop Peter L’Huillier and Périclès-Pierre Joannou, the Trullan canons were only partially received in the western church.27 To quote John VIII, pope from 872 until 882, only those canons were received in the west ‘which were not contrary to earlier canons, or to … what are certainly good customs (certe bonis moribus).’28 Prior to John, Adrian I (772-95) had similarly restricted the acceptance of Trullo to those canons which were ‘rightly and divinely’ promulgated.29 Those which contested Latin customs were not accepted, the clearest evidence for which is the unabashed continuation in the west of those traditions which Trullo condemned. In fact, it is possible that Pope Sergius I (687-701) introduced the Agnus Dei chant into the Roman mass as a ‘liturgical protest’ against Trullo 82, which forbade depictions of the Saviour as a Lamb, and that he had such depictions commissioned for the urban church of St Susanna, where he had been priest before his elevation to the papacy.30 The non-reception of the anti-Latin canons of Trullo, together with the fact that the western rite has now been accepted by ecclesiastical authority, leads to the conclusion that these canons are not to be considered as binding on western-rite Christians. For what is a rite? A rite is not simply the use of a different liturgical practice. Rather, to quote the definition given by the Eastern Code of Canon Law: ‘A rite is a liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary heritage, distinguished by culture and the circumstances of history.’31 Following this definition, which, despite its provenance, it is hard to disallow, we argue that Trullo’s anti-western canons have no force for us, because they have never been part of our western patrimony.32
Even after the schism, easterners recognized the validity of diverse practices. A major example of this is provided by St Nicholas Cabasilas in his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy. While condemning ‘certain Latins,’ he happily accepts the orthodoxy of the western rite itself. 33 A similar irenicism is to be found in the Patriarch of Antioch, Peter III. This can be seen in a letter which he addressed, probably in the spring of 1054, to Dominic of Grado, ‘venerated lord, co-equal of the angels, our spiritual brother, most holy archbishop.’ Peter held that the only error of the Latins was their use of azymes, but apart from this the western church was perfectly Orthodox – Christianoi Orthodoxoi esmen, he declared.34 In another letter, written to Michael Cerularius, the issue of the azymes falls into the background; it and all the other alleged errors of the Latins were not sufficient to justify a break in communion, Peter wrote. ‘If the faith is not in danger, then we must prioritize peace and love over other things because the Westerners are our brothers, even if they very often err,’ he asserted. And, he concluded, ‘I therefore cast myself at your feet and implore you to be more lenient than you have been, lest you too also be one who, desiring to raise one who has fallen, only makes his fall heavier.” 35 A similar position is taken by the celebrated commentator, Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid. Condemning those who ‘through intemperate zeal and lack of humility’ attack the Latins for trivial differences of custom, he insisted that ‘not every diversity in practice is justification for division in the church, but only those which serve an alien dogma.’36 For him, as Fr John Meyendorff asserts, ‘the Filioque is the only issue dividing East and West.’37
We see then, in these authors, an acceptance of western customs and practices, with a premium placed on the importance of unity. Their teaching can well be translated into support for the western rite within Orthodoxy, where the errors they excoriate – the azymes and the filioque – have been corrected.
Similar openness to that evinced by the medieval writers cited above also appears in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries. A number of jurisdictions have erected western rites, and, although not all these have been successful by any manner of means, it shows a willingness on the part of Orthodoxy to admit the legitimacy of the western rite in principle.38
The ‘father’ of modern western rite Orthodoxy is J. J. Overbeck (1820-1905). In 1869, Overbeck petitioned the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church to restore the western rite. A commission was established to investigate the issue, presided over by the Metropolitan of St Petersburg, Isidore Nikolsky (1799-1802). The commission gave its full support to Overbeck’s initiative, which subsequently received the approbation of the entire Synod. Overbeck was then charged with producing an actual rite and came up with a Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis, largely based on the Roman Missal. He nonetheless suppressed the ceremonies attached to the words of institution and added an epiclesis – derived from a Mozarabic source. Needless to say, the filioque was also omitted. The Synod granted this rite its full approbation, while insisting that any final sanction for its use could only be given by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Accordingly, in 1879 Overbeck travelled to the Phanar, where another commission was established, which again came back, in 1882, with a favorable response.39
In 1911 the somewhat eccentric Arnold Harris Mathew (1852-1919) and the ‘Old Roman Catholic Church’ group of which he was ‘Archbishop’ were received into Orthodoxy with their western usages by the Metropolitan of Beirut, Gerasimos Messara – although the move seems not to have had the accord of the Antiochian Patriarch, Gregory IV.40 By contrast, it does seem that Mathew’s group – which did not remain Orthodox for very long – was accepted, with its liturgy, by the Patriarchate of Alexandria.41 In spite of the rather idiosyncratic nature of Mathew and his followers, the incident shows, once again, a willingness on the part of Orthodoxy to accept western usages.
More enduring than Mathew’s group was the initiative of another ‘Old Catholic’ prelate, Louis-Charles Winneart (1888-1937). In 1927, Winneart, a Frenchman, came in contact with the Confraternity of St Photios, which had been founded by a group of young Russian emigres, including Vladimir Lossky, with the aim of raising up in France ‘a true western Orthodoxy.’ To this end, while professing themselves ‘intransigent in dogma,’ the Confraternity sought the establishment in the liturgical realm of what they termed the ‘fully western traditions.’ In 1929, on April 11, the feast of St Leo the Great, a Gallican liturgy was served at the Confraternity’s chapel at St Cloud, the celebrant being the ‘monk of the Eastern Church,’ Fr Lev Gillet (1893-1980). The text he used was one approved by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church in 1876, produced by one of the earliest modern western converts to Orthodoxy, Vladimir Guettés (1816-92). Also celebrated, on the next two succeeding days, was a mass according to the Roman Rite and the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in a Latin translation.42 Through the members of the Confraternity, Winneart petitioned Metropolitan Sergius I (Stragorodski) of Moscow both for reception into the Orthodox Church and permission to use the western rite. The Metropolitan replied with a decree or ukase dated June 16, 1936 granting both requests. With regard to the liturgy, it was stipulated that all expressions and thoughts not acceptable to Orthodoxy should be expurgated, although what these were was not specified. All eastern saints recognized by the Orthodox Church were to be venerated, but only western saints who lived prior to the schism. In particular, unleavened bread was to be used; an epiclesis was to be placed after the words of institution;43 the laity were to be communicated under both kinds, using a spoon; the liturgy was to be celebrated on antimension consecrated and issued by the local hierarch, to demonstrate the westerners’ unity with the rest of the Church.44 Fr Winneart, now the Archimandrite Irenée, died in 1937. In 1944, one of his priests, Lucien Chambault (1899-1965), was professed as a Benedictine monk in the Moscow Patriarchate church in Paris. Dom Denis, as he was thenceforward known, founded a community in the Rue d’Alleray Paris, which, despite its small size, was to prove highly influential.45 A second figure to continue Winneart’s legacy was Evgraph Kovalevsky (1905-1970), who was consecrated bishop as Jean-Nectaire of St Denis. His principal consecrator was no less a figure than St John Maximovitch, who became Metropolitan of the ROCOR Archdiocese of Western Europe in 1951, headquartered in Paris.46 In connection with St John, it is sometimes said that he is the only Orthodox bishop in modern times to have served the western mass. But this is not, in fact, so. Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh (1914-2003), Archbishop Alexis van der Mensbrugghe (1899-1980), Bishop Jerome of Manhattan (1946-), Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and Novgorod (1929-78) are amongst those hierarchs who have celebrated the western rite, not to mention the two canonical bishops of the Église Catholique Orthodoxe de France, Jean-Nectaire and his successor, Germain (Gilles Bertrand-Hardy, 1930-), who was consecrated in 1972 by the Church of Romania.47
As Orthodox, we are people of Tradition with a capital T. The whole basis of our religion is ‘that which we have received’ (1 Corinthians 15, 3). If a multiplicity of rites was sanctioned by the holy Fathers, and by the Church following them, then it cannot but be accepted, in principle, by us today. As a conclusion, therefore, we may end by citing the judgement of Fr Schmemann: ‘Orthodoxy has no objection to the Western Rite as such.’48
1 Through the re-establishment of the western rite in Orthodoxy the ‘pre-schismatic condition is restored,’ observes Fr Paul Schneirla. As a result, Schneirla continues, the Church demonstrates her universality, rather than being what he terms ‘a tribal religion’ (‘The Significance of the Western Rite,’ The Word, 6.4 April 1962, p. 2).
2 Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1996), pp. 20-21.
3 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.2.
4 Eusebius, Church History, 5.24.17.
5 Ibid., 5.24.13.
6 Ibid.
7 See, for example, among Basil’s Letters: 66, 69, 70, 89, 91, 197, 242, 243, 263.
8 Basil, Letter 156.
9 Letter 114.
10 Letter 113. For further instances of similar teaching, see Letters 65, 82, 90, 118, 188, 258.
11 See, for example, Paul Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance (Oxford: OUP, 2014), p. 210.
12 Paul Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2019) p. 453.
13 George Florovsky, ‘St Cyprian and St Augustine on Schism,’ Collected Works, vol. 14 (Vaduz: Büchervertriebanstalt, 1989), p. 50, emphasis in the original. For the topic in general, see Aristotle Papanikolaou and George E. Demacopoulos, eds, Orthodox Readings of Augustine (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2008).
14 George E. Deamacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, ‘Augustine and the Orthodox: The “West” in the East,’ in Papanikolaou and George E. Demacopoulos, eds, Orthodox Readings of Augustine, p. 13.
15 Ibid., note 12.
16 Augustine, Confessions, 6.2.2.
17 Augustine, Letter 54.2.2.
18 Augustine, Letter 54.2.3.
19 Ibid.
20 See, for example: Letters 36, 55.
21 Gregory the Great, Letters, 1.43.
22 Gregory the Great, Moralia, 6.50.
23 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, 1. 27.
24 Ibid.
25 See, on this point, Nicholas Afanasiev, ‘The Canons of the Church: Changeable or Unchangable?’, St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, 11.2 (1967) pp. 54-68.
26 George Nedungatt, ‘The Council in Trullo Revisited: Ecumenism and the Canons of the Councils,’ Theological Studies, 71(2010), pp.651-676, p. 675.
27 For the reception of Trullo in the west, see Nicolae Dura, ‘The Ecumenicity of the Council in Trullo: Witnesses of the Canonical Tradition in the East and in the West’ in G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone, The Council in Trullo Revisited. Rome: PIO, 1995, pp. 229-62. Also of interest is Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (Leominster: Gracewing, 1989)pp. 5-9 of which discuss the ‘canonical value’ of Trullo.
28 Johannes Dominicus Mansi, ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Ampliora Collectio, volume 12 (Florence: 1766), 982D.
29 Ibid., 1080A.
30 John F. Romano, Liturgy and Society in Early Medieval Rome (London: Routledge, 2016), pp. 71-73.
31 Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, Canon 28, www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0758/_P3.HTM, accessed February 10, 2020.
32 See, in relation to this, article 7 of Metropolitan Anthony Bashir’s 1958 Edict on the Western Rite: In all matters not otherwise provided for in this Edict, the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church and regulations of the Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese shall apply’ (ww1.antiochian.org/sites/default/files/western_rite_edict_and_directory.pdf, accessed February 10, 2020, emphasis added).
33 Commentary On the Divine Liturgy, 30 (‘That in the Latin Church the consecration is performed in the same way as by us’).
34 ‘We are Orthodox.’The text of Peter’s letter will be found in Cornelius Will, Acta et Scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant (Leipzig: Elwert, 1861), pp. 208-228.
35 Text in Will, Acta et Scripta, pp. 189-204.
36 For the text of Theophylact’s allocution On Those Things of Which the Latins are Accused, see Will, Acta et Scripta, pp. 229-53.
37 John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes, second edition (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), p. 95.
38 Jean-François Mayer, ‘” We are Westerners and Must Remain Westerners”: Orthodoxy and Western Rites in Western Europe,’ in Maria Hämmerli and Jean-François Mayer, eds, Orthodox Identities in Western Europe: Migration, Settlement and Innovation (London: Routledge, 2016), pp. 267-90, p. 267.
39 For this paragraph, see David F. Abramtsov, ‘The Western Rite and the Eastern Church,’ University of Pittsburg, PhD dissertation, 1961), pp. 13-15, 26.
40 One may note, however, that the Orthodox Ritual approved by Gerasimos is that officially used today by the AWVR. Gerasimos was one of the architects of the Antiochian Archdiocese in North America. Amongst his closet collaborators was Anthony Bashir (1898-1966), who, as Metropolitan, founded the AWVR.
41 https://www.naorcc.org/faq, accessed December 24, 2020.
42 For this paragraph, see: ‘La Fondation de La Paroisse des Trois Saints Hiéraques,’ iconeorthodoxe.free.fr/fr/textes/fondation_fr02.html#22), accessed January 24, 2020.
43 The insertion of the epiclesis into the western rite is viewed askance by many people. It is thus worth noting this demand from the Russian Church.
44 For the text of this ukase in English, see Alexis van der Mensbrugghe, Die Theologie des Eucharistischen Opfers … (Neuss: Bruno Buike, 2019), pp. 122-26.
45 Denis Chambault, ‘The Origins of the Orthodox Benedictine Community in Paris’, One Church, 9.11-12 (1955) p. 254.
46 St John was assisted in the consecration by the Romanian bishop Theophilus Ionescu (1894-1975), who had joined ROCOR in 1946, after the fall of Romania to the communists.
47 Archbishop Alexis, Bishop Jerome, Bishop Jean-Nectaire and Bishop Germain were all western-rite bishops. For Metropolitan Anthony’s celebration of the western rite, see van der Mensbrugghe, Theologie, p. 116. My information about Metropolitan Nikodim is purely anecdotal, although he was a keen proponent of ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic Church: he died in the Vatican, in the arms of Pope John Paul I.
48 Schmemann,‘Some Reflections Upon “A Case Study,”’ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 24.4(1980), pp. 266-269, p. 269.