Western Spirituality in Light of Eastern?

[Dave_in_Dallas]

So in reading about Eastern churches and spirituality I came to wonder about my own western patrimony, as it were. What does that authentic western tradition “look like”. Some suggestion I’ve seen are:

• variations in the Mass – OF & EF, not to mention the wide variety of musical settings, eucharistic prayers and prefaces
• westerners are more “to the point”, i.e the shorter prayers and mass service itself
• often juridical viewpoint verses the healing view of the east
• prayers/devotions = rosary, jesus prayer, stations of the cross

 

[Cecilianus]

In depends on what you mean by Western. There are a number of Western rites - Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc. - each equally beautiful and equally authentic.

If you mean the Roman Rite, then the authentic Roman Rite is the Tridentine Mass, most perfectly in the purified form that came out of Vatican II (the 1962 Missal, used by “traditionalists” and other people who supposedly are “pre-Vatican II”). The widespread presence of variations in the Roman Rite - Novus Ordo, Tridentine, and the complete lack of uniformity within the Novus Ordo - is a very modern innovation; variations before 1970 were always minor variations based in local custom or difference of religious order, which you will also see to some degree in the East (for example, Ukrainians will have the faithful kiss the Gospel during the Beatitudes, while Ruthenians will not).

The Roman Rite views the Incarnation more from the standpoint of creation being transfigured - hence the statues rather than icons, the exact precision of the theological language of the Mass, the use of silence to veil the mystery rather than an iconostas, kneeling, the forensic or juridical viewpoint, and a beautiful devotion to the Passion of Our Lord, and the whole Christological mystery approached from His human nature rather than His divine - whereas the Byzantine tends to approach things more from the standpoint of the transfigured, heavenly reality (hence icons, emphasis on paradox in the theological language of the Liturgy, singing rather than whispering, standing during the Liturgy, an ontological rather than juridical viewpoint, and an approach based on Christ’s divine nature, and consequently more of an emphasis on His Resurrection).

And the Rosary. The Rosary is a beautiful legacy of the Roman tradition.

And the philosophical and academic tradition - the way in which the Church baptized the whole world in all its aspects, including science, the arts, etc. (Again, viewing the Incarnation from the viewpoint of Earth rather than Heaven.)

The Jesus Prayer is originally an Eastern devotion, because the East has more of a focus on individual repentance (the ontological change of the sinner to the saint) rather than the Passion of Christ. But it is still a very beautiful prayer when prayed in Latin, as I occassionally do - “Domine Iesu Christe, Filius Dei, miserere mei, peccatore”. Western prayers that are penitential tend to invoke the communion of saints for their prayers and forgiveness; e.g. the Confiteor.

 

[Cecilianus]

(nota bene: the Roman Rite is the only rite you would have probably ever seen - unfortunately the other Western rites have pretty much died out, to the Church’s eternal loss.)

 

[Aramis]

So in reading about Eastern churches and spirituality I came to wonder about my own western patrimony, as it were. What does that authentic western tradition “look like”. Some suggestion I’ve seen are:

• variations in the Mass – OF & EF, not to mention the wide variety of musical settings, eucharistic prayers and prefaces
• westerners are more “to the point”, i.e the shorter prayers and mass service itself
• often juridical viewpoint verses the healing view of the east
• prayers/devotions = rosary, jesus prayer, stations of the cross

The only truly universal westernisms are the use of latin as lingua liturgicam (sp?), unleavened bread, a tendency towards legislative rather than economic* approach to praxis, and the liturgical vesture being stole with Chasuble or dalmatic over alb**, and a tendency towards Thomistic theology***, and the Filioque or variations thereof (et filius in the mozarabic)

• Set the bar low and encourage going beyond, so all can meet it, vs set the bar high and relax it for those who can’t meet it.
  ** Stole over vs stole under dalmatic varies by rite in the west; less variance for sole over/under chasuble, but some, with norm being under.
  *** Thomistic theology is prevelent in Dominican and Latin rite theology. It’s far from being the schola prima, but it’s one of the strongest.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If you mean the Roman Rite, then the authentic Roman Rite is the Tridentine Mass, most perfectly in the purified form that came out of Vatican II (the 1962 Missal, used by “traditionalists” and other people who supposedly are “pre-Vatican II”). The widespread presence of variations in the Roman Rite - Novus Ordo, Tridentine, and the complete lack of uniformity within the Novus Ordo - is a very modern innovation; variations before 1970 were always minor variations based in local custom or difference of religious order, which you will also see to some degree in the East (for example, Ukrainians will have the faithful kiss the Gospel during the Beatitudes, while Ruthenians will not).

This view of the EF Mass is not shared nor taught by the Church herself. Pope Benedict XVI himself has taught that the OF and EF are different expressions of the one Roman Rite. They are one, the same and equal.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

variations in the Mass – OF & EF, not to mention the wide variety of musical settings, eucharistic prayers and prefaces

This is not exclusively “Western”. In fact, one could easily argue that the Eastern churches are more liturgically diverse. For example, in the “Byzantine” churches, I can think of four different liturgies that we use at different times during the year: Those attributed to St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. James the Brother of God, and St. Pope Gregory the Dialogist (Pre-Sanctified Liturgy). The Oriental Non-Chalcedonians also have their own distinct liturgical traditions. So Latin “variations” in a single liturgical form might not be construed as having many different liturgies altogether.

Just food for thought.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Thanks for the additional info, can you help expand on the following issues?

• Set the bar low and encourage going beyond, so all can meet it, vs set the bar high and relax it for those who can’t meet it.

I sort of understand what you are saying… but how is this manifested in the daily life of the laity?

*** Thomistic theology is prevelent in Dominican and Latin rite theology. It’s far from being the schola prima, but it’s one of the strongest.

I’ve hard that terminology before, but could you boil it down to a few salient points for the simple minded such as myself?

Thanks!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

So in reading about Eastern churches and spirituality I came to wonder about my own western patrimony, as it were. What does that authentic western tradition “look like”. Some suggestion I’ve seen are:

• variations in the Mass – OF & EF, not to mention the wide variety of musical settings, eucharistic prayers and prefaces
• westerners are more “to the point”, i.e the shorter prayers and mass service itself
• often juridical viewpoint verses the healing view of the east
• prayers/devotions = rosary, jesus prayer, stations of the cross

If you really want to get an idea of the spirituality and “mystical theology” of the West, then I highly recommend you read the writings of Sts. Augustine, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Therese of Lisieux, Bernard of Clairvaux, Francis de Sales, Ignatius of Loyola, Catherine of Sienna, etc. Check out the hymns and prayers composed by Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure. There is a wonderful book by Ralph Marin called “The Fulfillment of All Desire” that does a wonderful job summing up the teachings of the great mystics of the West, quoting them extensively. It is a thick book, but it is a very easy read.

 

[Cecilianus]

Thanks for the additional info, can you help expand on the following issues?

Originally Posted by Aramis

• Set the bar low and encourage going beyond, so all can meet it, vs set the bar high and relax it for those who can’t meet it.

The difference is expressed for example in the approaches to fasting. In the West, a bare minimum is set for fasting regulations (abstinence from meat on Fridays during Lent, obligatory Mass every Sunday, Holy Communion once a year, eating light on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) while it is expected or encouraged of the faithful that they do much more on their own volition, for the sake of piety (weekly Communion is strongly encouraged, many people go to daily Mass, people are supposed to fast from midnight before receiving Holy Communion although it’s only an hour-long fast on the books, and people are expected to voluntarily to abstain from meat on Fridays and do some kind of penance on Wednesdays, and in general to fast on their own volition).

In the East the standards are MUCH higher - abstinence from oil, alcohol, and any sort of animal product (meat, egg, or dairy) on all Wednesdays and Fridays and every day during four extended fast periods (Great Lent, the Apostle’s Fast in early June, the Dormition Fast in August, and the Philipovka for forty days before Christmas), as well as on the preparation days before big feasts (the Glorification of the Life-Giving Cross, for example). But it’s not a mortal sin if someone is unable to keep this rule, and part of the exercise is to teach us humility through our inability to keep it.

The Communion fast - strict fast (abstinence from booze and animal products) - also lasts for three days, and breaking it does not carry with it the penalty of mortal sin.

Going to Liturgy is also viewed as a privilege rather than as an obligation, so while there are Holy Days of Obligation for Eastern Catholics because we are conforming to the standards set by Rome, traditionally within Orthodoxy instead of making it a mortal sin to skip Liturgy on Sunday, the Church imposed the penalty of excommunication - which I believe was expected to be administered by the priest of the parish or the spiritual father of the excommunicand - on anyone who deliberately avoided the church for three Sundays in a row. It is a privilege and not a duty, but one which we must accept with gratitude.

The tendency to set the bar high but relax it for what the post-Vatican II Church might call “pastoral reasons” also explains why the Orthodox permit divorce when thought necessary but excommunicate widowers who enter into fourth marriages. (Catholics follow the Catholic Church’s teaching on this matter, however.)

 

[Cecilianus]

This view of the EF Mass is not shared nor taught by the Church herself. Pope Benedict XVI himself has taught that the OF and EF are different expressions of the one Roman Rite. They are one, the same and equal.

Same rite, but one clearly expresses it in a much fuller, richer, and more authentic manner than the other.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

The difference is expressed for example…

Thank you… that’s very interesting. So in the U.S. do most Eastern Catholic pretty much keep those fasts etc?

I see what you mean though about the Western view… I wonder if it’s always been that way or did it diverge at some point? Of course here in the U.S. most RC’s don’t even keep the moral laws let alone fast etc…

 

[Cecilianus]

Thank you… that’s very interesting. So in the U.S. do most Eastern Catholic pretty much keep those fasts etc?

I see what you mean though about the Western view… I wonder if it’s always been that way or did it diverge at some point? Of course here in the U.S. most RC’s don’t even keep the moral laws let alone fast etc…

I hope that most Eastern Catholics follow the fast, though I don’t think many of us in America do. At my parish we certainly do; our old pastor was a schemamonk who left Mount Athos after twelve years to be received into communion with Rome. He had a tendency not to tell people when the American bishops (following Roman tendencies) instituted minimum fasting regulations in place of the traditional one.

Even within Orthodoxy, though, the strictness of the fast varies region by region. The Greeks have it on the books but don’t really follow it (or so I was told), but the Serbian and Russians follow it and everything else to the letter.

The West originally had the same fast as the East, but because they were viewed as “minimum requirements” they were repeatedly made more lax, a tendency we keep seeing repeated today. St. Leo the Great mentions the four seasonal fasts in one of his writings; at some point fish (which is considered a form of meat in the East) became permitted in the West on Sundays during Lent because it is a symbol of Christ. By the time of St. Thomas Aquinas fish was eaten during Lent but not meat or cheese; Aquinas explains in the Summa Theologica (about II-II q. 149, I think? I don’t remember) that during Lent we typologically are like Noah in the ark, eating only fish but not land animals. By the 14th century dairy products were eaten during Lent provided that other penance was done in its place, and so on and so on.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Same rite, but one clearly expresses it in a much fuller, richer, and more authentic manner than the other.

No, the Church doesn’t teach that. That is a matter of personal opinion and not official Church teaching.

The Church has never proclaimed the Tridentine Mass as any fuller. The Mass is the Mass, its the same, its equal.

 

[Cecilianus]

No, the Church doesn’t teach that. That is a matter of personal opinion and not official Church teaching.

The Church has never proclaimed the Tridentine Mass as any fuller. The Mass is the Mass, its the same, its equal.

But the Church doesn’t teach otherwise, either. To be sure, both Masses are equal in dignity as far as the Eucharist is concerned, but nobody would say that a blasphemously irreverent teen mass with liturgical dancers or whatever your favorite liturgical abuse is is “equal” and “the same” as our Liturgy or the Tridentine Mass.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But the Church doesn’t teach otherwise, either. To be sure, both Masses are equal in dignity as far as the Eucharist is concerned, but nobody would say that a blasphemously irreverent teen mass with liturgical dancers or whatever your favorite liturgical abuse is is “equal” and “the same” as our Liturgy or the Tridentine Mass.

Why are you comparing an abused Mass to a properly celebrated one? An OF can be reverently and properly celebrated and an EF can be abused. You’re making the faulty argumentation that the EF is somehow mystically protected from abuses. It is not.

 

[Cecilianus]

Why are you comparing an abused Mass to a properly celebrated one? An OF can be reverently and properly celebrated and an EF can be abused. You’re making the faulty argumentation that the EF is somehow mystically protected from abuses. It is not.

(a) I’ve never seen a Tridentine Mass with abuses. Everything is regulated down to the letter - exactly what the priest says (in a language that they usually can’t improvise in), and exactly what motions he does. I really don’t think it can be down, at least not without trying really hard.

(b) I’ve never seen a Novus Ordo Mass said the way the Vatican promulgated it except for two times in my life, during which it just felt like a watered-down Tridentine Mass (and one of those churches lost its pastor when the archbishop decided he was too conservative and asked him to leave). EVERY N.O. Mass I went to except for those two had some deviation from the rubrics, usually something huge (like dressing up the crucifix in the middle of the ampitheatre as the “Gay Christ” - that was from my bishop’s church, incidentally). And the English translation still used has been repeatedly condemned by the Vatican (by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI) for its flagrant mistranslation of the Words of Consecration.

Even the (relatively) conservative church that received me into the Catholic faith still has Communion distributed by EM’s who have no problem approaching the Tabernacle, music that doesn’t quite conform to the standards set by the Popes since Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, and the occasional homily preached by a nun.

So when I say “Novus Ordo”, I mean the only type of Novus Ordo you will actually come across. And even the “properly said” N.O. is still just a butchered-up Tridentine - a Tridentine Mass with most of the prayers hacked out or watered down.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Same rite, but one clearly expresses it in a much fuller, richer, and more authentic manner than the other.

Thats an opinion, not a Teaching of the Church. One must be clear when expressing an opinion especially when it is not an actual Teaching of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

(a) I’ve never seen a Tridentine Mass with abuses. Everything is regulated down to the letter - exactly what the priest says (in a language that they usually can’t improvise in), and exactly what motions he does. I really don’t think it can be down, at least not without trying really hard.

No offense meant, but not because you haven’t seen something doesn’t mean it cannot be abused. Besides, the occurence of the Latin Mass today is very small and those who say and go to the Latin Mass are those who criticize abuses. So perhaps in today’s setting there are no abuses. But are you telling me that between Trent and Vatican II, there were not abuses in the Latin Mass when it was the only Mass in the Roman Rite for over 300 years? You are falling into this traditionalist misconception that the TLM is bulletproof. No liturgy is bulletproof. Abuses are done because the laity clamour for something they believe is right. Since today the few who go to TLM clamour for a to-the-letter celebration, then that is what they get. But give the TLM to a priest who’d readily give in to the whims of a moderate to liberal crowd and you’ll have the same effect.

(b) I’ve never seen a Novus Ordo Mass said the way the Vatican promulgated it except for two times in my life, during which it just felt like a watered-down Tridentine Mass (and one of those churches lost its pastor when the archbishop decided he was too conservative and asked him to leave). EVERY N.O. Mass I went to except for those two had some deviation from the rubrics, usually something huge (like dressing up the crucifix in the middle of the ampitheatre as the “Gay Christ” - that was from my bishop’s church, incidentally). And the English translation still used has been repeatedly condemned by the Vatican (by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI) for its flagrant mistranslation of the Words of Consecration.

Even the (relatively) conservative church that received me into the Catholic faith still has Communion distributed by EM’s who have no problem approaching the Tabernacle, music that doesn’t quite conform to the standards set by the Popes since Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, and the occasional homily preached by a nun.

So when I say “Novus Ordo”, I mean the only type of Novus Ordo you will actually come across. And even the “properly said” N.O. is still just a butchered-up Tridentine - a Tridentine Mass with most of the prayers hacked out or watered down.

Again, just because your local parish or even your bishop is wrong, it doesn’t meant that the rest of the world is that way. Maybe take some time and spend some money this summer and go to another part of the world. What you see is not what the world is. You live in what is a small sample of the world and is not even a valid sample to compare what is actually happening in the world.

Fact is, Pope Benedict XVI himself has said that the OF and EF are the same albeit different expressions. There was never a teaching from the Church that one form is inferior to the other in any way. If there is, they would abandon any inferior Liturgy.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

(a) I’ve never seen a Tridentine Mass with abuses. Everything is regulated down to the letter - exactly what the priest says (in a language that they usually can’t improvise in), and exactly what motions he does. I really don’t think it can be down, at least not without trying really hard.

I feel that ConstantineTG but I have to ask you. Are you fluent in ecclesiastical Latin? Are you privy to the silent prayers the priest does at the EF Mass?

I believe that you have never seen an abuse at the EF Mass but that does not mean that there were none.

 

[Biedrik]

(a) I’ve never seen a Tridentine Mass with abuses. Everything is regulated down to the letter - exactly what the priest says (in a language that they usually can’t improvise in), and exactly what motions he does. I really don’t think it can be down, at least not without trying really hard.

Correlation does not equate causation. The nature of that liturgy is not what stops the abuses. Rather, I find it is because the priests who are want to celebrate the Tridentine Mass tend to be the sort of priests who greatly dislike deviation from the rubrics.