Western Spirituality in Light of Eastern?

[angelic06]

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.

So, this thread, purportedly on “Western Spirituality in Light of Eastern” has gone to another TLM vs NO debate.

The popes have said that the NO is a licit celebration of the Mass. If they thought it was a “butchered up Tridentine”, why have they not rid us of it? My own parish has a reverent celebration of it, and I alternate between it, the Anglican Use one, and Mass at the local Maronite Church (and yes, for the record, I would love to visit a TLM someday).

Now, back to the OP—for Western Christians trying out Eastern spirituality, I recommend starting with the Eastern fast, as stated above.

However, I, in my own life, do not purposely tease out what comes from the “East” or the “West”. If it helps me grow spiritually (this assumes it is not in dispute with Catholic teaching), I use it. And yes, with discernment, I read non-Catholic materials. We all want to get to heaven, do we not?

 

[angelic06]

I’m not interested in a discussion of liturgical abuse, but building on what you said in post no. 2, Cecilianus, I would say that the beautiful choral music tradition here in the West, both of the Catholics and, I’ll also give credit, those of the Anglicans and other Protestants, is also a contribution of the West to all Christendom (Palestrina, Viadana, etc.). While the popes in using the “two lungs” analogy have chiefly been emphasizing the East, I think this would also fall under those things which all Christendom would be enriched with, for which the Church as a whole would be poorer, if we can say this, if the Latin Church did nothing to keep its own “lung”, and this particular contribution, fit, if you will. This is most certainly not to say that Eastern churches also don’t have their choral tradition (which is patently false, as anyone skimming YouTube for Byzantine liturgies can attest to).

 

[Cecilianus]

I’m not interested in a discussion of liturgical abuse, but building on what you said in post no. 2, Cecilianus, I would say that the beautiful choral music tradition here in the West, both of the Catholics and, I’ll also give credit, those of the Anglicans and other Protestants, is also a contribution of the West to all Christendom (Palestrina, Viadana, etc.). While the popes in using the “two lungs” analogy have chiefly been emphasizing the East, I think this would also fall under those things which all Christendom would be enriched with, for which the Church as a whole would be poorer, if we can say this, if the Latin Church did nothing to keep its own “lung”, and this particular contribution, fit, if you will. This is most certainly not to say that Eastern churches also don’t have their choral tradition (which is patently false, as anyone skimming YouTube for Byzantine liturgies can attest to).

Yes, the Ukrainians and Russians have a very beautiful choral tradition, although they are also far more “Latin” in spirit in a number of different ways than the Ruthenians, Greeks, or Melkites, who all have a tradition of congregational singing instead of choral singing (not that there aren’t Ruthenian churches that have choirs - but it’s not really as much a part of our tradition). The Ukrainians and Russians were enriched with choral singing because of their proximity to the Catholic and Lutheran choral practices (in Prussia and the Baltic states). It has not organically developed in the other Byzantine traditions more removed from the West (or, as in the case of the Ruthenians, more conservative).

I went to a Ukrainian church with a choir before I grew fed up with the Latinizations there. The only reason why I would not consider the YouTube videos - or the CDs - of choral liturgies by people like Rachmaninov and Ippolitov-Ivanov to be heaven on earth is because they pale in comparison to the real thing.

There’s a fine line between the mutual enrichment that comes from the cross-fertilization between the two lungs of the Church, and Latinizations. The Russians and Ukrainians have done a marvelous job integrating the choral tradition into their Liturgy. There are few things more sublime - or more truly Russian, from an American’s ignorant perspective - than Rachmaninov’s Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

 

[angelic06]

Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost!

(Not arguing with you.) There doesn’t need to be cross-fertilization, per se, but we can still appreciate each other’s traditions in their proper context, while at the same time appreciating how this or that contributes to bringing the Holy Gospel to unbelievers. And this is where the differences among us while retaining one Holy Catholic Faith play a key role----they emphasize how direly the Church desires to bring the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the world by adjusting the method of relaying the Message (whether by choirs and/or by congregational singing), but not the Message itself, to the different cultures the Church finds herself in.

Just like the Latin Church doesn’t need to adopt the Eastern practice of Crowning couples to be married, but as a Latin myself, I love the rich symbolism behind the use of crowns, emphasizing the role of the couple as rulers and priests of the domestic Church, who are to govern their household lovingly and with awe and wonder of our God, who is Lord and Master over all of us. From a Latin perspective, I think the Church as a whole would be poorer if the Eastern churches did away with this rich-in-symbolism practice in favor of the Latin ring exchange tradition (which has its own symbolism), even though the Latin Church itself does not crown its couples.

“In essential things, unity.
In others/non-essentials, charity.” (who said this?)

 

[Cecilianus]

Glory be to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost!

(Not arguing with you.) There doesn’t need to be cross-fertilization, per se, but we can still appreciate each other’s traditions in their proper context, while at the same time appreciating how this or that contributes to bringing the Holy Gospel to unbelievers. And this is where the differences among us while retaining one Holy Catholic Faith play a key role----they emphasize how direly the Church desires to bring the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the world by adjusting the method of relaying the Message (whether by choirs and/or by congregational singing), but not the Message itself, to the different cultures the Church finds herself in.

Agreed.

Just like the Latin Church doesn’t need to adopt the Eastern practice of Crowning couples to be married, but as a Latin myself, I love the rich symbolism behind the use of crowns, emphasizing the role of the couple as rulers and priests of the domestic Church, who are to govern their household lovingly and with awe and wonder of our God, who is Lord and Master over all of us. From a Latin perspective, I think the Church as a whole would be poorer if the Eastern churches did away with this rich-in-symbolism practice in favor of the Latin ring exchange tradition (which has its own symbolism), even though the Latin Church itself does not crown its couples.

Agreed.

“In essential things, unity.
In others/non-essentials, charity.” (who said this?)

St. Augustine.

 

[Aramis]

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

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

Fasting rules are the most obvious.

The western approach: legislate the minimum:

Roman: No fish on fridays of fast, not more 2 small and one large meal on fridays of fast; Either no meat or some other penitential practice on fridays year round.

The eastern approach: legislate the maximum, but then liberally dispense from it.

Traditional Russian-Alaskan: Nothing with a spine, no milk products, no wine, no oil, no eggs throughout fast; mitigated on sundays to allow shellfish, or even seafood and/or milk products. Many are dispensed by their pastor or spiritual father to lesser practice (often about the same as the Roman fast).

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!

It’s a particular flavor of scholasiticism… Thomism is the school of theology built on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism has a good, if simplistic, overview.

Scholastic Theology generally tries to explain everything; Thomistic Theology has lots of methodology for evaluating an explanation…

The Eastern Approach explains only that which can’t be left unexplained without leading to heresy. “It’s Holy Mystery. Simply accept it, throw a veil over it, incense it heavily, and move on.” Hence why the Trinity is explained, but the decision on transubstantiation vs consubstantiation was held immaterial for most of Chrisitian History.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

It’s a particular flavor of scholasiticism… Thomism is the school of theology built on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism has a good, if simplistic, overview.

Scholastic Theology generally tries to explain everything; Thomistic Theology has lots of methodology for evaluating an explanation…

The Eastern Approach explains only that which can’t be left unexplained without leading to heresy. “It’s Holy Mystery. Simply accept it, throw a veil over it, incense it heavily, and move on.” Hence why the Trinity is explained, but the decision on transubstantiation vs consubstantiation was held immaterial for most of Chrisitian History.

Started to read it… went right over my head lol

 

[Gregory_I]

I have seen the extraordinary form said at breakneck speed using “grunt” latin. Tell me that’s not an abuse. Also, when the Priests assisting at solemn high mass would vest in lower clerical ranks (i.e. Deacon and Sub-Deacon) that is an abuse. And don’t even talk about 1968 when the EF was said in ENGLISH FACING THE PEOPLE. That’s not an abuse?

 

[malphono]

I have seen the extraordinary form said at breakneck speed using “grunt” latin. Tell me that’s not an abuse.

I’ve no idea what this post about alleged liturgical abuses in the Roman Rite has to do with the topic of this thread, but I have to comment anyway:

The “breakneck speed” and “mumbled” things are certainly not unique to the pre-conciliar EF. The Novus Ordo is equally, if not more so, affected by them, even in the vernacular. And I’ve seen the same things done from time-to-time even in the East and Orient. Anyway, yes, both are abusive, but I still don’t know what that has to do with this thread.

Also, when the Priests assisting at solemn high mass would vest in lower clerical ranks (i.e. Deacon and Sub-Deacon) that is an abuse.

This is not an abuse. While it’s not optimal, a priest may assume the liturgical role of a deacon (or subdeacon) since he was previously ordained to that order. Likewise, a deacon may assume the liturgical role of a subdeacon for exactly the same reason.

And don’t even talk about 1968 when the EF was said in ENGLISH FACING THE PEOPLE. That’s not an abuse?

I am not, and have never been, a fan or supporter of versus populum, East, Orient, or West. But the example given is poor: the EF was not offered versus populum. The versus populum thing came around with the first version of the “interim Missal”(1965). The second version of the “interim Missal” (1967) was nothing more than a prelude to the forthcoming Novus Ordo.

 

[Cecilianus]

I have seen the extraordinary form said at breakneck speed using “grunt” latin. Tell me that’s not an abuse. Also, when the Priests assisting at solemn high mass would vest in lower clerical ranks (i.e. Deacon and Sub-Deacon) that is an abuse. And don’t even talk about 1968 when the EF was said in ENGLISH FACING THE PEOPLE. That’s not an abuse?

Rushing it isn’t ideal, but it isn’t an abuse - and the words of the Liturgy themselves have not lost their grandeur and dignity. Having priests vest in lower clerical ranks is the practice of the Latin Church; it would only be an abuse in the East. And the Tridentine Mass (I won’t call it the EF; it was THE Roman Rite until 1965) was replaced in 1965 by an early version of the Novus Ordo (the current Novus Ordo is the 1969 Missal). So what you saw in 1968 would not have been the “EF”.

 

[malphono]

Having priests vest in lower clerical ranks is the practice of the Latin Church; it would only be an abuse in the East.

While I freely admit that I’ve not encountered a priest assuming the liturgical role of a deacon as such (which leads me to think it’s rarely if ever, done), and while it is certainly not optimal, I’m not certain that would qualify as an actual “abuse” in the Orient (I really cant’s speak for the Byzantines but I will assume it’s the same), and for the same reason I gave in my earlier post. For example, in the Syriac Churches, the Archdeacon has a certain (albeit occasional) liturgical role, but since there are few, if any, actual Archdeacons running around these days, absent a real Archdeacon, his liturgical role (in particular during an ordination) is normally assumed by a priest.

 

[jimmy]

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

I think that the west makes a distinction (even if only subconsciously) between the pursuit of beauty and morality and spirituality, whereas the the Greek spirituality is a pursuit of beauty (very neo-platonic of the east). I think this leads to a very different manifestation of spirituality and morality.

I can’t clearly define the Syriac tradition in contrast to the others.

 

[Cecilianus]

I think that the west makes a distinction (even if only subconsciously) between the pursuit of beauty and morality and spirituality, whereas the the Greek spirituality is a pursuit of beauty (very neo-platonic of the east). I think this leads to a very different manifestation of spirituality and morality.

I can’t clearly define the Syriac tradition in contrast to the others.

Fr. Thomas Loya also makes a distinction related to this between the way Romans evangelize and the way the Byzantines evangelize. The Romans are very “active” in their evangelization - more “good works” with the poor, more active intellectual battles for the truths of the faith against the heresies (what has been derogatively called “proselytism”, though it should not be viewed in a derogatory way because we are called by Christ to spread the Good News). The East evangelizes by simply being who we are, and drawing people in by our beauty, which we do not distinguish from truth.

 

[jimmy]

Fr. Thomas Loya also makes a distinction related to this between the way Romans evangelize and the way the Byzantines evangelize. The Romans are very “active” in their evangelization - more “good works” with the poor, more active intellectual battles for the truths of the faith against the heresies (what has been derogatively called “proselytism”, though it should not be viewed in a derogatory way because we are called by Christ to spread the Good News). The East evangelizes by simply being who we are, and drawing people in by our beauty, which we do not distinguish from truth.

Exactly. The fathers of the Greek tradition (the Cappadocians, Maximus and others) saw the God as beauty, and His beauty is reflected in the spiritual and physical creation. The pursuit of God is the fullfilment of our desires for beauty. This desire is natural to us and it is here that we find our command to love God and our neighbor. This is Basil’s and Maximus’s view.
“Having received, therefore, a command to love God, we have possessed the innate power of loving from the first moment of our creation. Of this, no external proof is required, since anyone can discover it of himself and within himself. We are by nature desirous of the beautiful, even though individual conceptions of the beautiful differ widely (St. Basil, The Longer Rule, Q.2R).”
It is beauty that draws a person, not an impassive view of the truth. It was only recently that I realized the centrality of beauty in the Greek tradition through reading Dostoevsky and St. Basil and St. Maximus.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

There’s been really good info on here posted and I really appreciate it!
Here I am in my early 40’s and I realize I want “real” happiness – a closer relationship/communion with God. I need to develop a spiritual world-view and life that will help me grow beyond the Sunday Mass and the 1 hr of Catholic radio I listen to in the car during the week…
I like the way Abbott Joseph writes on his Word Incarnate blog, and I like the way a lot of ideas are expressed from the eastern viewpoint (Fr. Loya for example) so I am trying to understand this other way of looking things – the viewpoint that should be part of background and upbringing but I don’t seem to know what it is…lol. Actually this western viewpoint that has been described in previous responses I tend to see in the Protestant traditions and not the Roman Catholic ones… go figure… Then again that may indicative of my growing up in Texas which is well mostly protestant (and atheist)

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not interested in a discussion of liturgical abuse, but building on what you said in post no. 2, Cecilianus, I would say that the beautiful choral music tradition here in the West, both of the Catholics and, I’ll also give credit, those of the Anglicans and other Protestants, is also a contribution of the West to all Christendom (Palestrina, Viadana, etc.).

I guess most modern Catholics do not realize how much opposition there was to the introduction of polyphony in the western church. Before that, plainchant was the norm (and in fact plainchant is supposed to be preferred to this very day, but most musical directors seem to ignore that directive).

Polyphony was clearly recognized as a change in the tradition, and actually banned for a while. One of the complaints was that it was music for it’s own sake, not actually prayer in song.

Palestrina was instrumental in lifting the ban, because he wrote beautiful pieces that were understandable.

More significant was the allowance of musical instruments in Mass. Again, the western church struggled with this and there was opposition to the change.

There is no reason to assume that these cultural markers represent some great gift of one part of Christianity to the rest of Christianity. I would say they are appreciated as great art worldwide (very popular in China, BTW, which is largely agnostic and Confucian) but not usually thought of as great prayer or great theology.