Irish Theological Quarterly 73 (2008) 133–147 © 2008 Irish Theological Quarterly Sage Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore DOI: 10.1177/0021140008091696
Schmemann’s Challenge for Contemporary Roman Catholicism Neil Xavier O’Donoghue Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey Alexander Schmemann is widely recognized as systemizing the discipline of ‘Liturgical Theology.’ However, he himself considered his efforts to improve the liturgical celebrations of the Orthodox Churches of North America to be the main achievement of his career. This article analyzes Schmemann’s work, focusing in particular on his contribution to practical liturgical renewal, his turbulent relationship with academic theology and his view of Roman Catholic liturgy. Then the argument is advanced that today, 40 years after Vatican II and in the wake of the external renewal of the official liturgical books, Catholics are in a better position to benefit from Schmemann’s life work. KEYWORDS: Liturgical Theology, Liturgy, Orthodox, Schmemann
A
lexander Schmemann is usually considered in Catholic circles to be one of the pioneers in the field of liturgical theology. In Orthodox circles he is remembered, as one of the founders of the Orthodox Church in America, for his contribution to St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in Crestwood, NY, and as a driving force in the Liturgical Movement in the Orthodox Churches. However, today Schmemann is not widely read in Catholic circles. Nonetheless this article proposes that Western Christians and Roman Catholics in particular are in a better position to appreciate and benefit from Schmemann’s writings today than when Schmemann was alive.1 Alexander Schmemann was born in Estonia in 1921. When he was a young child his family was forced to leave home, owing to the Russian Revolution, and eventually ended up in Paris. At this time Paris was home to thousands of Russian emigrants, a good number of whom came from the higher classes of the pre-Revolutionary Russian society. Many of these
1. This article concentrates on Schmemann’s relevance to Latin Rite Roman Catholics in particular. This is because in the early twenty-first century (after the initial burst of official liturgical renewal in the wake of Vatican II) contemporary Roman Catholic liturgical practice is somewhat fixed and unlikely to experience a major reform of liturgical texts in the near future. This now obliges Roman Catholics to face seriously the interiorization of liturgical reform. Other Western Christians are not in the same position as their liturgical texts are not subject to the same rigid conformity. 133
134
IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
dreamed of returning to Russia and in a sense had never left Russia, in that, although living in Paris, they cultivated a Russian society. Like many of his peers, Schmemann received his initial education in a Russian military school at Versailles and later on attended high school at a Russian gimnaziia, which he left in order to complete his secondary education at a French lycée. He then went on to the University of Paris. His religious formation did not come from the ‘dull, compulsory religious classes’2 provided in his school; it came after his breaking free from the difficult émigré atmosphere of the military academy. During his time at the lycée he became involved in Paris’ St Alexander Nevsky Cathedral where he served as an altar boy.3 After university he went to the St Sergius Theological Institute in Paris where he was influenced by Cyprian Kern,4 who acted as Schmemann’s confessor and imbued him with a love of the liturgy, and Nikolai Afanas’ev, a canonist who propounded a ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’ that was to influence Schmemann’s writings and theology.5 After graduation from St Sergius, he remained there as a lecturer in church history and in 1946 was ordained a priest. At this time the Liturgical Movement was particularly active in Paris. One of the reasons for this was the juxtaposition of Byzantine and Latin liturgical traditions caused by the Russian influx. Theologians from both Churches met to exchange ideas, oftentimes in secret so as not to draw the ire of their superiors,6 and the young Schmemann was involved in these discussions. Both sides benefited from this exchange. From Jean Daniélou and Louis Bouyer, in particular, Schmemann ‘really learned “liturgical theology,” “a philosophy of time” and the true meaning of the “paschal mystery.”’7 His personal library, which is now in St Vladimir’s Seminary Library, is mainly made up of the works of Catholic liturgical scholars from the pre-Vatican II era. The Catholic participants learned an appreciation for the ethos of Eastern Liturgy, which was to have a direct bearing on the Liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council. Whereas originally most Russians hoped to go home, by this time it was obvious that there would be no immediate return to Russia. Jurisdictional problems complicated the position of Orthodoxy in France making it hard for the ‘Orthodox mission to the West.’8 In 1951, Schmemann accepted an 2. John Meyendorff, ‘A Life Worth Living,’ in Alexander Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann, ed. Thomas Fisch (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1990), 146. 3. Alexander Schmemann, The Journals of Father Alexander Schmemann, 1973–1983, trans. Juliana Schmemann (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2000), 293. 4. Ibid., 53. 5. Paul Meyendorff, ‘Alexander Schmemann: Theologian of the Orthodox Liturgy,’ in Kathleen Hughes, ed., How Firm a Foundation: Leaders of the Liturgical Movement (Chicago: LTP, 1990), 301. 6. Ibid. 7. John Meyendorff, ‘A Life Worth Living,’ 149. 8. Ibid., 150.
CONTEMPORARY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
135
invitation from Georges Florovsky to join the faculty of St Vladimir’s Seminary. In 1962, Schmemann became Dean of St Vladimir’s, a position he kept until his death in 1983. Schmemann lived a very full life in his adopted country of America for which he developed a great love.9 His time was occupied by his family, teaching, writing, administration, Church affairs (the high point, in 1970, being the establishment of the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America), his weekly radio broadcasts on Radio Liberty, and many speaking engagements both for Orthodox parishes and groups and different Western conferences. However, as time passed he became less and less interested in academic theology. He saw his mission as one of writing popular explanations of the liturgy for the building up of the laity and of speaking to ordinary people. While his earlier works were more academic, for the mature Schmemann, the goal of his literary output was to ‘write for the people, not for theologians.’10 His Journals are peppered with comments on how happy he was when some regular person complimented his writings or some pastor asked for permission to translate them.11 Many of his writings read like talks, and indeed many of them started life as talks. This led to a number of clashes with other theologians and to complaints from more academic theologians who felt slighted by the polemical tone of some of Schmemann’s writings.12 This disagreement with academia may be a little off-putting for some modern readers of Schmemann’s works. However, I think that his attitude arises as a result of a fundamental insight into theology: earthly reality must be based around the fact that man is a ‘homo adorans,’ a ‘worshipping being.’13 This insight seems to have permeated his whole worldview to the 9. See Schmemann, Journals, 4, 36, 72, 88–89, etc. 10. Ibid., 93. 11. E.g. ibid., 4, 69, 218, 326, etc. In his Preface to the Second Edition of For the Life of the World, he says how learning of an underground samizdat of a Russian translation of the first edition was ‘one of the most moving experiences of [his] life’ (Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, 2nd ed. [Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1973], 9). 12. Schmemann recounts a clash he had with Robert Taft in his Journal. ‘Friday May 11, 1979 Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.: Continuing heat wave. I read my report (“Symbols and Symbolism”) right after R. Taft, who had praised a horrible commentary of Germanus of Constantinople. There followed a sort of argument, which slightly enlivened the terrible boredom of such symposia. Most of those attending were art connoisseurs of a Byzantine vintage. They could talk for hours about icons and curtains and temples and narthraxes, but had never become interested in the only thing that could have added some interest to the discussion. But all this took place in a very elegant Dumbarton Oaks, with excellent dinners and cocktails, so it was bearable. Talks about symbols: I don’t know of any more aimless talks. Down deep, they are a substitute for “life in abundance”’ (Schmemann, Journals, 220–221). For an example of other theologians objecting to Schmemann’s style, see William Schneirla, ‘The Western Rite,’ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 3(1959): 20–46, at 36. Also the written exchanges between Schmemann and Dom Botte and W. J. Grisbrooke in Chapters two and three of Liturgy and Tradition read as if Schmemann was operating on a different wavelength to the others. 13. Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 118, see 14–16.
136
IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
degree that he became myopic to the concerns and criticisms of more formal practitioners of the theological disciplines. Indeed, he developed something of a persecution complex whereby ‘theologians’ in particular, and society in general, was opposed to this anthropology: In our perspective, however, the ‘original’ sin is not primarily that man ‘disobeyed’ God; the sin is that he ceased to be hungry for Him and for Him alone, ceased to see his whole life depending on the whole world as a sacrament of communion with God. The sin was not that man neglected his religious duties. The sin was that he thought of God in terms of religion, i.e. opposing Him to life. The only real fall of man is his noneucharistic life in a noneucharistic world. The fall is not that he preferred world to God, distorted the balance between the spiritual and material, but he has made the world material, whereas he was to have transformed it into ‘life in God,’ filled with meaning and spirit.14 Unfortunately he seemed to equate academia with the ‘material’ world.15 It is true that Christianity—which is centered on faith, on an experience, on the event of the Paschal Mystery—can never be fully captured by theological discourse. In particular, there is always a temptation to divorce theology from faith. Perhaps, Schmemann felt that the best defence he could offer against these currents was to give a prophetic rejection of modern scholarship. If he had fought against the modern tendencies on their own terms he might have become what he objected to. Liturgical Theology In spite of Schmemann’s ambiguous relationship to academic theology, he did make an important contribution to the formal practice of liturgical theology, precisely by clarifying the distinction between ‘Liturgical Theology’ and a ‘Theology of the Liturgy,’ allowing Liturgical Theology to become a discipline in its own right.16 Scholastic theology has tended to treat liturgy as ‘an object, which has to be defined and evaluated within accepted categories.’17 For Schmemann, liturgy cannot be merely an object but must be the source of theology. His goal was to bring about an integration of liturgy, theology, and piety as had been characteristic in the Patristic period.18 This he did by proposing ‘Liturgical Theology.’ Building on his experiences with the Liturgical Movement in Paris, and particularly 14. Ibid., 18. 15. He clearly makes this association in Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition, 71. 16. Meyendorff, ‘Alexander Schmemann,’ 303. 17. Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition, 13. 18. Thomas Pott, La Réforme Liturgique Byzantine. Étude du Phénomène de l’Évolution Non-Spontanée de la Liturgie Byzantine (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2000), 62.
CONTEMPORARY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
137
on Louis Bouyer, he systemized this distinction and laid the foundations for the new discipline.19 The Liturgical Movement in Europe was mainly concerned with renewing Western liturgical practice through a return to the patristic sources, and, in general, it was not overly concerned with theology. This Movement, however, created a foundation on which Schmemann could build: In the first place it created the necessary conditions for liturgical theology by its focus on worship, by its experience of worship as the center of the whole life of the Church. And second, in its inner development, it finally pointed up the need for a strictly theological analysis of the data of the liturgical experience and tradition of the Church. It became clear that without such theological ‘reflection’ the liturgical revival was threatened either by an excessive submission to the ‘demands of the day,’ to the radical nature of certain ‘missionary’ and ‘pastoral’ movements quite prepared to drop old forms without a second thought or, on the other hand, by a particularly archeologism which considers the restoration of worship in its ‘primitive purity’ as the panacea for all contemporary ills.20 The center of this renewal must be a living out of the ancient axiom, lex orandi est lex credendi.21 This became clouded in the Middle Ages; the centrality of the Church was weakened and theology, for example, became more interested in the Eucharistic elements themselves than the change affected in the Church during the celebration of the Eucharist.22 In turn this led the faithful to become more concerned about ‘symbolic explanations,’ ‘mysteriological piety,’ and ‘ascetical individualism’ than about the Paschal Mystery.23 This realization led Schmemann to react against the very manner of celebration of the liturgy in most cases and, consequently, to strive to improve the general standard of liturgical presidency and celebration: The liturgy is, before everything else, the joyous gathering of those who are to meet the risen Lord and to enter with him into the bridal chamber. And it is this joy of expectation and this expectation of joy that are expressed in singing and ritual, in vestments and in censing, 19. Thomas Fisch, ‘Schmemann’s Theological Contribution to the Liturgical Renewal of the Churches,’ in Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition, 5–7. It is of note that whereas the term ‘Liturgical Theology’ appears in Bouyer’s Liturgical Piety, and even earlier in M. Cappuyn’s work, it is often used interchangeably with ‘Theology of the Liturgy.’ Schmemann was the first to develop the clear distinction between the two. 20. Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, trans. Asheleigh E. Moorhouse (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1966), 15. 21. See Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition, 12. 22. Ibid., 19. 23. Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 218.
138
IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
in that whole ‘beauty’ of the liturgy which has so often been denounced as unnecessary and even sinful.24 The only way that Christians can live their faith is to celebrate the liturgy, not just attend a ceremony which meets the bare minimum of the rubrics. The Church has inherited the idea of the bare minimum necessary for validity of the Sacraments from the ‘Theology of the Liturgy.’ This has ‘accelerated the liturgical decadence,’ whereby, for example, ‘today it takes fifteen minutes to perform [Baptism] in a dark corner of a church, with one “psaltist” giving the responses, an act in which the Fathers saw and acclaimed the greatest solemnity of the Church.’25 Reading the later works of Schmemann, it is clear that he did not favor any actual reform of the rituals in order to allow the faithful to better live the liturgy.26 However, earlier in his career, he did criticize translations and the current form of Eastern liturgical rites and practices.27 While he did attend Vatican II as an observer, he did not have a favorable opinion of its liturgical reforms. Perhaps he realized that a systematic ritual reform in Orthodoxy was an impossibility from a practical point of view and, therefore, decided that people would be better served by celebrating the rituals in as meaningful a way as possible, rather than aiming at the impossibility of reforming actual liturgical texts. However, infuriatingly, he seems to deem ‘liturgical reforms’ and the ‘“reconciliation” and mutual reintegration of liturgy, theology and piety’ to be mutually exclusive.28 He even seems to reject any reform of the liturgy as a Western aberration: One of the differences between eastern and western ‘mentalities’ may be precisely in the western trust in planning and reforming from above. Yes, our liturgy, to be sure, carries with it many non-essential elements, many ‘archaeological’ remnants. But rather than denouncing them in the name of liturgical purity we must strive to discover and to help others discover the lex orandi, which none of these accidental 24. Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 29–30. 25. Alexander Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1974), 11. 26. However, while an inflexibility to liturgical reform appears in Schmemann’s writings in actual pastoral practice, he actually promoted what Westerners might term a rubrical reform of the Byzantine Rite (as opposed to structural or euchological reform). He and his disciples within the Orthodox Church in America favor celebration of the Eucharist with the doors of the iconostasis open and without curtains so that the faithful can see what is happening, they celebrate in English with the prayers proclaimed in an audible voice, they promote frequent Communion of the faithful, as well as other rubrical renewals that have definitely helped make the Liturgy more accessible to the participants. 27. For example, Alexander Schmemann, ‘Problems of Orthodoxy in America, II. The Liturgical Problem,’ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 8 (1964): 164–185. Here Schmemann went so far as to make the bold statement that ‘the Orthodox Church needs a liturgical revival and renewal not less than the Christian West’ (ibid., 169). 28. Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition, 42.
CONTEMPORARY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
139
ingredients has managed to obscure. The time thus is not for external liturgical reform but for a theology and piety drinking again from the eternal and unchanging sources of liturgical tradition.29
The Centrality of the Eucharist in Schmemann’s Thought Whereas his greatest contribution, from an academic point of view, was his work on the definition of Liturgical Theology, the Eucharist was at the heart of Schmemann’s own understanding of the liturgy. While Bouyer and Daniélou influenced the young Schmemann in his contacts with the Liturgical Movement, his major influence for his understanding of the Eucharist was Nikolai Afanas’ev, originally Schmemann’s professor, and later a colleague, at St Sergius. Although Afanas’ev was not a prolific writer, he was an original thinker, whose thought fell on fertile ground influencing both De Lubac and Congar. These two great theologians of the Nouvelle Théologie in turn played a very important role in providing the theological underpinnings for the renewals of Vatican II. Afanas’ev coined the term ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’ in his Tserkov’ Dukha Sviatogo (The Church of the Holy Spirit).30 In this ecclesiology, it is the Eucharist of the local celebrating community that constitutes the Church as opposed to a more universal concept of Church organization.31 In a ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’ the constitutive event is not so much the Cross but rather the Last Supper, and the most important manifestation of the Church is in the Eucharistic gathering. Thus the ‘local Church’ is not the diocese gathered around its bishop, but the parish gathered around the priest. While Afanas’ev’s insight has been very important for many different Christian denominations in their self-understanding, it has an inherent danger of being taken to a radical conclusion which damages the Catholicity of the Church.32 While Schmemann was strongly influenced by this ‘eucharistic ecclesiology,’ he did not take it to its radical conclusions. It is true that he mused about ‘the inexplicable transformation that often occurs when a man becomes a bishop. Ambiguity and temptation of sacerdotal power!’33 But this was in the privacy of his Journals and not in his public speech. He was frustrated by the often petty reasons that prevented the unification of all the American Orthodox faithful into a single canonical jurisdiction; but 29. Ibid., 29. 30. Tserkov’ Dukha Sviatogo (Kiev: Tsentr Pravoslavnoi knig, 2005). An English translation of this important work has recently been published; The Church of the Holy Spirit, ed. Michael Plekon, trans. Vitaly Permiakov (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame, 2007). 31. Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition, 8. 32. Afanas’ev sidestepped potential rejection of his position as heterodox by differentiating between the Last Supper as the starting point of the Church and Pentecost where the Church received her ecclesial structure. Ibid., 11. 33. Schmemann, Journals, 333.
140
IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
this did not lead him to call for the establishment of a Presbyterian-type Church made up of totally independent parishes. Nonetheless the Eucharist was a central part of his ecclesiology. The Eucharist is the place where the Church becomes the Church. In Schmemann’s final book, The Eucharist, Sacrament of the Kingdom, which was published posthumously, he gives his most systematic treatment of the Eucharistic Liturgy. Here he does not begin ‘with historical overviews, theories of real presence, comparative religion studies, or philosophical symbol of theory;’34 instead, he analyzes the actual liturgical celebration, taking each important element (which he calls Sacrament) in turn. For Schmemann the actual Eucharistic Liturgy is the source of Liturgical Theology, the Christian must ‘return to that vision and experience that from the beginning constituted the very life of the Church.’35 In this sense Schmemann makes an important clarification by pointing out that usually the problem is not with the ritual itself, but rather the problem is with us. We need to change our mentality, and return to the Christian view of the Eucharist. The modern Western world has a problematic ‘perception’ of the Eucharist, there is ‘a lack of connection and cohesion between what is accomplished in the eucharist and how it is perceived, understood and lived.’36 Part of the solution lies in taking the current ritual and celebrating it as coherently and as well as possible. One the one hand, Schmemann enjoyed presiding at the Liturgy, he enjoyed preaching, his life was set to the rhythm of the Liturgical Year with its feasts and fasts. On the other hand, he was infuriated by people ‘(who do not speak Russian) want[ing] to increase reading and singing in Slavonic.’37 Yet this was not the most pressing of Schmemann’s concerns: It suddenly became clear to me that ultimately, deeply, deeply, there is a demonic fight in our Church with the Eucharist—and it is not by chance! Without putting the Eucharist at the very center, the church is a ‘religious phenomenon,’ but not the Church of Christ, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). The whole history of the Church has been marked by pious attempts to reduce the Eucharist, to make it ‘safe,’ to dilute it in piety, to reduce it to fasting and preparation, to tear it away from the church (ecclesiology), from the world (cosmology, history), from the Kingdom (eschatology). And it became clear to me that if I had a vocation, it is here,
34. David W. Fagerberg, Theologia Prima: What is Liturgical Theology? 2nd ed (Chicago: LTP, 2004), 190. 35. Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist, Sacrament of the Kingdom (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1987), 10. 36. Ibid., 9. 37. Schmemann, Journals, 327; see also ibid., 114.
CONTEMPORARY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
141
in the fight for the Eucharist, against this reduction, against the dechurching of the Church—which happened through clericalization on one hand, and through worldliness on the other.38
Schmemann’s Understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and her Liturgy Roman Catholic liturgy was not a burning concern for Schmemann. Indeed, he might not even have considered Catholic liturgy as a separate category, it might have formed simply one part of Western liturgical practice: What the Western architects of the ecumenical movement never fully understood is that for the Orthodox the ecumenical encounter, first of all and above all, meant the first free and therefore truly meaningful encounter with the West as a totality, the West as the other ‘half’ of the initially one Christian world, separated from Orthodoxy, not by a limited number of doctrinal disagreements but primarily by a deep difference in the fundamental Christian vision itself. It is this Western vision and experience, inasmuch as the Orthodox saw in them a deviation from and a mutilation of the once common faith and tradition, that they were anxious to discuss, believing such discussion to be self-evident and essential condition for any further step.39 Schmemann was raised in France, then a Catholic country. He was quite involved with Catholic theologians and members of the Liturgical Movement. Obviously he was influenced by them and spent a lot of effort building on their foundations. However, he also spent a lot of effort in purging the Church of the ‘“western captivity” of Orthodox theology which in [Schmemann’s] opinion constitutes one of the main tragedies on the historical path of Eastern Orthodoxy.’40 In his formative years at St Sergius he was never overly interested in Catholicism. Richard John Neuhaus tells us: Fr. Alexander and I discussed whether he had ever thought of becoming Roman Catholic. As a young man in Paris, he said, he mused about it, but it probably had more to do with Paris being a city of the Catholic West than with the Catholic West. My impression is
38. Ibid., 310. 39. Alexander Schmemann, ‘The East and West May Yet Meet,’ in Peter L. Berger and Richard John Neuhaus, eds, Against the World For the World. The Hartford Appeal and the Future of American Religion (New York: Seabury, 1976), 126–137, at 130. 40. Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition, 53.
142
IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
that there was never any serious wrestling with the question, as in a crisis, although he drew deeply on the Catholic theology that informed the Second Vatican Council.41 In his contacts with Western Christianity he seems to have more fondness for High Church Anglicism which he acquired as a teenager in his travels to England.42 When he first came to America he was involved in some Protestant universities and he was an Adjunct Professor ‘at Union, at General and at Columbia.’43 While he did attend Vatican II as an observer, there is hardly a mention of his impressions in any of his published writings.44 In his Journals he often mentions Catholicism in a passing, sometimes ambivalent way. He speaks of attending ‘never-changing Mass ( … a spot of light on the dark wall … ).’45 He likes the atmosphere of Mexico, precisely because of its Catholic roots;46 he remembers the coronation of Pope John Paul I as ‘golden and so gentle’ and was moved by the singing and the ‘simplicity of the [post-Vatican II] Mass’;47 he appreciated the hope that Pope John Paul II’s 1979 pastoral visit to the U.S. brought, but when he saw the reaction of the Catholic clergy, he astutely remarked, ‘after only a week of the unheard of triumph of the Pope and the Papacy, these Jesuits and nuns look and behave as if “nothing was the matter.”’48 Yet, later on, he sees that John Paul II might be ‘a dissident against our consumer society, dissident against our inhuman liberalism,’ and Mother Theresa is a ‘Saint.’49 In his published works, Schmemann does not mention Catholic liturgy often, and when he does, it is usually not in a good light: Indeed, the sad lesson of the present liturgical confusion in the West must not be lost on us. This confusion, especially in the Roman Church, is due precisely to the absence of a clear and consistent 41. Richard John Neuhaus, ‘Alexander Schmemann: A Man in Full,’ First Things 109 (2001): 57–63, at 60. 42. See Schmemann, Journals, 19, 111, 327. 43. Meyendorff, ‘A Life Worth Living,’ 154. 44. While a popular edition of the documents of Vatican II does contain a short and somewhat pessimistic response to the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches by Schmemann, I have been unable to find any other writings of Schmemann on his experience there. Walter Abbott, ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder, 1966), 387–388. For a complete list of Schmemann’s works, see Paul Garrett (compiler), ‘Fr. Alexander Schmemann: A Chronological Bibliography,’ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1984): 11–26. It is perhaps of note that this list does not contain Schmemann’s essay in the Abbott collection. 45. Schmemann, Journals, 19. 46. ‘The Catholic, even secularized, remembers. In all these gilded, sometimes tastelessly heavily decorated churches, there is a longing for paradise and there are pieces of paradise, of joy—“… and it was good …” (Genesis). And the remembrance is constantly in their culture, cities, life.’ Ibid., 125. 47. Ibid., 197. See also ibid., 40 and 87. 48. Ibid., 232. 49. Ibid., 236, 242.
CONTEMPORARY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
143
rationale for liturgical reform. It is truly sad that some fifty years of constructive work within the Liturgical Movement were simply swept away by a hasty acceptance of such principles as the famous ‘relevance,’ or ‘urgent needs of modern society,’ ‘the celebration of life,’ or ‘social justice.’ The result is a disintegration of liturgy and this in spite of some excellent ideas and a great deal of liturgical competence.50 Speaking of the relaxation of the Lenten fasting requirements in the Roman Church Schmemann opines that ‘with just and righteous indignation we denounce such an “adjustment” as a betrayal of Christian tradition and as minimizing Christian faith.’51 He considers that ‘the post-Vatican Church is now leaning towards Protestantism (denial of authority, of the concept of heresy, of objectivity).’52 Unfortunately, Schmemann saw in post-Vatican II Catholicism a certain surrender to the world. He saw a form of secularism that he objected to in some Catholics.53 He disliked the initial results of the liturgical reforms of the Vatican Council and their implementation in the United States. He also seems to have been scandalized by the emphasis on social problems and involvement on the world scene. One passage in his Journals provides us with a clear picture of his attitude towards post-Vatican II Roman Catholic liturgy and the state of Catholicism in general: The Pope of Rome is in New York. We watched him on television in Yankee Stadium. A mixed impression. On the one hand, an unquestionably good man—a man of God. But, on the other hand, there are some ‘buts’! First of all, the Mass itself. The first impression is how liturgically impoverished the Catholic Church has become. In 1965, I watched the service performed by Pope Paul VI in the same Yankee Stadium. Despite everything, it was the presence, the appearance on earth of the eternal, the ‘super earthly.’ Whereas yesterday, I had the feeling that the main thing was the ‘message.’ This message is, again and again, ‘peace and justice,’ ‘human family,’ ‘social work,’ etc. An opportunity was given, a fantastic chance to tell millions and millions of people about God, to reveal to them more than anything else they need God! But here, on the contrary, 50. Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition, 46. 51. Alexander Schmemann, Great Lent: The Journey to Pascha (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 1969), 89. After this scathing condemnation of the Roman Church and an exaltation of the ‘glory’ of Orthodoxy, which does not relax the fasting traditions, he goes on to complain that the ‘Orthodox people’ have not fasted properly for a very long time! 52. Schmemann, Journals, 153. 53. For example: ‘The speech by the university president—an old Jesuit—was all sucking up to youth … So flat; not a single call to “lift up our hearts,” to an inner struggle, to witness for Christ. Everywhere the same saccharin “love” flooding everything like sickly gravy’ (Schmemann, Journals, 334).
144
IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
the whole goal, it seemed, consisted in proving that the Church also can speak the jargon of the United Nations. All the symbols point the same way: the reading of the Scripture by some lay people with bright ties, etc. And a horrible translation: I never suspected that a translation could be a heresy: Grace – ‘abiding love’!54
An Approach to Schmemann for Contemporary Catholics Obviously Roman Catholics will not find in Schmemann an answer to all their liturgical problems.55 One area where we have learned from Schmemann is in the field of Liturgical Theology. Some of his works, particularly the collection of essays edited by Thomas Fisch, are used as a textbook in Catholic university courses in liturgy. One would hope that if future priests and liturgical ministers are exposed to his thought, then this might help the way the liturgy is celebrated on the parochial level. However, it must be admitted, the liturgical formation of future clergy often leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps part of this problem is that liturgical courses in seminaries are still all too often confused with rubricism and precisely the dry study of theology that Schmemann abhorred. Undoubtedly, he would not have been happy with the idea of his writings contributing to such study! It might, therefore, be better if future scholars were not even exposed to the ‘tame’ version of Schmemann presented in Fisch’s edition of Liturgy and Tradition or to Schmemann’s own Introduction to Liturgical Theology. Perhaps a better way for Roman Catholics to learn from Schmemann would be to listen to his criticisms; it is always helpful to have an outside perspective. Some of his criticisms are well taken. There are indeed some lingering problems with the liturgical changes that have resulted from Vatican II, including certain styles of celebration that lack an awareness of the transcendent and are overly focused on human concerns. But, at this distance, there is little that we can do about the changes themselves, and one would wonder whether Schmemann’s aversion to the revision of the liturgical rites was due to a real rejection of the possibility of change and not to a way of coping with the fact that such revisions were practically impossible in the Byzantine Rite. On a pragmatic level it would be folly to deny that the vast majority of Catholics are happier with the liturgy as it is celebrated now as opposed to 40 years ago, and that it would be impossible to ‘go back.’ Also, even if there is always both room and indeed a certain need for further reform, it 54. Ibid., 229–230. 55. On the dangers of Western Christians looking for the solutions to all their liturgical problems in the ‘unadulterated traditions’ of the East, see Robert Taft, ‘Eastern Presuppositions and Western Liturgical Renewal,’ Antiphon 5 (2000): 10–22.
CONTEMPORARY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
145
is undeniable that these new rites as a whole are far superior to their immediate predecessors.56 Some tinkering could be done in areas like translation quality and in those places where some liturgical abuses have established themselves in the immediate aftermath of the Council. It must, however, be said that over the years many of these abuses have already been corrected and recent documents and initiatives from the Congregation for Divine Worship aim at fostering such correction and encouraging new translations. Therefore today it can be taken as a given that it would not be advisable to perform any new major renewal of the liturgical texts; rather it is time for a deepening and exegesis of the liturgical rites themselves.57 This current need for stability and deepening of liturgical traditions among Roman Catholics could imply that today the Roman Catholic Church is perhaps in a much better position to appreciate the genius of Schmemann, given that we find ourselves in a situation where further ritual renewal is not possible and, therefore, somewhat analogous to the liturgical situation which Schmemann’s primary Byzantine audience faced during his lifetime. We now possess newly revised liturgical texts, prepared in the wake of Vatican II; but as yet many members of the Church still need to interiorize these texts and make them their own.58 While he deals with the Byzantine Rite, many of Schmemann’s observations are directly applicable to the current Roman Rite. Therefore I would propose that any Roman Catholic student of liturgy, and liturgical ministers in particular, would be well advised to read a selection of Schmemann’s more pastoral books. A good reading plan would be to start with For the Life of the World, which is perhaps the best English language introduction to the world-view of Eastern Christianity. Then one would be well advised to read The Eucharist and Of Water and the Spirit for a grounding in Schmemann’s view of the Sacraments. Finally I would recommend that the student read Great Lent and Schmemann’s Journals for an excellent view of liturgy and time and the Church year. I fully realize that recommending that priests, in particular, take time to read five books on an aspect of liturgical ministry is somewhat idealistic. However, I believe that, unless the Roman Catholic Church take her liturgy very seriously, the Church will suffer greatly over the next few years as it will be unable to adequately face the challenges of the Third Millennium where outdated forms of piety are no longer sufficient to nourish the People of God. 56. For more on the possibilities of future reforms, see Adrien Nocent, A Rereading of the Renewed Liturgy, trans. Mary M. Misrahi (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1994). 57. For an analysis of the current state of the liturgical reform, see the chapter entitled ‘The Catholicity of the Liturgy: Shaping a New,’ in M. Francis Mannion, Masterworks of God: Essays in Liturgical Theory and Practice (Chicago, IL: Hillenbrand Books, 2004). For a recent example of a Western author performing such an exegesis, see Kevin W. Irwin, Models of the Eucharist (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2005). 58. Mannion, ‘The Catholicity of the Liturgy,’ 213–220.
146
IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
This could help induct these students into true Liturgical Theology as seen by Schmemann, whereby Christians are brought into the light of Christ and discover the joy of Christ. This is what Schmemann proposes to do in his liturgical works. The main lesson that Roman Catholics can learn from Schmemann is to discover the ‘brightness’ of the liturgy. This is particularly visible in the recently published Journals of Schmemann. What is striking in Schmemann’s works is his constant reference to ‘brightness,’ ‘golden light,’ ‘wonderful detached light,’ ‘very special light,’ and ‘joy.’ Liturgy raises Schmemann to a higher plane where he can touch the gladsome light. In his Journals when he is sad or depressed he finds in the liturgy a cause to rejoice; his written works that deal with specific liturgies or liturgical seasons always start and finish with ‘brightness’; and his specific project for ‘Liturgical Theology’ is precisely to find in the liturgical celebration the source of joy and not some academic knowledge. I believe that Schmemann was incorrect in adopting an ‘either–or’ approach to exterior or interior reform. However, many Catholic pastors were misguided in the post-Vatican II period when they over-emphasized the exterior reforms and often neglected the devotion and active participation that these reforms were meant to accomplish. Even today, 40 years after the Council, unfortunately, all too often, Catholics are not immersed in their liturgical traditions. At this juncture in the life of the Catholic Church a rereading of Sacrosanctum concilium would be greatly recommended.59 Unfortunately there is little apparent awe in many Catholic liturgical celebrations and ‘professional liturgists’ oftentimes emphasize the earthly and exterior elements of the rite almost ignoring the liturgy’s true center of interior conversion and encounter with the Risen Christ. The time has come for Catholics to concentrate on the interior dimension of the liturgy. While many people are looking for various pastoral programs and plans, in fact they are neglecting the treasure that they already possess. Christ is the only solution to the problems of man, and, as Leo the Great reminds us, today the place Christians find Christ is in the liturgical celebration.60 This reorientation of Catholics’ theology is precisely where Schmemann can help as it is only through a true assimilation of the liturgy that we can realize that: The early Christians realized that in order to become the temple of the Holy Spirit they must ascend to heaven where Christ has ascended. They realized also that this ascension was the very condition of their 59. As an aid in this re-reading and as a help to seeing the aims and background of Sacrosanctum concilium, I would recommend Rita Ferrone, Rediscovering Vatican II, Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2007). 60. ‘Quod itaque Redemptoris nostri conspicuum fuit, in sacramenta transivit (that which was visible in our Redeemer has passed over into the liturgy),’ (Leo the Great, Sermo 74 [De ascens. 2] in J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latin [Paris, 1844–1864] vol. 54, 398).
CONTEMPORARY ROMAN CATHOLICISM
147
ministry to the world. For there—in heaven—they were immersed in the new life of the Kingdom; and when, after this ‘liturgy of the ascension,’ they returned into the world their faces reflected the light, the ‘joy and peace’ of that Kingdom and they were truly its witnesses. They brought no programs and no theories; but wherever they went, the seeds of the Kingdom sprouted, faith was kindled, life was transfigured, things impossible were made possible. They were witnesses, and when they were asked, ‘Whence shines this light, where is the source of this power?’ they knew what to answer and where to lead men. In church today, we so often find we meet only the same old world, not Christ and His Kingdom. We do not realize that we never get anywhere because we never leave any place behind us.61 NEIL XAVIER O’DONOGHUE is a priest of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, where he currently serves as prefect of studies at Redemptoris Mater Seminary and as an adjunct faculty member of Seton Hall University. He has studied at Seton Hall University, the University of Notre Dame, and St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. He holds a Doctorate in Theology from St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, Ireland. Address: Redemptoris Mater Seminary, 672 Passaic Ave., Kearny, NJ 07032, USA.
[email protected]
61. Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 28.
