In addition to my interests and work as an academic theologian/philosopher I am a slavophile and take great interest in the history and liturgics of the Eastern Church.
Of particular interest to me are a group in Russia and the diaspora known as the 'Old Believers' (though Old Ritualists is a better translation of Starovertsy). This sizeable group split from the Patriarchal Russian Church in the 1650's on account of their refusal to reform the liturgy.
The then Patriarch Nikon was concerned to rectify what he saw as errors in the Russian Liturgical books and to conform to Greek practise. Many of the reforms seem to the modern reader somewhat minor including variations on making the sign of the cross, a small change in the spelling of Jesus (from Isus to Iesus), the addition of an extra Alleluia in the antiphons from 2 to 3, and so on.
However resistance to these changes in a mostly illiterate age were enormous, and similarly the persecutions suffered by the Old Believers was extraordinarily brutal. A postscript to this schism was the realisation some 100 or so years later that the Greek texts that Nikon wished to conform to, were in fact reforms, and the pre-reform liturgy of Russia was perhaps more 'ancient' than at first thought.
The Old Believers spread to the far corners of Russia and maintained their traditional ways. 2 groups emerged. The Popovtsy (Priestly) and Bezpopovtsy (Priestless), depending on the availability of clergy. It is interesting to note that the Priestless Old Believers (who still exist) did not deny the sacraments, and rather than following a protestant direction they merely suspended the sacraments (with the exception of Baptism and Marriage of course). The priestly sects were maintained at first by 'rebel' priests but by the 1820's they had obtained a seemingly legitimate episcopate and thus secured the priesthood.
Anyway you may be wondering what this all about.
Well I have come across on a ROCOR website a translation of a liturgy called the Divine Liturgy of St Peter the Apostle which was practised up until the 1960's by an exiled Cossack community of Old Believers in Turkey. The liturgy which was in Old Church Slavonic was almost certainly Western Rite, and the Eucharistic Canon is obviously Roman. Theories abound that the liturgy was practised by the Italo-Greeks and then found its way to Mount Athos (where some copies of the old Missals exist) and it is claimed there are those who still remember the liturgy being practised. Obviously it is Byzantised enormously. But I thought it provided interesting speculative evidence of our Roman Rite being trans-patriarchal.
A second postscript note to all this. I read with some pleasure Pope Benedicts book 'Jesus' and his references to the Russian theologian Vladimir Soloviev. This remarkable man helped to reinvigorate the Byzantine Catholic Church in Russia. His central thesis was that Russia never assented to schism, and that following the Council of Florence (1400's) where unification East and West was briefly achieved he noted that no official renunciation of the union took place in Russia.
Further to all this there was evidence, documented by Soloviev, that in European Russia there existed from the 1400's groups (sometimes isolated from Rome) of Satrokatolicii (Old Catholics) who faithfully preserved as best they could union with Rome. It is quite probable that some of these groups (who would have found common cause with the Old Believers) practised the Liturgy of St Peter.
A third and final postscript! In 1905 3 priests from the Russian Orthodox Church, 2 from the reformed rite and one Old Rite were formally received into communion with Rome, and in St Petersburg they founded the modern day Byzantine Russian Catholic Church. They practised both the reformed and the old Liturgy.
Saturday, 19 January 2008
Roman rite trans-patriarchal?
Andrew Taylor recently wrote to me via Facebook about a most interesting discovery of the Divine Liturgy of St Peter. I'll leave him to tell the story rather than spoil it or get things wrong...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
A timely post indeed !
Thank you Father, and Andrew Taylor for his erudite history.
One tiny question : Was Moscow in communion with Constantinople at the time of The Council of Florence ?
Can I answer my own question ?
I'm no expert on Eastern Orthodoxy.
Perhaps Andrew Taylor could kindly correct me.
From what I have been able to establish, the Russian Orthodox Church never accepted the Byzantine concessions at the Council of Florence in 1439.
In 1448, Moscow replace Kiev as the Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church became independent of Constantinople (which fell to the Turk in 1453).
(Is it from this date that Moscow became known as the "Third Rome"?)
In 1452, Russia refused to promulgate the agreement made at the Council of Florence.
Isidore, Metropolitan of Kiev, who ironically had been sent to Florence specifically to negotiate with Rome, was expelled as an apostate. He eventually escaped to Rome.
Thereafter, the Russian Orthodox Church maintained its independence, and looked with suspicion on both Rome and Constaninople.
Interesting. A similar thing existed until the 1960s in Croatia, where the Roman Liturgy was celebrated in Old Church Slavonic. This was the Missa Glagolitica—Janacek famously set it to rather dramatic music.
At the time of the Council of Florence (1439) the Church in Russia was not fully independent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (not achieving autocephalous status until 1448, and Patriarchal in 1589). So Moscow was in full communion with Constantinople.
Russia was represented at the council by Metropolitan Isildore of Kiev (the first primatial city of Russia and now the Ukraine) and several other clergy. He signed the agreement of reunification along with the other Russian bishops present and they formally decreed reunion. On their return it is said that most of their territories recieved the news warmly (as opposed to the more hostile response in Constantinople). Metropolitan Isildore and his retinue arrived back in Moscow on March 19th 1441, celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the Church of the Ascension then promulgated the union before Tsar Basil II and his court.
Tsar Basil, wholly xenophobic and reluctant to lose control over the Russian Church, four days later arrested Isildore (though it is said he also aided his escape to the West) appointed Metropolitan Jonah to his place and refused to uphold the union. Hence the catacomb nature of the Starokatolicii who preserved the union in private.
On a historical aside, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople who also signed the act of union at the Council of Florence, died two days later. Subsequently the Greeks in control of the church 'locum tenens' insisted that the act could only be ratified by a Synod of the Eastern Church. As already noted many of the populace were hostile to reunion and the acts were never ratified.
Regarding the continous union between Russia and Rome, Soloviev argued that the post-florentine split (much like the earlier schism) was de facto and was never a formal breach. Therefore he held that one could profess the totality of Catholic doctrine and be in communion with the Holy See while continuing to be Russian Orthodox.
A view that was reinforced by Pope St Pius X in an audience with Madamoiselle Ushakova a plenipotentiary on behalf of the Russian Catholic Church, who asked the Holy Father whether they should continue with their traditional liturgical practises or adopt more "latinzed" Galician forms. St Pius responded "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter" (no more, no less, no different). This principle continues to be observed by the Russian Catholic communities today.
The philosophy of the "Third Rome" was developed following the fall of Constantinople in 1453.It had religious and political connotations. And didnt crystallize until 1510 when a Monk Philoteus wrote a letter to Grand Duke Vasillii III saying: "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will not be a fourth. No one will replace your Christian Tsardom!"
Metropolitan Isidore had been appointed by Constantinople, and was accepted by the Russian Church, although Jonah had been their first choice. He became very popular rather quickly. When eventually Isidore was arrested for apostasy, a percieved betrayal of Basil to whom he had promised to maintain 'true' Orthodoxy, following his escape Jonah was chosen once more by the Russian prelates, however this time and thereafter they refused to send him to Constantinople for consecration.
An interesting note, Isidore's support for union was opposed only by secular ambassadors at the Council of Florence, never by the clergy. It was only on his return, following demands from Basil that six bishops deposed him. Accounts differ as to what extent episcopal hostility was genuine, for the intent for reunion at the Council of Florence was widely known. But the political fallout of the union was the greatest factor in its swift cessation.
Solovyev argued that no formal refutation occured, and indeed it would appear that following Isidores reading of the act of union there was never an official act of renunciation by the Church (even though opposition can be implied). The interference of Basil prevented the union from being practically realised.
However it is claimed that in Kiev the union was practised for a hundred years. By 1596 the union of Florence was reaffirmed by the Metropolitan of Kiev, leading to the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church.
In between Florence, Brest and since small and unorganised groups of starokatoliki persisted and maintained union with Rome, culminating in the modern Russian Catholic Church.
Andrew
I used to be a seminarian at Mt. Angel Seminary and they had a large community of Russians along with the Old Believers. They still retain their distinctive garb and remain an isolated group. I'm not sure if they were of the priest/priestless group, but there a monk of Mt. Angel that ministered to them.
He was not a priest, but was given the OK from Rome, as I understand it to have been since the Old Believers are not technically in schism with the Church of Rome.
I'm sorry if I am not more accurate in my knowledge of the community.
Many thanks to Andrew Taylor for his most helpful clarification.
I not sure I am quite convinced by Sovoliev's thesis on continuing union with Rome.
I have to wonder to what extent his thesis is influenced by his wider philosophy of Sobornost.
It is said he died formally reconciled to Rome, but I don't know if this is true !
Fr. Justin's comment prompts me to go and read up on the old Roman liturgy in Croatia.
It is strange to think of the Roman liturgy being celebrated in Old Slavonic.
I expect the history of the Balkans since the fall of the Byzantine Empire has suitably muddied the waters !
Solovievs thesis is 'interesting' to say the least. It is most strongly posited by Russian Catholics of the Byzantine Rite, and those few Orthodox who are not ambivalent towards Rome, the late Fr Aleksandr Men being a prominent example.
I think the validity of Solovievs thesis that seperation was never formalized depends wholly on one's 'political persuasion'. For example I think the Holy Father would support the thesis on the grounds that it presents fewer obstacles to unity - or at least colours these obstacles as easily overcome. Similarly those who lean towards communion with Rome would also fervently accept it. But undeniably there are those who could brook no part of it.
The details of Soloviev's dying in communion with Rome are unfortunately unclear. Both 'sides' claim him for themselves. Some of his close friends who were received in communion with Rome claimed that he never repudiated his views on unity - (sounds rather like a self-fulfilling philosophy!).
He is on record as saying that he remained Russian Orthodox - but in the light of his theory this is ambiguous - for you could be both Orthodox and in communion with Rome.
Father Aleksandr Men used the analogy of two lungs (East-West) in the Body of Christ (the Church). And is an example of a more recent ecumenical tendency within the Russian Church. And well worth the interested lay-man following up.
I think Solovievs theory is strongly connected to his wider Sobornost thesis.
I didn't know about the Balkan 'Roman' liturgy and I will be interested to follow this up!
Thankyou Simon also for your comments - some Old Believer communities are in communion with Rome - in support of Solovievs ideas. Other communities are not. I would think the one you are reffering to are a Popovtsy (priestly) community - as they have a stronger urge towards Rome being fully sacramental. Although some priestless communities have been known to change when a suitable minister could be found.
Andrew
Hello Father and the various corresspondents,
I cannot say anything about the Russian church situation, but I can to the Croatian. In my monastery there are several croatians and one of whom is a liturgist. He told me that Croatian was the only language apart from latin which was legally used before Vat. II, for all the sacraments and the Holy Mass. In Croatia they are very proud of the fact and old croatian language missals, from Pius V uptil Johannes XXIII are easily attainable.
But that was not in all of modern Croatia. In Dalmatia, that is the islands of the Adriatic and the coastal areas of the modern country of Croatia. Here the Liturgy was in old Croatian, similar to Church Slavonic, and since the tenth century, as this area had been part of the Byzantine Empire and under the "protection" of the Eastern Emporer until the Venetian conquests, but had always used the Western Latin Rite.
Modern central and eastern Croatia, that is including the capital Zagreb, used the latin rite in the Latin language. for more info I would have to ask my brother. Hope it was interesting?
Many thanks to (Prof. Dr. Mr.?) Alan Taylor and to Frater Raphael for their deeply fascinating postscripts.
Goodness, there is always so much to learn !
It is a great pleasure to read the opinion of learned men.
I find the existence of Missals in old Croation most interesting. I must go and read more about it !
Post a Comment