Father Alexander Schmemann

[Rick of Wessex]

Dear friends,

This rant (if it can be termed such) was motivated by some comments I've read about Fr. Schmemman (of eternal memory).

To be more specific, why is he so criticized among some conservative Orthodox (I'll avoid the term "traditionalist" because of its association with schismatics)?

I've heard (or read) people saying that he "was Protestant-minded", that he "wanted to reform the Church", that he was a "modernist" and that he "lived Orthodoxy with his mind not his heart".

To tell you the truth, all of this makes me sad. After having read all of his books but two, I can certainly say that either his critics have completely misunderstood his point of view or they are speaking out of sheer malice.


In many of his books and articles, Fr. Schmemann always made himself clear that what he advocated was a better understanding of the liturgy and especially the Eucharist - he never wanted to reform anything in the Church!

"The crisis which I try to analyze is the crisisnot of liturgy, but of its understanding", he wrote regarding his comments about the "liturgical crisis" in the Church.

And besides, anyone who has ever read his magnun opus The Eucharist can see a man who loved the Eucharist, who lived it as the Sacrament of the Church.How can such a man be considered a modernist?

I want to apologize for this rant, but I really needed to let it out. Comments and criticism are welcome.

In XC,
Rick of Wessex

 

[ufonium2]

I feel pretty ill-equipped to answer this right now, as I haven't read anything of his in a few years, and don't have access to anything to cite right now. But I don't want this thread to die of neglect, so here goes:

The Eucharist was the first Orthodox book I ever read. I've read a lot of his other stuff since, and I believe the last thing I read was For the Life of the World. It was the appendix to that book that rubbed me the wrong way. I don't want to throw out mis-remembered quotes, but I can summarize the general feeling I got. He seemed to be calling for a return to an older, more pure form of Orthodox worship, and the implications of that bothered me. I've always thought of the Church as a continuum, and I can't reconcile that with the idea that our modern worship is less right, or our recent saints less holy, because we encountered the West a few hundred years ago. It also seems to treat the Church as a museum piece, rather than a dynamic body of human beings.

I could be mixing Fr. Schmemann's thoughts with those of his followers, and I think that's another big issue here. Seraphim Rose wrote about Fr. Schmemann that iconoclastic ideas about liturgy, while not actually advanced by Fr. Schmemann, would be carried out in his name later on. And I think that has happened in some places. But I guess you can't blame Fr. Schmemann for that, any more than you can blame Vatican II for all the craziness that has gone on "in the spirit of Vatican II."

Does that make sense? I tend to ramble late at night when I'm simultaneously trying to trick an infant into sleeping.

 

[choirfiend]

Also, I find it helpful to remember that there were abuses in his part of the Church at the time he wrote, and he was a large part of ending those abuses--such as infrequent communion, which was the largest result of a great misunderstanding of the Liturgy by the people. This was not a worldwide Orthodoxy problem--and as such, was something foreign to the Orthodox continuum that was in need of correction. Living in the Orthodox world he was instrumental in shaping, it can be hard to imagine the context for which he was writing.

 

[buzuxi02]

Almost all of what are considered "great Orthodox theologians" of America are considered lightweights by many in traditional Orthodox countries. A few years back a russian seminary burned books by Schmemman and another american Orthodox theologian.

It is not their piety, but western mindsets which irks many.

George Florovsky had Meyendorff and Schmemman in mind when he spoke of the "western captivity" of modern Orthodox circles.

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

Dear friends,

This rant (if it can be termed such) was motivated by some comments I've read about Fr. Schmemman (of eternal memory).

To be more specific, why is he so criticized among some conservative Orthodox (I'll avoid the term "traditionalist" because of its association with schismatics)?

I've heard (or read) people saying that he "was Protestant-minded", that he "wanted to reform the Church", that he was a "modernist" and that he "lived Orthodoxy with his mind not his heart".

To tell you the truth, all of this makes me sad. After having read all of his books but two, I can certainly say that either his critics have completely misunderstood his point of view or they are speaking out of sheer malice.


In many of his books and articles, Fr. Schmemann always made himself clear that what he advocated was a better understanding of the liturgy and especially the Eucharist - he never wanted to reform anything in the Church!

"The crisis which I try to analyze is the crisisnot of liturgy, but of its understanding", he wrote regarding his comments about the "liturgical crisis" in the Church.

And besides, anyone who has ever read his magnun opus The Eucharist can see a man who loved the Eucharist, who lived it as the Sacrament of the Church.How can such a man be considered a modernist?

I want to apologize for this rant, but I really needed to let it out. Comments and criticism are welcome.

In XC,
Rick of Wessex

Because "modernist" is the most strong curse used by Orthodox people appropriately and not. Unfortunately the very call "to think some problem over" is interpreted frequently as a malicious modernism. Issues, he had touched upon in his books are actual. It is not clear what we have to do to change the situation that is very complicated, for the better.

 

[Emmanuel-A]

Also, I find it helpful to remember that there were abuses in his part of the Church at the time he wrote

You're right to remind us of that, Choirfiend.

I discussed the topic with V.Lossky's daughter the other day and told her of a certain number of critics of Fr.Schmemann's work on the Eucharist.
She hapened to have known him well and answered : "but Emmanuel, his works were not written for people like you with a western background, but rather for Russians who at that time were much too pointlessly ritualist".

 

[Padraig]

Dear friends,

This rant (if it can be termed such) was motivated by some comments I've read about Fr. Schmemman (of eternal memory).

To be more specific, why is he so criticized among some conservative Orthodox (I'll avoid the term "traditionalist" because of its association with schismatics)?

I've heard (or read) people saying that he "was Protestant-minded", that he "wanted to reform the Church", that he was a "modernist" and that he "lived Orthodoxy with his mind not his heart".

To tell you the truth, all of this makes me sad. After having read all of his books but two, I can certainly say that either his critics have completely misunderstood his point of view or they are speaking out of sheer malice.


In many of his books and articles, Fr. Schmemann always made himself clear that what he advocated was a better understanding of the liturgy and especially the Eucharist - he never wanted to reform anything in the Church!

"The crisis which I try to analyze is the crisisnot of liturgy, but of its understanding", he wrote regarding his comments about the "liturgical crisis" in the Church.

And besides, anyone who has ever read his magnun opus The Eucharist can see a man who loved the Eucharist, who lived it as the Sacrament of the Church.How can such a man be considered a modernist?

I want to apologize for this rant, but I really needed to let it out. Comments and criticism are welcome.

In XC,
Rick of Wessex

Rick,
I've spent the better part of the last 2 years studying the life and thought of Fr Alexander. I've been blessed to interview people that worked with him, I've come into possession of about 50+ hours of recorded audio (including a semester's worth of of liturgical theology classes that were taped), and have been privileged to pray at his grave. There are many who will consider him wrong in many respects because they read somewhere that he said something they disagree with.

Someone posted that he wanted to return to a more pure form of worship. This is a bit simplistic. Fr Alexander did not teach reductionism. He did teach, however, that people in the Church had lost the true meaning of the Eucharist as the assembly of the Church. Too often pietistic Orthodox are concerned with the individual aspects of partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. Fr Alexander called us to remember that this partaking is the very manifestation of the Body of Christ as the Body of Christ. It had come to be seen as an act of personal piety rather than - and as opposed to - the sacramental realization of the mystical Body.

Much of what you read, and hear, in Orthodox theologians today has been influenced by Fr Alexander. For example, the communal aspects of the Liturgy are remembered, the frequent reception of Communion - as Choirfiend mentioned, and the importance of being Orthodox as opposed to acting Orthodox. Those who would disagree with Fr Alexander out of hand don't fully appreciate the impact he had on those around him, nor do they fully comprehend what he taught. The corpus of his work (books, articles, lectures, and so on) has to be taken in for a better understanding of his worldview.

As I said, I've been blessed to have gained insight through my study that most are unable to get. My work is still ongoing, and will hopefully, God willing, be published in some form. There's still a couple of years worth of research that I have to do. Thank you for posting this. It is, for me, a reminder that the work I'm doing is still needed desperately.

In peace,
Dn Kevin

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Almost all of what are considered "great Orthodox theologians" of America are considered lightweights by many in traditional Orthodox countries. A few years back a russian seminary burned books by Schmemman and another american Orthodox theologian.

It is not their piety, but western mindsets which irks many.

George Florovsky had Meyendorff and Schmemman in mind when he spoke of the "western captivity" of modern Orthodox circles.

Is that one reason Florovsky left St. Vladimir's? I haven't gotten to this part in Schmemann's JOURNALS, but the Foreword by Serge Schmemann says "He writes of the tragic clashes with Father Georges Florovsky...." Meyendorff's Afterword says "Conflicts of temperament and style are at the bottom of the regrettable resignation of Father Florovsky (1955), who by the mere prestige of his personality had placed St. Vladimir's on the academic and theological map of the country."

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

You're right to remind us of that, Choirfiend.

I discussed the topic with V.Lossky's daughter the other day and told her of a certain number of critics of Fr.Schmemann's work on the Eucharist.
She hapened to have known him well and answered : "but Emmanuel, his works were not written for people like you with a western background, but rather for Russians who at that time were much too pointlessly ritualist".

That"s the very point, and his works are still actual for Russia. "The village Orthodoxy" has enough wrongs of its own.

 

[Eusebios]

I too fail to understand such harsh criticism of a man who so obviously loved Christ and His Church. I hear similar criticism leveled at His Grace KALLISTOS as well, and again, I fail to understand.
Just my 2 cents worth,
Eusebios

 

[DavidBryan]

Almost all of what are considered "great Orthodox theologians" of America are considered lightweights by many in traditional Orthodox countries. A few years back a russian seminary burned books by Schmemman and another american Orthodox theologian.

Do you have a link for this?

George Florovsky had Meyendorff and Schmemman in mind when he spoke of the "western captivity" of modern Orthodox circles.

Haven't read this -- what specifically did he object to?

Personally--Fr. Alexander (of blessed memory) has shaped my understanding of Orthodoxy (not to mention fascilitated my conversion) more than anyone else, for better or for worse. The ritual, the sacraments, the theology--all must be shot through with the meaning behind it, the meaning and significance of the gospel, otherwise it is a clanging gong and ultimately powerless and pointless. Fear of ascribing meaning to what we do, fidelity to a tradition for the sake of tradition, without being mindful of what it means, is dangerous.

I thank God for Fr. Alexander. His journals are always on my nightstand and get read and re-read often; can't remember the last time they were actually on the bookcase...

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, everyone!

Thank you all for your comments and posts.

Just like David, Fr. Schmemann's books were essential in helping me getting an Orthodox mindset.

Not to mention that I fully agree to his (Fr. Schmemann's) idea that we must understand the theology of the Liturgy and of the Sacraments. And besides, IMHO, worshipping without grasping the real meaning of what's going on is pointless, nothing more than those "vain repetitions" that the Lord warned us about.

In XC,
Rick

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

A few years back a russian seminary burned books by Schmemman and another american Orthodox theologian.

I've too heard about this shameful history.

It is not their piety, but western mindsets which irks many.

George Florovsky had Meyendorff and Schmemman in mind when he spoke of the "western captivity" of modern Orthodox circles.

As for Fr. George Florovsky's phrase, it is entirely misinterpreted. This statement characterizes the Russian Theology during the so called Synodal period of the history of Russian Church (1721-1917). In this time all the system of the church education was built as an imitation of the Roman Catholic one, with the scholastic style of teaching and of thought (on Latin till the 30-ies of the XIX century). Seminaries were shaped in the likeness of Jesuit colleges. All textbooks were based on the corresponding Roman Catholic or Protestant courses. The invaluable heritage of great Byzantine theologians and ascetics was half-forgotten till the beginning of the XIX century. During the XIX c. Russian Theology was getting free slowly from the "western captivity", but too slowly, may be. At any rate Orthodox circles are much freer from this captivity today than 150 years ago. Ascetic tradition, not the Theology saved Orthodoxy in Russia.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
In fact Fr Alexander was among those who have contributed much in the struggle against scholasticism.

 

[rusmeister]

I'll say just one thing - read Fr Alexander's last journal entry. THAT, my friends, is how I want to die.
I'd say there was something right in that.

 

[DavidBryan]

Amen to that, rus.

 

[jckstraw72]

i think the whole claim about western captivity is what some did not like about Fr. Schmemann. from what i understand it seemed to some that he bought in to the idea that once Constantine hit the scene things went down the crapper.

Here's an article that criticizes his book Introduction to Liturgical Theology: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx

Here is a quote from a letter by Fr. Seraphim Rose included in The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church -- concerning modern Orthodox who slander Augustine he says: "Is there any way that [they] can be persuaded to be less reckless? There seems to be no one from the "Russians" for whom they have any respect, -- everyone is under "Western influence." (This is Schmemanism!!)"

agree or not, thats why some didnt like his theology as far as i can tell

 

[choirfiend]

Some things did go down the crapper. Hellooooooooo!

Fr. Alexander's last sermon, delivered shortly before he died, is calligraphied and hanging on many priests' office walls. He was an amazing man.

 

[jckstraw72]

Some things did go down the crapper. Hellooooooooo!

si si. i just did my independent study on why reception of the Eucharist became infrequent and i quoted Fr. Schmemann's The Eucharist several times. I have not yet read the whole thing but from what I've read I like most of it. Some of his points I found to be weaker than others but I think he has valid points, but at the same time the general feeling I get is -- well this went wrong and this and this and this and here they added this and lost this -- and then at the end of each section he says "oh, but the meaning wasnt aaaall lost." I've been surprised when ppl have suggested this book to inquirers bc its basically an exposition on why the Orthodox Church has lost the original meaning of the Eucharist -- and i believe one inquirer even had a thread about that.

Certainly things changed after Constantine, but those who disagree with Fr. Schmemann tend to view it as God's grace allowing the Church to settle down and take on new elements, such as icons, the sacralization of the Church building, symbolic meanings of parts of the Liturgy, etc whereas Fr. Schmemann tended to see these things as negative embellishments. Therein lies the crux of the argument i think.

Some people see western captivity in Russia leading up to the Communist revolution, while ppl like St. John Maximovitch and Fr. Seraphim Rose tended to see it as western categories that didn't actually strike at the heart of Orthodoxy. Just as some ppl call the Fathers Platonists bc they sometimes wrote in Platonic terms and used Platonic categories -- but it didnt infest the Christian heart of the faith.

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

si si. i just did my independent study on why reception of the Eucharist became infrequent and i quoted Fr. Schmemann's The Eucharist several times. I have not yet read the whole thing but from what I've read I like most of it. Some of his points I found to be weaker than others but I think he has valid points, but at the same time the general feeling I get is -- well this went wrong and this and this and this and here they added this and lost this -- and then at the end of each section he says "oh, but the meaning wasnt aaaall lost." I've been surprised when ppl have suggested this book to inquirers bc its basically an exposition on why the Orthodox Church has lost the original meaning of the Eucharist -- and i believe one inquirer even had a thread about that.

Certainly things changed after Constantine, but those who disagree with Fr. Schmemann tend to view it as God's grace allowing the Church to settle down and take on new elements, such as icons, the sacralization of the Church building, symbolic meanings of parts of the Liturgy, etc whereas Fr. Schmemann tended to see these things as negative embellishments. Therein lies the crux of the argument i think.

Some people see western captivity in Russia leading up to the Communist revolution, while ppl like St. John Maximovitch and Fr. Seraphim Rose tended to see it as western categories that didn't actually strike at the heart of Orthodoxy. Just as some ppl call the Fathers Platonists bc they sometimes wrote in Platonic terms and used Platonic categories -- but it didnt infest the Christian heart of the faith.

I was telling only about the precise meaning of the words said by Fr George Florovsky, within the context they have been said. To understand better what Fr Alexander was telling about, you need to know quite well issues of the parish life in the modern Russia, which became only more complicated after the fall of the Communist dictatorship. This life, as far as I can see by your posts here, markedly differs from the life of Orthodox parishes in the US. I agree, sometimes Fr Alexander in his polemics goes too far, but may be, this was necessary in order to see things from the new point.

 

[Orthocat]

My goodness, it all comes down to pride and sin. We have reduced truth to relativity in this time and people now feel free to blast whoever says one little thing they don't agree with, without looking at the culture and society it was written for.

St John Maximovitch of Shanghai and SF - he has been blasted in books for some kind of money issue under his jurisdiction.

Blessed Fr Seraphim Rose - oy, he has been called a gnostic and a heretic and who knows what all.

Look at the Bishop Markides speaks of in his second Athos book - this holy man endured slanderous accusations of sexual impropiety which he would not even respond to. (His accusers ended up being exposed and excommunicated).

There were many saints that were blasted by other "religious" persons for having ideas that did not suit them, and they either flamed their ideas or made up slanderous things about them attempting to discredit them.

That's the way of the world.
That's the way of fallen man.
That's the way of pride.
That's the way of sin.