The attacks on the “Parisians” were very vociferous, though from a very small,vocal minority within Orthodoxy. Because those critics almost always couched the criticism as a championing of “tradition,” it became somewhat popular among those who wanted to prove their traditionalist credentials. However, I find very little accurate understanding of Schmemann’s work among his critics, and I find even less that I would critique. I’ve been criticized because I’m a convert, with the notion that growing up Orthodox with very little education and training somehow makes you a better theologian than someone who has done lots of training, reflection, repentance and careful writing (submitting it for judgment and correction). I’ve got my limitations, no doubt. I try to write within those limitations.

Sometimes Schmemann is used as a cypher for a “modernizing” trend found among a few American priests. Most of this should not be laid at his door, but simply at some varying culture differences between OCA and ROCOR. Originally, the OCA was not made up of Great Russians fleeing the revolution. It was largely Little Russians (Carpatho, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, etc.) with a large number of converts from the Unia. ROCOR was Great Russian, made up (originally) of exiles, who came first to Western Europe, then America. For a while the two groups were one – with a split occurring in the 50′s (I think it was). Schmemann thus was always dealing with a group (OCA) that was far more Americanized, having been in America for a couple of generations longer (though Schmemann himself was Russian born in Estonia). The questions that dogged the OCA for a long while had to do with the pressures of dealing with congregations that were quickly becoming Americanized (such that clinging to the old world was a losing proposition). ROCOR tended to cling strongly to its Russian identity, but had a very different complexion.

Much of this is evening out with time. The OCA is over half convert now, so it has no old world identity driving it, other than slavophile wannabe’s like me and my ilk. I’ve always loved Russia, and the Russian flavor of Orthodoxy. ROCOR is now reconciled with Moscow so it’s own need to preserve all things Russian is not quite so critical (I would suspect). Both Churches have many members who are new to all this and far more in common than otherwise. Theological education is also become much broader and deeper so that the polemics of earlier decades is lessening. Nonetheless, the critiques are still out on the web. The anti-Schmemann stuff is, frankly, dated.

I think he is quite solid, when read with understanding. I hope this little vignette of American Orthodoxy is accurate enough and useful, and not so problematic as to cause difficulties for readers – who cross all the jurisdictions.

“In the broadest terms this change may be defined as follows. The ‘emphasis’ in the cult of saints shifted from the sacramentally eschatological to the sanctifying and intercessory meaning of veneration of the saints. The remains of the saint, and later even articles belonging to him or having once touched his body, came to be regarded as sacred objects having the effect of communicating their power to those who touched them… The early Church treated the relics of the martyrs with great honor — ‘But there is no indication,’ writes Fr. Delahaye, ‘that any special power was ascribed to relics in this era, or that any special, supernatural result was expected by touching them! Toward the end of the fourth century, however, there is ample evidence to show that in the eyes of believers some special power flowed from the relics themselves’ (quoted from Fr. Delahaye’s book). This new faith helps to explain such facts of the new era as the invention of relics, their division into pieces, and their transfer or translation, as well as the whole development of the veneration of ‘secondary holy objects’ — objects which have touched relics and become in turn themselves sources of sanctifying power

…

The original Christocentric significance of the veneration of saints was altered in this intercessory concept. In the early tradition the martyr or saint was first and foremost a witness to the new life and therefore an image of Christ.” The reading of the Acts of the Martyrs in the early Church had as its purpose “to show the presence and action of Christ in the martyr, i.e., the presence in him of the ‘new life.’ It was not meant to ‘glorify’ the saint himself… But in the new intercessory view of the saint the center of gravity shifted. The saint is now an intercessor and a helper… The honoring of saints fell into the category of a Feast Day,” with the purpose of “the communication to the faithful of the sacred power of a particular saint, his special grace… The saint is present and as it were manifested in his relics or icon, and the meaning of his holy day lies in acquiring sanctification (?) by means of praising him or coming into contact with him, which is, as we know, the main element in mysteriological piety.”

This sounds remarkably like the Reformed Christians I argue with. They are especially fond of belittling icons and ridiculing relics by likening them to animistic totems or other primitive religious devices.

Nonetheless, if you say Schmemann is top notch, I’ll go ahead and read him. I have that much trust in your judgment. This fellow must really dislike him, to twist his words so. He makes him sound like Hans Kung for crying out loud!

What Schmemann is saying is that the more pervasive “mystery as eschaton in our midst” is to a large extent replaced (in popular piety) with the sacraments as “holy things” surrounded by a lot of not holy things, a “sacred and profane” mix that is contrary to Scripture and the mind of the Church. He certainly critiques this as the development under medieval Rome (the turning of symbol into something that is “not real”). Instead, the incarnate Christ, does not result in the few holy changes in some bread and some wine, some water here and there, and a bit of oil. He radically reveals the truth of all things, and the universe as the Mystery of God. Surely the bread and wine become His body and blood, but everything is properly revealed to be full of His glory.

It is the loss of this last piece, substituted with a Christianized “holy thingism” that he is writing about. His eschatological mystery has been postponed by most to a “someday it will be true that…” version of eschatology, which is a violation of almost everything given to us in Christ. In Christ the Kingdom is fulfilled and the universe is revealed as the realm of its fulfillment. It shall be revealed, it’s true, but what will be revealed will not be different than what has been and is being made known in Christ.

Is that helpful?

Is this the case? This review alleges as much: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx

“The author [Fr. Schmemann] adheres to the concept that the idea of “sanctification,” of “mysteries,” and in general of the sanctifying power of sacred rites was foreign to the ancient Church and arose only in the era after Constantine. Although the author denies a direct borrowing of the idea of “mysteries-sacraments” from the pagan mysteries, he nonetheless recognizes the “mysteriality-sacralization” in worship as a new element of “stratification” in this era. “The very word ‘mystery,’ ” he writes, citing the Jesuit scholar (now Cardinal) J. Danielou, “did not originally have the meaning in Christianity that was subsequently given it, a mysteriological meaning; in the New Testament Scriptures it is used only in the singular and in accordance with the general significance of the economy of our salvation. The word ‘mystery’ (mysterion) in Paul and in early Christianity always signified the whole work of Christ, the whole of salvation”; thus, in the author’s opinion, the application of this word even to separate aspects of the work of Christ belongs to the following era.”

Further on he quotes Fr. Schmemann again:

“In the early Eucharist there was no idea of a ritual symbolization of the life of Christ and His Sacrifice. This is a theme which will appear later…under the influence of one theology and as the point of departure for another. The remembrance of Christ which He instituted (This do in remembrance of Me) is the affirmation of His ‘Parousia,’ of His presence; it is the actualization of His Kingdom… One may say without exaggeration that the early Church consciously and openly set herself in opposition to mysteriological piety and cults of the mysteries.”

I admit that I have not read the actual book, but this review has me rethinking spending money on the thing to begin with. I figured Fr. Schmemann would be solidly orthodox. What’s all this, then? Is he being badly misrepresented?

Comments will get set into the moderation queue because they have certain things like links or other characteristics – not sure what all may put them in the moderation queue these days. This is done by WordPress itself and is just a simple matter of scanning the comment text for things like http://, etc.

Akismet is kind of like reverse Google – the comment is ‘searched against’ in its database to see if it is like comments that have been reported as spam in other places and over time. The various heuristics it uses probably change over time and are secret. Akismet is not local (it’s not on the WordPress server) and it combines information from across the internet where it is being used and the sites using it report back which comments are marked as spam that it missed.

We can hope it also does the opposite – corrects its errors in identifying certain comments as spam when they aren’t! I for one was not one to check the spam list to ‘unmark’ comments unless someone let me know they were getting stuck in there.