Cabasilas & Schmemann: Is This Just an Artificial Restoration?

Fr. Alexander made a good point, but a point that was so good it almost undercut his entire book in my mind. He posed this question: “Are we not somewhat restoring, even though restoring is always artificial”, and emphasizing his own point, “all restorations are always artificial”. He argues long and hard for faithfulness to the original services of Baptism and Chrismation, to make sure we are serving them as they were written to be served. And that would...or could be artificial, even in his own estimation. Therefore, it is essential to keep in mind when reading Fr. Alexander’s book, that it is not for some romantic or “archeological” love of the past or to see a perfect historical restoration of the services, “but because of our certitude that only within this original structure can the full meaning of Baptism be grasped and understood.”

That I understand: if we cut out chunks of the service we lose meaning. Clear. Later, though, it feels as though the tentative understanding we just established is ripped back open, when he says, “the Church is truly in continuity with the ‘institutions’ of the Old Testament, and these institutions, as they become Christian, acquire a radically new meaning, and are truly renewed.” It feels like he is saying, “do it the old way so we keep all that meaning, but then as we use them, we will come up with a new meaning.” I know that is not what he is saying in that particular quote, but it seems dangerously close to it.