The differences of Catholic and Orthodox celebrations of the Holy Eucharist

[sohma_hatori]

Hi everyone!
 
As to my limited knowledge, Ive only seen a Catholic celebration of the Holy Eucharist, though Im still on the way to conversionto Orthodxy, there are'nt reallyany parishes in our area where I could attend the Divine Liturgy.

So, can you point out to me, Major differences in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in both Catholics and Orthodox?

Thanks in advance...

God bless...

In the Name of the Father, The Son and of The Holy Spirit...

[Aristibule]

Eastern Catholics and Orthodox of the Byzantine rite celebrate almost exactly the same. Traditional Roman Catholics and Orthodox of the Western rite celebrate in similar manner. The most obvious thing is that the Creed will be in its original form (without the interpolation of the filioque.) All Orthodox also use leavened bread. Of course, the only major difference with the Eastern Catholics is that their Metropolitan will be commemorated, rather than the Pope. The Orthodox churches also tend to celebrate in a much more traditional manner. If you are wanting to compare Novus Ordo with Byzantine rite - then that is Apples and Oranges. All you need to learn then is the form of the Byzantine services. This might help to begin with: http://www.frederica.com/12-things/ - if it happens to be a Western rite service, then you might want this: http://www.westernorthodox.com/customs . (The article applies mostly to AWRV - genuflection in ROCOR WRITE is normally done it its older form, as a profound bow rather than a kneeling. Partaking communion can differ as well - as we tend not to have an altar rail, so either kneel before the Rood Screen - or sometimes standing - receive with the houselling cloth held under our chins by two servers. Our altar bread also will not normally be wafers, but small loafs that are cut at the Preparation.) Other differences may become apparent between Orthodox traditions within each rite as you visit. It might be best to approach it as something new to learn, rather than trying to make comparisons with the rites of others.

[scamandrius]

I can't add much to Aristibule's explanation.  However, if you ever are able to go to a Divine Liturgy (whether that of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil or, very rarely, St. James) you will notice that after the words of institution (what the Romans call the Canon of the Mass), the priest will say the following:

We offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice;
and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee that Thou,
sending forth Thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts"
(the Deacon says: "Bless, Lord, the holy bread")
"make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ"
(Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Lord, the holy chalice"):
"and that which is in this chalice, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ"
(Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Lord, both"),
"changing by Thy Holy Spirit"
(Deacon: "Amen, Amen, Amen.")

This is what we refer to as the epiklesis which refers to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts so that they become the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  Although the old Roman Canon does not necessarily have an explicit epiklesis, this has been enough of a dividing issue that even Western Rite Orthodox who essentially use the Roman Rite (in use before the Novus Ordo or even the Tridentine Rite) have a Byzantine Rite epiklesis in their liturgies because, apparently, St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, who adapted the Western Rite for official use in the Russian Diaspora, thought there was one lacking.  This also brings up other issues between the RC and the EO.  Do the EO believe in transubstantio?  The use of the epiklesis seems to indicate that we do.  In fact, in the Confession of Dositheus the Latin term            transubstantio is represented by the Greek metamorphosis which are calques of one another.  The EO do not subscribe to the logical suppositions of the Latin term, i.e. arguing whether the presence of Christ subsists under the elements of bread and wine.  Unfortunately, many people would be simplistic and say that the EO and the RC believe in the same thing, when this is not the case.  For this reflects much about our understanding of the Eucharist, which is referred to as the "Mysteries" or "Mystical Supper."  Whichever one you choose, it reinforces the EO belief that what is given to us supersedes any attempt to explain what it is.  We can be sure that it grants us forgiveness of sins and life eternal, but we do not now the how or the what.

I'm sorry if I have confused you (believe me, I am too  ).

[Aristibule]

Although the old Roman Canon does not necessarily have an explicit epiklesis, this has been enough of a dividing issue that even Western Rite Orthodox who essentially use the Roman Rite (in use before the Novus Ordo or even the Tridentine Rite) have a Byzantine Rite epiklesis in their liturgies because, apparently, St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, who adapted the Western Rite for official use in the Russian Diaspora, thought there was one lacking. 

Yes - we believe in transubstantiation - that isn't new. The later Thomistic explanation of transubstantiation is what some Orthodox have issues with. Also - just so you know (as we've covered it on other threads) - but many Western rite Orthodox don't use a Byzantine rite epiklesis, but a Western rite epiclesis. St. Tikhon didn't "think one was lacking", but those who have approached the Orthodox have upheld the invocation (epiclesis) as necessary (from the Non-Jurors, to J.J. Overbeck DD, to the Russian Holy Synod twice in the 19th c., and the Russian Holy Synod's commission for Old Catholic and Anglican affairs in the early 20th c.) The Western rite wasn't for use in the Russian Diaspora either, but for reception of Westerners into Orthodoxy. Lastly - the earliest Fathers of the Roman rite witness to the existence of an explicit invocation (epiclesis) in the Roman canon. Its disappearance has been speculated on by many liturgists in the West. There is not much to suggest that the Quam oblationem or Supplices te rogamus is the fully intact invocation of the early Western liturgy (the fact that we in fact have surviving explicit invocations from various uses of the Gallican rite suggests that there was once an explicit epiclesis even in the Roman canon - the WRITE use of an epiclesis from the Gothic missal thus restores what most liturgists know to have once existed.)

[scamandrius]

Yes - we believe in transubstantiation - that isn't new. The later Thomistic explanation of transubstantiation is what some Orthodox have issues with.

Yes, I believe that I said that when I explained (please note what is boldfaced

Do the EO believe in transubstantio?  The use of the epiklesis seems to indicate that we do.  In fact, in the Confession of Dositheus the Latin term            transubstantio is represented by the Greek metamorphosis which are calques of one another.  The EO do not subscribe to the logical suppositions of the Latin term, i.e. arguing whether the presence of Christ subsists under the elements of bread and wine.   Unfortunately, many people would be simplistic and say that the EO and the RC believe in the same thing, when this is not the case. 

The Western rite wasn't for use in the Russian Diaspora either, but for reception of Westerners into Orthodoxy.

I probably did not clarify that well enough. I should have written that this was done as a pastoral effort to reach those in the Western Christian world which would have fallen under the authority of the Russian Patriarchate.

[JLatimer]

In fact, in the Confession of Dositheus the Latin term            transubstantio is represented by the Greek metamorphosis which are calques of one another.  The EO do not subscribe to the logical suppositions of the Latin term, i.e. arguing whether the presence of Christ subsists under the elements of bread and wine.  ... For this reflects much about our understanding of the Eucharist, which is referred to as the "Mysteries" or "Mystical Supper." 

I must admit I'm not familiar with the Confession. Still, I do know that transubstantiatio is a bad translation of metamorphosis and is hardly a calque. The best Latin translation would be transformatio (or transfiguratio in the case of Mt. Tabor). Forma may be a derivative of Gk. morphe.

Generally, when one examines Eastern Orthodox texts that mention transubstantiation or metousiosis one finds no hint in the context of the implications of the Latin doctrine; rather, the word seems to be used synonymously with "change," which is the usual word in English epicleses. (Don't get me started on how bad a translation substantio is for ousia anyway!)

Also, in reference to the "Mystical Supper," it goes without saying that the Latin phrase "vere, non mystice" is gobbledygook in Orthodoxy.

[JLatimer]

it says it doesn't make sense to report my own post, but what if my post is an accidental repeat of my post and i want to delete it!

[HandmaidenofGod]

it says it doesn't make sense to report my own post, but what if my post is an accidental repeat of my post and i want to delete it!

PM One of the Mods.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: The differences of Catholic and Orthodox celebrations of the Holy Eucharist