Topic: concelebration

[Jonny]

Can and do Orthodox priests concelebrate at the Eucharist in the same way Catholic priests do?

For those that don't know the Catholic practice, all priests present make the epiclesis over the gifts and invoke the Holy Spirit together (all speaking the words) and all the priest present point to and pray the words of consecration for both he host and the chalice.

[Jonny]

Can anyone help me out on this one or is it something that no-one knows?

[ialmisry]

Can anyone help me out on this one or is it something that no-one knows?

We usually have two priests concelebrate every Sunday, and I seem to remember that only one priest says the Epiclesis.  My memory can be failing me, and I don't know if they CAN'T say it together (though I think it makes more sense for one to do it).

[Jonathan]

For Catholics all priests at a Mass are con-celebrants.  For Orthodox, one priest is the celebrant and any assisting priests are the con-celebrants.  In the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril for example it will say while the celebrating priest says such and such a prayer the con-celebrating priest (if present) circles the altar offering incense...

[Jonny]

Right. So they do concelebrate but not in any way that would be comparable to the modern Roman practice of all the priests present envoking the Holy Spirit together.

Thanks.

[pensateomnia]

Yeah. There can be only one president of any eucharistic assembly -- one president, one cup, one faith, one Lord. This theological and liturgical principle dates to St. Ignatius of Antioch, who said:

"Apart from the Bishop no one is do anything pertaining to the Church. Only that Eucharist is to be considered legitimate which is celebrated under the presidency of the Bishop or under that of the one he appoints" (Letter to the Smyrneans).

That became the standard of the early Church relatively early on. Paul Bradshaw, a professor at Notre Dame, wrote a book on this topic, if you are interested.

[username!]

Right. So they do concelebrate but not in any way that would be comparable to the modern Roman practice of all the priests present envoking the Holy Spirit together.

Thanks.

Modern form meaning the re-invention of the Liturgical life of the Roman Catholic Church culminating in what, 1969-70.  Prior the entire Liturgical Life of the Roman Catholic Church was different. 

[Jonny]

Right. So they do concelebrate but not in any way that would be comparable to the modern Roman practice of all the priests present envoking the Holy Spirit together.

Thanks.

Modern form meaning the re-invention of the Liturgical life of the Roman Catholic Church culminating in what, 1969-70.  Prior the entire Liturgical Life of the Roman Catholic Church was different. 

Exactly. Hence the reason I'm leaving 

[username!]

Right. So they do concelebrate but not in any way that would be comparable to the modern Roman practice of all the priests present envoking the Holy Spirit together.

Thanks.

Modern form meaning the re-invention of the Liturgical life of the Roman Catholic Church culminating in what, 1969-70.  Prior the entire Liturgical Life of the Roman Catholic Church was different. 

Exactly. Hence the reason I'm leaving 

Therefore May God Bless you on your journey

[Jonny]

Right. So they do concelebrate but not in any way that would be comparable to the modern Roman practice of all the priests present envoking the Holy Spirit together.

Thanks.

Modern form meaning the re-invention of the Liturgical life of the Roman Catholic Church culminating in what, 1969-70.  Prior the entire Liturgical Life of the Roman Catholic Church was different. 

Exactly. Hence the reason I'm leaving 

Therefore May God Bless you on your journey

I'm sure he will. I've changed my faith in my profile to inquirer because I think people are getting the wrong end of the stick with it saying Roman Catholic.

[Salpy]

The Orthodox in India have something called "simultaneous celebrations," which were discussed here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,192.msg236867.html#lastPost

[frost]

I think it is important to keep something in perspective here.

While only one "presides" at the celebration of the Eucharist, everyone present "participates" in the celebration of the Eucharist. This is why it is forbidden for a priest to celebrate alone, without a congregation. "Where two or three are gathered, there I am in their midst". The Anaphora and the Epiklesis are not complete without the responses of the faithful and their "Amen" !

The bishop or priest presides over the celebration; but does so as the head of the community, not apart from the community of believers. The bishop and his priests hold their office, in, and for the community of the faithful that they serve. This is why a bishop is forbidden from serving the Liturgy outside his diocese, unless he is invited to con-celebrate with the local bishop.

This is actually one of the primary differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic understanding of the priesthood.

Best wishes for your jouney of faith,

Francis Frost

[Basil 320]

I think we need the Greek term, if someone would so reply, for the assisting concelebrants, in order to define exactly what their role is.  But, to follow-up on what Jonathon, Reply #3, posted; in Orthodoxy, the diocesan bishop, the "Icon of Christ," presides; the parish priest, the presiding priest, presides in place of the bishop.  There is only one "liturgos," i.e. liturgist/celebrant. The other priests who are vested and celebrating, are assisting.  The celebrant directs what parts of the service the assisting celebrants perform.  Notice, they do not stand in front of the Holy Table, but stand to the sides of it. 

The only part of the Liturgy that is said jointly, by all the priests, is the commemoration of their bishop, "Among the First, Remember O Lord..."  Even though it is done in this country, probably due to it's evolving history, only one bishop should be properly commemorated in this petition, again, because there is only one "liturgos."

[Elisha]

The only part of the Liturgy that is said jointly, by all the priests, is the commemoration of their bishop, "Among the First, Remember O Lord..."  Even though it is done in this country, probably due to it's evolving history, only one bishop should be properly commemorated in this petition, again, because there is only one "liturgos."

Actually, I think that may be done only in Greek and not Slavic traditions.  I only remember hearing it in Antiochian parishes (it's been a little while since I've been to a DL at a GOA parish).

[Fr. George]

The only part of the Liturgy that is said jointly, by all the priests, is the commemoration of their bishop, "Among the First, Remember O Lord..."  Even though it is done in this country, probably due to it's evolving history, only one bishop should be properly commemorated in this petition, again, because there is only one "liturgos."

Thankfully, the GOA is back to commemorating only one bishop (the diocesan bishop) in that petition.  The exception to the "one Bishop commemorated" rule is when the local Bishop is present - at that time, the local Bishop commemorates the President of the Synod that he reports to, and the other clergy commemorate the Local Bishop.

[username!]

I think it is important to keep something in perspective here.

While only one "presides" at the celebration of the Eucharist, everyone present "participates" in the celebration of the Eucharist. This is why it is forbidden for a priest to celebrate alone, without a congregation. "Where two or three are gathered, there I am in their midst". The Anaphora and the Epiklesis are not complete without the responses of the faithful and their "Amen" !

Technically the Epiclesis prayer is to be responded to by the deacon saying "Amen" not the faithful.  Inventive people changed this citing "that's how we think it was done at some point in history."  The Liturgy changes organically and the Holy Spirit guides that.  Interjecting such in-organic is contrary to the natural development of Liturgical practice.  Orthodox is timeless and in the forever present.  We can't go back to a "particular time" and say that Orthodox was more perfect then and then make the argument that we should return our Liturgics to that era.  There are plenty of changes in the Liturgy I don't see other people scrambling to re-invent.    We can speak of the Roman Catholic answer here to liturgical change.  While growing up we always heard that "mass was in Latin and the priest didn't face the people but thankfully Vatican 2 changed all that."  When asked why, and I mean this was the answer to any question, "That's how they did it in the early church, we're not sure of the exact way they did it but we know we're close and therefore the whole Roman Catholic Church had to return to something that looked more like the ancient rite."   See the in-organic mother of invention is just WRONG.  It doesn't have to do with resisting change either.  I see the same re-invention in Orthodoxy as I saw in the Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic churches with this "let's return to how they used to do it at some point in  history, we're not sure exactly how they did it so let's guess."   If done right, according the rubrics, where the priest prayers are silent, the liturgy is a seamless flowing prayer.  The way it is being done now with all this "new liturgical movement" stuff it's a choppy mess.  Sing, stop listen to what is supposed to be silent, sing, stop, sing stop.
If done right the We Praise thee hymn is sang while the priest says the Epiclesis and the deacon resounds it with an amen.  The the interjection aloud from the Priest, "Especially for our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary."  Then the people sing the It is truly meet..  There are prayers the clergy complete on our behalf while we are praying then there are prayers the faithful and the clergy complete together.  It's a beautiful orchestrated prayer if done correctly, and I have seen it done correctly.