Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

[Aindriú]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.

What are those implications?

I know it's not written from a modern perspective, but from a modern perspective, the "for us" sounds too much like "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me". I think "that it may become the Body and Blood" conveys a more concrete reality of what we are asking for and what is happening in the consecration. But then again I suppose it could be understood in a context of "it's for us because we are who it is promised to and can't be found anywhere else". Like I said, just my personal opinion.

This reminds me about the current word fight over "for many" and "for all".

[Papist]

Hypothetically, if the Pope were to say, hey, we are gonna joining the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and the Catholic faithful followed (I know that wouldn't happen, but just say it did), would Latins be allowed to maintain the Tridentine Liturgy?

It depends on how close the Tridentine liturgy is to the Liturgy of Pope Gregory I and how much error is contained with it. Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

I also believe that "that it may become for us the Body and Blood" would be better as "that it may become the Body and Blood", but that is just my personal opinion. The latin does say "for us" so it is the proper translation, but then again I'm looking at that phrase and thinking of the implications of it in the modern context.

What are those implications?

I know it's not written from a modern perspective, but from a modern perspective, the "for us" sounds too much like "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me". I think "that it may become the Body and Blood" conveys a more concrete reality of what we are asking for and what is happening in the consecration. But then again I suppose it could be understood in a context of "it's for us because we are who it is promised to and can't be found anywhere else". Like I said, just my personal opinion.

This reminds me about the current word fight over "for many" and "for all".

It's actually exaclty like that. It doesn't affect that actual substance of what the Liturgy is conveying, but it is interesting from and experiential perspective. What do people think it is saying?

[Sleeper]

Is it being implied that there aren't any phrases in the Byzantine liturgy that could be misconstrued in a modern context?

[Aindriú]

This reminds me about the current word fight over "for many" and "for all".

It's actually exaclty like that. It doesn't affect that actual substance of what the Liturgy is conveying, but it is interesting from and experiential perspective. What do people think it is saying?

As you probably know the latin says the blood was spilled "pro multis" not "pro universis". The argument is that "pro multis" is still validly translated "for all". The disagreement, and one of the reasons it is being changed in the new translation, is that (1) the words "for many" is from the Gospel of Matthew, and (2) "for many" signifies those that accept Jesus, excluding all those who do not.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

[Hermogenes]

I just received a copy of the Western Rite Service Book, for use in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Congrats!

I don't know what I was expecting, but after all the passionate defense of its uniqueness I certainly wasn't expecting what I got.

That happens.

This is for all purposes, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

It certainly feels that way, true.

The so-called Liturgy of St. Tikhon

It's no so-called, that's its official title

is the Anglican service of Holy Communion, with a few things tossed in to make it conform theologically.

Some things were removed too, but yes, it has been supplemented from the Rite of St. Gregory and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

The book also includes such "Orthodox" rites as the Stations of the Cross and the Adoration of the Blessed Sacramment--which appear to have been adapted from the Prayer Book of St. Augustine (a prayer book published early in the last century for high-church Anglicans).

Those aren't rites, they're devotions.

Even the order of services in the book follows the Anglican format. The Matins and Vespers services appear to be lifted from BCP nearly word for word.

Indeed!

My one response is--why?

Because all things true and beautiful belong in the bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church.

What is the point of this?

Taken from http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/wrv_history.pdf:

The purpose of the Western Rite Vicariate, as originally conceived in 1958, is threefold. First, the WRV serves an ecumenical purpose. The ideal of true ecumenism, according to an Orthodox understanding, promotes “all efforts for the reunion of Christendom, without departing from the ancient foundation of our One Orthodox Church.”  Second, the WRV serves a missionary and evangelistic purpose. There are a great many non-Orthodox Christians who are “attracted by our Orthodox Faith, but could not find a congenial home in the spiritual world of Eastern Christendom.” Third, the WRV exists to be witness to Orthodox Christians themselves to the universality of the Orthodox Catholic Faith – a Faith which is not narrowly Byzantine, Hellenistic, or Slavic (as is sometimes assumed by non-Orthodox and Orthodox alike) but is the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for all men, in all places, at all times. In the words of Father Paul Schneirla, “the Western Rite restores the normal cultural balance in the Church. The pre-schismatic condition is restored between East and West in symbol and potentiality. A primary result of this reunion is that the Church proclaims her catholicity. She demonstrates that the is the Oecumenical Church, not a tribal religion.”  The WRV, while existing within the bosom of the Eastern Orthodox Church, has an entirely “Western Catholic” liturgical life, as it includes translated and adapted Latin liturgical texts for the Divine Office, the Mass (Divine Liturgy), the Sacraments, and various Blessings; forms for the observance of the Western Church Year and the old Roman sanctoral kalendar; the use of Gregorian chant as well as other forms of traditional Western church music and hymnody; ceremonial acts, vestments, architecture, ecclesiastical arts, popular piety and ethos. The basis for the WRV’s eucharistic texts may be found in two seminal documents: (1) the Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis (drawn up by J. J. Overbeck and approved by the Russian Synod in 1869, and by Constantinople in 1882), and (2) the 1904 response of the Russian Synod to Archbishop (now Saint) Tikhon concerning the 1892 American Book of Common Prayer.

Sums it up nicely.

Why is an Orthodox church using a Protestant prayer book, even assuming certain corrections for the sake of theological uniformity?

In the words of one wise man:

No honest human being could describe this as "The Book of Common Prayer." Although Anglo-Catholics would recognize it, and most Western Christians feel an instant and familiar sense of worship while praying it, St. Tikhon's Liturgy far exceeded any edition of the BCP...

Much less could it be called "Protestant." It is a liturgy compiled according to the instructions of the Orthodox Church, at the behest of Orthodox saints, by distinguished Orthodox theologians, blessed within the Orthodox Church, and celebrated within multiple patriarchates of the Orthodox Church for decades. No Protestant would be comfortable with the liturgy's fervent supplication of the saints and the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. He would not appreciate its commemoration of Orthodox hierarchs. He would find no "Zwinglian" content in its outspoken profession of the Real Presence. And no Calvinist -- the British variety of which paid thugs to smash church pictures and stained glass windows with a hammer -- would feel comfortable in a church that visibly expresses its acceptance of the seventh ecumenical council.

In giving its approval, the Church adoped the liturgy's every word and turn-of-phrase -- whatever its provenance -- as Her own. One is inescapably led to believe as the Orthodox Church does about this liturgy, and the Western Rite in general: that it conveys the fulness of Orthodox faith, worship, and devotion to those, of whatever ethnic background, privileged to share in its celebration.

- Benjamin Anderson, westernorthodox.blogspot.com

The Anglican Eucharist isn't simply different theologically: The entire intent of the service is explicitly different.

Texts don't have "intent," people do. If you'd like to know what those of us Orthodox worshipping with this beautiful liturgy "intend" you should come to one of our services

This is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. If I wanted to attend an Anglican service I'd go to an Anglican church. Many liturgies are beautiful. The Tridentine Mass with music by Vittoria or Palestrina is hard to beat for sure beauty. That is hardly the point.

This is Article XXVIII frpom the Anglican 39 articles:

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

So this explains quite clearly what the Anglicans thought they were doing when they wrote this liturgy. How much of this conforms with Orthodox eucharistic theology? Sincerity and truth are not synonymous.

I think I'm done with this discussion. Unfortunately, I appear to be nearly in the same place on exiting the discussion as I was on entering it. I would have been happy to see how my original views were mistaken, but the arguments just seem to go around in circles and make no sense to me. Not that you should care what makes sense to me. But maybe you should care that someone who was originally sensitive to your arguments and open to having his mind changed hasn't been able to see any more logic to these "Western Rites" now after six months of discussion that he could see before.

[Sleeper]

Fair enough, Hermogenes, and with all due respect, we don't need your approval. While it would be nice for our Byzantine brethren to understand where we're coming from, and receive their prayers on our behalf, as we pray for them in our Prayer for the Church, we'll be content with the approval and prayers of our bishops, our Metropolitan, our Patriarch and the Saints who brought this Rite to fruition. To put it simply, I think they know better than you

And quite frankly, until you actually attend a service where the Rite of St. Tikhon is served, most people would do well to ignore what you have to say. You quite obviously have no idea what happens at our services, no idea what we really believe, and no idea what we offer to God through our worship. In your clouded logic all you're able to see is BCP = Anglican, Anglican = Protestant, BCP = Rite of St. Tikhon, Rite of St. Tikhon = Protestant.

At the risk of wasting my time, since you've given up trying to understand where we're coming from, I'll reply anyway. Maybe other readers might find it useful...

This is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. If I wanted to attend an Anglican service I'd go to an Anglican church. Many liturgies are beautiful. The Tridentine Mass with music by Vittoria or Palestrina is hard to beat for sure beauty. That is hardly the point.

It isn't "hardly" the point for those of us who believe all beauty and truth belong to God.

This is Article XXVIII frpom the Anglican 39 articles:

You'll note the 39 Articles are not found anywhere in the service book you purchased, and have no bearing on the Rite of St. Tikhon. Anyway...

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

So, the Supper of the Lord, as defined by this Article is, a) a Sacrament of our Redemption and, b) the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ when it is received rightly, worthily and with faith.  What exactly is the problem???

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

"The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

Perhaps these portions of the Rite of St. Tikhon might clear things up:

"vouchsafe to send down thy holy Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. "

"may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

"humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ."

"grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."

"Almighty and ever living God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ."

The Church has also added the same prayers from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for good measure:

"I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood. Wherefore I pray thee, have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance; and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of thine immaculate Mysteries, unto remission of my sins and unto life everlasting. Amen.

Of thy Mystic Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of thy Mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas; but like the thief will I confess thee: Remember me, O Lord, in thy Kingdom. Not unto judgement nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body."

So this explains quite clearly what the Anglicans thought they were doing when they wrote this liturgy. How much of this conforms with Orthodox eucharistic theology? Sincerity and truth are not synonymous.

I'm failing to see what the intent of Anglicans who assembled the original BCP and its Articles has to do with the Antiochian Orthodox Rite of St. Tikhon. Oh, wait, unless you were under the impression that everything that makes up the Byzantine Rite came from non-secular, Christian sources and Orthodox history is completely free of assuming and blessing cultural and linguistic things that came from outside of her boundaries. Surely that isn't true?

I think I'm done with this discussion. Unfortunately, I appear to be nearly in the same place on exiting the discussion as I was on entering it. I would have been happy to see how my original views were mistaken, but the arguments just seem to go around in circles and make no sense to me. Not that you should care what makes sense to me. But maybe you should care that someone who was originally sensitive to your arguments and open to having his mind changed hasn't been able to see any more logic to these "Western Rites" now after six months of discussion that he could see before.

Perhaps you should discuss issues with the bishops and priests who have blessed and live out these "Western Rites" that you inexplicably placed in quotes, instead of relying on lay people who chat in online forums? Or, better yet, swallow your distaste and try attending a service and actually worshipping with your fellow Orthodox brethren before you make up your mind? But, that might require a little effort, and it's much easier slap unwarranted labels on things and draw unwarranted conclusions from things that have no relationship to one another.

In fact, I think I'll once again leave with the quote of another far more wise than you or I; His Grace Bishop BASIL:

MY observations begin with my own experience with Western Rite. Some of you who have known me since I’ve been consecrated have heard this confession before. Before I was thoroughly exposed to the Western Rite by attending services, I was very leery. I knew that philosophically and historically it was legitimate. But I couldn’t believe that it could be authentic. And that was because I hadn’t experienced it. So the confession is that you have a convert here.

Orthodox who are of the Byzantine Rite know that the way one worships is not a proof of anything. We have been in churches, and some of us have relatives who attend these churches that look like ours and they smell like ours, and if you would go to communion it would probably taste like ours. When you eat the holy bread it tastes like ours. The music sounds like our music. The accents that the people have are the same accents that we have, but it’s not the Church.

So for Orthodox people, the fact that something looks the same and smells the same is not a proof of anything. It is in this sense that our Eastern Rite people are coming to a greater appreciation for the Western Rite. It looks different, the vestments are different, the incense smells different, the words and music are different—and it is the Church.

I remember well the first time I attended a Western Rite service. It was not at one of our churches, but at an Episcopal cathedral. On this first visit, I wept. This was not just because it was aesthetically pleasing; I don’t cry at concerts. Rather, I wept because this beautiful and authentic tradition was in danger of dying out.

You are the inheritors of a precious treasure: the authentic and Orthodox rites that nourished thousands now in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Orthodox Church thanks you for preserving this tradition all these years, so that it could be restored to her through Western Rite Orthodox parishes.

The faith that you hold, combined with the rite in which you practice that faith, is more important than anything else.

[Deacon Lance]

You'll note the 39 Articles are not found anywhere in the service book you purchased, and have no bearing on the Rite of St. Tikhon.

The pre-Institution Narrative paragraph of the Canon seems to reflect Article XXXI.  The Anglican Use Roman Catholic Mass simply replaced the Anglican Canon with the Roman.  Given all the fuss over inserting a Byzantine Epiclesis and Pre-Communion prayer and making sure the "merits" was replaced by prayers I am surprised this was glossed over.  Please note I have no problem with the Liturgy of St. Tikhon with this exception.

"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again:(Liturgy of St. Tikhon)."

"XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The Offering of Christ once made in that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction,
for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other
satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was
commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission
of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits (Book of Common Prayer).

[Sleeper]

All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy,
Rite of St. Gregory (6th c.):  “Therefore, most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech thee”
Missal of Robert of Jumieges (1000 AD):  “Te igitur clementissime pater per iesum christum filium tuum dominum nostrum”

didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption;
Hebrews 9:15b (KJV):  “that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

who (by his own oblation of himself once offered)
Hebrews 9:28a (KJV):  “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world;
1 John 2:2 (KJV):  “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again:
Luke 22:19 (KJV):  “this do in remembrance of me.”
1 Corinthians 11:26 (KJV):  “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”



I understand where you're coming from, Deacon Lance, but it's not like we Orthodox don't understand what's happening in our Mass, you know? The convert has obstacles to overcome no matter what rite he worships with. Our liturgies aren't don't happen in a vacuum, but are part of an entire life of the Church, the Western Rite of which is utterly steeped in Orthodox theology and experience.

And another thing, is that the Western Rite isn't finished. Things take time, and as the Rite of St. Tikhon gets rooted in our Western Rite experience, it will continue to develop and change as any rite naturally does.

[ialmisry]

So this explains quite clearly what the Anglicans thought they were doing when they wrote this liturgy. How much of this conforms with Orthodox eucharistic theology? Sincerity and truth are not synonymous.

The Book of Common Prayer predates the 39 articles.

[deusveritasest]

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

Agreed. As to the textual nature, these are minor differences. The liturgy will still be highly similar, almost exactly the same, with these necessary Orthodoxizing measures.

[deusveritasest]

Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

The only real differences between the latin and AWRV is the insertion of an extra epiclesis and the precommunion prayer of St John Chrysostom.

Were these necessary additions?

[ialmisry]

Roughly speaking, as to what appear to be the minor differences between it and the EO version of it, I would hope so.

The only real differences between the latin and AWRV is the insertion of an extra epiclesis and the precommunion prayer of St John Chrysostom.

Were these necessary additions?

Not really: they were made for pastoral reason-to assure the rest of the Orthodox that they were Orthodox, and shibboleths to demonstrate that they had embraced the Orthodox side of the debate on these issues.  Btw, another change is the references to the merits of the saints has been changed to "prayers of the saints" etc., to conform to Orthodox theology.

[Melodist]

They would have to omit the filioque from the creed, distribute both the Body and the Blood to the faithful, and change the feast of the "Immaculate Conception" to "Conception of the Mother of God" along with some of the prayers that are particular to that feast day.

Agreed. As to the textual nature, these are minor differences. The liturgy will still be highly similar, almost exactly the same, with these necessary Orthodoxizing measures.

Very minor differences, and with the exception of changes made to how St Anna's conception of the Theotokos is celebrated, would not even be offensive to the current Roman tradition considering they currently acknowledge that the creed is orthodox as it was originally written and they allow for the laity to receive both the Body and the Blood in the Eucharist.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?