OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 09:05:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How common is this?  (Read 1883 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,562


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« on: January 11, 2003, 04:47:11 PM »

Dear Eastern Orthodox Friends,

Some time ago, I noticed something which I thought was rather odd occur at a Greek Orthodox Liturgy which I saw online.  I thought maybe it was an isolated occurence.  But now I'm seeing it again, and it makes me wonder how "popular" this practice is, and if it is legit.  

The OCA website has a page of pictures of Christmas celebrations by the Russian community at their Cathedral in DC.  The main celebrant is listed as Protopresbyter Robert Kondratick, with other concelebrants.  He seems to be doing all of the important, "maincelebrantish" things, except the Institution Narrative (Take, eat, etc.).  This seems to be done by another priest.  

Please see the following pictures.  

This seems to be Protopresbyter Robert Kondratick as main celebrant, with the other concelebrants beside him.

http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2003/0107russianxmas/images/DSC_0008.jpg

Here, however, he seems to have moved off to the side and let another priest step in and recite the Institution Narrative.

http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2003/0107russianxmas/images/DSC_0028.jpg

Is this a common practice?  Is this even a legitimate practice?  I would've thought that such an important point in the Liturgy as the Institution Narrative in the Anaphora might've been done by one priest alone, rather than breaking it up into parts or what have you.  I'm confused.    
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Stephen Barrow
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 44



« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2003, 05:41:00 PM »

Phil,

These pictures are close ups of the pix from this page of the OCA website:

http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2003/0107russianxmas/index.html

Regarding the first picture: The caption says the clergy are behind the altar looking out of the Ikonastas during the chanting of the epistle.  Father Bob may be in the center due to his being the Chancellor of the OCA.  The caption at the top of the page only states the he was celebrating with the Cathedral dean in place of His Beatitude Metropolitan Herman.

In the second picture the Dean of the Cathedral is the chief Consecrator of the Gifts.  If you look at all of the pictures the Dean, Father Constantine White, is doing all of the Narrative.

It is normal, i.e. legit, when concelebrating, to have different clergy take different litanies, exclamations, etc.

But only one Priest will be the one to do the Anaphora in its entirety.

SJB
Logged
Fr Thomas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2003, 05:50:27 PM »

I think we have to be careful about trying to read anything into the pictures.  Although it is "normative" for the main celebrant to offer the gifts in the anaphora, there can be a number of possible reasons why you see Fr. Dmitry Grigorieff (not Fr. Constantine White, as was erroneously reported by another poster) taking the anaphora.  Maybe Fr. Robert Kondratick became ill?  Maybe they were praying in Slavonic, and Fr. Robert felt more comfortable with Fr. Dmitry doing this.  Or maybe it was some kind of deference?  I don't know, I'd just be careful about pointing out such things.  Pictures never tell the whole story.

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church  (OCA)
McKees Rocks, PA
http://www.stnicholas-oca.org
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2003, 02:42:23 AM »

About the "institution narrative". I was thinking, was that term borrowed from anglcanism or modern catholicism?.

It was my idea that this term appeared for the first time among Roman Catholics within the new mass to stress that the consacration was a narrative.

From what I read in orthodox books (old ones) of the discussions about when the sacrament was confected (the epiclesis or the "words of he consacration" as the latins said) "words of the consacration" was the term used.
Logged
Stephen Barrow
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 44



« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2003, 10:10:49 AM »

Father Thomas,

Father Bless!

I stand corrected as to who was consecrating the Gifts.  Thanks for the correction.  What you pointed out regarding pictures not telling the whole story is entirely all too true, especially on the internet.  I did not state so in my post but thought it when I read the post.

Please send greetings to your brother Michael next time you speak to him.  I sang in the NY/NJ Diocesan Youth Choir under his direction almost 20 years ago.

Stephen Barrow
Holy Trinity Church, Randolph NJ (OCA)
Logged
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2003, 02:42:16 PM »

For Orthodox the Institution Narrative/Words of Institution do not equal the "Consecration."  

For RCs (and perhaps others, I am not aware) the "sacrament" AFAIK (that means As Far As I Know, right?) is "confected" by the Words of Institution.  Note that the Roman Mass (at least in its current form) has an epiklesis before the Institution Narrative.  In our Byzantine Orthodox Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the epiklesis is after the institution narrative.

So for us the consecration would be the epiklesis while for the RCs it would be the institution narrative.  This certainly seems to be the normal, standard usage for these terms by these groups.  I do not think however that any of us would dare to imagine that either epiklesis or institution narrative alone would suffice, if that has been thought somewhere at some time by some one that is past.

Tony

 
About the "institution narrative". I was thinking, was that term borrowed from anglcanism or modern catholicism?.

It was my idea that this term appeared for the first time among Roman Catholics within the new mass to stress that the consacration was a narrative.

From what I read in orthodox books (old ones) of the discussions about when the sacrament was confected (the epiclesis or the "words of he consacration" as the latins said) "words of the consacration" was the term used.
Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2003, 03:31:48 PM »

AFAIK the oldest view (source: Hugh Wybrew) of the eucharistic prayer and Real Presence, one that orthodox people today refer back to, is that the WHOLE prayer changes the elements into the Sacrament — ‘confects’ It in good Roman Catholic-speak. This bypasses all the later arguments about when in the prayer the change happens. IMO there is room to say in the Roman Mass it happens after the institution narrative and that in the Byzantine Liturgy it happens at the epiklesis. The main point is by the end of the anaphora it has happened.

This allows room for many different kinds of consecration prayers (anaphor+ª), from that of the Assyrian Church (the Liturgy of SS. Mari and Addai?), perhaps the oldest one, that doesn’t have the institution narrative, and the Gregorian Canon of the Roman Mass, whose lack of an epiklesis shows 1) it is older than the two Byzantine anaphor+ª and 2) later postschism Byzantine claims of its necessity are wrong, to the two Byzantine ones attributed to St Basil and St John Chrysostom.
Logged

Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2003, 04:34:02 PM »

I was explained that for the Latins, the words that confect the sacrament are "This is my body... This is my blood". If I'm not mistaken that was the way it was shown by the "Armenian decree".

According to the great Orthodox liturgical scholar and saint, Nicholas Cabasilas, the prayer in the Tridentine rite "Supplices te rogamus" ("Most humbly we implore Thee") is an "ascending epiklesis."
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.054 seconds with 34 queries.