OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 10:33:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: David Frost on Orthodoxy and the Western Rite  (Read 4306 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2013, 11:05:27 PM »

Man, I liked the > thing.

Still there!
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,161

Work hard, pray hard.


« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2013, 11:06:14 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.

Oh snap.
Logged

I wish you'd all just shut up. Then at least you would appear to be wise. - Job 13:5 ISV
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2013, 11:13:03 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2013, 11:15:14 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2013, 02:55:04 AM »

  I am very sympathetic to the argument you are trying to make. Thomas Cranmer was a Zwinglian when it comes to this issue. But if the revised prayer can be understood in an Orthodox way (non zwinglian)  then I think someone should at least explain our (Orthodox)  interpretation of the prayer.

[ author=Deacon Lance link=topic=51995.msg940850#msg940850 date=1371694756]
Quote
This prayer is Cranmerian in theology.  The committee inserted an Epiclesis but did not change this prayer
I dont understand your point.

PP

That's because there is no point to be made. The logic goes like this:

Book of Common Prayer?! > Thomas Cranmer had something to do with that! > He was Protestant! > Similar language is used in the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon! = This is not Orthodox!

   
Quote
e like:

English Church uses Roman Canon > Cranmer takes it out because he is Protestant > He replaces it with a new Canon that is worded to agree with Protestant theology, most precisely Articles 28 and 31 of te 39 > exact language (but for changing one to own) is used in Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon = This is Orthodox with one prayer based on poor theology
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 03:00:10 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: <Insert your favourite patriotic attribute here> Orthodox
Posts: 5,944



« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2013, 04:26:51 AM »

If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?
Logged

Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2013, 06:03:43 AM »

 I am very sympathetic to the argument you are trying to make. Thomas Cranmer was a Zwinglian when it comes to this issue. But if the revised prayer can be understood in an Orthodox way (non zwinglian)  then I think someone should at least explain our (Orthodox)  interpretation of the prayer.

I attempted to do so, earlier. The prayer is really nothing but an interweaving of scriptural/patristic themes.

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;
Luke 1:76-79:  “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, To give knowledge of salvation to His people, By the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God, With which the Dayspring from on high has visited; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace.”

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)
St. John Chrysostom: "By whom offered? Evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed."

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;
De Sacramentis of St. Ambrose:  "Make for us this oblation approved, ratified, reasonable, acceptable, seeing that it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

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.”

Hebrews 9:26 (KJV):  “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Hebrews 10:12 (KJV):  “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

St Athanasius: "For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death" ~ "On the Incarnation"


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.”


One should take the Tikhonian Canon as a whole, though, to gain a full picture of its clear, Orthodox teaching and what we believe is happening.

"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...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, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one Body with Him, that He may dwell in us, and we in Him...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...And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood...and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of thine immaculate Mysteries, unto remission of my sins and unto life everlasting...Not unto judgement nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body."

After communing, we give thanks for what just happened:  

"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; and dost assure us thereby of thy favor and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs through hope of thy everlasting kingdom."

If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?

We do not have a prayer with poor theology.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 06:05:16 AM by Sleeper » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2013, 07:18:36 AM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
orthodox to you.

Quote
If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?
Poor theology? How so? Sleeper's breakdown of the prayer is great. So what about it is poor?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #53 on: June 20, 2013, 12:14:48 PM »

For a more in-depth analysis of an Orthodox understanding of "satisfaction" here are Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon's thoughts on the subject: http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/fr-reardon-on-anselmian-soteriology/

Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: <Insert your favourite patriotic attribute here> Orthodox
Posts: 5,944



« Reply #54 on: June 20, 2013, 12:22:52 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
orthodox to you.

Quote
If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?
Poor theology? How so? Sleeper's breakdown of the prayer is great. So what about it is poor?

PP

There's nothing heretical in the prayer and I'm not one of those "Is Western? Is outrage!" folks. The prayer can and is undersood in an Orthodox way by the WRO.

However I'm not still comfortable with the idea that we have a eucharistic prayer composed by a Zwinglian because didn't like the Roman canon. I realize that proper interpretation can be found but if it was composed as an antithesis to Orthodox understanding it shouldn't be used. Please not the "if" again. I'm not familiar with the evolution of Anglican liturgy.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 12:26:13 PM by Alpo » Logged

Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2013, 01:14:01 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
orthodox to you.

Quote
If we have a prayer with poor theology the question is why an earth we want to keep it if we have similar prayers with good theology available?
Poor theology? How so? Sleeper's breakdown of the prayer is great. So what about it is poor?

PP

There's nothing heretical in the prayer and I'm not one of those "Is Western? Is outrage!" folks. The prayer can and is undersood in an Orthodox way by the WRO.

However I'm not still comfortable with the idea that we have a eucharistic prayer composed by a Zwinglian because didn't like the Roman canon. I realize that proper interpretation can be found but if it was composed as an antithesis to Orthodox understanding it shouldn't be used. Please not the "if" again. I'm not familiar with the evolution of Anglican liturgy.

Cranmer did not have free reign to compose anything he wished, and he was part of a team of theologians who reworked the Roman canon. They didn't abolish it. The general outline and stream of thought is virtually identical. The language was developed over time in a decidedly non-Cranmerian direction, however, by those who wished to return the English canon back to one more in line with ancient, particularly Eastern canons. This happened in the Scottish liturgical tradition, which had little to do with the official prayer books of the Church of England.

One might ask, as you did earlier, why not just swap the canon out for an already existing one? That's a good question, and I suspect there are lots of factors at play. The most important one that I can think of at the moment is that liturgy has a way of becoming a part of someone, a part of a worshipping community, such that it's not something you "do" or "perform" but something that lives in you, something you breathe. It gets passed on from generation to generation in an organic way. All of the great liturgical traditions underwent revisions, simplifications, etc., over time, and that of English-speaking catholics is no different. The West has a complicated history, no doubt. But quite simply, those who ended up coming into Orthodoxy with their English Rite loved and treasured their inheritance and didn't want to forsake it for something that had no lived experience among them.

There are other practical and pastoral issues that I'm sure could be brought up.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #56 on: June 21, 2013, 04:36:26 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.
orthodox to you.

PP

And all the Orthodox who used it pre-schism and Western Rite Orthodox who use it today.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #57 on: June 21, 2013, 04:43:04 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2013, 05:29:20 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.

The canon is more than the first prayer, my friend. And, as has already been pointed out, the changing of "one word" in that first paragraph changed the entire theology of the prayer. Pretty cool how that works.

Anyway, in regards to the whole canon, I'll let those more knowledgeable than me say it better than I could:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764.

In this, the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.”

- The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

The Scottish tradition was the basis for the Tikhonian canon, as it came down to us through the American Missal. Not Cranmer's canon. And it's apparently worth pointing out again that Thomas Cranmer was not the only person working with the English canon and a breakdown of the text as it exists in the Tikhonian Rite is perfectly Orthodox in every turn of its phrase. The Russian Synod did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology (whatever that means) slip in. The Commission established for the very purpose of vetting Western Rites for Orthodoxy did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology slip in. And the Orthodox Christians who have continually used this beautiful liturgy, since its inception, know that it expresses the fully eucharastic theology of the Orthodox Church, and nothing else.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 05:30:58 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #59 on: June 21, 2013, 08:25:02 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.

The canon is more than the first prayer, my friend. And, as has already been pointed out, the changing of "one word" in that first paragraph changed the entire theology of the prayer. Pretty cool how that works.

Anyway, in regards to the whole canon, I'll let those more knowledgeable than me say it better than I could:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764.

In this, the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.”

- The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

The Scottish tradition was the basis for the Tikhonian canon, as it came down to us through the American Missal. Not Cranmer's canon. And it's apparently worth pointing out again that Thomas Cranmer was not the only person working with the English canon and a breakdown of the text as it exists in the Tikhonian Rite is perfectly Orthodox in every turn of its phrase. The Russian Synod did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology (whatever that means) slip in. The Commission established for the very purpose of vetting Western Rites for Orthodoxy did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology slip in. And the Orthodox Christians who have continually used this beautiful liturgy, since its inception, know that it expresses the fully eucharastic theology of the Orthodox Church, and nothing else.
I am aware that the canon is more than that one prayer. I also admit the prayer can have an orthodox meaning.  That said much like the new Eucharistic prayers created for the Roman Rite post-Vatican II, why bother?  The tradition of the English church was the Roman Canon pre-schism and pre-reformation.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the new Roman Rite canons or that of the Liturgy of St Tikhon, but they all pale in comparison to the Roman Canon used from antiquity and hallowed by the use of saints and fathers of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2013, 09:27:41 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.
Then it wouldn't have had to be corrected, then, would it?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2013, 09:29:54 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.

The canon is more than the first prayer, my friend. And, as has already been pointed out, the changing of "one word" in that first paragraph changed the entire theology of the prayer. Pretty cool how that works.

Anyway, in regards to the whole canon, I'll let those more knowledgeable than me say it better than I could:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764.

In this, the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.”

- The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

The Scottish tradition was the basis for the Tikhonian canon, as it came down to us through the American Missal. Not Cranmer's canon. And it's apparently worth pointing out again that Thomas Cranmer was not the only person working with the English canon and a breakdown of the text as it exists in the Tikhonian Rite is perfectly Orthodox in every turn of its phrase. The Russian Synod did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology (whatever that means) slip in. The Commission established for the very purpose of vetting Western Rites for Orthodoxy did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology slip in. And the Orthodox Christians who have continually used this beautiful liturgy, since its inception, know that it expresses the fully eucharastic theology of the Orthodox Church, and nothing else.
I am aware that the canon is more than that one prayer. I also admit the prayer can have an orthodox meaning.  That said much like the new Eucharistic prayers created for the Roman Rite post-Vatican II, why bother?  The tradition of the English church was the Roman Canon pre-schism and pre-reformation.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the new Roman Rite canons or that of the Liturgy of St Tikhon, but they all pale in comparison to the Roman Canon used from antiquity and hallowed by the use of saints and fathers of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
and a whole host of heretics.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2013, 09:40:13 PM »

What Epiclesis is that?

"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost 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. Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

which was this:
"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."


Cramner had nothing to do with that Epiclesis.  The Non-juring Scottish bishops put it in in 1764, and passed it on to the Americans when they ordained Seabury.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2013, 09:57:54 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.
Then it wouldn't have had to be corrected, then, would it?
If by corrected you mean clumsily inserting a second epiclesis of Byzantine style, no it didn't need corrected and some Eastern Orthodox are actually recognize that.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #64 on: June 21, 2013, 09:58:45 PM »

What Epiclesis is that?

"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost 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. Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

which was this:
"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."


Cramner had nothing to do with that Epiclesis.  The Non-juring Scottish bishops put it in in 1764, and passed it on to the Americans when they ordained Seabury.

I never said he did.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #65 on: June 21, 2013, 10:21:47 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.  Cranmer's not so much.  That trumps all.

Agreed. Thankfully Cranmer's canon is irrelevant to that found in the Tikhon Rite, or any other authorized, approved Orthodox liturgy.

I don't know who you can state that when the prayers are identical but for one word.

The canon is more than the first prayer, my friend. And, as has already been pointed out, the changing of "one word" in that first paragraph changed the entire theology of the prayer. Pretty cool how that works.

Anyway, in regards to the whole canon, I'll let those more knowledgeable than me say it better than I could:

"In Scotland the work of revision received a fresh inspiration, and took a new direction, as a result of the intercourse between the Scottish and the English Non-Jurors, whose efforts to arrive at a Concordat with the Eastern Church led them to a fuller study of the Eastern rites. One outcome of this was the Non-Juror’s liturgy of 1718, which marks a definte break with the Western tradition, and is modelled, so far as the sequence and rationale of the Prayer of Consecration are concerned, on Eastern forms, which, in the belief of its compilers, represented an older and more primitive tradition than that which was found in the Roman rite and in the English Book of Common Prayer. These new influences found expression in the Scottish liturgy of 1764.

In this, the service was largely rewritten on the lines of the liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions and St. James.  It followed the Eastern order in place of the order of 1549, in which the sequence was: prayer for the Church, commemoration of redemption, invocation, recital of institution, memorial and oblation, Lord’s Prayer.

The influence of the Non-jurors’ Liturgy, as well as of Bishop Rattray’s Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem (1744), was apparent in the Scottish Liturgy of 1764, in which the Eastern order, as described above, was definitely adopted.”

- The Holy Communion Service, By J. H. Srawley

The Scottish tradition was the basis for the Tikhonian canon, as it came down to us through the American Missal. Not Cranmer's canon. And it's apparently worth pointing out again that Thomas Cranmer was not the only person working with the English canon and a breakdown of the text as it exists in the Tikhonian Rite is perfectly Orthodox in every turn of its phrase. The Russian Synod did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology (whatever that means) slip in. The Commission established for the very purpose of vetting Western Rites for Orthodoxy did not accidentally let Cranmerian theology slip in. And the Orthodox Christians who have continually used this beautiful liturgy, since its inception, know that it expresses the fully eucharastic theology of the Orthodox Church, and nothing else.
I am aware that the canon is more than that one prayer. I also admit the prayer can have an orthodox meaning.  That said much like the new Eucharistic prayers created for the Roman Rite post-Vatican II, why bother?  The tradition of the English church was the Roman Canon pre-schism and pre-reformation.  I do not question the orthodoxy of the new Roman Rite canons or that of the Liturgy of St Tikhon, but they all pale in comparison to the Roman Canon used from antiquity and hallowed by the use of saints and fathers of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

This wades into a much larger issue of what the "purpose" of Western Rite Orthodoxy is. The history of the Antiochian Western Rite is one solely about the union of Western catholic Christians with the undivided, Orthodox Church. Its impetus was not of a theoretical nature, in which the goal was to "pick up where the 'Orthodox West' left off" and revive rites or customs that had faded into history, venerable as those things may be. It wasn't nearly as self-conscious as much of contemporary Western Orthodoxy seems to be about these things.

If you read the correspondences, and the stories about those who made this movement happen, it was always "Can we become Orthodox and still worship from within our Western heritage?" As we see most clearly in the Russian Observations of the Prayer Book, the answer was, "Yes, and here's what you'd have to do."

Why not help restore and fulfill all of the good and beautiful aspects of the people's heritage instead of forcing upon them rites and customs that fell into disuse? Is something "Orthodox" because of its time period, or geographical location, rather than the theology it expresses? Antioch would say no.

That being said, if the people eventually incorporate something older from the whole tradition and revive it, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that has happened already; the manner in which we now cross ourselves, the use of "blessed bread," the fasting rules, have all be restored. But these things happen organically, as they should.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #66 on: June 21, 2013, 10:29:21 PM »

This trumps guy-who-isn't-even-Orthodox pontificating on how Orthodox Christians should worship.
Roman Canon is unquestionably Orthodox.
Then it wouldn't have had to be corrected, then, would it?
If by corrected you mean clumsily inserting a second epiclesis of Byzantine style, no it didn't need corrected and some Eastern Orthodox are actually recognize that.
Some Eastern Orthodox evidently don't know what they are talking about.

If the Vatican hadn't clumsily squeezed the old epiclesis out of the Roman canon on the papacy's meandering down the road out of Orthodoxy, the issue wouldn't come up.

That's not the only correction needed to make the Tridentine Mass into the DL of St. Gregory.

Even the Latin "Extraordinary Rite" (or whatever ya'll are calling it nowadays) crowd don't complain of the "Byzantine" style Kyrie.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 10:35:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #67 on: June 21, 2013, 11:08:44 PM »

Isa brings up an important point. The Antiochian Western Rite liturgies are, to my knowledge, the only time the Western Rite has been laid at the feet of the Eastern Church, as it were, for full scrutiny. And because of that, the liturgies as they exist now, are in some ways improvements over any of the more ancient rites. The Orthodox Church, having 2,000 years of unbroken liturgical tradition and experience, can provide a perspective on liturgy that no one else can, and they can ensure that all of their authorized rites are full expressions of Orthodoxy. In this sense, reverting to an older service, however appealing it might be for the sake of historical "purity" may have the effect of impoverishing the rite.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,036


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 21, 2013, 11:27:47 PM »

If the Vatican hadn't clumsily squeezed the old epiclesis out of the Roman canon on the papacy's meandering down the road out of Orthodoxy, the issue wouldn't come up.

What old epiclesis?  I hadn't heard of such a thing.
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 22, 2013, 11:38:16 AM »

What Epiclesis is that?

"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost 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. Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."

which was this:
"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."


Cramner had nothing to do with that Epiclesis.  The Non-juring Scottish bishops put it in in 1764, and passed it on to the Americans when they ordained Seabury.

I never said he did.
No, but you did say that it was Cranmer's theology, unless I misread it.

Quote
Some Eastern Orthodox evidently don't know what they are talking about
You're right, they dont. They put just as much emphasis on EASTERN as they do Orthodox. Which is why Bishop Anthony of San Francisco got slam dunked when he made that ridiculous encyclical a few years back.

Quote
I do not question the orthodoxy of the new Roman Rite canons
You're starting to become a minority...alot of converts to Orthodoxy are those fleeing the post-Vatican II hilarity.
Quote
or that of the Liturgy of St Tikhon
Nor should you....it is both Orthodox and orthodox. Heck even most hierarchs with ZERO WR parishes say there is absolutely nothing wrong with the liturgy, or the WR in general.
Quote
but they all pale in comparison to the Roman Canon used from antiquity and hallowed by the use of saints and fathers of both the Catholic and Orthodox Church
Which one would that be? (honestly curious)


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #70 on: June 22, 2013, 11:56:37 AM »

If the Vatican hadn't clumsily squeezed the old epiclesis out of the Roman canon on the papacy's meandering down the road out of Orthodoxy, the issue wouldn't come up.

What old epiclesis?  I hadn't heard of such a thing.

Take for instance the epiclesis: the Roman rite, according to, for instance, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" had one:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm
Quote
Epiklesis (Latin invocatio) is the name of a prayer that occurs in all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also) after the words of Institution, in which the celebrant prays that God may send down His Holy Spirit to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son...It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer...Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations. The Gallican Liturgy had variable forms according to the feast....The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations...It should be noticed that the Epiklesis for the Holy Eucharist is only one of many such forms. In other sacraments and blessings similar prayers were used, to ask God to send His Holy Spirit to sanctify the matter. There was an Epiklesis for the water of baptism. Tertullian (On Baptism 4), Optatus of Mileve ("De schism. Don., III, ii, VI, iii, in "Corp. Script. eccl. Latin.", vol. XXVI, 69, 148, 149), St. Jerome (Contra Lucif., vi, vii), St. Augustine (On Baptism V.20 and V.27), in the West; and St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit 15.35), St. Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. cat. magn. xxxiii), and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. iii, 3), in the East, refer to it.
At the time before your schism
Quote
That in the Liturgy the Invocation should occur after the words of Institution is only one more case of many which show that people were not much concerned about the exact instant at which all the essence of the sacrament was complete. They looked upon the whole Consecration-prayer as one simple thing. In it the words of Institution always occur (with the doubtful exception of the Nestorian Rite); they believed that Christ would, according to His promise, do the rest. But they did not ask at which exact moment the change takes place. Besides the words of Institution there are many other blessings, prayers, and signs of the cross, some of which came before and some after the words, and all, including the words themselves, combine to make up the one Canon of which the effect is Transubstantiation. So also in our baptism and ordination services, part of the forms and prayers whose effect is the sacramental grace comes, in order of time, after the essential words.
but of course, the scholastics could leave well enough alone
Quote
It was not till Scholastic times that theologians began to discuss the minimum of form required for the essence of each sacrament.
and then got it wrong
Quote
It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis]
which progressed to a problem
Quote
This form has given rise to one of the chief controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches, inasmuch as all Eastern schismatics

sic
Quote
now believe that the Epiklesis, and not the words of Institution, is the essential form (or at least the essential complement) of the sacrament.
whereupon, instead of correcting the matter, the Vatican
Quote
decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear....and the disappearance of any real Epiklesis in our Liturgy confirms this
IOW the Vatican persisted and refused correction and decided on heresy, going into schism over it. Since it chose that over full communion with the Church, the lack of an epiclesis, or at least a full one, and the concommittant defense of lacking one, prove more than a hinderance for the Vatican to return to Catholic communion.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,036


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 22, 2013, 01:05:04 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #72 on: June 22, 2013, 04:42:45 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before, if it ever had one, liturgical scholars do not agree.  St. Nicholas Cabasilas understood the "Supplices te Rogamus" as an implicit ascending Epiclesis as do others with any Liturgical sense.

As to extent western epiclesis, yes we have them in the Mozarabic Missal.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #73 on: June 22, 2013, 05:26:03 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #74 on: June 22, 2013, 11:33:41 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?  Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #75 on: June 22, 2013, 11:36:42 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?  Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.

Fr. Deacon, are there actual texts going back that far? In an era in which priests memorized the Mass?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #76 on: June 22, 2013, 11:48:28 PM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?
Not just that, but that is more than you got, Deacon.
Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.
You first.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #77 on: June 23, 2013, 12:45:15 AM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?  Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.

Fr. Deacon, are there actual texts going back that far? In an era in which priests memorized the Mass?

To St Gelasius?  No.  The oldest sacramentaries we have are from the seventh century.  But there are writings of the fathers that attest to the antiquity of the Roman Canon and the great majority of scholars agree that it is St. Gregory the Great who arranged it as we have it today.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #78 on: June 23, 2013, 01:07:24 AM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it. 

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?
Not just that, but that is more than you got, Deacon.
Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.
You first.

The Canon of St. Hippolytus
We give you thanks, O God, through your beloved Servant Jesus Christ, whom at the end of time you did send to us a Saviour and Redeemer and the Messenger of your counsel. Who is your Word, inseparable from you; through whom you did make all things and in whom you are well pleased. Whom you did send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who, dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as your Son, being born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Who, fulfilling your will, and winning for himself a holy people, spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death he might set free them who believed on you.
Who, when he was betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to nought death, and break the bond of the devil, and tread hell under foot, and give light to the righteous and set up a boundary post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving thanks to you said: Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, perform my memorial. Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, yielding you thanks, because you have counted us worthy to stand before you and to minister to you. And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

From Rome, the 300s, no Eastern style Epiclesis there.
 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #79 on: June 23, 2013, 01:54:58 AM »

Well I'll be damned...and here I was in my own little world where the Supplices te rogamus as an "ascending epiclesis" was good enough for me.  Tongue

Thanks.  A follow-up: are there any extant Missals with such epicletic formulae in the proper place in the Canon?  Or have we really lost all that?

The disappearance of an epiclesis from the Roman Canon might be one answer to a doubt I've had for a while.  In the Roman Missal, the rubrics instruct the priest to bless the Eucharistic gifts with a number of signs of the cross even AFTER the institution narrative.  But if the institution narrative is "the consecration", why would the priest still bless them?  In every other liturgical rite with which I'm familiar, once the gifts are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not blessed by the priest anymore.  If anything, they are used to bless, but they're definitely not blessed.  If those post-institution crosses are the ritual remains of an epiclesis as we know it, that might explain it.  

Well you iare in good company seeing as how the Roman Canon has not had an explicit descending Epiclesis since St. Gregory the Great and before
oh?  And your proof of that, Deacon?
Where is your proof that it had one?  A single vague quotation of Pope St Gelasius?
Not just that, but that is more than you got, Deacon.
Produce a reference to a Roman manuscript or missal.
You first.

The Canon of St. Hippolytus
We give you thanks, O God, through your beloved Servant Jesus Christ, whom at the end of time you did send to us a Saviour and Redeemer and the Messenger of your counsel. Who is your Word, inseparable from you; through whom you did make all things and in whom you are well pleased. Whom you did send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who, dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as your Son, being born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Who, fulfilling your will, and winning for himself a holy people, spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death he might set free them who believed on you.
Who, when he was betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to nought death, and break the bond of the devil, and tread hell under foot, and give light to the righteous and set up a boundary post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving thanks to you said: Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, perform my memorial. Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, yielding you thanks, because you have counted us worthy to stand before you and to minister to you. And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

From Rome, the 300s, no Eastern style Epiclesis there.
  
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 01:55:47 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #80 on: June 23, 2013, 12:37:11 PM »

And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

That is not an Eastern style Epiclesis. Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about here are some examples:

From the Byzantine St James Liturgy:
"The Priest, in a low voice: Have mercy on us, Lord God, the Father, the Almighty. Have mercy on us, God our Saviour. Have mercy on us, O God, in accordance with your great mercy, and send forth upon these holy gifts, here set forth, your all-holy Spirit, (bowing) the Lord and giver of life, enthroned with you, God and Father, and your only-begotten Son, co-reigning, consubstantial and co-eternal, who spoke by the Law and the Prophets and by your New Covenant, who came down in the form of a dove upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, and rested upon him, who came down upon your holy Apostles in the form of fiery tongues in the upper room of holy and glorious Sion on the day of Pentecost. (Standing up) Your same all-holy Spirit, Lord, send down on us and on these gifts here set forth,

(aloud): that having come by his holy, good and glorious presence, he may sanctify this bread and make it the holy body of Christ,

People: Amen.

Priest: and this Cup the precious blood of Christ,

People: Amen.

The Priest signs the holy Gifts and says in a low voice: that they may become for all those who partake of them for forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. For sanctification of souls and bodies. For a fruitful harvest of good works. For the strengthening of your holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which you founded on the rock of the faith, so that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it, delivering it from every heresy and from the scandals caused by those who work iniquity, and from the enemies who arise and attack it, until the consummation of the age.

The clergy alone answer: Amen."
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/lit-james.htm

From The Mozarabic Mass for the Nativity of Chirst(this prayer was part of the propers changing with each day)

"Observing, O Lord, these Thy gifts and commands, we placed upon Thine Altar these offerings of bread and wine, beseeching Thee in the abundance of Thy goodness and compassion, that by the power of that same Spirit by which uncorrupt virginity conceived Thee in the flesh, the Undivided Trinity may sanctify these oblations, so that, when they shall be received by us with no less fear than veneration, whatever there be of life harmful to the soul may wither, and that what has withered may in no wise live again. Amen."
(Twenty-five Consecration Prayers, with Notes and Introduction, Arthur Linton, 1921. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 116-119.)


See the difference?
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 12:39:16 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #81 on: June 23, 2013, 05:24:36 PM »

And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

That is not an Eastern style Epiclesis.

No, it is a Western style Epiclesis.  Do keep up, Deacon.

Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about
Enough to know that there is a literature on the epiclesis in the passage in question, and questions about the passage's text. Lord willing later, I might post some references.

here are some examples:

From the Byzantine St James Liturgy:
"The Priest, in a low voice: Have mercy on us, Lord God, the Father, the Almighty. Have mercy on us, God our Saviour. Have mercy on us, O God, in accordance with your great mercy, and send forth upon these holy gifts, here set forth, your all-holy Spirit, (bowing) the Lord and giver of life, enthroned with you, God and Father, and your only-begotten Son, co-reigning, consubstantial and co-eternal, who spoke by the Law and the Prophets and by your New Covenant, who came down in the form of a dove upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, and rested upon him, who came down upon your holy Apostles in the form of fiery tongues in the upper room of holy and glorious Sion on the day of Pentecost. (Standing up) Your same all-holy Spirit, Lord, send down on us and on these gifts here set forth,

(aloud): that having come by his holy, good and glorious presence, he may sanctify this bread and make it the holy body of Christ,

People: Amen.

Priest: and this Cup the precious blood of Christ,

People: Amen.

The Priest signs the holy Gifts and says in a low voice: that they may become for all those who partake of them for forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. For sanctification of souls and bodies. For a fruitful harvest of good works. For the strengthening of your holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which you founded on the rock of the faith, so that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it, delivering it from every heresy and from the scandals caused by those who work iniquity, and from the enemies who arise and attack it, until the consummation of the age.

The clergy alone answer: Amen."
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/lit-james.htm

From The Mozarabic Mass for the Nativity of Chirst(this prayer was part of the propers changing with each day)

"Observing, O Lord, these Thy gifts and commands, we placed upon Thine Altar these offerings of bread and wine, beseeching Thee in the abundance of Thy goodness and compassion, that by the power of that same Spirit by which uncorrupt virginity conceived Thee in the flesh, the Undivided Trinity may sanctify these oblations, so that, when they shall be received by us with no less fear than veneration, whatever there be of life harmful to the soul may wither, and that what has withered may in no wise live again. Amen."
(Twenty-five Consecration Prayers, with Notes and Introduction, Arthur Linton, 1921. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 116-119.)

See the difference?
No, that's a distinction without a difference.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #82 on: June 23, 2013, 07:26:56 PM »

At this point I am not even sure what you are arguing about.  I never said there wasn't an Epiclesis, just not an explicit descending Epiclesis of the style the East.  The Roman Canon has an implicit ascending Epiclesis:
"In humble prayer we ask you,almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing."
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml

Which matches thought with the Mozarabic:
"Observing, O Lord, these Thy gifts and commands, we placed upon Thine Altar these offerings of bread and wine, beseeching Thee in the abundance of Thy goodness and compassion, that by the power of that same Spirit by which uncorrupt virginity conceived Thee in the flesh, the Undivided Trinity may sanctify these oblations, so that, when they shall be received by us with no less fear than veneration, whatever there be of life harmful to the soul may wither, and that what has withered may in no wise live again. Amen."
(Twenty-five Consecration Prayers, with Notes and Introduction, Arthur Linton, 1921. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 116-119.)

So if you have no problem with the Mozarabic you should have none with the Roman if you are being consistent.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #83 on: June 23, 2013, 07:33:56 PM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #84 on: June 23, 2013, 08:20:14 PM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #85 on: June 23, 2013, 08:23:15 PM »

At this point I am not even sure what you are arguing about.  I never said there wasn't an Epiclesis, just not an explicit descending Epiclesis of the style the East.  The Roman Canon has an implicit ascending Epiclesis:
"In humble prayer we ask you,almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing."
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer1.shtml

Which matches thought with the Mozarabic:
"Observing, O Lord, these Thy gifts and commands, we placed upon Thine Altar these offerings of bread and wine, beseeching Thee in the abundance of Thy goodness and compassion, that by the power of that same Spirit by which uncorrupt virginity conceived Thee in the flesh, the Undivided Trinity may sanctify these oblations, so that, when they shall be received by us with no less fear than veneration, whatever there be of life harmful to the soul may wither, and that what has withered may in no wise live again. Amen."
(Twenty-five Consecration Prayers, with Notes and Introduction, Arthur Linton, 1921. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. pp. 116-119.)

So if you have no problem with the Mozarabic you should have none with the Roman if you are being consistent.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #86 on: June 23, 2013, 09:17:14 PM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."

You don't get it.  Conversation over.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #87 on: June 23, 2013, 09:47:43 PM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."

You don't get it.  Conversation over.
But God's praise endeth never.

But do tell us when you find an epiclesis that doesn't invoke the Spirit, Deacon.  I mean, besides the Tridentine.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 09:49:33 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2013, 12:00:29 AM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."

You don't get it.  Conversation over.
But God's praise endeth never.

But do tell us when you find an epiclesis that doesn't invoke the Spirit, Deacon.  I mean, besides the Tridentine.

Still not getting it.  I didn't say the Spirit wasn't invoked, although some Mozarabic and Gallican epicleses as well as that of Serapion invoke Christ rather than the Spirit.   And the Roman Canon does invoke the Spirit, that is who the Angel with a capital A is. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,615



« Reply #89 on: June 24, 2013, 12:45:40 AM »

No, that's a distinction without a difference.

If you are unable to discern a difference between a Epiclesis that explicitly asks for the change of the gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ and one that asks for the sanctification of the gifts for the cleansing and blessing of those receiving there is no point in continuing the discussion.
"Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth."

You don't get it.  Conversation over.
But God's praise endeth never.

But do tell us when you find an epiclesis that doesn't invoke the Spirit, Deacon.  I mean, besides the Tridentine.

Still not getting it.  I didn't say the Spirit wasn't invoked, although some Mozarabic and Gallican epicleses as well as that of Serapion invoke Christ rather than the Spirit.   And the Roman Canon does invoke the Spirit, that is who the Angel with a capital A is. 
There were no capitals in ancient Latin.

And I don't recall the Spirit ever being referred as an angel, capitalized or otherwise, anywhere.  Anywhere Orthodox and orthodox that is.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   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 0.226 seconds with 72 queries.