Confused About the Rites

[asdamick]

I've generally heard (for example, from talks by Fr. Andrew Damick) that Eucharistic Adoration (that is, the exposition of the Eucharist for private adoration outside the liturgy) is an un-Orthodox practice, as it separates the Eucharist from its proper context as something to be eaten, not a talisman.

And yet, Ware's The Orthodox Church, at least in some editions, doesn't say it's an "un-Orthodox" practice in the sense that there's something wrong with it, just that the way it's done in the West isn't an Eastern practice.

I'm wary of the new apologists for Orthodoxy who appear at times to see everything through an "East = Good, West = Bad" paradigm.  The West had to deal with numerous challenges to the doctrine of the Eucharist, and it's no surprise that Eucharistic devotion sprung out of that context, as a way of affirming the true faith regarding the Eucharist.  If the East never had this problem, good.  

But I doubt Fr Damick would agree that icon veneration is an un-Orthodox practice, as it separates iconography from its proper context as ecclesiastical adornment and catechism for the illiterate, not as "windows into heaven" through which veneration passes to the prototype (that's the same logic he applies to Eucharistic adoration).  Because icon veneration came under attack in certain regions in the East, the theology had to be expounded more thoroughly and devotion to icons increased.  In places where iconodulia was not called into question, their role is less pronounced and probably reflects "pre-controversy" levels of importance.  Where once it was called into question, now you have churches and cathedrals with icons on all walls, the ceiling, domes, on vessels, vestments, chandeliers, doors, bulletins, t-shirts, websites, kitschy bracelets, birthday cakes, just everywhere.  

In such a context, it's rather ignorant, IMO, to criticise Eucharistic adoration as un-Orthodox, unless the argument is that Byzantine = Orthodox.  And then, it's totally ignorant.    

A few things:  I did not say that venerating the Eucharist is not Orthodox.  The remarks I made were referring specifically to set-aside Eucharistic adoration chapels used by the RCC, in which the Eucharist is removed from the context of the liturgy and made into an isolated object of worship outside the liturgy.  There are even whole services and devotional prayers dedicated to the practice, and of course it is also carried in processions outside the mass.

Iconography doesn't function in the same way as the Eucharist for many reasons, not the least of which is that there have (as far as we know) always been portable icons.  Indeed, pretty much every icon that is claimed to have been painted by St. Luke is not painted on a wall but is portable.

In any event, I do not believe nor have ever believed that "Byzantine = Orthodox."

[Mor Ephrem]

Fr Andrew,

Thanks for weighing in.  My remarks were directed toward another poster's representation of your own; forgive me if we lost something of your argument along the way.

The remarks I made were referring specifically to set-aside Eucharistic adoration chapels used by the RCC, in which the Eucharist is removed from the context of the liturgy and made into an isolated object of worship outside the liturgy.  There are even whole services and devotional prayers dedicated to the practice, and of course it is also carried in processions outside the mass.

You're right, and I agree that, from our perspective, divorcing the Eucharist from its liturgical context does justice to neither.  But I still can't help seeing in RC Eucharistic devotion the affirmation of a doctrine that has been repeatedly attacked in the West.  In this, I feel it bears a resemblance to the Eastern Orthodox cult of icons, a cult not practiced with nearly as much intensity in traditions unaffected by iconoclasm. 

Iconography doesn't function in the same way as the Eucharist for many reasons, not the least of which is that there have (as far as we know) always been portable icons.  Indeed, pretty much every icon that is claimed to have been painted by St. Luke is not painted on a wall but is portable.

I'm not sure what relevance portable icons has in this discussion.  Whether the icon is portable or not, the theology and praxis is the same.  Portable icons actually lend themselves more easily than murals on walls to the kinds of devotion we see RC's practice with the Eucharist: special shrines, prayer services (canons/akathists), feast days for particular icons, processions, etc.  What part of your argument am I missing? 

In any event, I do not believe nor have ever believed that "Byzantine = Orthodox."

[Rdunbar123]

No, my point was, that if Orthodoxy is defined by a particular rite,

No one says this, so there goes your point.

Nope, the flavor of the comments on this site is that there there is no acceptable liturgy other than the liturgy of St John Chrysostom.
at least that is what I get. ALL liturgies we developed, the worship of God it the important aspect. IMO many posters tend to over analyze things instead of worrying about essentials.

[Iconodule]

No, my point was, that if Orthodoxy is defined by a particular rite,

No one says this, so there goes your point.

Nope, the flavor of the comments on this site is that there there is no acceptable liturgy other than the liturgy of St John Chrysostom.
at least that is what I get.

Then your reading comprehension could use some work.

[primuspilus]

No, my point was, that if Orthodoxy is defined by a particular rite,

No one says this, so there goes your point.

Nope, the flavor of the comments from a few posters, not at all representing this site is that there there is no acceptable liturgy other than the liturgy of St John Chrysostom.
at least that is what I get. ALL liturgies we developed, the worship of God it the important aspect. IMO many posters tend to over analyze things instead of worrying about essentials.

There ya go.

Thank you for weighing in Fr. Andrew. I so appreciate your podcasts. It helped me a great deal during my investigations into Orthodoxy, and still helps my family to this day.

PP

[mabsoota]

this is an interesting thread.
can anyone tell me more about the western rite liturgy of saint james of jerusalem?

i would like to compare it with the british orthodox (oriental orthodox) one next time i visit.
that one is here:
http://britishorthodox.org/miscellaneous/the-divine-liturgy-of-saint-james/

i am an orthodox Christian who studies liturgies and church history in her spare time.
 

[mike]

I didn't know you are a girl.

[Hawkeye]

I didn't know you are a girl.

Your recent posts indicate that there are several other folk whose gender identities you don't quite know.

What revelations will come next?!

[mabsoota]

my picture is saint matthias who i love a lot.
he was a man, so i understand the confusion!

however, my name (as i occasionally point out to increase the awareness of the lovely arabic language) means 'happy'
in the female gender. a happy man (egyptian dialect) would be 'mabsoot'.

also i like theology and history and dislike cuddly animals (my favourites are insects and arachnids), so people who favour
stereotypes might think i am a man (not when they see me!)

[Mor Ephrem]

my picture is saint matthias who i love a lot.
he was a man, so i understand the confusion!

Some apostles are very much emphasised, but others, like St Matthias or my own patron, get ignored by and large.  I always feel bad about that.  Good for you for doing your part to change this!

[mabsoota]

i became closer to him just before joining the orthodox church, and later found out that the day of my chrismation was his feast in the eastern orthodox church!
on our calendar, we commemorate simeon the stylite that day (syrian), who is also very special to me.

when i chose my picture for the website, i hadn't realised ihad been chrismated on his feast day, so i was very happy to find this out.
 
this is the story of his martydom:
http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/7_8.html#1

at one stage, he was preaching somewhere in africa and was captured, and saint andrew came to rescue him.
from an article i wrote:
Saint Andrew’s third missionary journey took him far into Africa, and he encountered another terrifying tribe of people who ate their visitors after torturing them in terrible ways, starting with gauging out their eyes.
Saint Matthias had gone there to preach and was imprisoned by this group.
By God’s grace, and through the faith, hope and love of Saint Andrew, he rescued his brother, sent him on his way to continue preaching, and stayed behind to preach to the tribe, convicting them of the power and love of God.

anyway, back to the topic:
can anyone tell me more about the western orthodox liturgy of saint james of jerusalem?
 

[primuspilus]

can anyone tell me more about the western orthodox liturgy of saint james of jerusalem?

I didn't know there was a western version of this.

PP

[Mor Ephrem]

can anyone tell me more about the western orthodox liturgy of saint james of jerusalem?

I didn't know there was a western version of this.

PP

Mabsoota, do you mean Western (Latin) or Western (Greek)?  I don't think there's a Latin version of the James Liturgy, but the Greek version looks a lot like what the British Orthodox use (except without the added Coptic elements).  In its basic structure, it is like our own Syriac version, but there are a number of ritual and textual differences. 

[mabsoota]

someone earlier in the thread mentioned the liturgy of saint james and so i wondered if it was similar to 'ours'
(i am sort of a member of the british orthodox church as i go to several of their events, but i go more often to the main coptic church and fast with the main church. the british orthodox are on a revised calendar, so you can't be a member of both at the same time or your stomach gets confused).
happy start of advent fast to all british orthodox, finns and others on the new calendar!

i would like to know about the greek version if there isn't a latin one. ideally in an english translation as my greek only extends to 'agios o Theos' (holy God) and 'Christos anesti ek nekron' (Christ is risen from the dead) and a few other parts of the liturgy where our 'coptic' parts turn out to be actually greek!

the british orthodox version is here:
http://britishorthodox.org/miscellaneous/the-divine-liturgy-of-saint-james/

the tunes are great, unfortunately they are not available online (as far as i know).
they sound like european popular music of the 14th - 16th centuries, but are actually mostly written much later.

[Mor Ephrem]

i would like to know about the greek version if there isn't a latin one. ideally in an english translation as my greek only extends to 'agios o Theos' (holy God) and 'Christos anesti ek nekron' (Christ is risen from the dead) and a few other parts of the liturgy where our 'coptic' parts turn out to be actually greek!

the british orthodox version is here:
http://britishorthodox.org/miscellaneous/the-divine-liturgy-of-saint-james/

Greek St James, in English
Syriac St James, in English (Liturgy of the Faithful)

Mabsoota, do you know if the British Orthodox Liturgy has ever been recorded and put online?  I'd like to see it, but I can't afford airfare. 

[dzheremi]

I didn't know you are a girl.

Well, joyfulness is, strictly speaking, feminine in Arabic.

[mabsoota]

thanks, brother, that is what i was looking for  
may God reward you in His kingdom.

for now you will have to save up for the airfare, as they don't want people to sit at home enjoying the liturgy online,
but rather they want people to come to their nearest orthodox church and experience the divine liturgy.

orthodox Christianity can't be lived on line through virtual friends (i apologise if this comes as a terrible shock to anyone here...)
 
and for most people whose nearest church is less than 50 miles (75km) away, this will encourage them to go to church. for the others, there are already very many orthodox liturgies recorded.

but maybe i'll ask them to record one or two songs or chants so people can get a taste of what it is like.

[Mor Ephrem]

for now you will have to save up for the airfare, as they don't want people to sit at home enjoying the liturgy online,
but rather they want people to come to their nearest orthodox church and experience the divine liturgy.

But I already do that!  Can't you tell them I'm a geek? 

[asdamick]

Iconography doesn't function in the same way as the Eucharist for many reasons, not the least of which is that there have (as far as we know) always been portable icons.  Indeed, pretty much every icon that is claimed to have been painted by St. Luke is not painted on a wall but is portable.

I'm not sure what relevance portable icons has in this discussion.  Whether the icon is portable or not, the theology and praxis is the same.  Portable icons actually lend themselves more easily than murals on walls to the kinds of devotion we see RC's practice with the Eucharist: special shrines, prayer services (canons/akathists), feast days for particular icons, processions, etc.  What part of your argument am I missing?  

I was responding directly to the assertion above that icon veneration "separates iconography from its proper context as ecclesiastical adornment."  That is, I was observing that the very first Christian icons themselves wouldn't have fit into the context of ecclesiastical adornment, so it doesn't make much sense to limit them in that way.

[Mor Ephrem]

That is, I was observing that the very first Christian icons themselves wouldn't have fit into the context of ecclesiastical adornment, so it doesn't make much sense to limit them in that way.

ISTM that you might be limiting "ecclesiastical adornment" to icons painted on walls, and that, too, makes little sense to me.  Portable icons, vestments, altar coverings, etc. all count as "ecclesiastical adornment", at least in the way I was using the term.  They may have other levels of importance as well, but they are at least adornment. 

[mabsoota]

but maybe i'll ask them to record one or two songs or chants so people can get a taste of what it is like.

ok, don't hold your breath, but we may get some recordings done in the next month or two.
it will not be a full liturgy.
i will post a link to them when they are out, or you can keep checking http://britishorthodox.org
 

[Mor Ephrem]

Breathing!

[Iconodule]

Just came across a video of a WR church singing "A Mighty Fortress is Our God". What the heck? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBLTP4ojITs

[Sleeper]

Just came across a video of a WR church singing "A Mighty Fortress is Our God". What the heck? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBLTP4ojITs

What the heck what?

[asdamick]

That is, I was observing that the very first Christian icons themselves wouldn't have fit into the context of ecclesiastical adornment, so it doesn't make much sense to limit them in that way.

ISTM that you might be limiting "ecclesiastical adornment" to icons painted on walls, and that, too, makes little sense to me.  Portable icons, vestments, altar coverings, etc. all count as "ecclesiastical adornment", at least in the way I was using the term.  They may have other levels of importance as well, but they are at least adornment.  

Well, we seem to be talking past one another, because it doesn't make sense to me that venerating icons removes them from anything at all.  I also don't see what warrant there is for defining icons as properly limited to "ecclesiastical adornment" in the same sense that the Eucharist is properly for the purpose of communion.  I don't see how venerating icons is analogous to isolated Eucharistic worship as per adoration chapels, processions, etc.

So perhaps that could be explained further.

[Mor Ephrem]

So perhaps that could be explained further.

Sure, Father.

Quite simply, I've never come across any evidence for iconography ever having been other than "art" or "adornment" when it first shows up in our tradition.  That people may have spontaneously developed forms of devotion with which to venerate icons, or that this got ramped up and defined in the aftermath of iconoclasm, doesn't mean that the first icon painters consciously painted icons as objects for the devotion of the faithful (I don't think St Luke had II Nicaea's doctrinal definitions in mind when painting icons, even if he wouldn't disagree with it).  I would be happy to be proven wrong on this. 

Anyway, if they started as art and gradually came to be understood as it is today in Eastern Orthodoxy due to the challenge of iconoclasm, I don't think it's unreasonable to posit a similar development in the West surrounding the Eucharist, which was the subject of various heresies.  Originally, the Eucharist may well have been understood in the West as we understand it, but in response to various challenges, devotions arose in order to support and defend the orthodox teaching. 

From where I stand (OO of Syriac tradition), neither the EO devotion to icons nor the Western devotion to the Eucharist is "the ancient practice".  We affirm iconography, but devotion is much less defined and "required".  Similarly, we have no extra-liturgical devotion to the Eucharist.  These were never challenged among us, and so we maintained the same practice we always have.  But if these practices developed in places where the orthodox faith was endangered as a way of protecting it, I don't see it as a big deal.

I'm not sure how much more simply I can explain myself.  Forgive me for suggesting that this...

...because it doesn't make sense to me that venerating icons removes them from anything at all.  I also don't see what warrant there is for defining icons as properly limited to "ecclesiastical adornment" in the same sense that the Eucharist is properly for the purpose of communion.  I don't see how venerating icons is analogous to isolated Eucharistic worship as per adoration chapels, processions, etc.

...may have more to do with how, as an EO Christian, you take iconography and icon veneration as it is practiced in the EO Church for granted as part of the apostolic faith.  It's not quite what it once was, even if the later development is consistent with its earlier manifestations.   

[asdamick]

Forgive me for suggesting that this...

...because it doesn't make sense to me that venerating icons removes them from anything at all.  I also don't see what warrant there is for defining icons as properly limited to "ecclesiastical adornment" in the same sense that the Eucharist is properly for the purpose of communion.  I don't see how venerating icons is analogous to isolated Eucharistic worship as per adoration chapels, processions, etc.

...may have more to do with how, as an EO Christian, you take iconography and icon veneration as it is practiced in the EO Church for granted as part of the apostolic faith.  It's not quite what it once was, even if the later development is consistent with its earlier manifestations.   

Even if everything you say is true, the analogy doesn't hold.  Why?  Because venerating an icon doesn't prevent it from being used as adornment in churches, etc., but removing the Eucharist from the liturgy to make it the subject of adoration absolutely prevents one from actually eating it.  That is, in the latter case, the devotee must say "Don't eat it.  Bow down before it instead."  But in the former, there is no analogous "Do not put icons on walls.  Venerate them instead."

That's why I don't think the analogy really holds.

[Maria]

Forgive me for suggesting that this...

...because it doesn't make sense to me that venerating icons removes them from anything at all.  I also don't see what warrant there is for defining icons as properly limited to "ecclesiastical adornment" in the same sense that the Eucharist is properly for the purpose of communion.  I don't see how venerating icons is analogous to isolated Eucharistic worship as per adoration chapels, processions, etc.

...may have more to do with how, as an EO Christian, you take iconography and icon veneration as it is practiced in the EO Church for granted as part of the apostolic faith.  It's not quite what it once was, even if the later development is consistent with its earlier manifestations.    

Even if everything you say is true, the analogy doesn't hold.  Why?  Because venerating an icon doesn't prevent it from being used as adornment in churches, etc., but removing the Eucharist from the liturgy to make it the subject of adoration absolutely prevents one from actually eating it.  That is, in the latter case, the devotee must say "Don't eat it.  Bow down before it instead."  But in the former, there is no analogous "Do not put icons on walls.  Venerate them instead."

That's why I don't think the analogy really holds.

Father, is it therefore appropriate for icons be used to decorate t-shirts and other non-liturgical apparel?

Perhaps, more importantly, did the Early Christians use icons to embellish their non-liturgical apparel?

I am asking these questions to see how far we can separate veneration from icons.

[alexpetros]

Because venerating an icon doesn't prevent it from being used as adornment in churches, etc., but removing the Eucharist from the liturgy to make it the subject of adoration absolutely prevents one from actually eating it.  That is, in the latter case, the devotee must say "Don't eat it.  Bow down before it instead."  But in the former, there is no analogous "Do not put icons on walls.  Venerate them instead."

That's why I don't think the analogy really holds.

Actually, not true. The priest still has to eat the host within a week or month (depending on parish) and supply a new host to venerate.

[Mor Ephrem]

Because venerating an icon doesn't prevent it from being used as adornment in churches, etc., but removing the Eucharist from the liturgy to make it the subject of adoration absolutely prevents one from actually eating it.  That is, in the latter case, the devotee must say "Don't eat it.  Bow down before it instead."  But in the former, there is no analogous "Do not put icons on walls.  Venerate them instead."

That's why I don't think the analogy really holds.

Actually, not true. The priest still has to eat the host within a week or month (depending on parish) and supply a new host to venerate.

Basically, this. 

[frjohnmorris]

St. Gregory IS the Tridentine rite.

Albeit altered. Has a Byzantine epiclesis and no filioque (not that I support the filioque to begin with).

Most studies of the history of the Western Rite claim that there was an Epiklesis in the original Western Rite. Significantly, in  Novo Ordo Roman Catholic Mass, every Canon of the Mass, but the Roman Canon has an Epiklesis.
I may be wrong, but I heard that the Patriarch wanted the pre-Communion prayer from the Eastern Liturgy inserted to insure that it is clear that the Western Rite Orthodox must actually believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, not just a symbol or a kind of spiritual presence as some Anglican believe.
Fr. John W. Morris

[primuspilus]

I may be wrong, but I heard that the Patriarch wanted the pre-Communion prayer from the Eastern Liturgy inserted to insure that it is clear that the Western Rite Orthodox must actually believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, not just a symbol or a kind of spiritual presence as some Anglican believe

I was under the impression that it was Met. Phillip that ordered this.

PP

[frjohnmorris]

I may be wrong, but I heard that the Patriarch wanted the pre-Communion prayer from the Eastern Liturgy inserted to insure that it is clear that the Western Rite Orthodox must actually believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, not just a symbol or a kind of spiritual presence as some Anglican believe

I was under the impression that it was Met. Phillip that ordered this.

PP

I heard that it was the Patriarch. One problem with the Book of Common Prayer is that it was deliberately written in a way that can be interpreted several different ways. I heard that His Beatitude wanted to make it clear that we believe that the bread and wine are actually transformed by the Holy Spirit into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Fr. John W.  Morris

[Sleeper]

I may be wrong, but I heard that the Patriarch wanted the pre-Communion prayer from the Eastern Liturgy inserted to insure that it is clear that the Western Rite Orthodox must actually believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, not just a symbol or a kind of spiritual presence as some Anglican believe

I was under the impression that it was Met. Phillip that ordered this.

PP

I heard that it was the Patriarch. One problem with the Book of Common Prayer is that it was deliberately written in a way that can be interpreted several different ways. I heard that His Beatitude wanted to make it clear that we believe that the bread and wine are actually transformed by the Holy Spirit into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Fr. John W.  Morris

The prayers were added by the Patriarch, and are present in both of the WR liturgies, though neither really needed them. The DL of St. Tikhon in particular has some of the most explicit prayers in any liturgy. While the prayers do indeed serve to further highlight that doctrine, they were also (and maybe primarily?) added so that ER visitors had something familiar to pray when attending WR masses.

[frjohnmorris]

I may be wrong, but I heard that the Patriarch wanted the pre-Communion prayer from the Eastern Liturgy inserted to insure that it is clear that the Western Rite Orthodox must actually believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, not just a symbol or a kind of spiritual presence as some Anglican believe

I was under the impression that it was Met. Phillip that ordered this.

PP

I heard that it was the Patriarch. One problem with the Book of Common Prayer is that it was deliberately written in a way that can be interpreted several different ways. I heard that His Beatitude wanted to make it clear that we believe that the bread and wine are actually transformed by the Holy Spirit into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Fr. John W.  Morris

The prayers were added by the Patriarch, and are present in both of the WR liturgies, though neither really needed them. The DL of St. Tikhon in particular has some of the most explicit prayers in any liturgy. While the prayers do indeed serve to further highlight that doctrine, they were also (and maybe primarily?) added so that ER visitors had something familiar to pray when attending WR masses.

I am sorry to disagree with you, but the Anglican prayers can be used by someone who believes as we do that the bread and wine are actually changed into the Body and  Blood of Christ as well as someone who believes that the bread and wine only symbolize the Body and Blood of Christ and that Christ is only spiritually present. Since most members of Western Rite are converts from Anglicanism, we have to be careful that they understand exactly what they are expected to believe as Orthodox Christians.

Fr. John W. Morris

[dcointin]

My own parish used the Liturgy of St. Tikhon before changing to the Liturgy of St. Gregory.  I was uncomfortable with some of the language used since I know the understanding of Cramner, a Zwinglian in his Eucharistic belief, when he composed it.  For example, "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving."

[Sleeper]

The entire Mass must be taken into context, though. Many prayers by themselves could have all sorts of things "read into" them, including those from the Byzantine liturgy. Here are a few explicit examples from the Mass of St. Tikhon:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy holy Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. 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.

...humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.

...deliver me by thy most sacred Body and Blood from all mine iniquities.

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

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

These prayers are just as explicit as, "And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood." I also love their portrayal of the intimate connection between the holy mysteries and theosis.

[frjohnmorris]

The entire Mass must be taken into context, though. Many prayers by themselves could have all sorts of things "read into" them, including those from the Byzantine liturgy. Here are a few explicit examples from the Mass of St. Tikhon:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy holy Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. 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.

...humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.

...deliver me by thy most sacred Body and Blood from all mine iniquities.

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

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

These prayers are just as explicit as, "And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood." I also love their portrayal of the intimate connection between the holy mysteries and theosis.

The Epiklesis is specific, but it was added. There are many Anglicans who say the other prayers and vehemently deny that the bread and wine are changed into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, as does one of the 39 Articles of Anglican doctrine. In fact outright Calvinism is growing among continuing Anglicans. Therefore, it is important that the Western Rite Orthodox version of Anglican services be as explicit as possible and emphasize the correct Orthodox doctrine that there the bread and wine are really transformed into the real Body and Blood of Christ. 

Fr. John W. Morris

[frjohnmorris]

The entire Mass must be taken into context, though. Many prayers by themselves could have all sorts of things "read into" them, including those from the Byzantine liturgy. Here are a few explicit examples from the Mass of St. Tikhon:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy holy Spirit upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. 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.

...humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.

...deliver me by thy most sacred Body and Blood from all mine iniquities.

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

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

These prayers are just as explicit as, "And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood." I also love their portrayal of the intimate connection between the holy mysteries and theosis.

The Epiklesis is specific, but it was added. There are many Anglicans who say the other prayers and vehemently deny that the bread and wine are changed into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, as does one of the 39 Articles of Anglican doctrine. In fact outright Calvinism is growing among continuing Anglicans. Therefore, it is important that the Western Rite Orthodox version of Anglican services be as explicit as possible and emphasize the correct Orthodox doctrine that there the bread and wine are really transformed into the real Body and Blood of Christ. 
Besides the Byzantine Prayer "I believe..." is  beautiful addition to the Western Rite. Throughout history Western and Eastern Rites have borrow from each other, the chant, "Glory be to God..." in the Western Mass was taken from Byzantine Rite Matins.
Fr. John W. Morris

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Confused About the Rites