OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 07:32:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Western Liturgies of the Antiochian Church  (Read 2704 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« on: March 12, 2014, 11:13:18 PM »

Both here, and elsewhere, I have encountered some misconceptions about the liturgical tradition of the Western Rite within the Antiochian Patriarchate. Usually it happens by applying a simplistic label to one or the other; "Tridentine" for the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory and "Book of Common Prayer" for the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Many seem to possess at least a cursory understanding of the Tridentine "reforms" of the ancient Roman liturgy of St. Gregory, such that it is often considered to be above reproach and rightfully seen as the oldest Orthodox liturgy in all of Christendom. What many seem to not understand is the deep kinship and history shared by this venerable Orthodox liturgy and the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is simply understood to be a "daughter rite" of the Roman liturgy, or even a "Use" of it. For this reason I thought it might be helpful to examine the elements of each Mass, to see where they are identical and where they differ. What will become obvious is that both liturgies are essentially identical, but the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon "enriches" the ancient Roman Mass with elements peculiar to its history within the English stream of tradition.

The Asperges [Gregory & Tikhon] - This is a short ceremony that precedes the Mass, dating to the 9th century.

The Preparation [Gregory & Tikhon] - Also called "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" Psalm 43 is prayed and followed by confession. It is often said privately by the Priest and those serving while the Introit is being sung.

The Introit [Gregory & Tikhon] - The Introit is an introductory Psalm which sets the tone for the Mass. The tradition of beginning the Mass with an Introit is credited to Pope Celestine between 423-432 AD, as recorded in Liber Pontificalis that “he appointed that the hundred and fifty Psalms of David should be sung antiphonally by all before the sacrifice.”

The Collect for Purity [Tikhon] - This prayer dates to at least the 8th century, and is unique to the English liturgical heritage.

Preparatory Prayers [Gregory & Tikhon] - These two prayers are prayed by the Priest only. One dates from the 6th century, the other from the 11th.

The Summary of the Law [Gregory & Tikhon] - Here is given the summation of the Old Covenant by Our Lord Himself, as found in St. Matthew 22:37-40 and St. Luke 10:25-28.

The following "Propers" (Collects, Epistles, Graduals, Alleluias, Tracts and Gospel readings) have been established since the time of St. Jerome (342-420 AD) and are identical to those found in the common sacramentaries of the 4th and 5th centuries.

The Collects [Gregory & Tikhon] - A short prayer that "collects" the petitions of the faithful and brings it to God following a set formula: 1) An opening address, most often to God the Father, 2) A specific petition, and 3) A conclusion with an invocation of the mediation of the Son, in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The Epistle [Gregory & Tikhon] - A selected portion of the New Testament, an element common to all Orthodox liturgies.

The Gradual and Alleluia/Tract [Gregory & Tikhon] - Similar to the Introit, this is a Psalm or portion thereof; one of the most ancient features of the Western liturgy.

Preparatory Prayers for the Reading of the Gospel [Gregory & Tikhon] - Prayers said by the Priest or Deacon before reading from the Holy Gospels.

The Holy Gospel [Gregory & Tikhon] - Another feature common to all Orthodox liturgies.

Kyrie Eleison [Gregory & Tikhon] - The first instance of the Kyrie being described in the worship of the Western Church comes to us from a council held at Caisson in 529 AD, the third canon of which states that, “since both in the Apostolic See, and throughout all the provinces of the East of Italy, the sweet and extremely salutary custom has been introduced of saying ‘Kyrie eleison’ with great feeling and compunction; it pleases us, too, that in all our churches this same holy practice shall be introduced both at Matins, Mass and Evensong.”

Gloria in Excelsis [Gregory & Tikhon] - The Gloria was introduced in Rome in the 5th century, in imitation of the Church of Jerusalem. It was originally a Greek hymn, forming part of their morning services, and was finally set in the Western Mass, as we read in the Life of St. Symmachus (498-514 AD), where he appointed the angelic hymn to be sung every Sunday or festival of a martyr. The present text as we have it now was translated into Latin by St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368 AD).

The Creed [Gregory & Tikhon] - The Nicene Creed made its way into the Western Mass between the 6th and 8th centuries.

The Offertory Verse [Gregory & Tikhon] - Also similar to the Introit, this is a portion of a Psalm.

Offertory Prayers [Gregory & Tikhon] - A selection of fixed prayers said by the Priest offering of the bread and wine to God Almighty, dating from the 7th to 9th centuries.
 
Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church [Tikhon] - Here the Tikhonian liturgy departs from the Gregorian and follows more closely to the East. This prayer is rooted in St. Paul the Apostle's directive to "make intercessions for all men" (1 Timothy 2:1) and is directly parallel to the Great Litany of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

General Confession [Tikhon] - Also unique to the Tikhonian liturgy is this prayer of confession followed by absolution. This follows more closely (than either the Roman Mass or the Byzantine liturgy) the more primitive forms of the liturgy which contained an absolution for penitents.

The Comfortable Words [Tikhon] - These are short sentences of Scripture, specifically quotations from Our Lord, St. Paul the Apostle, and St. John the Divine.

The Sursum Corda [Gregory/Tikhon] - Coming directly from the Jewish liturgy, this element is common to all ancient Orthodox liturgies.

The Preface [Gregory/Tikhon] - This is a variable part of the Mass, changing according to the feast or season. It concludes with the Sanctus et Benedictus, both derived directly from Holy Scripture.

The Canon [Gregory & Tikhon] - This is another element that is common to all ancient Orthodox liturgies. If you laid all of the ancient Canons side by side, you would see that there is a basic outline to them. A preface of praise to God the Father, praise for the life and sacrifice of Our Lord accompanied by His "Words of Institution," an invocation to consecrate the gifts being offered, prayers to consume the Holy Mysteries worthily, and a doxology of thanksgiving, accompanied by the Pater Noster.

The Gregorian Canon was essentially fixed by the 6th century, given its final shape by the Saint whose name it bears. The Tikhonian Canon follows more closely the ancient canon of St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215) while also taking inspiration from Eastern anaphoras in that it flows more coherently than the rather disjointed Gregorian Canon.

The Lord's Prayer [Gregory & Tikhon] - In a letter of St. Gregory’s, from 598 AD, we read regarding the placement of the Lord’s Prayer, “But we say the Lord’s Prayer directly after the canon for the following reason: because it was the custom of the Apostles to consecrate the sacrificial oblation solely with this prayer. And it seemed to me extremely unsuitable to say over the oblations the canon, which was composed by some learned man, and not to say over his Body and Blood that prayer which our Redeemer himself composed.”

Agnus Dei [Gregory & Tikhon] - This is a quote of St. John the Baptist, as found in St. John 1:29ff, and was added to the Western Mass by Pope St. Sergius I in the 7th century.

The Prayer of Humble Access [Tikhon] - This prayer is unique to the Tikhonian Mass and follows the wording of many ancient Western Collects, as well as passages of the Liturgy of St. Basil.

The Priest’s Communion [Gregory & Tikhon] - Here the Priest says private prayers found in the ancient Gregorian Sacramentary, along with portions of Psalms 18 and 116.

Preparatory Prayers of the People [Gregory & Tikhon] - Here the Priest elevates the Consecrated Host and the people respond with the words of the Centurion in the Holy Gospel, “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof...” This element was added to the Western Mass in the 11th century.

It is followed and with two prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which were added by Patriarch IGNATIUS IV of Antioch.

The Communion Verse [Gregory & Tikhon] - Similar to the Introit, this is an antiphon taken from the Psalms.

Administration of the Sacrament [Gregory & Tikhon] - Here the Western Rite follows a more ancient tradition than that of the East, administering the Holy Mysteries either separately, or by intinction (the use of a spoon being condemned at the Quinisext Council). After Communion, the Priest performs the Ablutions accompanied by two ancient prayers from the Gallican Liturgy.

The Thanksgiving [Tikhon] - This is yet another instance where the Tikhon tradition follows the more primitive model, whereas the Gregorian Mass gradually lost its prayers of thanksgiving directly following Holy Communion. This prayer corresponds to one found in the Liturgy of St. James.

Postcommunion Collect [Gregory & Tikhon] - This element is found in the oldest of Western Sacramentaries, the Gelasian.

Dismissal [Gregory & Tikhon] - This is where the term "Mass" comes from (in Latin, "Ite missa est) and is an element common to all Orthodox liturgies. The form found in the Tikhonian liturgy differs slightly than the Gregorian, following the Gallican Liturgy instead. This is followed by the Priest's private prayer (also Gallican in origin).

The Blessing [Gregory & Tikhon] - This became fixed by the 11th century. There is another difference between the two liturgies here, the Tikhonian form being longer and derived from an old Anglo-Saxon episcopal blessing, found in the Exeter Pontifical (11th c.).

The Last Gospel [Gregory & Tikhon] - This second Gospel reading emerged from the private devotions of the Priest and is usually the Prologue from the Gospel of St. John the Divine.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2014, 11:52:39 PM »

 So is the General Confession functionally similar to what I've heard about in the Armenian tradition? In other words, would it be sufficient for receiving communion? Since, as you mention, it includes an absolution.

But that was interesting nonetheless.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 11:53:01 PM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2014, 09:29:31 AM »

So is the General Confession functionally similar to what I've heard about in the Armenian tradition? In other words, would it be sufficient for receiving communion? Since, as you mention, it includes an absolution.

But that was interesting nonetheless.

My understanding is, yes, it would be sufficient, but it is heavily emphasized that it is complementary to the sacrament of Confession and in no way replaces it. In fact, it assumes that one has already confessed and is not seen as a "just in case" measure.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2014, 04:14:02 PM »

Sleeper,

I had some questions about what you posted, but before I get to those, I wanted to ask how you organised your list.  Is the ordo for both Liturgies the same, or are you following the ordo of one and lumping together the elements that occur in both?  For example, you list the Kyrie and Gloria after the Gospel, but it is not so in the Roman rite: have the WR Orthodox changed their celebration of their version of this rite, or have you followed another order and discussing common elements as they arise?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2014, 08:59:07 PM »

Sleeper,

I had some questions about what you posted, but before I get to those, I wanted to ask how you organised your list.  Is the ordo for both Liturgies the same, or are you following the ordo of one and lumping together the elements that occur in both?  For example, you list the Kyrie and Gloria after the Gospel, but it is not so in the Roman rite: have the WR Orthodox changed their celebration of their version of this rite, or have you followed another order and discussing common elements as they arise?

I did the latter, yes. The order for the Roman Mass is still followed by our Gregorian Rite parishes.

Fire away with your questions, I'll do my best to answer!
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2014, 10:17:32 PM »

Fire away with your questions, I'll do my best to answer!

Remember: you asked for it.  Wink

The Collect for Purity [Tikhon] - This prayer dates to at least the 8th century, and is unique to the English liturgical heritage.

What is the text of this prayer, and what liturgy does it come from if it is so old but only appears in the "English" rite and not the "Roman"?  

Quote
Preparatory Prayers [Gregory & Tikhon] - These two prayers are prayed by the Priest only. One dates from the 6th century, the other from the 11th.

What prayers are these that occur in both rites?  Aufer a nobis and Oramus te Domine?

Quote
The Summary of the Law [Gregory & Tikhon] - Here is given the summation of the Old Covenant by Our Lord Himself, as found in St. Matthew 22:37-40 and St. Luke 10:25-28.

I presume this is one of those "English enrichments" of the Roman Mass?  What is its text and function?  

Quote
Kyrie Eleison [Gregory & Tikhon] - The first instance of the Kyrie being described in the worship of the Western Church comes to us from a council held at Caisson in 529 AD, the third canon of which states that, “since both in the Apostolic See, and throughout all the provinces of the East of Italy, the sweet and extremely salutary custom has been introduced of saying ‘Kyrie eleison’ with great feeling and compunction; it pleases us, too, that in all our churches this same holy practice shall be introduced both at Matins, Mass and Evensong.”

Gloria in Excelsis [Gregory & Tikhon] - The Gloria was introduced in Rome in the 5th century, in imitation of the Church of Jerusalem. It was originally a Greek hymn, forming part of their morning services, and was finally set in the Western Mass, as we read in the Life of St. Symmachus (498-514 AD), where he appointed the angelic hymn to be sung every Sunday or festival of a martyr. The present text as we have it now was translated into Latin by St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368 AD).

I haven't consulted Jungmann on this question, but I've noticed that both Armenian and Syriac Liturgies begin the Liturgy of the Catechumens with what I suppose is a primitive form of the end of Matins and/or the Third and Sixth Hours.  My sense is that something similar is going on with Byzantine and perhaps Coptic Liturgy.  In all cases, the Matins/Hours developed on their own but seem to have retained these elements, and in at least some cases, they are part of those services even when the Liturgy is not served.  Is it possible that the Kyrie and Gloria are functioning in a similar way in the Roman Mass, as a sort of transition from a primitive morning office to the Liturgy proper?    

Quote
Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church [Tikhon] - Here the Tikhonian liturgy departs from the Gregorian and follows more closely to the East. This prayer is rooted in St. Paul the Apostle's directive to "make intercessions for all men" (1 Timothy 2:1) and is directly parallel to the Great Litany of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

IIRC, such a "universal prayer" was located at the Dominus vobiscum before the offertory verse: is there a reason why your rite has placed it after and not before the offertory?  And what form does it take?    

Quote
General Confession [Tikhon] - Also unique to the Tikhonian liturgy is this prayer of confession followed by absolution. This follows more closely (than either the Roman Mass or the Byzantine liturgy) the more primitive forms of the liturgy which contained an absolution for penitents.

I like it.  Smiley

Quote
The Comfortable Words [Tikhon] - These are short sentences of Scripture, specifically quotations from Our Lord, St. Paul the Apostle, and St. John the Divine.

What is the function of this element?  

Quote
The Lord's Prayer [Gregory & Tikhon] - In a letter of St. Gregory’s, from 598 AD, we read regarding the placement of the Lord’s Prayer, “But we say the Lord’s Prayer directly after the canon for the following reason: because it was the custom of the Apostles to consecrate the sacrificial oblation solely with this prayer. And it seemed to me extremely unsuitable to say over the oblations the canon, which was composed by some learned man, and not to say over his Body and Blood that prayer which our Redeemer himself composed.”

Thank you for this, I'd never heard it before.  Do you know of a source for this?  

Quote
Agnus Dei [Gregory & Tikhon] - This is a quote of St. John the Baptist, as found in St. John 1:29ff, and was added to the Western Mass by Pope St. Sergius I in the 7th century.

Yay for Syriac tradition!   Wink

Quote
Administration of the Sacrament [Gregory & Tikhon] - Here the Western Rite follows a more ancient tradition than that of the East, administering the Holy Mysteries either separately, or by intinction (the use of a spoon being condemned at the Quinisext Council). After Communion, the Priest performs the Ablutions accompanied by two ancient prayers from the Gallican Liturgy.

All of the OO administer Communion in one or the other of these ways: the use of a spoon to distribute the Body and Blood mixed together in the chalice is, arguably, a Byzantine influence on Syriac liturgical practice and is practiced here and there but not as popular.  

Quote
The Thanksgiving [Tikhon] - This is yet another instance where the Tikhon tradition follows the more primitive model, whereas the Gregorian Mass gradually lost its prayers of thanksgiving directly following Holy Communion. This prayer corresponds to one found in the Liturgy of St. James.

Postcommunion Collect [Gregory & Tikhon] - This element is found in the oldest of Western Sacramentaries, the Gelasian.

I thought the Collect was the Thanksgiving...the Roman Mass used to have a separate prayer of thanksgiving?  

Quote
The Blessing [Gregory & Tikhon] - This became fixed by the 11th century. There is another difference between the two liturgies here, the Tikhonian form being longer and derived from an old Anglo-Saxon episcopal blessing, found in the Exeter Pontifical (11th c.).

Do you have the text for the Tikhonian form?  

Quote
The Last Gospel [Gregory & Tikhon] - This second Gospel reading emerged from the private devotions of the Priest and is usually the Prologue from the Gospel of St. John the Divine.

I don't know why, but I really like this practice.  I regret that in most Latin Mass communities I've visited, the priest mutters this to himself rather than read it aloud: if it's a private devotion, do it in the sacristy, but if you're going to read the Gospel at the altar, then proclaim it from the altar.

That's all for now.  
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 10:18:13 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2014, 02:13:32 AM »

Sleeper, thank you for an this excellent explanation of the two forms of the Mass as practiced in the AWRV. This explanation helps clarify the situation for those who are seeking knowledge of the latin rite liturgies as practiced in the Orthodox Church. These liturgies with their propers exist in "The Orthodox Missal" book, I encourage anyone to purchase it to read firsthand what occurs in these masses.

Most lifelong western christians, including myself, are pleased when they encounter either of these liturgies. Although I have a slight preference for that of St. Gregory compared to Tikon, the differences between them are subtle. The only problem I see with the Tikhon liturgy, other than the inclusion of some words of cranmer which some view as inherently anti-catholic, is that it does not exist entirely in Latin. Even if the majority of the Tikon is identical to the Gregory, every bit ought to exist in latin also. Liturgical language is only a means to an end, but rightfully it ought to have a Latin version of every nook and cranny, to truly be LATIN and ROMAN. (THIS was the english tradition when it was last Orthodox as a nation.)

By the way, the ten commandents are not said in any historic form of the Roman Mass. They are in the Tikhon only, not the Gregory.
The ten commandents are an interesting addition to the liturgy which though they stem from protestant ideology, seem innocuous and helpful in most instances.


« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 02:22:12 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2014, 10:11:15 AM »

Fire away with your questions, I'll do my best to answer!

Remember: you asked for it.  Wink

The Collect for Purity [Tikhon] - This prayer dates to at least the 8th century, and is unique to the English liturgical heritage.

What is the text of this prayer, and what liturgy does it come from if it is so old but only appears in the "English" rite and not the "Roman"?  

"Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of Thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify Thy Holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen."

This prayer can be found in the Sacramentary of Alcuin (d. 804) as well as the Sarum Mass, as seen in the 11th c. Leofric Missal.

Quote
Quote
Preparatory Prayers [Gregory & Tikhon] - These two prayers are prayed by the Priest only. One dates from the 6th century, the other from the 11th.

What prayers are these that occur in both rites?  Aufer a nobis and Oramus te Domine?

You are correct. In English, they read as follows: "Take away from us, we beseech Thee O Lord, all our iniquities that we may enter the Holy of Holies with pure minds. Through Christ our Lord Amen." The priest then kisses the altar and says, "We beseech Thee O Lord, by the prayers of (Thy Saints whose relics are here, and of) all Thy Saints, that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to forgive all my sins. Amen."

Quote
Quote
The Summary of the Law [Gregory & Tikhon] - Here is given the summation of the Old Covenant by Our Lord Himself, as found in St. Matthew 22:37-40 and St. Luke 10:25-28.

I presume this is one of those "English enrichments" of the Roman Mass?  What is its text and function?  

This is actually unique to the Tikhonian liturgy, I accidentally put Gregorian here. The texts are, "Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

This is still connected to all of these other prayers of preparation; the Asperges, Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Collect for Purity. It is "acclimating" us, to so speak, to the Holy Mystery we are about to enter into. We are presented with Christ's authoritative summary of the entirety of God's revelation in the Old Covenant, which Christ boils down for us as the very essence of Christian life, because we cannot partake of His Body and Blood unless we have our priorities in order ("But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup" 1 Cor. 11:28).

Quote
Quote
Kyrie Eleison [Gregory & Tikhon] - The first instance of the Kyrie being described in the worship of the Western Church comes to us from a council held at Caisson in 529 AD, the third canon of which states that, “since both in the Apostolic See, and throughout all the provinces of the East of Italy, the sweet and extremely salutary custom has been introduced of saying ‘Kyrie eleison’ with great feeling and compunction; it pleases us, too, that in all our churches this same holy practice shall be introduced both at Matins, Mass and Evensong.”

Gloria in Excelsis [Gregory & Tikhon] - The Gloria was introduced in Rome in the 5th century, in imitation of the Church of Jerusalem. It was originally a Greek hymn, forming part of their morning services, and was finally set in the Western Mass, as we read in the Life of St. Symmachus (498-514 AD), where he appointed the angelic hymn to be sung every Sunday or festival of a martyr. The present text as we have it now was translated into Latin by St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368 AD).

I haven't consulted Jungmann on this question, but I've noticed that both Armenian and Syriac Liturgies begin the Liturgy of the Catechumens with what I suppose is a primitive form of the end of Matins and/or the Third and Sixth Hours.  My sense is that something similar is going on with Byzantine and perhaps Coptic Liturgy.  In all cases, the Matins/Hours developed on their own but seem to have retained these elements, and in at least some cases, they are part of those services even when the Liturgy is not served.  Is it possible that the Kyrie and Gloria are functioning in a similar way in the Roman Mass, as a sort of transition from a primitive morning office to the Liturgy proper?

It's possible, but my understanding is that it is actually replacing a litany. St. Gregory the Great said, "We neither said nor say Kyrie Eleison as it is said by the Greeks. Among the Greeks all say it together, with us it is said by the clerks and answered by the people, and we say Christe Eleison as many times, which is not the case with the Greeks. Moreover in daily Masses some things usually said are left out by us; we say on Kyrie Eleison and Christe Eleison, that we may dwell longer on these words of prayer" (Ep. ix in P.L., LXXVII, 956)

The Gloria, on the other hand, seems to have grown out of the Mass for Christmas, added to each Sunday only later, in the 5th century, and only to be said by bishops.

Quote
Quote
Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church [Tikhon] - Here the Tikhonian liturgy departs from the Gregorian and follows more closely to the East. This prayer is rooted in St. Paul the Apostle's directive to "make intercessions for all men" (1 Timothy 2:1) and is directly parallel to the Great Litany of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

IIRC, such a "universal prayer" was located at the Dominus vobiscum before the offertory verse: is there a reason why your rite has placed it after and not before the offertory?  And what form does it take?    

The form is,

"ALMIGHTY and everliving God, who by thy holy Apostle hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men; We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to accept our [alms and] oblations, and to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty; beseeching thee to inspire continually the Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord: And grant that all those who do confess thy holy Name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.

We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.

Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and other Ministers [remembering N.N.], that they may, both by their life and doctrine, set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments.

And to all thy People give thy heavenly grace; and especially to this congregation here present; that, with meek heart and due reverence, they may hear, and receive thy holy Word; truly serving thee in holiness and righteousness all the days of their life.

And we most humbly beseech thee, of thy goodness, O Lord, to comfort and succour all those who, in this transitory life, are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity.

And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service, and to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with blessed Mary and all thy Saints, we with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom. Grant this, O Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen."

The prayer is placed where it is because it is connected to both the offertory and the Eucharist. It is understood to be the conclusion of the Offertory and the first stage of the Eucharist. It was placed here when it was discovered that this was the ancient position for it, as described by St. Justin Martyr. It used be after the Sanctus.

Quote
Quote
General Confession [Tikhon] - Also unique to the Tikhonian liturgy is this prayer of confession followed by absolution. This follows more closely (than either the Roman Mass or the Byzantine liturgy) the more primitive forms of the liturgy which contained an absolution for penitents.

I like it.  Smiley

Me too!

Quote
Quote
The Comfortable Words [Tikhon] - These are short sentences of Scripture, specifically quotations from Our Lord, St. Paul the Apostle, and St. John the Divine.

What is the function of this element?  

Through these passages the faithful are assured of the confidence we have in forgiveness so that we can "draw near with faith" (perhaps corresponding to the East's "holy things for the holy"?).

It is rooted in this verse, as well, Hebrews 10:22 (KJV):  “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

It should be noted that here, "comfortable" doesn't carry with it the modern connotation of, say, "a comfortable chair" but in the sense of the Holy Spirit is the "Comforter."

Quote
Quote
The Lord's Prayer [Gregory & Tikhon] - In a letter of St. Gregory’s, from 598 AD, we read regarding the placement of the Lord’s Prayer, “But we say the Lord’s Prayer directly after the canon for the following reason: because it was the custom of the Apostles to consecrate the sacrificial oblation solely with this prayer. And it seemed to me extremely unsuitable to say over the oblations the canon, which was composed by some learned man, and not to say over his Body and Blood that prayer which our Redeemer himself composed.”

Thank you for this, I'd never heard it before.  Do you know of a source for this?  

The source is a letter of Pope St. Gregory to John, Bishop of Syracuse, dated 598 ad (Epistle xii). 

Quote
Quote
The Thanksgiving [Tikhon] - This is yet another instance where the Tikhon tradition follows the more primitive model, whereas the Gregorian Mass gradually lost its prayers of thanksgiving directly following Holy Communion. This prayer corresponds to one found in the Liturgy of St. James.

Postcommunion Collect [Gregory & Tikhon] - This element is found in the oldest of Western Sacramentaries, the Gelasian.

I thought the Collect was the Thanksgiving...the Roman Mass used to have a separate prayer of thanksgiving?  

I should have said, rather, that they became private prayers of the priest, not that they disappeared altogether. The Tikhon Rite is restoring the practice of this being a public Thanksgiving. But, yes, the Collect serves for this as well. You can't give too much thanks, can you? Wink

Quote
Quote
The Blessing [Gregory & Tikhon] - This became fixed by the 11th century. There is another difference between the two liturgies here, the Tikhonian form being longer and derived from an old Anglo-Saxon episcopal blessing, found in the Exeter Pontifical (11th c.).

Do you have the text for the Tikhonian form?  

It's a subtle difference, but the Tikhon form is:

Deacon: The Lord be with you
People: And with thy spirit
Deacon: Depart in peace
People: Thanks be to God
Priest: The Peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord; and the Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you and remain with you always. Amen.

The Gregorian is the same, but the Priest's blessing is: May Almighty God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, bless you. Amen.

Quote
Quote
The Last Gospel [Gregory & Tikhon] - This second Gospel reading emerged from the private devotions of the Priest and is usually the Prologue from the Gospel of St. John the Divine.

I don't know why, but I really like this practice.  I regret that in most Latin Mass communities I've visited, the priest mutters this to himself rather than read it aloud: if it's a private devotion, do it in the sacristy, but if you're going to read the Gospel at the altar, then proclaim it from the altar.

Indeed, we treat it the same as the Gospel reading in the Mass of the Catechumens. We stand, cross our forehead, lips, and heart and listen to this most profound of readings. Mass would not be the same without it.

Quote
That's all for now.  

Hope this was helpful. I'm no expert, just have an avid interest.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2014, 10:25:10 AM »

Sleeper, thank you for an this excellent explanation of the two forms of the Mass as practiced in the AWRV. This explanation helps clarify the situation for those who are seeking knowledge of the latin rite liturgies as practiced in the Orthodox Church. These liturgies with their propers exist in "The Orthodox Missal" book, I encourage anyone to purchase it to read firsthand what occurs in these masses.

The Orthodox Missal is a fine volume. I hope to see an updated version soon, though, as there are some typographical errors and the like. The last printing was in 1995, almost 20 years ago!

Quote
Most lifelong western christians, including myself, are pleased when they encounter either of these liturgies. Although I have a slight preference for that of St. Gregory compared to Tikon, the differences between them are subtle. The only problem I see with the Tikhon liturgy, other than the inclusion of some words of cranmer which some view as inherently anti-catholic, is that it does not exist entirely in Latin.

Well, although some of the language has been kept intact (for obvious reasons) you will not find anything anti-catholic in this Mass. The suggested corrections put forward by the Holy Russian Synod have been fully carried out. I'd be curious to know which text you had in mind, though. Perhaps the needed contextual corrections were provided elsewhere in the Mass, rather than in a particular prayer that may have been a bit ambiguous?

Quote
Even if the majority of the Tikon is identical to the Gregory, every bit ought to exist in latin also. Liturgical language is only a means to an end, but rightfully it ought to have a Latin version of every nook and cranny, to truly be LATIN and ROMAN. (THIS was the english tradition when it was last Orthodox as a nation.)

This Mass is not pretending to be either Latin or Roman, though. To excise anything that is distinctly English would be to create a Mass for ourselves, which is clearly problematic.

It is of no real concern for the Church of Antioch that this liturgy (and other devotions) contain elements that are not based in Latin or from a specific time period. The Church gave us, essentially, two parameters to abide by when considering our inheritance: 1) that the element under consideration be consonant with our holy faith (indeed, even in an apophatic sense, that it merely not negate a dogma) and, 2) that it be logically derived from a Western usage, ante-dating the Great Schism.

This allows for the organic development of the liturgy while still keeping it rooted in the ancient West. This is the best and healthiest approach, in my humble opinion.

Quote
By the way, the ten commandents are not said in any historic form of the Roman Mass. They are in the Tikhon only, not the Gregory.
The ten commandents are an interesting addition to the liturgy which though they stem from protestant ideology, seem innocuous and helpful in most instances.

I have mentioned the correction in my reply to Mor Ephrem, thank you. I should point out, it is not the Decalogue that is part of our Mass, but the Summary given by Christ Himself. Indeed, if such a thing were problematic for anyone, I'd be quite concerned for their state of mind!
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2014, 06:32:49 PM »

Quote
This Mass is not pretending to be either Latin or Roman, though. To excise anything that is distinctly English would be to create a Mass for ourselves, which is clearly problematic.

make that distinctly protestant and english. as in, that it did not exist before the reformation.

Quote
organic development of the liturgy

IE organic development of the liturgy within protestantism.
If Thomas Cranmer is considered organic development, perhaps so...
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 06:35:55 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2014, 07:08:59 PM »

You are correct. In English, they read as follows: "Take away from us, we beseech Thee O Lord, all our iniquities that we may enter the Holy of Holies with pure minds. Through Christ our Lord Amen." The priest then kisses the altar and says, "We beseech Thee O Lord, by the prayers of (Thy Saints whose relics are here, and of) all Thy Saints, that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to forgive all my sins. Amen."

You anticipated my next question.  Wink

Quote
It's possible, but my understanding is that it is actually replacing a litany. St. Gregory the Great said, "We neither said nor say Kyrie Eleison as it is said by the Greeks. Among the Greeks all say it together, with us it is said by the clerks and answered by the people, and we say Christe Eleison as many times, which is not the case with the Greeks. Moreover in daily Masses some things usually said are left out by us; we say on Kyrie Eleison and Christe Eleison, that we may dwell longer on these words of prayer" (Ep. ix in P.L., LXXVII, 956)

The Gloria, on the other hand, seems to have grown out of the Mass for Christmas, added to each Sunday only later, in the 5th century, and only to be said by bishops.

Interesting, thanks.  I knew that the Kyrie was the remnant of a litany (the Syriac Liturgy has a similar element at roughly the same position, and for similar reasons), but I wondered if the litany formed a part of the conclusion of a primitive morning office.  It would not be unusual in terms of Eastern liturgy, but I'm not sure about the West.

Quote
The prayer is placed where it is because it is connected to both the offertory and the Eucharist. It is understood to be the conclusion of the Offertory and the first stage of the Eucharist. It was placed here when it was discovered that this was the ancient position for it, as described by St. Justin Martyr. It used be after the Sanctus.

So it used to be after the Sanctus and independent in some way from the Canon? 

Quote
Through these passages the faithful are assured of the confidence we have in forgiveness so that we can "draw near with faith" (perhaps corresponding to the East's "holy things for the holy"?).

I suppose, though I always took "Holies for the holy" as a kind of communal confession.  In our rite, the response is not "One is holy, one is Lord, etc." but "Other than the one holy Father, the one holy Son, and the one holy Spirit, there is none who is holy.  Amen."  Ouch.  Smiley

Quote
It's a subtle difference, but the Tikhon form is:

Deacon: The Lord be with you
People: And with thy spirit
Deacon: Depart in peace
People: Thanks be to God
Priest: The Peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord; and the Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you and remain with you always. Amen.

The Gregorian is the same, but the Priest's blessing is: May Almighty God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, bless you. Amen.

I like the blessing in the Tikhon form, even though I usually like Roman terseness.  The final blessing should be zazzy.  Wink

Thanks for your answers and references in the last post. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2014, 11:43:50 PM »

It should be noted that a specific Eastern type Epiklesis was added to  the texts of both the Liturgy of St. Gregory and the Liturgy St. Tikhon in Antiochian usage.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2014, 09:18:06 AM »

It should be noted that a specific Eastern type Epiklesis was added to  the texts of both the Liturgy of St. Gregory and the Liturgy St. Tikhon in Antiochian usage.

Fr. John W. Morris

That is correct, Fr. John, and there are two pre-Communion prayers from the Eastern liturgy as well.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2014, 11:48:48 AM »

It should be noted that a specific Eastern type Epiklesis was added to  the texts of both the Liturgy of St. Gregory and the Liturgy St. Tikhon in Antiochian usage.

Fr. John W. Morris

That is correct, Fr. John, and there are two pre-Communion prayers from the Eastern liturgy as well.

The addition of an epiclesis, at least in the Roman Canon (I'm not familiar with that of the Tikhon Rite), is unfortunate IMO.  I don't mind the use of extra pre-communion prayers as much, but are those really part of the ordo as opposed to personal preparation? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2014, 12:35:50 PM »

It should be noted that a specific Eastern type Epiklesis was added to  the texts of both the Liturgy of St. Gregory and the Liturgy St. Tikhon in Antiochian usage.

Fr. John W. Morris

That is correct, Fr. John, and there are two pre-Communion prayers from the Eastern liturgy as well.

The addition of an epiclesis, at least in the Roman Canon (I'm not familiar with that of the Tikhon Rite), is unfortunate IMO.  I don't mind the use of extra pre-communion prayers as much, but are those really part of the ordo as opposed to personal preparation? 

To Eastern Orthodox a clear Epiklesis is an essential part of the Divine Liturgy. Traditionally Catholics have taught that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the Words of Institution alone. Orthodox teach that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary. It is interesting to note that the Novo Ordo of the Roman Catholic Church contains several alternative Anaphora that have added an Epiklesis.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2014, 12:39:57 PM »

IMO general confession should be removed. We don't do general sins so we shouldn't do general confession either without the priest actually hearing the sins we've committed.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 12:42:32 PM by Alpo » Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2014, 12:55:09 PM »

It should be noted that a specific Eastern type Epiklesis was added to  the texts of both the Liturgy of St. Gregory and the Liturgy St. Tikhon in Antiochian usage.

Fr. John W. Morris

That is correct, Fr. John, and there are two pre-Communion prayers from the Eastern liturgy as well.

The addition of an epiclesis, at least in the Roman Canon (I'm not familiar with that of the Tikhon Rite), is unfortunate IMO.

Agreed.

The epiclesis in the rite of St. Tikhon is more of an amplification than an addition.  It is a re-wording of the Invocation section of the Prayer of Consecration from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church.  The intent was to make it more Orthodox and less receptionist.

Here is the text of the epiclesis from the rite of St. Tikhon:
Quote
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 Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

And here is the Invocation from the BCP:
Quote
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 Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2014, 01:12:28 PM »

To Eastern Orthodox a clear Epiklesis is an essential part of the Divine Liturgy. Traditionally Catholics have taught that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the Words of Institution alone. Orthodox teach that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary. It is interesting to note that the Novo Ordo of the Roman Catholic Church contains several alternative Anaphora that have added an Epiklesis.

But was it not St Nicholas Cabasilas who wrote about the prayer Supplices te rogamus as functioning as an "ascending epiclesis"?  I'm not sure if he or anyone else ever addressed the prayer Veni, Sanctificator in the offertory, but I've always taken that (and the extending of the hands over the gifts at Hanc igitur (along with the Supplices) to supply the same intention of calling down the Holy Spirit to effect the mystery.    

I'm not sure the Roman Canon ever had any explicit, descending epiclesis as found in most of the Eastern liturgies (I've never heard such a claim made with any proof), and the Canon predates the Great Schism by a lot.  If the Orthodox now argue the absolute necessity of a descending epiclesis, to what extent is that a reaction to the RC "focus" on the Institution Narrative?  To insist on our chosen formula instead of theirs ignores both church history and how liturgy works.        

Rome adding an explicit, descending epiclesis to new anaphorae may have been a nice touch and a nod to us, but it hasn't really changed what they believe about the consecration of the gifts.  They added no such thing to the Roman Canon (even while making other changes to it), and they also added/deleted other things of ancient pedigree due to faulty scholarship and novel fads.  The new Mass isn't old enough or sufficiently received by their faithful to function in any meaningful way as a rule of prayer which confirms the rule of faith.            
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2014, 01:14:04 PM »

IMO general confession should be removed. We don't do general sins so we shouldn't do general confession either without the priest actually hearing the sins we've committed.

OK, but this ignores the history of confession and its relation to the Eucharistic Liturgy. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2014, 01:15:23 PM »

The epiclesis in the rite of St. Tikhon is more of an amplification than an addition.  It is a re-wording of the Invocation section of the Prayer of Consecration from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church.  The intent was to make it more Orthodox and less receptionist.

Here is the text of the epiclesis from the rite of St. Tikhon:
Quote
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 Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

And here is the Invocation from the BCP:
Quote
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 Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.



Thanks.  I can see why an amplification was deemed necessary. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2014, 01:55:21 PM »

IMO general confession should be removed. We don't do general sins so we shouldn't do general confession either without the priest actually hearing the sins we've committed.

OK, but this ignores the history of confession and its relation to the Eucharistic Liturgy.  

Any non-Protestant historical examples of general confession? St. John of Kronstad did that but he was an exception to the rule that shouldn't be imitated. IIRC one Finnish priest tried that. His bishop answer was an order to stop thinking he's like St. John and to return to normal way of confession.

Anyway, my biggest problem with various Anglican usages is that they were formed by various committees, not inherited and transferred by yiayias and Saints. Why not to use pre-Cranmerian English usages which were not modified by people who questioned veneration of Saints, Holy Eucharist etc. ?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 02:08:31 PM by Alpo » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2014, 02:04:14 PM »

IMO general confession should be removed. We don't do general sins so we shouldn't do general confession either without the priest actually hearing the sins we've committed.

OK, but this ignores the history of confession and its relation to the Eucharistic Liturgy. 

Any non-Protestant historical examples of general confession? St. John of Kronstad did that but he was an exception to the rule that shouldn't be imitated. IIRC one Finnish priest tried that. His bishop answer was an order to stop thinking he's like St. John and to return to normal way of confession.

Armenians?

It's my understanding that general confessions were the original norm before one-on-one confessions with a priest developed.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2014, 02:07:08 PM »


That is correct, Fr. John, and there are two pre-Communion prayers from the Eastern liturgy as well.

The addition of an epiclesis, at least in the Roman Canon (I'm not familiar with that of the Tikhon Rite), is unfortunate IMO.  I don't mind the use of extra pre-communion prayers as much, but are those really part of the ordo as opposed to personal preparation? 

Agreed. Insisting that the Latin tradition must use Eastern usage on things like this is once again conflating "Orthodox" with "Eastern."
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2014, 02:13:25 PM »

IMO general confession should be removed. We don't do general sins so we shouldn't do general confession either without the priest actually hearing the sins we've committed.

OK, but this ignores the history of confession and its relation to the Eucharistic Liturgy.  

Any non-Protestant historical examples of general confession? St. John of Kronstad did that but he was an exception to the rule that shouldn't be imitated. IIRC one Finnish priest tried that. His bishop answer was an order to stop thinking he's like St. John and to return to normal way of confession.

Armenians?

It's my understanding that general confessions were the original norm before one-on-one confessions with a priest developed.

I don't know about Armenians but the original form was to confess sins out loud. I don't think general confession means that Antiochian WRO are confessing their sins out loud in front of everyone. I'd have no problem with that but I must admit I prefer private confession to this kind of model. It could be quite awkward to hear what various teenage parishioners have done on their free time. angel
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 02:15:37 PM by Alpo » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2014, 02:16:14 PM »

I'm personally neutral in regards to an epiklesis in the Western Mass, recognizing that the Roman canon already has an ascending one and isn't really necessary, but also due to the reasons already mentioned. I also don't mind it as it brings us further in line with Orthodox thought on the matter. So I can see both sides of the issue and think one way or another would be appropriate for a Western Mass in an Orthodox setting.

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

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2014, 02:22:42 PM »

IMO general confession should be removed. We don't do general sins so we shouldn't do general confession either without the priest actually hearing the sins we've committed.

OK, but this ignores the history of confession and its relation to the Eucharistic Liturgy.  

Any non-Protestant historical examples of general confession? St. John of Kronstad did that but he was an exception to the rule that shouldn't be imitated. IIRC one Finnish priest tried that. His bishop answer was an order to stop thinking he's like St. John and to return to normal way of confession.

The general confession does not replace the Sacrament of Confession. "Normal confession" is still the rule in all Western Orthodox parishes.

Quote
Anyway, my biggest problem with various Anglican usages is that they were formed by various committees, not inherited and transferred by yiayias and Saints. Why not to use pre-Cranmerian English usages which were not modified by people who questioned veneration of Saints, Holy Eucharist etc. ?

I've started this sentence about 10 times now because there is so much that could be said I literally don't know where to begin.

So, instead, I'll refer you to this blog post that might be more helpful: http://westernfire.blogspot.com/2013/06/concerned-orthodox-christians-wonder.html
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 02:24:10 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2014, 02:24:42 PM »

Glad that I made yor day. angel

I skimmed through the article but it didn't seem to answer to my objection. AKAIK evolution of Anglican usages were not organic. I  understand the idea of embracing a living culture but if the some cultural phenomenon was born as an antithesis to Orthodoxy, like denying real presence, I don't see why would we want to have anything to do with that. I realize that Antiochians didn't just take Cranmerian liturgy but that just adds even more silliness. An Orthodox liturgy that was modified by a committee whose actions were modified by yet another committee. Which was probably modified by numerous other committees. This seems silly to me.

I'm willing to hear more about history of Anglican usages though.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 02:37:16 PM by Alpo » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2014, 02:31:38 PM »

It should be noted that a specific Eastern type Epiklesis was added to  the texts of both the Liturgy of St. Gregory and the Liturgy St. Tikhon in Antiochian usage.

Fr. John W. Morris

That is correct, Fr. John, and there are two pre-Communion prayers from the Eastern liturgy as well.

The addition of an epiclesis, at least in the Roman Canon (I'm not familiar with that of the Tikhon Rite), is unfortunate IMO.  I don't mind the use of extra pre-communion prayers as much, but are those really part of the ordo as opposed to personal preparation? 

Just more liturgical cross-pollination. Nothing to see here.
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.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2014, 02:56:41 PM »

Any non-Protestant historical examples of general confession?

Depends on what you have in mind when you talk about "general confession".  While we're at it, it also depends on what you believe "confession" is because the practice has evolved in different ways in different places and at different times for different reasons (even if the essential teaching has remained more or less consistent).  In saying this, I'm not necessarily advocating "archaeology", but "confession" is as often misunderstood as it is unfrequented.   

I don't think we need the examples of Protestants or St John of Kronstadt in order to justify the idea of a "non-private" confession when this is more or less built in to all Liturgies in all the major rites, including the Byzantine, even if here it is in a very limited, "blink and you miss it" way.  There are reasons for this. 

I don't know about Armenians but the original form was to confess sins out loud.
   

What else characterised the original form of confession? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2014, 03:21:21 PM »

Let me clarify that if the general confession us just another form of Confiteor without any intent of replacing private confession I have nothing against it. It's just that local Lutherans have prettymuch abandoned private confession since they view that there's really no need for it as they already receive absolution in general confession. AFAIK that doesn't happen after Confiteor.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 03:21:59 PM by Alpo » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2014, 03:55:03 PM »

Glad that I made yor day. angel

 laugh

Quote
I skimmed through the article but it didn't seem to answer to my objection. AKAIK evolution of Anglican usages were not organic.

I suppose what counts as "organic" will always be up for debate, but I think the evidence is quite strong for the case that the English liturgy very much is. While far from perfect, this article does a pretty good job making the case:

http://www.holycrossomaha.net/Anglican_Rite_in_Historical_Theological_and_Ecumenical_Perspective.pdf

Quote
I understand the idea of embracing a living culture but if the some cultural phenomenon was born as an antithesis to Orthodoxy, like denying real presence, I don't see why would we want to have anything to do with that. I realize that Antiochians didn't just take Cranmerian liturgy but that just adds even more silliness. An Orthodox liturgy that was modified by a committee whose actions were modified by yet another committee. Which was probably modified by numerous other committees. This seems silly to me.

I'm willing to hear more about history of Anglican usages though.

I think your concerns, while not entirely without validity, are surface problems. That was the point of the blog post I linked you to. Dig deeper than committees or texts, or what historical figure said what about this or that. If Orthodoxy is indeed the Faith for all men, then it simply must be open to the native culture of the people embracing it. And what better way to determine such a thing than to look deeply and seriously at how people worship, pray, sing, show reverence and awe, etc.? Okay, the text of a prayer may have been composed by someone of questionable beliefs. But things like that pass into a common tradition and can take on new meaning over time, or even be corrected without just tossing everything away.

You cannot manufacture authentic culture. And if Western Orthodoxy is to be a healthy, stable, and God-willing permanent part of the Church today, it has to take root in the deepest parts of the groups or individuals coming in. And that should be what the Orthodox Church is concerned with, not trying to turn back the clock and reenact the past.

St. Jerome said, "The best advice I can give you is this. Church traditions, especially when they do not run counter to the Faith, are to be observed in the form in which previous generations have handed them down.” St. Jerome, Letters, 71, 6, (4th c.)

That is all Antioch did. They corrected when things needed to be corrected, supplemented when they had to, and baptized everything they could. My point in starting this thread was to try and show that, even though this means including things that didn't come about until a later date, so much of our liturgical heritage remained both ancient and living.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2014, 05:01:53 PM »

Let me clarify that if the general confession us just another form of Confiteor without any intent of replacing private confession I have nothing against it. It's just that local Lutherans have prettymuch abandoned private confession since they view that there's really no need for it as they already receive absolution in general confession. AFAIK that doesn't happen after Confiteor.

In most traditions which have private confession, general confession has not replaced it.  But private confession itself is a development which is more frequently found in traditions heavily influenced by monasticism and/or law.  In non-Protestant traditions where general confession is more the norm, private confession is still available by request and/or for "serious" sins.  That's not exactly untraditional. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2014, 05:20:53 PM »

To Eastern Orthodox a clear Epiklesis is an essential part of the Divine Liturgy. Traditionally Catholics have taught that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the Words of Institution alone. Orthodox teach that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary. It is interesting to note that the Novo Ordo of the Roman Catholic Church contains several alternative Anaphora that have added an Epiklesis.

But was it not St Nicholas Cabasilas who wrote about the prayer Supplices te rogamus as functioning as an "ascending epiclesis"?  I'm not sure if he or anyone else ever addressed the prayer Veni, Sanctificator in the offertory, but I've always taken that (and the extending of the hands over the gifts at Hanc igitur (along with the Supplices) to supply the same intention of calling down the Holy Spirit to effect the mystery.    

I'm not sure the Roman Canon ever had any explicit, descending epiclesis as found in most of the Eastern liturgies (I've never heard such a claim made with any proof), and the Canon predates the Great Schism by a lot.  If the Orthodox now argue the absolute necessity of a descending epiclesis, to what extent is that a reaction to the RC "focus" on the Institution Narrative?  To insist on our chosen formula instead of theirs ignores both church history and how liturgy works.        

Rome adding an explicit, descending epiclesis to new anaphorae may have been a nice touch and a nod to us, but it hasn't really changed what they believe about the consecration of the gifts.  They added no such thing to the Roman Canon (even while making other changes to it), and they also added/deleted other things of ancient pedigree due to faulty scholarship and novel fads.  The new Mass isn't old enough or sufficiently received by their faithful to function in any meaningful way as a rule of prayer which confirms the rule of faith.            

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2014, 05:27:28 PM »

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr. John W. Morris

So Western Rite Orthodox are not Western at all, but rather Eastern Christians dressing up as Western Christians?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2014, 05:30:58 PM »

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr John,

I'm afraid I don't understand the juxtaposition you are making between the "Western liturgical traditions" of the Antiochian Western Rite Christians and the beliefs of the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  At least with regard to the Roman Canon, "Western liturgical traditions" very much include an ascending epiclesis (and, I would argue, other elements which at least imply a descending epiclesis).  If a descending epiclesis needed to be added to/imposed on "Western liturgical traditions" because "all Eastern Orthodox have a descending epiclesis", what other things that "all Eastern Orthodox have" need to be added or imposed?  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2014, 06:46:51 PM »

If an epiklesis needs to be added why not to use some Western epiklesis instead of Byzantine? Adding Byzantine interpolations seem to enforce the idea that Byzantine = Orthodox. Which is of course blatantly false.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 06:47:25 PM by Alpo » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2014, 07:37:53 PM »

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr John,

I'm afraid I don't understand the juxtaposition you are making between the "Western liturgical traditions" of the Antiochian Western Rite Christians and the beliefs of the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  At least with regard to the Roman Canon, "Western liturgical traditions" very much include an ascending epiclesis (and, I would argue, other elements which at least imply a descending epiclesis).  If a descending epiclesis needed to be added to/imposed on "Western liturgical traditions" because "all Eastern Orthodox have a descending epiclesis", what other things that "all Eastern Orthodox have" need to be added or imposed?  

The Antiochian Western Rite was based on a study done by the Holy Synod of Russia on what changes were needed to make the Western Liturgies Orthodox. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer had a weak Epiklesis, our Western Rite only strengthened it to make it Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Mass in its pre-Vatican II form had no explicit Epiklesis. Because it was necessary to make the Liturgy of St. Gregory express sound Orthodox theology that it is the descent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts that change them, not the words of the Priest quoting Christ, "Take eat..." an explicit epiklesis had to be added to correct this defect in the Roman Canon.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2014, 08:11:11 PM »

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr John,

I'm afraid I don't understand the juxtaposition you are making between the "Western liturgical traditions" of the Antiochian Western Rite Christians and the beliefs of the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  At least with regard to the Roman Canon, "Western liturgical traditions" very much include an ascending epiclesis (and, I would argue, other elements which at least imply a descending epiclesis).  If a descending epiclesis needed to be added to/imposed on "Western liturgical traditions" because "all Eastern Orthodox have a descending epiclesis", what other things that "all Eastern Orthodox have" need to be added or imposed?  

The Antiochian Western Rite was based on a study done by the Holy Synod of Russia on what changes were needed to make the Western Liturgies Orthodox. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer had a weak Epiklesis, our Western Rite only strengthened it to make it Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Mass in its pre-Vatican II form had no explicit Epiklesis. Because it was necessary to make the Liturgy of St. Gregory express sound Orthodox theology that it is the descent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts that change them, not the words of the Priest quoting Christ, "Take eat..." an explicit epiklesis had to be added to correct this defect in the Roman Canon.

Fr. John W. Morris

How could a canon used for centuries in the pre-schism Western church be considered "defective"?
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2014, 08:51:26 PM »

The Antiochian Western Rite was based on a study done by the Holy Synod of Russia on what changes were needed to make the Western Liturgies Orthodox. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer had a weak Epiklesis, our Western Rite only strengthened it to make it Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Mass in its pre-Vatican II form had no explicit Epiklesis. Because it was necessary to make the Liturgy of St. Gregory express sound Orthodox theology that it is the descent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts that change them, not the words of the Priest quoting Christ, "Take eat..." an explicit epiklesis had to be added to correct this defect in the Roman Canon.

Fr. John W. Morris

How could a canon used for centuries in the pre-schism Western church be considered "defective"?

It seems by equivocating Orthodox with Byzantine.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2014, 09:47:23 PM »

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr John,

I'm afraid I don't understand the juxtaposition you are making between the "Western liturgical traditions" of the Antiochian Western Rite Christians and the beliefs of the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  At least with regard to the Roman Canon, "Western liturgical traditions" very much include an ascending epiclesis (and, I would argue, other elements which at least imply a descending epiclesis).  If a descending epiclesis needed to be added to/imposed on "Western liturgical traditions" because "all Eastern Orthodox have a descending epiclesis", what other things that "all Eastern Orthodox have" need to be added or imposed?  

The Antiochian Western Rite was based on a study done by the Holy Synod of Russia on what changes were needed to make the Western Liturgies Orthodox. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer had a weak Epiklesis, our Western Rite only strengthened it to make it Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Mass in its pre-Vatican II form had no explicit Epiklesis. Because it was necessary to make the Liturgy of St. Gregory express sound Orthodox theology that it is the descent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts that change them, not the words of the Priest quoting Christ, "Take eat..." an explicit epiklesis had to be added to correct this defect in the Roman Canon.

Fr. John W. Morris

How could a canon used for centuries in the pre-schism Western church be considered "defective"?

I have read several studies that claim that there was an Epiklesis in the original Roman Canon, but that it was removed at about the time of Trent when the Western Rite was standardized. In any case an Anaphora without a clear Epiklesis is defective. The schism did not suddenly take place in 1054, but had been growing for centuries as the West begin to drift apart from Orthodoxy once its theologians lost the ability to read the New Testament and the Greek Fathers in Greek. We find this beginning in Tertullian (160-220) and his doctrine of satisfaction and temporal punishment that laid the foundation for the doctrine of purgatory. Certainly some of the ideas of Augustine are far from Orthodox,  such as his doctrine of original sin and denial of free will.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2014, 10:35:13 PM »

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr John,

I'm afraid I don't understand the juxtaposition you are making between the "Western liturgical traditions" of the Antiochian Western Rite Christians and the beliefs of the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  At least with regard to the Roman Canon, "Western liturgical traditions" very much include an ascending epiclesis (and, I would argue, other elements which at least imply a descending epiclesis).  If a descending epiclesis needed to be added to/imposed on "Western liturgical traditions" because "all Eastern Orthodox have a descending epiclesis", what other things that "all Eastern Orthodox have" need to be added or imposed?  

The Antiochian Western Rite was based on a study done by the Holy Synod of Russia on what changes were needed to make the Western Liturgies Orthodox. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer had a weak Epiklesis, our Western Rite only strengthened it to make it Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Mass in its pre-Vatican II form had no explicit Epiklesis. Because it was necessary to make the Liturgy of St. Gregory express sound Orthodox theology that it is the descent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts that change them, not the words of the Priest quoting Christ, "Take eat..." an explicit epiklesis had to be added to correct this defect in the Roman Canon.

Fr. John W. Morris

How could a canon used for centuries in the pre-schism Western church be considered "defective"?

I have read several studies that claim that there was an Epiklesis in the original Roman Canon, but that it was removed at about the time of Trent when the Western Rite was standardized. In any case an Anaphora without a clear Epiklesis is defective. The schism did not suddenly take place in 1054, but had been growing for centuries as the West begin to drift apart from Orthodoxy once its theologians lost the ability to read the New Testament and the Greek Fathers in Greek. We find this beginning in Tertullian (160-220) and his doctrine of satisfaction and temporal punishment that laid the foundation for the doctrine of purgatory. Certainly some of the ideas of Augustine are far from Orthodox,  such as his doctrine of original sin and denial of free will.

Fr. John W. Morris


The epiclesis was not removed at Trent nor in the 1570 missal of Pope Pius V.  Even if it was in the original canon, it certainly was gone well before the schism.  Yes, East and West drifted apart and even had temporary schisms way before the final break, but the absence of an epiclesis in the Roman canon was not an issue between East and West until the 14th century, well after the schism had hardened.  An unfortunate consequence of the schism for the East has been the narrowing of Orthodox theology and liturgy to the Byzantine tradition.  The pre-schism church was a much bigger tent than modern-day Orthodoxy.  The Western rite could be an attempt to restore some balance, but I suspect it never will.  The unnecessary interpolation of the Byzantine epiclesis into the Antiochian rite of St. Gregory has resulted in a disconnect between the ceremonial and the actual words of the rite.  The elevations of the host and chalice (accompanied by bell ringing) are done immediately following the words of institution (as in the Roman rite), so that the faithful may adore the consecrated elements.  But then comes the epiclesis, whose wording is clearly intended to effect the consecration.  It would make more sense to perform the elevations following the epiclesis, if they are going to be done at all.  Or just dispense with them, as they are of post-schism origin.  The same issue applies to the rite of St. Tikhon.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,352


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 15, 2014, 10:35:50 PM »

I have read several studies that claim that there was an Epiklesis in the original Roman Canon, but that it was removed at about the time of Trent when the Western Rite was standardized.

Father, would you happen to know where I could consult these?

Quote
In any case an Anaphora without a clear Epiklesis is defective.

What does an anaphora require in order to be effective?  Other than an epiclesis, is there anything else?

Quote
The schism did not suddenly take place in 1054, but had been growing for centuries as the West begin to drift apart from Orthodoxy once its theologians lost the ability to read the New Testament and the Greek Fathers in Greek. We find this beginning in Tertullian (160-220) and his doctrine of satisfaction and temporal punishment that laid the foundation for the doctrine of purgatory. Certainly some of the ideas of Augustine are far from Orthodox,  such as his doctrine of original sin and denial of free will.

I agree that the schism was not an overnight affair, but with all due respect, if we are going to begin to trace the estrangement of East and West to as far back as the late second century, we should just man up and say that the West was never really Christian to begin with.  And at that point, the idea of a "Western Rite" in Orthodoxy seems as silly as the idea of a "Muslim Rite".  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2014, 11:36:46 PM »

To Eastern Orthodox a clear Epiklesis is an essential part of the Divine Liturgy. Traditionally Catholics have taught that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the Words of Institution alone. Orthodox teach that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary. It is interesting to note that the Novo Ordo of the Roman Catholic Church contains several alternative Anaphora that have added an Epiklesis.

But was it not St Nicholas Cabasilas who wrote about the prayer Supplices te rogamus as functioning as an "ascending epiclesis"?  I'm not sure if he or anyone else ever addressed the prayer Veni, Sanctificator in the offertory, but I've always taken that (and the extending of the hands over the gifts at Hanc igitur (along with the Supplices) to supply the same intention of calling down the Holy Spirit to effect the mystery.   

I'm not sure the Roman Canon ever had any explicit, descending epiclesis as found in most of the Eastern liturgies (I've never heard such a claim made with any proof), and the Canon predates the Great Schism by a lot.  If the Orthodox now argue the absolute necessity of a descending epiclesis, to what extent is that a reaction to the RC "focus" on the Institution Narrative?  To insist on our chosen formula instead of theirs ignores both church history and how liturgy works.         

Rome adding an explicit, descending epiclesis to new anaphorae may have been a nice touch and a nod to us, but it hasn't really changed what they believe about the consecration of the gifts.  They added no such thing to the Roman Canon (even while making other changes to it), and they also added/deleted other things of ancient pedigree due to faulty scholarship and novel fads.  The new Mass isn't old enough or sufficiently received by their faithful to function in any meaningful way as a rule of prayer which confirms the rule of faith.           

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr. John W. Morris
The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr John,

I'm afraid I don't understand the juxtaposition you are making between the "Western liturgical traditions" of the Antiochian Western Rite Christians and the beliefs of the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  At least with regard to the Roman Canon, "Western liturgical traditions" very much include an ascending epiclesis (and, I would argue, other elements which at least imply a descending epiclesis).  If a descending epiclesis needed to be added to/imposed on "Western liturgical traditions" because "all Eastern Orthodox have a descending epiclesis", what other things that "all Eastern Orthodox have" need to be added or imposed?  

The Antiochian Western Rite was based on a study done by the Holy Synod of Russia on what changes were needed to make the Western Liturgies Orthodox. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer had a weak Epiklesis, our Western Rite only strengthened it to make it Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Mass in its pre-Vatican II form had no explicit Epiklesis. Because it was necessary to make the Liturgy of St. Gregory express sound Orthodox theology that it is the descent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts that change them, not the words of the Priest quoting Christ, "Take eat..." an explicit epiklesis had to be added to correct this defect in the Roman Canon.

Fr. John W. Morris

How could a canon used for centuries in the pre-schism Western church be considered "defective"?

I have read several studies that claim that there was an Epiklesis in the original Roman Canon, but that it was removed at about the time of Trent when the Western Rite was standardized. In any case an Anaphora without a clear Epiklesis is defective. The schism did not suddenly take place in 1054, but had been growing for centuries as the West begin to drift apart from Orthodoxy once its theologians lost the ability to read the New Testament and the Greek Fathers in Greek. We find this beginning in Tertullian (160-220) and his doctrine of satisfaction and temporal punishment that laid the foundation for the doctrine of purgatory. Certainly some of the ideas of Augustine are far from Orthodox,  such as his doctrine of original sin and denial of free will.

Fr. John W. Morris


The epiclesis was not removed at Trent nor in the 1570 missal of Pope Pius V.  Even if it was in the original canon, it certainly was gone well before the schism.  Yes, East and West drifted apart and even had temporary schisms way before the final break, but the absence of an epiclesis in the Roman canon was not an issue between East and West until the 14th century, well after the schism had hardened.  An unfortunate consequence of the schism for the East has been the narrowing of Orthodox theology and liturgy to the Byzantine tradition.  The pre-schism church was a much bigger tent than modern-day Orthodoxy.  The Western rite could be an attempt to restore some balance, but I suspect it never will.  The unnecessary interpolation of the Byzantine epiclesis into the Antiochian rite of St. Gregory has resulted in a disconnect between the ceremonial and the actual words of the rite.  The elevations of the host and chalice (accompanied by bell ringing) are done immediately following the words of institution (as in the Roman rite), so that the faithful may adore the consecrated elements.  But then comes the epiclesis, whose wording is clearly intended to effect the consecration.  It would make more sense to perform the elevations following the epiclesis, if they are going to be done at all.  Or just dispense with them, as they are of post-schism origin.  The same issue applies to the rite of St. Tikhon.

Not necessarily, the elevation is performed before the Epiklesis in the Byzantine Rite. The theology is that we offer God bread and wine and during the Epiklesis receive back the Body and Blood of Christ.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2014, 11:41:08 PM »

The matter under discussion is not what Roman Catholics believe about the Eucharist. The topic is what Eastern Orthodox believe. Aside from their Western liturgical traditions, Antiochian Western Rite Christians believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. It is true that St. Nicholas did argue that the Roman Canon had an ascending Epiklesis, but all Eastern Orthodox have a descending Epiklesis, therefore the Western Rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church must have a descending Epiklesis that states the Eastern Orthodox doctrine clearly.

Fr. John W. Morris

So Western Rite Orthodox are not Western at all, but rather Eastern Christians dressing up as Western Christians?

A more correct expression would be that Western Rite Orthodox are Westerners who have returned to the Faith of the ancient undivided Church when the West was still Orthodox and before the Western Church began to deviate from the Faith of the ancient Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2014, 12:44:24 AM »

I agree that the schism was not an overnight affair, but with all due respect, if we are going to begin to trace the estrangement of East and West to as far back as the late second century, we should just man up and say that the West was never really Christian to begin with.  And at that point, the idea of a "Western Rite" in Orthodoxy seems as silly as the idea of a "Muslim Rite".  

Or maybe that the West got it right and it was the East that deviated.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.211 seconds with 72 queries.