OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 03:12:04 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 2743 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

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: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



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

Posts: 1,256

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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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: 1,256

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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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: 1,256

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: 1,256

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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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: 1,256

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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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: 6,647



« 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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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: 6,647



« 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: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« 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
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« 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
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« 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: 1,256

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: 1,256

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: 6,647



« 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: 7,970


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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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: 6,647



« 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: 1,256

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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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: 6,647



« 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: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« 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
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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


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
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2014, 12:48:56 AM »

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

Which to me means that they're some construct of what "Western" really is from a Byzantine point of view, leaving us with something neither truly Western nor anything else.

Can I ask - did you intentionally exclude the "St." honorific when you mentioned St. Augustine? If so, might I ask why?
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2014, 12:51:37 AM »

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

The Roman rite and the Antiochian Western rite also have elevations during the offertory, which is of course prior to the consecration.  These offertory elevations are to offer the bread and wine to God.  But the elevations following the words of institution were introduced in the Roman rite in order to show the consecrated host and chalice to the worshipers for adoration.  Likewise, the celebrant genuflects before and after each elevation, which only makes sense if the elements have just been consecrated.
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2014, 07:20:42 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.

Indeed. This problematic insertion should be reconsidered.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 07:21:11 AM by Caelestinus » Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2014, 07:29:29 AM »

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 confirmation/chrismation formula? The baptismal formula? The communion Formula? The anointing of the sick formula? and so on till the question arise: Why hasn't WR started with the Byzantine Rite just right from the beginning??
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2014, 09:01:49 AM »

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

The Roman rite and the Antiochian Western rite also have elevations during the offertory, which is of course prior to the consecration.  These offertory elevations are to offer the bread and wine to God.  But the elevations following the words of institution were introduced in the Roman rite in order to show the consecrated host and chalice to the worshipers for adoration.  Likewise, the celebrant genuflects before and after each elevation, which only makes sense if the elements have just been consecrated.

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.

Why, then, would we elevate and genuflect before the unconsecrated elements? "[St. Symeon the New Theologian] holds that veneration of the gifts is perfectly justified, since they are already images of the Body and Blood of Christ, comparable to, though greater than, icons. They are, as St. Basil called them, antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ, and have already been offered to become the Body and Blood. Symeon reckons worse than iconoclasts those who criticize such veneration as idolatry. He encourages the veneration even of holy vessels which are empty, 'for they all partake of sanctification, the holy gifts being offered in sacrifice in them.'" (Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy p. 169)

Was the West wrong about the epiclesis, then? No. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer....Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations."

I don't know enough about the development of the understanding of the epiklesis to say much more, but the Catholic Encyclopedia had an interesting thing to say about Orthodox understanding. "On the other hand Orthodox theologians all consider the Epiklesis as being at least an essential part of the Consecration. In this question they have two schools. Some, Peter Mogilas, for instance, consider the Epiklesis alone as consecrating (Kimmel, Monumenta fidei eccl. orient., Jena, 1850, I, 180), so that presumably the words of Institution might be left out without affecting the validity of the sacrament. But the greater number, and now apparently all, require the words of Institution too. They must be said, not merely historically, but as the first part of the essential form; they sow as it were the seed that comes forth and is perfected by the Epiklesis. Both elements, then, are essential. This is the theory defended by their theologians at the Council of Florence (1439).
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2014, 09:13:12 AM »

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

Which to me means that they're some construct of what "Western" really is from a Byzantine point of view, leaving us with something neither truly Western nor anything else.

You have touched on something near and dear to my heart. And I can say with all honestly that Antioch tries extremely hard to nurture an actually Western tradition, for the very reason you point out. It was the entire reason for basing our liturgical tradition upon the received tradition of the West, rather than trying conjure up some sort of fantastical "Old West" of our own making. In fact, this is so important to our Metropolitan PHILLIP that we are forbidden to even say the Eastern form of the Ave Maria ("Rejoice, O Virgin...") liturgically. In fact, he has formally and publicly stated that, "The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, in accordance with the venerable tradition of the Church respects and encourages the integrity of the Western celebration of and witness to the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Faith as approved for usage within the Western Rite Vicariate of this Archdiocese. Under no circumstances, now or in the future, will the Byzantine expression of this same Faith be forcibly imposed on the clergy or faithful of the Vicariate for use within their local communities."

The only thing directly added from the Eastern Rite are the epiclesis and the two pre-Communion prayers, the latter being added not by a priest, bishop, or even Metropolitan, but by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

That being said, I think any cross-pollinization is normal, given the circumstances. Liturgy should always be a living and dynamic thing.
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2014, 12:48:53 PM »

The only thing directly added from the Eastern Rite are the epiclesis and the two pre-Communion prayers, the latter being added not by a priest, bishop, or even Metropolitan, but by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

That being said, I think any cross-pollinization is normal, given the circumstances. Liturgy should always be a living and dynamic thing.

Don't forget the deletions, the foremost being the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed.  But there are also the somewhat squeamish removals of references to merits of the saints from pre-schism prayers.  Likewise, the Athanasian creed has been altered to remove its "filioque", even though it pre-dates the schism by centuries.

Sure, cross-pollination is as old as the church, but in the Antiochian Archdiocese it's a one-way street.
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2014, 12:58:55 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?  If the words of institution don't consecrate, then it would be idolatry to privately pray "my Lord and my God" during the elevations.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2014, 01:29:36 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period? 

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #54 on: March 16, 2014, 01:39:04 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 01:39:24 PM by James2 » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2014, 02:36:01 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.

The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the consecration dates to Scholasticism, which flourished from about 1100 to 1700, long after the Western Schism. The Eastern understanding that the Holy Spirit not the words of the Priest transform the gifts into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ is the ancient patristric understanding of the consecration. The medieval Western understanding is too much like magic and gives too much power to the Priest. It is Christ, not the Priest who presides over the Eucharist. That is what we mean when the Priest offers the unconsecrated bread and wine as he says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all." The "Words of Institution" are necessary, but alone without the Epiklesis are inadequate to consecrate the gifts.

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

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #56 on: March 16, 2014, 02:46:21 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.

The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the consecration dates to Scholasticism, which flourished from about 1100 to 1700, long after the Western Schism. The Eastern understanding that the Holy Spirit not the words of the Priest transform the gifts into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ is the ancient patristric understanding of the consecration. The medieval Western understanding is too much like magic and gives too much power to the Priest. It is Christ, not the Priest who presides over the Eucharist. That is what we mean when the Priest offers the unconsecrated bread and wine as he says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all." The "Words of Institution" are necessary, but alone without the Epiklesis are inadequate to consecrate the gifts.

Fr. John W. Morris

Then you'd also have to draw the absurd conclusion that the pre-schism Western church didn't have a valid Eucharist.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #57 on: March 16, 2014, 04:12:51 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.

The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the consecration dates to Scholasticism, which flourished from about 1100 to 1700, long after the Western Schism. The Eastern understanding that the Holy Spirit not the words of the Priest transform the gifts into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ is the ancient patristric understanding of the consecration. The medieval Western understanding is too much like magic and gives too much power to the Priest. It is Christ, not the Priest who presides over the Eucharist. That is what we mean when the Priest offers the unconsecrated bread and wine as he says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all." The "Words of Institution" are necessary, but alone without the Epiklesis are inadequate to consecrate the gifts.

Fr. John W. Morris

Then you'd also have to draw the absurd conclusion that the pre-schism Western church didn't have a valid Eucharist.

That is not quite what I mean. I believe that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary. There is evidence that the pre-schism Western Liturgy had an Epiklesis. As has been noted St. Nicholas Cabasilas argued that the Roman Mass had an implied Epiklesis. The teaching that the Words of Institution are enough to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ developed in the West after the Schism during the age of Scholasticism along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 16, 2014, 04:19:03 PM »

There is evidence that the pre-schism Western Liturgy had an Epiklesis.

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.

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?
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #59 on: March 16, 2014, 04:27:20 PM »

The only thing directly added from the Eastern Rite are the epiclesis and the two pre-Communion prayers, the latter being added not by a priest, bishop, or even Metropolitan, but by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

That being said, I think any cross-pollinization is normal, given the circumstances. Liturgy should always be a living and dynamic thing.

Don't forget the deletions, the foremost being the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed.  But there are also the somewhat squeamish removals of references to merits of the saints from pre-schism prayers.  Likewise, the Athanasian creed has been altered to remove its "filioque", even though it pre-dates the schism by centuries.

Sure, cross-pollination is as old as the church, but in the Antiochian Archdiocese it's a one-way street.

The filioque in the Athanasian Creed is not original to that creed, but was also added to it.
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.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2014, 04:29:39 PM »

I don't understand the quibble over elevating the Holy Gifts in the Western Rite after the consecration. In the Constantinopoitan Rite, the Holy Gifts are elevated at "Holy things for the holy." Maybe not as high, but that's a practical matter.
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.
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #61 on: March 16, 2014, 04:39:35 PM »

The only thing directly added from the Eastern Rite are the epiclesis and the two pre-Communion prayers, the latter being added not by a priest, bishop, or even Metropolitan, but by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

That being said, I think any cross-pollinization is normal, given the circumstances. Liturgy should always be a living and dynamic thing.

Don't forget the deletions, the foremost being the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed.  But there are also the somewhat squeamish removals of references to merits of the saints from pre-schism prayers.  Likewise, the Athanasian creed has been altered to remove its "filioque", even though it pre-dates the schism by centuries.

Sure, cross-pollination is as old as the church, but in the Antiochian Archdiocese it's a one-way street.

The filioque in the Athanasian Creed is not original to that creed, but was also added to it.

Source?  Every version of it I've encountered had the filioque, with the exception of the AWRV version.
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #62 on: March 16, 2014, 05:03:10 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.

The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the consecration dates to Scholasticism, which flourished from about 1100 to 1700, long after the Western Schism. The Eastern understanding that the Holy Spirit not the words of the Priest transform the gifts into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ is the ancient patristric understanding of the consecration. The medieval Western understanding is too much like magic and gives too much power to the Priest. It is Christ, not the Priest who presides over the Eucharist. That is what we mean when the Priest offers the unconsecrated bread and wine as he says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all." The "Words of Institution" are necessary, but alone without the Epiklesis are inadequate to consecrate the gifts.

Fr. John W. Morris

Then you'd also have to draw the absurd conclusion that the pre-schism Western church didn't have a valid Eucharist.

That is not quite what I mean. I believe that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary.  There is evidence that the pre-schism Western Liturgy had an Epiklesis.

The canon has received only minor changes since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great.  There may have been earlier Roman versions with an epiclesis, but they had been superseded by the 6th century.  The Gallican liturgies had various forms of epiclesis, but these were supplanted by the Roman rite throughout the West by the end of the 8th century, i.e., well before the schism.

Quote
As has been noted St. Nicholas Cabasilas argued that the Roman Mass had an implied Epiklesis. The teaching that the Words of Institution are enough to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ developed in the West after the Schism during the age of Scholasticism along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes, the West did develop this doctrine further during the High Middle Ages, but the canon itself remained unchanged.  The AWRV addition of the epiclesis to it is superfluous and out of place.  If St. Nicholas Cabasilas was correct, then there was no need for this embellishment.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #63 on: March 16, 2014, 05:04:21 PM »

The only thing directly added from the Eastern Rite are the epiclesis and the two pre-Communion prayers, the latter being added not by a priest, bishop, or even Metropolitan, but by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

That being said, I think any cross-pollinization is normal, given the circumstances. Liturgy should always be a living and dynamic thing.

Don't forget the deletions, the foremost being the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed.  But there are also the somewhat squeamish removals of references to merits of the saints from pre-schism prayers.  Likewise, the Athanasian creed has been altered to remove its "filioque", even though it pre-dates the schism by centuries.

Sure, cross-pollination is as old as the church, but in the Antiochian Archdiocese it's a one-way street.

The filioque in the Athanasian Creed is not original to that creed, but was also added to it.

Source?  Every version of it I've encountered had the filioque, with the exception of the AWRV version.

Consider the source.

Anyway, the Athanasian Creed likely originates from late 5th, early 6th century southern Gaul. The filioque clause comes from the Third Council of Toledo in Spain in 589. The Athanasian Creed predates filioque.
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.
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 737



« Reply #64 on: March 16, 2014, 05:10:59 PM »

The only thing directly added from the Eastern Rite are the epiclesis and the two pre-Communion prayers, the latter being added not by a priest, bishop, or even Metropolitan, but by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

That being said, I think any cross-pollinization is normal, given the circumstances. Liturgy should always be a living and dynamic thing.

Don't forget the deletions, the foremost being the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed.  But there are also the somewhat squeamish removals of references to merits of the saints from pre-schism prayers.  Likewise, the Athanasian creed has been altered to remove its "filioque", even though it pre-dates the schism by centuries.

Sure, cross-pollination is as old as the church, but in the Antiochian Archdiocese it's a one-way street.

The filioque in the Athanasian Creed is not original to that creed, but was also added to it.

Source?  Every version of it I've encountered had the filioque, with the exception of the AWRV version.

Consider the source.

Anyway, the Athanasian Creed likely originates from late 5th, early 6th century southern Gaul. The filioque clause comes from the Third Council of Toledo in Spain in 589. The Athanasian Creed predates filioque.

The Toledo Council likely did not consider that it was innovating, but rather expressing a belief common in the West and grounded in St. Augustine and other fathers.  The oldest manuscripts of this creed date from the late 8th century and have the filioque.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #65 on: March 16, 2014, 05:59:20 PM »

I don't understand the quibble over elevating the Holy Gifts in the Western Rite after the consecration. In the Constantinopoitan Rite, the Holy Gifts are elevated at "Holy things for the holy." Maybe not as high, but that's a practical matter.

The quibble is with the elevation/genuflection prior to the consecration, but should still not be problematic for anyone.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #66 on: March 16, 2014, 06:06:31 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.
Even Western liturgies that have An Epiclesis ( Mozarabic and Gallican) do not usually have the type that Byzantines expect.  The book, The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A detailed history from the Patristic to the modern era, relates that of 225 Mozarabic Epicleses only 6 resemble the Byzantine in asking the Holy Spirit to transform the elements.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #67 on: March 16, 2014, 09:45:30 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.

The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the consecration dates to Scholasticism, which flourished from about 1100 to 1700, long after the Western Schism. The Eastern understanding that the Holy Spirit not the words of the Priest transform the gifts into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ is the ancient patristric understanding of the consecration. The medieval Western understanding is too much like magic and gives too much power to the Priest. It is Christ, not the Priest who presides over the Eucharist. That is what we mean when the Priest offers the unconsecrated bread and wine as he says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all." The "Words of Institution" are necessary, but alone without the Epiklesis are inadequate to consecrate the gifts.

Fr. John W. Morris

Then you'd also have to draw the absurd conclusion that the pre-schism Western church didn't have a valid Eucharist.

That is not quite what I mean. I believe that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary.  There is evidence that the pre-schism Western Liturgy had an Epiklesis.

The canon has received only minor changes since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great.  There may have been earlier Roman versions with an epiclesis, but they had been superseded by the 6th century.  The Gallican liturgies had various forms of epiclesis, but these were supplanted by the Roman rite throughout the West by the end of the 8th century, i.e., well before the schism.

Quote
As has been noted St. Nicholas Cabasilas argued that the Roman Mass had an implied Epiklesis. The teaching that the Words of Institution are enough to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ developed in the West after the Schism during the age of Scholasticism along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes, the West did develop this doctrine further during the High Middle Ages, but the canon itself remained unchanged.  The AWRV addition of the epiclesis to it is superfluous and out of place.  If St. Nicholas Cabasilas was correct, then there was no need for this embellishment.

But what if he was not correct? St. Nicholas Cabasilas was only expressing the opinion of one man. He could have been wrong. To be sure a proper Epiklesis had to be added. There is no doubt that according to the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church a proper Epiklesis is a necessary part of the Anaphora.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #68 on: March 16, 2014, 10:19:37 PM »

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.

Would you mind posting the texts of these "general confession" moments in the different Eastern liturgies, starting with the Byzantine? I just can't think of what you are referring to.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #69 on: March 16, 2014, 10:46:09 PM »

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.

Would you mind posting the texts of these "general confession" moments in the different Eastern liturgies, starting with the Byzantine? I just can't think of what you are referring to.

Perhaps he means the prayer, "I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners of who I am chief..."

Fr. John W. Morris
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 #70 on: March 17, 2014, 12:26:14 AM »

What deacon lance says about the epiclesis is correct. That is an excellent book.

Quote
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer....Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations."

This was a mistake made 100 years ago, which led to other mistakes at Vatican II (altars moved to the center of the nave, facing people..etc). This is a good example of why too much theorizing is dangerous. What I research and use are actual antiphons from actual manuscripts, nothing conjectured or theorized, but cold hard copies of something I can still hold in my hand that usually exist in hundreds of other manuscripts in identical fashion.
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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 17, 2014, 03:36:54 PM »

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.

Would you mind posting the texts of these "general confession" moments in the different Eastern liturgies, starting with the Byzantine? I just can't think of what you are referring to.

Sure, but I won't start with the Byzantine.  In this rite, the "general confession" element is the least pronounced: I see it because I'm familiar with the Syriac rite from which the Byzantine rite developed.  

In the Syriac Liturgy, after the reading of the Gospel, there is a unit of prayer which, collectively, is called Husoyo (Absolution/Remission).  It consists of three prayers: a "preface" (Proemion) to the main prayer (Sedro), with an invariable prayer of forgiveness (Husoyo) read in between the two.  There are many Sedre (each with its proper Proemion), and all are prayers of preparation for the offering of the sacrifice.  This unit is concluded with a form of absolution which is not exactly the same as that used in the sacrament of Confession, but its content is similar.  If you scroll down about halfway, you can read an example of this here (there are many other Sedre on that site).  This unit of three prayers also occurs during Vespers and Matins on days when the Liturgy is to be served, since these services form part of the preparation for the Liturgy, and in all cases, the prayers are said with the offering of incense, which is a sacrifice offered for the forgiveness of sins.    

In the Byzantine Liturgy, at roughly the same point (after the Gospel and before the Great Entrance), there are two prayers of the faithful ("We thank thee, O Lord God of Hosts" and "Again and oftentimes we fall down before thee") and a prayer during the Cherubic Hymn ("None is worthy") which, in their basic content and structure, are analogous.  There is also an offering of incense.    

I cannot speak to historic Byzantine practice, but from what I was taught about Syriac Liturgy, this unit wasn't simply "penitential" but was also sacramental.  It didn't replace the sacrament of Confession, but for those who committed sins which did not "require" Confession (and at that time, Confession was more for "the really big sins"), this prayer and its absolution was a sort of "general confession" which effected the reconciliation of the congregation with God and one another (which is why the Kiss of Peace occurs soon after).  It may have also been the time for the reconciliation of penitents.  Whether Byzantine practice had anything similar or merely adapted the prayer/structure for its own purposes, I do believe they are related.

In the Armenian tradition, private Confession is rare, though not unheard of, but there is a form of general confession included within the celebration of the Liturgy.  It consists of a prayer attributed to St Ephrem in which the penitent confesses what has come to be known as the seven deadly sins "and all their forms", a request for forgiveness from God, absolution from the priest, and re-admittance to the holy mysteries, followed by the priest's absolution.  In my experience, most parishes do this right before Communion, but I have seen it done before the beginning of the Liturgy.  In either case, it is identified with and referred to as the sacrament of Confession.  

In the Coptic tradition, private Confession is standard, but IIRC the same prayers which are used for the prayer of absolution in private, sacramental Confession are incorporated into the order of Vespers/Matins and the Liturgy, and they are at least connected by proximity to the offering of incense.  

I am not familiar with Ethiopian practice, but I suspect it is similar to Coptic.  

In the Roman rite, of course, there is the Confiteor recited during the prayers at the foot of the altar, once by the celebrant followed by a response recited by the ministers, then once by the ministers followed by a response and an absolution recited by the priest.  This unit is sometimes repeated right before Communion.  
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 03:37:59 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
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #72 on: March 17, 2014, 04:04:20 PM »

^It seems that every time various OO traditions are compared here Copts are said to be basically like EOs but unlike other OOs. Is it just me or are Copts crypto-Byzantines? Tongue
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 04:04:43 PM by Alpo » Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,506


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #73 on: March 17, 2014, 04:20:44 PM »

^It seems that every time various OO traditions are compared here Copts are said to be basically like EOs but unlike other OOs. Is it just me or are Copts crypto-Byzantines? Tongue

I'm not commenting on this, but I was astounded when I went into a Coptic Church and could read the names on the icons, the writing was so similar to Greek or Cyrillic. 

For me it emphasized the kinship which we share as Orthodox and led me to say a prayer for reunion.   
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #74 on: March 17, 2014, 04:21:34 PM »

^It seems that every time various OO traditions are compared here Copts are said to be basically like EOs but unlike other OOs. Is it just me or are Copts crypto-Byzantines? Tongue

It depends.  My general impression is that, in terms of prayer formulae, Copts and Byzantines have many similarities, but in terms of rites, Byzantines are more similar to Syrians.  In this particular case, I think the Byzantines are more Syriac than Coptic, but all three are fairly close.  
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 #75 on: March 17, 2014, 08:19:05 PM »

^It seems that every time various OO traditions are compared here Copts are said to be basically like EOs but unlike other OOs. Is it just me or are Copts crypto-Byzantines? Tongue

It depends.  My general impression is that, in terms of prayer formulae, Copts and Byzantines have many similarities, but in terms of rites, Byzantines are more similar to Syrians.  In this particular case, I think the Byzantines are more Syriac than Coptic, but all three are fairly close.  

The Byzantine Liturgy is close to the Syriac Liturgy, because both are expressions of the West Syrian Liturgical Tradition. St. John Chrysostom came from Antioch.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #76 on: March 17, 2014, 09:24:06 PM »

In the Byzantine Liturgy, at roughly the same point (after the Gospel and before the Great Entrance), there are two prayers of the faithful ("We thank thee, O Lord God of Hosts" and "Again and oftentimes we fall down before thee") and a prayer during the Cherubic Hymn ("None is worthy") which, in their basic content and structure, are analogous.  There is also an offering of incense.

I wasn't familiar with these prayers because they are the "silent" priestly prayers. But when I read over them they seemed to be seeking forgiveness for the clergy at the altar, not for the congregation.
Logged
KostaC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago & the Diocese of Washington (Orthodox Church in America)
Posts: 184



« Reply #77 on: March 17, 2014, 11:35:22 PM »

This might be irrelevant, but I know that Wikipedia has a list of several Western Rite liturgies, and this information has been disseminated across several websites (I rarely make my way out to the Western Orthodox church in my area, so I haven't asked the of the parish priest for verification), but I was wondering how many of them are actually celebrated in our Church. For example, when I looked further into the various liturgies of the Western Rite, I couldn't find anything about "the English Liturgy," which is said to be a "Russian adaptation of the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer according to the criteria set forth by the Holy Synod of Russia in 1907."

I'm not crying that this is all false information or made up, but I remain sceptical. Has anyone here actually been a participant in or seen the English Liturgy, Liturgy of Saint Germanos, the Liturgy of Saint John the Divine, and/or the Mozarabic Rite?
Logged

«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« Reply #78 on: March 18, 2014, 12:02:56 AM »

I think the Rite of St. Germanos is mostly restricted to France, with I believe only so many actually under a canonical church now. So I doubt many have seen that one at least. Wouldn't Mozarabic be in Spain? So again unlikely for most here to have personally seen it.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #79 on: March 18, 2014, 01:26:18 AM »

I wasn't familiar with these prayers because they are the "silent" priestly prayers. But when I read over them they seemed to be seeking forgiveness for the clergy at the altar, not for the congregation.

And the practice of reading those prayers silently is at least partly to blame for that interpretation.  Certainly the first two are for everyone.  The last contains language that is more specific to the priest(s) (con)celebrating, but this is not without Syriac parallels.  I still maintain that these units are related in the two rites.
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: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #80 on: March 18, 2014, 08:12:26 AM »

This might be irrelevant, but I know that Wikipedia has a list of several Western Rite liturgies, and this information has been disseminated across several websites (I rarely make my way out to the Western Orthodox church in my area, so I haven't asked the of the parish priest for verification), but I was wondering how many of them are actually celebrated in our Church. For example, when I looked further into the various liturgies of the Western Rite, I couldn't find anything about "the English Liturgy," which is said to be a "Russian adaptation of the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer according to the criteria set forth by the Holy Synod of Russia in 1907."

I'm not crying that this is all false information or made up, but I remain sceptical. Has anyone here actually been a participant in or seen the English Liturgy, Liturgy of Saint Germanos, the Liturgy of Saint John the Divine, and/or the Mozarabic Rite?

At the risk of sounding uncharitable (and I honestly mean not to), I think this is one of the reasons for ROCOR's issues within their Vicariate. They seemed to give sanction to any liturgy that somebody wanted to "resurrect." There is a small parish near Des Moines, Iowa that celebrates the Gallican Rite. I don't know of any that do Mozarabic, or the English Liturgy, though some may have at some point. This whole notion of "resurrecting" liturgies is all part of a narrative of trying to "pick up where the pre-Schism West left off." It's not what liturgy is supposed to be, in my humble opinion.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #81 on: March 18, 2014, 08:47:18 AM »

I think the Rite of St. Germanos is mostly restricted to France, with I believe only so many actually under a canonical church now. So I doubt many have seen that one at least. Wouldn't Mozarabic be in Spain? So again unlikely for most here to have personally seen it.

The Mozarabic Rite is still celebrated in a chapel in the Cathedral in Toledo, Spain.
The actual text of the Litugry of St. Germain has been lost. A group, which  was received by Moscow in 1937, then went into ROCRO (1959 - 1966) and then under Romania  (1972 - 1993), uses a reconstruction of the Liturgy of St. Germain by Louis-Charles (Irénée) Winnaert (1880–1937) and Evgraph Kovalevsky (1905–1970) and Denis (Chambault).  After the break with Romania in 1993, some of them  went under the Serbian Church as individuals, some joined the Coptic Church, and some remained independent.

Fr. John  W. Morris
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #82 on: March 18, 2014, 10:37:50 AM »

In the Byzantine Liturgy, at roughly the same point (after the Gospel and before the Great Entrance), there are two prayers of the faithful ("We thank thee, O Lord God of Hosts" and "Again and oftentimes we fall down before thee") and a prayer during the Cherubic Hymn ("None is worthy") which, in their basic content and structure, are analogous.  There is also an offering of incense.

I wasn't familiar with these prayers because they are the "silent" priestly prayers. But when I read over them they seemed to be seeking forgiveness for the clergy at the altar, not for the congregation.

There are very few "silent" prayers in the Divine Liturgy that are not offered for the entire laos. I have found only the following in the following text http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/orthodoxy/liturgicaltexts/divineliturgy.cfm

1. During the singing of the Cherubic Hymn, the priest prays "No one who is bound with the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw near or to serve You, O King of Glory..."

2. Before Holy Things are for the Holy, "O God, cleanse me, a sinner, and have mercy on me."

NOTE 1: The prayer just before appears to be for both the priest and the deacon (unless the prayer is using the imperial "us"): "Attend, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, from Your holy dwelling-place, from the glorious throne of Your Kingdom, and come to sanctify us, O Lord, Who sit on high with the Father, and are here invisibly present with us; and by Your mighty hand impart to us Your most pure Body and precious Blood, and through us to all the people."

NOTE 2: Both the deacon and the priest say the pre-communion prayers (I believe Lord and I confess... etc.). However, even when the entire congregation pray them, they are individual prayers said at the same time, so i do not think that they are exclusive to the clergy.

Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #83 on: March 18, 2014, 12:47:23 PM »

This might be irrelevant, but I know that Wikipedia has a list of several Western Rite liturgies, and this information has been disseminated across several websites (I rarely make my way out to the Western Orthodox church in my area, so I haven't asked the of the parish priest for verification), but I was wondering how many of them are actually celebrated in our Church. For example, when I looked further into the various liturgies of the Western Rite, I couldn't find anything about "the English Liturgy," which is said to be a "Russian adaptation of the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer according to the criteria set forth by the Holy Synod of Russia in 1907."

I'm not crying that this is all false information or made up, but I remain sceptical. Has anyone here actually been a participant in or seen the English Liturgy, Liturgy of Saint Germanos, the Liturgy of Saint John the Divine, and/or the Mozarabic Rite?

At the risk of sounding uncharitable (and I honestly mean not to), I think this is one of the reasons for ROCOR's issues within their Vicariate. They seemed to give sanction to any liturgy that somebody wanted to "resurrect." There is a small parish near Des Moines, Iowa that celebrates the Gallican Rite. I don't know of any that do Mozarabic, or the English Liturgy, though some may have at some point. This whole notion of "resurrecting" liturgies is all part of a narrative of trying to "pick up where the pre-Schism West left off." It's not what liturgy is supposed to be, in my humble opinion.
What is wrong with celebrating the Gallican Rite, in particular when a whole Church was celebrating it in France under St. Maximovich?
Logged

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

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #84 on: March 18, 2014, 06:36:40 PM »

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 translation is misguiding.

Pope Gregory to Bishop John of Syracus:
Orationem vero dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent. Et valde mihi inconveniens visum est, ut precem quam scholasticus compusuerat super oblationem diceremus, et ipsam traditionem quam redemptor noster composuit super eius corpus et sanguinem non diceremus.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 06:37:01 PM by Caelestinus » Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #85 on: March 18, 2014, 06:49:03 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.

The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the consecration dates to Scholasticism, which flourished from about 1100 to 1700, long after the Western Schism. The Eastern understanding that the Holy Spirit not the words of the Priest transform the gifts into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ is the ancient patristric understanding of the consecration. The medieval Western understanding is too much like magic and gives too much power to the Priest. It is Christ, not the Priest who presides over the Eucharist. That is what we mean when the Priest offers the unconsecrated bread and wine as he says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all." The "Words of Institution" are necessary, but alone without the Epiklesis are inadequate to consecrate the gifts.

Fr. John W. Morris

Then you'd also have to draw the absurd conclusion that the pre-schism Western church didn't have a valid Eucharist.

That is not quite what I mean. I believe that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary. There is evidence that the pre-schism Western Liturgy had an Epiklesis. As has been noted St. Nicholas Cabasilas argued that the Roman Mass had an implied Epiklesis. The teaching that the Words of Institution are enough to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ developed in the West after the Schism during the age of Scholasticism along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Fr. John W. Morris

Do you agree, that the traditional, since Pope Gregory's time nearly unchanged (except some minor changes, like ac instead of et, in caelos instead of in caelis etc.) Canon Romanus as a whole is in principle sufficient for changing the bread and wine into the precious body and blood of our Saviour?
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #86 on: March 18, 2014, 06:52:01 PM »

The only thing directly added from the Eastern Rite are the epiclesis and the two pre-Communion prayers, the latter being added not by a priest, bishop, or even Metropolitan, but by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

That being said, I think any cross-pollinization is normal, given the circumstances. Liturgy should always be a living and dynamic thing.

Don't forget the deletions, the foremost being the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed.  But there are also the somewhat squeamish removals of references to merits of the saints from pre-schism prayers.  Likewise, the Athanasian creed has been altered to remove its "filioque", even though it pre-dates the schism by centuries.

Sure, cross-pollination is as old as the church, but in the Antiochian Archdiocese it's a one-way street.

The filioque in the Athanasian Creed is not original to that creed, but was also added to it.
I doubt this. Have you a proof for your assumption?
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #87 on: March 18, 2014, 06:54:48 PM »

The only thing directly added from the Eastern Rite are the epiclesis and the two pre-Communion prayers, the latter being added not by a priest, bishop, or even Metropolitan, but by the Patriarch of Antioch himself.

That being said, I think any cross-pollinization is normal, given the circumstances. Liturgy should always be a living and dynamic thing.

Don't forget the deletions, the foremost being the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed.  But there are also the somewhat squeamish removals of references to merits of the saints from pre-schism prayers.  Likewise, the Athanasian creed has been altered to remove its "filioque", even though it pre-dates the schism by centuries.

Sure, cross-pollination is as old as the church, but in the Antiochian Archdiocese it's a one-way street.

The filioque in the Athanasian Creed is not original to that creed, but was also added to it.

Source?  Every version of it I've encountered had the filioque, with the exception of the AWRV version.

Consider the source.

Anyway, the Athanasian Creed likely originates from late 5th, early 6th century southern Gaul. The filioque clause comes from the Third Council of Toledo in Spain in 589. The Athanasian Creed predates filioque.
This Argument is not compulsory.
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #88 on: March 18, 2014, 06:59:32 PM »

I don't understand the quibble over elevating the Holy Gifts in the Western Rite after the consecration. In the Constantinopoitan Rite, the Holy Gifts are elevated at "Holy things for the holy." Maybe not as high, but that's a practical matter.

The quibble is with the elevation/genuflection prior to the consecration, but should still not be problematic for anyone.
It is presumably not problematic for Roman Chatholics, as it is in accordance with their teachings or better said: it is the nonverbal expression of their teaching of a consecrational moment.
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #89 on: March 18, 2014, 07:09:42 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.

The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the consecration dates to Scholasticism, which flourished from about 1100 to 1700, long after the Western Schism. The Eastern understanding that the Holy Spirit not the words of the Priest transform the gifts into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ is the ancient patristric understanding of the consecration. The medieval Western understanding is too much like magic and gives too much power to the Priest. It is Christ, not the Priest who presides over the Eucharist. That is what we mean when the Priest offers the unconsecrated bread and wine as he says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all." The "Words of Institution" are necessary, but alone without the Epiklesis are inadequate to consecrate the gifts.

Fr. John W. Morris

Then you'd also have to draw the absurd conclusion that the pre-schism Western church didn't have a valid Eucharist.

That is not quite what I mean. I believe that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary.  There is evidence that the pre-schism Western Liturgy had an Epiklesis.

The canon has received only minor changes since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great.  There may have been earlier Roman versions with an epiclesis, but they had been superseded by the 6th century.  The Gallican liturgies had various forms of epiclesis, but these were supplanted by the Roman rite throughout the West by the end of the 8th century, i.e., well before the schism.

Quote
As has been noted St. Nicholas Cabasilas argued that the Roman Mass had an implied Epiklesis. The teaching that the Words of Institution are enough to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ developed in the West after the Schism during the age of Scholasticism along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes, the West did develop this doctrine further during the High Middle Ages, but the canon itself remained unchanged.  The AWRV addition of the epiclesis to it is superfluous and out of place.  If St. Nicholas Cabasilas was correct, then there was no need for this embellishment.

But what if he was not correct? St. Nicholas Cabasilas was only expressing the opinion of one man. He could have been wrong. To be sure a proper Epiklesis had to be added. There is no doubt that according to the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church a proper Epiklesis is a necessary part of the Anaphora.

Fr. John W. Morris
If this is your opinion, please explain how could holy Eastern Orthodox fathers receive communion from the hands of those who said the Roman anaphora without a "proper epiklesis" before 1055 AD (i.e. when the Pope himself in Constantinopel celebrated)? And why didn't the fathers of the Quinisext council urge the Roman Church to insert a "proper epiclesis" (Eastern mode)? They wished to abrogate so much, but no word on such a central topic..   
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #90 on: March 18, 2014, 07:19:49 PM »

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 translation is misguiding.

Pope Gregory to Bishop John of Syracus:
Orationem vero dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent. Et valde mihi inconveniens visum est, ut precem quam scholasticus compusuerat super oblationem diceremus, et ipsam traditionem quam redemptor noster composuit super eius corpus et sanguinem non diceremus.

first Prex = oratio oblationis (Anaphora).
secund Prex (quam scholasticus compusuerat) = the omitted prayer during fraction, see Stowe Missal.
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #91 on: March 18, 2014, 07:29:51 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.

The pre-schism Liturgy of St. Gregory  - or better said: The papal Liturgy from the VII. century up to 1014 - consists of the following elements:
Introitus
Kyrie eleison [omitted when the Litany preceds]
Gloria in excelsis (on Sundays and Feast Days, when a Bishop celebrates; only on Easter, when a Presbyter celebrates)
Oratio
Epistle
Gradual or (seu) Alleluia
Gospel
Offertorium with Oratio super oblata
Canon actionis
Oratio Dominica with Pax
Agnus Dei (since Sergius I.)
Communion
Oratio ad complendum (= post communionem)
Oratio super populum (on weekdays in Lent)
Ite, missa est.

No Creed etc.
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #92 on: March 18, 2014, 07:46:34 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.

Like the Chyrsostomus-Epiklesis they don't fit to this elaborate text (cursus). The placing of the additional Chrysostomus-epiclesis is violating the text linguistical and in meaning (why should the consecrated gifts be carried to the heavenly altar then?). I saw an Ordo Missae (from the fraternity of St. Gregory?), where the Chyrsostomus-epiclesis was inserted even before the oblatio, directly after the words of Institution. No Eastern anaphora has the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord (this is Roman Catholic doctrine, cf. Eucharistic prayer IV); in ecclesiastical tradition the epiclesis follows the offerimus. To guard the orthodox structure of the Anaphora is absolut necessary, when we speak of necessities. What father Morris writes, sounds like Western thinking in Eastern clothes: a magic sticking to wording. 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 07:55:22 PM by Caelestinus » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #93 on: March 18, 2014, 07:49:24 PM »

This might be irrelevant, but I know that Wikipedia has a list of several Western Rite liturgies, and this information has been disseminated across several websites (I rarely make my way out to the Western Orthodox church in my area, so I haven't asked the of the parish priest for verification), but I was wondering how many of them are actually celebrated in our Church. For example, when I looked further into the various liturgies of the Western Rite, I couldn't find anything about "the English Liturgy," which is said to be a "Russian adaptation of the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer according to the criteria set forth by the Holy Synod of Russia in 1907."

I'm not crying that this is all false information or made up, but I remain sceptical. Has anyone here actually been a participant in or seen the English Liturgy, Liturgy of Saint Germanos, the Liturgy of Saint John the Divine, and/or the Mozarabic Rite?

At the risk of sounding uncharitable (and I honestly mean not to), I think this is one of the reasons for ROCOR's issues within their Vicariate. They seemed to give sanction to any liturgy that somebody wanted to "resurrect." There is a small parish near Des Moines, Iowa that celebrates the Gallican Rite. I don't know of any that do Mozarabic, or the English Liturgy, though some may have at some point. This whole notion of "resurrecting" liturgies is all part of a narrative of trying to "pick up where the pre-Schism West left off." It's not what liturgy is supposed to be, in my humble opinion.
What is wrong with celebrating the Gallican Rite, in particular when a whole Church was celebrating it in France under St. Maximovich?

Nothing, per se, my main point was in reference to the sheer number of liturgies approved. And, to be fair, that "Gallican" liturgy wasn't really the Gallican liturgy at all, but was a heavily Byzantinized creation. The community that used it eventually left Orthodoxy too. Healthy worship matters, and there haven't really been many shining examples of using a resurrected/created liturgy, given to the people as being "theirs" (because it was celebrated in "the West" at some point in history?), which justifies the blessing of any liturgy that can claim to be "Western."

Understand, I'm not saying it's impossible, and I'm not saying resurrecting certain things aren't a normal part of liturgical development.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #94 on: March 18, 2014, 07:51:43 PM »

I don't understand the quibble over elevating the Holy Gifts in the Western Rite after the consecration. In the Constantinopoitan Rite, the Holy Gifts are elevated at "Holy things for the holy." Maybe not as high, but that's a practical matter.

The quibble is with the elevation/genuflection prior to the consecration, but should still not be problematic for anyone.
It is presumably not problematic for Roman Chatholics, as it is in accordance with their teachings or better said: it is the nonverbal expression of their teaching of a consecrational moment.

If understood to be the same thing, then yes. But that is not what the gesture means in an Orthodox context.
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #95 on: March 18, 2014, 08:00:35 PM »

I don't understand the quibble over elevating the Holy Gifts in the Western Rite after the consecration. In the Constantinopoitan Rite, the Holy Gifts are elevated at "Holy things for the holy." Maybe not as high, but that's a practical matter.

The quibble is with the elevation/genuflection prior to the consecration, but should still not be problematic for anyone.
It is presumably not problematic for Roman Chatholics, as it is in accordance with their teachings or better said: it is the nonverbal expression of their teaching of a consecrational moment.

If understood to be the same thing, then yes. But that is not what the gesture means in an Orthodox context.
Kneeling can be an expression of adoration or of penitence. It's the first here (in RC masses). Genuflexion (on one knee only, down and immediatly up again) is not common in Orthodoxy, but you refer to this gesture, don't you?
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #96 on: March 18, 2014, 08:06:11 PM »

The Creed [Gregory & Tikhon] - The Nicene Creed made its way into the Western Mass between the 6th and 8th centuries.
Cf. Ph. Bernard, Quadrata Confessio, les "Messes de Mone" et la récitation du Credo à la messe dans la Gaule de l'Antiquité tardive, in: Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 82, 1998, pp. 431-443.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #97 on: March 18, 2014, 08:29:11 PM »

I don't understand the quibble over elevating the Holy Gifts in the Western Rite after the consecration. In the Constantinopoitan Rite, the Holy Gifts are elevated at "Holy things for the holy." Maybe not as high, but that's a practical matter.

The quibble is with the elevation/genuflection prior to the consecration, but should still not be problematic for anyone.
It is presumably not problematic for Roman Chatholics, as it is in accordance with their teachings or better said: it is the nonverbal expression of their teaching of a consecrational moment.

If understood to be the same thing, then yes. But that is not what the gesture means in an Orthodox context.
Kneeling can be an expression of adoration or of penitence. It's the first here (in RC masses). Genuflexion (on one knee only, down and immediatly up again) is not common in Orthodoxy, but you refer to this gesture, don't you?

In our Western Orthodox Masses, during the Words of Institution, the Priest genuflects (yes, on one knee only), elevates the host, then genuflects again. He does the same with wine.

Perhaps in a Roman Catholic context this is a moment of adoration, under the assumption that the elements have now been consecrated, but in our Orthodox context it is not, because we require the epiclesis.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #98 on: March 18, 2014, 09:44:28 PM »

This was indeed the impetus behind adding the elevation after the Words of Institution, but that is not how Western Orthodox understand this gesture from within an Orthodox context now, precisely because we are conforming to Eastern Orthodox understanding about how the gifts are consecrated. It would be more accurate to view this elevation (along with the genuflections) as being akin to the Proskomedia.


This is a striking example of the discontinuity between the Antiochian Western Rite and the received Roman and Anglo-Catholic traditions.  Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the consecration which hardened in the post-schism period?

Why does the Western rite have to conform to an Eastern understanding of the papacy which hardened in the post-schism period?

Because the RC understanding of the papacy has changed so much during the post-schism period.  That's not the case with Western Eucharistic understanding.

The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of the consecration dates to Scholasticism, which flourished from about 1100 to 1700, long after the Western Schism. The Eastern understanding that the Holy Spirit not the words of the Priest transform the gifts into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ is the ancient patristric understanding of the consecration. The medieval Western understanding is too much like magic and gives too much power to the Priest. It is Christ, not the Priest who presides over the Eucharist. That is what we mean when the Priest offers the unconsecrated bread and wine as he says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all." The "Words of Institution" are necessary, but alone without the Epiklesis are inadequate to consecrate the gifts.

Fr. John W. Morris

Then you'd also have to draw the absurd conclusion that the pre-schism Western church didn't have a valid Eucharist.

That is not quite what I mean. I believe that an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary. There is evidence that the pre-schism Western Liturgy had an Epiklesis. As has been noted St. Nicholas Cabasilas argued that the Roman Mass had an implied Epiklesis. The teaching that the Words of Institution are enough to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ developed in the West after the Schism during the age of Scholasticism along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Fr. John W. Morris

Do you agree, that the traditional, since Pope Gregory's time nearly unchanged (except some minor changes, like ac instead of et, in caelos instead of in caelis etc.) Canon Romanus as a whole is in principle sufficient for changing the bread and wine into the precious body and blood of our Saviour?

I do not know. I am not God. I suspect that the Western Rite Mass was standardized with the invention of printing that made possible the production of a large number of service books to take the place of the hand written books, that may have had mistakes or variations. I do know that I believe as does Eastern Orthodoxy that an explicit epiklesis is necessary.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #99 on: March 18, 2014, 10:55:06 PM »

I suspect that the Western Rite Mass was standardized with the invention of printing that made possible the production of a large number of service books to take the place of the hand written books, that may have had mistakes or variations.
Huh?

I do know that I believe as does Eastern Orthodoxy that an explicit epiklesis is necessary.

You mean by 'explicit epiklesis' that 1) the God the Father is invoked 2) to send down his Sprit 3) to transform the gifts in the Body and blood of his Son 4) for the Remission of sins etc.?

Do you really regard any other form of explicit epiklesis, like the Roman Supplices as illicit or insufficient?


The Anaphora is the central text of each Liturgy. When the traditional form of the Canon Romanus is not okay to Orthodox doctrine or requirements and must be altered before putting in use, it sounds like irony to name this explicitly "Liturgy of St. Gregory".

On the other side, I don't say, the Canon is untouchable and I aknowledge that it is an reasonable concern to stress the fact that it is the holy Spirit who changes the gifts, but this should be done in a VERY careful and reflected manner (to last the next 1000 years!) and Overbeck in his time wasn't capable to implement this

I assume that the Hierarchs have to cope with other problems than defining if or not an explicit Holy-Spirit-descending-epiklesis is indispensible (and that this question belongs to the depositum ;-).
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 10:57:21 PM by Caelestinus » Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #100 on: March 20, 2014, 12:38:00 PM »

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.)

Shouldn't it be a priority objective for WR-Orthodoxs to create a modern Latin Translation of the Greek Septuagint (on the Basis of the Old Latin texts)?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 12:38:19 PM by Caelestinus » Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #101 on: March 20, 2014, 12:50:29 PM »

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?  

The principle thanksgiving is the Anaphora / Oratio oblationis / Prex Canonica/Mystica / Canon [gratiarum] actionis.

The first Oratio is the ad collectam / ad missam.

The second is the oratio super oblata / ad secretam (secreta = old Latin for 'mysteries').

The third is the oratio ad complendum / post communionem.

The theme of thanksgiving is missing in most of the Post-communionem prayers. The recieved mysteries are called in mind and a plea follows. But some of this prayers refer to the theme of (final) thanksgiving, in this or an other manner: Gratiam tibi referentes. As this formula can't be altered much, I guess the exhausting Repetition was the reason, why it fall out of use (like the Oratio fidelium/Deprecationes, where only the Kyrie survived and placed by St. Gregory after the Introit).

(The "Liturgy of St. Gelasius" - the Liturgy of Rome that preceded the shortened "Liturgy of St. Gregory", that was most likely continued as the Liturgy of the tituli [= parishes] had more presidential prayers).
« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 12:56:02 PM by Caelestinus » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #102 on: March 20, 2014, 07:15:06 PM »

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.)

Shouldn't it be a priority objective for WR-Orthodoxs to create a modern Latin Translation of the Greek Septuagint (on the Basis of the Old Latin texts)?

Well, we speak English, so...no, we don't need a Latin translation of the Septuagint. It already exists in English.
Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #103 on: March 22, 2014, 01:07:50 PM »

Well, we speak English, so...no, we don't need a Latin translation of the Septuagint. It already exists in English.


Hu sinʒað we sanʒ drihtnys on eorðan fremdre?


(Quomodo cantabimus canticum domini in terra aliena?)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 01:08:10 PM by Caelestinus » 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 #104 on: March 22, 2014, 11:55:35 PM »

Well, we speak English, so...no, we don't need a Latin translation of the Septuagint. It already exists in English.


Hu sinʒað we sanʒ drihtnys on eorðan fremdre?


(Quomodo cantabimus canticum domini in terra aliena?)

Caelistinus, this is the anti-intellectual type of response that one encounters in the United States culture.
Reality TV shows such as "Honey boo boo"...they speak english on that show.

Thank God, I have access to french, german and english priests who speak multiple languages, such as latin and can laugh off such silly comments.  Thank God for the nearby byzantine rite parishes and monasteries that use up to 7 languages for different liturgical music on feast days.

As for a Latin version of the Septuagint, there already exists Vetus Latina's that are based on it, from before 400 A.D. These were the official translations from before St. Jeromes time. All the Orthodox have to do is republish them and possibly fill in the missing pieces. But for example, for my psalter project, for one of the canticles that was not in "A Psalter For Prayer" I consulted this book:

http://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru01saba
Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae Versiones antiqua (Vetus latina, a pure septuagint translation) - Old Testament  (published in 1751)
I think this has the entire old testment.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 12:00:18 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: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #105 on: March 23, 2014, 08:39:58 AM »

I was not being silly, nor anti-intellectual. I was pointing out the absurdity of translating the Septuagint into Latin, when we already have the Vulgate in Latin and the Septuagint in English. Why on earth would you waste the time and effort to translate from Greek into Latin, only to have to interpret it in English to the faithful (who, rightfully, have neither the time or inclination to learn enough Latin to read an entire Bible)?

Thank God for Orthodoxy and liturgy in our native tongue. I love Latin as much as the next guy, but ascribing some sort of magical spiritual power to it, like you do, is what's silly and anti-intellectual.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,394



« Reply #106 on: March 23, 2014, 12:54:53 PM »




Hu sinʒað we sanʒ drihtnys on eorðan fremdre?

You're not the only one that can read Anglo-Saxon here. But your other posts have been in Modern English.
Meaning no disrespect but your point was? 

(and for many here we are not anywhere fremde but in our own home places and since the Lord knows all places and languages...)
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Reader KevinAndrew
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Western Rite
Posts: 138



« Reply #107 on: March 23, 2014, 11:20:14 PM »


[/quote]

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
[/quote]
Father, with all due respect, I think there is something missing in the elevation being discussed. The purpose of elevation of the bread and wine are different in the Byzantine liturgy and the Western Rite Mass. During the Mass, at the Words of Institution, after the priest says the words regarding the bread, Sanctus bells ring, priest genuflects, host censed, Sanctus beel rings, host is elevated, host censed, host put back on corporal priest genuflects, Sanctus bell rings, host censed. This same series happens after the words concerning the wine and done with the chalice.

The Epikelsis happens after all of this. It is basically inserted a few lines later. But there is a reason for all of the ceremonial during the words of institution. These acts (ringing the bells, genuflecting, and ceasing) are being done because the elements are Christs Body and Blood. Western rite ceremonial does not have genuflect ions toward ordinary bread and wine, nor does one cense ordinary bread and wine. The Sanctus bells are rung when the Sacrament is exposed (also done when the Tabernacle, where the reserved sacrament is kept, is opened).

If the elements are not really the Eucharist until the Epiklesis is said, there is a big theological problem with this ceremonial being done when it is, and which is the heart of the ceremonial during the Consecration section of the Mass. There's no way to move those things to another part of the Mass. The significance of why that ceremonial is clear and it conflicts with the reason why the Epiklesis has been added to our liturgy. I've asked, of course, and there's really nothing one can say. The various clergy I've asked have danced around it, some better than others.

I'm obedient to the fact that we have to have it in the Mass. It doesn't mean I have to like it or think it is right. The East is not the West's yardstick for what is Christian and what is not. I really think there never was an Epiklesis in the West, even during the 1000 years of unity, and the sun still rose in the East and everything was ok. But this is what it is, and it's. to a big enough thing for me to lose sleep over. It just seems unnecessary. Sorry for the soapbox.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #108 on: April 25, 2014, 01:47:53 AM »



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
[/quote]
Father, with all due respect, I think there is something missing in the elevation being discussed. The purpose of elevation of the bread and wine are different in the Byzantine liturgy and the Western Rite Mass. During the Mass, at the Words of Institution, after the priest says the words regarding the bread, Sanctus bells ring, priest genuflects, host censed, Sanctus beel rings, host is elevated, host censed, host put back on corporal priest genuflects, Sanctus bell rings, host censed. This same series happens after the words concerning the wine and done with the chalice.

The Epikelsis happens after all of this. It is basically inserted a few lines later. But there is a reason for all of the ceremonial during the words of institution. These acts (ringing the bells, genuflecting, and ceasing) are being done because the elements are Christs Body and Blood. Western rite ceremonial does not have genuflect ions toward ordinary bread and wine, nor does one cense ordinary bread and wine. The Sanctus bells are rung when the Sacrament is exposed (also done when the Tabernacle, where the reserved sacrament is kept, is opened).

If the elements are not really the Eucharist until the Epiklesis is said, there is a big theological problem with this ceremonial being done when it is, and which is the heart of the ceremonial during the Consecration section of the Mass. There's no way to move those things to another part of the Mass. The significance of why that ceremonial is clear and it conflicts with the reason why the Epiklesis has been added to our liturgy. I've asked, of course, and there's really nothing one can say. The various clergy I've asked have danced around it, some better than others.

I'm obedient to the fact that we have to have it in the Mass. It doesn't mean I have to like it or think it is right. The East is not the West's yardstick for what is Christian and what is not. I really think there never was an Epiklesis in the West, even during the 1000 years of unity, and the sun still rose in the East and everything was ok. But this is what it is, and it's. to a big enough thing for me to lose sleep over. It just seems unnecessary. Sorry for the soapbox.
[/quote]

Genufluxing after the Words of Institution are not necessarily an indication that the gifts have been fully consecrated. The rubrics of the Byzantine Rite call for the Priest to make a deep bow after the Words of Institution before the consecration is completed by the Epiklesis. The gifts are also elevated before the Epiklesis as the Priest says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all." The idea is that we offer God bread and wine and during the Epiklesis receive back the Body and Blood of Christ.
I have read histories that claim that there was an Epiklesis in the ancient Roman Liturgy. I believe that other ancient forms of the Western Rite such as the Gallican and Mozarabic had an Epiklesis.
According to Orthodox theology an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary during the Anaphora. Thus the Western Rite to be fully Orthodox had to restore the Epiklesis. The words of the Epiklesis of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ; and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of thy Christ; Changing them by thy Holy Spirit." make it clear that the consecration is not completed until after the Epiklesis.
The rubrics of the Liturgikon of the Antiochian Archdiocese state that the Priest is not to point to or make any gesture towards the gifts during the Words of Institution.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: April 25, 2014, 01:52:39 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #109 on: April 30, 2014, 05:36:50 AM »

Quote from: Reader KevinAndrew
If the elements are not really the Eucharist until the Epiklesis is said, there is a big theological problem with this ceremonial being done when it is, and which is the heart of the ceremonial during the Consecration section of the Mass.
If the genuflection of the priest is meant as adoration (and there is no other explication of the ceremonial, which arouse in post-schism times, around 1200 AD, as to signify that the consecration is completed), your objection is reasonable. (I see it the same way.)

Quote from: Reader KevinAndrew
I really think there never was an Epiklesis in the West.
 
The Epiclesis of the Roman Canon (=Anaphora) is different from the Eastern Liturgies. it is not descending, but ascending. It was never a controversial subject, when Rome was still in communion with the Eastern Patriarchs (while other issues were broadly discussed, on both sites).
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 05:39:04 AM by Caelestinus » Logged
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #110 on: April 30, 2014, 05:53:58 AM »

Quote from: frjohnmorris
According to Orthodox theology an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary during the Anaphora.
It was regarded as necessary, when the Russian Synod gave permission for the Roman Rite.
To deny that the orthodox Roman Church of the first Millenium had a Eucharist, is unsustainable. (How could Churches be in communion with each other, if they were not partaker in the same mysteries?)

Quote from: frjohnmorris
Thus the Western Rite to be fully Orthodox had to restore the Epiklesis.
How to restore something, which has never been (as far as we know)?

Quote from: frjohnmorris
[...] make it clear that the consecration is not completed until after the Epiklesis.
Indeed, the consecration is not completed until after the Epiklesis. Therefore gestures of adoration should have their legitime place afterwards. (That doesn't mean, that the unchanged bread and wine, are considered as ordinary things, when they are appointed and selected to be used in the Liturgy they appertain to be honoured like holy relics or icons or even more, cf. the Great Entrance). I doubt very much that the post-schism elevation and genuflexion is the appropriate form to express the orthodox belief concerning these holy Mysteries.
Logged
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 191



« Reply #111 on: April 30, 2014, 03:15:01 PM »


Father, with all due respect, I think there is something missing in the elevation being discussed. The purpose of elevation of the bread and wine are different in the Byzantine liturgy and the Western Rite Mass. During the Mass, at the Words of Institution, after the priest says the words regarding the bread, Sanctus bells ring, priest genuflects, host censed, Sanctus beel rings, host is elevated, host censed, host put back on corporal priest genuflects, Sanctus bell rings, host censed. This same series happens after the words concerning the wine and done with the chalice.

The Epikelsis happens after all of this. It is basically inserted a few lines later. But there is a reason for all of the ceremonial during the words of institution. These acts (ringing the bells, genuflecting, and ceasing) are being done because the elements are Christs Body and Blood. Western rite ceremonial does not have genuflect ions toward ordinary bread and wine, nor does one cense ordinary bread and wine. The Sanctus bells are rung when the Sacrament is exposed (also done when the Tabernacle, where the reserved sacrament is kept, is opened).

If the elements are not really the Eucharist until the Epiklesis is said, there is a big theological problem with this ceremonial being done when it is, and which is the heart of the ceremonial during the Consecration section of the Mass. There's no way to move those things to another part of the Mass. The significance of why that ceremonial is clear and it conflicts with the reason why the Epiklesis has been added to our liturgy. I've asked, of course, and there's really nothing one can say. The various clergy I've asked have danced around it, some better than others.

I'm obedient to the fact that we have to have it in the Mass. It doesn't mean I have to like it or think it is right. The East is not the West's yardstick for what is Christian and what is not. I really think there never was an Epiklesis in the West, even during the 1000 years of unity, and the sun still rose in the East and everything was ok. But this is what it is, and it's. to a big enough thing for me to lose sleep over. It just seems unnecessary. Sorry for the soapbox.


Genufluxing after the Words of Institution are not necessarily an indication that the gifts have been fully consecrated. The rubrics of the Byzantine Rite call for the Priest to make a deep bow after the Words of Institution before the consecration is completed by the Epiklesis. The gifts are also elevated before the Epiklesis as the Priest says, "Thine own of thine own, we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all." The idea is that we offer God bread and wine and during the Epiklesis receive back the Body and Blood of Christ.
I have read histories that claim that there was an Epiklesis in the ancient Roman Liturgy. I believe that other ancient forms of the Western Rite such as the Gallican and Mozarabic had an Epiklesis.
According to Orthodox theology an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary during the Anaphora. Thus the Western Rite to be fully Orthodox had to restore the Epiklesis. The words of the Epiklesis of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ; and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of thy Christ; Changing them by thy Holy Spirit." make it clear that the consecration is not completed until after the Epiklesis.
The rubrics of the Liturgikon of the Antiochian Archdiocese state that the Priest is not to point to or make any gesture towards the gifts during the Words of Institution.

Fr. John W. Morris


I am new to Orthodoxy, but here in an explanation I received from a priest about a liturgical abuse that took place when I was Catholic.

I attended a Mass were the priest did not speak English well. He recited the consecration of the bread over the wine as well. I asked a different priest if the mass was "only half" valid. He said that whole consecration needed to be performed to "finalize" the sacrament. He said that despite the way we sometimes treat matter, form, and intention, it's not a scientific formula, and God sees the whole action that takes place. From a Catholic perspective, the bread becomes the body immediately after the consecration of the bread, if the rest of the rite is completed properly.

I don't think that there ever was an eastern style Epiklesis after the consecration in the Western liturgy. In the Catholic Melkite Church they have an Epiklesis AFTER the consecration still asking God to transform the elements into his body and blood.
 
Perhaps God looks at the whole action along with the intention. When Christ said, "This is my body." I'm sure it was his body at that moment. If that is the case I don't see how adoration of the bread and wine after consecration could be a sin. Christ said the blessing before the words of consecration, and there was nothing else added to our knowledge.

So my very fallible .02 as a catechumen is that both Eastern and Western practice are orthodox.


« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 03:17:03 PM by gueranger » Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
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 #112 on: April 30, 2014, 08:19:36 PM »

Those are very interesting points, Celestinus and gueranger, I agree with both. Thank you for the constructive comments.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #113 on: April 30, 2014, 10:07:06 PM »

Quote from: frjohnmorris
According to Orthodox theology an Epiklesis is absolutely necessary during the Anaphora.
It was regarded as necessary, when the Russian Synod gave permission for the Roman Rite.
To deny that the orthodox Roman Church of the first Millenium had a Eucharist, is unsustainable. (How could Churches be in communion with each other, if they were not partaker in the same mysteries?)

Quote from: frjohnmorris
Thus the Western Rite to be fully Orthodox had to restore the Epiklesis.
How to restore something, which has never been (as far as we know)?

Quote from: frjohnmorris
[...] make it clear that the consecration is not completed until after the Epiklesis.
Indeed, the consecration is not completed until after the Epiklesis. Therefore gestures of adoration should have their legitime place afterwards. (That doesn't mean, that the unchanged bread and wine, are considered as ordinary things, when they are appointed and selected to be used in the Liturgy they appertain to be honoured like holy relics or icons or even more, cf. the Great Entrance). I doubt very much that the post-schism elevation and genuflexion is the appropriate form to express the orthodox belief concerning these holy Mysteries.
If St. Nicholas saw the Roman canon as sufficient without one, he would not have seen the need of recognizing Supplices te rogamus as one (as indeed, it is the remnants of the fuller one), now would he, Deacon?

I added the "not" as I think that is what you meant to say.
Ah, yes. Thank you, Deacon.

I did not say he saw it as sufficient without one (meaning any) I said without an explicit descending Epiclesis of the Byzantine type.  Supplices te rogamus is an implicit ascending Epiclesis.  Quam oblationem is an implicit descending Epiclesis.
'We aren't scholastics, so we don't analyze to death validity, licity, form, matter etc.  Either it suffices, or it doesn't.  All the Fathers said it did, but then they weren't dealing with the arrogance of such statements "The Catholic Church [i.e. Trent] has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York." That changes things somewhat.

And again you side step the point.  The Orthodox Popes of Old Rome from St Gregory Dialogos to St. Zachary celebrated the Holy Roman Mass without a Byzantine Epiclesis.
The Ecumenical Patriarchs of New Rome do not have a Byzantine Epiclesis.  They have a Constantinopolitan one.

The Roman Canon didn't need a Constantinopolitan Epiclesis, a Roman one would suffice.

Quote
Supplices te rogamus

This prayer is commonly believed to be the remnant of the Roman Epiklesis (Duchesne joins the preceding "Supra quæ" to it as making up the Invocation, "Origines", 173). It seems certain that our liturgy, like all the others, once had an Epiklesis, and this would be its natural place. Even as late as the time of Pope Gelasius I (492-96) there seems to have still been one. He writes: "How shall the Heavenly Spirit, when He is invoked to consecrate the divine mystery, come, if the priest and he who prays Him to come is guilty of bad actions?" (Ep., vii; Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont., I, 486: "si sacerdos, et qui eum adesse deprecatur". By striking out the "et" we have a much plainer sentence: "If the priest who prays Him to come".) Watterich (Konsekrationsmoment, 166), and Drews (Entstehungsgesch., 28) think that several of the Secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary (which does not contain the Canon) are really Epikleses, For instance: "Send, we pray Thee O Lord, thy Holy Spirit, who shall make these our present gifts into thy Sacrament for us", etc. (ed. Feltoe, p. 74; XXX Mass for July). The chief reason for considering our prayer "Supplices te rogamus" as the fragment of an Epiklesis is its place in the Canon, which corresponds exactly to that of the Epiklesis (following the Anamnesis) in the Syrian Rite (Brightman, 54). But its form is hardly that of an Epiklesis. The first words of the preceding prayer, "Supra quæ propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris", suggest the beginning of the Alexandrine Epiklesis: "Look down upon us and upon this bread and this wine" (Brightman, 134), and the last part (Sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem) have perhaps a vague resemblance; but certainly the chief thing, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is wanting. Moreover there is a prayer in the Alexandrine Liturgy which corresponds singularly to these two prayers ("Supra quæ" and "Supplices"): "the Sacrifices . . . of them that offer honour and glory to thy holy name receive upon thy reasonable altar in heaven . . . through the ministry of thy holy angels and archangels; like as Thou didst accept the gifts of righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our father Abraham", etc. (Brightman, I, 170, 171; the Greek form, 129). And this is not an Epiklesis but an Offertory prayer, coming in the middle of the Intercession that with them fills up what we should call the Preface. On the other hand the end of the "Supplices te rogamus" (from "ut quotquot") corresponds very closely to the end of both Eastern Epikleses. Antioch has here: "that it may become to all who partake of it" (quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione) "for a forgiveness of sins and for life everlasting" etc. (Brightman, 54); and at Alexandria the form is: "that it may become to all of us who partake of it (a source of) Faith", etc. (ib., 134). It seems, then, that this prayer in our Canon is a combination of the second part of an Invocation (with the essential clause left out) and an old Offertory prayer. It has been suggested that the angel mentioned here is the Holy Ghost — an attempt to bring it more into line with the proper form of an Invocation. There is however no foundation for this assertion. We have seen that the Alexandrine form has the plural "thy holy angels"; so has the Latin form in "De Sacramentis"; "per manus angelorum tuorum" (IV, v). The reference is simply to an angel or to angels who assist at the throne of God and carry our prayers to Him (Tobit 12:12, etc.). We have already seen that the order and arrangement of our Canon presents difficulties; this is a further case in point. As for the vanished Invocation itself, it will probably always remain a mystery what has become of it. Watterich (op. cit., p. 142) thinks that it was Gelasius himself who removed it from this place and put it before the words of Institution. And indeed the prayer "Quam oblationem" has a curious suggestion of an Invocation in its terms. On the other hand an Epiklesis before the words of Institution would be an anomaly unparalleled in any rite in the world. To come back to the rubrics, the celebrant has resumed the normal attitude of standing with uplifted hands after the "Unde et memores", except that now the forefingers and thumbs remain joined; at the "Supplices te rogamus" he bows deeply over the altar — a ceremony obviously in accordance with the nature of its first words — resting his joined hands on it; and he stays so to the words" ex hac altaris participatione" at which he kisses the altar, rises, joins his hands, and makes the sign of the cross over the Host at "Corpus", over the chalice at "Sanguinem", and on himself at "omni benedictione" (while he crosses himself, the left hand is, as always in this case, laid on the breast). He joins his hands for "Per eumdem", etc., and lifts them up for the next prayer. The next two prayers complete the Intercession, of which we have the greater part before the Consecration.
Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm

If it was good enough for these Orthodox Fathers it should be good enough for the modern Western Orthodox.

Alas! The defiance to Orthodox praxis and Faith by the purported successors to these Orthodox Fathers has chnaged the goal posts. Much like the changing of the Doxology:
Quote
In general this word means a short verse praising God and beginning, as a rule, with the Greek word Doxa. The custom of ending a rite or a hymn with such a formula comes from the Synagogue (cf. the Prayer of Manasses: tibi est gloria in sæcula sæculorum. Amen). St. Paul uses doxologies constantly (Romans 11:36; Galatians 1:5; Ephesians 3:21; etc.). The earliest examples are addressed to God the Father alone, or to Him through (dia) the Son (Romans 16:27; Jude 25; I Clement 41; Mart. Polyc., xx; etc.) and in (en) or with (syn, meta) the Holy Ghost (Mart. Polyc., xiv, xxii, etc.). The form of baptism (Matthew 28:19) had set an example of naming the three Persons in parallel order. Especially in the fourth century, as a protest against Arian subordination (since heretics appealed to these prepositions; cf. St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 2-5), the custom of using the form: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost", became universal among Catholics.
Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05150a.htm

If a more explicit Epiclesis is so necessary there are Western ones to choose from in Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites.
Or the one the Scotts created for their use of the Roman rite.  They wouldn't serve the same purpose, at present.  Once the WRO is fully integrated into the Catholic communion of all the Orthodox Churches, it might be dropped. Then, or before then, I would like to see the restoration/editing of Supplices Te Rogamus and Oblationem to conform in full to Orthodox liturgics.

Well, perhaps it helps clarify that some Catholic scholars might not be willing to accept Orthodox arguments on this issue.  From our point of view, neither of the quotes you have provided conclusively "proves" anything, though the quote from St. Gregory does provide some food for thought.  The quotes do show that the so-called words of institution are a very important component involved in consecrating the gifts.  But what proof-texting like this cannot demonstrate is how the Christian East has always been very concious that it is only by being in the Spirit that the liturgy can be accomplished.  As time went on, more and more explicit references to the Holy Spirit were added to Eastern liturgy.  Liturgical scholars of all confessions are generally united in the belief that non-acknowledgement of the presence of the Spirit is a problem in Western liturgy.

Oh, it is worse than that: the Roman one is the only one that doesn't emphasize the epiclesis.  As the "Catholic Encyclopia, imprematur nihil obstat" confesses:
Quote
It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer. For instance, the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, immediately after the recital of the words of Institution, goes on to the Anamnesis — "Remembering therefore His Passion..." — in which occur the words: "thou, the God who lackest nothing, being pleased with them (the Offerings) for the honour of Thy Christ, and sending down Thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice, the witness of the Passion of the Lord Jesus, to manifest (opos apophene) this bread as the Body of Thy Christ and this chalice as the Blood of Thy Christ..." (Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I, 21). So the Greek and Syrian Liturgies of St. James (ibid., 54, 88-89), the Alexandrine Liturgies (ibid., 134, 179), the Abyssinian Rite (ibid., 233), those of the Nestorians (ibid., 287) and Armenians (ibid., 439). The Epiklesis in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is said thus: "We offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee that Thou, sending down Thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts" (the Deacon says: "Bless, Sir the holy bread") "make this bread into the Precious Body of Thy Christ" (Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, the holy chalice"): "and that which is in this chalice, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ" (Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, both"), "changing [metabalon] them by Thy Holy Spirit" (Deacon: "Amen, Amen, Amen."). (Brightman, op. cit., I 386-387).

Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations. The Gallican Liturgy had variable forms according to the feast. That for the Circumcision was: "Hæc nos, Domine, instituta et præcepta retinentes suppliciter oramus uti hoc sacrificium suscipere et benedicere et sanctificare digneris: ut fiat nobis eucharistia legitima in tuo Filiique tui nomine et Spiritus sancti, in transformationem corporis ac sanguinis domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi unigeniti tui, per quem omnia creas..." (Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", 2nd ed., Paris, 1898, p. 208, taken from St. Germanus of Paris, d. 576). There are many allusions to the Gallican Invocation, for instance St. Isidore of Seville (De eccl. officiis, I, 15, etc.). The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.

And then Ultramontanism raises its head:
Quote
The Catholic Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm

Quote
In any event, why do you think that the supplices te rogamus prayer was included in the old Latin mass?  Surely you don't believe that it is literally calling for an angel to come and take the gifts away into heaven, do you? I notice that you have not responded to any of  my arguments about it up until this point.

If he doesn't believe you maybe he will believe these guys:
Quote
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.


« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 10:09:49 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #114 on: April 30, 2014, 11:19:02 PM »

Ialmisry, are you taking the position that the Roman rite Mass originally had a form of epiclesis sometime earlier in the first millenium and that it was lost over time?

The thing is, if this is true, but there is no evidence to prove it being true... does it not become theoretical, instead of factual?
I don't think I especially care whether an epiclesis it there or not, whatever makes Orthodox happy...
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 11:20:22 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #115 on: April 30, 2014, 11:47:48 PM »

Ialmisry, are you taking the position that the Roman rite Mass originally had a form of epiclesis sometime earlier in the first millenium and that it was lost over time?

The thing is, if this is true, but there is no evidence to prove it being true... does it not become theoretical, instead of factual?
I don't think I especially care whether an epiclesis it there or not, whatever makes Orthodox happy...
If it is theoretical, then the argument that Rome was in communion with the Orthodox in the first millenium without an epiclesis can't stand.

more importantly, the Vatican has insisted on its error on this, it has created the need for a overemphasized epiclesis.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #116 on: May 01, 2014, 12:02:00 AM »

I am not understanding what you mean.

Are there facts to prove that the Roman mass ever had an epiclesis?
Is this a universally agreed upon fact?

Do YOU personally believe it once had an epiclesis? (prior to the 1970s experimention which has done more harm than good.)
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 12:02:34 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #117 on: May 01, 2014, 12:07:05 AM »

I am not understanding what you mean.

Are there facts to prove that the Roman mass ever had an epiclesis?
Is this a universally agreed upon fact?

Do YOU personally believe it once had an epiclesis? (prior to the 1970s experimention which has done more harm than good.)
See above.  Yes-the Vatican's wayward ways led it to disappear in Rome's rite (but not throughout the West).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 191



« Reply #118 on: May 01, 2014, 07:18:56 AM »

I am not understanding what you mean.

Are there facts to prove that the Roman mass ever had an epiclesis?
Is this a universally agreed upon fact?

Do YOU personally believe it once had an epiclesis? (prior to the 1970s experimention which has done more harm than good.)
See above.  Yes-the Vatican's wayward ways led it to disappear in Rome's rite (but not throughout the West).

Very interesting... Another place where Rome changed the liturgy to fit her beliefs. In that case then I am unsure about whether or not the elevation and genuflections should take place in WRO.... perhaps only have one after the epiklesis?

Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #119 on: May 01, 2014, 07:25:10 AM »

more importantly, the Vatican has insisted on its error on this, it has created the need for a overemphasized epiclesis.

What do you mean?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #120 on: May 01, 2014, 08:41:52 AM »

more importantly, the Vatican has insisted on its error on this, it has created the need for a overemphasized epiclesis.

What do you mean?
The Ultramontanist rubrics call for immediate worship right after the words of institution, and ordered its Ordo accordingly. As such, the inclusion of a more explicit epiclesis (and, of course, removal of said rubrics, or better perhaps, moving them to after the epiclesis) is demanded in the WRO DL.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #121 on: May 01, 2014, 08:51:19 AM »

the WRO DL.

Referring to WR services with Byzantine terminology is silly. It's Mass, not DL.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,253



« Reply #122 on: May 01, 2014, 09:02:32 AM »

the WRO DL.

Referring to WR services with Byzantine terminology is silly. It's Mass, not DL.

Yeah, I do find this strange too. "The Divine Liturgy of X" - did the West ever even call its Eucharistic liturgical service that? What did they call their Eucharistic liturgy before "Mass" became the normative term? Not that the latter question should have any bearing on what current WR services should be called.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 09:02:49 AM by Nephi » Logged
Hamartolos
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 622


« Reply #123 on: May 01, 2014, 10:00:40 AM »

I agree that Divine Liturgy is strange but when did "Ite missa est" turn into "Mass"?  Pre or post schism?  If there is another term then that should be used as, for example, Lutherans refer to their version as Divine Service.  Perhaps referring to the Mass as the Eucharist? 
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #124 on: May 01, 2014, 10:24:38 AM »

the WRO DL.

Referring to WR services with Byzantine terminology is silly. It's Mass, not DL.
I never use Byzantine terminology.

The Vatican's decree on the "Sacred Liturgy" refers to the "divine sacrifice."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #125 on: May 01, 2014, 03:53:17 PM »

"descendat, domine, in his sacrificiis tuae benedictionis coaeternus et cooperator paraclitus spiritus; ut oblationem, quam tibi de tua terra fructificante porrigimus, caelesti permutatione te sanctificante sumamus, ut translata fruge in corpore, calice in cruore, proficiat meritis, quod obtulimus pro delictis."  (Taken from page 77 of "Mass and Lord's Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy, Volume 1"
 By Hans Lietzmann)

Ialmisry, do you feel these words could be considered an epiclesis? They are from perhaps a 7th c. gallican missal, however, I am not certain they were used in every single mass all the time.

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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #126 on: May 01, 2014, 04:35:21 PM »

more importantly, the Vatican has insisted on its error on this, it has created the need for a overemphasized epiclesis.

What do you mean?
The Ultramontanist rubrics call for immediate worship right after the words of institution, and ordered its Ordo accordingly. As such, the inclusion of a more explicit epiclesis (and, of course, removal of said rubrics, or better perhaps, moving them to after the epiclesis) is demanded in the WRO DL.

To a certain extent, I think the issue of genuflections needs to be considered apart from Eucharistic worship because, in the Western tradition, a genuflection is not simply an act of worship directed toward the Eucharist.  Yes, it occurs after the words of institution and is interpreted in this context as an act of worship, but I wonder if that interpretation is a "later development": genuflections are also directed to altars even when the Eucharist is not reposed upon them, toward relics of the true Cross or other relics of the Passion, toward bishops, and perhaps in other circumstances, at least in the "classical" tradition, but no one would say that this means the person is worshiping altars, relics, or bishops. 

I also have a doubt as to whether the words of institution as "the moment of consecration" is a later development even within Latin Christianity based on the rubrics of the older Roman Mass.  In every other liturgical tradition, there is a point in the Liturgy after which the gifts are not blessed but rather are used to bless, implying that the transformation has occurred.  But in the Roman Canon, the traditional rubrics have the priest continuing to bless the gifts with his right hand until the Per ipsum, at which point the Eucharist is not blessed but is used in order to bless--that's well after the institution and even the Supplices te rogamus.  IMO, the rubrics of the traditional Mass appear to demonstrate a more "Orthodox" understanding of the Eucharist than any supposedly "scholastic" inquiry into "when transubstantiation occurs", even if the latter became normative in the West.       
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
Reader KevinAndrew
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Western Rite
Posts: 138



« Reply #127 on: May 01, 2014, 07:51:03 PM »

more importantly, the Vatican has insisted on its error on this, it has created the need for a overemphasized epiclesis.

What do you mean?
The Ultramontanist rubrics call for immediate worship right after the words of institution, and ordered its Ordo accordingly. As such, the inclusion of a more explicit epiclesis (and, of course, removal of said rubrics, or better perhaps, moving them to after the epiclesis) is demanded in the WRO DL.

To a certain extent, I think the issue of genuflections needs to be considered apart from Eucharistic worship because, in the Western tradition, a genuflection is not simply an act of worship directed toward the Eucharist.  Yes, it occurs after the words of institution and is interpreted in this context as an act of worship, but I wonder if that interpretation is a "later development": genuflections are also directed to altars even when the Eucharist is not reposed upon them, toward relics of the true Cross or other relics of the Passion, toward bishops, and perhaps in other circumstances, at least in the "classical" tradition, but no one would say that this means the person is worshiping altars, relics, or bishops. 

I also have a doubt as to whether the words of institution as "the moment of consecration" is a later development even within Latin Christianity based on the rubrics of the older Roman Mass.  In every other liturgical tradition, there is a point in the Liturgy after which the gifts are not blessed but rather are used to bless, implying that the transformation has occurred.  But in the Roman Canon, the traditional rubrics have the priest continuing to bless the gifts with his right hand until the Per ipsum, at which point the Eucharist is not blessed but is used in order to bless--that's well after the institution and even the Supplices te rogamus.  IMO, the rubrics of the traditional Mass appear to demonstrate a more "Orthodox" understanding of the Eucharist than any supposedly "scholastic" inquiry into "when transubstantiation occurs", even if the latter became normative in the West.       

Mor,
One slight correction. In traditional Western ceremonial, one genuflects at an altar when the Sacrament is present. The lit sanctuary lamp is there to indicate that presence or not. If there is no sacrament present, one bows. Good Friday liturgy is a good example of this practice. When the procession approaches the altar (which had been stripped and the Sacrament was moved to the altar of repose on Maundy Thursday evening), the reverence is a bow and not genuflection.

If the Sacrament is exposed, in the case of it being on the altar of repose, there is a double genuflection (both knees). Also, if a priest or deacon takes the Sacrament out of the tabernacle, the Sanctus bells are rung when the tabernacle is opened, those present kneel ( other than the priest or deacon handling the Sacrament), and when he's finished with whatever he's doing, the Sanctus bells are rung after the door is closed and no more kneeling.

The only other times genuflection is done outside of reverencing the Sacrament are 1.) during the reverencing of the Holy Cross during Good Friday liturgy ( double genuflection and prostration as the people come up to reverence the cross and 2.) as a bishop passes you when you're in the church when they are in procession going to or from the altar at the beginning and end of Mass respectively.

I hope that clarified or made sense.
Christ is risen!
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #128 on: May 01, 2014, 08:39:46 PM »

"descendat, domine, in his sacrificiis tuae benedictionis coaeternus et cooperator paraclitus spiritus; ut oblationem, quam tibi de tua terra fructificante porrigimus, caelesti permutatione te sanctificante sumamus, ut translata fruge in corpore, calice in cruore, proficiat meritis, quod obtulimus pro delictis."  (Taken from page 77 of "Mass and Lord's Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy, Volume 1"
 By Hans Lietzmann)

Ialmisry, do you feel these words could be considered an epiclesis? They are from perhaps a 7th c. gallican missal, however, I am not certain they were used in every single mass all the time.



 The Epiclesis was part of the proper and so changed with the Mass of the day.  I was reading an article recently and of over 250 some Gallican Epicleses reviewed only seven were of an explicit descending type.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #129 on: May 01, 2014, 08:53:18 PM »

Yeah, alright, I've been hearing this epiclesis debate for years, its been diacussed on the byzcath forum since 2001.
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/101303/2

I can't find any solid evidence that the latin west has ever had  an "explicit" epiclesis in the manner of the byzantine liturgy, in the Ordinary (unchanging part) of it's forms of Mass, that is until 1969. I can only assume it is there for sake of liturgical consistency and also "politics" for those in the east who find liturgiesd without it to be suspiciously heretical. Apparently the importance of the words of institution combined with the epiclesis being necessary for consecration arose over centuries in the churches of the byzantine rite. I do not believe an "explicit epiclesis" was seen as absolutely necessary by constantinople during the first millenium, but rather moreso the second.

I am not bothered by an epiclesis, I remain neutral about whether or not it needs to be there. If having an epiclesis keeps the peace in the Church, I am not going to disagree with one being there, because the good would outweight the bad.

While the addition of an eastern style explicit epiclesis may be seen as "byzantinization" I guess..it seems like a rather sensible addition, as it is in fact used in all the eastern liturgies, non byzantine too.

The funny thing is that in the Ethiopian divine liturgy they have two explicit epiclesis in it. Let us hope that the byzantine rite never decides it has to add two epiclesis for sake of ecumenical dialogue with the non-chalcedonian orthodox.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 08:56:44 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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #130 on: May 01, 2014, 09:17:32 PM »

Mor,
One slight correction. In traditional Western ceremonial, one genuflects at an altar when the Sacrament is present. The lit sanctuary lamp is there to indicate that presence or not. If there is no sacrament present, one bows. Good Friday liturgy is a good example of this practice. When the procession approaches the altar (which had been stripped and the Sacrament was moved to the altar of repose on Maundy Thursday evening), the reverence is a bow and not genuflection.

If the Sacrament is exposed, in the case of it being on the altar of repose, there is a double genuflection (both knees). Also, if a priest or deacon takes the Sacrament out of the tabernacle, the Sanctus bells are rung when the tabernacle is opened, those present kneel ( other than the priest or deacon handling the Sacrament), and when he's finished with whatever he's doing, the Sanctus bells are rung after the door is closed and no more kneeling.

The only other times genuflection is done outside of reverencing the Sacrament are 1.) during the reverencing of the Holy Cross during Good Friday liturgy ( double genuflection and prostration as the people come up to reverence the cross and 2.) as a bishop passes you when you're in the church when they are in procession going to or from the altar at the beginning and end of Mass respectively.

I hope that clarified or made sense.
Christ is risen!

Truly he is risen!

Thanks for the correction.  I'm pretty sure I remember reading that at Pontifical Mass, even though the Sacrament is moved to another location, the ministers genuflect at the appropriate times as if it were there.  Oh well.  Tongue   
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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 01, 2014, 09:21:52 PM »

The funny thing is that in the Ethiopian divine liturgy they have two explicit epiclesis in it. Let us hope that the byzantine rite never decides it has to add two epiclesis for sake of ecumenical dialogue with the non-chalcedonian orthodox.


Well, besides the fact that, on the whole, we're nicer (Tongue), they'd be the only ones in our Church with two epicleses in the Liturgy, so if they can accept us, they can accept the Chalcedonians. 

But I've never heard that they had two in the Liturgy.  Do you have a source for that? 
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 #132 on: May 01, 2014, 10:34:18 PM »

Sources are my weak point. Plenty of opinions, limited sources. I tend to parrot what other intellectuals say and spew them out in mixtures on forums.
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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,520


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #133 on: May 02, 2014, 12:36:21 AM »

Sources are my weak point. Plenty of opinions, limited sources. I tend to parrot what other intellectuals say and spew them out in mixtures on forums.

That's alright...this is the sort of homework I enjoy. 
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
Caelestinus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 88


« Reply #134 on: May 12, 2014, 05:56:26 PM »

[Christopher McAvoy] for my psalter project, for one of the canticles that was not in "A Psalter For Prayer" I consulted this book:

http://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru01saba
Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae Versiones antiqua (Vetus latina, a pure septuagint translation) - Old Testament  (published in 1751)
I think this has the entire old testment.
[/quote]
Could you tell me/us, what your psalter project is about?

(I'll consider the idea of copying the Sabatier edition as the completition of the Beuron edition exercises some patience  Wink)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 05:57:37 PM by Caelestinus » 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 #135 on: May 12, 2014, 10:20:48 PM »

My Psalter project is to make a bi-lingual english/latin Psalter arranged for all hours of the Divine Office according to the Salisbury, England use of the Roman Rite of 1534.  The English used comes from "A Psalter for Prayer" and the Latin from the Gallican one popular before 1940 in the Roman Catholic Church, However it would use of the Vetus Latina for the Old testament canticles, since those deviate from the septuagint in the later vulgate edition, whereas the psalms do not tend to.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:21:46 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
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 0.563 seconds with 163 queries.