OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 01:35:33 AM *
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 3074 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,605



« 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: 750



« 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: 1,265

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: 1,265

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: 750



« 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: 750



« 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: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« 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: 750



« 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: 750



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,770


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


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: 7,973


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: 750



« 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: 750



« 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: 7,973


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: 750



« 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: 1,265

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: 2,941


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

Posts: 6,917



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,770


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« 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
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,061


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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,770


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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

Posts: 6,917



« 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: 192



« 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
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,605



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,770


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

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: 6,869



« 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: 37,963



« 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
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 0.214 seconds with 72 queries.