OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 05:18:27 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 3066 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 1,265

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: 1,265

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: 1,265

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: 1,265

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: 1,265

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: 6,423



« 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: 242



« 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: 37,960



« 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: 37,960



« 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: 37,960



« 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: 242



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: 37,960



« 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: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« 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
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,595



« 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
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 628


« 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: 37,960



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: 2,941


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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.211 seconds with 72 queries.