Celebration of a Liturgy without Biritual Faculties

[Denho]

I can’t imagine DL celebrated in any normal circumstance without an antimension for Eastern Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic. I don’t know about Oriental Orthodox and Oriental Catholic rubrics. Among other things it represents the permission of the bishop for the priest to celebrate. Folded, unfolded, where it’s placed, are of course all spelled out. What would prompt such an innovation as to not use one under any normal circumstance? We do know of the stories of our heroic priests in the Gulags who celebrated flat on their backs using their chests as a Holy table which may well have not included any antimension. The last thing I’d have been thinking about in that Gulag would have been “Is this Eucharist valid?” Christ I know took care of that for them Himself.

In the Syriac tradition the Qurbono is not to be offered unless there is a tablitho to offer it upon. It is a wooden board consecrated by a bishop when the altar itself is consecrated. In a pinch I believe the Gospel book can be used as well. The Maronites used to adhere to this and the Seminary in DC has one at least but most parishes in the US follow the Latin practice of using the inlaid altar stone.

 

[5Loaves]

In the Syriac tradition the Qurbono is not to be offered unless there is a tablitho to offer it upon. It is a wooden board consecrated by a bishop when the altar itself is consecrated. In a pinch I believe the Gospel book can be used as well. The Maronites used to adhere to this and the Seminary in DC has one at least but most parishes in the US follow the Latin practice of using the inlaid altar stone.
5Loaves;10180938:

I can’t imagine DL celebrated in any normal circumstance without an antimension for Eastern Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic. I don’t know about Oriental Orthodox and Oriental Catholic rubrics.

I perhaps should have more clearly said Orthodox and EC of the Byzantine Liturgical traditions.

 

[mardukm]

No it is not the same. The Latin understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders state that once a priest, always a priest. And the ability to celebrate the Liturgy and consecrate the Eucharist is inherent in a priest, therefore a heretic and schismatic priest can still validly celebrate Mass and validly consecrate bread and wine into the Eucharist even if he is thrown out of the Church and defrocked. It is not licity, but it is 100% valid. You don’t need a bishop for a valid Liturgy.

In the Orthodox Church it is the opposite. If a priest is removed from the Church either by his own will or his bishop’s, he is not a priest anymore. Though the mark of the Mystery of Ordination will always be with him (he doesn’t need to be re-ordained to be reinstated), until the bishop reinstates him he can never function as a priest of the Orthodox Church. No valid Liturgies, no valid Eucharist, no nothing. He is by all intents and purposes, a lay person. Think of it this way, the Church is a body. Imagine the priest to be a finger. If you detach the finger from the body, it still looks like a finger but it is useless. The same as the priest, they still have the mark of the priest but can no longer function as a priest. If they are reinstated they do not need to be ordained again, as with a severed finger can be reattached to the body and be used again (in certain circumstances).

The way you explain it, it’s not at all “opposite” to the Latin theory and praxis. In the Latin Catholic Church, and in the Catholic Church in general - just as in the EOC - the actions of a defrocked priest have no effect in the Church whatsoever. If a defrocked priest tries to celebrate Mass for Catholics, not only is the priest doing so unto condemnation because of the sin of disobedience, but those faithful who participate knowing that he is defrocked are liable to excommunication. If their actions outside the Church have any effect, it is only by the permission of the Church (e.g., to be able to grant absolution in grave circumstances). For the Sacrament of Penance, their actions without the authority of the bishop are even invalid. I would agree to one theoretical difference - suppose a defrocked priest celebrates Mass for a group of Catholics who were unaware that he was defrocked. Such a Sacrament would be a Sacrament of grace for the unknowing Catholic, though the priest would still be guilty of the sin of disobedience. This would not seem to be a conceivable point of contention with the EO since EO would not judge if that celebration was actually grace-filled or not (?).

There is no teaching otherwise that without the antimens, there is no valid Liturgy or valid Eucharist. It is still followed as a matter of practice, not a matter of necessity. In fact in our own parish we have a very old antimens which isn’t even signed by a bishop of our Eparchy past or present (although technically at the time the antimens was signed I believe our churches belonged to another Eparchy as we are a young Eparchy).

Thanks for the info. Do you actually mean “a matter of practice” or “a matter of Tradition,” which itself I’m sure carries a certain necessity to an Eastern Catholic priest. And when you say “a matter of practice,” do you mean to say that the EC priest can choose to not use it, or do you mean that, say, in a theoretical emergency situation (or extenuating circumstance), if he needs to celebrate the DL, and he just happens to be without an antimension, he can still celebrate it?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

The way you explain it, it’s not at all “opposite” to the Latin theory and praxis. In the Latin Catholic Church, and in the Catholic Church in general - just as in the EOC - the actions of a defrocked priest have no effect in the Church whatsoever. If a defrocked priest tries to celebrate Mass for Catholics, not only is the priest doing so unto condemnation because of the sin of disobedience, but those faithful who participate knowing that he is defrocked are liable to excommunication. If their actions outside the Church have any effect, it is only by the permission of the Church (e.g., to be able to grant absolution in grave circumstances). For the Sacrament of Penance, their actions without the authority of the bishop are even invalid. I would agree to one theoretical difference - suppose a defrocked priest celebrates Mass for a group of Catholics who were unaware that he was defrocked. Such a Sacrament would be a Sacrament of grace for the unknowing Catholic, though the priest would still be guilty of the sin of disobedience. This would not seem to be a conceivable point of contention with the EO since EO would not judge if that celebration was actually grace-filled or not (?).

Doesn’t change the fact that the Church acknowledges it is a valid Mass and a valid Eucharist. In the case of the Orthodox, there is no valid Liturgy and no valid Eucharist. So yet, they are opposite. It all comes down to that. Was the Mass valid? Was the Eucharist valid? Regardless if people get excommunicated or not, there was a valid Mass. The Orthodox does not teach it that way.

And yees, the Orthodox does judge on the matter regarding their own deposed priest. They do not judge on the Sacraments of other Churches, but since the priest is presuming the ability to celebrate Liturgy and consecrate the Eucharist based on his Orthodox ordination, then it is within their domain. And it has already been made clear that a priest separated from the Orthodox Church does not function as a priest. Same with a bishop, a bishop that is separated from the Orthodox Church cannot validly ordain. Again the Catholic Church teaches that bishops like those in the PNCC and Old Catholic Church do validly ordain.

Thanks for the info. Do you actually mean “a matter of practice” or “a matter of Tradition,” which itself I’m sure carries a certain necessity to an Eastern Catholic priest. And when you say “a matter of practice,” do you mean to say that the EC priest can choose to not use it, or do you mean that, say, in a theoretical emergency situation (or extenuating circumstance), if he needs to celebrate the DL, and he just happens to be without an antimension, he can still celebrate it?

Too bad that through to some circumstances I was not able to attend and serve for a Divine Liturgy at an outdoor location our eparchy did last year. I could have peeked to see if there was an antimens there or not. But one reason I believe that it is something more of a practice now than Tradition is the fact that in our parish the antimens was signed by a bishop from a long, long time ago. The idea of the antimens is that it is a permission from the current bishop that the Liturgy be celebrated. Traditionally only the bishop celebrates the Liturgy and confects the Eucharist. Between the 4-5th century the necessity of having more men with the ability to celebrate the Liturgy came with the growing Christian flock, thus the presbyters were given the authority by the bishop to celebrate on his behalf. In every Byzantine Rite parish there are 3 symbols of the bishop present always. The antimens, the bishop’s throne (which no priest/presbyter is ever allowed to sit on), and a container of Holy Myron consecrated by the bishop that is on the altar table during Liturgy.

Given our antimens isn’t even signed by the current bishop (I read the antimens last Easter when I help change the altar cloths), then the Tradition of it being a symbol of permission from the bishop isn’t being followed. It seems that the antimens is there for the sake of an antimens being there.

 

[Vico]

…

Given our antimens isn’t even signed by the current bishop (I read the antimens last Easter when I help change the altar cloths), then the Tradition of it being a symbol of permission from the bishop isn’t being followed. It seems that the antimens is there for the sake of an antimens being there.

We had two active antimensions at one time for two celebrations on Sunday. A new antimension comes to the parish when the current bishop has time to prepare and send them, and in the mean time the old one is still good. Sometimes there is a gap of a few years when there is no eparchal bishop.

 

[mardukm]

Doesn’t change the fact that the Church acknowledges it is a valid Mass and a valid Eucharist. In the case of the Orthodox, there is no valid Liturgy and no valid Eucharist. So yet, they are opposite. It all comes down to that. Was the Mass valid? Was the Eucharist valid? Regardless if people get excommunicated or not, there was a valid Mass. The Orthodox does not teach it that way.

I can see your point. I would disagree that they are “opposite,” only “different.” The practical effect of the teaching is the same in the Churches.

Same with a bishop, a bishop that is separated from the Orthodox Church cannot validly ordain.

The Novatian heretics were separated from the Church, yet the First Ecum accepted their ordinations. This was not a case of oikonomia because the First Ecum also judged the Paulianists to not have valid ordination. There was a definite theological basis for those judgments, not a mere condescension of mercy. It appears the CC is more patristic in this regard than the EOC (I mean the CC has a definite criteria for accepting the validity of another Church’s Sacraments, and does not just give a wholesale rejection because they are “outside the Church”).

Again the Catholic Church teaches that bishops like those in the PNCC and Old Catholic Church do validly ordain.

Actually, the ordinations of the Old Catholic Churches are no longer regarded valid because the CC considers them as no longer adhering to some doctrinal basics of the orthodox, Catholic Faith (blows away the non-Catholic claim that the CC does not regard orthodoxy as a constituent element of valid ordination). The ordinations of the PNCC are, of course, still considered valid.

Too bad that through to some circumstances I was not able to attend and serve for a Divine Liturgy at an outdoor location our eparchy did last year. I could have peeked to see if there was an antimens there or not. But one reason I believe that it is something more of a practice now than Tradition is the fact that in our parish the antimens was signed by a bishop from a long, long time ago. The idea of the antimens is that it is a permission from the current bishop that the Liturgy be celebrated. Traditionally only the bishop celebrates the Liturgy and confects the Eucharist. Between the 4-5th century the necessity of having more men with the ability to celebrate the Liturgy came with the growing Christian flock, thus the presbyters were given the authority by the bishop to celebrate on his behalf. In every Byzantine Rite parish there are 3 symbols of the bishop present always. The antimens, the bishop’s throne (which no priest/presbyter is ever allowed to sit on), and a container of Holy Myron consecrated by the bishop that is on the altar table during Liturgy.

Given our antimens isn’t even signed by the current bishop (I read the antimens last Easter when I help change the altar cloths), then the Tradition of it being a symbol of permission from the bishop isn’t being followed. It seems that the antimens is there for the sake of an antimens being there.

Thanks for the response. This is the most reasonable explanation I have read from you on any topic in a long time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

We had two active antimensions at one time for two celebrations on Sunday. A new antimension comes to the parish when the current bishop has time to prepare and send them, and in the mean time the old one is still good. Sometimes there is a gap of a few years when there is no eparchal bishop.

Our antimens is ancient. There have been 3 bishops of our Eparchy, neither of the 3 signed the antimens.

 

[Vico]

Our antimens is ancient. There have been 3 bishops of our Eparchy, neither of the 3 signed the antimens.

They saw no need to renew them it seems.

 

[5Loaves]

I find this whole thing of critiquing what our clergy have on their altar really strange. Surely it’s not our place to “take their inventory”. If what is on a specific altar concerns anyone the place to bring that concern would seem to be in a conversation with the priest, not on an internet forum.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They saw no need to renew them it seems.

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the antimension is to signify the bishop’s approval that the Liturgy be celebrated and that whenever a new bishop comes in he has to issue antimens signed by him to his priests.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I find this whole thing of critiquing what our clergy have on their altar really strange. Surely it’s not our place to “take their inventory”. If what is on a specific altar concerns anyone the place to bring that concern would seem to be in a conversation with the priest, not on an internet forum.

I never took inventory, its not like I walked up to the Royal Doors and demanded that the antimens be shown to me so I can see if our bishop really did sign it. We just saw it when we were changing the linens for Pascha. I’m not complaining, I don’t know why you think I am. I’m not trying to throw our clergy under the bus here, I am just saying that there is indeed a difference in practice. I’m fine with it, I’m not questioning it. Besides, even if I’m not fine with it, why question it? I’m leaving anyway.

 

[Vico]

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the antimension is to signify the bishop’s approval that the Liturgy be celebrated and that whenever a new bishop comes in he has to issue antimens signed by him to his priests.

From what I have read, the practice varies depending on the Church, and historically some places it was permissible for them not to be consecrated.

 

[5Loaves]

Given our antimens isn’t even signed by the current bishop (I read the antimens last Easter when I help change the altar cloths)

I find this whole thing of critiquing what our clergy have on their altar really strange. Surely it’s not our place to “take their inventory”. If what is on a specific altar concerns anyone the place to bring that concern would seem to be in a conversation with the priest, not on an internet forum.
ConstantineTG;10188357:

I never took inventory, its not like I walked up to the Royal Doors and demanded that the antimens be shown to me so I can see if our bishop really did sign it.

“Taking another’s inventory” is a phrase from AA which has passed into ordinary parlance. It isn’t about a physical inventory.

I imagine many of us here have viewed the antimins on our parish altars at various times. Again, I don’t think the place to express a concern about the state of an atrimens is on the internet, but rather to the priest serving on the antimins.