Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[Cavaradossi]

As for adulteration, the point really is that prior to 1054, there was no question of the orthodoxy of the Roman Canon. Yet both EO groups hosting “Western Rite Vicariates” have inserted an artificial, Byzantine-style, Epiklesis. So yes, there has been adulteration.

In the end, coming right down to it, there is little difference between the so-called “Unia” and the WRO. Same program, different channel.

Yes, perhaps we should leave the Roman Canon as it is, because the Supplices te rogamus functions as an implicit epiclesis, and as Nicholas Kabasilas points out, this proves that even the earlier Romans thought it necessary to have an epiclesis after the words of institution for the consecration of the holy gifts to take place, which implies that the epiclesis, not the words of institution is the point of the consecration of the gifts. I would be willing to bet, in fact, that the Orthodox insistence on adding an epicelsis to this canon comes directly in response to the Latins who have continuously insisted that the Words of Institution, not the epiclesis is the point of consecration, which should have as a consequence that the Supplices te rogamus is not actually an implicit epiclesis (as it would be monstrous to ask the Holy Spirit to transform the gifts if they have already been transformed by the Words of Institution). Essentially, I guess the Orthodox have taken the Latins at their word.

 

[dvdjs]

I would be willing to bet, in fact, that the Orthodox insistence on adding an epicelsis to this canon comes directly in response to the Latins who have continuously insisted that the Words of Institution, not the epiclesis is the point of consecration.

Interesting to hear the idea that RCs have such an impact on the way Orthodox shape their liturgy.
One problem: The Latins have not continuously insisted that the Words of Institution are the “point of consecration”.

 

[malphono]

One problem: The Latins have not continuously insisted that the Words of Institution are the “point of consecration”.

No, not continuously, as in from the beginning, but it has been pretty continuous for the past 500+ years.

 

[dvdjs]

No, not continuously, as in from the beginning, but it has been pretty continuous for the past 500+ years.

A good read on the highly relevant Anaphora of Addai and Mari
liturgia.it/addaicongress/en/study/3Taft_en.pdf

… doctrinal formulations produced in the heat of polemics must be construed narrowly, within the strict compass of the errors they were meant to confute. In 1551 when Session 13, chapter 3-4 and canon 4 of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined that “immediately after the consecration (statim post consecrationem),” and “by the consecration (per consecrationem),” and “once the consecration is accomplished (peracta consecratione),” the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ (Dz §§1640, 1642, 1654), it was combatting those who denied that transformation, not making a statement about its “moment” or “formula.”

 

[malphono]

A good read on the highly relevant Anaphora of Addai and Mari
liturgia.it/addaicongress/en/study/3Taft_en.pdf

Oh yes, quite true, but my previous remark was merely referring to the internal Latin Church. And there it is remains quite clear that they’re still in the thrall of “magic words syndrome.” :banghead:

 

[spina1953]

Oh yes, quite true, but my previous remark was merely referring to the internal Latin Church. And there it is remains quite clear that they’re still in the thrall of “magic words syndrome.” :banghead:

I think your use of “Magic words syndrone” is rude as we as Catholic’s do not believe as the Catholic Church does not believe in using some magic words in constacrating the Bread and Wine into our Lord’s Body and Blood.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Very interesting rationalization, but I have to agree with the dvdjs. And I have to take issue with the “deception” and “adulteration” disclaimers in particular.

A few years back (prior to Summorum Pontificum) there were adverts in the local paper about a fledgling community offering the “Traditional Latin Mass” … under an Orthodox banner (I don’t recall if it was the AOC group or the ROCOR group, but it really doesn’t matter) in micro print. I was curious, and it took quite some time playing with google to find out what was what. Not deceptive, eh?

As for adulteration, the point really is that prior to 1054, there was no question of the orthodoxy of the Roman Canon. Yet both EO groups hosting “Western Rite Vicariates” have inserted an artificial, Byzantine-style, Epiklesis. So yes, there has been adulteration.

In the end, coming right down to it, there is little difference between the so-called “Unia” and the WRO. Same program, different channel.

Every historical work that I have ever read on the Western Liturgy states that originally there was an Epiklesis in the Roman Canon. I should point out to you that one of the reforms of the Novo Ordo was to put an Epiklesis in all of the alternative canons of the Mass. According to Orthodox theology a proper Epiklesis is absolutely essential for the proper consecration of the bread and wine, for it is the Holy Spirit not the Priest who consecrates the gifts. It is true that St. Nicholas Cabasillas argues that the prayer in the Roman canon asking God “to command that these things be borne by the hands of thy holy angels to thine altar on high…”: is a type of Epiklesis, but it was felt that a more explicit Epiklesis was needed make sure that the texts conform to Orthodox theology.

What is wrong with Western Rite Orthodox advertising a traditional Latin Mass as long as there is no deception involved and the Church is clearly identified as an Orthodox Church of the Western Rite?
There is a very important difference between our Western Rite and the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholics exist because Catholic monarchs forced Orthodox in areas of the Ukraine conquered by Poland and Galatia which fell to the Habsburgs after the partitions of Poland to submit to papal domination or because Jesuits and other Roman Catholic missionaries flooded Orthodox lands passing themselves off as Orthodox as a means to take people from the Orthodox Church. Even Taft admits that in his article. There was no deception of force used to form the Western Rite of the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Fr. John

 

[Wandile]

Why don’t the orthodox offer a novus ordo liturgy in western rite orthodoxy? Or do they?

 

[dzheremi]

Probably because they have more sense than that after seeing what the introduction of the same in the Latin Church has done in just about 50 years.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Why don’t the orthodox offer a novus ordo liturgy in western rite orthodoxy? Or do they?

You really want to know the truth? You may not like it. Orthodox concepts of worship are too traditional for them to feel comfortable with the Novus Ordo. I am not claiming that it is heretical or anything like that, it is too contemporary and informal for most Orthodox. For example, when my son finished his first year of kindergarten at the local Catholic school, my wife and I attended the Mass celebrating the end of the school year. The Priest kept interrupting the flow of the service to add commentary. When it came time for the “Our Father” he said, “We are now in the countdown for Communion.” My wife said, she kept waiting for the Mass to start. Our Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite uses more traditional forms and languages. The Mass is always celebrated with the traditional pre-Vatican II ceremony which, by the way, is much more complicated than the ceremony of the Byzantine Rite. I remember attending a Western Rite Orthodox High Mass. The movements of the Priest, Deacon and Subdeacon were much more choreographed than our movements.
I think that when he is praying, the Priest should face East, which is the traditional direction we face when we pray. Whenever possible, the Altar is in the East end of the Temple. Christ is the real host of the Eucharist. The Priest is only his representative. In most Orthodox Churches there is a large icon of Christ giving Communion to the Apostles directly behind the Holy Table so that when looking at it Christ is in the place of the host.
I personally disagree with Orthodox Western Rite parishes who serve the Mass in Latin. The tradition of the Orthodox Church is to use the language of the people, although most Orthodox use a more traditional form of the language than the contemporary form. Even when we serve the Byzantine Rite, we use the thees and thous because at the time that our Archdiocese translated the liturgical texts into English in the late 1930s every English speaking Church prayed in King James English. I grew up in the Methodist Church with King James English. The Greek Archdiocese, which uses more recently translated texts uses more modern English, but I just cannot address God as you. It does not feel right.

Fr. John

 

[Peter_J]

Think about that one, Peter. Dangerous territory? If you ask me (and you didn’t so you can flip me off if you want) it sounds like a sell-out to the ultramontanist victory at Vatican I. (And yes, I know brother mardukm is going to jump down my throat for that, but never mind.)

Well, don’t get me wrong: I do worry about ultramontanism quite a bit … but do you ever feel like there’s a bit of a good-cop-bad-cop thing going on within Catholicism?

 

[dvdjs]

Every historical work that I have ever read on the Western Liturgy states that originally there was an Epiklesis in the Roman Canon.

How old are these works? I think that that idea has been show to be faulty. Se for example:
liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/06/supplices-te-rogamus.html
liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/epiclesis-of-roman-rite.html

There is a very important difference between our Western Rite and the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Catholics exist because Catholic monarchs forced Orthodox in areas of the Ukraine conquered by Poland and Galatia which fell to the Habsburgs after the partitions of Poland to submit to papal domination or because Jesuits and other Roman Catholic missionaries flooded Orthodox lands passing themselves off as Orthodox as a means to take people from the Orthodox Church. Even Taft admits that in his article. There was no deception of force used to form the Western Rite of the Antiochian Archdiocese.

Again not sure why this is a “very important difference”. Your Wr came into being in a time and place where that would be unthinkable. The unions took place at places and times where this was not just thinkable but universal practice. (Although the floods of RCs passing themselves off as Orthodox - really, you are sticking to that? Surely you know better about the Jesuits in Russia) The irony with seeing this as “very important” is that the Orthodox continue to this day to be engaged in force and deception in their treatment of EC churches. Pot, kettle, …

 

[frjohnmorris]

How old are these works? I think that that idea has been show to be faulty. Se for example:
liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/06/supplices-te-rogamus.html
liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/epiclesis-of-roman-rite.html

Again not sure why this is a “very important difference”. Your Wr came into being in a time and place where that would be unthinkable. The unions took place at places and times where this was not just thinkable but universal practice. (Although the floods of RCs passing themselves off as Orthodox - really, you are sticking to that? Surely you know better about the Jesuits in Russia) The irony with seeing this as “very important” is that the Orthodox continue to this day to be engaged in force and deception in their treatment of EC churches. Pot, kettle, …

Yes I am. There are still Eastern Catholics who claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. You cannot be both under Rome and be Eastern Orthodox at the same time. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox. Roman Catholics educated Orthodox men in Western Europe and sent them back to work to bring their Churches into union with Rome. They did that in the Middle East and created the Melkite Church which they enlarged by offering people the opportunity to have the Eastern Liturgy without having to follow the Eastern Orthodox fasting traditions. Even Fr. Taft mentions the activities of the Jesuits in the article that someone cites. It is true that Katerine the Great gave the Jesuits refuge in Russia after they were banned in the West, but that does not change history. Katherine the Great was not exactly a devout Orthodox Christian at least in the way that she lived her private life.
What bothers you so much about our Western Rite? They came to us. We did not go to them. If Rome can have a Byzantine Rite, why can’t we have an Eastern Rite? There has been no deception used to allow former Anglicans to become Orthodox and retain their Western heritage. Is not Rome doing the same thing with the ordinariate?
Just what force and deception does the Eastern Orthodox Church use in its treatment of the Eastern Catholics? After the fall of Communism, Moscow proposed a compromise that would let each parish decide what it wanted to be Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. The Eastern Catholics refused this fair solution to the conflict.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

How old are these works? I think that that idea has been show to be faulty. Se for example:
liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/06/supplices-te-rogamus.html
liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/epiclesis-of-roman-rite.html

The most ancient account that we have of the Roman Liturgy is contained in the works of Hippolytus who died in 235. The Liturgy in his work called the Apostolic Constitutions contains an Epiklesis.

Fr.John

 

[Peter_J]

What bothers you so much about our Western Rite? They came to us. We did not go to them.

I agree.

Just what force and deception does the Eastern Orthodox Church use in its treatment of the Eastern Catholics? After the fall of Communism, Moscow proposed a compromise that would let each parish decide what it wanted to be Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. The Eastern Catholics refused this fair solution to the conflict.

Fr. John

Do you happen to know: How many parishes would have gone Catholic?

 

[frjohnmorris]

I agree.

Do you happen to know: How many parishes would have gone Catholic?

Gone Catholic from where? If you mean groups of Anglicans. No, I do not know. I do know that it would be very difficult for any Bible believing Christian to remain in the Episcopal Church. Some have come to us in both the Byzantine and Eastern Rites, others have become continuing Anglicans in dozens of groups, and some have entered the ordinariate under Rome. The problem with Anglicans is that they do not share a common doctrine. It is my understanding that Calvinism is growing among continuing Anglicans.
If you mean Orthodox Churches, I know of no Orthodox Churches who have gone to Rome in the United States.

Fr. John

 

[dvdjs]

Yes I am. There are still Eastern Catholics who claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. You cannot be both under Rome and be Eastern Orthodox at the same time. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox.

Not exactly floods of Jesuits, these few, who are really making a claim about their praxis. And I doubt that you can find one of these who has the slightest interest in proselytizing among the Orthodox. And I am sure that you cannot find this idea among any of the protagonists at Brest, contrary to your claim.

Roman Catholics educated Orthodox men in Western Europe and sent them back to work to bring their Churches into union with Rome. They did that in the Middle East and created the Melkite Church which they enlarged by offering people the opportunity to have the Eastern Liturgy without having to follow the Eastern Orthodox fasting traditions. Even Fr. Taft mentions the activities of the Jesuits in the article that someone cites. It is true that Katerine the Great gave the Jesuits refuge in Russia after they were banned in the West, but that does not change history. Katherine the Great was not exactly a devout Orthodox Christian at least in the way that she lived her private life.

There is no doubt that after the Fall of Constantinople and the repudiation of Florence there were efforts to bring local churches into communion with Rome. There is no doubt that that Jesuits, apart from when they were banned, were working in the age of exploration, on that mission. It is also true that the education that they offered was attractive to many. Why not let it go at that? Instead you make claims about deception and trickery and project them back to Brest. Those claims are false and should be dropped.

What bothers you so much about our Western Rite? They came to us. We did not go to them. If Rome can have a Byzantine Rite, why can’t we have an Eastern Rite? There has been no deception used to allow former Anglicans to become Orthodox and retain their Western heritage. Is not Rome doing the same thing with the ordinariate?

I haven’t the slightest interest in your WR. You brought it up, objecting to something in the Taft article, the details of which you have not shared. There has been enough written on the subject of the WR as a form of uniatism. It all depends on what elements of uniatism are being compared: byzantination/latinization - analogous; presence or absence of political pressures - not analogous. The significance of these comparisons is, however, is dubious.

Just what force and deception does the Eastern Orthodox Church use in its treatment of the Eastern Catholics? After the fall of Communism, Moscow proposed a compromise that would let each parish decide what it wanted to be Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. The Eastern Catholics refused this fair solution to the conflict.

Deceptions? How about: brazen and continuing lies about the role of Orthodox in the liquidation of the GCCs, perhaps most notably the bald face lies about the re-union synods of L’viv and Uzzhorod; proposing, as though it fair rather than an obvious offense against justice, a vote to determine ownership of stolen property - presumably the thieves were to be among the voters (and presumably the KP was not part of the deal). Fair: restitution.

Never explain, never apologize.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Not exactly floods of Jesuits, these few, who are really making a claim about their praxis. And I doubt that you can find one of these who has the slightest interest in proselytizing among the Orthodox. And I am sure that you cannot find this idea among any of the protagonists at Brest, contrary to your claim.

There is no doubt that after the Fall of Constantinople and the repudiation of Florence there were efforts to bring local churches into communion with Rome. There is no doubt that that Jesuits, apart from when they were banned, were working in the age of exploration, on that mission. It is also true that the education that they offered was attractive to many. Why not let it go at that? Instead you make claims about deception and trickery and project them back to Brest. Those claims are false and should be dropped.

I haven’t the slightest interest in your WR. You brought it up, objecting to something in the Taft article, the details of which you have not shared. There has been enough written on the subject of the WR as a form of uniatism. It all depends on what elements of uniatism are being compared: byzantination/latinization - analogous; presence or absence of political pressures - not analogous. The significance of these comparisons is, however, is dubious.

Deceptions? How about: brazen and continuing lies about the role of Orthodox in the liquidation of the GCCs, perhaps most notably the bald face lies about the re-union synods of L’viv and Uzzhorod; proposing, as though it fair rather than an obvious offense against justice, a vote to determine ownership of stolen property - presumably the thieves were to be among the voters (and presumably the KP was not part of the deal). Fair: restitution.

Never explain, never apologize.

My views on the Union of Brest and the birth of the Ukranian Catholics are all taken from the works of well recognized secular historians. It is the common opinion of those who study and teach Russian history in this country that the King Sigismund III of Poland and the Habsbugs forced the Orthodox under their rule to join the Eastern Catholics. If these stories are lies, they are accepted by the most respected Russian historians in the United States.
I told you that this particular issue is perhaps the most emotional and divisive controversy between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
If a congregation has been Orthodox for 50 years and has maintained their faith despite savage persecution from the Communists, why is it unfair for them to remain Orthodox and keep the buildings that they have taken care of for so long if that is what they want to do? I think that the offer of the Moscow Patriarchate was a fair and just solution to the problem. The Orthodox did not liquidate the Eastern Catholic Churches on Soviet territory, Stalin did.

Fr. John

 

[dvdjs]

My views on the Union of Brest and the birth of the Ukranian Catholics are all taken from the works of well recognized secular historians. It is the common opinion of those who study and teach Russian history in this country that the King Sigismund III of Poland and the Habsbugs forced the Orthodox under their rule to join the Eastern Catholics. If these stories are lies, they are accepted by the most respected Russian historians in the United States.

Don’t know why you continue to argue this: I stipulated to it already, with an important reservation: whatever the force, not all Orthodox joined the EC churches. It is important to get that straight. And you seem to stubbornly resist facing the issue that prompted my objection: the idea that OiCwR, the Pope “becoming Orthodox”, etc. were tactics in a stealth campaign to make ECs out of unwitting EOs. No respectable historian says that. Really, who needs this subterfuge when the king is “forcing” the issue.

I told you that this particular issue is perhaps the most emotional and divisive controversy between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

No, it is an issue between EOs and Greek Catholics.

If a congregation has been Orthodox for 50 years and has maintained their faith despite savage persecution from the Communists, why is it unfair for them to remain Orthodox and keep the buildings that they have taken care of for so long if that is what they want to do? I think that the offer of the Moscow Patriarchate was a fair and just solution to the problem.

I don’t. The property was stolen by an evil regime, whose actions, after its fall, were recognized as a gross violation of human rights. The only correct course of action is restitution. You worry about those that settled in as Orthodox: what about the people who went into metaphorical catacombs, or the actual gulags to resist the communist liquidation of their church? Did they get a vote in Moscow’s plan or just the ones who had been there for a mere fifty years? What were the options in the vote: given that In Galicia there was not much interest in the MP: was the KP included in the Moscow’s scheme? It was a ploy, not a fair offer.

The Orthodox did not liquidate the Eastern Catholic Churches on Soviet territory, Stalin did.

The Orthodox conspired in this horror. And of course they received the stolen goods. It boggles the mind, this steadfast resistance to repentance and metanoia.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Don’t know why you continue to argue this: I stipulated to it already, with an important reservation: whatever the force, not all Orthodox joined the EC churches. It is important to get that straight. And you seem to stubbornly resist facing the issue that prompted my objection: the idea that OiCwR, the Pope “becoming Orthodox”, etc. were tactics in a stealth campaign to make ECs out of unwitting EOs. No respectable historian says that. Really, who needs this subterfuge when the king is “forcing” the issue.

No, it is an issue between EOs and Greek Catholics.

I don’t. The property was stolen by an evil regime, whose actions, after its fall, were recognized as a gross violation of human rights. The only correct course of action is restitution. You worry about those that settled in as Orthodox: what about the people who went into metaphorical catacombs, or the actual gulags to resist the communist liquidation of their church? Did they get a vote in Moscow’s plan or just the ones who had been there for a mere fifty years? What were the options in the vote: given that In Galicia there was not much interest in the MP: was the KP included in the Moscow’s scheme? It was a ploy, not a fair offer.

The Orthodox conspired in this horror. And of course they received the stolen goods. It boggles the mind, this steadfast resistance to repentance and metanoia.

The Communists killed and imprisoned far more Eastern Orthodox Christians than they did Greek Catholics. The Eastern Orthodox Church cannot be blamed for Stalin’s crimes against the Greek Catholics. Our Church was hardly in a position to defy Stalin. Therefore we cannot repent for something that we could not control.
You need to get over your resentment towards whatever happened in Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism. I am quite sure that an honest unbiased evaluation would show that there was fault on both sides. Besides, I am Antiochian and we had nothing to do with it. You cannot blame the entire Eastern Orthodox Church for what you feel were injustices done by some Orthodox to some Greek Catholics. My only concern in this whole matter is that I find it offensive when Eastern Catholics claim to be Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome. That is deception. You cannot be Eastern Orthodox unless you are in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John