Shouldn't the biggest ecumenical concern be the epiclesis?

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
I know that this is not the topic of the thread…but I couldn’t help noticing that you speak of the priest as a “representative” of Jesus when offering the divine sacrifice. This is most certainly the Catholic understanding, and I am very glad to hear it articulated by an Orthodox priest. Other Orthodox Christians on this board in the past have maintained that such terminology is Catholic/latin and foreign to Orthodoxy. I have been told that for the Orthodox the priest represents the Father and the deacon Christ, but I never understood why it has to be one way or the other - both priest and deacon represent Christ in the Latin Tradition. To my mind “representative” is another way of saying “vicar”, and I have been told by other Orthodox that the Catholic teaching that bishops are vicars of Christ cannot be accepted by them because Christ never left His Church…but the teaching that the bishop acts as Christ’s vicar in no way implies that.

What I wrote is standard Orthodox theology. I have never, ever, heard or read any other. The Deacon represents an angel. The orarion (stole) that the Deacon wears represents his wings. Icons of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel are placed on the doors used by the Deacon to leave and enter the Altar. The Priest represents Christ. Orthodox iconography never represents the Father, because He did not take flesh as the Son did. It is true that the Priest serves in the parish as a representative of the Bishop. The whole symbolic meaning of the Liturgy as a commemoration of Christ offering Himself is destroyed if the Priest is taken of as a representative of God the Father. The cuffs that the Priest wears symbolizes that he offers the unbloody sacrifice not by his own power or authority, but by letting Christ use His hands.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

As I am one of the people who had raised questions about this “Vicar” language (in the context of asking Eastern Catholics what they think about it; as I recall, the response revealed something of a divide between Eastern and Western Catholics on this board), I feel like I should note that the common objection to the Roman Catholic idea of the Pope of Rome as Christ’s vicar is not really connected to liturgical semiotics, but rather to the question of what it means in general parlance to be a vicar of someone else. It is certainly possible to believe that the celebrant is Christ’s representative without believing that any Patriarch is Christ’s vicar. The two are related terms, but not precisely the same. It is possible to represent someone or something without substituting for that person or thing, and of course all sides agree that Christ is in no way absent from the liturgy, so this squabble (such that there actually is one) is possibly more related to differing ecclesiologies than differing liturgical philosophies regarding this point (though these may exist, too).

 

[TheAdvocate]

While of course the form (the sacred words) of a sacrament are important, we also must be careful to reduce them to a mere incantation.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It is the Holy Spirit that transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, not the words of the Priest.

Fr. John

 

[TheAdvocate]

It is the Holy Spirit that transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, not the words of the Priest.

Fr. John

My point exactly. Unfortunately, some people get overly hung over the words they forget this. The words become a magic formula.

 

[suissemissed]

What I wrote is standard Orthodox theology. I have never, ever, heard or read any other. The Deacon represents an angel. The orarion (stole) that the Deacon wears represents his wings. Icons of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel are placed on the doors used by the Deacon to leave and enter the Altar. The Priest represents Christ. Orthodox iconography never represents the Father, because He did not take flesh as the Son did. It is true that the Priest serves in the parish as a representative of the Bishop. The whole symbolic meaning of the Liturgy as a commemoration of Christ offering Himself is destroyed if the Priest is taken of as a representative of God the Father. The cuffs that the Priest wears symbolizes that he offers the unbloody sacrifice not by his own power or authority, but by letting Christ use His hands.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Fr Morris, I bought his beautiful icon, “The Holy Mother with the Child”, about a year ago from a Greek Orthodox Church in Florida. Does the figure directly above the Theotokos’ crown represent the Father, or someone/thing else?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr Morris, I bought his beautiful icon, “The Holy Mother with the Child”, about a year ago from a Greek Orthodox Church in Florida. Does the figure directly above the Theotokos’ crown represent the Father, or someone/thing else?

Unfortunately, Orthodoxy went through a period of Western influence in which the Father was portrayed on icons as the icon that you showed apparently does. However, that is not really correct according to Eastern Orthodox theology.

Fr. John

 

[MisterCorduroy]

Words and actions do matter, especially from an Eastern perspective. When I was attending a “Western Rite” Antiochian Orthodox parish they would tack on the Eastern Epiklesis to the Anglican Mass (as per instructions from St. Tikhon and the Russian Synod in the early 20th century) to make it valid. Same went for celebrations of the Gregorian Mass.

From a Roman perspective they also matter. If that were not the case it would not be wrong for a priest to deviate from the GIRM or to change the words of the Liturgy. Especially the words of institution since it would invalidate the Mass.

Yes, Jesus comes to be truly present in the bread and wine through the Holy Spirit, but is it necessary to specifically ask Him to do so, or can it just be implied as it is in the Tridentine Mass? The Eastern Catholic Bishops were influential in getting a clear epiklesis returned to the Ordinary Form of the Mass specifically for this reason.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I will not presume to judge the validity of the Tridentine Mass because it has an implied Epiklesis, but we Orthodox believe that it is better to have a clear Epiklesis. That is why the Western Rite was modified to insert a clear and specific Epiklesis.

Fr. John

 

[SyroMalankara]

Anyone else find it odd (strange, perplexing) that today the Eastern Orthodox who agree with Fr. Morris theory consider Patriarch Peter Mohyla, Patriarch Dositheus, et al to be latinizers, but it is the PARIS school which is now stated to be truly Eastern? It’s a topsy turvy world.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It is not a theory, it is a well accepted fact. Peter Mohyla and Dositheus represent a period called the Western captivity of Orthodox theology. People like Lossky, Meyendorff and others were part of a movement that transformed Orthodox theology by returning to our patristric roots and especially the insights of St. Gregory Palamas.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Anyone else find it odd (strange, perplexing) that today the Eastern Orthodox who agree with Fr. Morris theory consider Patriarch Peter Mohyla, Patriarch Dositheus, et al to be latinizers, but it is the PARIS school which is now stated to be truly Eastern? It’s a topsy turvy world.

I was in a hurry to get my wife to the doctor and may not have made myself clear enough in my first reply to your message. Because of the Turkish occupation of most Orthodox lands most Orthodox scholars received their education in Western European universities. They brought back with them Western ways of thinking. The Russians beginning chiefly with Peter the Great also underwent Westernization. Theology in Russian Orthodox seminaries was taught in Latin, for instance. The result was what Fr. Georges Florovsky called a pseudomorphosis of Orthodox theology through Western influence. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wrote, “The tradition was at times distorted, but not wholly destroyed.” Peter Mohila and Patrarch Dositheus were part of this “Western Captivity of Orthodox Theology.” During the late 19 century, Orthodox theologians realized the distortions and began to seek the recovery of our patristric roots, such as the theology of St. Gregory Palamas that had been all but forgotten by many Orthodox theologians. The Parish School was made up of refugees from Communism who settled in Paris and established the St. Sergius Institute of Orthodox Theology that trained some of the most influencial Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. When I was in seminary, our major theology book was The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky which is still the best summary of Orthodox theology. Lossky lived in Paris, but was not associated with the St. Sergius Institute.
I hope that this is a better answer to your comment.

Fr. John

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by SyroMalankara
Anyone else find it odd (strange, perplexing) that today the Eastern Orthodox who agree with Fr. Morris theory consider Patriarch Peter Mohyla, Patriarch Dositheus, et al to be latinizers, but it is the PARIS school which is now stated to be truly Eastern? It’s a topsy turvy world.

It is not a theory, it is a well accepted fact. Peter Mohyla and Dositheus represent a period called the Western captivity of Orthodox theology. People like Lossky, Meyendorff and others were part of a movement that transformed Orthodox theology by returning to our patristric roots and especially the insights of St. Gregory Palamas.

It is not odd, but it is very telling. The story is that the after the schism and fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox church changed, falsely - some might even say ontologically - for a period of centuries. However, at the turn of the last century, notwithstanding a few anti-Westerners, the impetus in Moscow was for continuing reform, modernization, and Westernization; this impetus was halted by the revolution.

Then, during the Communist era, a group in Paris and a fringe in Greece broke with the prevailing tradition and made a re-discovery of true, genuine Orthodoxy, which included advancing all sorts of new ideas that, for the most part, focused on distancing Orthodoxy from the West. Some of these folk went all the way to form “true” and “genuine” Eastern Orthodox churches.

These "true"and "genuine"churches are not canonical, but they feel the same about “world Orthodoxy”. And now, the political situation has cleared, Schmemann’s books are burned in Russian seminaries, and this whole pseudomorphosis thinking in undergoing re-evaluation.

Stay tuned.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is not odd, but it is very telling. The story is that the after the schism and fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox church changed, falsely - some might even say ontologically - for a period of centuries. However, at the turn of the last century, notwithstanding a few anti-Westerners, the impetus in Moscow was for continuing reform, modernization, and Westernization; this impetus was halted by the revolution.

Then, during the Communist era, a group in Paris and a fringe in Greece broke with the prevailing tradition and made a re-discovery of true, genuine Orthodoxy, which included advancing all sorts of new ideas that, for the most part, focused on distancing Orthodoxy from the West. Some of these folk went all the way to form “true” and “genuine” Eastern Orthodox churches.

These "true"and "genuine"churches are not canonical, but they feel the same about “world Orthodoxy”. And now, the political situation has cleared, Schmemann’s books are burned in Russian seminaries, and this whole pseudomorphosis thinking in undergoing re-evaluation.

I wonder if the term pseudomorphosis is being understood correctly here. I was under the impression that Florovsky was referencing Spengler’s use of the term. For Spengler, Tsar Peter the Great made a sort of Faustian pact, importing Western culture before the nascent culture of Russia could grow. This in turn poisoned the development of Russia, by causing a resentment of Western culture, which prevented the growth of an authentic Russian culture. A similar thing (along the vein of Spengler’s understanding of Russia) could be said, I suppose, of the emergence of a modern Orthodox consciousness, which was hampered by a reliance upon Western theology.

I think this was in fact a major motivation behind the neo-patristic synthesis of Florovsky and others (like Lossky). For them, the development of an authentic Orthodox consciousness in a world dominated by Western thought could not be accomplished by latching on to a particular school of Western thinking (in other words, one could not develop an Orthodox consciousness by pronouncing himself to be a German Idealist or a Neo-Scholastic), but only through introspection, an attempt to tease out what was already there, but hidden by a few centuries of the use of foreign modes of expression.

The criticism of the so-called psuedomorphosis of Orthodox theology really has nothing to do with the idea that Orthodoxy changed falsely or ontologically, as far as I am aware.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is not odd, but it is very telling. The story is that the after the schism and fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox church changed, falsely - some might even say ontologically - for a period of centuries. However, at the turn of the last century, notwithstanding a few anti-Westerners, the impetus in Moscow was for continuing reform, modernization, and Westernization; this impetus was halted by the revolution.

Then, during the Communist era, a group in Paris and a fringe in Greece broke with the prevailing tradition and made a re-discovery of true, genuine Orthodoxy, which included advancing all sorts of new ideas that, for the most part, focused on distancing Orthodoxy from the West. Some of these folk went all the way to form “true” and “genuine” Eastern Orthodox churches.

I feel that I should add that it was not a fringe movement to attempt to distance Orthodoxy from Western Christian practices and theology. Patriarch Dositheus, for example, declared that, because he had heard that some archimandrites wore Jesuit rosaries around their necks and read publicly many unseemly sophistries, nobody who had received education in the West should be considered for positions as archimandrites, abbots, or bishops. He also demanded that Stefan Yavorsky (the then locum tenens of Moscow) withdraw any claims to the see of Moscow, on the grounds that he was Westernized.

 

[dvdjs]

I wonder if the term pseudomorphosis is being understood correctly here. I was under the impression that Florovsky was referencing Spengler’s use of the term. For Spengler, Tsar Peter the Great made a sort of Faustian pact, importing Western culture before the nascent culture of Russia could grow. This in turn poisoned the development of Russia, by causing a resentment of Western culture, which prevented the growth of an authentic Russian culture. A similar thing (along the vein of Spengler’s understanding of Russia) could be said, I suppose, of the emergence of a modern Orthodox consciousness, which was hampered by a reliance upon Western theology.

I think this was in fact a major motivation behind the neo-patristic synthesis of Florovsky and others (like Lossky). For them, the development of an authentic Orthodox consciousness in a world dominated by Western thought could not be accomplished by latching on to a particular school of Western thinking (in other words, one could not develop an Orthodox consciousness by pronouncing himself to be a German Idealist or a Neo-Scholastic), but only through introspection, an attempt to tease out what was already there, but hidden by a few centuries of the use of foreign modes of expression.

The criticism of the so-called psuedomorphosis of Orthodox theology really has nothing to do with the idea that Orthodoxy changed falsely or ontologically, as far as I am aware.

You may be correct, about Florovsky and Lossky, but many people, including, seemingly, frjohnmorris trace the pseudomorphosis directly to the “false” turn in theology that started with Mohila and Dositheus. If Catholicism is in some serious sense ontologically different than Orthodoxy, then it would seem that Orthodoxy of their era is ontologically different from the the contemporary Orthodoxy of the neo-patristic synthesizers or even the contemporary Orthodoxy of some, whom I have quoted before, who still hold to the continuous tradition that does not simply dismiss centuries of Orthodoxy that they would rather forget.

 

[dvdjs]

I feel that I should add that it was not a fringe movement to attempt to distance Orthodoxy from Western Christian practices and theology. Patriarch Dositheus, for example, declared that, because he had heard that some archimandrites wore Jesuit rosaries around their necks and read publicly many unseemly sophistries, nobody who had received education in the West should be considered for positions as archimandrites, abbots, or bishops. He also demanded that Stefan Yavorsky (the then locum tenens of Moscow) withdraw any claims to the see of Moscow, on the grounds that he was Westernized.

Yes, the virulent anti-western current in Orthodoxy dates at least as far back as the first crusade, and probably no one has been completely immune, even one like Dositheus, who endorses the Western idea of transubstantiation. But the I, of course, was talking of the the fringe theological musings of the last century.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, the virulent anti-western current in Orthodoxy dates at least as far back as the first crusade, and probably no one has been completely immune, even one like Dositheus, who endorses the Western idea of transubstantiation. But the I, of course, was talking of the the fringe theological musings of the last century.

But perhaps there was nothing “virulent” about Dositheus’ opposition to certain Western practices and beliefs. In fact, perhaps some of his opposition to these things were based on rather rational convictions. Frankly, I think too often these days, we dismiss as irrational bigotry what instead is best described as a rationally grounded antagonism.

 

[josie_L]

I am not sure what is so harsh about my last sentence. Superfluous means it is unnecessary or more than what is needed. A mass with just the institution narrative would be illicit, but still valid. So everything else is superfluous, even if the bishops currently require its use. What is necessary is reduced down to a single sentence, everything else is potentially expendable. The bishops could decide tomorrow ‘lets eliminate the gloria; lets eliminate the sanctus; lets eliminate the preface, it isn’t necessary.’ Then at that point it would be a grave sin to use the preface in the mass.

And I agree with malphono about it being part of the postconcilliar mindset. They have eliminated all ‘unnecessary repetitions’ and they could eliminate more if they so desired. They have determined the bare minimum necessary for a valid mass, baptism, confirmation, confession, and they are free to change everything else. It is all just 't’radition. We in the east have been doing it too though.

But my point in the last post was about the magical words. The priest says a few words and amazingly, everything is transformed by those few words. The presence of the people is superfluous, the faith of the priest is superfluous, etc.** all that matters is the one sentence he said**. Before he said it, all there was was bread. As soon as he said it, it became the body and blood of Christ. There is no room for the mystery.

The Priest acts “in persona Christi”, so I find you phrasing a little upsetting/irreverent, because it is really Christ who is speaking through the priest.

 

[MorEphrem]

The Priest acts “in persona Christi”, so I find you phrasing a little upsetting/irreverent, because it is really Christ who is speaking through the priest.

Keep in mind the phrase “in persona Christi” is a Latin theological concept. Anyway, Jimmy wasn’t diminishing the role of the priest, he was simply saying that a very scholastic approach reduces the institution narrative to magical words (do X → get y).

However, I had a Latin canon lawyer explain to me the institution narrative in a very like fashion to the Eastern conception of Epiclesis - we don’t necessarily claim it’s at that moment the Mystery occurs but we do know it’s (1) a progressive realization and (2) by the indicated time it is truly the Body and Blood.