Shouldn't the biggest ecumenical concern be the epiclesis?

[Peter_J]

As I read through the posts, particularly those from our Western brothers, I think about the Great Schism and wonder if this is how the problems started. Clearly, there’s a lack of understanding of Eastern theology in the original question. Unfortunately, the question was presented in a way that appeared to suggest Eastern Christians are inferior due to their lack of conformity to Western practices. **It needs to be realized that we are all professing the truth, **even if we can’t see it the way others do.

How do you convince people of that (those who aren’t already convinced I mean)?

 

[MorEphrem]

How do you convince people of that (those who aren’t already convinced I mean)?

That’s a good question. I think that’s also a major part of the issue and I don’t think we have an obligation to convince them as to continue in earnest and let them just take a 30 second observation before they start spouting baseless accusations.

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

That’s a good question. I think that’s also a major part of the issue and I don’t think we have an obligation to convince them as to continue in earnest and let them just take a 30 second observation before they start spouting baseless accusations.

I believe it starts with good catechesis or formation. However, I do believe we have come a long way in revealing the whole Church to all.

In essence, I feel the original question is a good one, especially for one who sees the same result in other rites but cannot fathom how the result is achieved without doing it the way they understand it. It is like a math problem: there are multiple ways to achieve the answer, but if you have only been taught one way, then the other solutions look foreign to you. A professor once told our class, “you can do it the way they show in the book and get the correct answer, but if you do it the way I teach you, using my techniques, you will find it much easier to understand the answer.” Sometimes, other’s ways cannot be comprehended but must be accepted if the same result is achieved.

 

[TimothyH]

How do you convince people of that (those who aren’t already convinced I mean)?

I can’t speak for all but only for myself as a Roman Catholic. When I read the prayers posted by frjohnmorris and others, I am struck by their sublime beauty. I am probably one who is already convinced.

There is a subculture within the Roman Catholic Church which if it doesn’t see the Tridentine Mass as the only valid form of the liturgy then it sees it as the most valid form. These have made up their mind and I don’t think anyone is going to convince them.

There was a bi-ritual priest from the Syro-Malabar Church at my parish for several years. He stated in a homily that there were 23 rites in the Catholic Church and that the Roman Rite was only one. The line to greet the priest after Mass was long and many asked him about what he stated. They were simply ignorant but sincerely interested. He celebrated the Holy Qurbana for his 25th anniversary and it was well attended. A friend of mine saw an eastern liturgy in Rome and said, “It made me feel like Catholic-lite.”

My point is that the vast majority of Roman Catholics are sincerely open to Eastern Catholic spirituality, theology and tradition once they are aware that it 1) exists and, 2) exists as an authentic and organic part of the Catholic Church.

I can say from my perspective, that the two most important things to do are to explain to Roman Catholics that your Churches are in communion with Rome and once convinced of that, invite them to your liturgies in a spirit of hospitality and friendship.

Colossians 3:13 also helps.

-Tim-

 

[malphono]

There is a subculture within the Roman Catholic Church which if it doesn’t see the Tridentine Mass as the only valid form of the liturgy then it sees it as the most valid form. These have made up their mind and I don’t think anyone is going to convince them.

Indeed that subset exists, but I think it needs to be clarified that such does not apply to all who prefer the Usus Antiquior. That mindset is just as likely among those who prefer the Novus Ordo.

 

[TimothyH]

Indeed that subset exists, but I think it needs to be clarified that such does not apply to all who prefer the Usus Antiquior. That mindset is just as likely among those who prefer the Novus Ordo.

Again, not from my perspective.

Maybe it is just anecdotal, or maybe just because I live in the deep south, but I find that that the vast majority of Roman Catholics don’t even know that the Extraordinary Form of their own rite exists, let alone that there are other rites.

My point was, as a Roman Catholic open to Eastern expressions of the truth, to offer a response to Peter J’s question about how to convince Roman Catholics about the validity of that truth. My point wasn’t really to discuss EF vs OF Roman Catholics and their respective openness to Eastern expressions of truth. I am sorry I brought it up.

My experience is that most Roman Catholics are very open, once they understand that Eastern Catholicism is authentic and organic Catholicism.

-Tim-

 

[malphono]

Again, not from my perspective.

This I just don’t get, but never mind.

Maybe it is just anecdotal, or maybe just because I live in the deep south, but I find that that the vast majority of Roman Catholics don’t even know that the Extraordinary Form of their own rite exists, let alone that there are other rites.

My point was, as a Roman Catholic open to Eastern expressions of the truth, to offer a response to Peter J’s question about how to convince Roman Catholics about the validity of that truth. My point wasn’t really to discuss EF vs OF Roman Catholics and their respective openness to Eastern expressions of truth. I am sorry I brought it up.

My experience is that most Roman Catholics are very open, once they understand that Eastern Catholicism is authentic and organic Catholicism.

Right. So there was no reason to cast aspersion on one particular sub-group of Latins.

 

[Peter_J]

There was a bi-ritual priest from the Syro-Malabar Church at my parish for several years. He stated in a homily that there were **23 rites in the Catholic Church **and that the Roman Rite was only one.

uch: I hope you corrected him. :ehh:

 

[Peter_J]

I can’t speak for all but only for myself as a Roman Catholic. When I read the prayers posted by frjohnmorris and others, I am struck by their sublime beauty. I am probably one who is already convinced.

There is a subculture within the Roman Catholic Church which if it doesn’t see the Tridentine Mass as the only valid form of the liturgy then it sees it as the most valid form. These have made up their mind and I don’t think anyone is going to convince them.

That “subculture” you mentioned is, IMO, a little nutty. However, there are also many Catholics who don’t think that but are nevertheless alarmed by the massive, and nearly instantaneous, liturgical changes of a half century ago.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

NOTE: Considering the apparent gravity of this subject, it seems almost impossible for me to phrase this question in a way that doesn’t offend anybody. So please take my word for it that I don’t intend to cause offense in any way, if I do.

I find it somewhat strange that about half of ecumenical dialogues with Eastern Christians seems to revolve around the filioque. While it would certainly be concerning if a profession of faith had a theologically erroneous statement in it, it seems like that should be entirely dwarfed by the difference between the Latin and Eastern sacramental theology of when the consecration occurs in Mass/Divine Liturgy.

In Latin theology, the consecration occurs at the Words of Institution. In Eastern theology, the consecration occurs at the epiclesis. This issue seems to be oft considered nothing beyond a coffee-table intrigue, but I don’t see why that’s the case. This is a pretty big deal.

If an Eastern Christian were to attend Holy Mass in the Roman rite, he would be inclined to worship (what Latins consider) bread and wine for the 30 seconds or so that happens between the epiclesis and the Words of Institution. That is idolatry. Whereas if a Latin Christian were to attend an Eastern Divine Liturgy, he would be inclined to view the (what Eastern Christians consider to be the) Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be bread and wine for the 30 seconds or so that happens between the epiclesis and the Words of Institution, whilst everybody around him is committing idolatry.

An easy way to sweep this under the rug would be to say that the consecration occurs at different times in the rites, according to the intention of the celebrant. But that also seems quite troubling to me, since that turns a supernatural, sacramental power of the priesthood into a subjectivity; quite contrary to the ‘catholic’ spirit of there being One Body in Christ. Furthermore, that would also seem to suggest that both Latin and Eastern Christians should not object to the fact that separated Christians with invalid priesthoods, like the Anglicans and Methodists, are not committing idolatry despite the fact that they have no power to confect the Holy Eucharist.

Perhaps I am missing something very significant in the matter? If somebody could point me int he right direction. God bless.

My friend, my brother, have you not looked to the letter when it is the Spirit which gives life? If then it is the Spirit who gives life, let Him give it when He wills, and let us not condemn our brethren who worship the Lord even as we do.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I find it somewhat strange that about half of ecumenical dialogues with Eastern Christians seems to revolve around the filioque. While it would certainly be concerning if a profession of faith had a theologically erroneous statement in it, it seems like that should be entirely dwarfed by the difference between the Latin and Eastern sacramental theology of when the consecration occurs in Mass/Divine Liturgy END QUOTE

I think that it is better to leave some things to mystery. I would think that both the Words of Institution and the Epiklesis are necessary for a proper consecration. I do not think that it makes any theological difference which comes first. As I mentioned before St. Nicholas Cabasillas wrote that the prayer that God receive the gifts on His heavenly altar at the end of the Roman Canon is considered an Epiklesis.

Archpriest John W Morris

 

[Blind_Didymus]

In the Byzantine tradition, once a Divine Liturgy is started it must be finished. If a priest dies in the middle of the Divine Liturgy, another priest must finish it even if it takes some time to get around to finishing it.

In the Coptic Orthodox Church, if the priest dies in the middle of the liturgy, the most senior deacon (even if this is a sub-deacon or even a cantor if none higher is available) present is required to complete the liturgy. The person is considered to have been chosen by God for the priesthood and will be ordained as a priest as soon as practically possible thereafter.

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

In the Coptic Orthodox Church, if the priest dies in the middle of the liturgy, the most senior deacon (even if this is a sub-deacon or even a cantor if none higher is available) present is required to complete the liturgy. The person is considered to have been chosen by God for the priesthood and will be ordained as a priest as soon as practically possible thereafter.

I assume you are only referring to ordained men.

 

[frjohnmorris]

In the Coptic Orthodox Church, if the priest dies in the middle of the liturgy, the most senior deacon (even if this is a sub-deacon or even a cantor if none higher is available) present is required to complete the liturgy. The person is considered to have been chosen by God for the priesthood and will be ordained as a priest as soon as practically possible thereafter.

We would not do that in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it requires a man already ordained to the priesthood to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. If I died during the Liturgy, a nearby priest would be called in to finish the Liturgy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

My parish is served by two priests from churches in the neighboring state. The closest Coptic Church is roughly 6 hours away. God forbid one of our priests should pass away during the celebration of the liturgy, it would be virtually impossible to contact a “nearby” priest to finish the celebration that day, as there are not any nearby. Many practices of the COC which distinguish it from the Byzantines developed with just that understanding mind, i.e., that we cannot take for granted that we will be able to gather together to celebrate the liturgy in the future, even in the immediate future.

 

[frjohnmorris]

My parish is served by two priests from churches in the neighboring state. The closest Coptic Church is roughly 6 hours away. God forbid one of our priests should pass away during the celebration of the liturgy, it would be virtually impossible to contact a “nearby” priest to finish the celebration that day, as there are not any nearby. Many practices of the COC which distinguish it from the Byzantines developed with just that understanding mind, i.e., that we cannot take for granted that we will be able to gather together to celebrate the liturgy in the future, even in the immediate future.

There are places where we would have the same problem, but that does not change the fact that a layman or deacon cannot consecrate the Eucharist.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[jimmy]

In the Coptic Orthodox Church, if the priest dies in the middle of the liturgy, the most senior deacon (even if this is a sub-deacon or even a cantor if none higher is available) present is required to complete the liturgy. The person is considered to have been chosen by God for the priesthood and will be ordained as a priest as soon as practically possible thereafter.

That is an interesting idea. It is a littlelike the Byzantine idea of oikonomia as described in the other thread. What is lacking is filled up by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Zekariya]

In the Coptic Orthodox Church, if the priest dies in the middle of the liturgy, the most senior deacon (even if this is a sub-deacon or even a cantor if none higher is available) present is required to complete the liturgy. The person is considered to have been chosen by God for the priesthood and will be ordained as a priest as soon as practically possible thereafter.

That is an interesting idea. It is a littlelike the Byzantine idea of oikonomia as described in the other thread. What is lacking is filled up by the Holy Spirit.

Blind Didymus, this is very interesting! You learn something new everyday. Thanks, jimmy! I did not make that connection before you pointed that out.

 

[frjohnmorris]

That is an interesting idea. It is a littlelike the Byzantine idea of oikonomia as described in the other thread. What is lacking is filled up by the Holy Spirit.

One principle of economy is that although the letter of canon law does not always have to be followed, economy cannot be used to violate the doctrine of the Church. It is doctrine that only a validly ordained Bishop, or Priest may consecrate the gifts during the Divine Liturgy. Therefore it is not possible in the Eastern Orthodox Church for a Deacon to consecrate the gifts, even under the concept of economy. If the Priest died after the conclusion of the Anaphora, a Deacon could give Holy Communion and finish the Divine Liturgy without giving the final blessing. However, if the Liturgy has begun, but the Anaphora not concluded, another Priest or the Bishop would have to come and finish the consecration and the rest of the Liturgy. I am quite sure that the Roman Catholic Church would agree with us on this particular issue.
However, this does present an interesting problem. If I died during the Divine Liturgy, the nearest Priest could not come and conclude the Divine Liturgy, after celebrating the Divine Liturgy in his Church, because an Orthodox Priest may only celebrate one Divine Liturgy a day. We would have to wait until the next day for the nearest Priest to conclude the Divine Liturgy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[jimmy]

I never said the Eastern Orthodox or Catholic Churches would agree with the Coptic Orthodox, or that the Oriental practice is the same as that of the Eastern Orthodox. I said it is like it, even if different. Either way it is going outside the normal operation of the Church and saying that the Spirit fills what is lacking. The EO use economy in the acceptance of converts without baptism. Blind Didymus said that in the Oriental practice it is seen that the deacon is chosen by God. If he is able to finish the liturgy despite the fact that he is unordained, it is only because God gave what was necessary for the occasion. You can dispute the legitimacy of the practice if you like: I was pointing out a similarity.