Shouldn't the biggest ecumenical concern be the epiclesis?

[frjohnmorris]

I was referring more to the “experience” of the Mass and the Divine Liturgy rather than what is contained in both services. The structure of the Mass leaning more to Christ’s Sacrifice is more evident when one participates regularly while the emphasis in the East is more the gathering of the community. However you are right that both Churches have both and that is what I said as well but experiencing both Liturgies can give you this leaning if you can call it to experience more what Christ is doing for us in the West while the experience is more to what the Holy Spirit is giving to you without taking away the other. It is to this “experience” that a Catholic and an Orthodox will have complimentary yet distinct behaviors from following their own discipline as covered by the Mass and the Divine Liturgy. I have experienced both and from observing the two Churches and experiencing the two Churches there is a distinct way which grows from the peoples that is clearly seen in how they “experience” the Holy Communion.

Actually if you outline the Roman Catholic Mass and compare it to the outline of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, you will find that they are identical in structure. They also express the same basic theology. What creates the experience is not so much the wording or the structure, but how the service is conducted. The Byzantine Liturgy is much more like the old Tridentine High Mass than the Noro Ordo Mass which uses less ceremony than the old High Mass. Roman Catholics also use contemporary music, while Orthodox use traditional Russian or Byzantine chant. The music makes a great difference in how one experiences the Eucharist. I would feel more at home in a Roman Catholic Mass chanted using Gregorian Chant than I do with contemporary music and instruments. However, I would be the last person to question the validity or orthodoxy of the contemporary Catholic Mass. It is a matter of taste rather than theology.

 

[frjohnmorris]

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.
.

I may be wrong, but I do not think that any Roman Catholic theologian would agree with that comment. The entire Canon or as we call it the Anaphora is meant to be prayed. Orthodox theologians It would consider it a valid Eucharist if I were to omit everything but the Epiklesis. I am sure that Roman Catholic theologians would agree that entire Canon must be prayed for it to be a valid Eucharist.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[twf]

I may be wrong, but I do not think that any Roman Catholic theologian would agree with that comment. The entire Canon or as we call it the Anaphora is meant to be prayed. Orthodox theologians It would consider it a valid Eucharist if I were to omit everything but the Epiklesis. I am sure that Roman Catholic theologians would agree that entire Canon must be prayed for it to be a valid Eucharist.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I think what people are getting hung up on is the fact that Trent defined that the moment of consecration, at least in the Latin rites (Roman, Ambrosian, etc) occurs at the words of institution. For this reason, people assume that Latin theology supports the notion of a valid mass consisting only of these words. I tend to agree with you Father that the reality is more complex. It is grave matter for a priest, in the Latin Church, not to say the entire canon. Even if Christ is potentially present with the words of institution alone, can it be said that the holy mass was offered? There are many schools of theology in the Latin Church - it is a big Church with many diverse traditions. Not all Latins are or ever were scholastics. Carmelite theology, for example, is at least as mystical as Byzantine.

 

[Peter_J]

I may be wrong, but I do not think that any Roman Catholic theologian would agree with that comment. The entire Canon or as we call it the Anaphora is meant to be prayed. Orthodox theologians It **would **consider it a valid Eucharist if I were to omit everything but the Epiklesis. I am sure that Roman Catholic theologians would agree that entire Canon must be prayed for it to be a valid Eucharist.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Was that ^^ suppose to be “wouldn’t”?

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think what people are getting hung up on is the fact that Trent defined that the moment of consecration, at least in the Latin rites (Roman, Ambrosian, etc) occurs at the words of institution. For this reason, people assume that Latin theology supports the notion of a valid mass consisting only of these words. I tend to agree with you Father that the reality is more complex. It is grave matter for a priest, in the Latin Church, not to say the entire canon. Even if Christ is potentially present with the words of institution alone, can it be said that the holy mass was offered? There are many schools of theology in the Latin Church - it is a big Church with many diverse traditions. Not all Latins are or ever were scholastics. Carmelite theology, for example, is at least as mystical as Byzantine.

There are certain things that are found in all ancient Canons, that I believe are necessary for the proper celebration of the Eucharist. The first is the opening dialogue “Let us lift up our hearts…” (Sursum Coda) etc. Then the preface followed by the Sanctus followed by a prayer of thanksgiving to God for redemption, followed by the Words of Institution, followed by the Oblation or Anamnesis which is a commemoration of the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Second Coming of Christ followed by the Epiklesis and prayers for the living and the dead ending with a Doxology or final exclamation of praise. Although the I believe the order may differ, all of these elements are present in both the Byzantine Anaphora and the Canons used during the Roman Catholic Mass.
I would think that any Roman Catholic theologian would agree with me that if a priest takes a piece of bread and a cup of wine and simply reads the Words of Institution over them, that would not be a valid consecration. I would not even consider serving the Divine Liturgy without serving the entire service as printed in our service book. I am certain that the same would be true of a Roman Catholic Priest.
We have Presanctified Liturgy on Wednesday evenings during Great Lent and in the Russian tradition also on Friday during which Communion is given using bread and wine consecrated during the Sunday Liturgy, and of course, we have Communion of the sick using the reserved Sacrament.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[twf]

There are certain things that are found in all ancient Canons, that I believe are necessary for the proper celebration of the Eucharist. The first is the opening dialogue “Let us lift up our hearts…” (Sursum Coda) etc. Then the preface followed by the Sanctus followed by a prayer of thanksgiving to God for redemption, followed by the Words of Institution, followed by the Oblation or Anamnesis which is a commemoration of the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Second Coming of Christ followed by the Epiklesis and prayers for the living and the dead ending with a Doxology or final exclamation of praise. Although the I believe the order may differ, all of these elements are present in both the Byzantine Anaphora and the Canons used during the Roman Catholic Mass.
I would think that any Roman Catholic theologian would agree with me that if a priest takes a piece of bread and a cup of wine and simply reads the Words of Institution over them, that would not be a valid consecration. I would not even consider serving the Divine Liturgy without serving the entire service as printed in our service book. I am certain that the same would be true of a Roman Catholic Priest.
We have Presanctified Liturgy on Wednesday evenings during Great Lent and in the Russian tradition also on Friday during which Communion is given using bread and wine consecrated during the Sunday Liturgy, and of course, we have Communion of the sick using the reserved Sacrament.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Yes, I think there are some uber scholastic types who would argue that a priest saying the words of consecration ALONE over a piece of bread and wine would confect the Eucharist. But they are missing something. Even in Latin theology the priest must INTEND to act with the Church - to offer the Church’s holy mass. Surely such a priest would not have this intention having deliberately abrobagated the entire canon. I believe my first priest, who was biritual in both the Latin and Syro-Malabar (Indian East Syriac) churches made that very point to me during my conversion process from Protestantism.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I think there are some uber scholastic types who would argue that a priest saying the words of consecration ALONE over a piece of bread and wine would confect the Eucharist. But they are missing something. Even in Latin theology the priest must INTEND to act with the Church - to offer the Church’s holy mass. Surely such a priest would not have this intention having deliberately abrobagated the entire canon. I believe my first priest, who was biritual in both the Latin and Syro-Malabar (Indian East Syriac) churches made that very point to me during my conversion process from Protestantism.

Yes, I’ve encountered some of the intent-isn’t-required types too.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, I’ve encountered some of the intent-isn’t-required types too.

I may be wrong, but I think that most Roman Catholic authorities would not approve of a Priest claiming to consecrate the gifts without serving the entire Mass including the entire Canon of the Mass.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by TimothyH View Post
It seems that almost every time I try to engage in conversation here on the EC forum, at least one person takes issue with my lack of precision with terminology and goes out of his way to try to portray me as an idiot.

P.S. I’m guessing, based on the content and tone of your post and your subsequent silence, that you’re no longer participating on this thread. I think that’s a shame, because there really is a need for people who’ve had experiences like yours (or similar experiences but in the “other direction”) to complain about them.

 

[frjohnmorris]

P.S. I’m guessing, based on the content and tone of your post and your subsequent silence, that you’re no longer participating on this thread. I think that’s a shame, because there really is a need for people who’ve had experiences like yours (or similar experiences but in the “other direction”) to complain about them.

At least they know that you are a Christian. You would be surprised how many people think any religious group calling itself Orthodox is Jewish.
There are intolerant people in all religions. We Orthodox are also victims of what we call Romaphobia, which is an irrational fear of anything that looks Catholic. Because I wear what is called a Roman collar a lot of people think that I am a Catholic. Because of that I have run into anti-Catholic prejudice many times. My personal interactions with most Catholics have been very cordial. However, I too have had encounters with Catholics who look down on us.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

At least they know that you are a Christian. You would be surprised how many people think any religious group calling itself Orthodox is Jewish.
There are intolerant people in all religions. We Orthodox are also victims of what we call Romaphobia, which is an irrational fear of anything that looks Catholic. Because I wear what is called a Roman collar a lot of people think that I am a Catholic. Because of that I have run into anti-Catholic prejudice many times. My personal interactions with most Catholics have been very cordial. However, I too have had encounters with Catholics who look down on us.

Archpriest John W. Morris

There are a good number of Romans who sneer at anything not exactly matching their presuppositions of what the Divine Worship Service is supposed to look like. I’ve met a similar percentage of Antiochian Orthodox of similar mindset - but that may have something to do with the WRV and/or the local AO parish having been Evangelical Orthodox. It’s a small percentage, but it’s really obnoxious and memorable when done by anyone.

 

[frjohnmorris]

There are a good number of Romans who sneer at anything not exactly matching their presuppositions of what the Divine Worship Service is supposed to look like. I’ve met a similar percentage of Antiochian Orthodox of similar mindset - but that may have something to do with the WRV and/or the local AO parish having been Evangelical Orthodox. It’s a small percentage, but it’s really obnoxious and memorable when done by anyone.

I do not think that many, if any, Antiochian Orthodox sneer at anyone’s liturgical traditions. Although, I would not consider contemporary Protestant worship truly worship. As one of my youth said after going to a Protestant service, you go to a concert and call it worship.
It all depends on what you mean. Just because some Antiochian Priests like myself are not entirely comfortable with the liturgical traditions of some other Orthodox and modern Roman Novo Ordo Catholics different does not mean that we are sneering at them. I find some of the Slavic practices difficult to understand. For example, whenever I speak directly to the people during the Divine Liturgy, I turn and face them through the open doors and curtains. I once concelebrated at a Liturgy in a Serbian Church. The presiding Priest, obviously the Pastor, asked me to give a blessing, I turned and blessed closed doors. That makes no sense to me. I have seen Priests from the Russian tradition say, “Let us lift up our hearts,” while facing the Holy Table with their backs to the people. That makes no sense to me because the phrase is addressed to the people.
I also personally am more comfortable with the old High Mass than I am with polka masses or masses with modern music. I have often wondered why Rome did not just translate the Tridentine Mass into English and leave everything the same instead of making such radical changes in the Mass. Orthodox are more comfortable with chanted services complete with incense.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

For example, whenever I speak directly to the people during the Divine Liturgy, I turn and face them through the open doors and curtains. I once concelebrated at a Liturgy in a Serbian Church. The presiding Priest, obviously the Pastor, asked me to give a blessing, I turned and blessed closed doors. That makes no sense to me. I have seen Priests from the Russian tradition say, “Let us lift up our hearts,” while facing the Holy Table with their backs to the people. That makes no sense to me because the phrase is addressed to the people.

The first I understand completely. In the Syriac tradition, the sanctuary veil would always be open for something like that. Giving a blessing to the closed curtain seems to me to be just plain silly.

The second, however, I don’t get at all. Whether the instruction is addressed to the congregation is immaterial. The priest is acting in his role as mediator. I’m not a fan of Russian anything, but the posture could be either facing the Altar or the congregation. It really makes no difference.

I also personally am more comfortable with the old High Mass than I am with polka masses or masses with modern music. I have often wondered why Rome did not just translate the Tridentine Mass into English and leave everything the same instead of making such radical changes in the Mass. Orthodox are more comfortable with chanted services complete with incense.

Well, we finally have something where we agree.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The first I understand completely. In the Syriac tradition, the sanctuary veil would always be open for something like that. Giving a blessing to the closed curtain seems to me to be just plain silly.

The second, however, I don’t get at all. Whether the instruction is addressed to the congregation is immaterial. The priest is acting in his role as mediator. I’m not a fan of Russian anything, but the posture could be either facing the Altar or the congregation. It really makes no difference.

Well, we finally have something where we agree.

The real celebrant of the Divine Liturgy is Jesus Christ. The Priest is merely His representative. When the Priest addresses God in prayer he faces East which is an ancient Christian custom. When the Priest addresses the people for God, he faces the people. So it does make a difference.
I do not dislike Russian liturgics, I just do not understand some of the things that they do. I once served Matins at St. Vladimir’s Seminary which uses Russian liturgics. Fr. John Meyendorff had to stand next to me whispering to me what to do, because the ceremony is so different from our Antiochian practices, which are basically the same as the Greeks.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

The real celebrant of the Divine Liturgy is Jesus Christ. The Priest is merely His representative. When the Priest addresses God in prayer he faces East which is an ancient Christian custom. When the Priest addresses the people for God, he faces the people. So it does make a difference.

And here I thought we were possibly beginning to communicate. Guess not.

Did I not say that the priest servers as mediator? Whatever … in the particular case cited, I stick by my previous comment that the orientation really does not make a difference.

 

[Peter_J]

I have seen Priests from the Russian tradition say, “Let us lift up our hearts,” while facing the Holy Table with their backs to the people. That makes no sense to me because the phrase is addressed to the people.

Just speaking for myself (and not for Melkites in general) I couldn’t say that it makes no sense to me. If we, all together, are lifting up our hearts to the Lord, I don’t see anything wrong with all facing in the same direction.

 

[twf]

The real celebrant of the Divine Liturgy is Jesus Christ. The Priest is merely His representative. When the Priest addresses God in prayer he faces East which is an ancient Christian custom. When the Priest addresses the people for God, he faces the people. So it does make a difference.
I do not dislike Russian liturgics, I just do not understand some of the things that they do. I once served Matins at St. Vladimir’s Seminary which uses Russian liturgics. Fr. John Meyendorff had to stand next to me whispering to me what to do, because the ceremony is so different from our Antiochian practices, which are basically the same as the Greeks.

Archpriest John W. Morris

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.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

The “Catholic Encyclopedia” says this,

Vicar of Christ

(Latin Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

 

[twf]

The “Catholic Encyclopedia” says this,

Vatican II and the Catechism teach that all bishops are true vicars of Christ - see paragraph 1560.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
The “Catholic Encyclopedia” says this,

Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting the “Catholic Encyclopedia”. But the fact is that it continues to have quite a lot of influence among many, many Catholics.