www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Troparion in the Epiclesis

What was the reason for the interpolation of "Lord, who at the third hour...." in the Epiclesis in the Slavic DL? When did this change take place?

That is a late addition that only the Russians or those influenced by them use. It is not found in the current Ruthenian Recension or in the Greek usage nor is it in the older manuscripts. As to the reason, why did any troparia find their way into the later parts of the Liturgy? I suppose some bishop liked it had it inlcuded and it spread from there. I think its inclusion dates from the 1600-1700s.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This same prayer is used in one of the Hours during Lent. It has caught on and the Ukrainian Orthodox have it as a standard in their Sluzhebnik. Fr. Meletey Solovey OSBM comments on it in his book on the Divine Liturgy.

Alex

Thanks for the replies.

When I was searching for the answer a couple of days back, I found this on orthodoxwiki (yes, I know the perils of trusting wikipedia)


Do you'll know what dispute they are referring to?

Actually the troparia is the original one for the third hour which was later restricted to only the Great Fast.

The dispute referred to was: was an epiclesis needed to accomplish the transformation of the offerings into the Body and Blood of Christ. The East maintained it was, the West said the Words of Institution were sufficient since they believed at that time their Eucharistic Prayer did not contain one. (It did but, a different type than that used by the Byzantine Church). I think general agreement has ben reached that it is a necessary component although the form which it takes is disputed. The Latin Church after Vatican II has inserted an explicit epiclesis into the new Eucharistic Prayers. The Orthodox Church has required the Western Rites to insert the Byzantine epiclesis after the Words of Institution, even though ancient Orthodox manuscripts from Mt. Athos have the Roman Canon inserted into the framework of the Byzantine Liturgy and the Byzantine Epiclesis was not used.

Interesting piece of liturgical history! We follow the
Russian use and we certainly have it. I didn't know that
others did not. It obviously was inserted to emphasize and
elaborate the epiclesis, especially as at this point the
curtain is open. It is further emphasized, for those not
familiar with it, by being said three times, the priest raising
his hands on high and making a profound bow after each.
The deacon responds with verses from Ps.50 after the first
two. The third is followed by "Bless, Master, the Holy Bread."

Edmac

Actually, Fr Deacon, I think that when you research this carefully, you will find that there are indeed old Greek manuscripts which also contain the interpolation of the Troparion of the Third Hour at the Epiclesis. The Russians have always been extremely conservative. They preserve liturgical texts and practices just as they were given them by the Greeks. This Troparion of the Third Hour was only in some manuscripts - a local Greek practice which ultimately was not preserved (perhaps for good reasons) in modern Greek practice due to the standardization which followed the introduction of mechanically printed texts with ecclesiastical approval. But the Ruissians preserved the minority practice handed down to them by Greeks who apparently found the Troparion of the Third Hour at the Epiclesis meaningful.

Being a priest of the Russian Church, I of course follow this practice for the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. It does not interrupt the flow of St John's Anaphora too badly. However, because it does such violence to the grammatical structure of the Anaphora of St Basil the Great, I feel that it should be omitted from St Basil's Anaphora.

Fr David Straut
St Elizabeth the New-Martyr Orthodox Church
Rocky Hill, New Jersey
www.saint-elizabeths.org [saint-elizabeths.org]

I have seen both of these positions presented before ... but what I wonder is whether the Old Believers have this prayer? I did not see in their liturgical books. If they do not have it, then it is likely that the Fr Deacon's position is correct.

Actually, this is not the case. The 'reforms' of the Russian Liturgical books and practices to bring them into conformity with their contemporary Greek liturgical books and practices under Patriarch Nicon was precisely the time when this took place. The fact that a phrase, sentence, prayer, or practice existed in a particular Greek manuscript presented to the Patriarch was sufficient to "prove" that what it contained was the correct Orthodox practice that had somehow been omitted, confused, or corrupted in the received Slavonic text. Thus this had to be changed in the Slavonic books to bring them into conformity with the Greek practice of the time. The ironic part was that the Patriarch could not bring himself to believe that Greeks did not have uniform texts or practices themselves, nor that Greek practice could have actually changed over time. In reality, the Russians were much more conservative and uniform than their Greek coreligionists.

Fr David Straut

This is not entirely accurate - it is present in the Missa Polocensis, the Venice and the Vilnius sluzhebnyky, all before the Nikonian reforms. They are indicated to be used at the discretion of the celebrant. The Holy Spirit troparia and verses are also present in the pre-Nikonian Moscow sluzhebnyky (1602 and 1646) also noted that they can be taken at the discretion of the celebrant. The Moyhilian Kyivan sluzhebnik (another pre-Nikonian text, 1620s or 1630s) also has the Holy Spirit troparia and verses, and as I recall contains these in brackets which one would assume would be optional as well.

Metropolitan +Lawrence (Huculak) only mentions that the Holy Spirit troparion and verses were ommitted from the 1942 Rome sluzhebnyk but gives no explanation why. I would guess at that point it had not been taken by those using the Ruthenian Rescension for so long that it was omitted entirely. There were some who believed it interrupted the Anaphora and especially the Epiclesis. But the fact remains that the Holy Spirit troparia and verses were included in multiple versions of sluzhebnyky in "Ruthenian" usage; what the actual usage was will be very hard to determine.

The Troparion of the Third Hour occurs in at least one of the Old Rite texts of the Anaphora available to me.

Fr. Serge

Bless, Reverend Fathers!

It is a beautiful prayer and one that is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the Epiclesis, to be sure.

What of the tradition of the Priest making a prostration after the Epiclesis rather than a metania? Which is correct?

Alex

The Blessing of the Lord!

Have since checked two more Old Rite sources, and they also give that Troparion at the Epiclesis. So do the standard Romanian Orthodox text and the Romanian Greek-Catholic text.

The prostration is correct - for those in the Altar, at least. There is some uncertainty about whether those in the nave should follow suit.

Fr. Serge

Bless Father!

Well, I know YOU always made the prostration when you were here and I always told myself, "Next time, I'll do it with Father . . . oops, missed it . . next time . . ."

Alex