www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology East/West Orthodox: Possible problems?

COSMOS:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

All new members of the forum are under what we call "full moderation." That means that each and every post must be reviewed and approved for publication by one of the moderators or administrators. It is nothing personal. We've had reasons why this rule was adopted and I ask your forbearance. This is not permanent.

In Christ,
BOB

Dear Cosmos:

Thank you for this link [voskrese.info]. I agree that there is an epiclesis in the liturgy you refer to. However, I do not agree that it is right to insert an epiclesis into the Roman Canon, because it suggests that the Roman Canon would otherwise be somehow defective.

I am reminded here by the insertion of the Words of Institution into the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. This too is an unfortunate example of "uniatism," in my opinion. Recently, however, Rome has decided that this ancient Anaphora is valid even without the Words of Institution.

In conclusion, I would like to make two points:

1. I don't think we should look for one precise "moment" at which bread and wine become Christ's body and blood (e.g. at the Words of Institution or at the epiclesis). We should perhaps instead look at the whole Eucharistic Prayer as a united whole.

2. I believe we should seek unity through mutual acceptance of each other's ancient and venerable traditions, and not by imposing our own preconceived notions on each other (e.g. "there must be an explicit epiclesis" or "the Words of Institution must be explicitly included").

Ah, my Latin friend, you've been here too long. You're starting to sound more Orthodox than Catholic.

(-:

The claim has been made that an explicit epiclesis has always been present in all of the most ancient liturgies. I know that Orthodox polemicists going back to the 13th and 14th centuries liked to say this, but it just isn't true. It is merely a reflexive response to the Scholastic claim that the elements are consecrated at the institution narrative (itself a false claim). That the Roman Canon lacked an epiclesis was used as a stick in the war of words (not uncommon: Latins falsely claimed the Greeks removed the Filique from the Creed; Greeks claimed that Latins removed the epiclesis from the Canon).

In fact, the oldest extant liturgy, the extant liturgy, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari used by the Assyrian Church of the East, has neither an institution narrative nor an epiclesis. The entire anaphora is itself a single consecratory event and unfolding invocation of the Holy Spirit. That the Roman Canon lacks an epiclesis is not a sign of innovation but of great antiquity: the Canon took the form it did before the pneumatological controversies of the Christian East reached Rome. On the other hand, those same controversies impelled the inclusion of a more overt invocation of the Spirit in liturgies of Antioch and Constantinople, invocations that became much more concise and explicit over time. Note that the epiclesis in Chrysostom is much more straightforward than that in Basil, a sign of a maturation in the theology of the liturgy.

The Eastern Orthodox were therefore wrong to insist that the Western Rite Orthodox include an epiclesis in the modified Canon they use. It's an example of "byzantiization" just as obnoxious as any latinizations forced upon the Eastern Catholics. It is also tiresome to hear polemics discredited decades ago still repeated on a forum supposedly dedicated to greater understanding of the Eastern Churches, to say nothing of the reconciliation of East and West.

I believe Cosmos is mistaken in thinking that it is even possible to speak of a "first century Roman rite', insofar as we have no definitive records of that period, and only fragments of liturgical texts. Indeed, during the first century, it is probably impossible to speak of any rite having a fixed form other than the broadest possible outline; i.e., enarxis, readings, homily, anaphora, Eucharist and dismissal.

The most complete document we have is Hippolytus, writing in the early 3rd century. Again, his work has come down to us only in fragments, and it is not clear whether he is writing about the liturgy in Rome as celebrated, or of some abstract ideal of what liturgy should be. Either way, the Hippolytus liturgy does not have an epiclesis per se.

Indeed, we have no real idea of how liturgy was celebrated in Rome prior to the 4th century, when (some time around 381) Pope Damasus I decided that the liturgy would be celebrated in vernacular; i.e., Latin. We do know that the Roman rite, in contrast to the various Eastern rites, had just one Eucharistic prayer (with multiple prefaces), which has come down to us as the Roman Canon. It is believed by most scholars that the Canon reached its definitive form some time in the 6th-7th centuries, and it never had an epiclesis, ever.

At the same time, the Byzantine rite was still in the midst of its synthesis from multiple sources (including Antiochian, Alexandrene, Cappodocian and Edessan sources; those who don't have the time or money to read Taft can try Schulz, "The Byzantine Liturgy"), so likewise we have no real idea of when an explicit epiclesis became part of the rite. We do know that nobody really brought up this divergence between the Latin rite and the Byzantine rite until late in the day, when both sides were spoiling for a fight.

Most modern Catholics and Orthodox probably do not realize (and would be scandalized by) how tolerant the Fathers were of liturgical diversity. Indeed, the Edessene Church (now the Church of the East) was using the Liturgy of Addai and Mari--yet nobody in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch or Alexandria seemed to notice how this rite lacked two elements considered "essential" by the Middle Ages--an Institution Narrative (essential in the West) and an Epiclesis (essential for the Orthodox). As Schmemann pointed out in Introduction to Liturgical Theology, the Fathers would have thought the entire dispute pointless because there is no single "magic moment" at which the Gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ. This also obviates the question, "What is the most important part of the Mass/Divine Liturgy?" The correct answer is, "It's all equally important".

About fifty years ago, there was an "Odo Casels Society" at Fordham which collected (and sometimes produced) English translations of ancient Anaphoras. Unfortunately I have no idea what became of either the Society or the collection of Anaphoras, but if anyone knows, it could be interesting.

Fr. Serge

Interesting responses indeed.

The example of the Liturgy of Dionysius, which clearly includes a Prayer of Invocation of the Holy Spirit, is certainly not representative of a uniform liturgical standard used by the early Roman Church. Instead, it was undoubtedly one of many independently developed liturgical forms used within the geographical area which later became the jurisdiction of the Roman See. And it may be a possible precursor of what eventually became known as the Gallican Rite, which is also now defunct.

A direct similarity in the diversity of the ancient Roman Church can be seen in the 23 Rites of the modern Roman Church, which may vary in their celebration of different liturgical rites in different geographical locales. Then as now, in both the Western and Eastern Churches, unity of belief holds precedence over unity of liturgical form or local church customs.

As previously stated by others on this thread, insufficient documentation remains from the early period of Church history to either validate or refute retroactive speculations today.

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλό.

+Cosmos

StuartK:

Thank you for two very interesting and informative posts.

Regarding the "Liturgy of St. Dionysius" cited by Cosmos, a quick check of his source materials indicates an 1897 translation by Rev. John Parker, who says, "The Greek original might be restored from the writings of Dionysius. No one could reasonably doubt that the Author of the writings and the Liturgy were the same."

However, a footnote below this introduction from the 1896 editions states plainly:

"(EDITOR'S NOTE 1997: Rev. Parker's view of the Liturgy below as a First Century document has been shared by few scholars, in his day or afterwards. Most would say that it dates from no earlier than the Fifth Century, and may well have been simply culled from the works of St. Dionysius rather than actually written by the author of the Areopagetic Writings. Even so, it is interesting in that it conveys the essentially liturgical feel of Areopagite mystical theology, something often missed by Western commentators. -- N. Redington)"

That said, it is a very peculiar sort of anaphora that uses some highly questionable terminology, which, while consistent with Pseudo-Dionysius (remember, Dionysius the Aeropagite is merely the pseudonym of a fourth century theologian writing somewhere in the province of Asia), does not conform to what shortly thereafter became orthodox belief. Indeed, it helps to remember, though he was critical in the formation of Orthodox spirituality, that many works of Pseudo-Dionysius were condemned in later ecumenical councils for their verging upon "Origenism"; i.e., neo-Platonist theories incompatible with orthodox Christian belief.

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the "ascending epiklesis" argument by St. Nicholas Cabasilas...

On the "implicit ascending epiclesis" of the Roman Canon, Uspensky certainly accepted it, and felt that the inclusion of an explcit, descending epiclesis of the Eastern type in the "restored" Western rite was unnecessary and duplicative.

How funny!

Never mind that there has been more than one individual of note in Church history by name of 'Dionysius', and the glaring fact that the Liturgy of Dionysius the Areopagite long precedes the 1897 translation by Rev. Parker. These are apparently minor details for my brothers StuartK and Latin Catholic.

Since they are seemingly unwilling to concede even the smallest possible validity of any point at odds with their own opinion, and as I have nothing more to add regarding this issue, I humbly bow to their esteemed and learned view of the matter.

In retrospect, however, I am wondering whatever happened to the earlier concern about "This thread is beginning to move toward the polemics that we do not want to see among brethren in this forum"?

+Cosmos

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

This thread is now far off topic. It started as one about problems of a practical nature and has devolved into a back-and-forth over liturgical forms.

Let's either get back on topic or I will have to close this thread.

BOB

I believe the original question on this thread has already effectively been answered by ThePilgrim. Since the premise of the question does not apply, there would seem to be no problem and, hence, nothing more to discuss, as far, that is, as the original question is concerned.

As for the rest of the discussion on this thread so far, it may be off topic, but it is quite interesting. I admit I have contributed to the thread going off topic by mentioning the question of the epiclesis. Still, perhaps the epiclesis discussion could be split off into a separate thread?

Thank you! Maybe there is some hope for unity between us after all

I have always rather liked the mention in the Te igitur of the Roman Canon of our unity with [i]omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus[/i] [sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com].