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

This started here, as I was reading a thread on changing rite, and thought, "Thank God we don't have that problem." But might we in the future? Here's my question.

Is this sort of problem likely to arise in Orthodoxy, with Western Rite parishes? I can't see a problem arising from, say, Western Rite parents not taking their kids to Holy Communion in a regular Orthodox parish, but what about the reverse? Say (and this is entirely hypothetical) I, for whatever reason, had to attend a Western Rite parish, and took my young son to Holy Communion (we're also pretending that he's not in his thirties). Would this be a problem? Would the priest refuse to commune him?

And yes, talk to the prest first, I know. I wouldn't approach the Chalice in another Orthodox parish without talking to the priest first, but that's a different issue that really has little to do with rite. I'm wondering if this sort of problem could develop in Orthodoxy. What say you, Western brothers and sisters?

(I am, of course, assuming that in the Western Rite, children are not chrismated right after baptism, but are confirmed at an older age, after which they have their First Communion.)

My granddaughter and I attended the Mass for Life at the Basilica in Washington back before she was "First Communion" age.

Before Communion I told her to received in her mouth, not her hand. I followed behind her for Communion and quickly stated that we were Eastern...the priest chastised me because she didn't receive Communion properly. I didn't see exactly what he was concerned about but she probably didn't say "Amen" and extend her tongue.

With thousands attending, it wasn't reasonable to speak beforehand to the priest. I should have thought more about it beforehand....but didn't for various reasons.

There will be misunderstandings but we have to set them aside and prevent making receiving the Eucharist an occasion for sin for that would be a bigger scandal than being refused Communion out of ignorance (lack of knowledge)

Your assumption is incorrect. In Western Rite Orthodox parishes, children are chrismated right after baptism and immediately communed, following the unanimous practice of the Orthodox Church, and the ancient practice of the West, as well.

Western Rite Orthodox also use leavened bread for the Eucharist.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

A Catholic priest teaching CathEd in uni here did say that the current Latin progression for Christian initiation for children is wrong. The Orthodox way is correct.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i] [vatican.va] makes it clear that "[t]he sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the [i]foundations of every Christian life" (1212). I don't think it's a coincidence that the sacraments are mentioned in this particular order.

I'm more worried about innovations such as using leavened bread and inserting the epiclesis from the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom into the Roman Canon. To me this smacks too much of "uniatism."

Your comments are quite interesting.

Normally, both infants and adults are received into the Eastern Orthodox Christian Faith by receiving the Sacraments or Mysteries (Mysteria) of Baptism (Rite of Christian Initiation through Triple Immersion) followed immediately by Chrismation (Annointing with Holy Oil), generally before the start of the Divine Liturgy. And then lastly, by receiving the Holy Eucharist at the usual point during the Divine Liturgy, all on the same day.

http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Baptism.htm

The epiclesis, in it's pure form, was a part of all earliest Liturgical Rites in Christianity. In the Orthodox Church, the Prayer of Invocation of the Holy Spirit, the Epiclesis, is the most solem and sacred moment of the entire Divine Liturgy.

In the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, an epiclesis is explicitly present as the priest says..."…send down Your Holy Spirit on us and on these gifts set forth; and make this
bread the precious body of Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Christ, changing (metabalōn) them by your Holy Spirit."

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Epiclesis

Lastly, in light of the fact that the Christian Church was united for the first 1,000 years of the Faith both in Belief (orthodoxis) and in Practice (orthopraxis), it is indeed interesting that you would refer to "uniatism" of Eastern and Western Churches with concern and trepidation, as if there has never been any unity of faith and worship!

+Cosmos

Thank you!

Thank you! As you may know, "uniatism" is considered by both Orthodox and Catholics as an outmoded means of restoring that lost unity in faith and communion in worship (cf. Balamand statement [orthodoxwiki.org]).

During a large part of the first millennium of unity between East and West, to which you refer, the Roman Canon was used [en.wikipedia.org] in the West without an explicit epiclesis. Why do the Orthodox now consider it necessary to insert one? Do you consider the Roman Canon without this insertion invalid?

So you say. However, this opinion does not appear to be validated by extant texts of these ancient Liturgies.

In reviewing the Words of Institution used in the early Roman Rite Canons, "it is evident that the Roman Canon contains likenesses to the two Eastern rites (Chrysostom and Basil) too exact to be accidental". The close similarity of the Eastern and Western Rites in this regard was gradually made less so through several simplifications of the Roman Rite during subsequent centuries, essentially making the clear presence of an epiclesis less obvious. In spite of such changes, however, Orthodoxy has never considered the Roman Canon invalid, per se, but simply lacking an overt Invocation of the Holy Spirit in its use of the Words of Institution alone to consecrate the bread and wine.

The reinsertion of several Invocations of the Holy Spirit into the Novus Ordo Missae of the Roman Rite, as a part of the liturgical revisions of Vatican II by Pope Paul VI in 1969, has restored the spirit and intent of the Roman anaphora for the most part as compared to the wording in the final version of the Tridentine Mass used prior to Vatican II.

Nonetheless, the separation of Eastern and Western Churches at this point in Christian history is more about differences in fundamental theology than differences of liturgical celebration.

Eastern Orthodoxy has always been based upon the theology and dogma established by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the early centuries of the united Church, which were ratified by the overwhelming majority vote of both the Bishops in attendance at the Councils, and by local referendums of the existing Christian communities at that time, as the only correct and acceptable dogma of true Christian Faith. This process of officially establishing correct belief (orthodoxis) was viewed as a crucial necessity in those days due to the rise of various heresies which threatened the united continuation of the Church.

http://www.pbcc.org/dc/creeds/councils.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html

Throughout the centuries since, Orthodoxy has tenaciously refrained from either adding to or subtracting from the Doctrines of Faith formulated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. As a result, to this day, the Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church remains the only Christian Church to do so.

As such, any ecumenical efforts made toward reunification must of necessity center around issues of resolving theological incongruencies, not around issues of unity in liturgical form among the various individual rites.

+Cosmos

If you want a second opinion, please read what Fr Hunwicke has to say on his blog about this question (some of the comments are worth reading too): http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/byzantium-4.html

This thread is beginning to move toward the polemics that we do not want to see among brethren in this forum. I would ask the posters to tone down their posts from this point on.

This being Great Lent, let's take a look at 2 Timothy 2:14-17. The kind of posts and answers that open old wounds and do no good at edifying anyone are what the Apostle says "eat(s) it way like gangrene."

BOB

Latin Catholic:

Perhaps you will find an interest in the text of this 1st century Liturgy of Dionysius the Areopagite, which was taken by Dionysius when he left Athens to meet the Apostle at Rome, for the purpose of being sent to Gaul (France) at the request of St. Paul, where it became one of the earliest Liturgies of the Roman Church.

http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/350-denys-liturgy-link

Take special note where the rubrics read (The Priest bending, says the Prayer of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit.)

TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

+Cosmos

Understood, theophan.

But does that mean that this thread is left with Fr. Hunwicke's personal opinion objecting to the inclusion of an epiclesis in the Western Rite Liturgy, but not my submission of the Liturgy of Dionysius text which clearly shows that an Invocation of the Holy Spirit, an epiclesis, did in fact form a part of early Roman Liturgies?

+Cosmos

COSMOS:

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

No, it doesn't mean anything more than a warning that this can lead to polemics that no one needs. And it also means that this is Great Lent, a period when we should be spending more time building our relationship with Christ and less time picking lint over matters that are not things that we can resolve here.

This forum is a place to learn and edify in a charitable way. And when a thread starts to deviate from either of these two goals, we bring up all posters to the reason we are here--something we can easily forget.

In Christ,

BOB

Greetings, Theophan:

Again, your points are clearly understood. But you still didn't answer my previous questions.

Why is my posting the text of the 1st Century Roman Rite Liturgy of Dionysius in order to illustrate its inclusion of an epiclesis a problem?

If not a problem, why does my post not appear here? :confused:

+Cosmos