Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,517
Members6,161
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
So, what you are saying is that instead of the Vatican having four patriarchs of Antioch, for instance, it will have six when all us Orthodox (EO and OO) submit to the "font of unity" of the supreme pontiff. I don't think this would be the case. In a reunited Church their would be only one Patriarch in Antioch (and he would preside over a multi-liturgical Patriarchate). Also, no one would submit to the "fount of unity" as you call the Pope. But we would finally submit to the Lords desire that they all may be one! For the God-man, Jesus Christ is truly the font of unity, along with His Father from All Ages, and the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
As for the WRO being "a creation of the 20th century," no, not a fact, objectively or otherwise. Could you provide examples for this? (and no I am not asking about pre-schism Rome, but about the movement of Western Christians into union with the Eastern Orthodox since) I believe the idea for this starts with St. Patriarch Tikhon and some Anglo-Catholics in America in the late 19th Century but nothing really happened until the 20th Century but like I said I would like to see examples of it before this?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
nor any more than the Vatican has changed the Divine Liturgy of Orthodox Rome to incorporate/reflect the development of its dogma post-Orthodoxy. I don't know what you mean by "the Divine Liturgy of Orthodox Rome".
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
The changes the Orthodox have made to conform it to Orthodoxy (and not "Byzantineness") I humbly disagree with this, for they (the Orthodox) made it conform with Byzantine Orthodoxy not simply Orthodoxy. The Western Liturgy never had an epiclesis (I could be wrong but I am pretty sure it didn't) before and after the schism. And their are other examples of this, not just the addition of the epiclesis. Roman Orthodoxy, as you call it Orthodox Rome, was still different from Byzantine Orthodoxy before the schism of 1054. To say it wasn't is historically false. I agree. Let me quote: Epiklesis (Latin invocatio) is the name of a prayer that occurs in all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also) after the words of Institution, in which the celebrant prays that God may send down His Holy Spirit to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son. This form has given rise to one of the chief controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches, inasmuch as all Eastern schismatics now believe that the Epiklesis, and not the words of Institution, is the essential form (or at least the essential complement) of the sacrament. It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer...Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations...The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?"...Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis. ...The Catholic [sic] Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear. On the other hand Orthodox theologians all consider the Epiklesis as being at least an essential part of the Consecration... Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htmIt is interesting that the Vatican claims as "Catholic" the ommission of what it admits was universal-even in Rome-when it admits that its own, rather pecular (as pecular as the practice of the Nestorian Catholicoi of Seleucia, adopted by the Chaldeans and approved by the Vatican, which has an epiclesis but no words of institution) emphasis has led to the omission. The Orthodox were not alone in seeing the deficiency in the ommission: the Non-Juror Scottish Episcopal Church began publication of its "Wee Bookies" which emphasized the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and insering an epiclesis into the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer. Since the American Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States had to get its orders from Scotland, the Scottish bishops required the epiclesis, so that the Scottish epiclesis And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to send down thy Holy Ghost upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be changed into the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son. Grant that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood. made it through PECUSA into the DL of St. Tikhon. Representatives of PECUSA in Russia were quite full of themselves as having answered the objections of Met. St. Philoret of Moscow (then (the 1860's) Russia's senior hiearch and patriarch in all but title) over the epiclesis. So the insistence on an epiclesis in not a "Byzantinization" but an insistence on Orthodoxy, which of course contrasts with what the Vatican has done as in the OP: its approval of the present form of the Divine Liturgy of Mari and Addai http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...oc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.htmlwhich does not have the words of institution, contradicts all its dogmatic pronouncements as to what constitutes the sacrament. Lex orandi, lex credendi is not optional: the Divine Liturgy of the Church must say what she believes, and she must believe what her Divine Liturgy says. Btw, the Orthodox are nearly unanimous if not unanimous that the remnants of the Old Roman epiclesis, the Supplices Te Rogamus, suffices: the few Greek bishops at Florence so agreed (which of course, has no authority in this matter), based on e.g. St. Nicholas Cabasilas. So why the epiclesis of St. John on top of the Western epiclesis? Pastoral concerns of the Antiochain Patriarchate (AFAIK, the ROCOR DL does not have it). Since this has become such a shibboleth between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox West, that the inclusiion solidifies to other Orthodox that the WRO are indeed in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confesses the Orthodox Faith, and a secrurity of that (given the many false starts of the WRO). But then Constantipoliitization/Easternisms ("Byzantine" is an invention of Renaissance Ultramontanes) are nothing new: witness the Kyrie Eleison, Trisagion, Litany etc. of the Latin Mass. As for Orthodox Rome being different from Orthodox New Rome before the schism we know. It was not, however, heterodox.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51 |
As for the WRO being "a creation of the 20th century," no, not a fact, objectively or otherwise. Could you provide examples for this? (and no I am not asking about pre-schism Rome, but about the movement of Western Christians into union with the Eastern Orthodox since) I believe the idea for this starts with St. Patriarch Tikhon and some Anglo-Catholics in America in the late 19th Century but nothing really happened until the 20th Century but like I said I would like to see examples of it before this? All of the modern Western Rite Orthodox expressions look back, in some way, to J. J. Overbeck [ anglicanhistory.org] (1820-1905) and his failed scheme for the establishment of a "Uniate" (Overbeck's word!) Western Orthodox Church. Overbeck's scheme precedes the (also failed) discussions of the unknown group of High Church Episcopalians with Archbishop Tikhon. In fact, I believe that the sub-committee of the Holy Synod which considered Tikhon's petition was first formed to consider Overbeck's petition.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51 |
nor any more than the Vatican has changed the Divine Liturgy of Orthodox Rome to incorporate/reflect the development of its dogma post-Orthodoxy. I don't know what you mean by "the Divine Liturgy of Orthodox Rome". Oh, yes, I think I've heard of this before. Is it similar to the "Holy Mass of Catholic Constantinople"? 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
As for the WRO being "a creation of the 20th century," no, not a fact, objectively or otherwise. Yes, fact. "The Liturgy of St. Gregory" is not much more than a syncretized construct of adding an explicit Epiclesis from an entirely different liturgical tradition and family (St. John Chrysostom) to a liturgical form that never had such a thing (the "implicit Epliclesis" or "ascending Epiclesis" of the Western forms of the Mass). This syncretic liturgy did not exist before its 20th century publication. It's not much more than the Tridentine Mass (which is not the "Liturgy of St. Gregory") translated into King James English with the above syncretism of adding the Epiclesis of St. John Chrysostom as well as some other oddities. The root liturgical form for this Liturgy has never been satisfactorially demonstrated by those using it. Piecing together obscure Frankish manuscripts that have been out of use for a millenium with the Tridentine Mass while throwing in a Byzantine Epiclesis is hardly a demonstration of an authentic received tradition. Most credible liturgists consider the authentic "Liturgy of St. Gregory" to be actually closer to the present Presanctified Liturgy. Regarding the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" it is even more syncretistic. It can be shown fairly simply that it starts with the Anglican Missal, itself a de-protestantized Book of Common Prayer which was derived by high Anglo-Catholics and did not exist before the early 1920s. It is then mixed with some parts from the Tridentine Missal and some later Antiochian corrections. So, again, this "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" does not exist before its publication in the 20th century since the apparent root text dates from the 20th century.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 51 |
[quote]Regarding the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" it is even more syncrestic. It can be shown fairly simply that it starts with the Anglican Missal, itself a de-protestantized Book of Common Prayer which was derived by high Anglo-Catholics and did not exist before the early 1920s. It is then mixed with some parts from the Tridentine Missal and some later Antiochian corrections. So, again, this "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" does not exist before its publication in the 20th century since the apparent root text dates from the 20th century. Eclectic it is (Anglican liturgy's always been that); but it's not radically different from what was being done in American Anglo-Catholic parishes in the "Biretta Belt" circa 1950. The Antiochian editors merely tweaked a few phrases here and there. But again, Anglicans have always been great liturgical tweakers since the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Eclectic it is (Anglican liturgy's always been that); but it's not radically different from what was being done in American Anglo-Catholic parishes in the "Biretta Belt" circa 1950. The Antiochian editors merely tweaked a few phrases here and there. But again, Anglicans have always been great liturgical tweakers since the beginning. "Biretta Belt"...had not heard that one before. Perhaps the "Liturgy of Ward Cleaver?"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I wish there was one somewhere near me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Originally Posted By: StuartK though the divisions in the Orthodox camp have led to proposals that the Patriarch of the UGCC would become the Patriarch of the Kyivan Church.
That sounds to me like something I should be citing in support of my objection! However, I'd better first ask: proposals by whom? The situation in the Kyivan Church is especially complicated due to interjurisdictional divisions within Orthdoxy. If the UGCC were to join the UOC-KP (the sister Patriarchal particular Orthodox Church with whom ecumenical relations are strongest) it would become part of a church already considered "without grace" by most of world Orthodoxy. This doesn't add much incentive to the deal.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
If you think the EC opinions are "low", I would suggest looking at some opinions from very noted Orthodox theologians themselves (such as Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory) who have a "low opinion" of the Western Rite and who acknowledge inevitable comparisons with other efforts at "uniatism".
Most of what I see in this thread is more in the realm of objective fact, such as that the "Western Rite" itself was created only in the 20th century specifically to foster a unia of Western Christians into Eastern Orthodoxy using a fabricated liturgical form to do so. Are you talking about the earlier or later opinions of Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory, as despite his earlier criticism he later had a part of getting the WRO organized in the US. (emphasis added) I had wondered about that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
(emphasis added)
I had wondered about that. This sort of thing has been suggested, and may be wondered upon, but what Fr. Alexander actually wrote and said is generally not complimentary to what is currently the "Western Rite", especially in regards to its form in the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon". His criticism of the WR continued publically at least until 1980, only two or three years before his death. From his last known publicized opinion on the "Western Rite": For the irony of our present situation is that while some western Christians come to Orthodoxy in order to salvage the rite they cherish ( Book of Common Prayer , Tridentine Mass, etc.) from liturgical reforms they abhor, some of these reforms, at least in abstacto , are closer to the structures and spirit of the early western rite - and thus to the Orthodox liturgical tradition - than the later rite, those precisely that the Orthodox Church is supposed to "sanction" and to "adopt." It is my deep conviction that the eastern liturgical tradition is alone today in having preserved, in spite of all historical "deficiencies", the fullness of the Church's lex orandi and constitutes, therefore, the criterion for all liturgical evaluations. (My emphasis).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Schmemann could hardly critique the Novus Ordo (although he was upset with the way in which it was being implemented in the United States), considering the tremendous influence his works on liturgical theology had upon the Latin liturgical reform (ironically, Schmemann was himself strongly influenced by the first generation of the Latin liturgical reform movement). Considering the principles of liturgical worship he was expounding in and for the Orthodox Church, he could not help being critical of the Tridentine rite (and by extensions, all other medieval Western liturgies) and its derivatives, such as those used by the Western Rites of the Orthodox Church/
|
|
|
|
|