www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Western rite Orthodoxy problematic?

Supplices te rogamus cannot be considered an explicit epiclesis. Certainly, Nicholas Kabasilas did not think it such, though he considered it functionally equivalent, given its position after the Institution Narrative:


The Latin Church, on the other hand, considers the prayer Quam oblationem to be an implicit epiclesis:


In the 13th century, an offertory prayer was added to the Canon that invoked God as sanctifier:


But this was not originally part of the Canon, and was removed from it in the 1970 revision of the Missal.

Almost all Catholic liturgical theologians are agreed that there never was an explicit epiclesis in the Roman Canon, for the reason I gave--the Western Church did not experience the pneumatological controversies of the Eastern Church, which resulted in the development of ever more explicit descending epicleses.

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari (which does not have an institution narrative) does have an explicit epiclesis invoking the descent of the Holy Spirit, but, being the oldest, it is not consecratoryl i.e., it does not specifically mention the transformation of the elements--precisely because the entire Anaphora was considered a single consecratory action:


The later Anaphorae of St. James, St. Basil and above all St. John Chrysostom, all explicitly call for the descent of the Holy Spirit to transform the elements.

St. James:


St. Basil:


And Chrysostom:


Among the theologians and historians who have commented on both the absence of the epiclesis in the Roman Canon, as well as the view of the Fathers that the entire Eucharistic Liturgy was considered to be a single act of consecration, see Robert Taft, Kallistos Ware, Alexander Schmemann, Gregory Dix, Edward Yarnold, and Paul Bradshaw. I could list others, given time.

Quite frankly, I can't help feeling a little put-off by your referencing such an "unecumenical ecumenist".

Other than venting his frustration at the past behavior of the Moscow Patriarchate, in what way is Taft "unecumenical"?

Is that like when Fr. Steele vented his frustration at the "Melkite cancer" and certain Catholics who have been remiss in their duty to convert to Orthodoxy?

Quite different, I would say.

I realize that we are discussing the Roman Canon (Prayer I of the 1970 Missal); yet it is somewhat germaine to consider the various forms of the Hippolytan Canon in the Western rites.

It is found in the 1970 Roman Missal as Prayer II and places an epiclesis before the Institution narrative:

Let your Spirit come upon these gifts and make them holy so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Hippolytan Canon is found in the 1978 Lutheran Book of Worship as Prayer IV (not included in the pew editions) and the implicit epiclesis follows the Institution narrative:

And we ask you: Send your Spirit upon these gifts of your Church, gather into one all who share this bread and wine : fill us with your Holy Spirit to establish our faith in truth that we may praise and glorify you through your Son Jesus Christ

The fraternal twin to the LBW liturgy is the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. The Hippolytan Canon is used in Rite Two as the "default" Eucharistic Prayer. The explicit epiclesis follows the Institution narrative:

Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the
Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new
and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we may faithfully
receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy,
and peace; and at the last day bring us with all your saints
into the joy of your eternal kingdom.

Alright. I'll make a note to myself to remember that.

Generally, the primary difference between Western Rite Orthodoxy and Uniatism is that Western Rite Orthodoxy is a movement geared toward restoration as opposed to Uniatism which exists for the conversion of the Orthodox to papal Christianity. With Western Orthodoxy, the emphasis is conciliar Western Orthodox Faith being lived within the confines and constraints of what it was prior to the schism while in Unia, the project is directed toward submission to the Chair of Peter and gradual remoulding into the experience of the modern papal church. With Western Rite Orthodoxy, what is explored is the traditions, culture and spirituality of the ancient West meeting our modernity and being reborn in the conciliarity of the Orthodox Catholic Church. While with Unia, the project has been to overcome the milieu of these severed Eastern churches. The Orthodox Church seeks a community of emerging local churches equal in the Holy Spirit. While with the Vatican, the concept of "autocephaly" was long ago condemned with the epithet "gallicanism."

Fortescue for one argued that indeed the Roman Rite did have an explicit epiklesis. So too Dix. Deiss alludes to it. So no, not everyone holds to this modern understanding. The Benedictine liturgists after Vatican in their project for the mass VERY MUCH wanted to have the epiklesis reinserted.

I would posit the challenge of comparing the Roman Canon with that of say the Coptic Liturgies of St. Mark, St. Basil, St. Gregory the Theologian and it will begin to become clear that it is descended from an earlier form which has always had its own epiklesis. There is no particular Roman school of liturgy as Rome received its liturgy from the East and it seems was most influenced by the Alexandrian school of Liturgy which always had an epiklesis. While the Rite of the Antiochian school and its Western children had epiklesia.

Finally, some argue that early manuscripts do not always have an epiklesis written in them while also ignoring that these same manuscripts tend not to also have the rubrics written either, nor the propers nor Scriptures, Antiphons, etc. That is because 1). These things were variable and/or a matter of 2). Praxis/Oral Tradition and/or 3). As sacred as the Words of the High Priest were in the old Hebrew Temple and thus were passed by the Bishop to the Priest orally to emphasize their sacred character.

So, yes, Virginia, there was an epiklesis in the Roman rite. Again, Fortescue, for one, insists on it.

This argument is tendentious at best, considering the "restoration" consists of inventing liturgical forms that did not exist prior to the 20th century, and have none to little demonstrable history of being authentically part of a continuous "western" liturgical tradition. The most commonly used "Western Rite" is that "of St. Tikhon" whose recent development has been adequately demonstrated.

The tendentiousness of this position is compounded when the goal of the inventing of these liturgical forms was specifically for a "union" of one liturgical and spiritual tradition within another. There is no "Western Rite Patriarchate" and thus the "Western Rite" becomes assumed into larger jurisdictions that are not "Western Rite". Looks and sounds very much "uniate".

Agreed.

Actually, no, even the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is an adaptation of a Western useage, specifically the BCP rite, which itself is an outgrowth of the Sarum rite in England. While the fact that rites are being "restored" and not "invented" is clearly evidenced by the manuscript traditions behind the restorations, while in uniatism rites are being latinized and "modernized" to suppress their local traditions.

One need simply refer to Dix or Fortescue or Taft or any number of extant missals to appreciate that the Western Rite is not only native liturgy but even work which is salutary for the development of other Western liturgical Christians as a reference point.

While there might not be "Western patriarchates" in the nascent stages of WR Orthodoxy, once the process of restoration is started and adequate foundation laid for local church, Orthodoxy will welcome new autocephalous and EQUAL Western patriarchates while with "uniatism" that will never be the case.

So the distinctions are cemented by the notion that Orthodox patronage of Western Rite restoration is fundamentally different from the papal practice of "uniatism."

Except for the completely voluntary part.

Two texts to help shed light on this discussion:

1) Jack Turner, "Western Rite Orthodoxy as a Canonical Problem," *LOGOS: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies* 51 (2010): 229-248.

2) A new book, *Issues in Eucharistic Praying East and West* about which you may read more here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/01/eucharistic-praying-east-and-west.html.

In the second text, Michael Zheltov, a Russian Orthodox priest and professor at the Moscow Spiritual Academy, reviews all the current scholarship and debunks many of the misconceptions about the epiclesis, misconceptions held by Eastern AND Western Christians alike.

On the second:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tz...=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
the article on the DL of Mari and Addai commits the errors of thinking continuity confers "validity," and thinking that all liturgical practices are equal: so what if some used in milk and honey in the DL, or without wine? We know that, as the Church banned the practice.

As for the Fr. Zheltov article, while it shows the issue is more nuanced than often thought, it doesn't demonstrate that the answer isn't definitive either.

And treating the Didache as a Missal or Liturgikon is somewhat missplaced, something that crops up now an again in the book.