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

As far as I understand it, the main western rite Liturgy that has some claim to Orthodox use before the late 19th century is the "Liturgy of St. Peter". I note though that it has been described on some fora as the creation of one man based on dubious sources. I don't know enough to comment on whether this is the case, but it seems attested to by more than just one source (Carpatho-Rusyns as well as western rite people).

Can anyone comment on the Liturgy of St. Peter? Is it merely an example of what we are talking about (an artificial construction from various sources) or was it actually a rarely, but occasionally used, Liturgy in post-schism Slavic orthodoxy?

This the Divine Liturgy with the Roman Anaphora inserted. It is in Greek in a manuscript from Southern Italy and in Slavonic in a Liturgicon found in Hilander Monastery of Mt Athos. It was researched by Bishop Jerome(formerly Fr. John Shaw) of ROCOR. See here:

http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgy-Peter.html

Interesting. I visited a western Rite parish in the Antiochan diocese in Florida in the late '70s. The priest there used the Tridentine Mass w/o the filioque in the creed; the mass was entirely in Latin.

Fr Deacon Lance:

I know of some criticism of Bishop Jerome's research - I suppose I was asking whether people here find it makes a convincing, or at least a more convincing, case for its use than certain other WR constructs in current use.

Otsheylnik,

I don't know what there is to criticize about the research. The manuscripts exist. Now one may disagree with his conclusions but I do not. However, this is not a Western Liturgy but the Byzantine Divine Liturgy with the Roman Anaphora inserted that was used on occasion like the Liturgies of St James and St mark

Fr. Deacon Lance

As has been mentioned the "Liturgy of St. Peter" is essentially Byzantine in structure with an alternate Anaphora inserted. It thus appears to not be an inherently Western liturgy, and apparently did not have much usage since the extant literature is very scant and the accounts of its celebration only remain distant recollections of a very select group of Old Ritualists.

Unfortunately much is left for speculation; there are numerous obscure liturgical manuscripts of every liturgical tradition that saw very little actual usage. The parent Slavonic text is apparently no longer extant. There hasn't been a serious comparison of the Rossano and the Hilandar text (at least that has been documented). Fr. John's concluding statement is not especially convincing to establish a continuous usage and thus a more fluid received tradition of this Liturgy.

While I do not disagree that such a liturgical construct exists(as the manuscripts are present) nearly every liturgical family has anaphorae that have fallen into disuse. The Ethiopians have over a dozen Anaphorae for their Liturgies, with less than half of those in regular use.

It is not all that compelling that the "Liturgy of St. Peter" ever saw consistent or widespread use in any quarter of Christianity, and the ROCOR form appears to have been esentially reconstructed in the 20th century from anecdotal and manuscript sources rather than a demonstrated received tradition.

A serious comparison determining the agreement or lack thereof in the extant manuscripts, as well as actually giving references for the anecdotal sources might help in improving an authentic history of the "Liturgy of St. Peter".

Apparently there is no liturgical uniformity throughout Western rite Orthodoxy, the particular liturgy used being determined by specific jurisdictions. At present, the two most prominent liturgies are:

The Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon, used by the majority of the WRV, and derived from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican Missal. The Filioque has been removed from the Creed, commemorations of the departed and invocations to the saints were added, together with a Byzantine style pre-communion prayer and a more explicit epiclesis.

Other liturgies used by Western rite Orthodox include:

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, used by other parishes within the WRV and by Western rite parishes in ROCOR. It is essentially the Tridentine Mass with the Filioque removed and an epiclesis added to the Roman Canon (which never did have one in the first place). This liturgy is popular with former RC and Old Catholic communities.

The Sarum Liturgy is a British variant on St. Gregory, gussied up in imitation of the medieval Sarum rite. It's used by a couple of communities in the UK

The English Liturgy is a Russian version of the 1549 version of the BCP, modified with material from the Sarum missal and additions dictated by the Russian Holy Synod in 1907. It includes an epiclesis from the Gothic Missal.

The Liturgy of St. Germanus, used by some ROCOR, Serbian and Romanian groups, is supposed to be based on the Gallic rite, but is a pastiche that includes elements from the Celtic, Mozerabic and Byzantine rites--in short, it is a created artifact.

The Liturgy of St. John the Divine is used by one Moscow Patriarchate monastery and is known within ROCOR. It's supposed to be another reconstruction of the Celtic rite, but again, mainly a work of the imagination.

Thanks, that is the sort of reply I was looking for. WHilst I am aware of the Byzantine nature of the Liturgy of St Peter, I think it does belong in a discussion of WR issues, because to me it represents maybe the only way in which western anaphorae can ever be used in Orthodoxy that will be culturally and liturgically widely accepted.

Whether they such a practice should be widely used is a different matter, for as you have noted, the body of evidence suggesting it shoudl is pretty weak.

Except, as far as I can tell, nobody actually uses the Liturgy of St. Peter. Assuming it does exist.

Is the issue whom is more right?

I question my class with all these miracles today,...is God trying to tell me something

As I referenced above, even the Vatican's magisterium admits that the Roman Canon most definitely had an epiclesis, the vestige "Supplices Te Rogamus" remained to be part of the St. Gregory DL.

They don't, but I wonder whether they should as a kind of "middle road" between western rite and Orthodoxy that would be acceptable to both sides. As long as the liturgy exists of course

No, sorry, the consensus of modern liturgical scholars is the Roman Canon never had an explicit descending epiclesis of the type found in Basil and Chrystostom. Rather, the invocation of the Holy Spirit is distributed throughout the Canon, making the entire Eucharistic prayer a single, unfolding epiclesis. This points to the antiquity of the Canon, whose roots are in the 4th century, and which never therefore had to deal with the pneumatological controversies that affected the Eastern Churches.

The whole issue of the necessity of an epiclesis or of the institution narrative is something the Fathers would not have understood. They did not look to a single "Kodak Moment" at which the Gifts were transformed, but understood that the entire Eucharistic liturgy was a single consecratory action.

Mmmm that's a very welcomed observation StuartK. Thankyou. It will certainly enrich my perception.

Well, if you could cite (as I did above) some authorities of that “consensus of modern liturgical scholars” (are these the same ones we can thank for the NO?) and/or an imprimatur/nihil obstat or two, it would help your case. I’ll help you: “The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era” By John McKenna
http://books.google.com/books?id=bL...=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
(btw, no: I don’t believe the original DL of SS. Addai and Mari lacked the Words of Institution/Anamnesis either)
It starts out as bread and wine, and well before the words “Ite Missa Est” it is (or rather, He is) the Body and Blood. The rubrics, both East and West, switch at definitive point during, not at the beginning nor the end, of the Great Canon.
Patriarch St. Cyril of Jerusalem, while still a priest, already catechized on the consecration in the epiclesis in 347. SS. Ambrose and Augustine in the 4th century touch on the issue.
They talk enough about those “Kodak Moments” (a practical matter, for instance, if the Eucharist is interrupted, spilled, etc.). McKenna has a selection.