www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology moderator please allow me a little room here.

Dear Ignatius,

A problem here since the bishop has reposed the Lord since.

His two-volume work, "Constantine and Methodius" (Cyril's original Christian name) exists only in Ukrainian and perhaps in Russian, I'll have to check.

You are right, of course. It was not Cyril and Methodius' intention to bring the "vernacular" into the liturgy, but to establish a language that would be consistently used through time. Again, the Cyrillo-Methodian movements imposed their own interpretation of their work and mission.

This runs against the views of those who are for the vernacular and I'm not arguing against it.

It is just that the position on the use of the vernacular arose only in the twentieth century and has no historical basis to fall back on.

The way I see it, anyhow ...

Alex

Dear Ignatius,

You raise a really interesting question!

I refer you to an article on this on the Celtic Orthodox website (Serge, I call them the way they wish to be called!) at celticchristianity.org

As far as I can tell, the Russian Church was only commenting on the Tridentine Liturgy and her theologians called attention to the fact that the explicit Epiclesis contained in its Canon had been reduced over time. The Orthodox "correction" extended the Epiclesis.

As for the Orthodox position, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never disclaimed the validity of the RC Mass over the Epiclesis issue.

In fact, both Churches believe the Holy Spirit effects the Transmutation of the Elements anyway.

Again, the invocation of the Holy Spirit often comes before the Words of Institution. Orthodox theologians I have read on the subject say that Rome has united the Eucharistic tradition of East and West by bringing in the Epiclesis (to the front, but an Epiclesis nevertheless).

I don't think it is now a point of contention between East and West.

Alex

>>A problem here since the bishop has reposed the Lord since.<<

>>His two-volume work, "Constantine and Methodius" (Cyril's original Christian name) exists only in Ukrainian and perhaps in Russian, I'll have to check.<<

Drat. My curent Russian skills are rotten. Perhaps this will give me some motivation to dust them off (I've always wanted to read Solovyev in the original).

>>As for the Orthodox position, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never disclaimed the validity of the RC Mass over the Epiclesis issue.<<

I didn't think this was the case, but wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification.

Dear Ignatius,

It is at times like these that I agree most with Dr. John on the use of the vernacular and a greater outreach in English.

My wife's reposed grandfather wrote a scholarly treatise on the Epiclesis (called, strangely enough, "Epiclesis" and published by our Redemptorist Press).

He was a bi-ritual priestly fellow and would serve the Tridentine Liturgy as well as the Byzantine.

He brings good research and footnotes to the study of both in his book, as well as of other liturgies.

Alex

>>It is at times like these that I agree most with Dr. John on the use of the vernacular and a greater outreach in English.<<

Oh, I agree. I love Latin and other liturgical languages. But when it comes to things like Catechesis and scholarship I prefer English (Aquinas in Latin is HARD).

>>My wife's reposed grandfather wrote a scholarly treatise on the Epiclesis (called, strangely enough, "Epiclesis" and published by our Redemptorist Press).<<

I'll have to check and see if this is still in print.

>>He was a bi-ritual priestly fellow and would serve the Tridentine Liturgy as well as the Byzantine.<<

Those bi-rituals. Can't trust 'em!

>>He brings good research and footnotes to the study of both in his book, as well as of other liturgies.<<

Footnotes are the BEST part of a book! I know, I'm a geek .

Dear Ignatius,

It's "Geek" to me too!

Alex

It is clear that if we are to evangelize folks then we have to do it in the vernacular. While many of us really like the use of our 'traditional' (dead or alive) languages, we know that we have to celebrate so that folks can understand.

Interestingly enough, I was recalled today about the phenomenon of 'ritual' that is apparently necessary in human life. (Mircea Eliade, a Romanian born scholar, now deceased, taught at the Univ. of Chicago and had several volumes on man, myth, ritual, etc. that really impressed me.)

The stimulus was an African-American gentleman on the street, attired in some sort of dashiki and the circular flat-top hat with inscriptions. While approaching folks on the street, he was addressing them "al salaam aleikum" and "babada-babada-babada" and then reverted to his African-American dialect to start a conversation. What is it that impels people to use "mystical" (i.e., incomprehensible) language to "sanctify" their religious experience? I guess it's like 'praying in tongues'. It was clear to me that the man on the street did not speak Arabic, but he felt the need to make use of this linguistic tool as a 'spiritual entree' to conversation. Just a thought.

Blessings!

Dr. John, the truth is that the case of Islam is very different,and we can't draw parallels between that and a concept of lingua sacra in the Western Church or any similiar mentality in the East.

NB Though what irritates me about the "brothers" using Arabic is the fact that the Nation of Islam is anything but Muslim, masquerading fakes who aren't acknowledged as believers by any real Middle Eastern Muslim worth his salt. They are considered to be a cult, and as heterodox as the Druze.

The exclusive use of the Arabic language is derived from the fact that it is considered to be the tongue favored by God. The Koran cannot be translated and that particular medium of language through which revelation was received by Mohammad is not considered to be a trivial detail, but an integral aspect that provides heavy support to what Islam sees as proof of the Koran's divine origin. Arabic is a very poetic language, and the Koran's eloquence and alleged "grammatical flawlessness" received by an allegedly illiterate man is a cardinal point that is continously stressed upon by Muslims when spreading their religion.

All prayers, even private, are conducted in Arabic, and in strict Muslim schools, non-Arab Muslims in places like Pakistan probably memorize the whole Koran in Arabic, without understanding it before they learn to say their own name in their own language. They take the Koran as the Word of God in its every minute detail, from grammer, to phrasing, to the general idea it conveys, to the exact sentence structure, to the pronunciation, more than fundamentalists do the Bible.

In IC XC
Samer

Hey, Samer, thanks for the response. (I thought I was getting a little too "linguistics" for a response in this forum.)

I'm not sure that this phenomenon is reserved to the Moslems alone. I see clear parallels with the "Latin is It" group in Western Catholicism, and the Buddhist chanters, and the Native Americans who chant in incomprehensible phrases.

I know that the Islams have no respect for the Nation of Islam here in the US, considering it as we would the 'vagantes'. I was not trying to 'validate' the NoI guy, it is just that his presence stimulated an idea.

But I'm asking a more general question: What about the use of incomprehensible verbalizations as a sign of 'sanctity'? It's not just a question of the Latinites, or the Old Church Slavonicites, or others. I believe it to be a general phenomenon.

Blessings!

...the Nation of Islam is anything but Muslim, masquerading fakes who aren't acknowledged as believers by any real Middle Eastern Muslim worth his salt.

True, but there are American blacks who have converted to or are born into real Islam, specifically the Sunni branch.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

I would like to comment on the previous posts in this thread regarding the words MANY and ALL in the Words of Institution.

Was the Passover Lamb sacrificed for ALL the Isrealites? Yes, everyone in the house was required to eat the Lamb.

Was the Blood of the Lamb shed for ALL? No it was not. The blood was placed on the doorposts ONLY for the "firstborn" - the MANY.

One theological implication is that when one becomes a Christian, they indeed beneft from the Sacrifice of the Lamb, as all of Isreal did. However, not ALL Christians will remain faithful to the end of their lives, and enter into the Kingdom, as the firstborn sons of God, having allowed both the Body AND Blood to benefit them, but MANY will. Also note and compare the Passover with the fact that it was not until "after" Jesus had already died as the Paschal Lamb for ALL, that the soldier pierced His side, from which came Water and Blood.

Regardless of what Jesus meant, He used the word MANY for a reason. It was a terrible mistake to have changed His Words. I hope you will all join with me in prayer that it will be corrected soon.

Dear Mirfsem

You are completely correct in your analogy and conclusions... I have posted an excerpt (below) from the Catechism of the Council of Trent which clearly explains why these words were chosen by the Apostles and the Church:


I strongly urge everyone on the forum to read the entire passage (i have only posted a portion) and to realize the gravity of these changes. There is no precedent in Catholic Tradition (East or West) for such changes. In fact I have primary sources to investigate but secondary sources say these changes first appeared in Protestant communion services.

sincerely

Kristoff

Ignatius,

//Would the Orthodox consider the absence of an explicit epiclesis to make the Catholic Eucharist to be without grace? Or would this just be another "We don't know" situation? (it's not like the Church didn't consider the Holy Spirit to be the one making Christ present in the Eucharist, at least as far as I can tell.) //

Some Catholic/Orthodox Churches do not have Words of Institution in their Anaphoras either. Same difference.


Joe

How in heck did a discussion on the Tridentine liturgy turn into a discusion on the liturgical languages of the Eastern Rite, Nation of Islam, and many other issues?

Joe