For some time in Russia the argument had been made, perhaps trying to parallel arguments made in the West regarding the moment of consecration, that the bread and wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the epiclesis, or invocation of the Holy Spirit. For those who had been taught this, it would have been noticed and they may well have thought that the sacrifice had not been offered. Okay. That might be understandable in the pastoral situation of late 19th c. Russia, but the parishes which Overbeck was trying to plant were not in Russia. Much less were those which Mathew tried to establish in England. Nevertheless, the WRV of the Antiochian Archdiocese received the tradition of an invocation in the Canon through Moscow.
This is an oddity because even St. Nicholas of Cabasilas pointed out that the invocation did occur in the West, but it did so during the offertory (i.e., "Veni, sanctificator omnipotens æterne Deus, et benedic hoc sacrificium, tuo sancto nomini præparatum.") rather than after the Words of Institution as is done in the Antiochian (the so-called "Byzantine") Rite. It is at least alluded that both some sort of invocation and the Words of Institution are necessary for a valid Eucharist, the order may differ depending upon the Rite. This is not necessarily so, because one of the monophysite liturgies (Chaldean?, I can't recall now which one) does not have the Words of Institution, and the Coptic liturgy calls down not the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, but the Son. Be that as it may, the most normative Christian pattern would certainly include some sort of an invocation and the Words of Institution.
Fr. Adrian Fortescue suggested in his commentary, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, that there seems to have been an invocation somewhere near to the Supra quæ propitio in the Leonine Sacramentary but which was lost to the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great, but what its form might have been is unknonwn. More recent scholarship has called into question that there was an invocation in the Roman Mass at all.
Whatever may be the case, we know that the Canon of the Roman Rite was virtually unchanged from the time of St. Gregory the Great until 1962 when St. Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary was added in two places. When the Council of Florence was convened there was never any concern whatsoever given by the Orthodox about the Rite of Rome. The bread was discussed, and various other things but the Rite itself was never held as problematic.
This being the case, I do not like the fact--even with the authority of the Holy Synod of Moscow and Antioch--that the Roman Rite has been altered for "pastoral reasons." I wish it were possible to get back to the authentic Rite since it cannot be shown to be defective in any sense whatsoever. In fact, it is more ancient than and is at least a venerable as the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom. I make no comment regarding the Liturgy of St. Tikhon and its reworking at all as my concern and focus has always been the Roman Rite.
But I don't think that anything will change and more's the pity. We could have the real root and trunk, rather than a paste job.
Yes, I have heard all of these arguments for retaining the Byzantine epiclesis before. One must never underestimate the sensitivities of the Byzantines! Of course a certain "English born Greek bishop" has stated that there cannot be a western rite in England because it might upset a Greek and confuse a Serb!
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame it would be to confuse a Greek or a Serb rather than potentially reach out to the English themselves from within their own heritage. English on that lovely island should understand that they are the Christian immigrants in their native homes now. (What balderdash.)
ReplyDeleteBravo, Father!
ReplyDeleteThe ancient Anaphora which does not contain the words of institution is that of Ss. Addai and Mari, which is actually associated with the "Nestorians" rather than with the "Monophysites."
BJA,
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing which Anaphora it was. I just couldn't recall and I appreciate having the exact detail.
The Catholic editions of this mass have reinserted the words of institution. According to Catholic sources it was felt that perhaps the words of consecration were considered as too sacral to be printed and were recited from memory.
ReplyDeleteIt was from this group of "Nestorians" that for a short time the east syrian liturgy was reunited with Byzantium in the last century and even though promised their syraic tradition were quickly Russified.
Dale,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how these patterns repeat themselves throughout history of the Church, no matter who's absorbing who. The WRO should take particular note of the tragic decay of the Byzantine Rite in Sicily and southern Italy. Fortescue gives a particularly interesting account in his book *The Uniate Eastern Churches* (1923). It's fascinating both to compare and contrast this situation to WRO (see next comment).
"It is not surprising that the Byzantine rite in Italy should gradually die out. For one thing there were no bishops of this rite. Those who followed it were subject to Latin Ordinaries. It was not till the need before pressing, through the coming of the Albanians, that the Holy See established ordaining bishops for the Italo-Greeks. Even then, as we shall see, these had no jurisdiction. Before that, sometimes a wandering Greek bishop from the Levant was invited to ordain, sometimes such travelling prelates usurped jurisdiction over those of their rite in Italy; generally, in spite of the canons, the Italo-Greek clergy were ordained according to the Latin rite by the Ordinaries. Naturally these Ordinaries preferred their own rite, and tried to put down what seemed so startling an exception to the uniformity of their dioceses.
ReplyDelete"Then the neighbours of the Italo-Greeks neither understood nor liked their ways. Nearly all Christians of the Byzantine rite were schismatics and bitter opponents of the Papacy. It is not surprising that there should be suspicion of those in Italy who used a rite now associated with schism. The Italo-Greeks were looked upon as an inferior caste, tainted with schism; they were always suspect of sharing the heretical views of the East on such questions as that of Purgatory and the Papacy. One of the great disputes between Catholics and Orthodox was whether the use of azyme bread for the Eucharist be lawful. The Italo-Greeks were suspect from the very fact that their bread was leavened; though, of course, this does not really imply any wrong view about azyme.
"Lastly, the preponderance of the surrounding Roman rite had a tendency to overwhelm that of Constantinople. The Byzantine parishes were few and scattered. It was difficult and annoying to abstain from receiving Sacraments. It was so much simpler to conform to the common use of the country. So we find always the same story. The bishops put down the Byzantine rite in one place; in another the Latin neighbours protest against it, and suspect its users of all kinds of heresies; in yet another the Italo-Greeks themselves, weary of annoyance and suspicion, petition the Holy See that they may turn Latin. The really curious point to notice in the whole story is how extremely unwilling the Popes were to let these people do so. They could have crushed the whole Byzantine rite in Italy, over and over again, with the greatest possible ease, making all Italy Latin. That is what most Protestants think Popes always want to do. The truth is the exact contrary. In this case, too, Rome was faithful to its traditional policy. The Popes have never made the slightest attempt to Romanize people of other rites. (1) They show always the most complete indifference to the rite a man uses. Indeed, if anything, it would seem as if Popes rather disliked a man turning Latin. At any rate, they keep to the principle that a man should remain faithful to his own rite, not lightly changing it. It is true that there are a few cases in which a Pope confirms what some local bishop has done in abolishing the Byzantine rite in his diocese, or concedes the petition of the people to become Latins. But, on the whole, the situation is the reverse of this. Constantly the Pope, in spite of the local bishop, in spite of the wish of the Italo-Greeks themselves, refuses to allow them to change their rite. That it remained so long in spite of all obstacles is due to the persistent way in which Rome maintains it." (pp. 102-104)
Footnote: (1) "I believe this is strictly true; that all cases of the change from another rite to that of Rome have come from persistent demands of the people themselves or, at any rate, from other Latins, not from the Pope. The purifying of the Roman rite from late mediaeval accretions is another matter."
I am not too certain that I completely agree with your summation of the Greek rite in Italy, it has been dying out for almost a thousand years. No western rite community has existed in Byzantine Orthodoxy for more than a generation. Presently there are indeed two diocese for the Italo-Greeks, one in Sicily and the other in Lungro in Southern Italy; there has also been a revival of the "purity" of the rite. The College of St. Athanasios has trained clergy in the rite for some time; nothing like this has ever existed in western rite Orthodoxy, and in reference to present best possibility for the western rite in Byzantium, the Philippines, it has already been stated by one of the Australian priests, Fr. John D'Alton, that the western liturgy is only temporary until such time as "the regular liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can be learned."
ReplyDeleteDale said,
ReplyDelete"The Catholic editions of this mass have reinserted the words of institution."
It should be noted that Rome has since given its approval to this liturgy, and the controversial anaphora, in its original form (i.e. without the insertion of explicit verba, a latinization). This is discussed in the 2001 document, Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East:
The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision.
The document then goes on to explain why, noting also that, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.
Fr. Winfrey,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for posting this! I was preparing to email you asking you about your opinion about the inserted Epiclesis. I appreciate your opinion on the matter.
Peace be with you
Alan,
ReplyDeleteYou're most welcome and I hope that my blog continues to have information and posts that are informative and interesting to a wide audience.
As I wrote in this entry, I don't believe that an invocation should be found in the Mass of St. Peter, but I have a slightly different thought about the "Liturgy of St. Tikhon." My premise is that there is a deliberate and conscious invocation in the 1928 Canon (and earlier Amercian BCPs) because of the agreement made with the Scottish Episcopal Church in the consecration of Bp. Samuel Seabury. As such, the 1928 Canon legitimately has an invocation as an organic component of its use. From that vantage point all that happened in the St. Tikhon form was to tighten the language used to be more specific. There are certainly things which were done to the 28 Canon that I think unfortunate.
Thank you for reading my blog. I sincerely appreciate it. God bless you.
Fr. Guy,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Anglican form, I completely agree with you. Since the American canon, coming via the Scottish Church has always had an invocation of the Holy Ghost in the eastern position, it is only naturally that this tradition remain, especially since it is of long standing tradition. I am also very satisfied with the strengthening of the invocation in the Orthodox recession of this liturgy. My only, small, preference would be to return to a more specifically Syriac intent: "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 US AND UPON these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine." And also that the Communion Devotions may be recited before the communion of the people (I was surprised to see that in New Zealand Western Rite Deanery this is offered as an alternative to placing them before the Sursum Corda.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the correction!!! I was in seminary in the early to late seventies...so I readily admit to being very, very out of date!!! Well, perhaps old and cranky might be more appropriate!
From the ROCOR side - our epiclesis in the Rite of St. Gregory exists purely because it is required by act of Synod. One of our ROCOR bishops has stated that the Roman canon already has an adequate epiclesis. However, until there is an act of Synod - we're stuck with what we have.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the modern Roman rite has an epiclesis. Scholars of the Liturgical Movement in the 19th and early 20th c. seemed certain that the Roman rite used to have a descending epiclesis. So, it isn't all that strange.
Based upon that context, Overbeck had argued for the use of the 'Mozarabic epiclesis' (which we now have in the Sarum and English rites.) The Byzantine epiklesis is also in our monastic uses of the Roman rite.
No comment on the 'St. Tikhon's'. We don't have a rite based upon a BCP canon. (All of ours have the Roman canon - even the Celtic or Liturgy of St. John the Divine, which is the Gelasian.)
A few comments:
ReplyDeleteThe best study of the anaphora of Addai and Mari (together with a critical edition and commentary) is: *The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari* by A. Gelston (Oxford University Press, 1992).
In the tripartite discussions between Rome, the Chaldean Catholic Church and the "Assyrian" Church which went on between 1984 and 2003, and which resolved all significant theological and "liturgical" differences between the two, but which were broken off around 2003 because significant lay elements in the Assyrian Church were opposed to "reconciliation" with Rome (and their Chaldean "sister") on nationalistic grounds, Rome agreed not so much to accept the validity of that anaphora without the Words of Institution, as not to condemn it -- and made the "insistent request" of the Assyrians that in the event of their achieving "full communion" the Assyrians would insert (and always use) the words of Institution thenceforward in that anaphora (their other two anaphoras, that of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, contain the Words). As one Catholic intimately involved in the evaluation of those talks once wrote to me:
"The CDF's allowance of the continued use of the Addai-Mari anaphora supposed an untinterrupted usage (the fact of which is disputed) that should be respected. The CDF emphatically did not intend this anaphora to be treated as a model for possible eucharistic prayers that omit the words of institution. Unfortunately, some commentators interpreted the CDF action in this sense.
The volume you refer to was an issue of the journal Divinitas N.S. 47 (2004) devoted to the topic. Though printed by the Vatican Press, the journal is entirely independent and not an official publication of the Holy See.
An excellent collection of essays on the topic is: Uwe Michael Lang, ed., Die Anaphora von Addai und Mari, Nova & Vetera, Bonn, 2007 (ISBN 878-3-936741-39-1)."
As to my own thoughts on an Anglican-like anaphora, see:
http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/03/thoughts-on-an-anglican-use-mass/
William,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your information. I appreciate the very specific and detailed references you have given. This is wonderful.
I remember reading your thoughts on an anglican use mass some time ago, but I'll go back and refresh my memory about it. I have enjoyed your comments there for some time as they are reasoned and balanced. I'm glad to see you comment here too.
Ari, I was under the impression that Fr. Michael's, now living in England, "English Liturgy" does indeed have an Anglican form of the canon based upon the first prayer book liturgy. Please see: http://www.orthodoxresurgence.com/petroc/english.htm
ReplyDeleteHence although not exactly the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as it exists in the Antiochian Archdiocese, it is indeed far closer to St. Tikhon than to the Roman rite.
Dale - the development of the English Liturgy by Metropolitan Hilarion and Fr. Michael began from the Russian text of the decision by the Russian Synod's Commission on Anglican and Old Catholic Affairs in answer to the letter by Patriarch St. Tikhon, St. John Kochurov, and others asking if the Book of Common Prayer could be adapted for the use of Westerners (Episcopalians, and Anglicans) converting to Orthodoxy. They left the implementation to each diocesan bishop. Among the directives - that 'older source materials' should be used to fill in the deficiencies in the Book of Common Prayer.
ReplyDeleteWith the English Rite the BCP that ROCOR began with was indeed the 1549 English BCP. The first change is that the entire Sarum canon was substituted for the 1549 canon. The order of the 1549 was otherwise retained - to keep it familiar with Anglicans. The idea of the whole liturgy was to do what had been originally intended with the new Anglican liturgy: a parish usage in English after the Sarum use (then legislated as the use for all territory under the crown, and later with references to the Pope removed, and certain later feasts excised.) The only material from the 1549 left in ROCOR's English liturgy is the Prayer of Humble Access, the Peace, the placing of the Great Blessing, and the Memorials (Prayer for the Whole Church made Orthodox by some heavy editing). There is also the Post-Communion - but *that* is from the Liturgy of St. James. The censing hymn "Holy Holy Holy" is from Bishop Thomas Ken of the English Non-Jurors (the same that sought reception by Moscow.) I do not know what is un-Orthodox about the hymn. The epiclesis is from the Gothic Missal. The hymn "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" is also originally from St. James, and then the Gallican (it is another feature of Russian WRITE liturgies to have a Western cherubic hymn.) Otherwise - the ROCOR English Liturgy is primarily Sarum - I would say over 90 percent... particularly when one considers the changeable parts. Sarum propers are used. The chant in practice is Merbecke and Sarum plainchant.
So - no, not really close to the AWRV St. Tikhon's - which is an adaptation of an American BCP. Anglicans outside the US are more familiar with the 1549 and 1718 than the 1928 US.
Given all of that - I would find it contentious to claim that the English rite is closer to the St. Tikhon's than the Roman rite. Given that the ceremonial and propers for it are from the Sarum use as well, it is farther from both. Given that it is about 90 percent Sarum, and Sarum differs less than 5 percent from the 'St. Gregory' - I'd say that would make the English rite still very close to the Roman rite.
The English rite is only intended for any converting Anglican groups. Our 'green field' missions tend to be Sarum (which, is almost identical to the Tridentine rite - but has some differences which are in common with the English BCP tradition: such as the 'Collect for Purity' at the Procession which is prayed in station at the Rood Screen.) Of course, not purist Sarum - which we cannot do unless we have a cathedral, with multiple ministers, etc. Rather, it is adapted also for the use of missions and parishes.
We also have (primarily for monastic communities) the Liturgy of Saint Gregory after that of Mount Royal. (Which according to Dom Augustine, via Abbott David, is based rather upon the Carthusian Missal - which is rooted in turn upon the 11th c. use of Lyon.)
That describes the Saint Petroc paruchia. Christminster uses a monastic use of the Roman rite similar to Mount Royal. Fr. Anthony Nelson uses the Missale Romanum adapted afer the Moscow Synod's decision a la "Overbeck". There are a few others that are bi-ritual, though they don't advertise.
The Antiochian Anglican Use is primarily from the Roman Missal, with about the same number of Anglican bits and pieces that you mention in your denomination's publication...the Antiochian is also based upon the "Russian Observations of the Book of Common Prayer." The Communion Devotions remain about the same in both editions.
ReplyDeleteI mistyped, I meant the "Prayer of Humble Access" not the "Communion Devotions."
ReplyDeleteHere is the beginning of the ROCOR canon:
"All glory be to Thee Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, Who of Thy tender mercy didst give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; Who made there, by His own oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in His Holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that His precious death and Sacrifice, until His coming again."
Here is the Antiochian:
"All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that
thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ
to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his
own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of
the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel
command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious
death and sacrifice, until his coming again:"
Looks fairly similar to me...but then who am I to make such an observation! And looks pretty much like the BCP communion rite as well.
Dale,
ReplyDeleteThat would be the beginning of the Eucharistic Canon in the Anglican BCP. I suspect that the "ROCOR" one is taken from the English BCP, while I know that the Antiochian one was taken from the 1928 American BCP.
The Prayer of Humble Access is:
"We do not presume to come unto this thy table trusting in our own righteousness…"
Fr. Guy,
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly my point, the ROCOR "English Liturgy" most certainly does have a canon based upon a BCP model, even though Ari has stated, "No comment on the 'St. Tikhon's'. We don't have a rite based upon a BCP canon. (All of ours have the Roman canon - even the Celtic or Liturgy of St. John the Divine, which is the Gelasian.)" It is this statement, as well as others, that I disagree with.
For someone converting to Orthodoxy we must always meet them where they are at and worry about details later.
ReplyDeleteI am grateful for all the work being done to make the Orthodox Faith accessible to all (including me a former American Evangelical now in the OCA). May God always raise up people with a heart to do this work!
However I do wonder about this:
if everything is so inter-ealated and our liturgies are expressing so similar a faith...why are there so many differences...why so many obstructions to full communion...is this primarily a pastoral problem rather than theological?
What do I as a concerned layman do to promote unity among Christians who hold that salvation is indeed theosis?
And now, since this discussion was held, there is active Orthodox Western Rite mission work occurring in England, thanks to Fr. Thomas (Harry) Cook, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Their website is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.westernriteorthodoxuk.org.uk/index.html