www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Roman Epiclesis

One of the great historical controversies between East and West (thankfully considered today a non-issue by most) dealt with the exact moment of the consecration of the gifts of bread and wine in the Liturgy. The West has always associated that with the repetition of the Lord's words in the Words of Institution: ("This is my Body...This is my Blood"). The East has historically held that the change of the elements was not completed until the Epiclesis when the priest would invoke the Holy Spirit upon the gifts and the people present. This happens after the Words of Institution in the Byzantine liturgy but before the commemoration of the Mother of God (in many parishes this is taken silently while the people sing: "We praise you, we bless you, we thank you, O Lord..."):

Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented. And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ. (He blesses the holy Bread.) Deacon (in a low voice): Amen. Priest (in a low voice): And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ. (He blesses the holy Cup.) Deacon (in a low voice): Amen. Priest (in a low voice): Changing them by Your Holy Spirit. (He blesses them both.) Deacon (in a low voice): Amen. Amen. Amen. Priest (in a low voice): So that they may be to those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, confidence before You, and not in judgment or condemnation.

In the traditional Roman Canon of the Mass there is no Epiclesis which sometimes was a cause for concern for Eastern Christians. Some felt that an important part of the Trinitarian nature of the consecration was missing. Orthodox St Nicholas Cabasilas found what he thought was an implicit epiclesis in these words of the Roman Mass:

"Humbly we ask it of thee, God almighty: bid these things be carried by the hands of thy holy angel up to thy altar on high, into the presence of thy divine majesty. And may those of us who by taking part in the sacrifice of this altar shall have received the Body and Blood of thy Son, be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing: through the same Christ our Lord. Amen." (Supplices te rogamus...)

However, those Western-Rite Orthodox who have adapted the Roman Canon of the Mass have always added an explicit epiclesis to their liturgical texts.

The new Eucharistic prayers in use in the Roman Rite contain an explicit epiclesis. For example, before the Words of Institution in Eucharistic prayer 2:

"Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ."

What is often not noticed is that this is only part of the epiclesis. The prayer of the epiclesis is not just for the change of the gifts but also for the faithful: "send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts." Following the Words of Institution, the Memorial Acclamation and the Anamnesis (remembrance of God's saving deeds) Eucharist 2 continues:

"In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes this twofold nature of the Epiclesis:

"The Holy Spirit makes present the mystery of Christ (1104-1109)

"Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present. The Epiclesis ("invocation upon") is the intercession in which the priest begs the Father to send the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, so that the offerings may become the body and blood of Christ and that the faithful by receiving them, may themselves become a living offering to God. Together with the Anamnesis, the epiclesis is at the heart of each sacramental celebration, most especially of the Eucharist:

"You ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine . . . the Blood of Christ I shall tell you: the Holy Spirit comes upon them and accomplishes what surpasses every word and thought. . . . Let it be enough for you to understand that it is by the Holy Spirit, just as it was of the Holy Virgin and by the Holy Spirit that the Lord, through and in himself, took flesh. [Here quoting St John Damascene.]

"The Holy Spirit's transforming power in the liturgy hastens the coming of the kingdom and the consummation of the mystery of salvation. While we wait in hope he causes us really to anticipate the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity. Sent by the Father who hears the epiclesis of the Church, the Spirit gives life to those who accept him and is, even now, the "guarantee" of their inheritance. In every liturgical action the Holy Spirit is sent in order to bring us into communion with Christ and so to form his Body. The Holy Spirit is like the sap of the Father's vine which bears fruit on its branches. The most intimate cooperation of the Holy Spirit and the Church is achieved in the liturgy. The Spirit who is the Spirit of communion, abides indefectibly in the Church. For this reason the Church is the great sacrament of divine communion which gathers God's scattered children together. Communion with the Holy Trinity and fraternal communion are inseparably the fruit of the Spirit in the liturgy. The epiclesis is also a prayer for the full effect of the assembly's communion with the mystery of Christ. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit" have to remain with us always and bear fruit beyond the Eucharistic celebration. The Church therefore asks the Father to send the Holy Spirit to make the lives of the faithful a living sacrifice to God by their spiritual transformation into the image of Christ, by concern for the Church's unity, and by taking part in her mission through the witness and service of charity."

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Fourth Edition, 27 March 1975) explains how the epiclesis is understood in the Roman liturgy:

"55. The chief elements making up the eucharistic prayer are these:

"c. Epiclesis: in special invocations the Church calls on God's power and asks that the gifts offered by human hands be consecrated, that
is, become Christ's body and blood, and that the victim to be received in communion be the source of salvation for those who will partake."

This pattern of the two part epiclesis in the Roman liturgy can be found in the other Eucharistic prayers:

Prayer 3

And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
----------
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.

Prayer 4

And that we might live no longer for ourselves but for him, he sent the Holy Spirit from you, Father, as his first gift to those who believe, to complete his work on earth and bring us the fullness of grace. Father may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord as we celebrate the great mystery which he left us as an everlasting covenant.
----------
Father, we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption. We recall Christ's death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension to your right hand; and looking forward to his coming in glory, we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world. Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church; and by your Holy Spirit, gather all who share this one bread and one cup into the one body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.

Prayer Reconciliation II

Therefore we celebrate the reconciliation Christ has gained for us. We ask you to sanctify these gifts by the power of your Spirit, as we now fulfill your Son's command.
----------
Lord our God, your Son has entrusted to us this pledge of his love. We celebrate the memory of this death and resurrection and bring you the gift you have given us, the sacrifice of reconciliation. Therefore, we ask you, Father, to accept us, together with your Son. Fill us with his Spirit through our sharing in this meal. May he take away all that divides us.
----------

So it would be inaccurate to describe the Roman Epiclesis as only occurring before the Words of Institution. In the revised Roman liturgy it is placed both before and after Christ's words. One could even say the Epiclesis is not completed in the new Roman liturgy until after the Words of Institution.

Sometimes we may tend to think of the epiclesis as only pertaining to the gifts but it also pertains to us. Fr Lev Gillet (A Monk of the Eastern Church) reminds us in his brilliant commentary on the Divine Liturgy:

"Where will the Spirit be sent? `Upon these gifts here offered.' The transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is not some work of priestly magic. The text of the liturgy declares: `Making the change by Thy Holy Spirit.' This change, which is the response God offers to our prayer, is not an end in itself. It is accomplished `that they might be for those who partake for the purification of soul, for the forgiveness of sins,' and also `for the communion of Thy Holy Spirit.' All is accomplished by the Spirit and in the Spirit.

"There is one other very important point to note. The priest requests: `Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts...' He does not ask that the Spirit come first upon the Gifts, but that He come in the first instance upon us. This is the moment of Pentecost in the eucharistic liturgy. The Spirit descends into our hearts before He descends upon the material elements of bread and wine, the objects of offering and consecration. Do we really perceive the significance of this inner, immaterial Pentecost? Do we, in this moment, truly experience the presence and power of the Spirit given to us? Even those who will not communicate sacramentally can, if they turn towards God with all their heart, receive in this moment the gift of the Holy Spirit. Certain barriers or hindrances may prohibit our access to the sacrament; but the Spirit moves where He wills, and nothing can limit Him who is Love without limit." (Serve the Lord with Gladness, pp. 50-51.)

For the most part, debates as to the exact timing of the consecration are a thing of the past. The liturgical tradition of the East climaxes the consecration at the epiclesis. The Western liturgical tradition emphasizes the words of Christ in the Words of Christ but also now explicitly recognizes the epiclesis both before and afterwards. In a recent decree regarding a liturgy used in the Assyrian Church of the East, Rome recognized the validity of the eucharistic consecration in a liturgy (The Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari) which contains an epiclesis but no Words of Institution:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUASCH.HTM

From the Roman perspective there could be no way to pinpoint the "moment of consecration" in this Assyrian anaphora. The Assyrians, however, consider the epiclesis the most holy moment.

Perhaps this could be a model for Eastern Catholics who sometimes have downplayed the epiclesis. There is no need to resurrect the old debate as to exactly when the consecration occurs. But, certainly we can recognize that in the Byzantine liturgy the epiclesis is the climax of the eucharistic prayer and that we should recognize that climax in our attitude and response (a profound bow or a sign of the cross). For we are acknowledging not only the profound mystery of the Eucharist but we are also asking for the Spirit to transform us in this great Gift.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Thanks for the comparisons, David.

However, those Western-Rite Orthodox who have adapted the Roman Canon of the Mass have always added an explicit epiclesis to their liturgical texts.

Which is wrong: IMO really obnoxious, reverse uniatism, just as offensive as tearing down iconostases in Byzantine Catholic churches back in the 1950s. The Gregorian canon of the Roman Mass is ancient, perhaps even older than the Byzantine anaphoras of SS. Basil and John Chrysostom. It seems perhaps even a kind of phyletism to mess with it, as wrongheaded as Catholic attempts to latinize the Eastern rites to "make them (more) Catholic'. St Nicholas Cabasilas believed the Gregorian canon has an implicit, ascending epiklesis. The main point with the rites of all the apostolic Churches is that the great change (what the Latins call transubstantiation) happens. The question of WHEN in the anaphora/canon/Eucharistic prayer it happens isn't worth going into schism over. And look at the variety among the traditional rites: the Assyrians haven't got the words of institution!

http://oldworldrus.com

I took this from latinliturgy.com, and it looks like some sort of epiclesis, though I have yet to take Roman Liturgy 101:
Veni sanctificator
omnipotens aeterne Deus, et
(+) benedic hoc sacrificium
tuo sancto nomini praeparatum.

How does this differ from the
Supplices te rogamus?

In Christ,

Michael

I'm no expert on the Latin Mass. St Nicholas Cabasilas' point (from his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy) is to rebut those Latins who would deny the need for an epiclesis after the Words of Institution. So, he was looking for something later on in the Canon of the Mass.

The section "Veni, sanctificator..." is actually before the Canon. Whether they were ever understood as an epiclesis I don't know. My guess is they would not be but would be a petition for a blessing upon the gifts--not for their transformation.

There is an epiklesis in the Tridentine Latin Mass (Canon of St. Gregory the Great). I used to go to Latin Mass before we had a Byzantine Mission here in town...and I had my mother's old missal which contained both Latin and English text...and it does contain the epiklesis.

Many years.

spdundas
Deaf Byzantine

As far as I know some liturgical scholars have only detected an implicit epiclesis in the Tridentine Mass. Some would say there is no epiclesis in it.

In doing some research on this subject I came across this post made in the CINEAST archives several years ago by Fr David Petras:

http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/199801/0329.html

I'd be curious as to thougths from participants here as to section 2 ("When do the gifts change?") in light of Rome's recent acceptance of the validity of consecration of the Assyrian Liturgy without the Words of Institution?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

IMO, I don't think that this is a critical issue. IOW, I think that it is okay for Easterns to believe that the entire Anaphora -- well, even beginning with the Prokomedia -- effects the change, while the Latins believe that the words of institution are the precise moment. To me, that's a liturgical detail proper to each church as long as: (1) the Orthodox don't try to make the Catholics reject their own view regarding the words of institution and (2) the Catholics don't try to universalize their own view on that point. I think that the two churches, officially, are past this one. On the level of the laity -- particularly, in this case, the RC laity -- I think that there is much education remaining to do on this point.

Dear Dave,

You bring up a fascinating subject!

It was the contention of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th century especially that the Roman Mass had an epiclesis that eventually got "lost" somehow and was part of the invocation you mention regarding the Angel etc.

They revamped the Tridentine Mass to include what some Orthodox scholars say was the original epiclesis found in old documents that had disappeared by the time of St Nicholas Cabasilas.

It is evident that both the Orthodox Western Rites that use it, and the Roman Novus Ordo, believe that the invocation before the Consecration is an epiclesis.

My wife's grandfather wrote, in Ukrainian, the "Epiclesis" (published by Logos, Redemptorist Fathers).

In his work (that took him six years to complete) he reviews all known liturgies (he travelled to Europe to visit all sorts of libraries).

He concluded, with Goar, that the Epiclesis is a kind of "double transformation" a prayer for the Spirit to come down on the consecrated Gifts and also to transfigure us as well.

In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, there were, of course, two schools of thought on this. There are those who believe the Epiclesis is part of the Consecratory Prayer whose efficacy already occured at the Words of Institution and that nothing really happens at the moment when the Epiclesis is invoked.

The second, Byzantine school believes the Epiclesis to complete the prayer of Consecration and to effect the change invoked by the Words of Institution. Theologians belonging to this party were called "extreme epiclesists."

St Dmitry of Rostov and others of the Kyivan School held that the entire Canon is necessary to effect the change, that it is an invocation of the entire Trinity and that it is an integral whole, Anamnesis, Words of Institution and Epiclesis.

I think the Kyivan School represents the best of Eastern thought on this subject and I believe St Nicholas Cabasilas would also be in agreement with it.

I once asked Fr. Meletius Solovey, OSBM, (+with the Saints give rest, O Lord!) an author of a book on the Divine Liturgy from the Catholic perspective and asked him when the "moment of consecration" took place in our Liturgy.

He said that we know that God makes this wonderful miracle and turns bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ during the Divine Liturgy.

He said we really can't pinpoint the exact moment when God makes this miracle happen.

But, he added, we know that following the Eucharistic Canon, after the final "Amen" of the Epiclesis, there is no more bread and wine on the Altar, but the Body and Blood of our Lord.

As a postscript, I wanted to say that St Nicholas Cabasilas was and is greatly admired by Roman Catholic theologians who have called him "solid" "Patristic" etc.

Cabasilas' liturgical mysticism actually led him to devotion to the Heart of Christ, something that also characterized the spirituality of St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain.

Alex

I agree. I think the Churches are past this also. I don't know if most of the laity are.

Re: Catholics `trying to universalize their own view' on this. Question: Does anyone know of any place in the CCC that fixes the time of the change?

What is Orthodox thought on the Assyrian liturgy which lacks the Words of Institution? That liturgy does have an epiclesis.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave --

I think that the CCC has gotten ahead of the laity on this one. Most RC laity still think that the "consecration" is the time of the change, whereas I think that the CCC is more glib -- probably because it has to take into account the non-Latin liturgies that do not have that approach. My point is that this element in the CCC has not trickled down to the level of most RC laity, in my experience.

Brendan

Dear Dave,

It is perhaps the existing liturgical practice of the Roman Church that demonstrates its belief in the Change than any current theological or catechetical document.

In the Latin Rite, following the "Take this all of you . . . for this is My Body" the Priest raises the consecrated Host for the adoration of the faithful. He does the same following the consecration of the Wine in the Chalice. Clearly, the Words of Institution pinpoint the moment of Consecration in the Latin Rite given the adoration offered to the Eucharist immediately following them.

This is also why an Epiclesis before the Consecration, as obtains in the Novus Ordo, is more germane and one Roman Catholic professor of theology told me that the advance Epiclesis united with the Words of Institution effect the Change.

Brendan is right and Orthodox theologians accept the Novus Ordo advance Epiclesis as something that has put to rest that entire issue for both East and West.

As for Assyrian liturgy, Russian Orthodox missionaries in the 18th century brought a group of Assyrian ("Nestorian") parishes into union with the Orthodox Church.

Although they used the Liturgies of the Orthodox Church, they also had their own Assyrian Liturgy which they used as is (minus the commemorations of Nestorius et al. of course!).

If anything, the Epiclesis would be the most important part of the Liturgy since, from the Eastern perspective, the Words of Institution are simply an historical event that the Invocation of the Spirit empowers and makes fruitful for us today.

Alex

I would agree. For example, note this presentation in The Essential Catholic Catechism by Alan Schreck which is keyed to the CCC and even has a foreword by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn:

"From this point on [after the Offertory], the Mass moves to the great Eucharistic Prayer during which the solemn Consecration of the bread and wine takes place. First, the celebrant prays that the Holy Spirit will make this offering of bread and wine acceptable, an offering `in spirit and truth' (John 4:23,24). This is called the epiclesis, or invocation of the Holy Spirit.

"Following this are the words of consecration, the words of Jesus himself, `This is my body...this is my blood...' (Mt 26:26,28,NAB) and "Do this in remembrance of me...' (Lk 22:10). Catholics believe that because the priest speaks in persona Christi, at this point the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At this climatic moment of the Mass the whole congregation reflects on the mystery of God's coming among us, and worships him in our midst.

"After the Consecration, the saving death and resurrection of Christ is comemorated explicitly, and another epiclesis is offered, this time calling down the Holy Spirit on the congregation, that, through receiving the Body of the Lord, it might become more fully the body of Christ." (p. 191)

A few points...First, I don't mean to overly criticize this work. There's a lot to commend in it. It is interesting to note the concept of two epicleses mentioned here. Another source I came across called the first one "a consecratory epiclesis" and the second one "a communion epiclesis." As far as I know, though, the theology behind the "epiclesis" is thoroughly Eastern and has been borrowed here for the revised Latin liturgy. In the Eastern tradition both elements are present (consecratory and communion) but are in one petition. I don't know the reason why the revised Latin rite decided on a two part epiclesis. For us, however, both parts are intimately connected.

To state as Shreck does, however, that "Catholics believe" that "at this point [the Words of Institution]" the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurs goes beyond the CCC. The CCC's lack of statement to that effect is either a major oversight or intentional. I think the latter, especially when one considers the emphasis put on the epiclesis in the CCC.

Alex makes an important observation:


In the Latin rite the priest genuflects at the Words of Institution--once after the words of Christ are spoken over the bread and the other after His words are spoken over the wine. The faithful then give their adoration (many will make a reverence at these times). It is after this when the final part of the epiclesis is given ("the communion epiclesis"). The priest makes a third genuflection just before he says: "This is the Lamb of God..." Many of the faithful make a third reverence as they approach for Communion (a bow or genuflection).

Eastern Catholic practice has usually mirrored the Latin theology on this. Reverences are usually shown by clergy and faithful for the Words of Institution but the epiclesis is often ignored. St Germanus of Constantinople (c 730 AD) in his work On the Divine Liturgy spoke of the priest invoking the Spirit "while bowing down." (SVSP edition, p. 99) At the epiclesis in the Coptic liturgy the priest kneels before the altar. In most Eastern Catholic parishes the priest stands erect while praying the epiclesis and there is no reverence afterwards. (A notable exception is the Melkite rubic which states that after the epiclesis the priest and deacon "both bow profoundly to the floor.")

Bishop George of the Van Nuys Eparchy issued a directive in a more tradtional direction:

http://www.eparchy-of-van-nuys.org/docs/newsletter_0006.html

According to the ancient tradition of the Church confirmed by the first Ecumenical Councils, the faithful are to stand—not kneel—for all public prayers from Vespers on Saturday evenings until Sunday evening Vespers in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. At the Divine Liturgy, the faithful are to make a profound bow—that is a bow at the waist—during the words of consecration and the during the invocation of the Holy Spirit at the epiclesis.
++++++++++

I don't know how this has worked out in practice. I know when I visited a parish in Portland last Spring many still kneeled at the Words of Institution and I did not observe any reverence made by the people at the epiclesis. I think the Latin viewpoint is still ascendant in many places.

If our theological tradition is equal to the Latin tradition then certainly could not we fully restore our theology of epiclesis? I do not mean in a narrow sense of pinpointing an exact moment for consecration--looking for a "Kodak moment" (to borrow a phrase from Stuart). But, just as the Roman practice is consistent with its traditional theology of consecration (with its genuflections at the proper times) can not our practice be consistent with our traditional theology of consecration? Why should our practice copy the Roman practice? Why should our practice be at variance with the practices of our Eastern brothers and sisters?

There has been a movement in Orthodox liturgical practice to take the epiclesis aloud and having the people join in saying: "Amen. Amen. Amen." Could not we Eastern Catholics adopt this practice (as well as the profound bow) as a way for our people to realize our traditional theology of the epiclesis (the importance of which is spelled out in the CCC)?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dave --

There is still also a lot of diversity in the Orthodox practice in this area as well. I'm sure you've seen your own fair share of practices when you were Orthodox, but for myself I've seen:

1. (Usually Greek) Orthodox churches where people kneel on pews for the entire epiclesis

2. Churches where people stand for the epiclesis, with some people crossing themselves, and others performing a more full reverence, touching the ground

3. Churches where many/most people perform a full prostration at the epiclesis.

I've always seen Orthodox cross themselves at the words of institution -- some will also bow more deeply than usual, but not everyone does.

You're right that there is a movement within Orthodoxy to take the epiclesis (and other parts of the anaphora) aloud .. which in my opinion is a good thing. For Orthodox, it helps the worshippers understand the meaning of the act, the meaning of the petition (most Orthodox already are generally aware of the importance of that part of the liturgy, as indicated by their body posture). For Eastern Catholics it could help to focus the attention more on the epiclesis.

It's hard, though, when RCs are writing books like the one you quoted, with some, probably very well-intentioned, misinformation contained in them -- it kind of supports the "Catholic is Catholic" POV, which is predominant in many circles, and perhaps moreso among RCs and older BCs. Again, much education is needed, ISTM.

Brendan

Dear Brendan and Dave,

There are a number of Orthodox who would feel that the laity reciting the "Amen" at the Epiclesis is a "usurpation" of the role of the Deacon or Priest and so actively discourage that.

I have no set views on the matter, just telling you this.

Ukrainian Catholic churches often regard the Epiclesis with a kind of "Latin disdain" and there is no real way for the laity to mark the Epiclesis nor is this encouraged.

In some of our parishes that are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" (Fr. Galadza at St Elias, for example) the matter is different.

A number also use that beautiful Lenten prayer to the Holy Spirit from the Third Hour, "O Lord who at the Third Hour didst send Thy Most Holy Spirit . . ." and do three prostrations.

Actually, the Old Believer typikon for laity contains many beautiful rites we can do throughout the Divine Liturgy that celebrates the various aspects of Salvation History.

Alex

The discovery of the Liturgy of St Peter (cf. the Glagolitic Mass thread) seems to confirm the ancient provenance of the Gregorian (Roman) Canon and its acceptability to the Orthodox. (The Russian Old Believers and a few others up through the 20th century have occasionally used a slightly modified Byzantine Liturgy that has at its heart the Roman Canon!)

Re: reverences during the anaphora, my church has a silent anaphora except for the traditional exclamations of the priest and the choir's responses. We cross ourselves and bow in four places: at the beginning of "It is proper and just...' ( Дoстoйнo и прaвeднo есть ) sung by the choir, at both audible parts of the words of institution (yes!) and at "We sing to you...' ( Teбe пoемъ ) sung again by the choir, the last anticipating the epiklesis, which the priest does quietly. Pretty much standard Russian practice. Interesting how the words of institution stand out while the epiklesis is "hidden': a visitor might assume the change takes place at the former! Of course the main point is the change happens by the end of the anaphora.

I've been to one Orthodox and one Ruthenian Catholic church (Anastasios'!) where the anaphora was said and sung aloud, with the congregation taking the deacon's responses at the now-prominent epiklesis, and was not offended: in that context it all made sense and in fact seemed very Orthodox. "Amen, amen, amen!'

I happen to like a silent anaphora because of the time-saving aspect, because the very first Byzantine Liturgy I ever went to did it this way and also because it is an obvious parallel with the Tridentine Mass.

In the Novus Ordo I like the parallel with the Orthodox understanding that the CCC and Brendan want to promote when the priest, hopefully holding the consecrated Host in one hand right over the raised chalice in the other, chants "Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso... ' ("Through Him, with Him, in Him...' ). The consecration is finished. (This can work with priest rightly facing ad orientem a.k.a. versus apsidem too.)

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]