When I was told that this Liturgy reformation was to put us into contact with our eastern heritage I assumed something that I shouldn't have. I figured that the reason for changing the term 'substance' to 'essence' was due to trying to explain the mystery of God in the terms of St. Gregory Palamas' essence vs. energies rather than the western Thomistic 'substance' and 'accidents'. I was told that that isn't why it was changed but rather that it was changed so that people wouldn't think God was a material substance like a desk or table. Well if they were familiar with Thomism, there are immaterial substances! So if this is their line of thinking when revising the Liturgy which is pretty shallow compared to my assumption, I am dismayed.

There is no such thing as an immaterial substance. Such fictional constructs are at the root of the many problems in the Western Church. Thank God Thomism has been given the boot! Aquinas should have been a better student of Albert the Great.

Could you please develop that idea?

I think Aquinas was closer to the Fathers and the East than the Thomists who followed him!

Who told you? Who is calling it a "Liturgy reformation":?



Why would it be explained in terms of St. Gregory Palamas if this saint can't even make it into the worship book?



Who told you this? Was this an official explanation from your Byzantine church? So far, I haven't read anything official answering the many questions raised on these forums.



Can you quote him. I am interested where St. Thomas Aquinas wrote this. I think it might have to do with the soul.



First, you have to explain WHO told you this and why you base your thinking on assumptions. Never assume.

Eddie

When the Liturgy is formed differently it is a Liturgy Reformation.

Immaterial substance was put forth by Aristotle in his Metaphysics and developed by Aquinas.

I was told this by a priest on the commission.

As far as assuming, I would like to change the term to 'surmise'.

Could you tell me when Thomism was given the proverbial boot? It is STILL the official starting place for western theology. Read Fides et Ratio!

So if immaterial substance is a fictional construct, what are angels? Material?

You know Ed, sometimes you know far more about the Byzantine faith than a Protestant inquirer would normally be expected to.

Essence vs. Substance....

I am sorry, but every time I hear that word during Liturgy, I cannot help but to think about master chef Emeril.......BAM here use some of that essence.....

ALSO, It is proper and just......TO WHAT? Where's the rest of it (to worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit...)? Are we truly dropping words and phrases like the Roman Catholic Church?

Mercy, peace....isn't there suppose to be more words to this sentence? Sounds like I am back in RC High School in Pittsburgh...

What is next, stating, "Word of the Lord" after the Gospel? We can always make the cross with our thumbs on our minds, lips, and heart as well before the Gospel.

I though the thief "confessed" to Jesus, not "professed". Is the thief now a teacher, and Jesus the student?

Lastly, I am sorry, but even though we are Greek Catholics, although not ethnically Greek, but Slavs, why are we using the word Theotokos? Bohorodica is the word we should be using! What is next, replacing Hospodi Pomiluj with Kyrie Eleison? I know, let's also replace Christos Voskrese with Kristos Anesti.

Dear Rusyn31,

Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord.
Faithful: It is proper and just.

In other words, it is proper and just to give thanks to the Lord. This is the congregation's formal assent to tbe beginning of the thanksgiving sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy - used in pretty much all the rites of the Church, and attested by the Fathers. Later, it was extended (probably to cover the now-silent prayers of the priest) with a repetition of the words preceeding the Creed ("(to worship) the Father and the Son..."). This was not done everywhere in Orthodoxy, and in fact as I recall the Old Believers did not use it. In effect, we are taking the dialogue in its full form, where the priest continues aloud by agreeing with the congregation's assent.

"Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise" is a literal translation of the Greek and Slavonic (except the Slavonic has "a mercy OF peace", but I have always heard this explained over the years as an attempt to stay TOO close to Greek grammar). There is no verb; the people are responding to the priest's invitation to pay attention to the sacrifice, with a description of what the sacrifice is and is for: mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.

Look on page 127 of the Old Orthodox Prayer Book, and perhaps you can see what's going on a little better.

And for the Communion prayer: this is in effect quoting from the troparion of Great and Holy Thursday. In our OLD translation, it ran as follows:

"Let me this day, O Son of God, be a partaker of your mystical supper; for I will not reveal your mysteries to your enemies, nor will I betray you with a kiss as did Judas, but like the repentant thief, I openly profess you: Remember me, O Lord, in your kingdom."

Note that this EXISTING translation (which the new translation follows fairly closely) had "profess"; the Communion Hymn has been modified to follow the liturgical source of the prayer. Unless you want us to change the troparion instead?

By the way: to profess means to publicly declare; it does NOT mean to teach.

(If you have a translation of Bohorodice that can be used liturgically that works, and is not the same translation we use for Bohomater, I'd love to hear it; this is one of those words (like Amen and Alleluia) which may just be best left untranslated - and historically, the Greek term bears more weight, and is more universally known, than the Slavonic. The OCA, for example, uses "Theotokos" even though they are certainly using services translated from the Slavonic.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Theologos,

Sadly, philosophy is STILL the official starting place for western theology, but Thomism was dead before Vatican II. Ask your average parish priest, bishop, layman or seminary instructor about Thomistic philosophy and you will likely be greeted with either a laugh or blank stare. The philosophies that have replaced Thomism usually do have one thing in common; a denial of absurdities like immaterial substances.

Perhaps angels could be material, but generally they are simply spiritual beings known only through revelation or experience. Putting angels or anything else into a Thomistic box is just silly intellectual masturbation of no value to humanity. Even Aquinas apparently said that his work was nothing more than straw.

P.S. I think Rusyn31's post is a good argument in favor of taking the priestly prayers aloud, at least occasionally, as well as for liturgical catechesis! These prayers MAKE SENSE, and flow one into another. It bothers me when people treat the prayers and responses as unconnected utterances, independent of one another. Certainly it can also be an argument for celebrating the ENTIRE Liturgy as it has come down to us - but if the most important prayers that we always take aloud aren't even understood in their context...?

Jeff

Jeff,

Are you confusing me with someone else? I do not remember writing a post about taking the priestly prayers aloud.

Actually, I agree with Msgr. Basil Sheregy in his book, "The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" where he states that those prayers, for the most part, should be done silently.

Personally, I think it really breaks the flow of the Liturgy when the priest takes 3-4 minutes at a time to say these prayers. The congregation (at least at my church) starts to get antsy and wonders where these prayers suddenly came from... The children begin getting louder during the monologue of the priest...and the crickets begin to chirp.

Maybe it is a result of our ADHD society, but the congregations attention gets focused away to something else. I even see folks looking at their watches, cell-phones, Blackberries, etc.

Birth-giver of God.

Dear Rusyn31,

My point (pardon if I made it badly!) was that I know people who can recite and sing the Liturgy backward and forward, at least the people's parts - but because they are used to exclamations that come out of nowhere, they assume that the entire service is just that - a patchwork of "what we do in church", and it doesn't have to make sense. Then when a prayer is taken aloud (and I really wonder how many priestly prayers actually take 3 minutes or more, outside of the kneeling prayers after Pentecost), people suddenly seem surprised.

I could not count the number of people who, when the Anaphora was chanted aloud in Morgantown, said, "Oh, THAT'S why the priest suddenly chants 'singing, shouting, crying out and saying the triumphal hymn!' I thought he meant WE were doing that." But even with "Let us give thanks to the Lord." - this is a dialog, and we have our part as well. It is NOT a good thing that we've so lost sight of what we are doing in the Liturgy, that a regular attendee like yourself, fluent in English and Slavonic, doesn't make a connection between the priest's command and our response.

People need to understand that (though we will never understand it completely!) the Liturgy makes sense. This takes catechesis, but it also requires being aware of what we pray, what we do, and what it means. ONE part of this would be to take the prayers aloud, and expect people to listen. My own sons certainly discussed quite a number of the Church's prayers over the years, asked questions, and even quoted them when discussing a point of theology.

My apologies for going off topic! I'm done; Rusyn31, feel free to PM me or start a new thread if you care to discuss this further.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff