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

The word substance is related to the Greek term hypostasis; and so the use of that term (i.e., substance) could cause theological confusion in the liturgies of the East.

I do not want to confess that the Father and the Son are one hypostasis.

I share your concern, if what you have related in your post expresses the true line of reasoning of those who revised the liturgy.

Dear Theophilus:

I think you greatly exaggerate in reporting the death of Thomism. Pope John Paul II was a Thomist. There are some Catholic Universities, including the University of St. Thomas here in Houston, and Ave Maria University in Naples, FL that have centers devoted to Thomistic studies. In February of 2005, I attended a conference at Ave Maria University called "Aquinas the Augustinian." Many very fine scholars were in attendance-including Bruce Marshall and Reinhard Hütter-both converts to Catholicism from Lutheranism. While Thomism doesn't hold the sway it once did, it is by no means dead.

Ryan

Dearly beloved Athanasius the Lesser,

John Paul II was clearly a Phenomenologist. I have never heard of a philosophical conference that discussed his Thomism? Yes, there are people that still like Thomism as there are people that still like the Latin Mass. They are nostalgic and do not offer any benefit to the Church or society (other than being pious and attending Church). It may be interesting, or respectable in its historical context, but Thomism is a dead end and is in no way considered an arbiter of Truth or a solution to any modern problem.

Are even Marshall and Hutter really Thomists or just people interested in the historical subject? Do they really believe that masturbation is a far greater sin than incest or rape? Do you believe that such concepts should be taught and used to win converts to the Church?

Dear Theophilus:

I'm not a Thomist, and in my post, I was not advocating on behalf of Thomism. I personally prefer to make use of Holy Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, patristic sources, magisterial documents,and the liturgical services when crafting theological arguments. As to your question about masturbation being a far greater sin than incest or rape, come on. Let's be reasonable here. Being a Thomist does not imply accepting everything Aquinas himself said. I stand by my claim that JPII was a Thomist. Google this phrase, "John Paul II Thomist" and you will links to plenty of articles that discuss the Thomism of JP II. Also, Jacques Maritian and Bernard Lonergan come to mind as very important 20th century theologians who were Thomists. Furthermore, Aquinas is being used by a number of contemporary ethicists, the first of whom coming to mind for me is Stanley Hauerwas. Also, there are a number of Catholic ethicists who are emphasizing virtue ethics, and, while each individual may or may not be a "Thomist" or a "Neo-Thomist," any work in virtue ethics in Catholic circles, and even in some Protestant circles (Hauerwas again comes to mind), will make use of Aquinas's teachings on virtue. I cannot speak about Marshall, but I took four courses with Reinhard Hütter-I know him fairly well. One of those courses dealt with the problem of evil, and we read Aquinas extensively. Also, he regularly a course on Aquinas (which I did not take). His use of Aquinas goes beyond mere historical intestest, as does that of a number of scholars. I stand by what I said before: Thomism does not hold the sway it once did, but it is by no means dead.

Ryan

Dearly beloved Athanasius the Lesser,

The example of incest and rape was not some obscure opinion of Aquinas that can be dismissed – it is an example of a foundational flaw in the whole system. ((rape and incest are sinful activities, but contain some virtue because they can result in conception and therefore would be in accord with natural law whereas masturbation is a sin AND also against natural law)). Thomism is a false epistemology and logic responsible for most of the East/West division because its so-called logical deductions were given a greater priority to common sense and Tradition.

I do not use Google, but a quick search did not show me anything that would lead to describing JPII as a Thomist. He was, of course, knowledgeable and respectful of it, but did he ever identify himself as a Thomist as he did identify himself as a phenomenologist?

I am certainly no fan of Jacques Maritian, but I do not have any problem with anyone that may “make use of Aquinas”. The problem comes from those that insist that fictional categories and constructs such as the above natural law or immaterial substances are a real things that can aid human understanding. Fantasy theology serves no purpose, and it does a lot of harm.

If you feel the need to prove that God exists, then you have taken your first step down the dark path. God has revealed Himself to us, and not much else needs to be said.

I suggest a better approach to crafting arguments (sources of knowledge):

#1 your parish priest/ bishop/ confessor/ spiritual advisor
#2 liturgical services
#3 patristic sources (East or west prior to Anselm, avoid Augustine and Tertullian)
#4 the 7 Ecumenical Councils
#5 Scripture and apocrypha
#6 magisterial documents (but only if necessary to prove that you are Catholic and not Orthodox)

Dear Theophilus:

I think you're judgment that JPII was not a Thomist is simply wrong. However, I do not see the point in continuing to debate this particular question. I will simply say that, among scolars who study the writings of JPII, I believe that my opinion has more support than your position does.

As to the following comments, I'm not sure as to whom they are directed.



If they are directed to me, I suggest that you might read my post a bit more carefully. I stated that I am not a Thomist and that "I personally prefer to make use of Holy Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, patristic sources, magisterial documents,and the liturgical services when crafting theological arguments." That list is not very different from what you're suggesting. However, I sense a bit of anti-Western bias on your part (please correct me if I'm wrong). While I tend to look far more to the Eastern Fathers (especially Athanasius the Great, the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, and Gregory Palamas), I do not reject Augustine entirely and I do not reject all Western theology contemporaneous or subsequent to Anselm.

Ryan

Dearly beloved Athanasius the Lesser,

Perhaps a little anti-Western bias, but definite anti-Thomistic/ Augustine/ scholastic/ philosophy and natural law. I would not classify as heresy, just pious fiction and a needless weight around the neck of the Church.

I was just giving my preferred order of theological sources. I am suggesting that your putting liturgy at the bottom of the list runs against the concept that "we believe as we pray" and "a theologian is one that prays"

If the liturgy is a higher foundational priority, followed by the rest of my list, then concepts such as immaterial substance or natural law will be off the radar (where they belong!)

Dear Theophilus:

I was not listing them in any particular order of importance, except that I was intentional about placing Holy Scripture at the top of the list. Certainly it was not my intent to assign to the liturgical services the place of least importance of the various sources for doing theology. Indeed, I consider the worship life of the Church to be absolutely fundamental for doing theology.

Ryan

I would also like to put forth the radical notion that Aquinas actually be read and evaluated independent of the very scholarly misrepresentations that abound. In his introduction to the Summa Theologiae he notes that he writes as a teacher for students:



I invite all to read -- a fairly short read -- the ten articles of his first "question" and judge for themselves his methodology and his use of scripture and the fathers.

Dn. Anthony

Dear Fr. Deacon Anthony:

Thank you for your post. What often gets overlooked in these sort of polemical discussions about Aquinas is his use of both Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers. Everyone knows about his use of Aristotle, but he did use Holy Scripture a great deal, as well as the Church Fathers-and not just Augustine. For example, he was familiar with the writings of St. John of Damascus and often incorporated them in his own writings.

Ryan

Why thank you. I read a lot, especially the books given to me by an Orthodox priest. After 50+ years of studying Christian teaching I do remember some things. I have mentioned that I have family that is Byzantine Catholic and we DO talk.

My comment about "Saint" Gregory Palamas was in lieu of my earlier post when I referred to him as "that Palamas guy" and received a much deserved private lesson in proper wording of saints and their names. So, hats off to "Saint" Gregory Palamas. Anyhoo, maybe you remember the discussion held aboiut how Byzantine Catholics (I shouldn't say "byzcaths" anymore) were greatly upset about Saint Gregory Palamas not being mentioned in their new worship books. After looking into it further I realized that it was, indeed, strange thta he was omitted from the hymns in the new worship. But thank you for your complement. I think. Unless you think all non-Catholics/Orthodox Christians are stupid and ignorant of church history. I've read Dix and Wybrew, Schmemann and Rahner, Meier and Brown. Also Ott, von Rad, and Metzger. Excellent authors. Currently, I am reading writings by the current Pope. I just picked up Pope Benedict's Jesus book today; then it is back to early Greek philosophers, pre-Socratic to be exact. Then I will indulge more of Spong, maybe the introductory chapter of another recent purchase, Oliva Blanchette's "Philosophy of Being" (if I still feel interested in doing Metaphysics) and then cap it off with some Bible reading on the back porch.

I am not an inquirer.

Eddie

Perhaps some factual data will be of interest?

From the Preface written by Karol Wojtyla in March, 1977, to his major work, The Acting Person, English translation, first page, third & fourth paragraphs:

Dearly beloved Athanasius the Lesser,

Getting way off topic, but generally, Latins have an inverted list with things like papal statements and magisterial documents at the top of the list and patristic and liturgy at the bottom.

I intentionally place Scripture near the bottom because it has been crippled by Protestantism and modern scholarship. I say that it is more important to understand the Scripture as it is used in the various services and by the fathers even if they are "wrong" by modern standards. I add Apocrypha because if the Scripture is to be used as an "independent source" then the context needs to be set with works such as Enoch which is essential to understand a concepts such as the Son of Man, etc. (as opposed to proof-texting the canon alone like in Protestantism)

Thanks to Michael McD, I guess that I will buy JPII as a “Thomistic Phenomenologist”