I have been quickly skimming Fr Laurent's book. I thoroughly approve of both the eirenic spirit in which it was written and its ecumenical objective; but I do not think it will persuade many. I discern two critical flaws:

First, while Fr Laurent criticizes a proof-texting approach, so characteristic of both Catholic and Orthodox apologists, when examining the views of the Church Fathers, he appears to fall precisely into the same trap. One does not get the impression that any serious engagement with the primary sources has been done nor is historical scholarship cited, with a couple of exceptions. But if Catholicism and Orthodoxy are to move beyond polemic and caricature, it is absolutely necessary to engage history as honestly and directly as we can.

Fr Laurent is an exponent of the eucharistic ecclesiology of Afanasieff and Zizioulas. He believes that this eucharistic ecclesiology faithfully represents the consensual views of the Fathers, though he acknowledges that one can also find universal ecclesiology in some of the later Fathers. I have read my share of Afanasieff and Zizioulas and find their views persuasive; but I still wonder whether most of the Church Fathers can be accurately described as eucharistic ecclesiologists. Is this sound history, or is this just another case of theologians projecting their theories back into time?

Second, I find it remarkable that Fr Laurent relies so heavily on both popular Catholic apologists and Orthodox theologians for his knowledge of Catholicism. He shows little direct acquaintance with good Catholic theology, either past or present. This is a huge flaw. He does cite a short article on ecclesiology by Ratzinger, but does not mention the important debate between Ratzinger and Kasper on the relations of the universal and local Church, nor does he mention the incredibly important and influential work of Henri de Lubac, which has been ably summarized in Fr Paul McParlan's The Eucharist Makes the Church, in which the views of de Lubac are compared to the views of Zizioulas.

Anyway, these are my initial impressions. The book is a start, but it's not the book I was hoping it would be.

Father Kimel,

I also skimmed it, and agree on both points. Perhaps I will revisit it later, but from what I saw (and I hate to say this) it didn't give me the impression that its review of primary sources added anything beyond common perceptions. (I'd list works Fathers Boris Gudziak, Robert Taft, John Meyendorff and Hermann Pottmeyer as examples of the opposite).

And, just to go on a pet peeve, I don't like the lists of things such and such a Church needs to do, even if some of the ideas are good. I especially don't like the hoary suggestion of adding an epiclesis into the Roman eucharistic prayers. First, are the new ones in the 1970 missal defective? Second, for the Roman Canon, the prayer exists for various reasons, and was accepted in Late Antiquity without complaint. I see no reason for such a "Byzantinization" in the Latin Church. (and I say this as a "Byzantine").

Markos

"But if it happens that the spiritual factor is totally lacking, then the monastic organization [or the Christian eparchy] disintegrates or turns into one that is authoritarian".

- Prof. Gregorios Mantzaridis, Unv. of Thessaloniki, "The Spirit of Monastic Typikon". [my addition in brackets]

The Roman Canon does not have an epiclesis because it never did--it predates the kinds of pneumatological controversies that led to their inclusion in the Byzantine Liturgies (as well as those of the Oriental Orthodox). The Assyrian Anaphora of Addai and Mari lacks not only an explicit epiclesis, but also the institution narrative--because it is older than those developments.

As Father Taft likes to say, a liturgy is like a language, and different languages have different rules. Some languages have articles, others do not--and a language that lacks them is not inferior to one that has them, nor is it improved by trying to add them (and vice versa). In short, it was a mistake to (a) create new Eucharistic Prayers for the Roman Liturgy; and (b) to create several with orientalisms such as an epiclesis.

Does the Roman Canon predate the Anaphora of St. James?
What is the history of these Canons?

The Roman Canon in its mature form dates from the late fourth century, but probably drew on an earlier anaphora in Greek. On the Anaphora of James, it depends on which version you pick. The one currently used by some Byzantine Churches shows the influence of later developments. The Basil and Chrysostom anaphorae are late fourth-early fifth century in origin, but underwent continual development until as late as the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

Father Kimel was received into the Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad) in June last year by ordination as deacon and then priest.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis/message/19842

Father,

Unfortunately, the link you posted only took me to a login page for yahoo. It is possible that one has to belong to the yahoo group to be able to view it.

Is there any text that you can cut and paste here?