I just saw this new video posted over at Vimeo:

Easter 2011 Western Rite Orthodox Mass (includes Lauds)

It's from an Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite parish, Holy Incarnation , near Detroit.

Question for liturgical experts: is this liturgy a form of the Anglican Mass or more like the Tridentine Mass but in English? (I know very little about the Western Rite.)

There are two liturgies within the Antiochian Western Rite; The Liturgy of St. Tikhon which paralles older versions of the Anglican/Episcopal Book of Common Prayer; and the Liturgy of St. Gregory which closely paralles the Tridentine Missal.

From the parish web site it appears that they use the Liturgy of St. Gregory, which does not suprise me given Fr. Fenton's background.

Fr. Fenton is a former Lutheran who had been on the editorial board of Lutheran Liturgical Renewal and was a frequent contributor to the now defunct publication The Bride of Christ

I have to say that I greatly enjoyed the video of their Mass and was surprised that it didn't fit many of my preconceptions of what Western Rite Orthodoxy is.

Thanks for the kind words. Frankly, I'm impressed how quickly word spreads around the internet.

The Rite of St Gregory is, indeed, used at Holy Incarnation. The first part of the video contains Lauds, which is from the Benedictine Breviary. The second part is the Mass. Regrettably, due to battery difficulty, half of the Canon was omitted; and one sees only one communicant receiving the Eucharist. Next time we'll plan better.

If you have questions, please feel free to email me. (I don't often check this site - my apologies for this.)


Fr John W Fenton
Priest, Holy Incarnation Orthodox Church
Assistant to the Vicar General, Western Rite Vicariate
frfenton@holyincarnation.org

Does your text of the Roman Canon include an explicit descending Epiclesis?

Following the example of the Mass approved by the 19th century Holy Synod of Moscow, the Canon authorized by the Patriarchate of Antioch for use in the Vicariate includes a descending Epiclesis. There is some debate about whether this is necessary since an ascending epclesis is already in the Canon; and some (who know much more than I) have suggested that this inclusion was a pastoral concession to Eastern Rite Christians.

The Epiclesis appears between the Supra quae propitio and the Supplices te rogamus in these words:

And we beseech thee, O Lord, to send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these offerings, that he would make this bread the precious Bo+dy of thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious Blo+od of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, chang+ing them by thy Holy Spirit.




Fr John W Fenton

Dear Father John,

It's nice to see you on the forum. It is interesting that you mention the debate over the need for the inclusion of a descending epiclesis in the Roman Canon. I must admit that this particular addition is one of my main objections to Western Orthodoxy. Apparently, there was never a descending epiclesis in the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter, so I don't see why it was at some point suddenly necessary to include one.

That said, I wish you and your parish community all the best!

The lack of evidence for an Epiclesis in the Roman Rite is one of the arguments presented for its omission in the Vicariate Canon. In other words, "If it was good enough for St Gregory..." Another argument is the godly hesitancy to edit the received tradition.

The pastoral consideration, together with the desire for consistency in the Canon/Anaphora of Orthodox churches, are two of the arguments for the necessity of revising the Canon by including the Epiclesis.

The decision on which arguments should prevail is beyond my competency as a priest.

Thank you for the well wishes.


Fr John W Fenton

Dear Father John,

I accept what you say about your "competency" as a priest. These are ultimately matters for higher authority to decide.

As a good example of this, no doubt you are aware that there is a similar situation with regard to the Chaldean Catholic Church, where Rome insisted on the inclusion of the institution narrative in the ancient Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Only recently has Rome come round to the idea that you can have a valid Eucharist without the institution narrative.

As a Roman Catholic who feels deeply about the Roman liturgy, I hope very much that in time the Orthodox will return to full acceptance of the Roman Canon.

With continued good wishes.

To put the matter more succinctly: Does the Orthodox Church want to tell the Catholic Church that the Roman Canon is somehow deficient? If so, that will be a very serious ecumenical problem.

The answer, I think, is that the Orthodox Church already implicitly recognizes the Roman Canon, as attested by the existence of the Divine Liturgy of St Peter. But as long as current Western Orthodox practice is not allowed to reflect this, there is still a problem.

Latin Catholic,

I think you are correctly identified one ecumenical problem. If I may be equally succinct, from the Western Orthodox point of view another ecumenical problem is the recent dramatic change in the receive liturgical tradition as it relates to the Mass, Office and Ritual.


Fr John W Fenton

Dear Father John,

It seems we agree that the inserted descending epiclesis is not strictly necessary, but that it is arguably there for pastoral reasons. Fair enough, but I don't like it.

I feel reasonably sure I understand what you mean when you refer to dramatic changes to the Missal, Ritual and Office of the Roman Church, but it would be easier to comment if you were more specific. After all, one hardly knows where to begin. (Personally, I dislike the revision of the office hymns by Pope Urban VIII.)

With continued best wishes.

LC,

By "dramatic changes," I am referring to what occurred in 1970. Of course, there are many markers along the way - the 1955 changes in Holy Week, the changes by Pope Pius X in the Secular Breviary, the 1958 and 1962 rubrical changes, etc. For Orthodoxy, many of the changes are organic, but the ones I've just mentioned seem to be less organic and are derived, in our view, from the promulgation of papal infallibility--the issue (when properly understood) which, I think, is the major stumbling block in reconciliation between these ancient patriarchates.

Asking your prayers,


Fr John W Fenton

Dear Father John,

I understand your difficulty. In fact, one of my favorite books is The Spirit of the Liturgy by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

I agree that the Latin Church needs to put its house in order, liturgically speaking, if it wants to be taken seriously by the Orthodox. No doubt, you realize that this must be a gradual process, and I trust that this has started under Pope Benedict XVI.

In fact, by providing examples of "best practice," maybe the Western Orthodox (and the emerging Anglican Ordinariate[s]) can be of help? After all it seems to be only now that some people, thanks in part to the example of the Orthodox, are realizing that freestanding altars don't necessarily mean Mass facing the people. Much more important is Mass facing East. And even more important, in my opinion, is that you don't have two altars in one sanctuary, as you so often (to my distress) see in Catholic churches today.

So, please keep up the good work, but do please see if you cannot convince your superiors to get rid of the unnecessary addition to the Roman Canon.

With continued prayers and best wishes.

Having thought about this some....

I would agree that the addition of an explicit epiklesis was unnecessary and ought to be removed.

Still, the positives:

1) Mass facing the liturgical East -- most of it in the vernacular

2) No Filioque in the Creed

3) Communion to all the Baptized (including children)

It wasn't until after 1000 AD that the Filioque became universal in the Roman Rite and even later for the removal of infant communion. Using the vernacular is not an ancient Roman tradition, though likely it was originally. So, one can argue that the Western Rite Orthodox are ahead of the game in restoring some authentic traditions to the Western liturgy.

At any rate, I think these are positives in the Western Rite that should be mentioned.

Without prejudice to any of the topics under discussion, and not even meaning to comment on them, one receives a tradition. One does not typically "restore" a tradition, much less an ancient one. Since tradition is that which is handed down, the things which have not been handed down cannot rightly be called tradition. Ancient practices, long abandoned, are not traditional. They're just old.

As a long time subscriber and occasional contributor to the Bride I am delighted to find you here and to glimpse your new ministry.

Many years!

JDC,

Well, items 2 and 3 have been "restored" to many Eastern Catholic Churches in the past 20 years after having been "abandoned."

You will note that I included the word "typically". As modern folk have got increasingly to be too big for their humble human britches, there has been a ridiculous amount of slashing and burning of tradition. These days are not typical, and we must all do our best. Still, the principle articulated is to be observed and, come what may, language isn't much use if we use words to mean things they do not.

Bishop Maelruain (Dowling) of the Celtic Orthodox Church (an independent Church) has this to say on a list devoted to Celtic Christianity.

They have added a form of epiclesis into the 8th century Lorrha Missal:

"The prayer we have chosen to use at every celebration of the Eucharist is the Post Mysterium of the Feast of the Throne of Saint Peter. The Post Mysterium is a variable proper to the feast day. Some feasts have none and the P.M.s for those that do may or may not make reference to the Bread and Wine becoming the Body and Blood.

"The primary reason we made this alteration in practice is that one member of our synod felt strongly that the Byzantines needed it to recognize the Eucharist as properly confected. Personally, I feel that there are plenty of prayers throughout the Liturgy which serve the same purpose, so I would not consider the Liturgy lacking without the added specific epiklesis any more than I would consider the Chrysostom Liturgy lacking because it lacks those other prayers.

"Some have tried to force me to use the Byzantine prayer, but I see no value in doing so. "


Here is the prayer which Bishop Maelruain has added into the Lorrha Missal to act as an epiclesis. It is the Post Mysterium prayer for the Feast of the Throne of Saint Peter at Rome and it may be the origin of the Byzantine and Mozarabic forms:

"We who serve, offer these prescribed Holy Gifts of our Salvation, that Thou may be pleased to send Thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice so that it may be changed into a legitimate Eucharist for us in the Name of Thee, Thy Son and the Holy Spirit, in the transformation of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and may it be unto us who eat and drink, Life eternal and the eternal Kingdom. Through Christ Himself Our Lord who reigneth with Thee and the Holy Spirit
throughout all ages of ages. Amen."

Source:
http://celticchristianity.org/library/epikl.html

I suspect that the east need do nothing to satisfy the Latins liturgically. As a Byzantine working in Latin parishes as a music director/organist for years, I have observed one thing. There is no way to make Latins happy. In matters liturgical, they dislike what was, what is, and likely will object to what is to come. The east should follow its traditions, and not worry about what others think.

Of possible technological interest:

Noticed tonight that Vimeo has just put up a HD version of this Western Rite Mass:

Western Rite Orthodox Mass in HD.

Sort of reminds me of the Daily Mass they keep having on the EWCN TV.