www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Another one of my goofy questions....

I have a great sympathy for what the Traditionalists in the Latin rite are trying to do to restore the dignity and glory to the Latin Mass. As such, to try to understand what is going on, I read their material and sometimes listen to their tapes. I find them articulate and persuasive.

Some, however, seem to have a mindset that if it is not Latin, it really is not Catholic. In other words, the only "true Catholicism" is Roman Catholicism. I find this distressing, for it assumes that God has ordained a single culture and praxis to be the norm for all mankind.

One thing though, that did get me thinking the other day, is the charge from the Traditionalists that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid because of the change of wording in the prayers. It was also, on this same website, intimated that the Orthodox and Eastern rite consecrations are eqully invalid because of so called "political and cultural changes" within the various rites and countries they come from.

So.....my dumb question du jour.

Are the prayers we use for consecration the same that St. John Chyrsostom used a thousand + years ago, or has there been some change in form and wording over the centuries? I have always assumed that the East has not been infected with modernism like the West and therefore has retained the forms, prayers, and prazxis as it was found centuries ago.

Anything I can READ to research this a bit?

Thanks in advance for all replies.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

dear Br. Ed:

Christ is Risen!

No. 1: Orthodox Liturgy is dynamic and evolutionary. Else we (Greco-Catholics) would not be using the Byzantine rite (forms of worship that are Greek and based on Imperial Court rituals). We would still be worshipping in Hebrew and Aramaic in decided semitic and Jewish forms.

From our Orthodox point of view, the Tridentine mass is a very recently and rather johnny-come-lately form, not that there's anything wrong with that, per se.

Byzantine liturgies are evolutionary, changing gradually, not by Papal Fiat, not that there's anything wrong with that, but by the slow working of the Holy Spirit through the members of the Body of Christ, through historical and cultural situations, etc. etc. The problem with that is that its messy, somethings very messy (cf. 2 or 3 dismissals in the same service), and tends to drive our Liturgists mad, though it makes for great job prospects for our Liturgiologists, who are happ-happ-happy about it.

Neither the Anaphora of St. John C. nor the Canon of the Tridentine mass was used by the Messiah our Lord at the Mystical Supper! And I am pretty sure that Jesus is OK with that.

For me, in my unworthy opinion, it is not so much whether the liturgical forms have changed (they have and that's a fact). It is more whether they are integral in their evolution and whether they actually work, i.e. serve and facilitate transcendental worship with transfigures us and whereby we are consecrated unto the Lord and filled with love for our neighbours and dedication to serve the poor and oppressed.

Just a few rogue thoughts to continue your excellent thread.

XPICTOC BOCKPECE

Herb

There are any number of ancient texts (mostly fragmentary) that contain words from the earliest Christian services.

Initially, it appeared that Christian Jews continued to worship in synagogue or temple, and then met later for the bread/wine Eucharist as well as the 'agape' meal, which was sort of a communal dinner/potluck.

Two of the early texts include The Apostolic Constitutions, the Didache and the 'Canon' of Hippolytus. Each gives a very small peek at what the earliest Christians did. As for words of institution, epiclesis, etc. there was NO standard whatsoever except perhaps for the communities under a specific bishop who adopted the bishop's style.

Liturgical practice only became codified a long time later. And the idea of 'absolute conformity' only comes at a much later period of time.

It's a fascinating topic for study. (Fr. Kilmartin's works on the early liturgy are quite good as are Boyer's. Of course for the East, there is no one like Fr. Bob Taft.)

Enjoy!!

Christ Is Risen!!

Just as surely as language evolves, ceremonial evolves and liturgy is no exception. There is a good article here that describes a lot about the development of the Byzantine liturgy. I don't know how accurate the article is but it was written 100 years ago for western readers, it still seems like unbiased research. Maybe it will help, note that the article describes how the Constantinopolitan liturgy ultimately derives from the West Syrian liturgy of Antioch.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04312d.htm

The Roman liturgy evolved as well, with a different story.

So, why do they have to be so triumphalistic? To be charitable I would have to say that they are probably just ignorant.

Michael

Ed,

Try: "Enchiridion Euchologicum Fontium Liturgicorum," Rome, C. L. V - And. Liturgiche 1979 (Bibliotheca ”Ephemerides Liturgicae” 15).

Per description of text: Beyond 3400 between formulas and pieces deduced dall'universo west liturgico and eastern, with indicators of the Greek texts: 1759-1772, and Latin: 1773-1817.

Most theological libraries have a copy.

Another fun book to read is Paul Bradshaw's "The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and the Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy" (1992). This goes into more detail of the 'puzzle' of the ancient church orders, two which are mentioned above by Dr. John.

An interesting paper is one found in "The Study of the Liturgy" by editors Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold, and Paul Bradshaw. I got my copy at Borders bookstore. Hugh Wybrew wrote a piece entitled, "The Byzantine Liturgy from the 'Apostolic Constitutions' to the Present Day." Wybrew states on page 257:

"The first textual evidence for the Byzantine Liturgy is the Codex Barberini gr 336, from about 800, which includes the Liturgies of St. Basil and St Chrysostom, althought the latter is not named."

Also: "The Barberini MS gives the earliest text of the two Byzantine anaphorae. Both follow the general pattern of the Syrian tradition. The anaphora is followed by a litany, as in 'Ap. Const.' ..." (p. 260)

E. J. Yarnold, SJ has a chapter entitled, "The Liturgy of the Faithful in the Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries." (pages 230-244)

Yarnold states that the dialogue introducing the Anaphora, which is heavily biblical(!), is found also in the Apostolic Constitutions 4:3.

I believe Fr. Taft is writing a study on the Byzantine Anaphora that may prove to give references to sources.

Joe Thur

That site must have been a "schismatic" or sedevacantist site, since none of the more and less serious Traditionalists (both Ecclesia Dei and the SSPX) claim that the N.O.M. is invalid. According to the Latin Church the words that confect the sacrament are "this is my body..." and the change in the "pro multis" part even if they oppose it, doesn't affect its validity.

No serious traditionalist Latin would state that any of the Eastern consacrations are invalid, that's simply ridiculous. All those consacrations meet the "requirements" of the Latins for validity (form, intention, etc.) althought some of them would say that they, as weel as the NOM, are "unpleasing to God" because they're "schismatic nature".

From our Orthodox point of view, the Tridentine mass is a very recently and rather johnny-come-lately form, not that there's anything wrong with that, per se.

No this is not right. Pope Pius V and the Synod of Trent only codified and homogenized the Latin liturgy that already existed, it was not composed or invented by him. The modifications only affected local forms of the rite. As well as Patriarch Nikon wanted the Russian Liturgy to coincide with the more stable Greek-Byzantine form, Pius V wanted it to coincide with the forms used in Rome.

St. Nicholas Cabasillias has a text in which he explains some aspects of the Western liturgy according to an Orthodox perspective. It is certainly true that the traditional Latin Rite has not always been the same and that, as well as the Byzantine liturgy, it suffered some modifications (some of them were done immediately after the schism but only changed the Divine Office, not the "Mass") but those were never that important to change the character of the rite.

He also explains that the Eastern idea which believed that the Latins had eliminated the Epiclesis from the liturgy, was wrong, as the Latin Liturgy had a different form of the Epiclesis and never had an "Eastern" one (this was what the 1848 encyciclical of the Patriarchs to Rome, stated). According to him the Epiclesis of the Latin Rite is an ascending Epiclesis represented by the prayer "Supplices Te rogamus".

Ed,

Let me also recommend a neat little book entitled, "A Short History of the Western Liturgy" by Theodor Klauser (1965, 1979).

Klauser writes about one such major change with Trent: "The period of episcopal independence in liturgical matters which stretches right back to the early Church was ... brought to an end." (p. 118)

He mentions also the 1570 collection of mass formulas called the 'Missale Romanum' after publishing the 'Breviarium Romanum.' The Romanum in each title reflected the new centralized control of all matters liturgical. Later came the 'Pontificale Romanum' (1596) and the 'Rituale Romanum' (1614).

The new Roman Mass was first accepted by the French until a wave of Gallican freedom harkened them back to their earlier pre-Tridentine traditions. 80 out of 130 bishops rejected the new Roman Tridentine Mass! Interesting how it was once again in France that the movement to keep the Tridentine Mass was started.

In 1786 the Tuscan episcopate at a synod at Pistoia "demanded a return to the primitive Church and the abolition of the private mass and all side altars, but the Roman Curia with the help of an Italian national synod was able to nip these tendencies in the bud." (p. 120)

How interesting that in the last major changes to the Latin Mass, the call was to restore the ancient forms of liturgy. After Vatican II, the French traditionalists (Lefebvre et al) called to restore the Tridentine Mass and not the New Mass.

Will the French ever be consistent?

Joe

Well, to continue to show my ignorance of things liturgical, here's the next installment.

The "biggie" for the Traditionalists it the changing of the phrase "for you and for many" to "for you and for all." Apparantly, for the more severe of them, this constitutes a breech of form so grave that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalidated. From what I have observed regarding this, this is tampering with the words of our Lord Himself.

EXCEPT....

Except that when I type that phrase into my Swordsearch Bible Study, I get nothing! The closest thing is in the accounts of Matthew and Mark where it says

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The premise of the discussion is that by saying "for you and for all" it implies a universalist application of the salvific merits of Christ's Blood to all mankind, making the Mass applicable to all human beings everywhere, even those who violently reject Christ all their lives.

This surely seems to be a rather magnanimous hair splitting on the importance of word. If we wanted to parse our Lord's words that fine, it seems that one could take the following phrase

Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

and say that because our Lord was talking to the apostles only in the Upper Room, that the instituition of the Eucharist was only sufficient and for those of whom He said "you."

Do you see how ridiculous this can get (At least in my opinion) when one is trying to defend one's position regardless....

Thanks to all for the links and book/article suggestions. I WILL be following up on these things, since this is an area of interest for me at this time.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Ya know, it would be SOOOOO much easier if we all still used Greek. Or maybe Aramaic. Then we wouldn't have all these pesky translation difficulties. Or maybe we still would, since language evolves over time too.

The folks who focus their religious lives on such narrow (and to my mind absurd) legalisms strike me as rather sad - and yes, I have also encountered otherwise intelligent people - faithful Catholics, not just SSPX types - who are firmly convinced that the Eastern Catholic churches are schismatic - no matter what the Pope (whom they hold in great esteem) says. Of course, as a proud citizen of the United States of America, I am painfully aware that an embarrasingly large number of my fellow citizens believe that the State of New Mexico is a foreign country.

Some folks just don't want to be confused by the facts.

Oh - and God help any of the people you describe if they ever happen to wander into a Chaldean Catholic Church, where (if memory serves) there is an Epiclesis, but no words of Institution.

Cheers,

Sharon

Dear Cantor Joseph,

In answer to your question about the French - not, buddy, likely!

Alex

Ed,

Chrysostom couldn't decide which version to use so he used both:

"which is shed 'FOR YOU' [Lk] and FOR MANY [Mt//Mk]"

Paul fails to include either phrase in 1 Cor 11:25 - even though his account of the Last Supper is supposedly much earlier than Mark, Matthew and Luke.

The "FOR YOU" phrase in the Greek has future-oriented connotations. Might Luke have meant the role of the Church and the role of the clergy? In this case, "FOR MANY" would have been incorrect.

In the case of Mt and Mk, "FOR MANY" implies the same as "FOR ALL."

Immediatedly after the Institution Narrative, but before the Epiclesis, the Byzantine presbyter raises the chalice and diskos and proclaims:

"We offer to You yours of own, in behalf of ALL and for ALL."

So, in our own Anaphora, both phrases are used! In the Institution Narrative we have "FOR MANY" [Mt//Mk] and "FOR ALL" [LK//Paul].

How about that?

Now, according to the 'graveness' of such word usage, we Byzantines would then be considered "INVALIDATED."

But what about the Anaphora of Addi and Mari, which has no Institution Narrative? Hmmmmmmm.

A little biblical anaylsis of Chrysostom's Anaphora is in order:

1. "On the night (when) he was betrayed" [Paul]
2. "Now/And as they were eating" [Mt//Lk] - not included in Anaphora
3. "Jesus/he took bread" [Mt//Mk//Lk//Paul]
4. "he gave thanks" [Lk//Paul]
5. "and blessed" [Mt//Mk]
6. "sanctified" - only in Anaphora
7. "and/he broke it" [Mt//Mk//Lk//Paul]
8. "and gave it" [Mt//Mk//Lk]
9. "to his disciples" [Mt] or "to them" [Mk//Lk] or "to his holy disciples and Apostles" [Anaphora]
10. "and said" [Mt//Mk//Paul] or "saying" [Lk//Anaphora]
11. "Take" [Mt//Mk]
12. "eat" [Mt]
13. "this is my body" [Mt//Mk//Lk//Paul]
14. "which is given for you" [Lk] or "which is for you" [Paul] or "which is broken for you" [Anaphora]
15. "Do this in rememberance of me" [Lk//Paul] - not in Anaphora
16. "for the remission of sin" [Anaphora only]
17. "and he took a cup" [Mt//Mk] or "and likewise the cup" [Lk//Paul] or "and like manner he took a chalice" [Anaphora]
18. "after supper" [Lk//Paul]
19. "and when he had given he gave it to them" [Mt//Mk] - not in Anaphora
20. "and they all drank of it" [Mk] - not in Anaphora
21. "saying" [Mt//Lk//Paul//Anaphora] or "and he said to them" [Mk]
22. "drink of it all of you" [Mt//Anaphora]
23. "(for) this is my blood of the new covenant" [Mt//Mk//Anaphora uses 'testament' rather then 'covenant'] or "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" [Lk//Paul]
24. "which is poured out for many" [Mt//Mk] or "which is poured out for you" [Lk] or "which is shed for you and for many" [Anaphora]
25. "for the forgiveness of sins" [Mt] or "for the for the remission of sins" [Anaphora]
26. "do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" [Paul] - not in Anaphora

This comparison of the Institution Narrative(s) shows various differences in the exact wording from Jesus. If the Evangelists couldn't agree, how can any Eucharistic Prayer (East or West) agree?

About the future-oriented aspect of "for you", Luke tends to agreee with Paul more readily. Much to do with "do this is remembrance." There seems to be more of a pastoral aspect in the Lucan-Pauline narrative, whereas Matthew and Mark reflects something different.

Clear as mud? I hope this helps, nonetheless.

As for Sharon's comment about using the original Greek: which Greek version? In Luke 22:20, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus disagree in the wording order.

Cantor Joe Thur

Dear Ed,

The issue of "tampering" with the Words of our Lord . . .

Our Lord said, in John, that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father."

And the Traditionalists would be the first to decry any removal from the Creed of the "Filioque."

I think that the Traditionalist thrust is at something other than scriptural accuracy.

They just don't like the "Protestant feel" of the Novus Ordo - which is their "rite" I suppose.

Alex

Oooooooooooooooooh! Good point, Alex. Rite on!

Dear Cantor Joseph,

I have an idea for a career for you!

You can produce popular works on Eastern theology.

An "Eastern Riter?"

You would be an instant success, to be sure, Big Guy!

Alex

Alex,

I prefer the title "Easy Riter."