From the Telegraph’s Damian Thompson:
Two and a half years after the name “Josephum” came booming down from the balcony of St Peter’s, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.
… The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans – all these ambitions reflect Benedict’s conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.
One might recall this passage from a prophetic letter to Pope Paul VI written by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, on the eve of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae:
The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern Churches. The result – utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies – can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.
Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.
By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.
The letter written by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci speaks directly to the thoughts my wife and I had as we moved from the Roman Catholic to the Orthodox Church. Again and again, we saw the Christian East referenced in the documents of Vatican II. Not only in Liturgy, but also ecclesiology, the Council Fathers praised the East.
And yet, again and again, we saw that the actual implementation of the documents left much to be desired. Rather than drawing the West closer to the East, actual drew the West further away. Worse whatever the theological value of what was promulgated at Vatican II (and much is of great value whether one is Catholic or Orthodox) the implementation seemed calculated to draw the West further from its own history and tradition.
As the Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci write: “he new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.” Please God, let Pope Benedict’s reform come to fruition and quickly.
It is no doubt offensive to many on both sides, but can there be any doubt that we, Catholics and Orthodox, simply need each other? The almost universally acknowledged failure of the unia does not invalidate our mutual need. Nor should it be taken as evidence that reconciliation is undesirable much less impossible.
As always, thank you for your thoughtful posts.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Hm, at the risk of sounding like a wet blanket, I think that Damian Thompson’s entheusiasm is rather misplaced here. Mind you, I would be delighted for Mr Thompson to be right on the money, but if past performance is any guide, Benedict’s “reforms” will amount to a lot of documents which will be issued with great fanfare and then quietly ignored at the parish level. After all, Rome has re-affirmed again and again that extraordinary ministers of the holy communion are not to be used on a regular basis, that only priests can wash the consecrated vessels after Mass, that priests are obliged to wear liturgical vestments when celebrating Mass, that Gregorian chant deserves pride of place, etc. None of these instructions or re-iterations seems to make much of a difference in the actual experience of your average American or European Mass-goer. I have read enough headlines to the effect that “Rome is cracking down” to know that you cannot believe everything you read in the papers.
Father Gregory,
Somehow, I’ve managed not to take notice of your blog and link to it, even though you’ve commented here before. I will fix that!
Greg,
You’re quite right. The Pope, after all, is only the Pope! He can issue the norms, initiate the reforms, change liturgical law, etc. but he does not control the hearts of bishops, priests or faithful. At best, he’s doing his best to plant the seeds of a renewal.
Thanks for the link!
+FrG
Greg, if “None of these instructions or re-iterations seems to make much of a difference in the actual experience of your average American or European Mass-goer.”, why do Catholics expect so much more of Orthodox with regards to the Papacy than is expected of fellow Catholics?
Fr. Jensen: I hope you don’t mind if I add you to my prayer list. I had no idea you and your spouse were ex-Catholics. This saddens me deeply.
Personally, I found the Telegraph article extremely bracing. ISTM the news from Rome just keeps getting better and better. But then, I’ve always been a “glass half full” kind of person…in emulation of my hero, the late great Pope John Paul II.
And why not? After all, we are called to the theological virtue of Hope. And we know that the gates of Hell will never prevail against that Church founded by Christ Himself upon Kepha the Rock.
The past 40 years have been rough, but the Church has survived far worse (e.g., the turbulent period following I Nicaea). We are already emerging from the post-VCII turbulence; in that respect, we are doing better than the post-Nicean Church, which took longer to iron out its postconciliar difficulties.
Sorry for rambling off-topic. If y’all don’t mind, I’d like to ramble a bit more. Please bear with me for a moment.
Important as East-West reconciliation may be…is it not possible that East-West issues will fade into insignificance in coming years? According to an increasing chorus of voices, the center of gravity for Christianity is shifting to the Global South, which has its own cluster of cultural/religious traditions and patrimonies. As the Global South assumes greater and greater significance in the great Christian scheme of things, East and West will have to reunite simply in order to keep up and get with the program, so to speak. If we are to play any role in the world evangelization underway in the Global South and Far East…we will simply have to get together, whether we want to or not. If we don’t, we’ll be left behind. And our petty squabbles over leavened vs. unleavened bread or icons vs. statues–or even over the Filioque–will appear laughable to future generations.
Just some thoughts I’ve been having lately. Take ‘em from whence they come.
why do Catholics expect so much more of Orthodox with regards to the Papacy than is expected of fellow Catholics?
With respect, Stephen, it is not clear to me that we do. I think that the perception that Rome is insisting on a slavish obedience as a precondition of reunion is an eastern bogeyman with little basis in reality. Given that Rome has never broken communion with Los Angeles or Westminster on account of their indifference to Roman directives, it seems unlikely to me that Rome would presume to take such action against Moscow or Antioch.
Important as East-West reconciliation may be… is it not possible that East-West issues will fade into insignificance in coming years?
Much as I hate to say it, I think that this is entirely correct. Eastern Christianity, both Catholic and Orthodox, is disappearing. Between apostasy to Islam and severally declining birthrates in traditionally-eastern Christian lands, Eastern Christianity is losing adherents much faster than it is replacing them. It will, in all likelihood, never be completely gone, but it is headed for a steady-state decline to something like the Amish in the next several decades. Where Christianity is growing the growth is almost entirely driven by 1) Charismatics, 2) Catholics and 3) Evangelical Protestants. While there are historical and ecclesiological reasons to hope for reunion, in terms of the Church’s real mission (to save souls from Hellfire) I think the uncomfortable truth is that reunion will likely make only a very small difference.
Of course, even one soul saved is a cause for incomparably great rejoicing. Given that there is no salvation outside the Church, it is important to try to effect reconciliciation for the good of those few souls who would be reunited to salvation.
From the Cardinals’ letter:
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.
Nah, don’t think so. For one thing, the restoration of the ancient epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in the Novus Ordo makes up in spades for whatever other defects in has vis a vis the Tridentine, and brings it much closer to the East.
The restoration of the cup to the laity is another inestimable improvement over the Tridentine, although of course it would be greater if it were made mandatory, and not optional. Joe
For one thing, the restoration of the ancient epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in the Novus Ordo…
Be serious, do. There is no “restoration” at work in the addition of the epiclesis prayers. There never has been such a prayer in the Roman rite at any time prior to Paul VI’s promulgation of the Novus Ordo. I defy you to point me the documentation of any such prayer in a rite used by orthodox Roman faithful prior to the 1960s.
>Be serious, do. There is no “restoration” at work in the addition of the epiclesis prayers. There never has been such a prayer in the Roman rite at any time prior to Paul VI’s promulgation of the Novus Ordo. I defy you to point me the documentation of any such prayer in a rite used by orthodox Roman faithful prior to the 1960s.
Trying my best to be civil here: please consult the liturgy of St. Hippolytus *OF ROME*, which dates from about 200 AD. I believe that predates the 1960s:
And we beseech Thee to send Thy Holy Spirit upon the oblation
of Holy Church.
Joe
St Hippolytus was a schismatic at the time that he was using that liturgy. To say that schismatics included such prayers in their liturgies hardly constitutes much of an argument that it was once part of the Roman rite.
Regarding the Epiclesis:
My friends the latest scholarship shows that the work known under the name of Hippolytus has nothing to do with the Roman theologian and sometime antipope. In fact it is most probably Syrian in origin, though probably of that period – 3rd century. In fact there is not only no evidence that the pneumatological eîclesis ever existed at Rome, but everything suggests that at that time it was relatively new everywhere where it did exist. What seems to have happened is that the West came to focus almost eclusively on the “Institution Narrative and the East to stress the invocation of the Spirit over the Gifts – whereas neither were part of the most primitive rites! (Remember Adai and Mari? This will shock many western Catholics in particular, but they should remember the Lord sais “DO this in memory of me” and not “SAY this…” There will doubtless be reactions to this but there is no need to let our faith be shaken by it. I am ready to address some other time the prblems posed by the conciliar decrees on sacramental form) Perhaps we should learn the lesson that our differences are the results of historical accident in so many ways…
By the way, I am NOT a modernist. And if ned be I can take the time to rebut the inevitable accusations that will come my way…but that’s enough for now.
Hm, well you learn something new every day (or at least I do). Thanks for that, Fr Paul.
This will shock many western Catholics in particular
I’m intrigued, Father. Why would it be likely to shock westerners more than easterners–if indeed it’s true that “neither” the Western nor the Eastern emphasis “was part of the most primitive rites”?
That may prove to be a big “if,” of course. You know what they say about historical scholarship: One generation’s consensus is the next generation’s laughingstock. (Well, OK, they don’t say that, but I do.
)
Greg DeLassus:
>St Hippolytus was a schismatic at the time that he was using that liturgy. To say that schismatics included such prayers in their liturgies hardly constitutes much of an argument that it was once part of the Roman rite.
St. Hippolytus’s schism had nothing to do with liturgy, as you know. And your evidence that St. Hippolytus and his fellow schismatics had a distinctive and idiosyncratic liturgy is exactly- what?
Btw, I first found St. Hippolytus’s liturgy reproduced in a pre-Vatican II RC book “Documents of Church History” (Newman Press), which apparently found the liturgy to be typical of the liturgical practice of its time.
Fr. Paul- All I will ask is that you cite some of the sources upon which you rely for your contentions. Thank you. Joe
Dear Joe,
I have no evidence that Hippolytus’ liturgy was different from that of his non-schismatic Roman contemporaries, just as you have no evidence that it was the same. For all that, though, the fact remains that we have no actual evidence of an epiclesis used in any rite of the Church of Rome at any time prior to the 1960s.
Regarding the Epiclesis,
From my reading its seems that the West did have an Epiclesis but about the Fifth Century it was moved, and perhaps split up, to before the Words of Institution, in line with the Western emphasis.
“Veni, Sanctificator omnipotens aeterne Deus. et bene dic hoc sacrificum tuo sancto nomini praeparatum.”
“Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Your holy Name.”
“Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris,. ut nobis Corpus, et Sanguis fiatdilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.”
“O God, deign to bless + what we offer, and make it approved, + effective, + right, + and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may become for our good, the Body + and Blood + of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
There is no sense that the Spirit’s blessing of the Gifts is not still required in the Roman rite but only it is not directly invoked at particular point after the Words of Institution, as it is in Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Also, in the West the Liturgical action, according to Nicholas Cabasilas, was not complete until after the prayer:
“Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus, jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu dininae majertatis tuae: ut quoquot ex hac altaris participatione, sacrocanctum Filii tui Corpus, et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione coelesti et gratia repleamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.”
“Most humbly we implore You, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your Holy Angel to Your altar above, before the face of Your Divine Majesty. And may those of us who by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing, Through Christ our Lord. Amen.”
He considered this to be the “Epiclesis” and from it that the Latins were incorrect to consider the change complete before this time, otherwise there would not be an imploring for God to accept the offerings to be brought to the Altar, which would be tantamount to blasphemy because they would already be so, being the Body and Blood of the Lord already accepted. This prayer is in contrast to a similar prayer in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom that presupposes the change of the Gifts before the prayer:
“Ὑπὲρ τῶν προσκομισθέντων καὶ ἁγιασθέντων τιμίων Δώρων, τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.
Ὅπως ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ προσδεξάμενος αὐτὰ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὑπερουράνιον καὶ νοερὸν αὐτοῦ θυσιαστήριον, εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας πνευματικῆς, ἀντικαταπέμψῃ ἡμῖν τὴν θείαν χάριν καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, δεηθῶμεν.”
“For the precious Gifts, which have been spread forth and sanctified, let us pray to the Lord.
That our God, who loveth mankind, receiving them upon His holy, most heavenly, and noetic Altar as a savour of spiritual sweetness, will send down upon us in return His divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit, let us pray.”
This prayer is reflected earlier in the service for the preparation of the Gifts:
‘Αὐτὸς εὐλόγησον τὴν Πρόθεσιν ταύτην καὶ πρόσδεξαι αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσιαστήριον.”
“…Do Thou Thyself bless this oblation, and receive it upon Thy most heavenly Altar…”
which is much in line with the prayers in the Roman rite.
Thus, the two rites are very similar and the anaphora properly concludes with a prayer after the Words of Institution. The Roman rite in this is not different from that of Constantinople and the issue is not so much the words of the rite but the interpretation.
Note: I am opposed to any artificial inclusion of an Epiclesis in the Roman rite as used in Western Rite Orthodox Churches, because of the above.
It is far from clear (1) whether the Eucharistic Prayer in Hippolytus’ “Apostolic Tradition,” which survives in a unique palimpsest manuscript of ca. 400 AD in the Verona Cathedral Library, is preserved in the form in which Hippolytus wrote it (assuming that he did), rather than being “adapted” or “updated” for the use of whatever group of people wished to use and preserve it down to nearly 200 years after its origin; and (2) even assuming that it is preseved more-or-less as Hippolytus wrote it, whether Hippolytus preserved anything much resembling the actual wording or phraseology of the Eucharistic Prayer(s?) in use in Rome at that time, or whether he composed a prayer that best (in his view) embodied the “Apostolic Tradition” as he had received and wished to transmit it, is a matter of dispute.
Various scholars have suggested that parts of the Prayer are later additions or alterations. Dix suggested that the epiclesis was a later insertion (or at least that part about sending the Spirit onto “the gifts” in additon to “thy Holy Church”); Ratcliff a somewhat different view; and G. G. Willis insisted that by the time it was copied onto the Verona manuscript it had most likely as much been altered in one direction as it had been altered, probably independently, in the form in which it survives, expanded and interpolated, as an Ethiopian anaphora. Even if an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit is ancient in some Western Eucharistic Prayers, it is almost never “consecratory” in its petition.
See:
*The Shape of the Liturgy* by Dom Gregory Dix (1945)
*Liturgical Studies by E. C. Ratcliff* ed. Couratin and Tripp (London, 1976: SPCK)
*A History of Early Roman Liturgy* by G. G. Willis (Henry Bradshaw Society, 1994)
“The New Eucharistic Prayers” by Geoffrey G. Willis, in *The Heythrop Journal,* January 1971 (London)
*Essays in Early Roman Liturgy* by G. G. Willis (London, 1964: Alcuin Club)
*Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy* by G. G. Willis (London, 1968: Alcuin Club)
Dear Fr Patrick,
The question is not whether there were “western” epiclesis prayers, but whether there was a Roman epiclesis prayer. If your reading suggests to you that there was such a prayer at one time in the Roman liturgy, I would be obliged if you could point me to your source. I am aware of no Roman liturgical text that might serve as the basis for such a belief. To the best of my knowledge, speculation about a Roman epiclesis prayer rests on only two lines of evidence, neither especially convincing in my opinion: 1) Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition and 2) St Gelasius’ rhetorical question “Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos…criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?”.
Of course, if you consider the “veni sanctificator” prayer to be an epiklesis then of course the Roman rite not only has one, but it never lost it. One way or another, however, Joe’s comment about Paul’s liturgy “restoring” the epiclesis to the Roman rite is off-base.
Greg,
My comment is to show that the same liturgical understanding was present in both the liturgies of Rome and of the East, as well as other genuine Catholic/Orthodox liturgies when they were formed. The quotes I provided were to show that the Roman Rite has a functional equivalent to an epiclesis, even if not positioned in the same place or with the same words. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I read that an epiclesis had been moved in about the 5th Century.
I understand that the consecration of the Gifts is not so much a result of a the reading of a particular phrase of words in of themselves but a process that when properly completed means that the Gifts have been transformed. The particular words or the particular order of words is not essential but that the general themes of the prayers have been properly represented as well as those words from Apostolic Tradition, such as the Words of Institution. (However, this does not mean that an order to the prayers is irrelevant.) Also, the ritual context of the prayers is important, i.e. the whole package is required and not just a particular prayer, whether it be solely the Words of Institution or the Epiclesis.
From both Liturgies, it seems that the main aim of the prayers is for the Gifts to be accepted on the Heavenly Altar, thus signifying the liturgical union with Christ and the participation in His Sacrifice and at His Table, receiving His Body and Blood. This aim does not seem to be completed in the Roman rite until after the Supplices te rogamus, (the prayer of the angel taking the Gifts to the Altar). Both Rites seem to cumulate in “Amen” at the end of the Anaphora where the people confirm with the Priestly offering and the action is complete as that of the Church in Christ; the Body united to the Head.
Regarding evidence of an epiclesis prayer being in the same form in the Roman Rite as in the eastern rites, I think the evidence is clear that at least from the Fifth Century, such a form cannot be found in the Roman Rite. There is also no evidence of it being removed at the time of the Schism or in a fairly wide space of time preceding or following this. The Fifth Century is too early to talk of a split between East and West, although roots of the eventual split can be traced back to these times. I do not believe, was an issue until very much later and is an issue of interpretation rather than the words of the Rite themselves. So, the omission of the form cannot be taken to reflect a different theology. I find it difficult to accept that the Roman Rite, also other western rites, would not have been written in a manner reflecting the understanding of the Epiclesis, which is so common in eastern rites, even if not explicitly stated. Doing so, I believe, would strike deeply at a unified Apostolic Tradition to the determent of both Roman Catholics and Orthodox because there would be different theologies of the Liturgy that is the heart of Christian life when both acclaim a united Catholic Church, West and East. So, interpreting the prayers of the Roman Rite as incorporating the epiclesis in effect, even if worded differently, is my bias and I disagree with saying: “there is no epiclesis in the Roman Rite.”
So, I agree that there was no need to “restore” the epiclesis to the Roman Rite, although perhaps helpful to make such a prayer more explicit, although I prefer to avoid modifying well-established rites and rather to develop better interpretations and explanations of the rites.