Replies

I was not trying to imply that the current Byzantine Rite was not a valid continuation of the ancient rite. Quite the contrary, I was only pointing out that the minor changes in the Roman Rite were no different than those of the Byzantine Rite, both being the continuation and organic growth of their more ancient forms.

I think it would be fair to say that I denied the extent of antiquity of the traditional Mass, to which the history of Mass leads us. But I was definitely wrong in believing that the traditional Mass was of a much more recent origin. All indications are that the Roman Rite Mass has been set canonically for all practical purposes by the 7th century, which represents a "pedigree" of 14 centuries vs 16; insignificant difference indeed.

Be careful my dear Kosta, these kind things you are saying about the Latins could start to become a habit. : )

The Great Entrance is a modification of the praxis of earlier days when the Gifts were prepared outside the church and were brought in to the altar. Today, they are prepared on a separate table near the altar and the priest walks them around the church simulating their being brought in.

Actually, there has been quite a change in the meaning of the entrance with the gifts. In the time of St. John Chrysostom the gifts were brought to the altar without ceremony and without any particular significance, being a purely utilitarian action. As late as the 6th century Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople wrote concerning the Great Entrance:

They act stupidly, who have taught the people to sing a certain psalmic chant when the ministers are about to bring up to the altar the bread of oblation and the recently-mixed chalice. In this hymn, which they consider suitable to the action being performed, the people say that they bear in the King of glory, and refer in this way to things being brought up, even though they have not yet been consecrated by the high-priestly invocation - unless perhaps what is sung means something else to them. For as Anthanasius the Great says in his sermon to the baptized: "You will see the Levites (i.e. the deacons) bearing in bread and a chalice of wine putting them on the table. And as long as the supplications and prayer have not been completed, it is nothing but plain bread!"

Compare this with Patriarch Germanos I in the 8th century:

By means of the procession of the deacons and the representation of the fans, which are in the likeness of the seraphim, the Cherubic Hymn signifies the entrance of all the saints and righteous ahead of the cherubic powers and the angelic hosts, who run invisibly in advance of the great king, Christ, who is proceeding to the mystical sacrifice, borne aloft by material hands. Together with them comes the Holy Spirit in the unbloody and reasonable sacrifice. The Spirit is seen spiritually in the fire, incense, smoke, and fragrant air: for the fire points to his divinity, and the fragrant smoke to his coming invisibly and filling us with good fragrance through the mystical, living, and unbloody service and sacrifice of burnt-offering. In addition, the spiritual powers and choirs of angels, who have seen his dispensation fulfilled through the cross and death of Christ, the victory over death which has taken place, the descent into hell and the resurrection on the third day, with us exclaim the Alleluia.
It is also in imitation of the burial of Christ, when Joseph took down the body from the cross, wrapped it in clean linen, anointed it with spices and ointment, carried it with Nicodemus, and placed it in a new tomb hewn out of a rock. The altar is the image fo the holy tomb, and divine table is the sepulchre in which, of course, the undefiled and all-holy body was placed.

None of this is presented as a criticism but only to show that there were developments in the liturgy in both the East and the West.

Be careful my dear Kosta, these kind things you are saying about the Latins could start to become a habit. : )

I will take your warning into consideration. But I will forge onward nonetheless. :)

I happen to think that Patriarch +Eutychius was correct in saying that the pre-sanctified Gifts are bread and wine, not dismissing the fact that they have been blessed. But until their change by the Holy Spirit they are material bread and wine.

The idea that angelic hosts and saints enter the church before them is beautiful, but it makes one wonder why did the Church then decide to prepare them inside. It is this kind of innovation that makes me very suspicious that much of this is man-made.

Take, for instance, the fasting rules in the East. No "animal" products such as milk, but shrimp is okay. Some say, animal products represent passion foods. And lobsters don't? It's not the food itself, but the attitude we take towards it that determines if we are fasting or not.

Thus, we can see how the "holiness" of some things in the Church increased as time progressed.

None of this is presented as a criticism but only to show that there were developments in the liturgy in both the East and the West.

None of it is taken as criticism, Father.