The People and the Epiclesis

Liturgical innovation and/or the conflation of various Orthodox traditions as well as the importation of distinctly Western (i.e. Roman) practices are in full swing particularly within the Antiochian Archdiocese but can be seen to a lesser extent even in the Greek Archdiocese. One of the particular innovations has to do with the confusion of prayers/actions specifically reserved for the clergy and those reserved for the people. This is no more apparent than in the epiclesis prayer.

When the priest calls down the Holy Spirit he says the following:

P: And make this the Body of Thy Christ.

The people then respond:

Pe: Amen.

P: And make this the Blood of Thy Christ.

Pe: Amen.

P: Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit.

Pe: Amen. Amen. Amen.

This is the way it is done in Antiochian and Greek parishes. But it is patently incorrect. The "Amens" are the prerogative of the Deacon only. If there is no deacon, the "Amens" are again reserved to the priest. However, because of the continued absence of deacons and also because of the influx of converts from Protestant backgrounds where there is no distinction between clergy and laity, the people have taken the deacon's role for themselves. The people should be singing the hymn "We hymn Thee, We bless Thee" but this hymn has even been moved to be sung AFTER the epiclesis. It makes no sense to place it there since we should be hymning and blessing the Lord because He is transforming the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Fr. Alexander Lebedeff has this to say about such liturgical innovation:

Similarly, the proclaiming aloud of three "amens" after the epiclesis is another uncalled-for expression of fervor, meaning it is not specified in the rubrics of the service. The service books state clearly that the three "Amens" are said by the Deacon. It does not say: "and the people say—amen, amen, amen."

Again, this is an example of laypeople usurping the prerogative of the Deacon, who participates actively in the consecration of the Holy Gifts, and gives both the invitations ("Bless, Master, the Holy Bread." etc.) and the responses, including the "Amens." It would be inappropriate for the altar servers to participate in these responses, even though they are right there and can see and hear what is occurring. During the epiclesis, the choir is singing the solemn hymn "We sing unto Thee...", the Royal Doors are closed, and the faithful stand in silent prayer that should not be interrupted by any amens, however well-intentioned. In order to even know when the exact moment to say these amens occurs, the congregation would have to hear the words that the Priest is supposed to pronounce quietly during the singing of the hymn. Either the Priest would have to say them quite loudly, drowning out the singing, or the singing would have to stop so that you could hear what the Priest was saying. Both would be a violation of the order of the service (as is any reading aloud by a Priest of any prayer meant to be read quietly or silently).

Actually, there are a variety of dynamics indicated in the services for prayers. Some are said quietly (in a low voice), some are said loudly (in a great voice), some are said silently (no voice). We should humbly defer to the holy authors of these services and follow their directions. Whenever we want to introduce something "of our own," we not only violate the service rubrics, but we violate the unity of the church.

All such "unique" practices should be patiently and lovingly eliminated.

The entire article can be referenced here.

Such practices need to stop. I'm no ordained Deacon and thus I should not say Amen. Neither are the people in the nave. This work is only being done in the sanctuary, the result of which will then be carried out and distributed to the faithful. Then, we may say "Amen, amen, amen" to our hearts' content.

To Kneel or Not To Kneel? That is the question.

At my church today we had a voters meeting to vote on what new pews would grace our nave. Really the question that was posed to the congregation was what type of wood would be used--oak or mahogany? In the end, oak won out simply because it was cheaper. It should have been a really short meeting, but like all voters meetings, this one just dragged on because other issues, not illegitimate ones, kept coming up.

One of the issues raised was whether kneelers would be part of the pew deal. It was not and it was not even part of the bid. So, a motion was made that new bids be sought out including kneelers as part of the deal. The motion failed. The arguments put forward for kneelers was that several parishioners kneel (on Sundays and at other times) during the epiclesis when we call down the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and that kneeling is done as "pious custom" to honor this meeting of Heaven and Earth.

While I do not doubt the sincerity or the piety of the people who do such an act, it is a Western innovation that has crept into the Eastern Rite, especially here in America. As one of the proponents mentioned, a great number of churches of the Eastern Rite have both pews and kneelers to accommodate the faithful despite the fact that such is never found in the churches of the Old World. (I'm not going to get into arguments about whether pews are appropriate or not. That is for another time). However, just because all of the other churches have given into this innovation doesn't mean that we should as well.

Nevertheless, this issue got me thinking about when it is appropriate to kneel and when it is not. I think it has no place on Sundays as Sunday is always an anti-Pascha (i.e. mini-Pascha) and to kneel implies penitence when we should be rejoicing at our Lord's triumph over death. We also do not kneel at any service between Pascha and Pentecost when it returns on Vespers of Pentecost Day. Such is the rationale behind the 20th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council (Coincidentally, today we commemorated the 318 fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea). But does that preclude all kneeling?

As indicated earlier, kneeling does not always have to be an action of lamentation or sorrow or penitence. There can be a "joyful knelling" if you will and a lot of shades of gray in between.

I don't have the necessary learning to parse all the arguments for and against kneeling in various contexts, but the late Archbishop CHRISTODOULOS of Athens once wrote something about this very issue. You can read it here on the MYSTAGOGY blog. For what it is worth, I believe that kneeling is part of the Western Rite inheritance which has jumped rites to the Eastern Rite. When, however, kneeling is called for in the rubrics of the Eastern Rite, it actually should be understood for the faithful to make a prostration. When the epiclesis occurs on a Liturgy for a feast day, outside of the Pentecostarion period, I will prostrate at the words "changing them by the Holy Spirit."

But read it and make your own judgments. I believe that this is one of those American spins on Orthodox faith and practice and tradition that can really divide people from the greater Truth that should be proclaimed in our churches each and every week.