Exploring Protestant Traditions

Recently, I came upon the book Exploring Protestant Traditions by W. David Buschart. After reading a description of the work and glancing at the table of contents I knew it would likely be a worthwhile purchase. After spending some time with this text I am thoroughly convinced that it has been worth it. Buschart has an impressive fluency with the theological languages and beliefs of eight major Protestant traditions (Lutheran, Anabaptist, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Wesleyan, Dispensational, and Pentecostal). What’s more, his extensive knowledge is tempered with a gracious openness and affirming posture toward each of these streams of Protestantism.

After picking up Exploring Protestant Traditions I have not thought the same way about inter-Christian relations and ecumenism. Buschart imparts two key lessons (among many others) to his reader: first, each Christian tradition has an “internal coherence” (i.e., “an existential or phenomenological coherence” (p. 24) and second, “many other Christians pursue life in Christ” through these “theological and ecclesiastical traditions” (p. 27). This dual lesson goes a long way toward appreciating the value of the current diversity within global Christianity. It must be stated that Buschart never tries to minimize or hide differences between the traditions, but rather highlights the positive contributions that each can make to the broader body of Christ. This belief is reflected in the subtitle of the book: An Invitation to Theological Hospitality.

For Buschart, the basis of Christian hospitality between churches and traditions is the hospitality of God toward us in Christ. God’s gift of new life to Christians and loving action in creating one kingdom family inspires Christian hospitality. In light of this Christians are to have a “both/and” approach to unity and diversity within Christianity (p. 257). According to the author, it is “possible for someone to both stand within a tradition and stand with other Christians outside that tradition” (p. 258). This is what it means to be hospitable. The eschatological dimension of our faith directs our attention to the future fulfillment of perfect unity and diversity in the kingdom (p. 261). As we wait for this glorious hope it is legitimate to practice hospitality with healthy “differentiation” (i.e., “proper boundaries”) as long as it does not lead to “sinful exclusion” (p. 265). The final goal of Christian hospitality is honoring Jesus’ prayer in John 17:22-23 “that all may be one…so that the world may know [and believe in Jesus]” (pp. 272-275).

One might ask why Buschart limited his study to the Protestant world, leaving out information related to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. To my knowledge this question is never addressed directly in the book, however titles of other works that provide such information are suggested in one of the footnotes. Two worth mentioning are: The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware and Expressions of the Catholic Faith by Kevin Johnson. They serve as good compliments to Exploring Protestant Traditions; particularly, for professors or teachers offering classes on Christianity or for self-directed study.

How Christians Refer to Each Other Matters

Recently, the Wooster City Chamber of Congress sponsored a religions roundtable as part of their yearlong leadership Wooster program. This event invited participants from seven religious traditions (Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Mennonite, Nazarene, Mormon, and Unitarian Universalist) to present their faiths to leaders from local businesses. Each presentation lasted twenty minutes, providing an overview of the history, beliefs, practices, and local expressions of these religious traditions.

I was able to attend this roundtable as a presenter for the Mennonite tradition. It was an incredible experience as I was able to learn from and interact with a wide range of leaders in the community. They had many questions and insights about the Mennonites. I tried my best to answer and respond to them (not being raised as a Mennonite did not help in this regard).

Looking back on the whole experience, which lasted about four hours, I am struck by two details: first, the incredible respect shown by the participants for their neighbors of different faiths and second, the use of the term “religion” by many for describing the various Christian and non-Christian traditions. Most of the participants in the program were affiliated with a Christian church. When referring to Islam or Judaism they often spoke of them as other “religions.” This made perfect sense to me. What caught me off guard was when they described the different Christian traditions (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) as different religions. From my perspective, they are different expressions of the same religion: Christianity. I made this point several times during my presentations. It resonated more with some participants more than others.

During the presentations, many of the participants seemed to appreciate the language of traditions, expressions, forms, and streams of Christianity. Some however preferred to use the term “religion” for the different Christian groups and one person even mentioned the term “sect.” As I mentioned earlier, all terms were used with the utmost respect so there was no sense that anyone was berating the various churches. Aside from the enjoyment of dialoguing with so many interesting people, I left the roundtable event with one question in mind: how can I effectively share with others a vision for the common foundations that many churches share in the scriptures and the ancient creeds without sounding dismissive of their significant differences?

Whatever the answer may be to this question I do believe that the way Christians refer to each other matters. Paul reminds us that we need to make “every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” because “there is one body and one Spirit…one hope…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:3-6). Perhaps, if we can recognize these powerful foundations of our faith in Christians of other traditions we will begin to think of them as part of our broader family and as part of one Christian religion.

Discovering the Limits of My Ecumenical Horizon

In the United States, it is not uncommon for Christians from many different traditions and backgrounds to have regular contact with one another (e.g., in the workplace, through parachurch organizations, and other partnerships). Through such meetings Christians can be inspired by the insights and practices of their fellow believers. Unfortunately, these meetings can also be discouraging when the two parties misunderstand or even dispute with one another.

Many of us have experienced both the joy and disappointment of inter-Christian encounters. On the best of days, we are able to seek out common ground with our brothers and sisters in Christ, focusing on the positive elements of our churches. One bad days, we may find ourselves on the defensive or feeling judged for our particular Christian backgrounds. It is in these moments, both good and bad, that we need to remember the limits of our ecumenical horizons.

Personally, I would like to bring the different theological convictions of my fellow Christians into one coherent story. I would love to unite the beauty of Orthodox worship, the unity of Catholicism, the love for scripture in the Lutheran, Reformed, and Wesleyan traditions, the life in the Spirit of Pentecostals and charismatics, and the desire for peace in Anabaptism. I long to bring these wonderful gifts together, but I cannot. It is hard enough for me to hold them together in my own ecumenical vision let alone for others. It is only in the fullness of God’s wisdom and timing that all of His people will be one flock again. I do not know the day or the hour of this, nonetheless I must live in hopeful expectation of it and prepare for it.

Through discovering the limits of my ecumenical horizon, I learn valuable lessons about trust and obedience. I am invited to renew my belief in Christ’s prayer for His followers “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). Christ’s prayer will come to fulfillment one day! In addition, I am called to rediscover the little things that I can do “with great love” (as Mother Teresa would say) in service of the unity of God’s people. Though I am limited, God is more than able to use the small contributions of His followers for His greater purposes. This is particularly true when we line ourselves up with His loving vision for the Church and the world.

Switching Christianities: Personal Reflections on Christian Diversity and Confessional Identity

For many Christians of various confessional traditions, the principle holds true that what unites us is much greater than what divides us. The diversity of our unique cultures, languages, and traditions does not obscure our fundamental unity in Christ…a unity described by C. S. Lewis as “mere Christianity.” Such a vision has inspired numerous participants in the ecumenical movement. It is also a vision that has been contested by many, especially, apologists of particular Christian traditions. Such a unity, they claim, can only lead to a watering down of the truth preserved by the authentic custodians of the apostolic faith. They see the claims of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant forms of Christianity as mutually exclusive and fundamentally different.

Most of us have encountered both of these views. Assessing the merits of either approach can be complicated at best and discouraging at worst. How does one account for the diversity in Christian belief and practice? Some choose to look to the past, drawing on the history of the early Church and the patristic literature. Others like to focus on the present realities of our post-modern culture in which a plurality of perspectives is not questioned but rather assumed to be the status quo. Others still look to the future with the eschatological reign of God in mind, a time of perfect unity between all of God’s people.

At various points in my own journey of faith I have looked to the past, present, and future for answers to the question of Christian diversity. When looking to the past, I have found great riches in the patristic heritage of the East and West. Inspiring views of the meaning of Christian unity, the sacraments, and the authentic passing on and living of the faith. For many in Christian antiquity, the various local churches shared a fundamental unity from the beginning through their mutual, organic connection with the apostles. This unity was complimented by a common understanding of the gospel and a shared tradition of worship. The many churches holding to these essentials faced persecution by secular authorities and competition from sectarian Christian groups. Despite this, they continued to pass on their faith to successive generations many of whom are numbered today among the Catholic (Roman and Eastern), Orthodox (Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian), and Assyrian churches. Needless to say, in the face of so great a cloud of witnesses from the first millennium of the Church’s history (and their contemporary heirs), I have often found myself questioning many assumptions from my Protestant upbringing.

This process of self-reflection and questioning has often been accompanied by discussions with other Christians, who serve as bearers of the ancient traditions in Catholic and Orthodox communions. They have often introduced me to new ways (or old as the case may be) of thinking about God, prayer, and life in general. Their insights have inspired and stretched my thinking. Many times I have asked myself, can I continue in the particular form of Christianity in which I was raised or should I switch to another one? Should I enter into this great drama of receiving from the ancients and passing on to the next generation? I wish I could say that such questions have always been enlightening and spiritually profitable, but in reality they have often led me turn in upon myself and lose sight of the relational dimension of my walk with God. This is not to say that such questions are unimportant in the search for greater understanding of the gospel, but in some cases they can become ends in and of themselves. That being said, I believe that many Christians do switch to one of the ancient forms of Christianity in accordance with God’s prompting, though others choose not to switch in obedience to God’s will too.

What about the post-moderns on this subject? How do they account for the unity and disunity of the various churches and Christian communities? While many patristic authors support the view of a visibly united Church that shares a common ministerial hierarchy and understanding of the sacraments, post-moderns tend to look elsewhere for a model of Christian unity. For them, it is only through a multiplicity of Christian traditions that true inculturation of the gospel can occur. As the various churches and Christian communities adapt to their local contexts, the culture, language, and other aspects of their people enter the great Christian tradition. This results in a living out of the gospel that is truly universal and sufficiently open to the diverse gifts that God has given His people in various places.

If looking to the past emphasizes the univocality of the ancient apostolic testimony and looking to the present highlights the polycentricity of global Christianity then looking to the future shifts the focus to a perichoretic existence in the kingdom. Only in the eschatological kingdom will the fullness of unity be realized as people of every tribe, tongue, and nation enter into the great doxology to the one God. Then the perfect and loving unity of Father, Son, and Spirit will be mirrored by the communion of saints. Since this eschatological reality is outside our early understanding of time we can embrace its reality now through examples of the Spirit’s work among us. We can work our way back from the perfect unity shared by God’s people in the kingdom to our present-day reality of a visibly divided Christianity, knowing that both realities are in God’s providential care.

How then should one account for so many people switching Christianities? What is the nature of the relationship between Christian diversity and confessional identity? In my opinion, the answer to both of these questions lies in human nature itself. Since human beings are finite creatures it is natural for them to search for realities that transcend their limitations. This search is ultimately trans-temporal and trans-spatial, leading them into the realm of divine mystery. Only God fully knows how the past, present, and future will be transformed in the eschatological kingdom. Only God sees things as they truly are.

Switching Christianities is a decision that some people make on their journey of faith. It is a decision that is often made after much reflection and prayer. It is difficult for us to assess the validity of these decisions because only God knows a person’s heart condition. In spite of this, one does not need to be indifferent to the phenomenon. There is objective truth even if humans cannot know it exhaustively like God can. The ancient, the post-modern, and the eschatologically oriented believer all can learn from one another. The fullness of the truth that they are all seeking is in the person of Jesus Christ. Only through His initiative and power will the current reality of Christian diversity be transformed into the eschatological reality of the one, united people of God.

The following prayer by Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-ca. 245) is a most fitting way to close this reflection: “May the Lord Jesus touch our eyes, as he did those of the blind. Then we shall begin to see in visible things those which are invisible. May he open our eyes to gaze, not on present realities, but on the blessings to come. May he open the eyes of our heart to contemplate God in Spirit, through Jesus Christ the Lord, to whom belong power and glory through all eternity. Amen.”

Bridging the Ancient and Modern: The Example of Thomas Oden

There is without question a renewed interest in our times of exploring the patristic heritage. While such interest might seem to be a positive development to traditional patristic scholars, many have critiqued the new movement as prone to a selective reading strategy for approaching the ancient texts. In some quarters, this critique is developed further to suggest that any Protestant or Christian not associated with the ancient churches (Catholic or Orthodox) must, by default, embrace some form of selective reading. I would like to answer this critique by holding up the example of Thomas Oden. In Classical Christianity, a revision of Oden’s three volume systematic theology, he proposes a consensual theological method based on widely agreed upon figures and theological statements. In his scheme, greatest preference is given to scripture followed by patristic sources, then medieval theologians, reformation figures, and finally modern interpreters. Oden’s method attempts to be authentically ecumenical in its reading of sources, searching continuously for consensus and complementarity. He is aware of his locatedness as an interpreter in the Methodist tradition, which makes his interpretation of the ancient texts all the more careful.

Taking into consideration Oden’s example, perhaps those traditional patristic scholars, who are disappointed with the treatment of ancient texts by post-modern Christian interpreters should acknowledge that there exists a continuum of selective reading. Some groups and individuals like Oden are committed to an in-depth, careful, reading of the texts (even if from a Protestant ecclesial context) whereas others may in fact be more inclined to take only those things from the patristic texts that they agree with or like, leaving the rest (this is sometimes charged against certain emergent church approaches). Acknowledging an interpretive continuum also highlights that, in some sense, all of the Christian traditions read the church fathers selectively depending on their point of reference. For example, some Orthodox might feel this way toward some Catholics when discussing issues like Papal primacy and vice versa.

If the problem with new approaches to patristic texts is their allegedly arbitrary picking and choosing, where should the line be drawn for traditional approaches, which also can read these same texts selectively? In ecumenical dialogues, it is common to see the Catholic and Orthodox Churches acknowledging their profound closeness, rooted in their ancient, undivided heritage. Oden’s approach seeks to draw on this ancient, undivided heritage in a way that is faithful and authentic. One can see quickly that the Nicene Creed serves as the orienting motif of his entire work. Some traditional patristic scholars may questions whether he has gone far enough beyond the bounds of his particular confessional context, but others will see in his method a genuine and responsible approach. From my perspective, it is impressive to see the degree to which Oden has built bridges between ancient and modern forms of Christianity.

As appreciation grows for the patristic literature in popular Christian circles I believe that we will be seeing other approaches similar to Oden’s. In the end, this could create renewal of the larger Christian communities as greater numbers of people become aware of the ancient heritage of the Church. It is good that more popular discussion is happening related to ancient figures and ideas because modern Christian communities can learn valuable lessons from the history of those who have gone before them in Christ.

This is certainly Oden's vision for all Christians for he writes: "all of these traditions have an equal right to appeal to the early history of Christian exegesis...Protestants have a right to the Fathers. Athanasius is not owned by Copts, nor is Augustine owned by North Africans. These minds are the common possession of the whole church. The Orthodox do not have exclusive rights over Basil, nor do the Romans over Gregory the Great. Christians everywhere have equal claim to these riches and are discovering them and glimpsing their unity in the body of Christ" (Matthew 1-13, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; InterVarsity Press, 2001, xvii).

Many Traditions, Many Gifts, One Spirit, One Lord

I am very interested in the concept of gifting for exploring the Holy Spirit's work in drawing all Christians (and their larger ecclesial traditions) back together into one body without loosing a sense of each one's unique vocation. If one can speak of the various divided churches and communities as possessing unique gifts, perhaps, by God’s providential wisdom, these have been given to encourage greater cooperation, love, and, ultimately, unity among God's people in His saving plan for humanity. This all occurs in the context of repudiating past sins, errors, and divisions.

Let me offer some examples of what I am talking about when I speak of gifting in terms of broader ecclesial communities. These are generalizations and I realize that one could see examples of all three of these in each of the traditions respectively, but I think there is something to the way in which they are emphasized in each tradition according to its own heritage and vocation. They are: Spirit-centered experience (a gift emphasized in Pentecostalism), Word-centered proclamation (a gift emphasized in Protestantism), and Community-centered, apostolic oversight and practice (a gift emphasized in Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

This could be parsed out in a variety of ways. In spiritual discernment one could speak of pneumatological elements of discernment including the gift of discernment (emphasized in Pentecostalism), dynamic understanding of circumstances in light of Scripture (emphasized in Protestantism), and inspired guidance for weighing events in light of Tradition (emphasized in Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Related Christological elements of discernment could include Christ’s character experienced through the spiritual fruits (Pentecostalism), Christ’s teachings recorded in Scripture (Protestantism), and Christ’s authority incarnationally and visibly preserved by the Church and the passing on of Sacred Tradition (Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

In terms of soteriology one could speak of the Pentecostal emphasis on manifestations of the Spirit in transforming and healing human beings (the language of "baptism in the Spirit"), the Protestant emphasis on union with Christ in faith as freeing individuals (the language of "imputation of righteousness"), and the Catholic and Orthodox emphasis on sacramental cleansing and healing (the language of "infused grace" and "participating in the divine nature" respectively).

In terms of ecclesiology one could speak of the charismatically sustained service of the local body and spiritual unity of all Christians (Pentecostalism), the Word-centered confessional unity of the churches (Protestantism), and the visible unity and apostolic succession of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

I think John Paul II captures the hopefulness necessary for and inherent in such a vision of gifting and Christian reunion: “One...is capable of bringing forth good even from evil, from human weakness. Could it be that these divisions have also been a path continually leading the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ’s Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ? Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise...More generally, we can affirm that for human knowledge and human action a certain dialectic is present. Didn't the Holy Spirit, in His divine 'condescendence,' take this into consideration? It is necessary for humanity to achieve unity through plurality, to learn to come together in the one Church, even while presenting a plurality of ways of thinking and acting, of cultures and civilizations. Wouldn't such a way of looking at things be, in a certain sense, more consistent with the wisdom of God, with His goodness and providence?” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, 153).

In addition, Miroslav Volf's approach to gifting is quite helpful. He suggests that Christians in community reflect the perichoretic relations of the Triune God as they serve one another in love with their unique gifts, affirming one another without subordination or homogenization (see: After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity). Perhaps this image could be applied to larger Christian traditions as they serve one another in Christ and cooperate at the regional and global level.

One final point needs to be mentioned. Each ecclesial tradition needs to examine what it identifies as its own gifting, realizing that all of the practices and teachings (often thought of as a unique heritage) within a given tradition may not be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yves Congar attributes some of these developments to social, political, and historical factors that do not always contribute positively to the cause of Christian unity and should not necessarily be retained (I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 2:203-204). A reunited Church could affirm the particular gifts of many Christian traditions, but invite such a critical self-examination in faithfulness to the vision of unity in Jesus' prayer in John 17. If the various Christian traditions can be assured that their own gifts and sense of vocation will contribute to the direction and well-being of a reunited Church then perhaps greater openness to the idea might ensue.

Comparison of the Roman Catholic Mass with the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy

The text of the Roman Catholic Mass was promulgated by Paul VI (1897–1978) (commonly known as the Roman rite liturgy). The text of the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy originated with John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) (commonly known as the Byzantine rite liturgy).

I have taken the liturgical texts of these two traditions and made a comparative table. It was very interesting to find many common elements between the two. I was not able to find direct equivalents in all parts of both texts so only those I perceived to be substantial parallels have been included.

Before I provide the comparative table I would like to share a few observations from the book American Eastern Catholics by Fred J. Saato concerning thematic differences between the Roman and the Byzantine liturgies. Saato suggests that the Roman rite liturgy emphasizes the Lord's Supper as the model for the Mass with a simpler use of symbols and an emphasis on the present. He also suggests that the Roman rite uses direct prayers with little repetition and readings alternating with silence. He then suggests that the Byzantine rite liturgy has an eschatological focus stressing heaven on earth in repetition and continual singing of liturgical texts, iconography, incense and other sense related aspects. He also feels that the priest and the congregation face east showing their expectation of Christ coming again.

In light of Saato’s perspective, it seems to me that the differences between the Roman and Byzantine liturgies is not theological at the most basic level (they both see the liturgy as a proclamation of God’s Word and as a reception of Christ’s body and blood made present on the alter), but rather a divergence, to some extent, of the focal metaphors for the liturgy. To phrase it differently, the different theological emphases of these two traditions are centered more on the why and how of the liturgy (i.e., its particular form) than the what of the liturgy (i.e., its essence).

Roman Catholic Mass Text promulgated by Paul VI (Roman Rite)

Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy Text of John Chrysostom (Byzantine Rite)

Trinitarian Greeting: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. [Other forms of greeting are permitted that are not explicitly Trinitarian.] Penitential Rite: Kyrie: Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. [There is no direct equivalent to the 1st Antiphon at this point in the Mass.] Gloria: [A hymn retelling the work of Christ in salvation history and as glorified with the Holy Trinity.] Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. [There is no direct equivalent to the 3rd Antiphon at this point in the Mass.]

Trinitarian Greeting: Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. [A form of the Penitential Rite appears later in the text before the reception of communion.] [The Great Litany uses the phrase “Lord, have mercy” at the end of each petition.] 1st Antiphon: [A hymn with a Marian theme.] 2nd Antiphon: [A hymn retelling the work of Christ in salvation history and as glorified with the Holy Trinity.] Save us, O Son of God, who rose from the dead, we sing to You, Alleluia (repeated three times). Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen. Only begotten Son and Word of God, although immortal You humbled Yourself for our salvation, taking flesh from the holy Theotokos and ever virgin Mary and, without change, becoming man. Christ, our God, You were crucified but conquered death by death. You are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us. 3rd Antiphon: [theme varies]

LITURGY OF THE WORD: [The procession with the Gospel book occurs later in the Mass after the 2nd reading.] [There is no direct equivalent to the Thrice Holy Hymn at this point in the Mass.] First Reading: Responsorial Psalm: 2nd Reading: [Responses to the reading of the text varies between the Roman and Byzantine rites.] Lector: The Word of the Lord. All: Thanks be to God! Alleluia: Choir or Cantor: Alleluia! All repeat: Alleluia! Choir or Cantor: [a verse is sung] All repeat: Alleluia! Gospel Reading: [The deacon or the priest can read the text.] Deacon (or Priest): The Lord be with you. All: And also with you. Deacon (or Priest): A reading from the Holy Gospel according to (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) All: Glory to you, Lord! After the Gospel Proclamation: Deacon (or Priest): The Gospel of the Lord. All: Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ! Homily: Nicene Creed (or Apostles’ Creed): General Intercessions:

LITURGY OF THE WORD: Procession with the Gospel book: Thrice Holy Hymn: [There is no direct equivalent to the 1st reading at this point in the Divine Liturgy.] [There is no direct equivalent to the Responsorial Psalm at this point in the Divine Liturgy, however the lector does read verses from the Psalms here.] Epistle Reading: [Responses to the reading of the text varies between the Roman and Byzantine rites.] Deacon: Wisdom. Let us be attentive. Alleluia: People: Alleluia. Alleluia. Alleluia. Gospel Reading: [Only the priest can read the text.] Priest: Wisdom. Arise. Let us hear the holy Gospel. Peace be with all. People: And with your spirit. Priest: The reading is from the Holy Gospel according to (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John). Let us be attentive. All: Glory to You, O Lord, glory to You. After the Gospel Proclamation: People: Glory to You, O Lord, glory to You. Homily: [The Nicene Creed Appears later in the liturgy of the Eucharist before the anaphora.] [There is no direct equivalent to the General Intercessions at this point in the Divine Liturgy, however the Great Litany from earlier in the text expresses similar sentiments.]

LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST: Bringing of the Gifts to the Alter: Offertory Hymn: [There is no direct equivalent to the Litany of Petitions at this point in the Mass.] Offertory Prayer: [Prayer to God concerning the gifts.] [The sign of peace occurs later in the text after the Lord’s Prayer.] [Appears earlier in the text before the general intercessions.] Eucharistic Prayer: Priest: The Lord be with you. All: And also with you. Priest: Lift up your hearts. All: We lift them up to the Lord. Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God. All: It is right to give him thanks and praise. Sanctus: All: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. [The Words of Institution occur earlier in the text of the Mass at the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer.] Memorial Acclamation: Priest: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: All: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. or Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory. or When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory. or Lord, by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free. You are the Savior of the World. [The invocation of the Holy Spirit to come down upon the gifts and make them holy occurs earlier in the text of the Eucharistic Prayer before the Words of Institution (according to forms 2, 3, and 4 of the Eucharistic Prayer).]

LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST: Bringing of the Gifts to the Alter: [Sometimes this is referred to as the great entrance.] Cherubic Hymn: Litany of Petitions: Proskomide: [Prayer to God concerning the gifts.] [The kiss of peace can be exchanged at this point.] Nicene Creed: Anaphora: Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with all of you. People: And with your spirit. Priest: Let us lift up our hearts. People: We lift them up to the Lord. Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord. People: It is proper and right. Holy, Holy, Holy: People: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna to God in the highest. Words of Institution: [There is no direct equivalent to the Memorial Acclamation at this point in the Divine Liturgy, however the priest prays a prayer with similar themes.] Priest: Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming, We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all. Epiclesis: [A prayer inviting the Holy Spirit to come down upon the gifts an make them holy.]

Commemoration of the Saints: Doxology and Great Amen: [There is no direct equivalent to the Litany of Supplication at this point in the Mass.] The Lord’s Prayer: Sign of Peace: Breaking of the Bread: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace [A form of the Penitential Rite appears at the beginning of the Mass after the opening greeting.] Communion: Communion Hymns: Prayer After Communion: [The order of the Blessing and the Dismissal are reversed in the Roman and Byzantine Rites]. Blessing: Priest: May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All: Amen. [Other forms for the Dismissal may also be used]. Dismissal: Deacon or Priest: Go in the peace of Christ. or The Mass is ended, go in peace. or Go in peace to love and serve the Lord. All: Thanks be to God!

Commemoration of the Saints: [There is no direct equivalent to the Doxology and Great Amen at this point in the Divine Liturgy.] Litany of Supplication: The Lord’s Prayer: [The kiss of peace customarily occurs earlier in the text before the recitation of the Nicene Creed.] Breaking of the Bread: Priest: The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him. Penitential Prayer: Communion: Communion Hymns: Prayer After Communion: [The order of the Blessing and the Dismissal are reversed in the Roman and Byzantine Rites]. Dismissal: Priest: Let us depart in peace. Blessing: Priest: Through the prayers of our holy fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us and save us. People: Amen. Priest: May the holy Trinity protect all of you. (Distributing the antidoron, the priest says:) Priest: May the blessing and the mercy of the Lord be with you.