www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy One Year and One Day - A Reflection

Here's the link:

http://www.ocanews.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/257-The-DC-Town-Hall.html

In response to "A Providential Typo From God," the reflection by David Barrett:

Thank you so much for writing clearly and succinctly what must be said about the new Liturgy book from Metropolitan HERMAN and St Tikhon's Press.

Perhaps in our day one of the most important qualifications for Metropolitan should be his vision for American Orthodoxy and concern to reach out this nation's citizens with the Faith of the Apostles. Saint Tikhon taught, "Orthodox people must care for the spread of the Orthodox faith among the heterodox. The light of Orthodoxy is not lit for a small circle of people." Tragically, the changes in the new Liturgy book reveal our Metropolitan to be unqualified for his office. I write this with absolutely no ill will toward His Beatitude, and I believe he should be replaced regardless of whether he participated in Bob Kondratick's / Metropolitan THEODOSIUS' embezzlement or not.

Praying the Liturgy --the people's work-- silently is a battle I thought was fought and won long ago in the O.C.A. To backslide into such misguided practices shows a lack of vision for an American Orthodoxy where the people participate and the liturgy is truly the prayer of all.

But even moreso, reverting back to the title, "Lord," for the Metropolitan (I'm told it is a common slavic practice) demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of American piety and a total disregard for the concern of American Christians to recognize the preeminence of Jesus Christ as the sole Lord of the universe. This is beyond evangelistic insensitivity, beyond a refusal of our mandate to enculturalize the Gospel in America for Americans, it demonstrates a rejection of our mission to be apostolic and to become The American Orthodox Church.

As Father Michael Oleksa so aptly put it, �The Church has always been, in the minds of her saints, in America for Americans, and needs to adjust her procedures and mentality, her style and her structures to accommodate this society, this culture, in this land... We must embrace the place, the land, the people, and the culture, and present Orthodoxy as the fulfillment of what was already here, as the �rest of the story,� the completion of whatever has gone before.�

In America today, any Metropolitan who rubricly codifies reciting the prayers of the Liturgy silently and requires himself to be addressed as "Lord" should be removed from Synodal leadership simply for approving those changes in our service books alone. Such a Metropolitan truly fulfills Saidna PHILIP's critique: "Orthodoxy, despite her past glory, remains the best kept secret in this land because of our failure to understand the missionary dimensions of the Church." With or without scandal, such a Metropolitan should be rejected by the American faithful --without hard feelings and without condemnation, but rejected none the less. He is simply not right for America, because he will not lead us forward in the establishment of a truly American Church.

Sadly (horrifically), the "immorality" typo speaks for itself.

Father Mark Hodges
St Stephen the First Martyr
Lima Ohio
www.orthodoxlima.org [orthodoxlima.org]
fr.mark.hodges@juno.com
(419) 224-8600

Dear Fr. Mark - I have always wondered, if we don't hear the "silent" prayers, how we are supposed to interpret "...for unto Thee are due all glory, honor and worship...", i.e. if we don't hear the first part of the sentence. The Liturgy is full of examples like this.

btw, one of the readers at our parish was reading the post-communion prayers after Divine Liturgy, and suddenly stopped, looked at me with confusion, and summoned me to his side. Turns out he had purchased the new and improved St Tikhons book, and found out that they have separated the post-commuion prayers into two, discontinuous parts.

Supposedly they are also working on a new edition of the Apostol. I don't know whether to look forward to it with dred or anticipation.
#8.1 Michael Strelka on 2008-07-01 10:51 (Reply) Michael,

Even more telling than hearing the half-sentence, "...for, unto THee are due all glory, honor, and worship,..." is during the Anaphora: Let's say the main celebrant is Fr Paul or Bishop John. If everything is said secretly, and then, all of a sudden, I hear, "Take, eat! This is my body!" or, "Drink of it, all of you! This is my blood!", what am I really hearing? THIS is what I'm hearing: "Take, eat! This is MY, meaning, Fr Paul's or Bishop John's body or blood!!! And we're supposed to sing "Amen!" to THAT??? That's the rankest form of heresy!!!!! Yet, in countless parishes where things are done secretly (wasn't that the modus operandi of the KGB??), this is precisely what is affirmed!!
#8.1.1 David Barrett on 2008-07-01 18:06 (Reply) Concerning the new Liturgy book, there is another flaw: at the beginning of the Anaphora, in the sentence beginning "It is meet and right ...," the text also omits "to praise Thee." So proof-reading was not properly done.

As for the issue of "silent prayers," it is interesting to note that both the Church of Greece and the Church of Serbia have directed their clergy to return to the ancient practice of reciting these prayers loudly enough to be heard by the people. (It caused riots in Serbia; but then, Serbs, unlike we Sicilians, have always been a tad excitable.) It is also interesting to note that Novela 136 (or is it 137? I can never remember) of the Emperor Justinian outlaws the INNOVATION of the Anaphora being said "silently."

All of the "silent prayers" except two (prayers recited quietly by the priest before the Great Entrance and before "Holy Things for the Holy," both of which are clearly personal to the priest) were meant to be said aloud. Why? Because they are offered in the name of the whole assembly. The "Amen" sung by the people is an assent, not just to the doxology, but to the whole prayer; and as the Apostle asks in 1 Cor.14:16, how can a person say "'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?"

It was sheer laziness ("Can't we make this thing shorter? There's a chariot race this afternoon!") which led to their being said while the choir or people were singing. That the Metropolitan is attempting to return to a theologically unsound innovation is sad, liturgically pathetic, spiritually destructive and, not surprisingly, out of step with developments in world Orthodoxy.

And speaking of the word "liturgy," let us be clear that the word does NOT mean "work of the people." It means "a work done FOR the people by a private individual at his own expense" (e.g. a soldier serving in the army without pay and buying his own armaments &c., or a public official serving in office without pay). And just to be clear: the "private individual" in this case is NOT the priest, but Jesus Christ. The word was chosen because it describes perfectly what the Divine Liturgy celebrates and makes present: the saving work of Christ in His death and Resurrection. The authentic definition of "liturgy" does not at all justify the clericalization embodied in "silent prayers;" but words must be used properly.

Fr. Philip

Thank YOU for your reflection! The worst change by far is to revert back to praying the liturgy silently. I was taught this came from around the 400's as a result of well-intentioned but misguided piety (and fear, like the practice of postponing baptism until one's deathbed). With the silent prayers came the addition of the so-called "Little Litanies," whose purpose is solely to give the priest time to pray without being heard. What a far cry from the liturgical vision of St Basil when he champions his cathedral rite!

Perhaps the "lord" issue centers around the question of every Orthodox generation, "What is Holy Tradition?" (We must not equate customs --even venerable ones-- with Tradition. �Loyalty to Holy Tradition demands of us a constantly renewed act of discernment between the two.") I think it also focuses on one of our most needed debates, "How are we to reach out to and baptize this nation?" The question of the convicted at Pentecost, "What must we do to be saved?," is a valid one for this time and people, too --not in minimalistic terms like many Protestants would frame it, but like the Church at the first council in Acts 15. Americans are coming to faith in Christ within His true Church; what is required of them?

I sincerely appreciate and am aware of the fact that in Serbian, Greek, Russian and other languages the use of the title, "Lord" continues to have widespread acceptance and is understood properly. The point is not that in other
languages and other cultures and in other times the word "lord" is unacceptable, after all the Bible itself praises Sarah for calling her husband Abraham just that. The whole point is we are in America, and in twenty-first century America at that. We wouldn't force our wives to call us "lord," because in this society today --and I'm talking about both American secular society in general and the subculture of Evangelical, Protestant, and Charismatic America-- to call someone "lord" is as close to ascribing divinity to them as you can linguistically get.

A related issue we need to face is our need to understand and listen to this culture in this time. Just as we Orthodox since the Seventh Ecumenical Council would not use the term "worship" or "adoration" for anyone but God (we would not say, "I worship you" to another human being), so also modern American Protestants (generally speaking) do not use certain words, like "idol" (an Evangelical would never say "I idolize you," or, "so-and-so is my idol"), or "Savior," or "Lord" (capitalized or not). Simply put, no matter how the title was used in centuries past, to call the Metropolitan "our Lord" is to say that we consider him to be our God. If we are to reach out to Americans, we need to hear this, understand and appreciate the good basis for why this is, and accommodate our speaking so as to best communicate in this culture and in this time to this people.

One may perhaps counter that in many areas we should intentionally not accommodate this prideful culture, rather, we need to teach this nation how to honor its leaders. But this subordinates our true purpose in America to an attempt to impose Russian or Greek Orthodoxy here. Our mission is to redeem this culture, and our goal is to baptize America. It's a matter of not putting additional and unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of the Gospel. Perhaps the acceptability of "Lord" and other similar impositions is debatable as a matter of degree, but my opinion is quite strongly that while we do have many things to teach this land (and there are already so many essential things which require Americans to make whole paradigm shifts to become Orthodox), the "line" should be drawn well before we insist on calling the Metropolitan our "Lord."

The point I'm trying to make is that the new Liturgy book has been published "out of context," without consideration or even caring about the people it's for (or even the modern English language --but that's another issue!). Metropolitan HERMAN's approval of these changes (silent eucharistic prayers, "Lord," and others) in our service books indicates a lack of vision, sensitivity, and care for America. Irregardless of whether he is guilty of crimes and without any imputation of guilt or malice, he is not right for The Orthodox Church in America in the 21st century.

Father Mark Hodges

If we are going to play paste and cut from the OCA websites, then here are a few as well from http://www.ocanews.org/news/THreeReflections12.12.06.html:





I think the lesson is quite simple; both a silent and aloud anaphora are with us; any universal mandates one way or the other will be wrought with difficulty. I simply cannot believe the Holy Spirit has blessed 1500 years of "abuse" with allowing the Church to continue to grow and flourish in that time, especially when that alleged "abuse" involves the very heart of the Mystery of Mysteries.

Fr. Deacon Randy,

I posted them for Recluse who seems unable to find them, as well as unable to believe anyone in the OCA would be in agreement with anything from the RDL.

But I must disagree with you. The Church has survived with many abuses occuring within her and will continue to do so until Our Lord comes again. That abuse or, in this case, less than optimal practice has become entrenched does not mean it has the blessing of the Holy Spirit.

Fr. Deacon Lance

And I will disagree as well - the failed mandates are even greater proof where the "abuse" or "less than optimal practice" lies; 1500 years of solid usage by the body of the Church is certainly compelling where she has been led. The Protestants also say we were misled from early on.

Abuses rarely bring good fruit - the continued growth and flourishing of the Church with what has come to be far and away the "mainstream" practice speaks for itself. It is no abuse.

The modern problems of churches trying to recreate themselves in the name of renewal also speaks for itself. Often what is tried and true and is solid practice is that way for a reason, and best not tampered with.

And again I will clarify that I am not strictly opposed to the aloud anaphora; I do not prefer it for many reasons, but I do believe rather it should be to pastoral need and sensitivity to decide this, and not absolute mandates that throughout history have been essentially useless and have effected no real change in the practice.

It appears that we and the OCA are facing a similar situation except that the roles are reversed. A common factor, however, is that in both instances, the Authority is mandating an exclusive practice over another that has been or recently become customary.

I think in both instances Authority should just be a little flexible, tolerant and patient.

Especially in the case of the RDL, does anyone dispute that the practice stipulated in the liturgicon indicates -- and has for some considerable time -- that parts are inaudible or said in a low voice? Are we really inheriting a 1500+ year abuse or a legitimate practice for its time, that time is indicating (maybe) should be altered, but gradually and "organically"?

I had put forth the following proposition in an attempt to establish a consensus [ link ]:


To which Fr. David responded:


So it's not just the audible Anaphora, but the audible Anaphora ONLY and NOW.

I believe that Father David misunderstands my point, or has summarized it poorly in his post.

I seek liberty for the individual priest to pray the Anaphora either quietly according to the received tradition or aloud. I have stated this consistently and clearly, so Father David is incorrect in summarizing my position here.

I oppose the mandate of the Council of Hierarchs to pray these prayers aloud. I do so for two main reasons:

1. There is no equivalent mandate across Orthodoxy to pray the Anaphora aloud. In the Liturgical Instruction (#21) we read: "In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage." Allowing liberty is one thing but mandating a custom forbidden in most Orthodox Churches is something quite different. The Council of Hierarchs should respect this directive.

2. I am not the one that has stated that the audible anaphora is a failed experiment in the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics themselves have stated this. I have quoted extensively especially from the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), who quotes German liturgists that say the custom has created a "crisis" in the Roman Catholic Church. Father David certainly has the right to disagree with Benedict XVI. I do not think, however, he can continue to dismiss the case put forth by the current Holy Father. My point here again is liberty, that the Council of Hierarchs should not imitate with mandate the experiment in the Roman Church when the Roman Catholics themselves are saying it didn't work. Liberty allows the Spirit to work. Mandates do not.

Father David's position of mandating the aloud anaphora (and certain other prayers) is considered very radical by most Orthodox and failed by many very intelligent Roman Catholics. We ought not to mandate his personal desires for the Divine Liturgy. We have an objective standard in the 1942 edition of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. Translate it accurately and completely. Do not skip anything. Do not add anything. Do not change anything. Translations should be literal and elegant, balanced only with respect for what has been memorized over the past 40 years. The Divine Liturgy does not need reform. It needs to be prayed in its full, official form so that it forms us into authentic Byzantine Christians.

I am away at the moment, but when I return home I will start several new threads to respond to Father David's post. I had hoped that he might respond to my most recent posts about using objective standards for preparing English language books.

There is absolutely no dispute about the importance of the Anaphora to the Divine Liturgy. Holding the position that the received custom our Church holds with all of Orthodoxy (that it be prayed quietly) should be permitted until a different custom develops organically across all of the Byzantine Churches (if it ever does) does not in any way suggest that the Anaphora is unimportant.

That's a valid question, Fr. Deacon, and I am unconvinced that it really is an "organic" change, since forced attempts at unilaterally changing it have fallen miserably. John has correctly pointed to some re-thinking the Latin church is doing in this matter.

Can we be so quick to dismiss 1500 years of sensus fidelium as misguided?

In the Kyivan Church, one cannot deny that the entire received tradition from the time of St. Volodymyr through the Union was NOT one of an aloud anaphora.

I find it very difficult to believe that when I sing: "We have seen the true Light. We have received the heavenly Spirit. We have found the true faith. We worship the undivided Trinity for having saved us." that I don't really mean it because of an inherent defect of practice, or perhaps should sing it with a caveat - I have sort of found the true faith, but with notations of defective practice...

I must say, with no malice intended, that this must rank as one of the lamest examples of a justification for audible liturgical prayers I have heard. Whoever would inquire "If everything is said secretly, and then, all of a sudden, I hear, "Take, eat! This is my body!" or, "Drink of it, all of you! This is my blood!", what am I really hearing?", with the above conclusion, is in need of evangelization or at the least a catechesis or mystagogy. A proper participation in the Divine Liturgy (Eucharist) presumes a degree of mystical (sacramental) initiation, preparation, and illumination.

If someone says "this is my book" or "this is my overcoat", or even "this is my family", he does not normally put on vestments, offer incense, and sing these words. The context makes it clear that the Institution Narrative does not indicate that the Eucharist is the priest's personal possession.

Fr. Serge

John said: "I am not the one that has stated that the audible anaphora is a failed experiment in the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics themselves have stated this."

However, I would presume that you do not disagree with them. I would correct your statement, though, to say "S[u]ome[/u] Roman Catholics have stated this." It is most certainly not Roman Catholics in general who hold that this is a failed experiment.
I note again that the importance of the Anaphora is not discussed on this Forum. John says it is important but why is it important and is its importance not so great as to strongly favor the people's hearing? Instead, all the argumentation is what I would call "exterior argumentation." That is, "it's a long-standing tradition" or "it's not the law and shouldn't be mandated", etc. We're not asking what it means or why it is important but it is a long-standing tradition that it is not said aloud, so there you are. One priest told me that the anaphora only has historical significance and is no longer necessary. Depending on one's proclivity, one can simply say the Words of Instition or an Epiclesis (silently) and pass out Communion.
I say no, and this is something I would die for. I say that the anaphora most perfectly fulfills Paul's injunction, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:26)" The Liturgy should be a little disturbing, it should transform us into the body of Christ and send us forth to live and proclaim his good news, "Let us go forth in peace ... in the Name of the Lord." If the bishops think this is important, then they have the perfect right to mandate it. I think the question did not arise until the second half of the 20th century for us because the Liturgy was not in the vernacular and we would not have understood a long prayer like this. It was, therefore, until after 1950, a moot point.
The bishops can mandate it if they believe it important. I would hold that in John's view, our Church is powerless. We can do something only if the Orthodox do it, and then not even if the Orthodox do it but only if all the Orthodox or at least the vast majority do it. According to John's principle, we would only be an isolated fragment of a church that does not have the power to act on behalf of the spiritual welfare of its people, a right that was even conceded by the (controversial) Balamand statement.
We must take care. Each generation must "reform" the Liturgy to assure that it is in conformity with the Lord's command, "Do this in memory of me." I do not condemn the generations that have gone before us, they did the best they could, but the anaphora was not in the vernacular and the same understanding was not there.
I mean no insult to anyone, for God knows our hearts and our faith in Him, and both sides may have great faith. However, it is my mentality and my "presumption" that I cannot help but think that an overwhelming devotion to certain perceived ritual norms is not a little like some of the ancient Romans who could not see why we have to worship just one God now while the many gods have served us well for many centuries, thank you.

Of course, and Caesar can make his horse a senator, if that's all there is to it.

I strongly affirm the mon-arche of the bishop, who's charisma veritatis is necessary but hardly sufficient for a true understanding and functioning of ekklesia/church.

Let's forget the issue of the Anaphora for just a minute, and get to the real issue of who wanted or deemed inclusive language necessary.

Please Father, many people would sleep better if this simple question finally got an answer. (Although, I sleep like a log. )

And since it is a problem of social change, it is a very serious theological problem because you have changed the liturgy (and in particular the Creed) to fit the culture rather than proclaim an authentic liturgy (and Creed) to transform the culture. Those who have written the new liturgical texts have not been mindful of St. Paul's words in Romans chapter 12.



The great lack of sacrifice of the laity who have by and large accepted the modern view of human sexuality by their whole-hearted rejection of the Church's teaching on marriage and the transmission of human life, and the desire of certain religious to pave the way for women's ordination, has now found its way into the Creed and Liturgy which has ceased to be "rational worship" by the very fact that words can be dropped from texts and then the these new texts can be shamelessly defended on the basis that no change was intended except to make them more relevant to modern "culture". It is quite clear, however, that modern "culture" does not cultivate much. If one cares to look at the facts regarding marriage, contraception and abortion, "modern culture" is in serious trouble. It will only be transformed by those willing to be baptized into Christ and who will worship in spirit and in truth.

I apologize deeply for the last paragraph of my last post. I did intend to imply that I am a better Christian than anyone else. I just wanted to give a clear example of the point that just because we've done one thing for many centuries, that we cannot make changes now.