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

Father David said


????

At the very least, we should try to be faithful to the 1996 Liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation. In my own conversation with local Orthodox priests, one, in particular, who may be characterized as "Greek Catholic-friendly", had two major objections to the RDL: (1.) the use of "inclusive" language, and (2.) aloud recitation of the Anaphora (which I had not seen as being problematic). He is an OCA priest, and also prefers the use of "Old English" so as not to be in the position of having to use profane "street language" in the Liturgy ( I agree with that viewpoint). My suspiscion is that I would get the same reaction from most other Eastern Orthodox priests.

Dn. Robert

Father David Petras has posted some comments on the latest version of the Pittsburgh Metropolia's recasting of the Divine Liturgy and the opposition to that recasting. Since he names me (in a reference to my book on the subject), perhaps I should respond.
He begins with the observation that it is now just over a year since this recasting became "the official text in the Metropolia". As it happens, this is a bit modest; the recasting also includes the now-official rubrics and the now-required music.
At once Father David then complains that the recasting "has, of course, been under the gun for a much longer time on the Byzantine Forum". "Under the gun?" Has anyone threatened or advocated any form of violence in the course of the discussion? If so, it has not reached my attention.
As a colloquialism, "under the gun" can mean under pressure, or under attack. But it is by no means true that every posting concerning the recasting of the Divine Liturgy is an attack; several points of view have been expressed. However, since the Forum is almost the only medium that permits dissent from the imposition of this recasting, it is understandable that dissenting views are expressed on the Forum.
Father David then offers some reflection, beginning with the statement that "The Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States has not collapsed." Surely no one is claiming that it has. Many people � and not only on the Forum � are of the view that the introduction of the recasting has weakened the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia in the USA, but that is not an assertion that the Metropolia has collapsed. Since religion in general and liturgy in particular are topics of discussion that are always potentially volatile, there is a need for care in expressing ourselves as peacefully as possible.
There is ample anecdotal evidence of some defections from the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia. No one, to the best of my limited knowledge, has attempted to use scientific-sociological tools to assess the levels of support and dis-satisfaction with the recasting (which is understandable; such analysis and assessment of opinions in the parishes on a scientific basis is quite expensive itself). But there are some data that would be helpful and could be available.
For example: which parishes have experienced a significant increase in funds donated in the Sunday collections? Which parishes have noted, week by week, a significant increase in Church attendance? Contrariwise, which parishes (if any) have experienced a significant decrease in funds donated in the Sunday collections, and which parishes have noted a significant decrease in Church attendance? If the parishes are using the "envelope system", it would not be difficult to arrive at a satisfactory approximation of the data.
Father David writes, "There has been a lot of resentment among the people, but whenever there is liturgical change, there is resentment." There is truth to this. In consequence, one of the considerations to bear in mind in any project of liturgical change is whether the merits of the proposed change(s) will outweigh the unavoidable resentment. Closely connected is the consideration of how change may be introduced as peacefully and non-threateningly as possible. Whether these considerations were carefully reviewed in the matter of the present liturgical recasting is a proper topic for discussion.
Father David claims "Many traditionalists have pointed out that after the reforms of Vatican II the Church virtually collapsed. I have never seen it so full." This is a startling assertion; I have read both criticisms of the liturgical reforms of Paul VI and laudatory studies of them. No one denies that attendance at Sunday Mass in a substantial majority of Roman Catholic Churches has diminished quite seriously since Vatican II, and any pastor will confirm that Sunday collection income has not even kept pace with inflation, much less increased.
The difference between supporters of the Roman Catholic liturgical project set in motion by Paul VI and critics of that project is that the supporters reject the suggestion that the fall-off in Church attendance and Sunday collection income is directly related to the liturgical project, but has other causes, while the critics of the Roman Catholic liturgical project regard this assertion as absurd � and point out that had attendance and income increased, the supporters of the liturgical project would not have hesitated to claim the credit.
In any event, it may be possible to find some Roman Catholic venue where Mass attendance is higher than it was, say, fifty years ago � but that would take a good bit of searching.
Father David opines "most resentment has been that we have become too "Orthodox," that �we should just keep our old Greek Catholic Liturgy, hanging on to the Liturgy we knew in our youth in the 70's and 80's." I don't doubt that one could find some people to take that combination of positions, but I have not met them in the past 45 years or so. As for "our youth", I appreciate the compliment but in 1972 I was thirty years old, so perhaps I was already on my third or fourth youth!
"The Forum's cries that we must follow the 1964 translation and only the 1964 translation is definitely a minority position." I'm sure it is. This is certainly not a position of �The Forum�; the Forum itself does not take positions on such questions. This particular proposal is actually not often found on the Forum. And it is a minority position that I do not endorse. Most references to the 1964 text seem to be to the fact of its completeness � the book presents the entire Divine Liturgy, while the 2007 version is drastically abbreviated and makes some wholesale changes. The question is not "should the 1964 translation be improved?" � it is safe to say that a translation made over forty years ago into what was then "modern English" would need improvement by now. The question, rather, is how to go about it. I might have suggested, first of all, seeking to identify specific words or phrases that at least some clergy and faithful found problematic or dated, and circulate these, inviting discussion (but then, Father David appears to want to restrict discussion as closely as possible). This does not, of course, exclude experts in linguistics, in liturgical vernacular, in Church-Slavonic and Greek, and so forth from the discussion.
A next step might well be to discuss the matter with the clergy somewhat intensively, and ask (not require) the clergy to use a revised translation of the texts proper to the clergy, over, say, five or ten years, and then contribute their comments.
When the clergy have gained a sense of ownership of a revised translation, and are content with it, then it is possible to begin to adjust the texts sung by the faithful. This will inevitably present difficulties, since the faithful, if they attend regularly, will have learned much of the 1964/5 text "by heart" and will find a revised translation and a revised musical setting for many of the texts bothersome.
An argument can be made for the thought that until there is an agreed English text at least among a substantial majority of Greek-Catholic and Eastern Orthodox judicatories in the USA (seeking unanimity would be chimerical), one should make only a bare minimum of changes in the texts sung by the faithful, unless a clear movement among the faithful in favor of a new translation emerges.
"What I personally resent is that it has been made to seem that the complete text of the 1964 translation was in general use in our parishes and that the Council of Hierarchs has shortened it." It's not clear why Father David would personally resent this � and it is even less clear that anybody was claiming that the complete text of the 1964/5 translation was in general use in the US Ruthenian parishes. It could be found in use if one knew where to look and did not mind some serious traveling, but I doubt that it could be found in use in every deanery, let alone every parish. On the other hand, it is easy to verify that the Council of Hierarchs has drastically abbreviated that order of service, besides changing the translation.

Father David writes, �Cyril Korolevsky�s 1941 recension � eliminated all latinizations�. Strange. Father Cyril was certainly involved with the 1941 and subsequent Ruthenian editions published by the Holy See, but he was not by any means the sole person so involved, nor is it legitimate to take for granted that the resulting books represent his ideas holus-bolus.
The pressures of World War II and the uncertainty of what would happen on the deaths of Pope Pius XI and Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) required the commission to produce books without delay. Even though Metropolitan Andrew preferred to have a Church-Slavonic translation of the Greek, and even though Father Cyril Korolevsky was well aware of the Kyivan tradition and wished to retain it, the approach chosen was to produce a slightly modified Niconian set of service-books; this could be done without requiring much time.
As for eliminating all Latinizations � this is not an adequate description of the 1941 Divine Liturgy nor of the �Ruthenian� series of books which followed. That alone proves that Father Cyril did not have everything his own way; he was strongly in favor of eliminating all the Latin hybridisms. I shall not here give a list of all the remaining Latin hybridisms in that series of books, but it could certainly be done.

Father David also regrets that those who oppose the recasting of the Divine Liturgy have paid relatively little attention to the Anaphora. There are some good studies in print, by such luminaries as Father Louis Bouyer and Father Alexander Schmemann. But I would think that, like myself, many people are hesitating, reluctant to comment on the Anaphora until our senior colleague, Father Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, publishes his volume on that most crucial subject. Meanwhile, I will suggest that there is nothing in the text of the Anaphoras in use in the Byzantine tradition that requires or mandates chanting or reading the Anaphora aloud.

I will be starting several new threads to better discuss some of the points Father David has raised, hopefully in the next day or so. The following will need to suffice for now.

I agree with Father David that I ought to be more specific. I hereby revise #2 in my previous post to read:

The importance of the Anaphora has been greatly discussed on this Forum. Father David seems to be putting forth the idea that if one does not support the praying of the Anaphora out loud then one is stating that the Anaphora is unimportant. That idea � if it is indeed what Father David is suggesting � is a fallacy.

Asking what the Anaphora means or why it is important does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the Anaphora needs to be prayed aloud. Since the Holy Doors are closed at this point one might reasonably conclude that something incredibly holy is going on. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) addresses this awesome point in the Divine Liturgy when he speaks about the �possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. � Anyone who has experienced a church united in silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is untied, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice � the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.� [�Spirit of the Liturgy", pp. 214-216]

But the larger point here is that Father David is not justifying his desire for a mandate with a body of evidence from the custom in the Latin Church which he is imitating. Those who seek change are the ones responsible for making the case for change. Father David has failed, and has not offered any demonstrable evidence that the custom has produced real fruit in the Latin Church. Indeed, many very intelligent Roman Catholic liturgical theologians speak of the �crisis� this custom has caused because it has reduced something that is intimate and holy to just words that a large number of people tune out. Pope Benedict XVI is reported to personally be praying the Anaphora prayers quietly, and has even suggested that parishes might return to praying these prayers in Latin. [And while the news reports of this are not specific it is clear that he is seeking to transform the ordinariness to the point of being tuned out of the current custom in the Latin Church to one which exudes holiness.] Again, the bishops should not be imitating this custom in the Latin Church until there is a common, organic development across all Byzantine Churches and they act together.

This sounds like a matter of education. One does not reform the Divine Liturgy to remedy the poor education of a small number of priests.

The quotes from Scripture and the Divine Liturgy do not support a perceived need to mandate that these prayers be prayed aloud. It is in the eating and drinking that we �proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.� This is true whether the priest prays the Anaphora quietly according to the received custom or aloud according to Father David�s personal desires for Liturgy.

Father David�s arguments always wind up with calls to obedience. I am confident that when the appeals are done the Holy Father will affirm the right of the Ruthenian priests to celebrate the Divine Liturgy according to the official 1942 texts and rubrics and received custom normative to the Ruthenian recension (along with the other books normative for our recension, each completely and correctly translated into English).

The question did not arise across the entire Church. It seems only to have arisen amongst a small number of liturgists in the Latin Church � reforms the current Holy Father is now trying to repair with the �reform of the reform�. But an appeal to the vernacular in the latter part of the 20th century does not explain the fact that the anaphora fell quiet before the language of worship ceased to be the vernacular. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) states: �It is no accident that in Jerusalem, for a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon � overlaid in part with meditative singing � became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.� (Also from �Spirit of the Liturgy) Father David�s point simply does not hold up here.

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." Asking the individual Eastern Catholic Churches to work together both with one another and with the parallel Orthodox Church to enact change is hardly �powerless�.

But Father David has spoken repeatedly about the need of the Ruthenian Church to act independently because of the �spiritual welfare of its people�. Can Father David finally give us some specifics here? Just exactly what are the special needs of the Ruthenian Catholic peoples in America that the official 1942 Ruthenian recension Divine Liturgy cannot meet? Could he please list them, and discuss why the official 1942 DL cannot possibly meet them, and delineate specifically why Ruthenians have this need and why those in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church, the OCA, the Greeks and the Antiochians do not have these same needs (most of these jurisdictions � and especially the UGCC � are working towards liturgical renewal, with the �received� and �official� versions being the standard to work towards).

The Ruthenian Church is in no position to reform anything regarding Liturgy because it is not � as a Church � familiar with its own liturgical tradition. It has been generations since we have been formed by the fullness of our own liturgical tradition. The Liturgical Instruction speaks well to this:

The Instruction is very specific. Rediscovery comes through restoration of officially forms (for us the 1942 Liturgicon and the other official books normative to the Ruthenian recension). This rediscovery / restoration of official forms allows a Church to be formed by its own liturgical tradition. This rediscovery / restoration is not part of revision and not subordinate to revision (updating). The Five Year Plan I summarized in an earlier post is heedful of all the requirements of the Liturgical Instruction and, if followed carefully, would not harm souls (as has the implementation of the RDL).

The Liturgical Instruction continues in Section 18:
It seems pretty clear that a restoration of authentic and wholesome monasticism in the Ruthenian Church (and the Byzantine Churches in general) is vitally necessary to the larger restoration and formation that must occur before even thinking of revising the Liturgy (working, of course, together with other Byzantines). The Liturgical Instruction gives great wisdom in its directives to the Eastern Catholic Church and it is a real shame that the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs has rejected the Liturgical Instruction.

The correct path forward for the Ruthenian Catholic Church is to rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy, to finally promulgate the Ruthenian recension, and to take a decade or so to pastorally bring most parishes into conformance (first with the Divine Liturgy then with the other Divine Services such as Vespers and Matins). Then it can form our Churches anew so that future generations can speak to the idea of reform, a reform that might or might not be needed (but if it is will be accomplished working together both with other Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox) and other Byzantines (Catholics and Orthodox)).

First, no apology is necessary as it is clear it was a matter of a bad typo.

Second, no one has suggested that changes cannot ever be made. I am not sure why Father David continues to misstate this. The point is that all change is to be accomplished according to the principles given by the Liturgical Instruction, which if followed manifest "the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage." (#21) Organic development by definition precludes mandates.

Reading John�s remarks, I can only say that I am diametrically, completely, absolutely and totally in disagreement with everything that he has said or implied.

To wit:
John said: �Asking what the Anaphora means or why it is important does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the Anaphora needs to be prayed aloud. �

Of course, it doesn�t hurt either. Being a member of the visible Church is not necessary for salvation, but it does help.

John said:
�Those who seek change are the ones responsible for making the case for change. Father David has failed, and has not offered any demonstrable evidence that the custom has produced real fruit in the Latin Church.�

The problem is that he does not designate what �real fruit� is. Ir seems you can make it whatever you want. Perhaps by �real fruit,� he means that which has not been achieved by an audible anaphora. (Circular definition) However, the Church has always had saints and sinners. I think people today are becoming more aware of what Christianity is and asks of us.
John said:
�It is in the eating and drinking that we �proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.�

Very, very superficial theology here! In the eating and drinking of what??? In the eating and drinking of the bread and the cup. In the eating and drinking of any bread and cup??? No, in the eating and drinking of the bread and cup over which thanks has been given. In other words, the bread and the cup that have become the body and blood of our Lord through the praying of the anaphora.

John said:
�Father David�s arguments always wind up with calls to obedience.�

What, I should always end with a call to disobedience??? Give me a break. I think obedience is proper here because the bishops have approved an organic development that has been in process for many decades now. Note the following post, where John says: �Organic development by definition precludes mandates.� Not absolutely, and certainly not �by definition.� Very bad theology here. I think we are at a point were this step can be taken.

�The question did not arise across the entire Church. It seems only to have arisen amongst a small number of liturgists in the Latin Church.�

Simply not true. The great majority of liturgical theologians East and West know that the audible anaphora is the ideal, though they may not agree on how to implement it.

John keeps on claiming:

�It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence.�

The structure of Syrian anaphoras has developed differently than the Byzantine, and include private strophes.

�Just exactly what are the special needs of the Ruthenian Catholic peoples in America that the official 1942 Ruthenian recension Divine Liturgy cannot meet? Could he please list them, and discuss why the official 1942 DL cannot possibly meet them, and delineate specifically why Ruthenians have this need and why those in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church, the OCA, the Greeks and the Antiochians do not have these same needs (most of these jurisdictions.�

The Ukrainians, Carpatho-Russians, Russians, OCA, Greeks and Antiocheans have similar needs and would all benefit from the audible anaphora.

John said:
�The Ruthenian Church is in no position to reform anything regarding Liturgy because it is not � as a Church � familiar with its own liturgical tradition. �

I do not share this low opinion of our church. We were mature enough to be leaders in going into the vernacular and we can lead in the anaphora also.

John said:
�It seems pretty clear that a restoration of authentic and wholesome monasticism in the Ruthenian Church (and the Byzantine Churches in general) is vitally necessary.�

Finally, a point on which we can agree. However, monasticism has had a rough road in both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Individual charismatic leaders are necessary, but there has been too much dependence on individuals. Sadly, the monaastics often do not have an appreciation of the parochial character of liturgy. Do not, however, under any conditions, interpret this as a de-emphasis on the divine praises. I think Vespers and Matins should be restored in parishes.

John said:
� ... to take a decade or so to pastorally bring most parishes into conformance (first with the Divine Liturgy then with the other Divine Services such as Vespers and Matins).�

By mandate, do you mean? The reality is that much of what we are doing now is restoration, and should have been done decades ago.

Just a couple of short observations on Father Sergius� post:

Fr. Sergius said:
�I might have suggested, first of all, seeking to identify specific words or phrases that at least some clergy and faithful found problematic or dated, and circulate these, inviting discussion (but then, Father David appears to want to restrict discussion as closely as possible).�

This is putting words into my mouth. Where did I say that?

Fr. Sergius said:
�But I would think that, like myself, many people are hesitating, reluctant to comment on the Anaphora until our senior colleague, Father Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, publishes his volume on that most crucial subject.�

But we do know what he said about the audible anaphora. In response to the question, �Should the anaphora be said aloud,� he responded: �Of course it should; no question about it.� (Through Their Own Eyes, p. 166)

Father David,

my posting on anything that you've written in this thread would be just going in circles from past posts and pretty much an exercise in futility.

The remaining questions I have is why doesn't the BCA allow the 1965 translation and full liturgy in just one church for example in Cleveland(and few other areas in other Eparchies). Let's see what happens to attendance, practice, fasting, financial giving (please don't anyone on the forum try to tell me this doesn't matter). Why would a church in such decline not be willing to take a chance. For example, let Holy Ghost celebrate it. 5-10 people show up on a Sunday, could it really get that worse?

We've seen what happens when revising and chopping up is implemented, is it the fear that revising and chopping up will be shown to be an utter failure that the full liturgy is forbidden?

Monomakh

Who wanted or deemed inclusive language necessary? Why does my question go unanswered?

Fr. Serge,

To reiterate your points above, every parish that I have attended (at least 5-6 parishes) in Western Pennsylvania all have lower numbers since June 29, 2007. I have yet to see any parish gains. Is the RDL and the RDL new music the cause? From what I have witnessed personally, I would make the hypothesis and say yes, it is due to the the promulgation of the RDL.

Ung

Father David writes:



Father David has quoted me accurately, and then fails to understand a quite simple construction. To say or write that someone "appears to want" something is not to put words into anyone's mouth. However, there have certainly been severe restrictions on discussions of this entire topic, everywhere except on the Forum (clergy gatherings have been told point-blank that the only part of the topic they are to discuss is the implementation of the recasting, not its merits or lack thereof). I have seen nothing to indicate that Father David opposes this muzzling, and his comments on the postings on the Forum indicate with sufficient clarity that he would prefer that this unique medium which permits discussion of the recasting did not exist.

As to why the supporters of the recasting are grimly determined to prevent any parish from using the complete Liturgy, the motive is the same as the motive for refusing for decades to allow Mass in various dioceses according to the 1962 Missal - competition can reveal that the innovation is expensively robed in the Emperor's new clothes.

Fr. Serge (please note the correct spelling of my name in English)

Again, the newly mandated custom of praying the Anaphora aloud imitates the current custom in the Latin Church. There is no empirical evidence that suggests the Latin Church has benefited from this custom. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI suggests that the Latin Church has not been enriched by the custom and a number of other highly respected liturgists have stated that the custom has caused a �crisis� in the Anaphora. It only makes sense for Byzantines to allow liberty rather then to imitate with mandate a custom the Latins are having problems with.

Perhaps Father David could offer us a definition of real fruit, and show examples of this fruit in the Latin Church? Given that many very intelligent and well-respected liturgical theologians in the Latin Church (including the current pope) believe that the custom has caused a �crisis� in their Church I am sure they will be interested.

I am not sure of the point Father David is making here. Is he suggesting that for the past 1,500+ years the Church has not known what they have been eating and drinking in the Eucharist?

My point is that Father David calls for obedience because he cannot advocate his position on the basis of widespread organic development. It is curious that he earlier stated that he would die for this custom. If the Council of Hierarchs had mandated that the Anaphora be taken quietly according to the received custom (something no one has advocated) would he really stand in disobedience until death? He is calling for obedience while at the same time suggesting that he would stand in disobedience if he did not get his mandate for reform? I was pointing out the illogic of his position the way he stated it.

As far as organic development, Father David is incorrect. The custom has not developed organically across the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox). In the Liturgical Instruction (#21) we see the directive: �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.� Mandating a custom that has not developed organically in the Orthodox Church increases the separation between us. It is wrong, plain and simple. I do not understand how or why anyone would reject this directive given in the Liturgical Instruction. Liberty surely serves better and Father David has offered no theological evidence that a priest who would choose to follow the received custom is harming the Church, and the liturgical unity we share with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox).

I disagree. It is certainly true amongst those who won the day in the implementing the Vatican II reforms in the Mass of the Latin Church. It is not generally true now, where even many priests are rejecting the idea of having to perform the Anaphora rather than pray it.

But the larger point is that from the earliest times the custom of praying the Anaphoras quietly developed organically. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is correct when he states that to consider it all an accident is far too easy.

I can respect that Father David would believe that they would benefit from the custom. I will note again that the mandate he sought and won violates the Liturgical Instruction, which calls us to keep united in liturgical matters. He should state his case and allow the custom to develop organically. But it seems very clear that Father David is not willing to wait for organic development. Is it because it might take too long, or because liberty for organic development might not lead to his desired outcome?

But Father David has side-stepped the question once again. He states that he believes that all Byzantines would benefit. He offers no reason whatsoever why the official 1942 Ruthenian recension cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholic clergy and laity. Having a personal opinion that they might benefit from a changed form is not reason enough to prohibit the official form. Especially when the Liturgical Instruction calls for renewal to the official forms before updating them, and updating only together with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox). Father David needs to explain each change to the official 1942 Slavonic Liturgicon and explain why the fully and official form and text (given in English) could not possibly meet the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholics and needed to be prohibited.

To state that we are not familiar enough with what is ours is not to have a low opinion of our Church! We have an incredibly wonderful resource in the official Ruthenian recension that can lead to a spiritual renascence of our Church. It is those who have sought and obtained a prohibition on the celebration of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy it its full and complete form who are embarrassed of who we are as well as of our own official form of the Byzantine Liturgy.

I agree that monasticism has had a rough road in both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. But until there is a fully formed and thriving monasticism in the Church monastics will not be ready to speak to issues of liturgical change, and liturgical change can not be accomplished without them just as it cannot be accomplished without working together across the entire Byzantine Church.

No. No mandates. Mandates do not work.

The only way to raise the level of celebration is by example, education, and encouragement. I have seen it work and we know the official forms do work when they are tried. I know people who have driven past several of our parishes to worship at one that celebrated the full and official form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. I have seen them return to their local parishes and encourage their priest to raise the celebration of the Liturgy. It takes time, but when people see an example of a full and vibrant Divine Liturgy they want it in their own parish. We now it is possible with the full and official forms. We know the crisis that the RDL has created. The experiment of the RDL needs to be abandoned, and quickly.

The reality is that the RDL is not a restoration to the official form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy but a revision of the official form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. The reform itself states that the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and recension are lacking and were a mistake, and that Ruthenians have nothing of value unless it is reformed. What a message for the bishops to give to the people!

The way forward is clear. The Council of Hierarchs needs to rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and promulgate the official 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (and other liturgical books) as normative for the Church in America. Then they need to publish new editions of the 1964 Chrysostom and 1976 Basil Liturgicons that are complete and whole, omitting nothing and adding nothing from the official editions (correcting only what is wrong using the Slavonic original as the normative text, translating literally and accurately while respecting what is memorized). Then move forward with the other liturgical books. Through example, education and encouragement take a decade or so to slowly lift the celebration of the Liturgy in the parishes closer and closer to the official standard.

I believe St. Paul in this expression (1Cor. 11:26), which must be understood in context (1Cor. 11:23-26), is summing up by means of the culminating event (eating and drinking) the totality of the sacred tradition that he is handing on, which we know as the Eucharist, the Divine Liturgy.

Whatever liturgical scholars may theorize about what comprises the essential elements of liturgy, concerning the Divine Liturgy (in all its various ritual forms) I believe the witness of scripture and holy tradition, and especially the ubiquitous witness of the synoptic Gospels whenever Jesus touches bread*, is fourfold in that:

1. He takes [lambano] (bread/loaf, artos)
2. He blesses [eulogeo] or gives thanks [eucharisteo]
3. He breaks [klao] (bread)
4. He gives [didomi] (to His disciples)

On this basis, each of these is essential and no one should be deemed more important; there is more to what has been handed on than just �the praying of the anaphora,� which limited understanding can itself betray a �superficial theology.�

I am not speaking here against the audible Anaphora, only that it be understood in relation to the total integrity of the essentials, what constitutes the ritual, all the elements of the liturgical event. Consider 2-blessing/thanks even if the Anaphora is prayer mysticos/silently:

P: Let us give thanks.... L:It is proper and just ... P:Take eat...drink.... Offering You.... L: We praise You, we bless You, we thank You...

Who would insist that we have not blessed and given thanks? Even these audible excerpts alone convey that ALL are blessing and giving thanks. I think that item 1-taking is probably less appreciated by most and 3-breaking is mostly obscured from the people (and unfortunately glossed over by some priests), but done properly, though the words said are usually covered by the singing of �One is holy...� and the action obscured from the people's seeing, it is no less efficacious.

I have been to Roman rite services where all is said or certainly a whole lot is said � very verbose sometimes, dominated it can seem by the proliferation and rationalization of the words to their overwhelming or even being a detriment to their mystical content. And given a preponderance of even meaningful words that are nonetheless an overly-rationalized wordiness, versus the flow, dialog, singing and balanced participation of all in an Anaphora where not every word is heard by all, my judgment is for the greater effectiveness, as ritual expression, of the latter.

So, are the �great majority of liturgical theologians East and West [who] know that the audible anaphora is the ideal� getting the ritual balance right or instead are they conditioned by their scholarship (and there is a pack or band-wagon mentality among the experts in various fields) to amplifying and insisting on a theoretical �ideal� to the disruption of the whole?

Putting it another way, if it's all in hearing the words, then why only the Anaphora. Even the RDL has, at 3-breaking:


Beautiful and meaningful words and actions that are largely unseen and unheard, yet no need or insistence here for a change to must see, must hear, or what's the sense if we can't hear and see.


-----------------------------
*
1.) Feed 5k: Mt 14:13-21, Mk 6:32-44, Lk 9.10b-17, (Jn 6:1-15).
2.) Feed 4k: Mt 15:32-39, Mk 8:1-10.
3.) Pasch Mt 26:26-29, Mk 14:22-25, Lk 22:15-20, (Jn 6:51-58, 1Cor 11:23-25).
4.) Emmaus Lk 24:13-35 (Mk 16:12-13).

John,

1) Actually the Latin Church did not mandate that the Anaphora be taken aloud after Vatican II. The 1985 US English edition of the Roman Missal, based on the 74 Editio Typica, simply states: "In all Masses the priest may say the eucharistic prayer in an audible voice. In sung Massess he may sing those parts of the eucharistic prayer which may be sung in concelebrated Mass." I am not aware the 02 Editio Typica says anything different. The Latin Church has allowed the freedom you argue for and the audible Anaphora has become the custom of the Latin Church with no mandate. It appears the Holy Spirit has spoken, unless you want to argue the Holy Spirit says one thing to the Latin Church and another to the Byzantine Church.

2) You recurring presentation of the "crisis" the audible Anaphora has caused in the Latin Church is grossly over-simplified. Nowhere do I read the Holy Father stating that the audible Anaphora is responsible for the crisis in the Latin Church. Rather the audible Anaphora, the turning around of the altar, the multiplication of Anaphorae in the Latin Church, and the unlawful practice of priests ad libbing the Anaphora, in whole or in part, because of the preceding three are the cause of the crisis. One notes the Holy Father continues to recite the Anaphora audibly in public Masses.

3) That the Anaphora is not recited audibly across the board in Byzantine Churches is true. It also remains true that the majority of Byzantine Churches continue to celebrate in languages not readily intelligible to their faihtful, Koine Greek and Old Slavonic. I would be curious to know the correlation between Liturgy in modern venacular and the tendency to take the Anaphora and other prayers audibly. My bet would be those that celbrate in modern venacular tend to take the pryaers aloud, as evidenced by OCA disquiet over the mandate in the new Liturgicon to take thing silently. As Fr David points out if you don't understand the language of a prayer it might as well be said silently. It also has the added effect of speeding up the Liturgy, for this (along with clericalism) is why the Anaphora and Litany-ending prayers became silent in the Byzantine Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

1) Yes, you are correct. Vatican II did not mandate the praying of the Anaphora aloud in the Latin Church. It came in the aftermath. My post should have been more specific.

2) See �The Spirit of the Liturgy� by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) pages 214 & 215. Cardinal Ratzinger references: �[t]he German liturgists have explicitly sttes that, of all things, the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis. � The liturgists have suggested all kind of remedies�. However, as far as I can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon � overlaid in part with meditative singing � became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.�

My point here is that very well respected liturgists in the Latin Church have identified the custom as problematic. The Council of Hierarchs should not have issued a mandate when liberty better serves.

Yes, it is certainly true that the Holy Father recites the Anaphora aloud at his public Masses. That shows respect for the normative Liturgy of the Latin Church. It does not necessarily show support for every rubric, as we can see in his writings.

And yes, many liturgists now point to all of the rubrics of the Anaphora as problematic (with the facing the people the being the worst problem). But we can see that the current Holy Father has indeed spoken to the problem with the aloud praying of the Anaphora.

3) The points you raise are all interesting and some could be valid. None support the idea of mandate. Liberty to allow the custom to develop organically is the best way forward. Given the problems some very intelligent Roman Catholic theologians have identified with the current aloud praying of the Anaphora and the fact that the custom has not developed organically across Orthodoxy the only logical position here is liberty.

Also, do you have any evidence that the Anaphora fell quiet because it was not understood? I would appreciate being able to read it. The falling quiet of the Anaphora appears to have happened while the liturgical language was still close to the vernacular. I�ve not seen evidence that it was done to speed up the Liturgy or because the priest and / or people no longer understood the words. Father Taft seems to say no one knows for sure. Father David has said in these discussions that he does not know. The current Holy Father states that thinking it is all a result of such misunderstandings is just too easy.

In the end liberty serves best. Trust the Holy Spirit to lead.

John

But is that not the case? As I read this, "the Latin Church did not mandate that the Anaphora be taken aloud" and the RDL (Byzantine Church) does -- indeed a difference and the very issue.