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

Excuse me? i have pointed out - accurately - that the Forum is the only place where the questions involved in the recasting of the Liturgy can be discussed. That discussion does not mean a license to trash the Liturgy. I am unaware of anyone who has expressed a liking for the recasting being silenced.

Father David does not think that the criticism expressed has been constructive. He has a perfect right to hold and express that opinion - and I have a perfect right to differ. It would seem that our disagreement on this particular point lies in the question of what is meant by "constructive criticism".

Fr. Serge

I don't believe this explanation. If the audible anaphora had been the most important issue, it could have been accomplished without recasting the text or the music. The audible anaphora could have been accomplished by a letter from the Bishops and a few dollars of postage.

I believe that the timing of the "approval" of the RDL reveals a categorical rejection of the principles set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam. The timing of the approval reveals that the aproval of the RDL was conveniently obtained just prior to the issuing of LA.

I join with Father David in hoping that people have profited from the discussions here.

I will disagree with Father David that the reasons other members of the Liturgy Commission do not post here is because my posts are lengthy. Over the years several have told me that they are avid readers but can barely keep up with e-mail volumes, let alone manage the time to compose posts for these discussions. It also seems likely that the other members of the Liturgy Commission do not feel as strongly about the revision as does Father David. But I think another valid reason is that many of the mandated reforms cannot be defended.

I agree with Father Keleher that the Forum has been the only place where �recasting of the Liturgy can be discussed.� Unfortunately the clergy and people were excluded from the process and simply handed new books (which are not to their liking). I disagree that the Forum has been a site for trashing the Revised Divine Liturgy. Certainly much criticism of the RDL has been posted, and most of it with supporting documentation from the official Slavonic texts for the Ruthenian recension, the Liturgical Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam and other official directives the Council of Hierarchs seems to have rejected. That Father David disagrees with the criticism does not mean it the Divine Liturgy has been trashed.

I agree and have always agreed that the Anaphora unfolds the Paschal Mystery that is central to the Christian Faith. As has been noted previously this does not justify a mandate to force priests to pray it aloud when the Latins are re-thinking the custom and it has not developed across Orthodoxy (with whom we need to keep liturgical unity).


I disagree with Father David. The concerns I have raised are certainly legitimate, and the fact the Revision violates numerous elements of the Liturgical Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam and other official directives from Rome has been amply demonstrated with the appropriate references.

Am I engaged in a personal rant against Father David? No. I disagree with the opinions he has put forth and have amply documented my position with references. There is nothing personal here, unless one believes that any and all disagreement equates to a personal attack.

Father David is absolutely correct in that I am defending the right of Ruthenian clergy and laity to have access to the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy in its completeness according to the official texts and rubrics normative to the Ruthenian recension, in an English translation that is accurate and meets the criteria set forth in LA. I have been clear in stating that this is my goal throughout these discussions, and know numerous Ruthenians who share it. It seems very reasonable and logical to me that Ruthenians be able to pray the Ruthenian Liturgy.

No where have I suggested that the 1942 is the only �universally accepted and uninterrupted apostolic tradition.� It is the normative one for Ruthenian Catholics and, as the normative Liturgy it should not be prohibited in favor of another variant of the Liturgy (be it the Russian recension, the Greek recension or a recasting as done with the 2007 RDL).

The quote I used is a direct and simple application of an excerpt from the opening of Summorum Pontificum which speaks to the extraordinary form of the Latin Mass and was labeled as such:

There is a universal usage of the Byzantine Liturgy, one that is given in the official liturgical books normative to each recension. While in actual celebration it may be abbreviated in places the universal standard exists across Byzantium. Even if one puts the various Byzantine liturgical recensions side by side the official and full forms are very close indeed (with the 2007 RDL being the glaring exception). �It [is] necessary for the future to maintain this principle�, and the objective standard which Ruthenian Catholics share with other Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox. This is necessary �not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.� This is clear and straightforward. I do not see why anyone would reject it or consider it to be outlandish.

My expectation is that the Holy Father will uphold the right of the Ruthenian Catholic clergy and laity to the form of the Divine Liturgy (both rubrics and texts) that is normative to the Ruthenian recension.

If I remember correctly that was a directive from the USCCB Liturgical Commision not an insertion into the Roman Missal itself and even if it was the Missal I quoted was in force until 2002. So for at least 31 years no mandate was made.


We will have to disagree. Many intelligent Byzantines, Orthodox and Catholic, are in favor of reciting the Anaphora audibly. As for Rome's requirement of our unity with Orthodox liturgical practice, it is nice that Rome wants this as it attempts to use us as an ecumenical tool, but Rome should be more worried about things the Orthodox really care about like the theological differences that exist. Once that is resolved Rome and us won't have to worry about liturgical unity it will just happen. As Fr. David points out our Metropolia led the way with switching to modern venacular, which caused pain but was eventually accepted, and even though the majority of Orthodox do not use modern vernacular I hear no suggestions we should stop. We should also lead the way with the audible Anaphora even though the majority of the Orthodox do not do it.

As for evidence, I point to both the declining membership and dismissal attendance at Liturgy. It is often lamented that church attendance in the US is around 25-30%, and blame this on the Novus Ordo. Well, church attendance in Greece is only 25% as well. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5992
The number are similar in other Orthodox countries. So the "complete" Liturgy in archaic language with silent Anaphora isn't packing them in either.

And just from personal experience I hear only two comments about the audible Anaphora in coversations with parishioners. The first is: "Those prayers are so beautiful, why weren't they always out loud." The second is: "Those 'extra' prayers make the Liturgy longer." I have yet to hear: "Saying the Anaphora out loud is an affront to our liurgical unity with the Orthodox."

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Dn.,

...but because they are said aloud, litanies and antiphons were reduced to keep the parochial church liturgies under one hour. I would like to bring back all three, full antiphons for they are beautiful.

Ung

Yes, we can agree to disagree. But I will note that many intelligent Byzantines, Orthodox and Catholic, are in favor of keeping the received tradition and allowing change to develop organically. Pope Benedict XVI has noted problems with the aloud anaphora. I hope you will grant that he is intelligent!

I think to suggest that Rome issued the directive for unity as merely an ecumenical tool is not to grasp the whole intent of the Liturgical Instruction. Lex Orandi, Lex crendi. Or as Pope Benedict XVI states: �The Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.� It is amazing how some find ways to disregard directives that are inconvenient to their goals. There exists a unity that �already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.� Working together with others could have preserved that unity. Instead that unity is lessened.

The move to English was not painful everywhere. In many parishes where seeds were planted and the process allowed to take its natural course over a decade or so there was no pain at all. The parishes that did experience great pain are those were it was forced, and done without catechesis.

If the Spirit is leading the Byzantine Church towards the aloud praying of the Anaphora no mandate is necessary. If the Spirit is not leading the Byzantine Church towards the praying of the Anaphora aloud a mandate to do so will fail. In the end liberty works best and leaves the Spirit free to work.

When this topic started I was pleased that there was a conciliatory tone -- after a year much of the pew shock of (any) change was settling down. Even the change to standing on Sundays during the consecration was accepted. Father David made a good post and John Vernoski made a reasonable starting proposal.

But then, instead of constructive face-to-face dialog to close the most important issues, the squirmishing and sentence-by-sentence analysis restarted. And all the things that were on people's minds was repeated over and over.

If the internet existed in the 11th century there would have been more than a schism --there would have been an outright war.

Hospodi pomiluj.

Fr. Deacon Paul

Well, I would vastly prefer a cyber-war to a schism!

Fr. Serge

Amen.


...And may I add...now that I have experienced Holy Orthodoxy for one year, the reverence of using words such as "Thee" and "Thy" in reference to the Divine is a noticeable difference to using words such as "you" and "yours". I love it! And so does my wife!

But these are only two simple opinions.

Peace
R

Does Father David think that women are too stupid to understand regular English? Does he really believe that that there is even one Byzantine Catholic woman out there that thinks she is not saved because of the word �men� in creed and other prayers? Why does Father David believe that women aren't smart enough to understand that "men" is a default word for both genders?

I find it really scary that the bishops rejected Rome�s orders not to use such language.

My wife was very offended also.

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

During the reading of the epistle today (Corinthians 14:6-19)I heard the justification why the Anaphora and other previously silent prayers should be said aloud.

The context of the epistle was Paul's teaching that the speaking of tongues is fine but if no one present can interpret what is said then the preaching is unfruitful.

The exact quote (Orthodox Study Bible) follows: 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. OTHERWISE, IF YOU BLESS WITH THE SPIRIT, HOW WILL HE WHO OCCUPIES THE PLACE OF THE UNINFORMED SAY "AMEN" AT YOUR GIVING OF THANKS, SINCE HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAY?

What is the difference between speaking in a language which no one understands and praying silently when no one can hear?

My intention is not to be confrontational; but rather to propose a scriptural answer to the oft asked question "Why should the Anaphora have a mandate to be read aloud?

Fr. Deacon Paul

If one follows the history of the use of the now archaic form of 2nd person singular pronouns, one will realize that these pronouns fell out of use due to social change.

We are familiar with these archaic personal pronouns from exposure to Elizabethan and Jacobean literature (Shakespeare, KJB,etc.) Originally, these particular pronouns denoted a personal familiarity with the one addressed to the exclusion of all others. In those days then, I can appreciate their use in reference to God. However in time, the use of these pronouns denoted the social class of the one addressed. We can read these in Shakespeare's plays. Those of the same class referred to eachother with "you." The upper class used "thou" for those they considered their inferiors. The so-called "inferior's" use of "thou" for a member of the upper class would be considered a grave insult. Hardly a sign of reverence for anyone.

In the 17th Century, the Society of Friends (aka "Quakers") continued to use "thee" and "thou" as an attempt to reinforce social equality. Except for a few rural Midwest groups, the contemporary usage of "thee" and "thou" has fallen out of favor among Quakers.

Does anyone out there in cyberspace seriously believe that people continued to address God, the Holy Theotokos, and the Saints with the second person singular as a means of expressing a lack of reverence?

Fr. Serge