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

No, you are incorrect. There is no mandate. The Roman Missal, in force since 1970 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."


http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/shimchick_saying_amen.htm

In 1905, A. P. Golubstsov listed some of the reasons why the prayers ceased to be read publicly:

1.In an effort to reduce the growing length of the liturgy, the prayers were read silently by the priest as the deacon was intoning the petitions.
2. The secret reading became incorporated into the discplina arcana ("secret discpline") whereby it was felt that those who were "uninitiated" were unable to hear about the mysteries of the faith or of worship. This encouraged the previously mentioned division between the clergy and laity.
3. It was closely related to the period when the practice of frequent communion ceased.[6]

6. "The Reasons for and the Dates of Replacing the Audible Recitation of Liturgical Prayers with Secret Recitation," Bogoslovskiy Vestnik, Sept., 1905. Translated by A. Smirensky. Available at: jacwell.org (Supplements)

http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/reasons_and_dates.htm

Well either our Hierachs are only mandating what the Holy Spirit has led the Latin Church to do or John must concede this matter does not involve the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and some liturgical decisions are just that, decisions made by Hierarchs that may or may not be good practice and may or may not become entrenched. I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church but I don't think He dictates liturgical rubrics.

here's another response from Fr Robert Taft, SJ:

Was it traditional in the ancient Church for liturgical prayers to be recited aloud? [kiev-orthodox.org]

Fr. Taft himself concedes that all of the written manuscripts extant are after the failure of the Justinian mandate. We will never know exactly what was taken aloud and what was not.

Again, I would not be so quick to dismiss the action of the Holy Spirit over what was arguably the greatest evangelical explosion of the Byzantine faith in the Balkans, Romania and finally Rus'. All entirely within the period after the failure of the Justinian mandate. But a very real and lasting evangelical movement. Surely it would seem the Holy Spirit would have some role in such large-scale conversions to Christianity.

I can hardly see any such evangelical eruption these days - certainly not in the last 12+ months. And no matter how passionate the desire for revision, one cannot deny history.
FDRLB

Indeed the Holy Spirit is not found in mandated rubrics, but in still small voices:

I do not presume to speak for the Holy Spirit or John and only point out, again, that the question presented is to mandate or not to mandate (the audible Anaphora). That the RDL so mandates is not disputed. As for the Latins:


and


Again, Byzantine/RDL mandates, Latin "did not mandate" and "no mandate" as quoted above. That Byzantines, given our liturgical tradition, may choose a different resolution than the Latins is entirely possible and proper. To insist that we must follow in the steps of the Latins is to deny us the very option they deemed proper to give themselves; and that "our Hierachs are only mandating what the Holy Spirit has led the Latin Church to do" -- well, haven't we had enough of that?

Again, I don't presume to speak for the Holy Spirit. The real question is why have the rubrics changed in the RDL relative to the Recension; and if the issue isn't important enough to be considered and answered, then why the need to change them in the first place?

I had believed also that there was no mandate. Somewhere in these discussions Father Deacon John Montalvo provided a reference to show that it is now required in the Latin Rite Novus Ordo. Perhaps Father John will post the reference again?

Thank you for the other references. I will research them.

I will note, however, that even if true they do not justify a mandate to take the Anaphora prayers aloud. The two points I raised (the issue that many intelligent Latins are having with the custom and the requirement for unity with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox)) are more then enough justification not to issue a mandate but to allow liberty for the Spirit to work.

Father David has not provided even one bit of evidence that demonstrates why the official Ruthenian recension cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholic clergy and laity. He has treated his personal desires for Liturgy as infallible, against which the received tradition used by all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) must defend itself to his satisfaction.

Wha? How dare you! I have never said such a thing. How very rude.

My Church uses a very old translation of the Divine Liturgy--very reverent. I have seen no new Liturgies being promulgated or forced down the people's throats. All I see here is copy and pasting from a gossip website and some insults directed at what I seem to believe.

Sheesh!

I agree with this.

In my latest posts, I think I made the correct decision in distancing myself from any of John�s opinions.

However, I do regret posting at all. It has been noted that I�m the only member of the Liturgy Commission that posts here, and after John�s lengthy responses, I can understand why. I�ve tried to give some perspective to what we are doing, and I hope that some reading it have profited from it. Fr. Keleher has pointed out that this is the only Forum where people can complain about the Liturgy, and it has become basically a site for trashing the Divine Liturgy as now celebrated in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. The Internet, which has done so much to advance information, is also a privileged medium for activity of this kind. However, I do not think most of the criticism has been constructive.

Further posting at this time would only stretch out responses to almost novella length to attempt to refute in detail anything that I might say to defend the Liturgy. I will say this - the audible anaphora is the most important issue. It unfolds for the people the Paschal Mystery, which Christian faith is all about. John�s response, �Father David has not provided even one bit of evidence that demonstrates why the official Ruthenian recension cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholic clergy and laity. He has treated his personal desires for Liturgy as infallible, against which the received tradition used by all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) must defend itself to his satisfaction,� I regard as completely untrue and simply a personal rant against me in a crusade to say that only the 1942 Recension is Christian truth. I believe he is doing this in order to defend the particular right of a priest to follow the 1942 recension. Therefore, I will only point out one thing, a statement to me that is incomprehensible. John said, �The Council of Hierarchs of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America currently prohibits the celebration of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy according to the official and normative form that is �universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition.�� While it is true that the 1942 recension is in conformity with apostolic tradition, so is the 2007 English translation. However, anything that is done in 1942 cannot "be" the �universally accepted and uninterrupted apostolic tradition.� �Uninterrupted apostolic tradition� is, rather, the deposit of faith of the Christian Church. To deviate from it is schism. Perhaps this opinion comes from, if my memory serves me right, from the idea once expressed that the 1942 recension is equivalent to a text inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I can�t fix the reference.

On a more academic note, to Deacon Lance: Golubtsov�s article, published in 1905, was written during the preparations for the Synod of 1917, which deserves more study. The reasons he gives for the silent anaphora are speculative, an attempt to try to make sense of why such an important part of the Liturgy had become silently recited. One reason that he did not consider, but maybe should have, in view of calls, at that time, to translate the Liturgy into contemporary Russian, was the language shift that had occurred, certainly by the time of Justinian, that would have made ancient prayers difficult for the average Greek speaker to understand.

Etnick--my apologies if my bringing up the discussion of the audible recitation of the Anaphora in the OCA from OCANEWS.org seems to be an attack on what you believe. That was not my intention. I was only trying to show, based on reaction that OCA clergy and laity were having to the new liturgical books recently printed by the central administration of the OCA, that the audible recitation of this prayer has to not be "unknown" or at least done aloud in portions of the OCA. Thereby showing that the Ruthenian church is not the only church taking the Anaphora aloud. Guess it's a hot button topic everywhere. Again, my apologies.

John K

First of all John, I am Recluse--not Etnick. Secondly, nothing you post is a threat or an attack to me in any form (I am only disturbed when people attribute some type of belief or thought process to me that is not accurate). I do not pay much attention to gossip websites that bash the Metropolitan for much of their discourse.
Thirdly,I have heard of Orthodox Churches taking the Anaphora aloud--but it seems to be a minority practice. It is not a big issue with me--however I prefer the silent prayers.

My biggest problem with the RDL, (and it is well known here), is the gender neutralization.

But the fact that some people are concerned by "having the option" for an audible anaphora is reassuring to me that organic development will be respected.

Peace
R

Wow! I see mostly well thought out posts about issues which concern devout Byzantine Catholic Christians regarding their beloved Divine Liturgy---and you see it as a trashing. We must be reading two different forums!

Are you blaming the internet?
I think it has been constructive and enlightening.
I think most of the people here are simply asking for straight forward answers to straight forward questions without any evasion tactics.
Can a Mystery be explained,defined, and unfolded simply by mandating audible prayers?

Fr. David,

As difficult as it may be not to respond to some post that sounds outlandish that is an option each of us has. For better or worse, the format of the Forum places no obligation on us to post or respond. We choose for ourselves whether to be attracted to the flame or to the light.

As I indicated in a recent post, given the 12 years of study in the preparation of the RDL, I'm dismayed, disappointed and perplexed that basic questions -- not even accusations, just questions -- are not answered. Our bishops on their initiative and considering the findings of the IELC, have exercised their authority, which I acknowledge, to promulgate the 2007 liturgicon; I believe that in exercising that authority they also have an obligation -- even a sacred obligation -- to answer reasonable questions and objections that arise, and to do so AUTHORITATIVELY and on record. To me, that is clearly an obligation of their teaching office. The Forum is an opportunity to develop, test and refine the issues and pertinent questions.

I can only point to my own questions which I've posted, some of which for example, are:

1. the justification for dropping a word (anthropous) from the Creed, a word that has dogmatic and theological importance link

2. the actual status of the Recension given the priorities in the Foreword of the 2007 liturgicon link

3. a basic question on rubrics, their origin and correspondence to the Ordo and Sluzhebnik link

4. a question on the translation of lamb/sheep in the Preparation Rite (as found in both the 1965 & 2007 translations) link

Item 4, since it questions a translation that is the same in the 1965 and 2007 liturgicons, is the kind of detail that I would have expected the committee to have considered.

These are only a few examples. As I wrote in a recent post (dealing with item 2 above), "Since the questions I have asked (paki i paki) were researched and debated for twelve years I would have expected -- hoped -- that answers would be readily available and forthcoming."

ajk