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. But the point is that thou and thine are no more reverent than you or yours. One is archaic. One is modern. Both are acceptable and equally reverent.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Paul,

Your post is certainly an interesting one!

Might I walk through the Scripture quote? I think we need to start a few verses earlier in today�s reading (1 Cor 14:6-19) In Verse 9 the Apostle Paul tells us that �So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.� (All quotes are RSV) Then, in verse 13 he teaches us: �Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.� Putting aside for the moment that the Apostle Paul is dismissive of the gift of tongues and we are not dismissive of the Anaphora I would say that a comparison between the two is tenuous. Paul acknowledges that men are going to speak in tongues but says an interpreter is needed. With the Anaphora we all know what the priest is praying, whether he is praying it quietly or aloud. We affirm the prayer with our �Amen!� even though as men we cannot but barely understand the Mystery before is in the Eucharist.

In verses 14 and 15 we see �For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.� Here the Apostle teaches us even if we are praying with the spirit we are to do so with understanding. Does the priest lack understanding when he prays the Anaphora, even if he were to do so in a foreign language? Since the prayers are fixed I would say he prays with understanding no matter what language he is pronouncing the prayers in (hoping, of course, that he would work to understand whatever language he is called upon to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in). Do the people participate fully in the Eucharistic Mystery even though they might not hear the priest praying these prayers, if they went to (for example) a Roman Catholic parish in Quebec that was celebrated entirely in French or grew up singing their own prayers in Slavonic? I would say yes. They have the �interpreter� Paul speaks of in the Liturgy book, and from other liturgical catechesis.

In verse 16 we see �Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?� Well, �outsiders� should not be saying �Amen� to what they do not believe but let�s put that aside and see if this applies to Believers saying �Amen� to the Eucharistic thanksgiving when they do not know what you are saying. I would say it is vitally important for every believer to know what the priest is saying. On that no one disagrees. But the question here is what constitutes understanding? Must the Anaphora be prayed aloud before the �Amen� of the people is valid? Or do the people hold a special bond with the priest and pray the Anaphora together through his priestly ministry, whether they hear his every prayer or not? I would say that Paul is emphasizing on understanding rather then hearing.

[If we look at the text from NKJV here we see: �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?� I would say that one should need to be fully informed in the faith as a catechumen and neophyte, and those who were not would have been instructed to leave the church prior to this point in the Liturgy. But even here we accept the Eucharistic Mystery on faith, because we cannot possibly comprehend something so incredibly holy.

The question boils down to �Can a person understand a prayer they cannot hear, knowing its content from being catechized into Christ?� I would say yes. And I realize that some will disagree and we can agree to disagree.

Now nothing in Paul�s words here can be used to justify the quietly prayed Anaphora. I think you might validly put forth a position that the aloud Anaphora could be useful in maintaining understanding. I don�t see where one could use this text to justify a mandate to pray the Anaphora aloud (which you don�t do).

I think Father Paul�s post is very interesting indeed.

--

I was re-reading Cardinal Ratzinger�s (now Pope Benedict XVI) �The Spirit of the Liturgy� about the quiet Anaphora. One of the problems he seems to find with always taking the Anaphora aloud is that it becomes ordinary, and that the faithful tune it out. He first raised the issue in 1978 and then again in 2000, so it is something he considers important. I was trying to think of other examples. The Roman Catholics have had the aloud praying for about 40 years now (even though it was not mandated all that time priests were taught to pray it aloud). How many Roman Catholics after hearing it for 40 years could recite from memory any of the four standard Eucharistic Prayers? Or think of the times when you zoned out on a homily at Church. Or tuned out any President during his �State of the Union� speech? Or stayed up for the news just to hear the weather, watched it and then realized you don�t know what was said. I think that is what Pope Benedict XVI is talking about. Something incredibly holy has become ordinary.

Then consider the Byzantine Liturgy. By the time of the Anaphora the catechumens are all dismissed. The holy doors are closed. The Anaphora is prayed in a low voice. Is the fact that the catechumens are dismissed, the icon screen with the holy doors closed and the Anaphora prayed quietly all an accident of history? I don�t think so. It seems that they are quite intimately related. If fact one could argue that if the people need to hear the prayers before they can say �Amen� one must also logically argue that the icon screen needs to be removed and the altar turned around so the people can see (who said a picture is worth a thousand words?). That is one reason I oppose the new Ruthenian mandate to pray these prayers aloud. The other main reason, of course, is the need to work with the Orthodox to keep liturgical unity (not sure why anyone would reject such a directive). There are plenty of examples throughout Church history where the latest fad didn�t last beyond a few years. And at least one where a mandate for priests to take certain prayers aloud failed. Maybe the Spirit is leading the whole Church in the direction of the aloud Anaphora. But if the Roman Catholics � who have four decades of experience with this custom � are saying that there are problems then Ruthenian Catholics in America should not imitate the custom with a mandate. The logical position here is still liberty � the liberty for the Spirit to work. No one has just offered any real justification for the mandate.

John

John,

Thanks for your comments and for taking the epistle reading as a whole and not out of context. I reply now so that we may have a fuller understanding of each other's thoughts and for consideration of other viewers.


St Paul definitely taught that the speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, so to say that he was "dismissive" of this gift is misleading. He "cautioned," but was not dismissive. We who have studied the Divine Liturgy and have had the opportunity to have been taught the finer points know the Anaphora prayer (and as importantly, the Epiklesis). But to the common layperson, at best 25% consciously knew what was happening at those moments.

As an aside one of the great disagreements between East and West was the dispute over the moment that the Gifts became the Body and Blood of Christ. So why should not these prayers be publicly prayed so that the faithful can gain a fuller understanding of these awesome events?


Indisputably, Cardinal Ratzinger's, now the Holy Father, words and writings are important and are to be taken to heart. But we cannot dismiss our priests' actions and prayers because of our human weaknesses! One could argue that the words of consecration Take, eat..... Drink of this all of you..also can be ...dare, I say.... ordinary?

But, suppose we say that we don't want to risk losing people's attention, then perhaps the additional ektenia should not be taken.

I reiterate my point that the anaphora to be taken aloud is supported by the Apostle Paul, 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? (In the context of our discussion of a non-audible Anaphora and Epiklesis.)

I am in agreement with the audible prayers of the priest, whether or not it should be mandatory is the prerogative of each Church. Archbishop Judsen began this initiative in the late 1990's for the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church.

As to whether the audible Anaphora in the Western Church being a "failure," I don't focus much on their Church. Ten years ago when I attended Mass on Saturday mornings I very much was set at peace with the prayer.

Fr. Deacon Paul

Read the pericope noted, 1Cor 14:6-19, and with a highlighter mark words and phrases having to do with sound, noise, speaking etc.; do the same with a different color highlighter marking all the words and phrases having to do with silence, the inaudible etc. If only one color is available go ahead anyway, the second is not needed.

Paul's message here is, if one is going to speak, better to do so intelligibly rather than to utter the unintelligible and to babble.

To use this passage to argue for an audible Anaphora is as warranted as invoking Mat 6:5-8


for praying only in secret or not gathered together.

Consider also that for all Paul's cautions, his summation to the Church at Corinth was not a single mandate but an option:

Certainly not intentionally, but consider this paraphrase of James 3:9 in the 17th century context of the pronouns:

With a word, "thou", we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the likeness of God.

One could do precisely the same thing with other pronouns - and nouns, for that matter. What, if anything, that proves linguistically, I don't know.

Fr. Serge

My parish uses the "archaic" pronouns precisely because they are distinct from the speech of everyday life in the outside world, thereby promoting reverence through the words of the liturgy.

Rec, again my apologies, my brain was in overdrive when I wrote Etnick's name instead of yours. Apologies to him as well.

Yes John. Amen.

You are entitled to your opinion. I happen to agree with the majority of Holy Orthodoxy and people such as the late Archbishop Joseph Raya.

There is a noticeable difference--and it is a breath of fresh air.

The use of the singular second person when appropriate makes for greater accuracy. Consider, for example:

"and I will give you the keys of the kingdom . . ."

and


"and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom . . ."

The first could be ambiguous; the second is unmistakable

Happy Vigil of Ss. Peter and Paul!

Fr. Serge

Thank you. Same to you Father!

Father Deacon Paul,

Thank you for your post.

I am not sure how allowing the priest to pray his prayer quietly according to the received custom is dismissive of his actions and prayers. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) suggests that the quiet praying of these prayers is a �filled silence�. �It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer.�

Could the words �Take eat�� etc. become ordinary? Yes, that is possible. I think the point here is that they can become ordinary when taken aloud as part of the long prayer of the Anaphora. Or ordinary as the result of hearing them too frequently (which is why we put away Christmas Carols, Lenten Hymns and �Christ is Risen� and keep them for certain times of the year). This may be why the custom of only taking portions of the Anaphora aloud developed (to keep and focus attention). Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) recommends taking portions of the Anaphora aloud. His recommendations are very much like our received custom.

No, I don�t think skipping the additional litany is the answer. The litanies after the Great Entrance and before the Lord�s Prayer wonderfully balance the Anaphora. The Divine Liturgy has already moved on. It seems that the RC theologians who complain of a �crisis� in the Anaphora are speaking of the problem of the people loosing focus during a long recited prayer, and not what comes before and after. It seems very logical to me that if the Ruthenian Church is going to copy a custom from the Latins then they should also examine the fruits of that custom. At the present it seems very much like those who have demanded and received a mandate to pray the Anaphora aloud think they will be successful where the Romans are finding problems. Simple logic suggests that doing the same thing is going to get the same results.


Might I reference and add to what I wrote earlier?

NKJV: �How will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say �Amen��.�
RSV: �How can any one in the position of an outsider say the �Amen��.�
NASB: �How will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the �Amen��.�

I am not a linguist but it appears the Greek text carries more the nuance of �unlearned� or �unbeliever� (and �uninformed�, �outsider� and �ungifted� says the same thing). So it seems to me that a simple application of the verse would render the question: �How will he who does not know Christ be able to say �Amen� (i.e. come to believe) at your giving thanks [Anaphora] since he does not understand what you say?� But then an unbeliever would not be admitted to this part the Divine Liturgy. And I don�t think you mean this and would invite you to reconsider. The Apostle here seems to be teaching that when presenting Christ to non-believers one must do so in a way in which they can understand.

As I have stated before I think the Holy Father is on to something here, and speaks wisely for a need to keep holy things holy. There is no theological or logical support for a mandate here, and it is clear that liberty serves best.

So we will have to agree to disagree.

John

PS: Go ahead and do what ajk suggests. I like his reference to 1 Cor. 14:39: "So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." RSV While I do not accept your application of verse 16 to the Anaphora if you are going to do so you must be consistent and also hold "do not forbid speaking the Anaphora quietly."

Dear ajk,

I did not seek out my referenced epistle; it was revealed during the Divine Liturgy and it struck me hard as the answer to the oft asked question "Why should the Anaphora be read aloud, since this is not the norm in the Eastern Christian Churches." I believe that 1Cor 14:16 DOES provide scriptural guidance. Obviously St Paul didn't directly speak of the Anaphora. But he is discussing what is most effective way to bring people to a closeness to Jesus Christ and that people should know what they are saying "Amen" to.


There is a time for holy silence, but before the "mandate" there was no silence --- the people were singing "Holy, Holy, Holy." The priest is "doing his thing" and the people are "doing their thing." So I repeat that the "uninformed" include our laypeople singing in the pews; true, not 100%, but probably at least 80% of cradle Eastern Christians (and I'm not talking about catechumens) did not know that one of the most important prayers of the whole Divine Liturgy was being prayed for them.

I certainly would not relate the Anaphora to babble or to a need to be seen as prayerful, as does the reference to MT 6:5-8.

If we want to speak of "holy silence" the Western Church has discovered a moving way to find receptiveness and a bond with God -- this is Eucharistic Adoration. But silence is a different subject; we were not relating to total silence during the Divine Liturgy.

But thank you for the highlighting suggestion; I started to do this but it entirely changed the subject in an unrelated way.

Fr. Deacon Paul

John,

I acknowledge and respect that a long prayer can cause people to be "inattentive" and I will admit that the three page prayer of the Anaphora of St Basil may fall in this category if the priest does not deliver it properly. However the Anaphora of St John Chrysostom is not as long as the Nicene Creed and no one proposes that it be silent (and it is of lesser importance during the Divine Liturgy than the Anaphora.)

I will concede that the additional ektenia are not overly long, just redundant (not saying this is bad, the memorized litany can be a time for the Spirit to personally speak to His people (and hopefully not time to gawk at Sophie's new hat.)

I was hoping to receive a comment about the praying aloud of the Epiklesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit to change the Gifts to the Body and Blood of Christ. The disagreement with the West regarding this was of so much importance to the East that is was part of the justification (correct me if I'm wrong) for the Excommunicaton of the Pope. If you think about it, its surprising that it hasn't been prayer aloud in all the Eastern Churches. Any comments???

Fr. Deacon Paul