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

A learned theologian was teaching a course of various methods of prayer, in which he compared approaches like litanies, the Hesychast prayer, and rosaries with what might be termed "quietist" contemplative forms - resting in God's presence. Apart from what is pleasing to God, different personality styles find fruit in different prayer methods. The analogy may be made that this resembles how family members may improve communication at times by "just from being in one another's presence without multiplying words." At other times extensive conversation may be what brings the family together.

When experiencing various expressions of the Divine Liturgy, my thoughts have often turned to that theologian's reflection on varying prayer forms. My personal style is to prefer contemplative prayer and liturgical forms which are more contemplative, if you will. When hearing litany after litany, my memory often turns to the words of Jesus when he challenged his followers not to "multiply words" since God already knows what they need before the utterance leaves their lips. (Of course he also spoke of the elderly lady pounding on the door late into the night such that the homeowner finally came down to meet her needs...) But we need not fear silence before the Lord.

-Pustinik
----------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." �St. Serafim of Sarov

A. What excommunication of the Pope?

B. The "Epiclesis" issue was raised rather late, and is certainly no longer of particular relevance except to the sort of people who wish to foment disagreement and estrangement.

To give a small example of the point, in the nineteen-thirties the Holy Office prohibited offering a prostration after the Epiclesis. It is now standard practice in churches in Rome under the direct jurisdiction of the Pope.

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father.

At the time of the Great Schism there was a common excommunication, the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople (which has since be rescinded.)

The Epiclesis was not the major issue, and maybe I have the timing wrong, but the Epiclesis and the disagreement over the exact timing of the Consecration was bone of contention for a long period of time if I remember my history correctly. If not, I humbly stand corrected.

I agree the Epiclesis is not an issue now, praise God! But from what I recall it was an issue on a level with the dispute over leavened vs unleavened bread. Perhaps the author (I don't recall the name of the book) overstated the disagreement, but the disagreement between East and West appeared to be major. This is why I'm surprised that the prayer didn't become audible during this period.

Fr. Deacon Paul

Fr. Deacon Paul,

I think Fr. Serge refers to the fact the Pope was not excommunicated himself, the Patriarch only excommunicated Cardinal Humbertus who had invalidly excommunicated the Patriarch.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom is a lot longer then the Nicene Creed. It is interesting that in the Revised Divine Liturgy only portions are mandated to be prayed aloud and other portions are mandated to be prayed quietly (i.e. the commemorations). No rational (theological or otherwise) was given for the decision to mandate the aloud praying of parts of the Anaphora while forbidding the aloud praying of other parts. If one advances the idea that the people cannot say �Amen� to what they do not hear then how can they pray the final �Amen� which seals the whole Anaphora when some of the prayers have been hidden? So their whole reasoning to support the mandate falls crashing to the ground.

But you were comparing the Creed to the Anaphora. There is a difference. The people are actively engaged in praying (singing) the Creed. They are not so actively engaged the praying of the Anaphora, and in fact stand listening passively as (in the RDL) it is proclaimed by the priest. There is a huge difference in the active involvement of praying & singing and the passive involvement of listening. I daresay a priest never gets bored praying the Anaphora. But I can see where the attention of the people might be lost during a long prayer of the priest, no matter how beautiful and holy the prayer. Passaic has had the mandate for the priest to pray the Anaphora aloud for about a decade now. It hasn�t shown any fruit and seems to be very problematic. One can see the same problems the Roman Catholics say caused a �crisis� in their Mass. At least part of the problem is that the priest is no longer free to concentrate on praying the Anaphora but must also proclaim long portions of it. It is not surprising that praying the Anaphora takes second place behind proclaiming the words.

Not sure what there is to comment on? The Praying of the Epiklesis aloud as a statement on what was believed by some to be a problem with the Roman Catholic Mass (or anti-pope statement) was never widespread. I believe it was actually condemned by the Ecumenical Patriarch (which would be appropriate because it is wrong to use the Anaphora as a statement against another Church).

I don�t see why it is surprising to find that the praying aloud of the Anaphora (beyond the traditional words prayed aloud) has never developed in the East. Father Petras noted that the idea had surfaced here and there (even a thousand years ago) and found no traction. Perhaps that is what the Holy Spirit desires? This is why liberty to pray the prayer either quietly or aloud is the only way forward. But don't forget the idea to pray the Anaphora aloud in the Ruthenian RDL did not come from the Byzantine East but from ideas of liturgical reform popular in some circles of RC liturgists in the 1970s and 1980s. The RCs are actively engaged in fixing some of these problems with their "reform of the reform". We should learn from their mistakes rather then copying them.

We are caught in a "time warp". We have just discovered the 70's.

Amen. Amen . Amen.

I am relativelty new to this forum, having avoided posting for a number of years, but the news I recently heard about blanket permission for the 1964 DL has given me hope.

I actually left the Byzantine Church after the promulgation of the RDL (Of which I had been a member since my teens, I am pushing thirty now, hardly an emotional stodgy reactionary, as some RDLers make us out to be).

I was spiritually crushed when the RDL was instituted, and it still pains me. I have great hopes for a return to our DL and hopefully the older tones as well.

The new liturgy just reeks of inauthenticity from inclusive language, to its archeological pretensions, to its academic structuring, but I think worst of all is the lack of sympathy our hierarchy has shown us who find the new liturgy unacceptable.

Why must we be treated as disposable traditionalists, or as "mere laity." When will the Eastern Church start listening to its laity, of course maybe the rumors of the old DL being permitted are an example of just that.

I pray that we may use the 1964 liturgy, because I do not personally know a single individual, either "conservative" or "liberal" who holds the RDL in high esteem.

I always believed that the Eastern Church had learned from the mistakes the Western Church had made following the Council, but it seems it was actually only a matter of time before the misinterpretation of the "spirit of Vatican II" would arrive in Byzantium.

I wonder if the Byzantine Church in the US isn't fostering a situation that may give rise to its own version of the Society of St. Josaphat? Sadly in the United States it seems Byzantine Catholics (of which I am no exception) would rather leave the rite rather than struggle for its survivial, despite the eccentricities of self-proclaimed Pittsburgh liturgical intelligensia.

Predanije,

Those of us us who want the Byzantine Liturgy full and uncut with music we know and love are treated as stupid. I've read the Vatican directives. They tell us to be authentically Byzantine. To match the Orthodox. To translate accurately without political correctness. And the bishops and the Committee to Revise the Ruthenian Liturgy think these things are all wrong. They think they know more about Liturgy than all of Orthodoxy. The people are spiritually crushed with the RDL. And they don't care. They treat us as troublemakers as they look at the door hoping we will leave. Well I'm going to spend the rest of my life working for the Ruthenian Liturgy. I'm younger then most of them. Write to Rome and demand what is right. Never stop fighting. Even if we must wait until they are all retired and out of power we need to keep after them.

Keep praying and keep fighting! God is with us!

We cannot let them to turn us into Revised, Politically Correct Christians.

Lady Byz

Several months later this question is still not answered. I wonder how one can continue to get away with calling it the 'Restored' Divine Liturgy and not back it up.

I wonder why my questions in a topic I created and were parroted here were never addressed?

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/292914/1/One%20Year%20Anniversary

Have vocations increased?

Has attendance gone up?

Have the number of females attending and becoming active increased because of the inclusive language?

Have the number of missions started going up?

Has singing increased?

Where is all the success that the RDL was supposed to bring?

Monomakh

Dear Monomakh - the RDL is a brilliant success in Molvania.

Fr. Serge

Yes, well, who there speaks English?

Dn. Robert

The tourists, of course!

Fr. Serge

No.


No. I hear it continues to decrease.


No.


No.


Doubtful.

Fr Serge-

I was unaware the Baltic Orthodox of Molvania had an interest in the RDL.