www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy "REVISIONism" vs. "RECENSIONism"--a call for renewal

Joe,

Thank for your comments. I have published various liturgy books for private use, some that contain the full liturgy in traditional form and others that abbreviate it and give the text for the Anaphora. As I have said repeatedly, I believe that the full text of the Liturgy should be available to everyone (and is, in most of our official prayer books). The decisions on what goes in each book are made by the priests who request them. I am merely a servant.

I notice that you continue to not respond to any of the points I made or the questions I asked. I can only take this that you are admitting that you know I am correct in the points I have made. If you had actual responses that would hold up to scrutiny (instead of just accusations) you would have made them.

Regarding your accusation of Clerical Gnosticism against Father Serge do you also make the same accusation against Pope Benedict XVI? He has also made the case that silence might be best.

I will ask my questions again and again (that no one supporting the Liturgical Revision seems willing to answer):

-The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questions. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? Why not allow the liberty for the Spirit to lead wherever He wishes?

-Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity?

It seems once again the liberty offered by our Ruthenian liturgical tradition is best.

Admin / John

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

I just have a few quick comments/questions:

(1) Has Pope Benedict XVI said anything in regard to praying the anaphora aloud vs. in secret since he was elected? Has he ever actually prayed the Anaphora in secret at a Liturgy? Can we really say that "this is the opinion of the Holy Father" if in fact he has not said anything regarding this topic since becoming Pope? (And yes, I know how well educated he was before his election as Supreme Pontiff, but perhaps I just like being cautious with equating the words of a man while Cardinal with those he makes as Pope).

(2) Does anyone have any statement from an Orthodox bishop prohibiting his priests from praying the anaphora aloud? I only ask this because any time I've visisted an Orthodox Church for Divine Liturgy (which, I admit, has not been a great number of times) part or all of the Anaphora is prayed aloud (more, at least, then the various intonations).

(3) And, one more point in regard to this whole Anaphora aloud thing: Does is not strike anyone odd that, for example, after singing the "It is proper and just..." the priest intones a sentence fragment that makes no sense on its own "Singing, shouting, crying out and saying the triumphal hymn." Or what about (one of my favorites from the whole Liturgy) "Especially for our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary"?

Just to be clear, I come from a parish where the Anaphora is always prayed/taken/said/sung (whichever word you choose to use) aloud, and so I actually hear the complete sentences, and know why these phrases do make sense. However, I must still say that every time I go to somewhere where the Anaphora is prayed (mostly in) secret, that I always have to think for a moment when the priest just intones some prayer half-way into a sentence. "Singing, shouting..."- who is singing and shouting? "Especially for our most..."- what especially? The cases from the Liturgy are numerous. Does no one else wonder about this when he or she goes to a Liturgy where most of the prayers are prayed in secret?

-M. Therrien

M. Therrien,

Thanks for your post.

(1) As far as I know Pope Benedict XVI has not spoken to these issues since his election. I doubt his opinion has changed (but time will tell). [Please note that I have always carefully noted that he wrote these things while a cardinal and that they are not official commands of the Holy Father.] There was an institute back in July on the thought of Pope Benedict XVI at which one of the speakers was Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Certainly it is wise to at least acknowledge that what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote on liturgy acquires an even greater significance for the Church now that he is pope. It seems logical to revisit what he has written and learn from the mistakes of the Latin Church (as they conduct a �reform of the reform�).

Do you see something in Cardinal Ratzinger�s writings that suggests that mandating the custom of praying the Anaphora aloud is justified? His public writings as a cardinal suggest that he would not support a mandate, so it seems that liberty would continue to best serve the Byzantine Catholic Churches in this matter, at least until we either ask him about it or he speaks about it.

(2) Father Anthony and others have already spoken to this � yes, there are some bishops who threaten suspension for those priests who would pray these prayers aloud. It is my understanding that most of the Greek Liturgicons quite clearly give the rubric that these prayers be prayed quietly. No Orthodox Church has mandated such reforms.

(3) Not at all. I respect that the Church has set up an icon screen between the faithful and the holy place, and even calls for the doors to be closed at certain times during the Liturgy. Parts of the Divine Liturgy (like the proclamation of the Gospel) occur in the body of believers, in front of the icon screen. Other parts (like the Anaphora) occur behind the icon screen in the holy place. Sometimes we glimpse through the doors with our eyes. Other times we glimpse through the doors with our ears. Everything has a proper place and time.

To quote Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) again:
What strikes me as odd is that some would mandate a change in custom rather than allowing for organic growth. I have noted numerous times that the out loud Anaphora may indeed be the custom across Orthodoxy in a few generations. I have never once advocated a prohibition against a priest praying these prayers aloud if he chooses (and where the official liturgical books allow him freedom). Why mandate when liberty will better serve?

What also strikes me as odd is that those who support a mandate can�t justify it. Some have even gone to the length of twisting a Vatican Liturgical Instruction that calls for study on the issue as somehow a justification for a mandate!

No, again and again, the way forward is the liberty already allowed by our tradition.

My two questions (that those who support the revision simply refuse to answer):

-The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questions. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? Why not allow the liberty for the Spirit to lead wherever He wishes?

-Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity?

Admin / John

John,

Your questions have been answered by Fr. David, Fr. Thomas and myself. That you do not accept the answers or the reasoning behind them does not mean your questions have gone unanswered. However, I will repost my answers which I feel are ample reason to mandate taking the Anaphora aloud despite the longstanding practice of taking it quietly and that it is not practiced by the majority of the Orthodox.

The Instruction says "at least" implying that at a minimum it should taken aloud a few times a year. More is better since the Anaphora is a "masterpiece of mystagogical theology" and a "proclamation of praise and thanksgiving to God". Combine this with the fact Rome gave its recognitio to our plans it should be obvious that taking the Anaphora aloud is viewed favorably.

It is pretty hard to be formed by mystagogical theology if one nevers hears it proclaimed. And the Anaphora is a proclamation as the Instruction states. The problem is if a procalmation is not proclaimed it is no proclamation at all. It would be like the deacon/priest reading the Gospel silently to himself with the people reading along in silence or worse yet just sitting there.

I also do not think it coincidence that the movements among the Orthodox for frequent Reconcilliation and Communion are the same ones taking the Anaphora aloud and advocating others to do the same.

The Instruction clearly states the Anaphora is: "in the act of the offering, the proclamation of praise and thanksgiving to God," The Gospel and and the Anaphora are both proclamations. The Gospel is kergymatic proclamation the Anaphora is anamnetic proclamation.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

Sorry, but your "answers" do not seem responsive. At the risk of repeating myself, appeals to Rome's approval are quite unconvincing until and unless they are accompanied by the actual letter of approval. Moreover, Rome has been known to permit things that Rome does not particularly approve of - that ghastly Slovak liturgical travesty of the eighties is a case in point.


On more occasions than I can count, it has been my privilege to attend, concelebrate and celebrate Divine Liturgy in Rome at several beautiful Greek-Catholic Churches, two of which are under the direct jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. On NO occasion in Rome have I ever heard the Anaphora offered aloud, nor has anyone ever suggested to me that I should have done that, or that I should do that, when I am serving there.


As to the relationship between frequent Communion and the reading of the Anaphora aloud in Orthodox experience, read the history of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Soviet persecution. Reception of Holy Communion increased expontentially and remarkably. Offering the Anaphora aloud was unheard of since the demise of the Renovationists.


Fr. Serge

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

Thanks for your post.

I�m sorry but my questions have not been answered. They have been talked around. What has been posted so far by those advocating the revision of the Divine Liturgy has been personal opinion, not sound liturgical theology supported with references to theological works.

Let�s look at your responses.

Your take on what the Liturgical Instruction says is incorrect. Even a casual read of the Instruction on the issue of praying the Anaphora out loud shows that the concern here is that people be familiar with the wonderful theology contained in these prayers. It asks for �study�.

Let�s look at what the Instruction says: �Considering that the Anaphora is a true masterpiece of mystagogical theology, it is appropriate to study the ways in which, at least in some circumstances, it could be pronounced aloud, so as to be heard by the faithful. The pastors should see to it that the people are formed according to that theology which is present in so pre-eminent a way in the Anaphora.�

The goal here is clearly that the people be formed according to the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora.

The goal is not that the Anaphora be prayed aloud always and everywhere.

The Instruction asks the Church to �study the ways in which, at least in some circumstances, it could be pronounced aloud�. How do you get from the Instruction�s directive for �study� and �some circumstances� to a mandate that it be prayed out loud all the time? The �at least� applies to �some circumstances�. I�m sorry but �more is better� is not a solid liturgical foundation for anything. What is clear is that the Instruction recommends �study� the possibility of praying these prayers aloud because it wants the people formed. One really has to twist the clear meaning of the text of the Instruction to get a mandate to pray these prayers out loud at every Liturgy.

You say that �It is pretty hard to be formed by mystagogical theology if one nevers hears it proclaimed�. I disagree. I daresay that a single well prepared and well given presentation on the Anaphora in a parish would do more to form people in these prayers than 50 years of praying them out loud (although I�d prefer a series of lectures repeated every few years). It�s been done in more then one parish with excellent results.

The questions asked that no one will answer:

-The Latins have experimented with this custom for two generations now. Has the formation occurred in the Latin Church? Are the people now formed properly in the wonderful theology contained in the Anaphora? What is the evidence? Father David has admitted that we need to wait another generation for evidence (even as he crusades against allowing the restoration of the official Ruthenian Recension Liturgy for even one generation!).

-The custom of praying the Anaphora out loud is still considered an experiment in the Latin Church, one which the current Holy Father questioned when he was still cardinal. Since there is not any evidence of fruit from this experiment (as Father David admitted with his call that it will take another generation for the fruit to grow) and since our Ruthenian liturgical tradition allows liberty, on what basis can anyone justify a mandate to pray these prayers out loud? Why not allow the liberty for the Spirit to lead wherever He wishes?

-Since we are suppose to keep custom with the Orthodox Church and this practice is only advocated by a tiny percentage of individual Orthodox priests (and is, in fact, prohibited by hierarchs in many if not most places) how can a mandate in a different direction serve unity?

Father Deacon, I respect that you (and others) like these prayers to be prayed out loud. But you have offered no theology whatsoever to support a mandate. Is stretching a sentence in the Liturgical Instruction and pretending that �study� really means �mandate� solid theology? What you have done is to skip all the questions I have asked and jump to the conclusion that you want and assumed there has been some theology there somewhere. I invite you (or anyone) to take even just the questions I have asked again and again in this thread and answer them one at a time. Start with a historically accurate discussion of how the custom of the quietly prayed Anaphora developed and its relationship to the development of the icon screen. Follow with an analysis of what Cardinal Ratziner and others wrote on taking these prayers quietly. Discuss what a �filled silence� is. Address the Liturgical Instruction�s directives (including on working together with other Churches (Catholic and Orthodox)). Address the issues of unity [How will a mandate away from the Orthodox custom affect prospects of unity? Is not unity more important than mandating a custom that a priest is already free to do according to the official rubrics of our Liturgy?] Fill each argument with sound theological references. If you look at it seriously you�ll see that there has been no serious theological apologia for the Revision beyond �we like it we want it�.

Liturgical renewal is not about forcing our own personal likes upon the Liturgy. That�s really all that is happening here.

Admin / John

I dare say that what the bishops decide to put in their liturgy books affects you greatly. No? If their books get sent out to all the parishes in the Metropolia, your service will no longer be needed. This is the ultimate competition. To have one's liturgy book rendered null and void in both music and translation. You've done a great job servicing these priests and their special requests. As a cantor, I've made use of your books for many years and found them a positive contribution. How will you now support our bishops?

God bless,
Joe

If you have eyes, see. If you have ears, listen. If you are a Ruthenian, then put a bushel basket over it.

How about them Antiphons? Isn't more verses better than one?

God bless,
Joe

The Popes have also written and taught much on the mandatory celibacy too.

Is this a confession?

Joe,

Thanks for you post.

Interesting take!

But no, it�s not a matter of competition. I learned a long time ago that it is a privilege to serve even for a short time. What affects me is not my participation in anything (or lack of it). What affects me are the changes to the liturgy, which we have been discussing. Changed rubrics, missing litanies, exclusive �inclusive language� and the rest are all steps in the wrong direction and will not serve to promote good liturgy, support unity, or build up the Church.

How will I help the bishops? By continuing to encourage them to return to our official Ruthenian tradition as we have been directed to, to embrace it and to live it in its fullness so that it may form our Church. Our Church has survived the liturgical mandates of Bishop Nicholas Elko. These are really no different and will pass in time.

LOL!

A better question when discussing antiphons is why are fewer verses than those given in our official texts deemed better? We must always start with the standard, giving it the respect it is due. I am not advocating more or less then what is part of our Ruthenian recension. I am advocating our recension.

Is there a point here? It�s not difficult to discern the difference between a discussion about the common principles of liturgy and a discipline in the Latin Church. On this issue we seemed poised to mandate a custom that the Latin Church still considers to be an experiment, one which Father David has admitted has not yet shown any fruit. Why are you so eager to copy the Latins before any other Byzantine Church has considered this? Are you suggesting that we should also mandate clerical celibacy?

This question makes no sense. I have never once advocated that our official liturgical recension be changed to conform to my personal taste in liturgy. I have continually advocated that we respect and keep the official Ruthenian recension as our standard. In every case I have deferred to our official liturgical tradition and supported it. Do you have so little respect for the official Ruthenian recension that you consider it not as a standard but merely as personal taste in Liturgy?

It�s pretty obvious that you continue to choose not to answer any questions put to you and instead just make jokes. Each time you do so you are admitting that you cannot defend the positions you have taken. If you could, you would have given responses that would hold up to scrutiny.

Admin / John

"Their liturgy books"? A very disturbing idea, I fear.

It is our Liturgy. It belongs to the whole Church, which is not to say that all of us have authority over it, to do whatever we like with it.

It is a tradition (given by God) to be received, studied, cherished, and passed on, whole and entire.

The Liturgy is ours, and our children's.

the unworthy,
Elias

Father Elias, the Lord blesses you with the right words to express the truth. Thank you for your insight!

Fr. Elias,
As Steve Martin used to say, "Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!"

I apologize if I implied that the bishops are merely publishing THEIR private books.

I MEANT WHAT EVER BOOKS THE BISHOPS PUBLISH, PROMOTE, PROMULGATE, SHOVE DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS. WHATEVER BISHOPS DO IN THEIR ROLE AS BISHOPS.

Does it matter what they publish? We're going to do what we want to do anyway. You are going to celebrate liturgy YOUR way; Fr. Serge will celebrate liturgy HIS way; Fr. _______ (fill in the blank) will celebrate liturgy HIS way. And the only time the liturgy will be celebrated the bishop's way is when he is physically present! Will it be any different? Cantors aren't ordained, so they don't need to hold up to a promise of obedience. They too will do whatever they feel comfortable with.

What's the big deal? Pastors will simply cut-and-paste what they like into their liturgy books. Priests will take the Anaphora aloud or silent. Who is going to police them? Will you get fired during a crisis in vocations? I'm being a realist. This is all a blip on the doppler radar. Been there, done that. Here we go again!

Ever watch or read, "Much Ado About Nothing" ???

God bless,
Joe Thur

Father Serge is pleased to guarantee you that His Grace our Bishop here will do no such thing! Divine Liturgy is on Sundays at 4:00 PM; be welcome. I suggest coming armed with a complete text of the Divine Liturgy in the language of your choice.

Is the Divine Liturgy different when the Bishop comes? Most certainly it is: the Bishop serves a full Pontifical Liturgy, thank God. In 2005 His Grace was here for Holy Week and Pascha; it was worthy of the Feast of Feasts.

Neither the Bishop nor I are accustomed to serve the Divine Liturgy "our own way" - we don't have one. We serve in the way which the Church has given us.

Cantors are indeed supposed to be ordained.

Fr. Serge

Dear Joe,

I am sorry, but I am very disappointed with your post, and the attitude you show to our Church, and to our wonderful liturgical books.

I celebrate exactly what I find in the Liturgical book I found in the altar when I came to this parish 9 years ago. It is the only Liturgicon I have used since I was ordained a priest 20 years ago. It is the official Liturgicon of our Church, I have studied it, and I am carefully faithful to it, word for word. If there is a "my way" (if that is true), then "my way" is careful fidelity to the Ruthenian Recension and to the books of our Church.

Your idea (and the idea of the Revisionists) that the official books of our Church have no significance, and that they can and should be discarded or revised according to fashion or personal taste, is exactly what disappoints me.

I think it is our worship that unites us, and only the official books of our recension can unite us all!

It does matter.

the unworthy,
Elias