|
0 members (),
489
guests, and
105
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,614
Members6,170
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 187
Orthodoxy or Death
|
|
Orthodoxy or Death
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 187 |
To Fr. Elias.....  Joe, your post was marginal at best. I think you're lucky the administrator didn't delete it. You showed no respect for Fr. Elias or Fr. Serge. JMHO, Cathy
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1 |
Dear Joe T,
I am posting this as the moderator of this Forum. Your posts have stretched the limits of charity that is the primary rule here on this Forum. A couple of points I going to bring up, will not be tolerated by any poster here on this forum.
First, in your previous posts, and I will cite dates and times that you posted them if need be, you accuse the clergy of �Clerical Gnosticism�. By implication and use of this term, you are implying that the clergy are in heresy, and by being such have excommunicated themselves from the church, and thus making the sacraments void of grace. Are you one to make a judgment such as this for those that are following the prescribed rubrics approbated and approved by the hierarchy in full communion with the Church? Are you aware of what such an accusation if proven false carries as a penalty to the one that makes it?
Next, while I have been rather lenient in the discussions here in this section and even on this thread, I will not tolerate rudeness or shouting in posts. All capital letters on multiple words in succession constitute shouting. This will not be tolerated under any circumstance from any poster regardless of standing on this forum. The same also carries forth in regards to ridiculing any poster. This is a place for discussion as Christians, and posters on both side of the issues presented are extremely sensitive to something that is vital to our worship and the core of our corporate prayer.
The attitude and behavior exhibited in your posts will not be tolerated in the future. If you can not post in a civil manner, you are requested not to post at all. This will be my one and only warning in the matter. Any further transgression will be dealt with quickly and decisively.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Adminstrator
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
God descends to the humble as waters flow down from the hills into the valleys.
(St. John of Kronstadt)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
Originally posted by Administrator: ...
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?
...
Liturgical renewal is not about forcing our own personal likes upon the Liturgy. That�s really all that is happening here.
Admin / John Lest I further be accused of argumentative silence, I will only address the comments regarding Benedict XVI's reflections as a theologian. John and others have appealed to the writings of the present Holy Father regarding praying the Anaphora aloud. Reflecting upon the Liturgy as a private person or a college professor or an eminent theologian is quite different than one who writes or speaks as the Pope of Rome. Then Cardinal Ratzinger has been quoted as writing that the Eucharistic Prayer recited aloud is or has been an experiment in the Latin Church. Yet in an official English translation of the Church document, Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, (trans. General Instruction of the Roman Missal), approved by John Paul II in 2000, (English translation approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 17, 2003, Prot. N. 2235/02/L) one reads the following: The Prayers and Other Parts Pertaining to the Priest
30. Among the parts assigned to the priest, the foremost is the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the orations: that is to say, the collect, the prayer over the offerings, and the prayer after Communion. These prayers are addressed to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present, by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ.43 It is with good reason, therefore, that they are called the "presidential prayers."
31. It is also up to the priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat in order that they respond to the understanding of those participating. However, he should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly. The presiding priest is also to direct the word of God and to impart the final blessing. In addition, he may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Act of Penitence), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments to the entire sacred action before the dismissal.
32. The nature of the "presidential" texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention.44 Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.(emphasis added)
33. The priest, in fact, as the one who presides, prays in the name of the Church and of the assembled community; but at times he prays only in his own name, asking that he may exercise his ministry with greater attention and devotion. Prayers of this kind, which occur before the reading of the Gospel, at the Preparation of the Gifts, and also before and after the Communion of the priest, are said quietly.
43. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 33.
44. Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Musicam sacram, On music in the Liturgy, 5 March 1967 , no. 14: AAS 59 (1967), p. 304. Lest anyone misunderstand note 30 above identifies the Eucharistic Prayer (the Anaphora) as a "presidential prayer." That the Instruction "demands" the presidential prayers be spoken out loud because these prayers are the prayers directed to God on our behalf is not indicative of a temporary experiment. Perhaps, some misunderstand the context of the Cardinal Ratzinger's reflection.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30 |
Father Deacon John, Thank you for your post. First, thank you for bringing to our attention that the Roman documents for the Latin Church now obligate the priest to pray these prayers aloud. Since they were promulgated in 2000 and 2003 it is certainly understandable that Cardinal Ratzinger did not specifically discuss it in his book �The Spirit of the Liturgy�, since that was written in 1999 and published in 2000. I will stand corrected in my comment that there is continued freedom on this practice in the Roman Church. You noted that maybe �some misunderstand the context of Cardinal Ratzinger�s reflection�. No, I believe not. Although apparently not enshrined into law at the time of his writing, Cardinal Ratzinger was objecting to the custom you quoted. Allow me to requote Cardinal Ratzinger yet again: �In 1978, to the annoyance of many liturgists, I said that in no sense does the whole Canon always have to be said out loud. After much consideration, I should like to repeat and underline the point here in the hope that, twenty years later, this thesis will be better understood. Meanwhile, in their efforts to reform the Missal, the German liturgists have explicitly stated that, of all things, the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis. Since the reform of the liturgy, an attempt has been made to meet the crisis by incessantly inventing new Eucharistic Payers, and in the process we have sunk farther and farther into banality. Multiplying words is no help � that is all too evident. The liturgists have suggested all kinds of remedies, which certainly contain elements that are worthy of consideration. However, as far as I can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon � overlaid in part with meditative singing � became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass. My suggestion in 1978 was as follows. First, liturgical education ought to aim at making the faithful familiar with the essential meaning and fundamental orientation of the Canon. Secondly, the first words of the various prayers should be said out loud as a kind of cue for the congregation, so that each individual in his silent prayer can take up the intonation and bring the personal into the communal and the communal into the personal. Anyone who has experienced a church united in silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is untied, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice � the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.� (pages 214-216) It is clear enough that Cardinal Ratzinger was stating: 1) that the early development of the praying of the Canon quietly was no accident, 2) that he believes that �It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass� and that 3) �as far as [he] can see, they balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God.�What specifically do you believe that we are misunderstanding about Cardinal Ratzinger�s comments? It is pretty evident that he disagrees with the custom of praying the Eucharistic Prayer aloud and is promoting the idea of a �filled silence�. People disagree all the time. A liturgical directive would need to be respected and followed but there is absolutely nothing wrong with commenting that the directive is wrong and urging those in authority to change it. As I noted, now that Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI his writings take on greater level of significance. Can you please tell me in which specifics I am incorrect in my understanding of what he has written? Again, I thank you for the information. Your post raises a question: If the custom of the priest praying the Anaphora out loud is no longer considered experimental in the Latin Church perhaps there is some evidence that the custom has borne fruit. Such evidence would be necessary for people of good will on both sides of this discussion. Perhaps even Cardinal Ratzinger was not aware of it when he penned his comments? I don�t know if there was an underlying logic in your post, but might I assume for the purposes of discussion one that came to my mind immediately after I read your post? What you seem to be saying is: 1) I (and some others) have quoted Cardinal Ratzinger�s writings that �silence might be best� in support of keeping the liberty offered by our official Ruthenian liturgical tradition in saying the Anaphora quietly or aloud. 2) You have provided proof that the Latins (at least since this document) now require this prayer to be prayed aloud. 3) We must, therefore, have misunderstood the context of Cardinal Ratiznger�s remarks. Again, not assuming that this was the logic behind your statement let�s apply it to our situation in the exact same way: 1) Some in our Church have proposed changes to the Divine Liturgy, including those that would mandate the priest praying the Anaphora aloud. 2) Our Liturgicon provides directives on how to take the Liturgy. Some prayers are officially directed to be prayed quietly by the priest. Other prayers have traditionally been prayed quietly by the priest even though there is no specific rubric to do so (although there is in the liturgicons of other Byzantine Churches). 3) Those who say that some in our Church are supporting the idea of praying the Anaphora aloud are misunderstanding because no one would ever support the changing of an official rubric. Since that does not make any sense I will conclude that my guess at what your logic might be is wrong and ask you to explain further. I thank you for quoting my questions (that no one supporting the revision seems willing to answer!). I will repeat them (with a slight edit to the first one now that you have provided us with some good information): -The Latins have experimented with this custom for two generations now and enshrined the custom into the General Missal. Why? 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? I am sure that no one thinks these questions unworthy, since they spring right out of the Liturgical Instruction. I pray and hope that someone who supports this revision of the Byzantine Liturgy will answer them instead of continuing to ignore them. At the very least I am sure that everyone should support the idea of contacting the Holy Father directly so that he may clarify his comments and provide us with his direction. Again, thank you Father Deacon John for your comments, and even more for your service to the Church. Admin / John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
Originally posted by Administrator: Father Deacon John,
Thank you for your post.
First, thank you for bringing to our attention that the Roman documents for the Latin Church now obligate the priest to pray these prayers aloud. Since they were promulgated in 2000 and 2003 it is certainly understandable that Cardinal Ratzinger did not specifically discuss it in his book �The Spirit of the Liturgy�, since that was written in 1999 and published in 2000. I will stand corrected in my comment that there is continued freedom on this practice in the Roman Church.
You noted that maybe �some misunderstand the context of Cardinal Ratzinger�s reflection�.
No, I believe not. Although apparently not enshrined into law at the time of his writing, Cardinal Ratzinger was objecting to the custom you quoted.
...
Admin / John John: The GIRM was actually revised in 2000, the English translation of the revision was approved in 2003. As early as 1970, the GIRM read: PRAYERS AND OTHER PARTS ASSIGNED TO THE PRIEST
10. Among the parts assigned to the priest, the eucharistic prayer is preeminent; it is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the prayers: the opening prayer or collect, the prayer over the gifts, and the prayer after communion. The priest, presiding over the assembly in the person of Christ, addresses these prayers to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present.[19] Thus there is
good reason to call them "the presidential prayers."
11. It is also up to the priest in the exercise of his office of presiding over the assembly to pronounce the instructions and words of introduction and conclusion that are provided in the rites themselves. By their very nature these introductions do not need to be expressed verbatim in the form in which they are given in the Missal; at least in certain cases it will be advisable to adapt them somewhat to the concrete situation of the community.[20] It also belongs to the priest presiding to proclaim the word of God and to give the final blessing. He may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (before the celebration begins), to the liturgy of the word (before the readings), and to the eucharistic prayer (before the preface); he may also make comments concluding the entire sacred service before the dismissal.
12. The nature of the presidential prayers demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone present listen with attention.[21] While the priest is reciting them there should be no other prayer and the organ or other instruments should not be played.
13. But the priest does not only pray in the name of the whole community as its president; he also prays at times in his own name that he may exercise his ministry with attention and devotion. Such prayers are said inaudibly. Praying the Eucharistic aloud has not been an experiment since at least 1970. It will be interesting indeed to see how much, if any, of the Holy Father's previous writings as a theologian will influence the praying aloud of the Eucharistic Prayer in the Pauline Mass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135 |
Roma locuta est; causa finita est.
Father Deacon tells us that Rome has spoken.
The Latins are correct!
All of Orthodoxy is wrong!
We are to imitate the Latins, not Orthodoxy!
Latinizations all over again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885 |
Rome has spoken and the norm is what the Orthodox do in regards to the various Eastern Rites.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30 |
Father Deacon John, I concede the point that the Roman Catholic Church has introduced and accepted the innovation that the Anaphora be prayed aloud in the Latin Church. Do you feel that we should we follow Roman Catholic innovations in our Church? Is that really the origin of this suggestion that we should introduce this custom into the Byzantine Catholic Church? My other questions still await your answers (or the answers of anyone supporting this revision to the Byzantine Liturgy). Admin / John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
Originally posted by John Damascene:
Roma locuta est; causa finita est.
Father Deacon tells us that Rome has spoken.
The Latins are correct!
All of Orthodoxy is wrong!
We are to imitate the Latins, not Orthodoxy!
Latinizations all over again. Perhaps you need to understand how the Church operates in things liturgical: Rome speaks for the Latins, Pittsburgh speaks for us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Could someone explain to me why parts of the Anaphora came to be prayed silently?
Thank you,
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
Originally posted by Administrator: Father Deacon John,
I concede the point that the Roman Catholic Church has introduced and accepted the innovation that the Anaphora be prayed aloud in the Latin Church.
Do you feel that we should we follow Roman Catholic innovations in our Church?
Is that really the origin of this suggestion that we should introduce this custom into the Byzantine Catholic Church?
My other questions still await your answers (or the answers of anyone supporting this revision to the Byzantine Liturgy).
Admin / John John, I was not the one who introduced the writings of a Latin theologian, even if he is the current Roman Pontiff, to defend Byzantine/Orthodox liturgical practices. However, I do favor the bishop's or priest's praying/intoning aloud the whole Anaphora (not just clues here and there) while the faithful listen in attentive silence not because it mimics a Latin practice, but rather, because this practice gives life to the Liturgy. Granted, one could read the Anaphora while the priest prays in silence, but if this is preferable then why not have the Apostolic and Gospel Lessons handed out along with the Liturgy books? Or maybe we should have the people follow the calendar and have them read the Lessons at home. No there is something moving, mystical, and sensual to experience and hear the history of our salvation within the Divine Liturgy Personally, I think pew books distract from the celebration of the Divine Liturgy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Father Deacon,
At the risk of being flippant,referring to Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, as "a Latin theologian" rather resembles describing violin music as the sound produced by dragging a horse's tail over the dried gut of a cat.
If one reads His Holiness's writings on Liturgy carefully - and I have done precisely that, and still do - it becomes clear that the Author is not a man hidebound by a narrow adherence to the post-Vatican II (or pre-Vatican II) liturgiology, ecclesiology, discipline and spirituality of the Roman approach. I was listening to him only a couple of hours ago speak about the propriety of entrusting beatifications to the Local Churches. In the same interview, Pope Benedict also gave an unsolicited and strong endorsement of the Eastern Churches of the Middle East, while correcting someone who described Christianity as a "European phenomenon" and a few minutes later suggested a film on the life and work of Saint Gregory Nazianzen. This is not exactly the Baltimore Catechism view of the Church and the world.
Meanwhile, you call to our attention the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (novus ordo) on the proclamation of the Anaphora aloud. Leaving aside for the moment the interesting question of just what the juridical value of that document is (it certainly does not affect celebrations of the Roman Mass according to the 1962 Missal), it has no bearing whatever on the Byzantine Liturgy, any more than the practice of "Mass facing the people" is held up for our imitation.
There is a disturbing phenomenon or tendency which might be termed "neo-latinization" - abandoning as a lost cause the older latinizations but rushing to imitate the fashions in the Latin Church. Examples are so numerous that I won't bother to quote them now - perhaps others would care to contribute some gems. It seems fairly clear that the attempt to impose the recitation of the Anaphora aloud belongs to this category; it certainly did not arise spontaneously from within the Christian East.
If by any wild chance the Holy Father wishes to distance himself from some, any or all of his previous publications, His Holiness is free to do so. But he has given no indication of any such desire. On the contrary, he has permitted a fresh series of reprints, in several languages, since his election to the pontifical throne. That makes it difficult to suggest seriously that his published writings, re-published by agreement with the Author, do not represent the Author's thinking and views. His Holiness is not required to write all of his books over again.
But the hour grows late, and tomorrow is Sunday.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885 |
"Personally, I think pew books distract from the celebration of the Divine Liturgy."
(Deacon John)
I think that pews are just as distracting. Parishes need to have more BBQs dedicated to using the pews as fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Pavel Ivanovich:
Molodets!
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
