www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Question #1 on New Translation of Liturgy

Dear DJS, Christ is Risen!
As for reciting the Eucharistic prayer audibly, please mote that this has not been done in the Rite of Constantinople since the early sixth century, long before the conversion of the Slavs; therefore, no Slav, at least until post Vatican II times, ever heard the Eucharistic prayer outside the altar. Thousands of saints have celebrated the Holy Liturgy with the Eucharistic prayer said silently, and we have no record of any of them saying that it should be otherwise! What scant commentary we do have on the matter shows approval, such as St. Symeon of Thessalonika saying that this is done thus because the priest speaks to God face to face, and there is no reason that the people need to hear those prayers.
If you wish to go back to what was done when the Eucharistic Prayer was sung aloud, then methinks that for consistency
s sake, the iconostasis show be torn down and replaced with a railing and curtains that entirely hide the Holy Table and altar, and the Cherubic Hymn and Great Entrance, which are slightly newer than the audible praying of the Anaphora, should be deleted, and the table of oblation removed, and the Gifts prepared on the Holy Table. And, the Liturgy of Saint Basil should be the usual Sunday Liturgy, as it was until nearly the end of the Byzantine Empire, with the priest free to chose from among several other Liturgies. Or, while you're at it, go back another couple centuries, and eliminate everything before the Little Entrance, and restore it to being literally an entrance, with the clergy entering the Temple for the Liturgy from outside with lights, incense, fans, and the Holy Gospels, and begin the Liturgy with "Wisdom! Arise!".
And, if you do go back to archaic practice, it would be consistent to bring back the general piety of the times, and not allow those under penance to listen to the Liturgy of the Faithful ... and to observe the ancient customs of imposing public penances for all manner of sins; because, it was when these ceased to be used, that such practices as taking communion in one's own hands and reciting the Anaphora out loud were done away with.
But, if you do choose to select, cafeteria style, from this century and that, and this Liturgy or that, then realize that this has nothing to do with tradition and your rite is only "Byzantine" because it devolved from the Byzantine Rite; you may still call your rite "Byzantine", just as some evangelical Christians list themselves in the yellow pages as "Orthodox Christians", but as I ridicule the former, so shall I ridicule you. And, if ever you should claim to celebrate the same rite as the Orthodox Church, I will call you a liar, because it is not my rite. (Yes, there has been some experimentation with this by a certain circle in the Orthodox Church, but few know of it, and it is generally looked askance upon, and it won't last, because it is so controversial and contrary to tradition; and, more to the point, no one would ever mandate it, because it is just some experiment.) As the Holy Canons say, "We have no such custom, neither do the Holy Churches of God."
And, whenever someone says that Byzantine Rite Catholics are an impediment to union, please understand that this is because you have shown that you are not only unable to preserve the Liturgy, but even while attempting to return to lost traditions, you feel the need to create a cafeteria-style Liturgy that goes against the grain of Orthodox spirituality and love of tradition.

Photius, Reader

Dear Deacon John,

Yes!, that is the point precisely. The law clearly says that the Archbishop has the authority to approve of, and issue Liturgical books.

But Fr. Lance (and others) say I should accept the revisions because Rome has approved of them. "Rome approves, so it is o.k."

Well, I don't believe that Rome approves of these changes. It goes against everything Rome has ever said to us about the Eastern Liturgy in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In fact, Rome was not asked for approval. Rome did not give approval (It wouldn't approve, if it were asked.) And those who suggest that Rome has approved of this revised Liturgy are mistaken.

The law puts the responsibility for this revision of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom on the sholdiers of the Metropolitan and he (with his council of bishops) is the only one whose approval is needed.

The Archbishop is the one who has to approve (or disapprove), and then accept responsibility for his decision. He has to explain why we are leaving the "Ruthenian Recension" Churches, and revising the Liturgy that has united us with other Churches until now.

This is, of course, just a matter of translation; and, "Rejoice" seems to be a much closer translation of "Khere" than "Hail."

Photius

Nicholas,

I did not state you had to accept the changes because Rome approved them I said that was the bottom line whether one likes them or not. As far as approval goes I think we are getting into semantics. If Rome's approval, opinion, review, what have you had no say in the matter we would not have to send our draft over for them to read. If you doubt this ask someone involved in the codification of our particular law which was sent to Rome for review before being promulgated by Metropolitan Judson.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Nicholas,

"Well, I don't believe that Rome approves of these changes. It goes against everything Rome has ever said to us about the Eastern Liturgy in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In fact, Rome was not asked for approval. Rome did not give approval (It wouldn't approve, if it were asked.) And those who suggest that Rome has approved of this revised Liturgy are mistaken."


Three clerics (two intimately involved in this process) who have no reason to lie have told you Rome approved the revisions. If you choose to believe your mysterious informant becasue his views coincide with yours that is your choice.

But please don't make statements about things which you simply do not have reliable information about.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Nick,

Then how is this scenario:

The liturgical books that the Metropolitan has the authority to approve and publish with the consent of the Council of Hierarchs were first sent to Rome (the Apostolic See) for review (not approval)("prior review" as the the canon states) As Father David has stated in an earlier post, the Apostolic See, which delegates this particular responsibility to the liturgical experts of Oriental Congregation, with no less than Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, among them, did in fact review the translation. Father David in the current thread quoted from that review the following:

Given the above quote, your statement: "Well, I don't believe that Rome approves of these changes. It goes against everything Rome has ever said to us about the Eastern Liturgy in the Eastern Catholic Churches" conflicts with the review.

So do you doubt Father David's veracity or the competency of the Apostlic See to issue a favorable review or that the Apostolic See even reviewed the translation?

I accept them at their word, and I believe Rome "reviewed" (not approved of) the translation. But I don't know if it was favorable.

Quoting one sentence is not enough. That sentence could be an initial sentence, followed by "but, ...". It could be a quote out of context?

How long was the letter? Who signed it? When was it dated? What else did it say?

I don't believe it was favorable. But if I am wrong, I will stand corrected, and apologize to you and others.

The only solution is to publish the letter in full, and then there will be no question.

But we've already concluded, that if Rome approved or disapproved, it doesn't really matter, because the Archbishop can choose to disregard it.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Photius,
By the grace of God I was blessed to enjoy a radiant Pascha, and I pray with confidence that you did the same.
May I claim the privilege of associating myself with the excellent posting you have just given on this thread? With my congratulations and thanks in advance,

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

In Truth He is Risen!
Dearest of all Incogniti,
With joy do I receive the news of your radiant Pascha, and likewise was it with me and my family. Glory to God for all thing!
I am honored that you wish to be associated with my posting, which I feared might have been received as a rant, so please feel free to answer or re-use it as your own.

This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad therein!
Photius

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Dear Photius,
In the Risen Lord, in Whom neither miles nor kilometers nor political boundaries count for anything and Who, we pray, will wipe away every tear, we may rejoice in the love of close brothers though in this life we may never one another - that will make the joy of meeting in the Heavenly Kingdom, should our sins not prevent us from so doing (and in this Bright Week we may trust in that). Please accept my inexpressible thanks.

Who is so great a god as our God? Thou art the God Who alone dost wonders!

Incognitus

Dear Photius,

I for one did not consider your post a rant. A rehash, but not a rant. In fact, we discussed the same issues you raised in your post about three years ago on this forum. As Qoheleth, the King of Jerusalem, says, "Nothing is new under the sun."

I have heard the arguement before that if one is seeking to have the celebrant pray the anaphora audibly, then one should devolve to a more primitive form of liturgy. Quite honestly, I do not see the analogy. In my unlearned opinion the anaphora is not just the prayer of the priest. It is the prayer of the faithful (why else do we give our assent, "Amen") The silent anaphora is clericalism of the worst kind. That the anaphora was last heard audibly in the sixth century is correct and the Emperor Justinian consider that (the inaudible prayer) an innovation and an abuse. The following quotation is from Hugh Wybrew's The Orthodox Liturgy: the Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996, pp 86-7)

Perhaps, there was some overwhelming pastoral situation that moved the bishops and priests to consign the anaphora to silence, but in my own limited understanding I have not discovered it. Was this an organic development? Given Wybrew's research it does not appear to be. Perhaps in the minds of the celebrants the faithful in those years did not possess the education to grasp the sublime truths of the anaphora, but that is not our experience today. The days are gone when the priest was the most (or only) educated person in the parish. Today's faithful have a desire and a thirst to learn about the mighty acts of God as they are revealed in the Divine Liturgy.

You mention Saint Basil's Liturgy, if the anaphora is prayed secretly, do the faithful truly experience the difference from Saint John Chrysostom's Liturgy?

I do not see the anaphora prayed aloud as a mark of cafeteria-style liturgy. As Saint Paul noted, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 11:14,17).

If history tells us anything about the silent anaphora it is that yesterday's innovation is today's venerable tradition.

Father David wrote:

Nor are we the only Church to reduce the antiphons, the Greek Orthodox often just sing the refrains, and I�ve seen (or heard!) this done in Russian churches also. The reality is that the great majority of parishes in the Pittsburgh archeparchy will have to restore the Third Antiphon. Most of the parishes in Parma, Van Nuys and Passaic follow almost exactly the �new translation� already. I�m not for chopping the Liturgy, but I will defend what the bishops mandated as a pastoral decision for the here and now. As I�ve said before, the real reality is that the antiphons were chopped many centuries ago from the full psalm to three verses, probably when processions from church to church were no longer made. I will say personally that if someone can come up with a reasonable solution for singing the �full� ( = 3 verses + Glory) Antiphons without sacrificing other parts of the Liturgy, I would support it.

So, the suppression of these antiphons (and other parts of the Liturgy) is tied to not "sacrificing the other parts of the Liturgy"? I take that to refer to taking prayers aloud that were previously taken silently.

A little perspective is in order:

Byzantine Catholic practice has long been minimalistic. It starts at the prothesis service. Unknown in Orthodoxy, we have "simplified" the service using pre-cut pieces of bread. Perhaps the particles come from the same loaf. Perhaps they don't. If you go to the Orthodox "Prosphora page,"

http://www.prosphora.org/

you'll see this link:

On the Abuse of Pre-Cut Prosphora [cin.org]

warning Orthodox of our practice.

If you're unfamiliar with the way that Orthodox do the prothesis service, you can see a video here:

Proskomide Service from a Greek Orthodox Parish [stgeorgegreenville.org]

Our beloved John Paul, of blessed memory, wrote of the Eastern liturgy in Orientale Lumen. He wrote this in section 11:

As John Paul noted, lengthy services and repeated invocations are an integral part of our tradition. As has been noted, there has been some variation in Byzantine Orthodoxy. Generally speaking, churches of the Slavic tradition celebrate a longer liturgy than Byzantine Catholics have been accustomed to. Just as we've simplified the prothesis service, we've abbreviated antiphons and omitted litanies (such as the "Little Litany" and others). Father David mentions current Greek practice. For those interested, it can be seen here:

Divine Liturgy as celebrated in the Greek Orthodox Church [goarch.org]

Greek Antiphons are different from what are taken in Slavic Churches and even if they are shorter (the site above says "the designated verses from the Psalms are sung with the hymn") they are all followed with the Little Litany:

Priest: In peace let us again pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Priest: Help us, save us, have mercy upon us, and protect us, O God, by Your grace.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Priest: Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God.

People: To You, O Lord.

This is sung twice between the First Antiphon and the Small Entrance. When was the last time you heard the Little Litany sung in a Byzantine Catholic parish?

Again, Orthodox churches following the Slavic tradition almost always have a much longer liturgy than Byzantine Catholics. True, there's some variation in practice which omits a litany here and there but nothing like what Byzantine Catholics have become accustomed to.

I've been to Byzantine Catholic parishes which had longer Antiphons, had added the Beatitudes, had the Little Litany, and some of the other litanies. It was still pared down from most Orthodox services of Slavic heritage but much closer in spirit to what John Paul referred to: "repeated invocation, lengthy duration."

Father Deacon Lance has indicated that one goal of the Liturgy revision is to get it down to one hour. To do this, are we mandating the omission of litanies so we can have prayers taken aloud? Where people have been catechized to expect repeated invocations and a more lengthy liturgy, can they have both? Or are we going to permanently remove these litanies from the Liturgy?

Why not publish a new translation and require certain things as a minimum? And allow those parishes which are or will be catechized in the Byzantine tradition ("repeated invocations," etc.) the freedom to celebrate a fuller Liturgy?

Or is the only solution to have a one hour liturgy with the prayers now taken aloud and reduced and omitted antiphons and litanies?

Nec

Christ is Risen!
Not quite: In Greek usage, the psalm verses are intoned quickly, often overlapping the louder refrains; they are never omitted.
Having attended a Russian seminary and having been active in a Russian parish most of my life, and having attended Liturgies in many, many Russian Churches in several countries, please note that I have never known of the psalm verses to be omitted in Russian usage! However, the Russian typicon calls for the Typika and beatitudes to be sung ordinarilly on Sundays, and the Typikal psalms are often abridged, and the troparia on the Beatitudes are often omitted in parishes. If true, that is outrageous and scandalous!

Photiuys, Reader

�The changes to the Byzantine Liturgy (the suppression of antiphon verses, litanies, and the mandate that the most of the quiet prayers and the Eucharistic Prayer be prayed aloud and the CHANGES to the text) are not an �accurate observance� of the Byzantine Rite. They are innovations.�

John�s quote of �changes� in the Liturgy is, unfortunately, very misleading. Whether or not the antiphons should be sung with three verses or whether all the litanies should be said certainly fall under the rubric of �organic progress.� That is, the bishops are simply recognizing a reality that has come to pass in the last 75 years, in many Orthodox as well as Eastern Catholic Churches. One can certainly debate whether this is actually organic �progress.� I myself would be loathe to say that reducing the Liturgy is �good.� On the other hand, it is understandable that one might wish to reduce elements of the Liturgy that once accompanied processions that no longer exist. So, certainly, whether these �new practices� are good or bad can be debated, but they are certainly not �latinizations.� The Liturgy has changed in the past because of cultural pressures, which is not �bad� if the changes result in the Liturgy being more meaningful for the people attending. One reality that we are facing is that the Liturgy is now in the vernacular. I believe this is the ultimate reason for the perception that the prayers of the Liturgy should be said aloud. It is, after all, the prayers that convey the central theology of the Liturgy that it is identified with the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his resurrection. It is this to which the people say �Amen.� I believe we are here on the cusp of a true liturgical reawakening. The saying of the Eucharistic Prayer aloud, of course, is not an innovation at all. It has become a common practice - and I will say a very bad common practice - but there is not now, nor has there ever been a rubric to say them silently. In this case, Rome and our bishops are defending the authentic Byzantine tradition. That the silent recitation of the prayers was the norm after the sixth century is simply not true. Justinian�s Code is a witness that the process was beginning. I think probably because the language was changing and the prayers were more difficult to understand. However, there is clear evidence that the saying of the prayers was an open question as late as the 11th century, when Nicholas of Andidum in his commentary says that to know the liturgy without the presbyteral prayers is like trying to know a garment by touching its fringes! [Protheoria, chapter 38, unfortunately no English edition of this] As late as the eighteenth century, there were calls on Mt. Athos for the public recitation of the prayers. Though these people were a minority, it shows that there has always been some sort of consciousness that the silent recitation of the prayers was somehow wrong. Finally, there are no changes to the text. There are changes to the translation, but this in no way whatsoever touches the text of the Liturgy.

Whether or not the antiphons should be sung with three verses or whether all the litanies should be said certainly fall under the rubric of �organic progress.� That is, the bishops are simply recognizing a reality that has come to pass in the last 75 years, in many Orthodox as well as Eastern Catholic Churches.

Father, bless!

I can't think of any Orthodox parishes of Slavic heritage that I've visited that omit litanies and abbreviate antiphons the way many Byzantine Catholic parishes do. Perhaps some ACROD parishes inherited the similar abbreviations? I haven't visited any of these.

Is it necessary to mandate abbreviations and shortened antiphons? Why not just mandate what is required as a minimum and let those parishes which wish do a fuller Liturgy?

Nec