|
1 members (EMagnus),
227
guests, and
66
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,489
Posts417,335
Members6,131
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Father David offers some serious food for thought here. Anaphora is the Greek word used in this opening exhortation following the Symbol of Faith, so it cannot simply be ruled out. On the other hand, Anaphora is also used in the LXX text of the final verse of Psalm 50, and I�ve not encountered any suggestion that it should be retained in English in that context. Dear Father, I would like to prepare a response to your note and Father David's. I will need to ask for clarification from you on a point or two. In doing so I am only going to address those comments of yours and Father David's that are of concern to me, so if I do not address some of your good words, it is only because they do not make up any part of what is of concern to me here, and will only serve to confuse things if I try to defend against something that is not at issue in my mind. However, the Anaphora is more than just the words of the prayer � the Anaphora includes the Action which is accomplished by God and the Church in and through that prayer. It is possible for us to unite ourselves to that action without even understanding the language in which the prayer is being read, or knowing with certainty precisely which version of the prayer is being used on a particular occasion (this could happen to any of us; it has happened to me when I have attended celebrations of the Alexandrian Liturgy, either in Coptic or in Ge�ez, since I know next to nothing of these languages). In this first quote, it is not quite clear to me if you mean that the Sacramental Action of the Liturgy of the Faithful subsists in the Anaphora, or if the Anaphora subsists in or as the Sacramental Action. It seems to me that you are saying that the Sacramental Action of the Liturgy of the Faithful subsists in the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, thereby making the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer a supra category, in emphasis, of the Action itself...but perhaps that is not what you mean? As I have said often enough now, my concern here is a matter of categorical focus in the Liturgy of the Faithful, on the part of the faithful. That focus will be established in the divine liturgy, at the beginning of the Introductory Dialogue, in a similar way to that which is employed in the Latin rite Preface in the Oratre,fratres, where it is clear that the emphasis is on the offering, the oblation, the sacrifice. I have never heard it said that the focus on the Action of Lifting Up or Oblation is a characteristic of only the western rites: Priest: Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem.
Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
People: Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram totius que Ecclesiae suae sanctae.
May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church. And then of course the Canon, the core equivalent of the Anaphora, as you remarked earlier, ends with these words: Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum.
Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. Also in another paragraph of your note, you said: To another of Father David�s points, the Eucharistic Sacrifice is certainly identified with the Sacrifice of Our Savior on the Cross; that is the Faith of the Church and most versions of the Anaphora make that clear. I�ve not encountered any denial of this teaching among either Orthodox Christians or Greek-Catholics. Is it your intention to say that the eucharistic sacrifice is identified with the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Redeemer King? Or do you mean that the Action of the liturgy of the faithful is the continuing passion, death, ressurection, and ascension of our Redeemer King made present to us on earth through the sacramental action of Eucharist? Thank you for you patience. Mary Elizabeth
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Priest: Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem.
Pray brethern that my sacrifice and your sacrifice....
Our sacrifice is not a translation of the Latin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
My understanding of the distinction made in the Latin text is that the sacrifice of the priest is qualitatively different, for obvious reasons, than the sacrifice of the faithful.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
It's late, and I shall need to read the response to some of my comments carefully. For the immediate moment, let me address the matter of the Orate, Fratres (which is not part of the Preface, nor is it properly addressed to the laity): The Orate, Fratres is an old exhortation, originally addressed by the bishop who is the main celebrant to his concelebrating presbyters. Keep that firmly in mind, and the confusion vanishes. Consider the text The Bishop says to the Presbyters: Orate, Fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotentem. And the Presbyters respond to the Bishop: Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis, ad laudem et gloriam nomine sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae. So: the Bishop quite properly calls his presbyters his "brothers", and refers to "my sacrifice and yours" - without going into the whole question of the development of concelebration, the Bishop and the Presbyters were certainly doing something together. The Presbyters answer the Bishop: "May the Lord receive this Sacrifice from thy hands - notice, the presbyters do NOT say "from our hands". "For our utility" (I am using an over-literal translation here) - the "our" refers quite specifically to the presbyters - and the good of all His holy Church" - which in this case means the assembled faithful. None of this has anything at all to do with the "priesthood of the laity"; it is between the Bishop and the Presbyters. The exchange has been transformed into an exchange between the main celebrant and the laity - this is one of the more deplorable features of the Nous Ordo. More tomorrow, God willing. Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Unfortunately post-schism Latin theology and practice may not be the best comparison model. By approving of private masses the Latin Church relegated the laity to a non-essential role, an observer of the actions of the priest, until Vatican II. The Eastern Church, which didn't accept the idea of private liturgies, saw the participation of the laity as essential while maintaining the distinction between priest and laity. Both offer but in different capacities.
I think it is also worth noting that it is the deacon, the link between the laity and the priest, the nave and the sanctuary, that physically lifts and offers the Holy Gifts during the prayer: "Offering You, Your own, from Your own, always and everywhere." which the priest says.
Fr. Deacon Lance
Last edited by Fr. Deacon Lance; 03/14/07 06:46 PM.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
It's late, and I shall need to read the response to some of my comments carefully. For the immediate moment, let me address the matter of the Orate, Fratres (which is not part of the Preface, nor is it properly addressed to the laity):
The Orate, Fratres is an old exhortation, originally addressed by the bishop who is the main celebrant to his concelebrating presbyters. Keep that firmly in mind, and the confusion vanishes. Dear Father, Thank you for taking the time, and I look forward to more tomorrow. It was wrong of me, stupid even, to say that the Orate, Fratres was part of the Preface. I knew better actually, and it was sloppy of me. The real comparison that I was trying to draw was a textual similarity, in terms of direct reference to sacrifice and oblation, between the Invitation to Prayer that is the Orate, Fratres as it exists in the current Latin rite just prior to their Eucharistic Prayer and Preface, and the Introductory Dialogue as it existed in the Byzantine rite as the opening to the Eucharistic Prayer. I was also aware of the "transformation" that you find deplorable in the Novus Ordo and the Orate, Fratres. What used to annoy me more than the re-forming of the text itself, was the fact that we were issued and responded to that "Grand Invitation" while seated on our respective duffs...at least we, the people, were parked. On occasion I would rise spontaneously to my feet during that exchange, so I am happy to note that it is now ordinary to do so rather than odd. Also, lest I forget, my emphasis remains on the focus of the language of the Introductory Dialogue and not on the relationship between priest and laity, or laity and sacramental action, though I suppose my use of comparative texts is imperfect in its comparison, and does lead to other kinds of observations and discussions. Nonetheless I remain unconvinced concerning the theological soundness of the retention of the Greek, as in "Holy Anaphora," as a call to listen to the Eucharistic Prayer, prayerfully. I think I understand Father David in that correctly. I searched out and found an old bit of text that I remembered from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger that will speak nicely for me tomorrow or when I have time. It surely recognizes many things that Father David and you have said, and yet leaves room for my deep concerns as well. I hope to be able to type it all in tomorrow. All of this is very interesting and I do enjoying reading your instructive posts. So thank you again and good night. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
The Orate, Fratres is an old exhortation, originally addressed by the bishop who is the main celebrant to his concelebrating presbyters. Keep that firmly in mind, and the confusion vanishes. I will keep that firmly in mind. That makes much more sense. While your at it, any thoughts on why the English translation of the suscipiat leaves out holy as in "all His holy Church?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Sorry - as you might suspect, I am no enthusiast of the ICEL versions, and I have no wish to explain or defend them!
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Mary Elizabeth: You write that �it is not quite clear to me if you mean that the Sacramental Action of the Liturgy of the Faithful subsists in the Anaphora, or if the Anaphora subsists in or as the Sacramental Action.� Unfortunately, it�s not quite clear to me what the question is. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the �rational Sacrifice�, and is dependent upon several conditions: The Sacrifice cannot be accomplished without an ordained priest (Bishop or presbyter will do), employing for the purpose what we usually term �matter, form, and intention�. The matter is the bread and wine, the intention is to do what the Church does, and the form is the words of the Anaphora. This all takes place within what is commonly referred to as the Liturgy of the Faithful (because in earlier times only the baptized Faithful were permitted to be present). The bread and the wine, the pronunciation of the Anaphora (whether aloud or in mystica, the priest must actually speak the words, not just scan them or think them), the responses of the faithful, the intention of the priest are all components of the Sacramental Action. So, for that matter, are certain requirements which the Church makes, to do with such matters as the specific texts, the vestments, the sacred vessels, the necessary preparation, and so on � to a degree these can differ from one Local Church to another (a Local Church may require either leavened bread or unleavened bread, for example). Red wine is preferable, but the Church tolerates the use of white wine. The Sacramental Action continues beyond the Anaphora � the reception of Holy Communion is an essential part of that Action (a priest may not serve the Divine Liturgy without receiving Holy Communion). In these areas also the Church has made certain regulations which there is no need to repeat here. You write that: �It seems to me that you are saying that the Sacramental Action of the Liturgy of the Faithful subsists in the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, thereby making the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer a supra category, in emphasis, of the Action itself...but perhaps that is not what you mean?� I�m not at all sure what you mean here, so I can�t respond adequately. Certain thoughts come to mind, but I hesitate to express those thoughts without a fuller statement as to the nature of the question. You write that: �As I have said often enough now, my concern here is a matter of categorical focus in the Liturgy of the Faithful, on the part of the faithful.� What do you mean by �categorical focus�? Does anyone in this discussion appear to be suggesting that the Faithful at the Divine Liturgy should not be focused on what is taking place? If so, don�t worry � I�ve often been amazed to discover just how closely people are paying attention, even when I think they aren�t! I trust that you have read the full text of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and the full text of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great attentively � it would be impossible to read that text and not realize that the Church understands what is taking place as a Great Sacrifice, an oblation. So what problem are you discerning, and why? You write that: �I have never heard it said that the focus on the Action of Lifting Up or Oblation is a characteristic of only the western rites.� Neither have I � and such a statement would be utterly inaccurate. You may have misunderstood a term I mentioned � the expression Actio Missae as a synonym for the Anaphora is naturally found only in the West. Is it possible that you are searching for a difference where no difference exists? Please allow me to suggest that you read Saint John Chrysostom�s classic work On the Priesthood . It may set your mind at rest, at least to some degree. For the sake of Christ, forgive me. Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Dear Mary Elizabeth:
Unfortunately, it�s not quite clear to me what the question is. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the �rational Sacrifice�, and is dependent upon several conditions:
The Sacrifice cannot be accomplished without an ordained priest (Bishop or presbyter will do), employing for the purpose what we usually term �matter, form, and intention�. The matter is the bread and wine, the intention is to do what the Church does, and the form is the words of the Anaphora. This all takes place within what is commonly referred to as the Liturgy of the Faithful (because in earlier times only the baptized Faithful were permitted to be present). The bread and the wine, the pronunciation of the Anaphora (whether aloud or in mystica, the priest must actually speak the words, not just scan them or think them), the responses of the faithful, the intention of the priest are all components of the Sacramental Action. So, for that matter, are certain requirements which the Church makes, to do with such matters as the specific texts, the vestments, the sacred vessels, the necessary preparation, and so on � to a degree these can differ from one Local Church to another (a Local Church may require either leavened bread or unleavened bread, for example). Red wine is preferable, but the Church tolerates the use of white wine.
The Sacramental Action continues beyond the Anaphora � the reception of Holy Communion is an essential part of that Action (a priest may not serve the Divine Liturgy without receiving Holy Communion). In these areas also the Church has made certain regulations which there is no need to repeat here. Dear Father, I am slowly finding my way around the new software here. You'd think I'd learned my lesson earlier but I clearly did not. With the wayward stroke of an ENTER key, I managed to wipe out a good 30 minutes worth of mulling and typing. I am too frustrated to try and reconstruct.  I went off on something of a rabbit trail because your note here reminded me of an interesting story that is simply not destined to go to print tonight. What you've written above is essentially sufficient to my needs for the moment. It is what I expected, but to be honest it was not entirely clear at first. Certainly clear now and plenty familiar. With respect to St. John Chrysostom's On the Priesthood, I seem to constantly be referring people to it. Seems as though, for many, the eternal priesthood is some sort of odd papal accretion. Thank you for the time that you took and sorry for the brief response but I am going now to soak these fat thumbs so I don't clip another key later. Next time I am going to compose my responses somewhere else and plug them in here later. Mary Elizabeth
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Most translators up to now have assumed that the word "Anaphora" used by the deacon in the introduction to the anaphora was being used in a generic sense - oblation, offering, or some such. However, it is being used in a specific sense, to refer to the prayer that the priest is about to say and which in the Orthodox tradition is called the "anaphora." (Cf. St. John Chrysostom, On the Acts of the Apostles 18,5) Dear Father David, In all of the historical texts on the St. John Chrysostom divine liturgy, written in English, that I have been able to gather over the years, from both Catholic and Orthodox sources, the Introductory Dialogue has been described as being initially a rubric that was by the time of the eighth century already incorporated into the liturgy as part of the spoken text. St. John Chrysostom taught that the text was calling the assembly to stand �in fear and trembling, with gravity and a courageous spirit� in full and willing anticipation of being participants in the Holy Oblation, which is, in the context of the Sacramental Action, the Sacrifice of Christ who took upon himself the full weight of our sins, the full participation of our everlasting lives. Christ joins us to himself in that great moment of his passion and death, so that we may die with him to rise again in everlasting peace and love. This particular moment in the liturgy calls us to bear in mind the sacramental act of dying so that we may live. In this very real sacramental sense it draws us back to our Baptismal promises and links the two sacramental actions of Baptism and Eucharist together in the living presence of the assembly, standing before their Lord, Master and King. In none of those studies of the history of the liturgy have I been able to find any reference to the Introductory Dialogue where one could take from the explanation the assertion that, and I paraphrase now, �� translators up to now have assumed that the Greek word anaphora used by the deacon in the introduction to the Anaphora, a technical term in English or Greek to mean the Eucharistic Prayer, was being used in a �generic sense - oblation, offering, or some such�.� I simply can find nothing that indicates that this statement about our rising and offering a Holy Oblation is some sort of generic offering�that could have been bread or grapes or olive oil or lengths of cloth or some such thing. No. By the time this text reaches its eighth century iteration in the form of this particular liturgy, it is clear that the Holy Oblation, is the High Priest and Sacrifice, Jesus Christ, in whose presence we are to stand in awe. There is no �some such� at all about the very specific Holy Oblation that is said to be being offered� anaphora is not taught as being simply the ensuing Eucharistic Prayer, and not merely listened to as you have indicated, at that moment in the liturgy. In all of the liturgical histories and commentaries that I can find, we are called, at that moment, to be active and awestruck participants in the Sacramental Action initiated by Christ, the High Priest and Oblation, through his minister here on earth, along with the assembly gathered and standing with dignity and awe. If you are going to insist that anaphora in the Introductory Dialogue has always, up until the 21st century Byzantine new order, been translated as a �generic some such�, given the importance of the subject, it is incumbent upon you to document the sources for that assertion. *************** The following is a beautiful catechesis on the very subject of the Eucharist as a perfect sacrifice of praise. Note the numbered rank order in which the Holy Father then spoke of the various elements and the meanings, of our Holy Oblation. Eucharist is perfect sacrifice of praise -- John Paul II, General Audience, October 11, 2000
1. "Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honour is yours, almighty Father". This proclamation of Trinitarian praise seals the prayer of the Canon at every Eucharistic celebration. The Eucharist, in fact, is the perfect "sacrifice of praise", the highest glorification that rises from earth to heaven, "the source and summit of the Christian life in which (the children of God) offer the divine victim (to the Father) and themselves along with it" (Lumen gentium, n. 11). In the New Testament, the Letter to the Hebrews teaches us that the Christian liturgy is offered by "a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens", who achieved a unique sacrifice once and for all by "offering up himself" (cf. Heb 7: 26-27). "Through him then", the Letter says, "let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God" (Heb 13: 15). Today let us briefly recall the two themes of sacrifice and praise which are found in the Eucharist, sacrificium laudis.
2. First of all the sacrifice of Christ becomes present in the Eucharist. Jesus is really present under the appearances of bread and wine, as he himself assures us: "This is my body ... this is my blood" (Mt 26: 26, 28). But the Christ present in the Eucharist is the Christ now glorified, who on Good Friday offered himself on the cross. This is what is emphasized by the words he spoke over the cup of wine: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"(Mt 26: 28; cf. Mk 14: 24; Lk 22: 20). If these words are examined in the light of their biblical import, two significant references appear. The first consists of the expression "blood poured out" which, as the biblical language attests (cf. Gn 9: 6), is synonymous with violent death. The second is found in the precise statement "for many", regarding those for whom this blood is poured out. The allusion here takes us back to a fundamental text for the Christian interpretation of Scripture, the fourth song of Isaiah: by his sacrifice, the Servant of the Lord "poured out his soul to death", and "bore the sin of many" (Is 53: 12; cf. Heb 9: 28; 1 Pt 2: 24).
5. At this point we can illustrate the other affirmation: the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise. Essentially oriented to full communion between God and man, "the Eucharistic sacrifice is the source and summit of the whole of the Church's worship and of the Christian life. The faithful participate more fully in this sacrament of thanksgiving, propitiation, petition and praise, not only when they wholeheartedly offer the sacred victim, and in it themselves, to the Father with the priest, but also when they receive this same victim sacramentally" (Sacred Congregation of Rites, Eucharisticum Mysterium, n. 3e).
6. "In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the Resurrection of Christ" (CCC, n. 1359). Uniting herself to Christ's sacrifice, the Church in the Eucharist voices the praise of all creation. The commitment of every believer to offer his existence, his "body", as Paul says, as a "living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God" (Rom 12: 1), in full communion with Christ, must correspond to this. In this way, one life unites God and man, Christ crucified and raised for us all and the disciple who is called to give himself entirely to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Father David,
It's clear that Mary Elizabeth, aka ElijahMaria, has a large hidden agenda - but I am unable to discern just what that agenda is, much less to address it adequately. As a Maronite Benedictine friend once told me, it is possible to find heresy in almost any liturgical text or gesture if one is willing to throw one's doctrinal net widely enough, but that beyond a certain point, it's time to have a cup of tea and go to bed.
If you have any insight into what this poor woman is really distressed about, that would probably be interesting. As it is, I studied the Eucharist under Louis Bouyer, who would not have been overly patient with what she is writing.
Hope your Lent is going well, and that you have a grace-filled Pascha.
Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
Father Serge and Father David, your blessings!
If I may interject: I have also read another version of Mary Elizabeth's announcement which she made in another forum, and I think I may be able to provide a bit of the insight you requested.
Sometimes, when a reader encounters a new translation of a formal text, especially if he expects a hidden agenda, he may infer (without requiring particular evidence) that the new text contains an implicit denial of the old.
Thus:
1. "They now want us to say 'offer the holy Anaphora' instead of 'offer the holy oblation' - so they must trying to say that we are NOT offering a sacrifice, but only a prayer."
2. "They now want us to say 'Theotokos' instead of 'Mother of God' - so they must not WANT us to have a warm, personal relationship with the Mother of God."
One of the hallmarks of Catholic and Orthodox liturgy (and of Christian orthodoxy in general) is a tendency toward a "both and" rather than "either/or." The Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise AND a re-presentation of the death and resurrection of the Lord; we offer the Body and Blood, AND our praise, AND ourselves together with the whole creation, all through the hands of the High Priest. Mary is Theotokos AND Mother of God, with all the depth of each title.
Catechesis on ANY translation change is critical, but just as important is an attitude of humility on the part of both the shepherds and the flock. Most especially during this season of the Fast, we find ourselves oh so very willing to throw stones, and attribute dark motives to others. Kyrie eleison!
Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski
P.S. One more small example of this hermeneutic: the new text of the resurrectional troparion in tone 4 (quite properly) refers to 'the women disciples' rather than simply 'the women'. I have twice been told by concerned laymen that this is a clear sign that the Liturgical Commission is trying to prepare us for the ordination of women to the priesthood, and the phrase 'the women disciples' is actual proof thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Jeff,
Nobody will accuse me of being a partisan supporter of the new Ruthenian version of the Liturgy. But attempting, for instance, to suggest that one would use the word "Theotokos" in order to distance the faithful from the Mother of God is absurd. It is a matter of linguistic and dogmatic accuracy - anyone who knows the depth of Byzantine liturgical texts in honor and veneration of the Holy Theotokos will surely realize that.
As to the issue of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (a doctrine which is not in doubt, so far as I know): several years ago I was invited to lecture to a clergy group here in Ireland about the idea of Sacrifice as expressed in the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. My audience was bowled over - not by my erudition, but by the clear and copious references that our Divine Liturgy provides. I fail to grasp how anyone could read our liturgical text and not understand this.
The Greek text justifies the use of the word "Anaphora" in that diaconal admonition. My only criticism is that the faithful - to say nothing of the occasional visitors - are unlikely to know what the word means. It's true, of course, that this applies to other words in the liturgical vocabulary, but it seems a bit strange to use this one, which does not have any special dogmatic significance (although the Slavonic voznoshenie may be nothing more than a calque for Anaphora.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 27
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 27 |
3. In a metropolia where, sadly, most parishes use single verses of antiphons, and the new text reflects this - 'They are trying to SHORTEN THE LITURGY." Ever notice how the Revisionists always compare the Revised Divine Liturgy to the worst examples of liturgy among our parishes? The comparison point should be the full Recension and the parishes that celebrate it � not the worst examples. But if they compared it to the best that would make the differences between the Revised Divine Liturgy and the Real Ruthenian Liturgy even more obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
