www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy RDL is a Byzantine Calvinist Liturgy-first of its kind

Then allow me to revise the flatness of my initial statement, and say that some of the more reprehensible and less than accurate changes to the liturgy, one of which I have discussed at length in this forum, and the overall confusion apparent in the catechesis that I've seen here to date, leaves the liturgy with a wistfully protestant oeurve, as far as I am concerned, and also, I believe, in fact.

Howzzat?

And then to clarify a bit beyond that: I have no fear of protestantism. As a Catholic, I have simply never yearned for a Cranmer-like eucharistia and the catechesis to go with it.

Had the members of the committee been less interested in personal acts of revisionism, some of this mess could have been avoided.

Father David is no sorrier than I am.

M.

Thank you, Father. I had missed this before.

Yes, Jeff.

Anaphora is not a word that is difficult to translate at all. That has been the claim, among other even stranger assertions.

But the English words offering or oblation do quite nicely as an accurate translation in the context in question.

The tortured reasoning for using "Anaphora" in its technical sense, as has been asserted here more than once, referring to a prayer prayed prayerfully, not only distorts the technical meaning of "Anaphora" by limiting it only to prayer text, but it also salts my sense that there is more than a little perversion of our liturgical theology at work here.

Mary

Everyone else complains about omitting [man] or mistranslating [orthodox] words, but you are complaining about the original word being maintained? You believe the original and most accurate word somehow "leaves the liturgy with a wistfully protestant oeurve"? (By which I assume you meant overtone and not work.)

Tortured reasoning is an apt description!

huh?

I was speaking of "anaphora" in an English translation where oblation is clearly the the translated word that best expresses the original text.

You see, in case you are Wondering, it is a combination of the retention of a Greek word in an English translation, and the explanation that the word indicates a "prayer prayed prayerfully."

You see "prayer" is not a direct translation of anaphora.

And for the rest of it, "composition" would be a better translation than either work or overtone. Don't you think?

M.

I've never heard of hors d'oeuvre being translated as outside the composition. For someone arguing the most accurate translation of things, 'work' would be the best selection. Perhaps the confusion wouldn't enter in if you left the word 'composition' in its original context and didn't translate it into another language?

At that rate you'd prolly want to translate mettre en oeuvre as "carrying the finger food."

M.

PS: translating mettre en oeuvre as "setting" might even be better, in the sense of carrying out a plan or an idea. Thanks for the prompt!!

Certainly, the emphasis throughout the RDL has now been turned back on us, so that we are now looking at, and listening to, ourselves making sacrifice to God, rather than simply making sacrifice to God. It has made us self-conscious about our worship. So much so that we do not want to hear ourselves say words that the world has told us are naughty.

Sure, the priest was always praying the "anaphora", but now he is quite conscious that he is praying it--even for others to hear. But by doing this, the genius of the Divine Liturgy is diminished. As I understand Cardinal Ratzinger, the genius of the Divine Liturgy is that it is directed wholly to God.



(my emphasis).

This new way of worship in the RDL gives a slightly different meaning to Malachias 1:11-12


I would say that it does conform to modern times. But that's not necessarily a good thing.

Dear lm,

Does that mean it is also a mistake for the deacon to announce 'In peace let us pray to the Lord', or for the priest to mention to God that we are celebrating a Liturgy in the process of thanking him for it? For that matter, much of the prayer before communion is self-referential, in which we tell God what our intent is and that we understand what we are doing.

You say that the emphasis throughout the new text has changed; can you point to any examples to make your point clearer?

The fact that you are self-conscious does not mean either that that was the intent of the changes, or their necessary effect. I have been told that priests who first celebrated in English were VERY self-conscious, and yet that was not the intent of THOSE changes either, so far as I can determine.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Are you suggesting that these elements which you have singled out for attention here are reflective of the need for this counsel?

If they are not then why would you even entertain them in this context?

Again I believe it is a tactic in argumentation that is called dissembling and it is not particularly honest in that it is simply designed to deflect attention and or make the other fella look silly, when it fact it is the person dissembling who looks incredibly silly for trying to hide an elephant behind a cigarette butt, and also looks mighty disingenuous and dishonest t'boot.

It is one thing to inquire, but it is an intellectual foul to try and answer in your favor by salting the question with examples that do not apply to the problem.

M.

No.



1) The anaphora said aloud;

2) The emphasis now that the anaphora is the prayer rather than the deed;

3) The ommission of words "offensive" to modern anthropoids so that the liturgy is focused on us--ie those present--modern men and women;



True. But I said the emphasis has changed to make us self-conscious. We can argue about intent all day long. The fact remains, however, that despite that there are not even arguments that will satisfy you, the RDL runs contrary to the ordinary magisterium of the Church which said, "the tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave." "He loves us all" reminds one of a group hug, not a sacrifical offering made once and for all, for mankind.

The first principle of change set forth in the particular law which states that the liturgy is to be adapted to modern times does rather clearly indicate that it was the intent of the Bishops to make the Liturgy focus on "us", because modern times are in fact all about us. They have subtely, and not so subtely, accomplished their task. And I congratulate them.

Let's, however, look at authentic inculturation as expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) in The Spirit of the Liturgy :



p. 201.

In Christ,

lm

Dear lm,

Your argument would bear a lot more weight if the new text said that we are to LISTEN TO the anaphora, rather than offer it. The deacon's admonitions refer all the time to what we are doing ("Let us complete our evening prayer to the Lord." Why not just go ahead and complete it? "Let us give thanks to the Lord." Why not just give thanks? Answer: because in our tradition, the people's attention is directed TOWARD what we are about to do, in preparation.)

While I would have preferred that the anaphora being take aloud were an option, I recognize (as another poster here said) that if that were done, the vast majority of the faithful would never hear it - and the Liturgical Instruction from Rome (1996) specifically enjoined the bishops to study ways in which the anaphora might be prayed aloud.

I do agree that "who loves us all" has some of the effects you mention, though I think they are heightened by the noticeability of the change. Then again, the strongest arguments I heard years ago against the use of the vernacular in worship (and in favor of priestly prayers being unheard by the faithful) is that worship is ABOUT GOD, and we don't need to know what we are saying; let the faithful join in the singing, "embrace their cultural heritage" (and thus feel good about being Russian, or Rusyn, or Greek), and go home feeling they have accomplished their purpose. *shrug* Self-congratulation comes in all kinds of forms! A good vernacular translation makes it possible FOR US to properly praise God using the Church's liturgy.

In essence, while I might agree with you about "Lover of us all", I think the rather wild claims made here as to intent of the translators are more a "stick to beat the new liturgy with" rather than supportable contentions, and I certainly don't agree that "Let us offer the holy anaphora" is really different IN KIND from "Let us give thanks to the Lord" - except to the extent that (perhaps through catechesis) the word Anaphora can carry all the connotations of the Greek original, while the word oblation does not.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

This is more of a slippery slope than you are allowing Jeff.

In Catholic tradition, particularly the eastern tradition, a defining characteristic of prayer is listening, or contemplation.

In fact, in the east, we quite regularly "offer" prayers prayed prayerfully.

As I have said before, the difficulty with anaphora lies in the insertion of a Greek word, quite consciously and admittedly used in it "technical" sense as one of the titles for the segment of the liturgy also known as "the Eucharistic Prayer" or the "Canon" of the mass.

It has also been characterized here and in other semi-private and formal venues, as a "prayer prayed prayerfully" and that presents the difficulty. A Greek word, used as a liturgical title, inserted into an English translation with an explanation that makes the intent perfectly clear.

There is a theology behind this Jeff and it is not the theology and pneumatology offerd in the catechesis that I offered at the beginning of the thread on the "Anaphora-as-Oblation" from St. John Chrysostom or John Paul II on the very act of oblation that we are called to in the mystery of the eucharist.

One of the most clear indicators of the subtext at work in the RDL is the bald faced assertion in black and white that prior to the Byzantine new order, there was 'some kind of generic oblation, or some such' being offered.

Clearly nobody knew. I find that quite stunning...speaking of hiding an elephant behind a cigarette butt.

Father David's clear assertion is not small change, Jeff. You cannot diminish it, nor can you erase it, nor can you assert that it is private opinion because it is all a part of the official catechesis on the New Byzantine dis-Order.

Mary

I never said that the Liturgy is different in kind, just emphasis--it's more about us, and less about God. But the subject is not made more perfect by taking his eye off of the object or keeping a mirror nearby to watch himself. The subject becomes more godlike by being ordered to God.

The intent is clearly shown by the particular law which was the impetus for change. There is nothing wild about that observation. And the fact that the Bishops continue to let the Creed be distorted in a way that it is contrary to the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church, speaks volumes about intent. It's again about us not about the faith.


But we don't have a good vernacular translation. Words have been omitted and others have been retained in the original Greek which seem to obscure that to which the anaphora is ordered. The us in the Creed fits perfectly with this new theological emphasis.

Actually not. When the anaphora is said aloud and I am invited to offer it, I feel far more important because when it is taken aloud, it suggests either that there must be someone to hear it, or worse yet that I too am somehow offering the priestly prayer. Or perhaps it means both together. I think the psycholgy of it all has become more modern.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if some would be priests will be nearly inaudibly praying the anaphora together.