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

Have you actually researched this issue in the patristic tradition?

You might want to do so, before you continue the extemporaneous argument here.

You do not do yourself, nor your argument, nor the rest of us, any favors on occasion.

I recognize that there is patristic tradition and then there is "OUR" tradition, but that does not address the overarching catechesis offered by the fathers on the benefits of being able to hear the canon of the mass...or the eucharistia of the divine liturgy.

You just can't dump that because it is your opinion. We have more than enough of that going around.

M.

No. But the fathers did not have the modern baggage which we have. I have read enough of them in the last 25 years to know that they were not modernists. And that makes a world of difference. But please, continue to correct me where I err. I will listen.

No. They had ancient baggage.

Mine is a caution not a correction.

We are not on a level playing field here.

What you say and even what you do not say will be held against you, and who the heck cares anyway, and you have now hoisted yourself on your own sword, and I have mixed metaphors and its a whale-uva-mess!!

Why would you let the world, or your fears of the world, close your eyes and ears to what the fathers taught?

That is the eastern position.

What you are offering here, in this particular instance, sounds over much like the frightened Latin's position. Not an evil or bad position. I don't mean that. But too many of those who have fought the Novus Ordo all these years have lumped abuses in, right along with quite meaningful and reasoned changes that are most in keeping with the traditions of fathers, and also the Church universal.

It would be best not to replicate those hard forty+ years here.

M.

LOL!


I could probably make it level, but it's not worth it. Besides being the underdog is always a better position.


I certainly know that.


I won't. But I am a firm believer in development, ie, of doctrine. And it cuts both ways!

I have heard the Liturgy mostly with the anaphora taken aloud. But I have on a few occassions experienced it silently--so despite whatever Chrysostom may have said on the subject--a little silence can be golden! Especially in this noisy world.


Perhaps. But I am not convinced that it is the sole eastern position or even that it captures the soul of the east.

But I love standing at the appropriate times. I love the fact that my children have all been bathed, clothed and fed at infancy. I wanted more, and now have none.


Perhaps. I was once a Latin (but have long Rusyn roots), but one who experienced beautiful Liturgy in Latin with both the old and new missa. While I can appreciate the old, I always liked the new more. But when I went to the new (in Latin) after many years of experiencing the Divine Liturgy, the new seemed too mechanical--like it was written by a commmittee or something.


I don't think I ever fought the Novus Ordo--just suffered through it when I had to. My friends are meeting to discuss articles about the Church militant and the Church belligerent. I couldn't join them I told them I really belong to the Church fugitive and am now in the process of doing what is necessary to move a large family to find employment where there is a real Divine Liturgy.

Yes. I've experienced both as well. Here's an article that I had been trying to find. It's a decent one I think.

Eucharist in Ancient Church [orthodoxresearchinstitute.org]



It was developed by committee but I am not sure that is why it feels so mechanical.

To me it seems to be the fact that the Pauline mass is so "bare bones."

I like to think of it as "open architecture" liturgy. Again, not a bad thing in and of itself.

I go back to my old parish now and then when I want a real desert experience liturgically. And I say that with love not dispondency.



This is very sad, of course. I guess you'll just be another pruned limb that the tree is better off without, since you've warped in the growing. Your absence will make room for the new shoots that will appear in the new springtime.

M.

I think that we have had enough of conspiracy theories and should get back to the more immediate and real. So I am moving this note up a notch.

Mary

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church---

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover,

Eddie

There is a difference in meaning between a memorial, and memoralizing.

Catholics DO something, the sacramental act of eucharist, in memory of Christ's command.

Many if not most protestants memoralize the actions of the Last Supper.

There is a clear difference.

Mary

same word

"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,"

Indeed according to Eastern tradition there must be someone there. We have no tradition of private Liturgies whispered by a priest alone in his private chapel.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance,

You miss my point which was probably not well made. I was indicating how much in the Revised Liturgy takes our focus off of God and on keeps it on us. I was not advocating for private Divine Liturgies. Were Divine Liturgies where the anaphora was taken quietly invalid?

Some quiet can be rather meaningful and often appeals to the heart which is a great part of our tradition. Not everything has to be heard. For moderns like ourselves it may be extremely important. In the context of all the other changes, the anaphora taken aloud does fit quite well. I hope it all works. But I know the general direction of the RDL has encouraged me rather forcefully to look to another Eastern Catholic Church.

My simple comment to those responsible is this:

"Since you have rebelled against Rome on the very critical and very explicit issue of inclusive language, don't be shocked when the body itself rebels against you. You have taught the body to rebel."

The Fathers did, indeed, have baggage. Serious baggage.

It just wasn't the *same* baggage as you and I.

The old aphorism of "hoist by your own petard" comes quickly to mind.

Dear John K,

According to the Catechism:

"...we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ."

"The Eucharist... is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation..."

"The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church... With him (Christ), she herself is offered whole and entire."

So yes, the Body and Blood of Christ are offered, but not ONLY those.

The word "anaphora" means both the sacrifice and the sacrificial prayer, just as "Eucharist" means an act of thanksgiving, the prayer of thanksgiving, and the thanksgiving banquet. No one associated with the changes has suggested that the word "anaphora" simply means a prayer; it has a combination of meanings that includes "oblation", "Eucharistic prayer", and return/repetition/representation. Those who are complaining that the word has a single value are the only ones SAYING it has a single meaning, while those being accused ot teaching that it means "just a prayer" have insisted that the sacrifice and the prayer and inseparable.

As the Catechism points out, the Body and Blood of Christ are offered in the Liturgy (and shared and consumed), but it is not ONLY the Body and Blood of Christ that is offered in the Divine Liturgy. (In fact, the priest makes an offertory gesture and THEN asks God to transform the Gifts. Most Eastern theologians teach that there is no ONE moment, but an "entire moment" in which the sacrifice takes place - and the Anaphora is that moment.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. We have certainly lived in a century in which a desire to have clear concise answers, and embrace "real" (=Latin) Catholicism, sometimes led to answers so simple that they run counter to our own Liturgy. If hearing the prayers of the Divine Liturgy lead the faithful to better realize the scope of the Sacrifice (in spite of the facts that the prayers have been in our prayer books for decades) then I think at least SOME hearing of these priestly prayers is well justified!