www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy A comparison

Mary,

I was responding to the general approach to the RDL and not specifically to what appears to be a shift in emphasis in the theological understanding of the Anaphora.

John

In the RDL version, to what does "they" refer? Mysteries? If so, according to the RDL: May they (the mysteries) bring about the remission of sins etc. Is that what the prayer says, or rather is it the partaking of the mysteries, thus: Make us worthy to partake with a clear conscience of your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual table, for [unto, εἰς, во] the remissions of sins ...

Aren't the two expressions significantly different in meaning?

Dn. Anthony

I did understand that John and I was not offering a correction for anything that you said.

I was hoping to point out that the invisibility of the eastern catechesis on Eucharistic theology in the process of constructing the new liturgy has created a shift effect on the entire liturgy, its purpose, the messages we send and receive, its prayers.

Father Deacon Anthony offers yet another subtle shift in meaning in the message just above my own here. It is more than just setting the prayer in modern language. There has been a shift in meaning.

Another backing away from our active participation in the liturgical action, the eucharistic action of the liturgy. Again we are set in the posture of observer, as one observes a play or a parade. Yes we are appreciative of the display. Yes we evince our appreciation by our voice and bodies, but there is nothing of real shared experience in it, organic to our daily lives and pivotal to our salvation that is there, and real, and happening immediately to us, broken and shared. Once again we are backed up apace and are called to observe and not to partake.

But that fits very well and comfortably with the new theology of the new order.

There is no reason to suggest any evil intent in what has happened to the liturgy, but I think we are all aware that once one compromises the strength of a purpose and a meaning, even one iota, then the entire truth of what was, or what is supposed to be, is distorted, and the distortions increase with each new distortion, they do not decrease or return to what was.

There are other instances of this in the liturgy, but I am not offering them because there is something of a resistance to what I am writing, from those who are themselves unhappy with the RDL. A sense that it is just one word that I am debating and may not be important at all.

So I will leave the discovery to others like Deacon Anthony, who has more credibility than I do at the moment. But the weaknesses are there, built into the liturgy like the foundation stones of a house.

The root of this structural distortion is the refusal to address the ancient eastern Eucharistic theology, rather placing the focus on a Latin rite habit of seeing sacrifice as no more than the bloody footprints and the Cross of Christ. Well there is much more and it has been swept from our liturgy like an old woman brooms her porch.

That is why I have said, without casting blame or trying to second guess motive, that our current liturgy is indeed in ruins.

Mary

Hmmm.... I think this is on topic, to the extent that it points out the difficulties of translation.

The Greek text essentially contains a pun, since Anaphora from an early time referred to BOTH the act of offering, and the prayer of offering. Father David states that the two are inseparable; Mary says that anaphora meant sacrifice even before it referred to the prayer of offering (which is of course true); the reasonable conclusion is that the faithful need to be reminded of both meanings. It is unfortunate that the glossary did not provide both meanings, but I understand that Father David was not the priest who wrote the glossary entry - so I'm not sure it can be claimed to represent his meaning.

First question: does being told to "be attentive" to our offering of {the Sacrifice, through its prayer} constitute being observers? If so, perhaps the traditional "Be attentive" is the problem... The Anaphora certainly refers to itself already ("this liturgy, which You are pleased..." ), so SOME awareness of our own privilege is appropriate - just as we are reminded by the priest of the awesome privilege of praying the Lord's prayer, just before we pray it.

The argument I used to hear from lay people AGAINST taking the sacrificial prayers silently was that it made us observers (I don't agree, but I heard that from individuals who were certainly not "reform-minded") - and someone here slyly suggested that anyone who prayed the priestly prayers silently along with the priest was likely some "wannabe priest" (with the tacit implication that it might have been a WOMAN who wanted to be a priest), even though Orthodox theologians have recommended precisely this practice to Christians regardless of sex.

The liturgical commission chose to translate a pun (or at least a word with two meanings) by a word which everyone here acknowledges has two meanings - while oblation has only one. Perhaps we do indeed have a situation here where the result is different based on whether one takes the original Greek or the intermediate Slavonic translation as truly normative.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

When you read Father David's catechesis here and on his website, it becomes very clear that there's more here than a choice to insert, what has become over time, the title of a suite of prayers during the liturgy of the Eucharist.

I will say again, the meaning of a word, and that very same word used in a title, such as the Anaphora of St. James, or the Anaphora of St. Basil, does not then imbue the original word "anaphora" with the new meaning, which is 'the title of a suite of particular prayers.'

Anaphora may be used as a noun meaning "offering" or it may be employed as part of a title for the whole sequence of prayers, of the liturgy of the Eucharist.

Better to say that Anaphora means "title of suite of prayers"...where the defining words are 'title of suite.'

The organic meaning of anaphora remains a lifting up, an oblation, an offering.

That is its Scriptural meaning. That is its liturgical meaning.

This is not an argument defined by either this prayer, or that oblation. The word anaphora does not have two meanings at all.

It is linguistic laziness that gave 'Anaphora' the short-hand meaning of 'prayer'....Anaphora, outside of it titular place in the technical jargon of liturgical study, means offering. Anaphora in its place in the liturgy means offering.

The word has been employed as a reference to a suite of prayers, outside of its contextual place in the liturgical text itself.

What we actually have is a question of fundamental meaning of the words and actions of the liturgy of the Eucharist, and if you compare Father David's catechesis and expressed understanding of "anaphora/oblation" with the expressed understanding of St. John Chrysostom or John Paul II, to name only two examples, you have two distinctly different understandings.

Father David has signaled that new understanding by substituting the TITLE of a suite of prayers, rather than translating the word "anaphora" into English as oblation, which is the appropriate meaning in that place whether you are praying in Greek, English or Slavonic.

Mary

My Greek is weak and my Church Slavonic is weak. I would not be of much assitance.

However, my English is adequate and I know when something sounds contrived. BTW- I think that chosen words and poetical fluidity are important factors. I think it would have been glorious if the commission just copied (word for word) the wording of the Antiochian or Russian version.

And I firmly believe that this prayer is but a microcosm of a much larger problem. The more I study the RDL...the more experts that I read...the more I attempt to study Greek and Church Slavonic.........

The more errors I see in translation, rubrics, and structure.

Furthermore, to complicate and change the music for a Church which has an alarming shortage of cantors, is curious. Most people do not read music. The old music was a part of our minds, hearts, and souls. We could get by without a cantor. But now...in my Church...if anything happened to the cantor...there would be panic and disarray!


Peace and blessings,
Recluse

Let me emphasize this by referring you to the fact that Father David was challenged on this particular point at the presbyteral meeting in the Passaic diocese.

The priest raising the challenge offered a rather extended presentation to which Father David replied, "My opinion is just as good as yours." Period.

That at least gives us some indication that there are at least two conflicting sets of overall Eucharistic meanings and emphases at issue here and not just a singular issue of the insertion of a Greek word into an English translation.

I do not think that Father David's opinion is just as good as St. John Chrysostom's. Nor do I think it is better.

Mary

Perhaps not larger problems...but similar problems...which when taken as a whole, constitute one very large mess.

Yes. We surely disagree here. I could never in good conscience defend what was done to our beloved Liturgy.

The Eastern Christian Tradition proclaims that the peasant in the field, has equal voice to the engineer, to the school teacher, to the homeless person, to the priest, to the bishop. All voices in the Church should be heard equally. However, this has not happened in the BCC! There was a secretive CIA-like reform and promulgation. Only the "opinions" of the apparent "elite scholars" have been considered.

It is terribly unsettling!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Mary:

No, I think I understand your apparent problem with the use of the term �Anaphora� in the RDL quite well, and I think my criticism is spot on. You seem unwilling or unable to understand that it refers both to the specific prayer that we � the Church, the Body of Christ, together with our Head � are about to offer and to the sacramental action that God and the Church, working together, accomplish in and through this prayer.

Your claim that the use of the term Anaphora moves the people�s focus from the rational sacrifice we are offering to the goodness of their own gratitude, i.e., turns the focus from the real sacrifice of Christ in which we are participating to the mere words of the prayer they themselves are offering, is groundless. You�re simply assuming that what you�ve misunderstood will be misunderstood by others. Not a very strong argument, my dear.

Feel free to restate your concerns, however, if I have misinterpreted them.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Administrator:

I stand by my earlier assertion that you have introduced a false opposition between the Divine Liturgy as the supreme act of giving thanks to God and the DL as a vehicle of instruction for the faithful. You, in fact, confirm this in your response, when you note that one �cannot add the focus of instructing man without blurring the focus of worshiping God.� Both foci � thanksgiving to God and the transformation of man � have been present all along because they cannot be separated; they reinforce and illumine one another. The DL has always been a work not only of the heart and the soul but also of the mind.

One of the reasons for this dual emphasis is that our liturgical work is meant to transform the whole human person and not just a part. God wishes us to become what we He always intended us to become � deified, partakers of the divine nature � and the DL is the vehicle par excellence by which He seeks to bring this about. But, because men and women are differently-gifted, He knows that this transfiguration will occur differently for different people. The DL�s genius and beauty reside, in part, in its ability to effect this change in every Christian present and to allow each to approach nearer to God in a way that is existentially authentic for that person. (Our God, Who is Love, would not have it any other way.) This transformation, in turn, allows us to accomplish the unique task we as human creatures possess: to reform and restore the entire creation to God.

What makes you so sure that praying the Anaphora aloud will have the tendency of making the DL seem like a college lecture (or a Protestant �worship� service)? Perhaps the praying of these silent prayers aloud is actually meant to bring about a more intimate participation of the faithful in the divine life, a more authentic experience of communion with the Triune God? Since �we,� as the DL makes clear, are offering ourselves (�as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,� Rom 12.1) and that which is God�s to God, since �we� are the ones who are meant to see Christ, �His face, His features, His clothes, His shoes,� (Chrysostom, Homily 82 on Matthew), and since �we� are the ones remembering and re-presenting Christ�s sacrifice, why shouldn�t �we� be made more aware of what is really going in the Liturgy? I don�t follow your reasoning that being in the presence of God somehow eliminates an emphasis on instruction, or that the two cannot co-exist without one taking absolute precedence.

By the way, since anecdotal evidence seems to be a acceptable form of proof on this Board, I will note that one of the OCA churches I frequent has been saying the Anaphora aloud for as many years I�ve been attending. The people even respond to the epikletic prayer with chanted �Amens.� No riots, so far as I have noticed. As to the state of their souls, I cannot, of course, speak.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear ajk:

Thank you for your question.

The �they� in question in the prayer must refer to �the mysteries in which we are about to partake,� rather than �the act of partaking in the mysteries,� because it is the mysteries that effect the ends noted, not our partaking of them. Grace is a gift from God, it is not something we call down upon ourselves. Although we must respond to the divine offer of participating in His life � no man is saved against his will � the opportunity is present strictly because of God�s overflowing love for man. Hence the prayer�s emphasis on �mak[ing] us worthy� of receiving / partaking in these transformative mysteries. I think the emphasis is in the right place, soteriologically speaking.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Are you able or willing, or perhaps even authorized, to offer a clear reason why, in an English translation of the liturgy, the titular form for "the Anaphora" is used in the opening dialogue of the Eucharistic prayer, rather than translating the word from the Greek or Slavonic into English?

Can you demonstrate throughout the history of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, where that phrase is used in the introductory dialogue of the Eucharistic prayer, to actually mean prayer, rather than, or even as well as, oblation?

It would strengthen your argument if you could provide clear contextual evidence that "anaphora" in that line of the divine liturgy ever was intended to mean prayer.

Otherwise I will continue to hold to a rightful claim that there has been a clear change in the Eucharistic theology of the new Byzantine order.

Your dear, in Christ,

Mary

We will have to agree to disagree. You seem intent to misinterpret what I have stated and then knock it down. Well, I�m in good company since I find that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) provides excellent words to what I am saying.

When the focus of the Divine Liturgy changes the emphasis changes. When one changes the rubrics to make the Liturgy more about educating man it detracts from the worship of God. The Latins have conducted this type of experiment. The results of the past forty years of the Novus Ordo have been negative enough that theologians like Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) have commented on it. Ratzinger, in particular, notes the negative shift in emphasis from what is accomplished in the Anaphora to the hearing of the praying of the prayers of the Anaphora. He further suggests that the maybe praying the Anaphora prayers silently was best. If you have concrete positive results of this experiment in the Latin Church, please offer them. All the evidence I�ve seen is that the custom has not increased the level understanding and prayerfulness of the Christian faithful but has only resulted in discussions of the Anaphora being in crisis, with calls for new Anaphoras to fix the problem.

You also seem not to differentiate in the difference between the higher and lower forms of catechesis. The main focus of liturgy is about worshipping God. Participation in the Divine Light (spending time in the Father�s house) is a far better form of catechesis than is hearing the words of the Liturgy. The hearing of the words provides only a fraction of the catechesis that occurs when compared to participation in the Divine Light that descends upon the Liturgy.

Overall, this is a good paragraph. I would note only that the transformation of the human purpose comes not from the instructive elements of the Liturgy but from participating in the Divine Light. We are transformed by accepting Christ, by following Him and by worshipping Him. The focus of the Divine Liturgy must always be upon worship. When the focus moves from worship to education the faithful see that it is not about God but about them, and they loose interest. Liturgy becomes less about the worship of God and more about the education of the community.

See my comments above. The Latins have conducted such an experiment for the past forty years. Top theologians speak of the Anaphora being in crisis, speak of needing new and different anaphora to recapture the faithful�s attention. And Cardinal Ratzigner says maybe praying it quietly is best. And we have seen the custom mandated in the Ruthenian Church in Passaic for the past ten years. The results have been negative. The focus has indeed moved from participation in the Light. It is now not even the education of man but rather the performance of the priest praying the prayer. There is absolutely no reason to mandate the Latin custom when (as I have noted consistently in these discussion) liberty would serve best.

How do you define awareness? Is awareness for you the hearing of prayers being prayed? How does the hearing of prayers being prayed make you more aware? The Church has always insisted that the real awareness comes about when the Divine Light descends upon the Liturgy. One does not need to hear words in order to be transformed. One certainly does not need to make the hearing of the words the primary criterion of the liturgical form.

What you wrote in the preceding paragraph is interesting. You say we �are offering ourselves� and then you say it is about us and we need to be �more aware�. Your words come across as if you saying that it is about God but you also want to make it more about man. It is the offering that catechizes. Each element added onto it is a layer that diminishes the awareness of the Divine Light.

To quote Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) again:

Dear John,

I have some reservations about the following from Theophilos:

This transformation, in turn, allows us to accomplish the unique task we as human creatures possess: to reform and restore the entire creation to God.

I have never heard or read anywhere that mankind is called to reform and restore the entire creation to God.

The unique task that I am very familiar with, as a laywoman, is to 'go and make disciples,' and we are divinized so that we may have a creatures share in the divine life.

But it is the Christ, the New Adam, who has come to redeem mankind, not mankind who is transfigured so as to redeem the world.

I think this is a bit of New Catechesis, if I am not mistaken.

It seems to fit with many of the rest of the concerns of this poster.

Mary