|
1 members (OEFNavyVet),
579
guests, and
33
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,419
Posts416,918
Members6,049
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Perhaps we should be discerning about saying "amen" to the Holy Spirit. Even after civil mandates the silent Anaphora still came to be the norm, and has been for centuries, all of the liturgical opinions to forceably turn that on its head notwithstanding. Where do we cross the line of demarcation between a false anachronism with pastoral prudence?
Perhaps that is the organic development after all, as in spite of such forced attempts it has persisted - East, West, and in between - and even become the norm for many, many centuries. I don't know of any mandates in support of the forced silent (or "low voice") taking of the Anaphora to compare with that of Justinian's for the audible.
If the forced audible taking of the Anaphora was such an efficacious and necessary practice...why would it have fallen into diseuetude? The answers given are not completely satisfactory. As I mentioned I am not opposed to either the silent or aloud taking of the Anaphora, but in the intolerant and facile mandates which never worked in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 618
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 618 |
I have attended a Hierarchal Divine Liturgy celebrated by Bishop John (Melkite). I do not recommend following his Liturgical Practices. Why do you say so? Please give examples No Vespers, No Matins, No Blessings with the Trikeri and Dikeri, Pre Cut Prosphora with no Anti Doran, the Church he was visiting used the organ, Bishop John gave a lousy wordly Sermon in which he praised the Prime Minister of the Netherlands (she was present) and gave her a special seat in the front pew, then he called the Second Vatican Council "the last Ecumenical Council that we've had so far" and tried to relate it to the Sunday of the Fathers of the Six Ecumenical Councils (the Feast that was being celebrated) etc. etc., (I am not knowledgeable about who is proper to commerate during the Great Entrance, but it still bothered me how much the Prime Minister of Netherlands was praised and comemerated during the Great Entrance), Audible Anaphora, etc. etc. etc.
Last edited by InCogNeat3's; 07/27/07 02:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
I've been honored to serve with Patriarch Gregory III and with Bishop John (retired Eparch of Newton), and with the thrice-blessed Patriarch Maximos V of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East, on a fair number of occasions. I've never heard any of them pronounce the Anaphora aloud, make any reference to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, or engage in any other bizarre liturgical practice.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
The reason Justinian asked for the anaphora to be taken aloud has nothing to do with the reason Fr. David thinks it should be taken aloud.
Justinian was interested in testing the orthodoxy of his clergy. We wanted to hear the anaphora, to be certain that the trinitarian prayers were orthodox, and that the teaching about Christ was orthodox, so that he could be certain that he was taking communion from an orthodox bishop.
I don't think Fr. David is concerned with the orthodoxy of the Byzantine Catholic clergy (but maybe he should be)? Fr. David wants the laity to 'hear and understand' the prayer, and know what they are affirming in their 'Amen.'
I think, in our Church, very soon, we are going to re-discover why the anaphora became silent over the centuries. While I understand Fr. David's concern, my experience of hearing the anaphora out loud has not been educational, edifying, uplifting, reverent, or even prayerful.
Our priests just can't do it. It is disturbing, but you hear the priest speaking these prayers, and it is hard to understand them. It makes me wonder if the priest (oh yeah, 'celebrant' in the revised Liturgy) the celebrant himself, really understands the prayer himself. Maybe he does, but doesn't know how to lead the prayer.
The result is... far from paying attention to the prayer, we are forced to pay attention to the priest (I'm sorry, the celebrant) and his own interpretation, understanding, or lack of understanding, of what he is proclaiming. The focus is off the prayer, off the action, off the mystery, and squarely ON THE PREIST/CELEBRANT.
I think we are going to find that this experiment isn't going to last long, for the same reason that Justinian's rule in this matter was not observed.
A silent anaphora means, I don't have to suffer the celebrant's dramatic interpretation of it. Silently, it speaks for itself, speaks more clearly, it is the prayer of the whole Church, and not the prayer of the 'celebrant' or the victim of his interpretations, and so I am not disturbed giving my assenting Amen.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
Dear Nicholas,
Actually, Father Casimir Kucharek's assessment is that the switch to a silent anaphora was for reasons of economy of time (in other words, to shorten the Liturgy); he refers to the other contemporary reasons given for it as "frankly unconvincing." It's quite possible, of course, that we will return to a silent anaphora for the same reason: people don't want long services.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
Dear Nicholas,
Actually, Father Casimir Kucharek's assessment is that the switch to a silent anaphora was for reasons of economy of time (in other words, to shorten the Liturgy); he refers to the other contemporary reasons given for it as "frankly unconvincing." It's quite possible, of course, that we will return to a silent anaphora for the same reason: people don't want long services.
Jeff Yes, it is longer now, primarily due to the fact that most of the formerly inaudible prayers of the priest are now taken aloud. Just as an aside, I wonder what the determining factor(s) was(were) to mandate which priestly prayers are to be now taken aloud and which were to remain inaudible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Dear Nicholas,
Actually, Father Casimir Kucharek's assessment is that the switch to a silent anaphora was for reasons of economy of time (in other words, to shorten the Liturgy); he refers to the other contemporary reasons given for it as "frankly unconvincing." It's quite possible, of course, that we will return to a silent anaphora for the same reason: people don't want long services.
Jeff While I certainly respect Fr. Kasimir of blessed memory's great work on the Divine Liturgy (and use several of his books teaching), I am equally as unconvniced that the SOLE reason was length of service. All of the other litanies, antiphons, etc. were taken in their entirety and the resulting additional length from the Anaphora would not have been that significant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Actually, Father Casimir Kucharek's assessment is that the switch to a silent anaphora was for reasons of economy of time (in other words, to shorten the Liturgy).
Jeff I don't think Father Casimir is right about that. I think the reason that the anaphora became silent, is that the Holy Spirit wanted it to be prayed that way. Perhaps only he can give his reasons? Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
|
OP
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
Yes, it is longer now, primarily due to the fact that most of the formerly inaudible prayers of the priest are now taken aloud.
Just as an aside, I wonder what the determining factor(s) was(were) to mandate which priestly prayers are to be now taken aloud and which were to remain inaudible. Fr Robert Taft, S.J., gave these answers during the following dialogue: Audience: Going back somewhat to the previous question, I'm curious what you might say about the very controversial topic nowadays whether the anaphora should be said aloud or not...
Taft: Of course it should.
Audience: ...and I was interested in your comments earlier...
Taft: Of course it should; no question about it.
Audience:... but in the earlier church where they were saying it like this...there seems to be some precedent for not...
Taft: No. No. They said it aloud. They didn't perhaps proclaim it because of the bowing over, but there is no question about the fact that all prayers were said aloud. The people were incapable- the person in Church by himself or herself said the their prayers aloud. We know that from ancient culture. On that there's no difficulty or problem at all: evidence is overwhelming, simply massive that that was true, and we know from the novella of Justinian in 565 in the last year of his reign which I quoted yesterday that when the priests stopped saying the prayers aloud, he condemned them. But it's clear that he was not inventing that tradition. Canons and laws and novellae don't invent traditions. So basically, anybody who knows anything about Byzantine legislation can only interpret that novella as Justinian attempting to preserve a tradition which was in the process of dying out. On that note, I shut off. The prayers aren't for God, they're for us.
Audience: You said that you're an informer, not a reformer. But many of these things are happening. And they're happening everywhere and they're happening from the bottom up. But if you would be so gracious, if there is a reform of the Byzantine Liturgy these past 40 years. If you had a wish of what you thought pastorally, from that perspective, most of that-I hate to use the word- 'reform' or whatever but if you had one wish in today's pastoral situation that you would like to see move in a direction, what might that be?
Taft: Certainly the vernacular. Certainly saying some of the prayers, but not all of the prayers aloud; that's a great mistake. There are prayers in the liturgy which are[...] prayers of the clergy. Clergy have human rights; they're also people, and they have the right to say their prayers. So it's absolute foolishness to think that all the prayers should be said aloud. (Father Taft continues) from a transcript of the third Q and A session during the 2005 Paul G. Manolis Distinguished Lecture Series, Patriarch Athenoragos Orthodox Institute as published in Robert F. Taft, S.J., Through Their Own Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw It, (InterOrthodox Pres, Berkeley,CA, 2006). John K- I had posed that very same question to my pastor some years ago (in the Eparchy of Van Nuys, the chanting/praying of the Anaphora aloud predates my entry into the Church which was 13 years ago), and his reply then was in line with that which Fr Taft states above: prayers to which the assembly responds, "amen" are chanted/prayed aloud. The prayers which are prayers of the clergy are prayed quietly by the main celebrant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Taft: No. No. They said it aloud. They didn't perhaps proclaim it because of the bowing over, but there is no question about the fact that all prayers were said aloud.
...On that note, I shut off. The prayers aren't for God, they're for us.
...Certainly saying some of the prayers, but not all of the prayers aloud; that's a great mistake...
...So it's absolute foolishness to think that all the prayers should be said aloud. I find my head swimming with Fr. Taft's amorphic presentation as time goes on - first we used to take all of the prayers aloud, yes these should be taken aloud, no those should not be taken or don't have to be taken aloud, and finally it's foolishness to think that all the prayers should be said aloud. Let the developed practice speak for itself as well, and let no ridiculous mandate (which have all failed in the past) trump pastoral prudence. And I do think some prayers are "for God", they are not all humanistic exercises in psychological self-pacification.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 76
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 76 |
Prayers to which the assembly responds, "amen" are chanted/prayed aloud. The prayers which are prayers of the clergy are prayed quietly by the main celebrant. Yet in the RDL, the prayer than concludes the Litany of Frevent Supplication has with it a rubric for the celebrant to "say quietly." Therefore I don't think the quoted principle above was used or at least not used consistently.
Last edited by Larry L; 07/27/07 06:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
John K-
I had posed that very same question to my pastor some years ago (in the Eparchy of Van Nuys, the chanting/praying of the Anaphora aloud predates my entry into the Church which was 13 years ago), and his reply then was in line with that which Fr Taft states above: prayers to which the assembly responds, "amen" are chanted/prayed aloud. The prayers which are prayers of the clergy are prayed quietly by the main celebrant. We certainly say "Amen" to the prayer before the Trisagion, yet that one is said inaudibly. And obviously, since the litanies between the Antiphons are gone, the prayers of the second and third antiphons should be inaudible since our "Amen" is missing. What gives? What was the criteria? As an aside, when we were between pastors the last time, we had a visiting priest serving for us. He rotated the prayers of the first, second, and third antiphons each week in the place of the prayer of the first antiphon at the end of the Litany of Peace. I thought that was most creative of him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202 |
There are four prayers in the Divine Liturgy that particularly belong to the priest:
1) the prayer before the gospel
2) the prayer of the cherubicon
3) the prayer during the "Amen" of the Prayer of the Bowing of Heads ( = before giving Communion)
4) the Prayer before the consummation of the gifts.
These prayers are private prayers that the priest says before performing sacred actions: the gospel, the Great Entrance, the Communion, the consummation of gifts - even though they are usually actions of the deacon (except giving Communion). The priest presides over and takes part in them. They are not and were not said aloud. Interestingly, they are all addressed to Christ (the Eternal High Priest), in counter-distinction to the usual practice in the Byzantine Liturgy of addressing prayers to the Father. Privacy may also be true of the Prayer of the Third Antiphon and the First Prayer of the Faithful (said privately by the priest when the deacon offered the litany). In the Prayer of the Cherubicon, the priest prays for himself in the first person singular. These are the prayers Fr. Taft is referring to.
The Council of Hierarchs did not mandate the praying of all the other presbyteral prayers aloud, though essentially they are for the whole community, they concentrated instead on the Prayers of the Eucharistic Liturgy, beginning with the Prayer after the Great Entrance. They did not seem to want to restore all the prayers audibly at once.
There are other such private prayers of the priest outside the Divine Liturgy, as for example, in baptism, during the litany of peace as the priest prepares to baptize, and probably originally the fifth prayer of anointing of the sick, which has now become public.
Nicholas theorizes that Justinian commanded the prayers as a test of Orthodoxy. This is not what Justinian says: "... so that the souls of the hearers would be brought to a greater piety, praise and blessing because of them." (Novella 137)
Diak's piety is admirable, that we do some things not for ourselves, but "for God," but this is not what Fr. Taft means. It would be obvious hubris to think that anything we do, or any prayer we offer, would be something God needs, or would add to God. In short, everything that we do is done by God's grace and by God's power and by God's wisdom, and it saves - or shall we say, deifies - us. Even prayers that are purely of glory to God do not add to God's glory, but are for our salvation and deification. God does not need us to tell us how good he is, or what he has done for us. We say this for our understanding. This is true even of the "inexpressible groanings" uttered in our soul by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26) All divine action in synergy with us is "for us" and not "for God," though obviously in his love for us God wishes the salvation of all. That is simply the very nature of creation, and we do not know God in his inner being, but only in his energies, in his action in our behalf, in his revelation to us. This is why God took the human nature, it is simply what the mystery of the Incarnation is about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
The concept of doing various things - including praying - "for God" has been with us for a very long time, and is unlikely to go away in the future. I would readily agree that this is a mysterious concept, but there is a great distance from "mysterious" to "mistaken".
The Bible itself repeatedly urges us to pray, and to do everything for the glory of God.
In view of the tradition and Scripture involved, it seems a bit strange to assert that we are praying, not to tell God what He already knows, but to tell ourselves (to tell ourselves what we already know?).
When we recount in prayer the marvelous works of God, we are not reminding God of something that He may have forgotten - we are praising God, which, again, is a custom as old as prayer itself.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202 |
This morning, I read Saturday's epistle to the Romans, "if we live, we live for the Lord." (Romans 14:8) So I guess I owe Diak an apology (at least a partial apology). "For" can have different meanings. What I said stands, we don't pray for ( = the benefit) of God. We can live and act "for" (that is, out of motivation for) God, rather than "for" our own selfishness or "for" earthly or material benefits, which is what I think St. Paul meant. At any rate, secret prayer for God's benefit remains a self-contradiction. If we live "for" the Lord, we live in Gof's presence in our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
