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

Reluctantly, I return to the lists - both because I owe it to others who have been defending the positions I espouse, and because I myself enjoy the use of reductio ad absurdum and thus should appreciate Father David's use of the same device. So here goes:

On a major point, Father David is correct: the best Liturgy possible is unlikely to succeed without a good pastor who is sincerely dedicated both to the Liturgy (what kind of priest is not dedicated to the Liturgy?) and to the spiritual welfare of his flock. Any priest who treats his flock like people who are simply obligated to support his liturgical preferences would do well to seek occupation elsewhere. That said, though, a genuine commitment to Liturgy is apt to involve a commitment to authenticity and a failure to appreciate wholesale (or even retail) abbreviations and what at least seem to be frivolous changes.

Since Father David does not wish to quibble, it would be well for him to stop raising the red herring of Slavonic - I know of no one who ia advocating a return to Church-Slavonic to the exclusion of English.

Father David is unconvinced by the Administrator's conviction that the recitation of the Anaphora aloud is a latinization. I'm unconvinced by Father David's counter-argument; the coincidence is just too close to be accidental. In any case, an evaluation of the results of reading the Anaphora aloud in the Roman Rite is highly germane to the discussion.

Yes, ZOE has been using the Anaphora aloud for a number of years. And many, many priests in Greece do not follow suit. Nobody in Greece seems to be starting a war on the issue.

Adopting Benedict XVI's ideas - which are opposed to current latin practice - would make us latinizers? I must have missed something; I don't follow the argument. I'll have to read the relevant materials again.


Again, I must have missed something. I communicate infants every Sunday, but I've never yet had an infant "request" Communion! I would not knowingly communicate an unbaptized person, regardles of age.

If the priests rejected the idea of "facing the people", I'm happy to hear it. When did the priests have the opporutnity to rexpress their rejection of this? And when did the priests have the opportunity to express their rejection of the Anaphora aloud, or the rest of the innovations?

The restoration of infant Communion, the dropping of the Filioque, and the insistence on the reading of the Epistle are not innovations, they are restorations, and as such are already mandated (did anyone really give written permission to omit the Epistle?).

Should variant Ambon Prayers be mandated or not?
I see no reason to mandate this - nor have I seen any reason advanced. If you have one, do please tell me.

Should the use of English be mandated? Since it's already a fact, and no serious person is about to attempt to stop it, why bother? But there are almost certaily places with a need for Spanish, and there are definitely places with recent arrivals in the US where other languages are appropriate. Perhaps those should be mandated, if priests are recalcitrant about accomodating the faithful.

Should the celebration of at least some part of the divine praises be mandated or not?
It already is -by Vatican II and the Code of Canons.

Should the prohibition of the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on weekdays of the Great Fast be mandated or not?

It already is, in quite a number of places including the service-books themselves.

Should the prohibition of women in the altar be mandated or not?

It already is - by the Ordo Celebrationis.

Should the faithful stand to receive Communion and not kneel.� Should this be mandated or not?
Pastorally, I would not advise an absolute mandate; it can explode and we do not need the results. One can explain the matter, but it is better to accommodate those who still prefer to kneel than to find oneself in an embarrassing court case on the issue - it happened in Canada not so long ago!

Should the faithful stand during the Anaphora. Should this be mandated or not?
Of course the faithful should stand during the Anaphora. Again, though, pastoral prudence (and when did you last hear that expression!) advises against giving orders in such matters to the parishioners. Patience can work wonders.

Should obedience to the bishops in liturgical matters be mandated or not?
The bishops certainly seem to think so. But what does one do when the bishop seeks to command what is wrong? Please don't tell me it doesn't happen; we could each of us cite many examples.

You may not have discerned mistakes and agendas in the new text; others certainly have (I can assure you that I am not alone). There is a key difference between the 1965 "red book" and the 2007 travesty - I might not like the 1965 translation, but at least it is a translation, not a recasting. The 2007 version is a major departure from the original, so there is justification for demanding a stronger proof of approval than a simple protocol number. For that matter, I don't remember the Holy See ever deciding that the 1965 translation was the only one approved for use.

Reductio ad absurdum does have its half-life. You've acknowledged that this is what you are engaged in when you claim that those who oppose your innovations are therefore supporting a return to Church-Slavonic. Since you, therefore, acknowledge that we are doing nothing of the kind, please drop it. It was witty the first time; now it has become half-witted.

Since you deny the charge of opposition to the Ruthenian REcension, why then would you refuse to permit the full celebration of the Liturgy according to that edition? There is here a serious inconsistency.

Anecdotal evidence is not worthless.

On your final point, I rather think we are in complete agreement - no one should join any Church purely as a means of rejecting some other Church; several parishes I know have burned their fingers on "refugees" from the Novus Ordo. Such people should be welcomed, on the clear understanding that they may not use our parishes as a base from which to attack the Missal of Paul VI, or Vatican II - or for that matter the Book of Common Prayer, or whatever. There is no lack of positive features to our Church, so let whoever comes to us let go of battles elsewhere and enjoy life with us.

My apologies for some grammar confusion in this post - it's one AM on Saturday and weekends are a busy time!

fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava na Viki!

Father Petras--I am not sure how I feel about some of the things you mentioned. I probably wouldn't care one way or another about some of them. I do agree with some and disagree with others. But I do want to thank you for your post. Your name has been mentioned again and again. Both in good terms and in less than good terms. People have asked for you to respond and you have. This is not the only post you have on the forum.

So whether I agree with you or not, I applaud you for taking the time to forumulate your thoughts and respond to posts.

I have sent you a few private e-mails to you and they have been replied to promptly and with good grace. So I think you deserve some credit for coming on the forum even though you have been spoken of in less than nice terms.

Many people simply wish there had been more participation from the laity and even priests before things were promulgated. I have heard the new Divine Liturgy from Parma a few times and my posts stand for themselves. I experienced the new DL in person for the first time less than two weeks ago. It was at St. John's in Uniontown and Father Wesdock was wonderful. The music certainly was different and I found myself lost a few times. But it was my first experience. Due to health problems I am not able to attend DL weekly, as I certainly wish I could.

Your comments about pastors playing a major part in how things are received by the congregation is correct. Imagine someone coming to your door to sell a product and the first thing they say to you is "You don't want to buy (fill in the blank) from me, do you" while shaking their head. Your answer would obviously be no. Positive energy begets positive energy. I am not accusing any priests of presenting the RDL in a negative way, since I don't know how it was presented. But as the priest in my home church said--yes, it's a big change. But imagine how our ancestors felt when they were told to sing in English, not Slavonic!

Please continue to respond to questions posted. We won't always agree with you, I'm sure. But you do deserve credit for responding.

But one thing mentioned before ties in with this--why have the Bishops not spoken of this more? Why don't we have official communication with them? People have made the allegations that e-mails have not been returned, phone calls not returned, even appointments not allowed to be made. I can't verify since I have not tried myself. I would if I could. Do the Bishops feel that the statement at the beginning of the Promulgation in the book says it all and there's no need to say anything else? If that's the case, that's a poor management technique. And I think if you have ever been on the recieving end of that attitude, you know it to be true. In your capacity, is there anyway you can relate this kind of information to the Bishops? And I do ask in all humility and sincerity. This is the year 2007, not 807. People are educated, intelligent and can accept change. But they also know that not all people in authority are infallible and perfect. Decisions are made for a variety of reasons. It would be wonderful to think The Holy Spirit helped make every decision made by a Bishop, Patriarch, Pope, priest or deacon. But we know better. Ignoring parishioners is no way to keep them.

Just my opinion. I speak for no one else.

Tim

Dear Father David,

Yes, everyone would come up with any number of answers, if what matters was personal and private opinions. Tom prefers this, Dick prefers that, and Harry prefers something else altogether.

That is why we can't base our discussions on personal preferences, yours, mine, or anyone elses. To get to the bottom line. We will never agree!

So what will we agree on? Only one thing can unite us. The official Liturgical books of our Ruthenian Recension.

As soon as we start introducing revisions, reorganizations, restructuring, rewriting, substitutions and inventions, they will be based on someone's opinion of what would be better. Even if that person is a professor, or even a bishop, the moment they introduce their own opinions, as more important that the official texts, then all is lost, and this becomes a game, of me getting my way, or you getting yours. And this is too important to be reduced to a power game, deciding who gets their own way, and who gets to 'like it, or leave'.

Of course, every translation from one language to another, will be a matter for talented men (and women) to use their skills and make judgements. So to some degree, every translation will be somehow subjective.

But this can be kept to a minimum, if the translators accept good principles of translation for ancient texts, sanctified by time and use. These principles must be to translate the documents carefully, and to be rigorous, accurate, faithful, precise, clear, complete, exact and (as far as possible in the new language) beautiful.

So, asking for everyone's opinion is interesting. But it is not really to the point.

What is the point, is that the committee put their opinions, and controversial agendas and interpretations, above a clear reading of the texts. The result is not a translation, and not a restoration, but a mistake, based on mistaken principles of translation.

What should be mandated, is what this Church has always refused to mandate. Our beautiful, elegant, poetic, magnificent, inspiring, Ruthenian Recension. Why edit, revise and reorganize a masterpiece, based on the opinions of Father Tom, Father Dick, and Father Harry?

I don't think the committee or the bishops really want to hear our opinions about what should be mandated, they didn't listen to the people before this book fiasco, so why ask us now that the damage is done?

Nick

Father David,

It saddens me that you are unable to see the overall meaning of the statement. We shouldn't be and never should have been a receptacle for Latins who wanted to escape the Novus Ordo. Why did it end up this way? Can you point out what you and our leaders have been doing to evangelize and create a situation where the vast majority of our new people (which is not a great number) were not Latins who wanted to escape the Novus Ordo. It saddens me that you and our leaders were not alarmed enough to mount a mass evangelization effort and instead mounted a revision and divided our church more. Now the Latin Mass is returning, so those folks who wanted to escape the Novus Ordo have a place to go. What is the plan to evangelize in the present and future? Do you think spending the amount of money and time that was spent on the RDL was wiser than spending it on an evangelization effort?


Monomakh

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Brothers and Sisters,

These recent posts are beginning to point in the direction that I believe all discussion should be going: a context of complete liturgical renewal of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

By "liturgical renewal" I am speaking about a worldview of which the RDL could perhaps serve as one facet, or as we see in these posts, a catalyst for the thinking and discussions that ought to go on.

The RDL would make greater sense if it, as well as everything we do or do not do, is set within in a context. This context would be a call to rediscover first the sense of mission of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Secondly, a vision would be developed in order for us to go about the "mission." Thirdly we would propose a plan such as the RDL and many, many, many other things. This is precisely why my personal motto for evangelization for the Eastern Catholic Churches is, "raze them to the ground and rebuild them according to their authentic identity." This is a completely positive, forward looking vision on my part,not a negative one. In other words we would "resculpt" the entire Eastern Catholic world according to a liturgical worldview. This view includes things like the "Domestic Church."

"Renewal" means discovering old things but in new ways. The riches of the Christian East are good for all times. They are absolutely dynamic and have a tremendous power to evangelize on their own. The trick is to journey vertically, deep down into what these riches are. This goes well beyond confining our energies and focus to arguing over this or that text or word translation, although I an not mitigating the importance of these aruguments. It is just that these arguments are more significant, relevant, transforming and evangelical if they were part of a liturgical worldview--a REAL renewal of the Eastern Catholic world.

In order to set about a renewal of a liturgical worldview (mission-vision-plan) we must first pass through what I call,
"Judgement Day." We have to, as all of you are doing in these posts, ask ourselves the hardest of hard questions: "WHY" are we doing what we are doing? Does it serve the mission? Is it part of the vision? If not it goes. It so, it stays and is polished up and allowed to thrive. This would in fact mean things like: Why are we doing saturday night "Masses?" which in very anti-Eucharistic style break up an already tiny and in most cases struggling Eastern Catholic community. If we actually had a renewal of our liturgical-Eucharistic spirituality we would see that such a practice is a very very serious contradiction to eucharistic theology.

I am all in favor of the "mandates" dimension of things but they must come ONLY after there is a full context for mandates--a mission-vision-and plan that is positive, forward looking and in which everybody wins. As a pastor for over 25 years I can say that there is no good reason why an eastern Catholic parish in America should do "Saturday night "Masses." Conversely, (and I can testify from actual experience) when we do what is true to authentic spiritual and liturgical tradition of the Christian East it actually produces results of new life and growth in holiness in a parish! Yes, even measureable results!! This is just one tiny, tiny example of an immense, sweeping "Judgement Day" that is necessary for a real renewal of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

There would be very little if any controversey over efforts such as the RDL if there was a sense of mission, a common vision and plan that all of the members of the Eastern Churches (especially the rank and file) could take ownership of--something that would actually dramatically transform peoples' faith and lives.

A Sobor, perhaps?

CDL

I thank Father David for his post.

Father David references my �debating techniques�. I posted as I did because Father David does not respond to the points I make. In this discussion Father David is responding as if I have demanded that priests be prohibited from praying the Anaphora aloud. I have never demanded or even hinted such. I have advocated no mandates but liberty, so that the Spirit may work across the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox). A mandate regarding the praying of the Anaphora out loud makes absolutely no sense since 1) it is a copying of a Latin custom that the Latins admit problems with and 2) the Orthodox (who we are supposed to match liturgically) have not issued such a mandate.

Regarding the necessity of having a good pastor, I agree with Father David. Unfortunately the revision he and the committee have prepared for the Church is not based upon authentiticy, which is a restoration to the official books. The Revised Divine Liturgy has not been welcomed by pastors and will only succeed in making their job more difficult.

Again, Father David�s reference to the Greek Orthodox recommendation (which is not a mandate) supports my position of liberty and not his position of mandate. The Greeks have set the soil for possible growth of the custom of praying the Anaphora out loud. They have not revised their official Divine Liturgy books to require that the Anaphora be prayed out loud.

The �experiment� has not been done for forty years across the entire Byzantine Church. We are obligated to work together with not just our fellow Byzantine Catholics but with all of Byzantine Orthodoxy should we feel that such a change is necessary.

[I have posted numerous quotes from official documents before and could do so again, but this one alone should make the point.]

To repeat myself yet again, we should only accomplish change when working together with all of the Byzantine Churches.

�Probably.� That�s the problem with Father David�s reform � it is based on a lot of assumptions that are not proven (or at least he has not provided demonstrable, well-referenced theological explanations for his ideas). The fact is that we do not yet know exactly why the prayers were prayed quietly.

Father Taft says they were prayed aloud but not proclaimed (p. 166 of his new book, Through Their Own Eyes). [Was the Greek of 565 when Justinian issued his novella to pray these prayers out loud already a dead language? If yes, what good would Justianian�s novella accomplish? And if no one was capable of understanding the Greek from a few centuries before why did they not update it?]

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) indicates that �the canon falling quiet and being overlaid with meditative singing� began �in Jerusalem, from a very early time� and that �To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy.� (Spirit of the Liturgy, p.215)

Father David says in his book (p. 19) that �We don�t know� the reason (and then gives the same guess of a dead language, and then treats a guess as a fact by building on it).

It all boils down to Father David seeking and winning a mandate to do something that is not in our official Ruthenian liturgical books (those we share with others) and which is also neither common nor mandated across all of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox). This mandate is wrong and should, along with the entire RDL, be rescinded.

Father Taft says that while the priests in the early Church did pray the Anaphora aloud they also made no attempt �to proclaim� the Anaphora.

The larger question to be answered here is why did the Holy Spirit allow the prayers to be prayed quietly by the priest (i.e., not for the hearing and education of the faithful)?

But even this is off topic. The discussion is the mandate and not the possible development of the praying of the Anaphora out loud. Father David has offered no evidence that a mandate in the Ruthenian Church is necessary, and he has failed to meet the requirement that we work with other Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox) and not differentiate ourselves from the official liturgical tradition we share with them.

Regarding the 12 questions Father David has asked, the official 1942 Ruthenian Recension (and other official books) should be made normative. Clergy and parishes that do not celebrate correctly should not be corrected though the use of mandates and threats but rather through example, education and encouragement. The one thing that can unite us Ruthenians of the Pittsburgh Metropolia is the official standard of Liturgy we share with others, and not Father David�s or the committee�s idea of what the Liturgy should be. Allowing the official Liturgy to be prayed will form us and unite us not just as a local Church in America but with Ruthenians, other Byzantine Catholics and all of Orthodoxy.

Father David, you and the commission have prepared and managed to get mandated a Revised Divine Liturgy that is vastly different than the official 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. Parishes which prayed the entire official Liturgy (which was reasonably good as given in the 1964/1965 edition) are now prohibited in doing so. Please stop suggesting that the 2007 is more faithful than the 1964/1965 edition. It is not. In case you haven�t noticed, whole parts of the Divine Liturgy are missing in the 2007 edition and many of the rubrics bear no resemblance to those in the official Slavonic texts (and they were there correctly in the 1964/1965 edition).

If you say you support the official 1942 Ruthenian recension will you state on this Forum that you support a call for priests and parishes to pray it, unabridged, accurate rubrics, and in an accurate English translation?

Principled disagreement does not equate hostility. Nothing I have posted on this Forum or have said to any individual in our Church in conversation is hostile. I have stated and will keep stating that the members of the commissions that prepared the revised texts, rubrics and music that make up the Revised Divine Liturgy are all good men, who love Christ and have sought to do their best. I oppose the Revised Divine Liturgy because it is an inaccurate presentation of the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, one that we hold in common with others. Had they sought to restore the official Ruthenian Liturgy instead of revise it I would be their strongest champion.

I've thought again about something I said at midnight a couple of days ago - that good Liturgy by itself won't do it. I'm not so sure I was right. Saint Michael's, New York, has been there for about 70 years, happily muddling along. While Father Andrew Rogosh was still alive (I think he died in 1969), the pastoral work did not lack for continuity. After he died, however, Saint Michael's went through almost two decades of lack of continuity, for complicated reasons which needn't detain us here. Nevertheless, the community remained strong, held together precisely by good Liturgy - the faithful make and continue to make significant sacrifices to get there Sunday after Sunday; even Saturday Vespers is reasonably well attended.

Fr. Serge

Your post suggests that it took good liturgy and the faithful.

That is correct - but without the good Liturgy, the faithful would have been long gone!

Fr. Serge

Glory to Jesus Christ!

For whatever it may be worth: My pastoral experience of praying the Anaphora aloud has been a very positive one. The Faithful, from my experience, are very moved and impressed by the prayers.
Our prayers have an evangelical value to them when heard by the Faithful and especially by potential converts. We actually take the entire St. Basil Anaphora aloud at my parish. Admittedly this is something that even several years ago I would not have thought would have worked pastorally, but it does!

As this issue is debated it might be helpful from an historical dimension to consider that there is a great need for people in modern day America to hear thoughts and words put together with the elegance and depth of the prayers of our liturgical services. Except for its efficiency in techinical communication the use of the English language has become increasingly more banal. This is due in part to the fact that education today does not stress teaching people how to think in an ordered, creative and expressive fashion. If nothing else, the Anaphora taken aloud accords the Faithful (and potential Faithful!) the opportunity to hear thoughts and words put together in such a lofty fashion.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB, MA.

Our Lord said, �Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, �This is my body, which will be given for you, do this in memory of me.�� (Luke 22:19)
It is this command of the Lord that makes sense for the reading of the anaphora aloud. �Said the blessing,� - at the Last Supper the Lord read a prayer of blessing of the food, particularly the bread and wine, but gave it a new meaning. He said this action was now to be �in memory of him.� As God, this brings about a real, eternal memory - Jesus is present in the gifts which become in reality his body and blood, and we offer to him his very own sacrifice on the Cross, �offering you yours of your own,� - now in a bloodless manner - and remember him in a divine memory in which God is present among us as he was for his disciples. When we pray the anaphora, we hear the divine plan of salvation of God for us, �Remembering, therefore, this saving command and all that has come to pass in our behalf: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second coming in glory.� We hear that God �brought us out of nonexistence into being,� that he �left nothing undone until you brought us to heaven and gave us your kingdom to come,� that �he so loved his world that he gave his only-begotten Son,� so that �everyone who believes in him should not perish but have life everlasting.� How could we tire of remembering these great blessings.
It tells us also how to be Christian, no one can truly be a follower of Christ unless he or she is also willing, like Christ, to offer his or her own life to God. All lovers of God will give themselves and their lives totally to God for �the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting,� for whoever loses his life for my sake and for the sake of the gospel will find it.�
This is real �evangelization.� As I have mentioned, it is clear that the anaphora was proclaimed for the baptized congregation, after catechesis, but by its very �action� it is living out the gospel. [John sends me to the dictionary - I use �proclaim� here in the sense of �to announce officially,� or �to praise and extol,� (Webster�s New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1970 edition, p. 1133). Taft in his book, �Through their Own Eyes,� is using �proclaim,� in the sense of �intoning.� or �chanting,� as opposed to simply �reading aloud,� as is absolutely - no probably about it - clear from the context.]
The question has been asked on the Forum, �How do we evangelize.� We must start with a people who have been evangelized, who not only give their lives for God and for one another (which is the same thing), but who are alive in Christ in the Liturgy in which Christ gives himself to us, and in whose mystery we live - mystery in the sense of revealed mystery taught by St. Paul, the mystery of �Christ in us, our hope of glory.� (read Colossians 1:25-27 et al.). How does the gospel spread, indeed. I do not believe it is from ads in the newspapers or TV or radio, or in speeches in public forums, but primarily by word of mouth, by the words of a truly evangelized people to their friends and neighbors. There is evidence that this is the way Christianity spread in the beginning. Will our Liturgy accomplish this? Perhaps not yet perfectly, but we must give it a chance. For the church to grow, we must start with a people, living an unselfish life in Christ, and spreading the good news of this life to others around them. I think the Liturgy is an element of this. This is why I think it is so important to understand the Liturgy properly.
�Conservative� people are those that especially want to �preserve� important values. �Conservative� people will be more reluctant to change, and this is okay. However, �reactive� people will oppose change because it is change. Therefore, conservative people will ask, �Why do we need this change?� My answer is above. But they may object, this has not been the custom for centuries, has the Holy Spirit not been guiding us? I hope in the Holy Spirit, who is always alive in his church. Whether the silent anaphora is of the Holy Spirit may be discussed, and I refuse to sit in judgment on previous generations. Liturgies, however, can �devolve,� rather than evolve. I know only this - now the Liturgy is in the vernacular, now the prayers can be understood, to follow the Holy Spirit now would seem to demand the change - that the prayers now be proclaimed in the community. The Holy Spirit certainly guides us to all truth, and I think he has been leading us, of the Eastern Church, Catholic and Orthodox, to an understanding of the centrality of the Anaphora, even though the greatest Orthodox Churches - the Russian and the Greek - have yet to accept the vernacular. We have accepted the vernacular and we can do it now. As a priest, it is not my office to mandate the change to a public anaphora, but apparently the bishops believe that this is important enough and with a clear enough reason to do it now. In the list I gave of possible mandates, I did not ask which were actually mandated or not, but simply for the reader to consider within himself or herself which should - because of their importance - be mandated or not. I would consider infant communion and the public anaphora as of comparable importance.
Note that Cardinal Ratzinger emphasizes the centrality of the Anaphora: �By the actio of the liturgy the sources mean the Eucharistic Prayer. The real liturgical action, the true liturgical act, is the oratio, the great prayer that forms the core of the Eucharistic celebration, the whole of which was, therefore, called oratio by the Fathers.� (The Spirit of the Liturgy 171-172)
Note also the quoting of authors. John quotes Cardinal Ratzinger as saying that the �canon falling quiet and being overlaid with meditative singing� began �in Jerusalem, from a very early time.� What Ratzinger actually wrote was (The Spirit of the Liturgy, 215), �It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon - overlaid in part with meditative singing - became the norm.� Ratzinger says �parts of the Canon.� �Parts of the Canon� - in Palestine and Syria, strophes private to the priest were added to the Anaphora as the people made acclamations. The Byzantines overlay parts of the anaphora with singing, though my recollection of the Tridentine Mass from childhood was that the entire Roman anaphora, including the words of institution, was said in a whisper, with no singing.
John quotes Taft as if Taft were downplaying the public recitation of the Anaphora.: �Father Taft says that they were prayed aloud but not proclaimed.� (Through Their Own Eyes, p. 166). Let us please put this in context:

[Quote]
Audience: Going back somewhat to the previous question, I�m curious what you might say about the very controversial topic nowadays of 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�s no question about the fact that all prayers were said aloud.�
[End quote]

Note: Taft does not downplay public recitation. In fact, he repeats strongly that it should be said aloud. It was not �proclaimed� (in the sense I discussed above) because you can�t intone or chant when you are bowed over (John omits the reason for the lack of �proclamation�). Since we do not �bow over� anymore, the anaphora should be intoned or chanted. Note also that Taft uses the �perhaps� word in regard to �proclamation.� Whenever I use the �perhaps� or �probably� word, John immediately discounts what I say because then we don�t know for sure.
I will concede that there is a problem because not all priests are adept in public reading. The solution is not to retain the silent anaphora, but to provide training for public proclamation.

Dear Father David,

I don't think there are lots of people arguing here that the anaphora must always be silent, or that it should never be taken aloud so that we can hear it.

In fact, lots of priests I respect have taken it aloud. I know some great men and scholars who take it aloud, and I don't respect them any less. It is a respectable opinion. I respect your position on this question too. I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually catches on, and becomes the norm.

However, no other Byzantine Church has 'mandated' this. Do you not see that the idea of 'mandating' Liturgical change is not really traditional, and is an idea born in post Vatican II reforms?

Also, in joining this change (the audible anaphora and other prayers) with other less credible changes (I'm thinking of the feminist nonsense, inclusive language, and altered litanies), and odd musical interpretations, it throws the whole thing in a bad light. If it is joined with other suspicious 'agendas' then maybe it too is suspicious?

I will accept that there is a good argument for an audible anaphora.

I will not accept that it was 'mandated' in a way likely to help. In fact, the opposite reaction is being experienced, as we react to it, with new music, and repulsive exclusive agendas.

To me, the whole idea of bishops mandating this kind of radical agenda driven book, is contrary to what bishops should be doing. They should be traditional, and guardians of the tradition. Instead, they are the radical ones, and those of us in the pews are wondering who turned this Church upside down?

Given patience, and education, I have no doubt that an audible anaphora might even become the norm in our Church, and in other Churches.

However, there is something else at work in this terrible book. Something that leaves me cold. Your argument for an audible anaphora has some very dubious friends, and it is tainted by their company.

Too many changes, too many agendas, too forcefully mandated. I don't think the Holy Spirit works that way.

This Church needs to lighten up, loosen up, and pray harder for direction. Somehow, it has lost its way.

This Revised Divine Liturgy, already is dated, and needs to be revised again. No way to run a Church.

Nick

For what it is worth, the audible anaphora is is a big part of my own spiritual life. We do it at my church, and I almost have it memorized. In fact, I remember when the wife of a friend of mine was debating entering the Church, I was able to help her by dashing off an email with words of St. Basil's anaphora, largely from memory, that cleared up the problem.

I realize that my own likes and dislikes aren't normative for the Church, but I like it.

Father David,



How could one tire of hearing more than one verse of anthiphons?

How could one tire of hearing the little litanies?

I have yet to see a parish in the Eparchy of Parma (that doesn't mean that some parish isn't, I just haven't seen it) that takes the litany of supplication. How could they tire of praying 'for an angel of peace'.

No wonder every BCA church that I've been to that has the RDL is in and out in under 50 minutes.


So is this the excuse why the BCA doesn't have a proactive plan to grow its numbers through evangelization? Before we had a difference in the definition of 'restoration', now we are going to play word games with 'evangelization'? No wonder there's such a chasm between some clergy and the laity. Let me ask you, even with the definition that you want to use for evangelization, how is that evangelization plan working out in Parma and Pittsburgh? Is it going well?

Now unfortunately there is no doubt in my mind as to the fate of the BCA.

Father Loya, keep up the good work in doing what real 'evangelization' is.


I didn't know that they had TV and radio and print media during the time of St. Paul. Maybe it spread the way it did in the beginning because that was the only way to do it at the time. I know that one way they evangelized in the beginning was to hand down traditions as they had been given to them. When will the BCA begin doing this?



It is ashame that you don't see that there's a pattern occurring. Many of the revisions of the RDL have already been tried and implemented in Parma and Passiac in the last couple of decades. Vocations and attendance are down in these eparchies. In fact pretty much everything that is supposed to be up is down. So we are going to give it a chance again except this time it's going to be packaged with feminized inclusive language and less than desirable music? Anyone who can think for them self can predict the outcome. This why it is plain to see outcome, the failed revisions of the past are now going to be in all of the BCA parishes and a major amount of closings of parishes will sadly occur in Parma, Pittsburgh, and Passaic in the near future is inevitable.



The RDL is a great example of this.



Monomakh