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

No, I am not willing to say the same things about the authentic pratices which you mention. They are universally accepted practices of the Christian East--which is what I meant. As I think I said, I am all for restoration. If it is a debatable point, then why mandate?--allow legitimate diversity and see what grows.

My parish was doing the things you mentioned before the mandate. They were all welcome. Other things, such as dropping "offensive" words from the Creed and Liturgy have caused division and strife and resulted in the shutting down of an outreach which was sponsoring a vocations retreat for this Eparchy.

Real education, about authentic practices, would allow time for people to accept authentic restoration. Mandates of inauthentic practices fail.

I think that some of the revisionists have purposefully mixed authentic restoration with modernization to force certain illigitmate ideas upon the faithful. I will grant that the anaphora aloud does not necessarily fit that bill. But in this age of diversity, surely there is room to try the anaphora aloud and silently and see what works. In an attempt to be "diverse" and welcome women and make sure that Americans who have a need (perhaps legitimate) of hearing everything, real diversity got squashed in a number of ways. And the Bishops could correct it all if they wanted. Liberality should welcome all legitimate forms. Red and Green, Black and White, Men and Women.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Diak:

Fair enough. If you want to argue that praying the Anaphora aloud was not the norm in the early Church, be my guest. Though the evidence is admittedly scant, most scholars and historians have argued that the prayers were, in fact, audible prior to the sixth century.

As for aping the Roman emperor: So mandates are intrinsically Latin (or, perhaps more accurately, Roman)? Or just the ones you don't care for?

Im:

Thanks for the clarification regarding your definition of "universal." I agree with much of what you have said in your last post.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Theopholis,

I am most accustomed to the anaphora taken aloud. I must say, however, that when I have recently attended Divine Liturgy when it was inaudible, the silence was truly exquisite.

lm

Dear Theophilos,

My post was not written in an effort to convince, but rather to explain the application of a particular term to a certain phenomenon - and, as I commented, the term is one that I do not use very often.

But since you raise it, there is a difference between the restoration of such practices as Baptism by triple immersion and the administration of Holy Communion to infants and young children on the one hand, and the recitation of the Anaphora aloud on the other - it is a matter of living tradition.

While the Ruthenians had abandoned such practices as Baptism by triple immersion and the administration of Holy Communion to infants and young children in the eighteenth century, these practices had not been abandoned by all the Greek-Catholics: far from it. And of course they had not been abandoned by the Eastern Orthodox. Thus in the USA the Ruthenian clergy and faithful had easy access to Greek-Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in which these practices could be observed frequently. These elements could also be found in official Byzantine service-books published by the Holy See. The Liturgical Instruction of the late nineties made it official: these elements were to be restored.

This is not the case with the recitation of the Anaphora aloud. Even if one accepts that there was such a practice in the fourth and fifth centuries (and I'm not fully convinced of that), it had certainly not been in use for the better part of 1.5 millennia. There was absolutely no living tradition of such a practice. But for the past forty years it has been commonplace among Roman Catholics. This is where the Ruthenians could and did observe the practice; then they seem to have looked around for some means of justifying what they intended to do anyway. Are the Administrator and I indulging in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning? To an extent, yes. Does that indicate that we are necessarily mistaken? No. After Hurricane Katrina, there was much damage to New Orleans. It is not ridiculous or inadmissible to attribute much of this damage to the hurricane. Nor is it ridiculous to suggest that the sudden attempt to impose a practice relatively recently imposed by the Latins is perhaps a case of blatant imitation - especially when that pattern has been a well-entrenched mode of behavior for a long time.

Intriguingly enough, both Baptism by triple immersion and the administration of Holy Communion to infants and young children are gradually making their way into Western liturgical practice. We might watch this with interest.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I was not equating baptism by triple immersion or infant communion with the praying aloud of the Anaphora. I brought them up in my reply to you because these restorations suggest that the latinizing ethos of the 1930s-1970s in the Ruthenian BCC no longer exists.

It thus "taxes credulity" to think that, while we have sought to repossess our Eastern Christian patrimony in these crucially important respects, we would continue to latinize ourselves in others -- by, e.g., imitating the RC pratice of praying the Eucharistic prayers aloud. Such unevenness is possible, of course, but unlikely.

Yet the idea that we are still susceptible to latinization, and sometimes eager to latinize, constitutes the linchpin of your argument as to why the prayed-aloud Anaphora is a latinization.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I am stating historical fact, and unlike you am not trying to impose or imply subjective determinations of what I do or do not "care for". Your posts repeatedly seem to include these personal insinuations. The fact is that both the silent and the audible anaphora are within the tradition; it is facile to say that either or both are latinizations. The fact is also that a mandate of the Roman Emperor to suppress the silent anaphora was an utter failure. Perhaps organic development occurs without mandates.

As for preference I have none; I have stated my liking of both approaches to the celebration of the Anaphora as both have intrinsic beauty and positive aspects. Our tradition is one of economia rather than one of mandate (which has failed in the past, and that is fact and not my preference) and allowing pastoral prudence is certainly appropriate and respecting the office of the priesthood and pastor of the parish.

I was suggesting in reference to "aping", and certainly not stating de facto, that perhaps something mandated with the authority of the Roman Emperor can be viewed as a "latinization" in principle. Nothing more.

Theophilos,

Once again, I am not trying to argue with you; I am simply trying to answer your question. Yet you seem determined to argue. Now why would that be?


You write:


You could have fooled me!


I would like to believe that - but I don't believe it.


It is certainly possible - and quite likely into the bargain. I may be excused from giving specific examples, since I am not out to pick fights with individuals. In general, I may say that one can readily observe a pattern of trying to "balance" a restoration of authenticity in one way with the reverse in another way. Not at all uncommon.


That the Ruthenians "are still susceptible to latinization and sometimes eager to latinize" (your phraseology, not mine) is not difficult to discern - and again, I am not about to offer specifics. Use your own eyes. I did not offer you an "argument as to why the prayed-aloud Anaphora is a latinization" (again, your phraseology, not mine); I simply tried to answer your question as to why some people react to it that way.

But it is apparent that you did not really want an answer to your question; you simply want an argument. And you are not above accusing me - without justification - of throwing around a particular term that I make strenuous efforts to avoid, which indicates to me that you don't care to observe the usual rules of discourse in controversial matters. So I shall not reply to any further questions or criticisms on these issues from you. For the sake of Christ, forgive me.

Fr. Serge

Diak:


I have no clue what you're talking about. I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone. I simply asked the Administrator to explain his oft-repeated assertion that the practice of praying the Anaphora aloud / mandating the practice is "an imitation of Roman Catholic custom." I don't believe it is a latinization, and have sought to explain as much. No one has said anything to convince me that I am wrong.


Bingo! Thanks for making my point for me.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Father Serge:

I don't care whether you respond or not. I didn't ask you to respond in the first place. It was your decision to answer my question put to the Administrator; you did, and I pointed out what I took to be the flaws in it. Now you accuse me of being argumentative! I'm sorry if you consider any challenge to your view of things to be disputatious.

I did not accuse you of "throwing around" the term "latiniziation." I was simply summarizing your answer -- which, again, I did not solicit -- as to why people might consider the prayed-aloud Anaphora to be a latinization, the logic of which was (so far as I could tell): we are still latinized, susceptible to latinization, and sometimes even eager to latinize and, therefore, this, too, must be a latinization.

Of course, when I challenged the premise of this argument (that we are still latinizing ourselves), I was told that I don't need to be given specifics, that I should use my own eyes...

Now, why would it be that you don't feel the need to provide specific examples, while I can provde several counter-examples (infant communion, triple-immersion, the dropping of the Filioque)? Is it because you cannot and so you hide behind the veil of "I don't want to name names"?

I confess I am disappointed and a little surprised by your response (or lack thereof).

In Christ,
Theophilos

Isn't it ironic, though, the importance some have placed on the audible anaphora and yet certain words are never to be spoken at the Divine Liturgy?

Not so fast - I may be slow but not that slow. Bingo or not (I haven't played that game for years) any points made were mine in response to you and are points I have consistently made.

Secondly, you know well exactly what I am referring to - to refresh your memory your frequently used insinuations such as above speak for themselves with regard to implied personal subjectivity.

Again, what I care or don't care for is unimportant, and what is important is an objective portrayal of the received tradition - which includes both the silent and audible anaphora. Mandates to suppress the silent anaphora by even civil force failed miserably. That is fact.

Diak:



Whether you have consistently made them is quite beside the point -- though I don't recall your asking the Administrator to explain his facile assertion that the mandating of the audible Anaphora is "an imitation of Roman Catholic custom," i.e., a latinization. If I am wrong on this, I apologize.

Unless I missed something, I thought you asserted the superficiality of calling the prayed-aloud Anaphora a latinization. That happens to be my opinion, too. But rather than simply assert it point-blank (and open myself up to accusations of making facile assertions), I thought I'd give the Administrator a chance to say why he thinks it is so.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

Thanks for your posts.

I believe that I have already explained this several times.

Father David has noted one Orthodox recommendation for the practice. No other Byzantine Church (Catholic or Orthodox) has mandated it. The custom is not widespread in the East. Even in our still very Latinized Ruthenian Church in America it needed a mandate to get the majority of priests to pray it aloud in the style legislated by the Revised Divine Liturgy. On top of this, the reasons given for the mandate are almost identical to the ones given by the Latins after Vatican II (mainly that the people need to hear these prayers to actively participate in them, that they need to hear them in order to be educated by them, and that they need to hear them or they can�t say �Amen�). Concluding that it is a latinization is legitimate.

As I have stated any number of times, if the custom is to redevelop organically in the East it will develop over time as desired by the Holy Spirit. Mandates will not be necessary, especially those that rely on Latin arguments for their support.

In reading your posts over the past few days I am sure that you will disagree with me. Others here do and that�s OK.

Placing liturgical rubrics at the same level as theology and morality does not lend credibility to your claims.

Liturgy has developed over time and that development has been blessed by the Church.

The Church matures in the way she speaks about theology. There is certainly some freedom for an individual to seek better explanations even of things that are dogmatically defined.

The moral law does not change. The Church merely applies it to new situations.

So I�ll skip your idea that if one supports liberty for the Spirit to work in the development of liturgical rubrics that one must necessarily also support the same liberty in theology and morality.

The mandated praying of the Anaphora out loud increases the liturgical division between not just us and other Byzantine Catholics but between us and all of Byzantine Orthodoxy. Are you suggesting that this increased division is the work of the Holy Spirit? That the Vatican documents directing us to restore our Liturgy as given in the official books, to work together to increase liturgical unity with the Orthodox and not to increase division it are all wrong?

It is curious that you seem to wish to ignore the opinion of leading Roman Catholic theologians about a custom they introduced in the Latin Church and instead wish to reduce it to a matter of my opinion.

Remember that the Roman Catholics themselves are saying that there are problems with the custom. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) noted in his book �The Spirit of the Liturgy� that back in 1978 he stated that �in no sense does the whole Cannon always have to be taken aloud� and expressed the hope that twenty years later he thinks that people should now understand what he means. He then went on to say that the German liturgists say the Eucharistic Prayer is in �crisis� and concludes that all the various experimentation with the Eucharistic Prayer �balk, now as in the past, at the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God.� The Latins see problems with the customs a few in our Church have sought to mandate. They even use the word �crisis� to describe the situation that has come about after 40 years of praying the Anaphora out loud. The more logical position is to allow liberty until the Latins understand and fix the problems. The even more logical position is to wait for the custom to bear fruit in the Latin Church (or, with liberty, to develop organically and bear fruit in all of the Byzantine Churches) before considering a mandate. I am curious why such a position should be offensive to anyone.

So you are suggesting that although you have no idea where education ends and deification begins it is proper and just to rework the rubrics to imitate a custom some Latins themselves say has caused a �crisis� in the Liturgy and mandate this custom? And that liberty to allow the Spirit to lead should not be allowed, even until the Latins understand the problem that has prevented this custom from bearing fruit until they figure out and correct the problem? Or until the custom develops organically among the Orthodox? We know that the official Ruthenian Liturgy works and sanctifies the faithful. There is no need to unilaterally mandate change to what has been proven to sanctify and unite.

The mandate certainly is one violation of the Liturgical Instruction�s directive to work with the Orthodox. In what way does such a mandate assist the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) by brining us into uniform practice with the liturgical books we share with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox)? Just how does not working together with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) in keeping our praxis common help contribute to overall unity?

Are you suggesting that a small group of Byzantines who are severely Latinized, who refuse to be formed by their own liturgy (complete and whole, it its official form), by the fullness of Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy, are competent as a Church to lead a liturgical reform? That is kind of like saying that you don�t have to speak French to edit a French dictionary! A people who have not prayed their own Liturgy in its official form and been formed by it over several generations do not know their tradition well enough to make changes.

And what is this idea that the custom of a quietly prayed (not proclaimed) Anaphora is less authentic? Are you saying that for more than one and one half millennium the Church has been wrong; and the Holy Spirit incapable of leading some previous generation to gently lead the Church?

I am more than just uncomfortable with mandates that increase the separation between the Ruthenian Church of Pittsburgh and other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox). I am appalled! That is why I have written to not just our bishops but to Rome, and asked and will keep asking those in authority to undo the mistake of the Revised Divine Liturgy. The Anaphora rubrics are just one of many problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy. Well intentioned people have made a number of mistakes and they need to be corrected.

I would not use your term of �anti-Holy Spirit�. I would rephrase your statement to read: �Directives that restore our liturgical praxis to that which we share officially with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) are good. Those directives (or mandates, or whatever word you choose) which copy customs of the Latin Church are not good because they increase the separation between us and other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) and because mandates by definition thwart organic development in Liturgy (which is the work of the Holy Spirit).�

John

I attended the RDL last weekend, and found that I could not add my "Amen" to the prayer before the Trisagion, simply because I could not hear it! Also, the prayer at then end of the "litany" after the great entrance, because it sounded, from what I learned in the prayer, that that is a "priest's prayer" and not mine.



John K, one of "us all"

Dear Administrator:

Slava Isusu Christu!

Thank you for your response. Just a couple of points of clarification:

1. I have never suggested that the silent Anaphora is an inauthentic or less-than-authentic Byzantine liturgical practice.

2. I have never suggested that praying the Anaphora aloud is more authentic than taking it silently.

3. I have said nothing about whether I consider the mandate requiring that the Anaphora be "prayed aloud" in the Ruthenian BCC to be wise, salutary, good, etc.

My questions were directed solely at your oft-repeated assertion that the practice of praying the Anaphora aloud / the mandating of the practice constitutes a latinization. I simply wanted to know how the mandated restoration of a liturgical practice that was common within the early Greek Church could possibly be viewed as a latinization. If it is a part of authentic Byzantine liturgical tradition, how could it simultaneously be non-Byzantine? You have given me an answer to this question, and I do appreciate it.

I continue to think, however, that the argument you make against the mandated practice would be stronger if you refrained from calling it "an imitation of Roman Catholic custom."

In Christ,
Theophilos