www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy I like the changes to the Divine Liturgy, anybody else agree?

My thoughts exactly Fr Deacon!

I have been very pleased and haven't thought twice of my decision to move from the BCA to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. If I was still in the BCA the above quote would make my jaw drop even more. Father Deacon Randall is 100% correct in questioning the veracity of the above statement in regards to church doctrine.

Monomakh

I do not believe Fr. David is stating that the Liturgy is not effacious without the Anaphora aloud. I believe he is stating that the full traditional Liturgy includes the Anaphora aloud. One can take all the Litanies but this is not what makes a full traditional Liturgy.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr David,

Are you then trying to tell all that because the anaphora is NOT prayed out loud then the Holy Spirit has not been able to work in the transformation of the Eucharist? If not, please clarify because what you are stating sure sounds like it, thus calling into to question the validity of the Eucharist for centuries.

I am asking that Fr David respond to this since what I have quoted is his exact words.

(sigh) The meaning of my statement is:
IF: you restore the full traditional Liturgy,
THEN: this is meaningless unless you also:
restore the public recitation of the anaphora.
I myself would make the restoration of the full traditional Liturgy contingent on the restoration of the public anaphora.
I stick by that, and it was designed to get attention, which it suceeded quite well in doing!!!
Sorry then that some then took this general statement about liturgical change and applied it individually to each and every Liturgy. I never used the word "efficacy," which was put into my mouth. Obviously, a Liturgy even with the anaphora recited sotto voce is valid, but then so is a recited Liturgy celebrated in a private chapel with one server - but hardly the ideal!

Father David,

You reply is utter nonsense. You have been asked a direct question regarding a direct quote from your own post, not the interpretations of it. If you can not properly defend your own words, then let the record stand. I along with many others here have heard better responses from a used car salesman in trying to unload their prize lemon. You disappoint many here that may have held your work in high regard previously.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Sorry, but word games. Since when is a full Liturgical Tradition dependent on a spoken anaphora? Has the Holy Apostolic Church been deprived of a Full Liturgical Tradition for hundreds of years due to a silent Anaphora?

Frankly Fr Petras, I am disappointed, to say the least. You make a statement that verges on heresy, than say you were just trying to raise some hackles. Well, you succeeded. The word games are becoming wearisome. You speak of the need for an audible Anaphora as the hallmark of a full Liturgical Tradition, when you have 45 minute Masses, (yes, masses, not liturgies) and lack even basic Matins and Vespers services. Be glad that most of the old Baba's have gone to their heavenly reward, otherwise, you would really be hearing it. I leave you with the words of a holy hierarch who knew how to speak plainly. You might want to weigh what he has to say.

�The poison of heresy is not too dangerous when it is preached only from outside the Church. Many times more perilous is that poison which is gradually introduced into the organism in larger and larger doses by those who, in virtue of their position, should not be poisoners but spiritual physicians.�
+Metropolitan Philaret

Alexandr

You know what? What Father David says is perfectly OK! When the BCC is left with only Bishops and clergy and no laity, they will have achieved their ultimate goal. What I want to know is how I'm SUFFERING through a SILENT anaphora with a FULL liturgy?!

This is starting to border on the ridiculous. Haven't the Bishops and their minions had enough? Why do they want to kill what's left of their church?

I'm not sure I even understand the point that was trying to be made. What exactly does that mean, the statement that a full liturgy is not "full" unless the anaphora is aloud?

While I hesitate to respond to a second-hand defense (which, like Fr. Anthony, I do not believe answers the concerns about the previous statement), I will anyway. This is also very disagreeable, as the Church traditionally has not premised the idea of a "full" Liturgy on the Anaphora being taken aloud - again taking failed (even civil) attempts at its mandated use as an example in the first millenium. I don't recall any Fathers after the failure of the mandate questioning the "fullness" of the Liturgy with a quiet Anaphora.

I thank Father David for clarifying his remarks. I highly suggest that he take greater care in composing his posts. Judging by the complaints I have received many have been scandalized by what he has written. When writing for an internet forum one should never expect people to have to look beyond the written word for the intent of the message.

I believe Fr. David has answered the question directly and given the same answer I did in his defense. To pull his quote out of the context of what is being discussed and claim he is stating that the silent Anpahora doesn't produce the Eucharist is what is utter nonsense.

If people are allowed to hold the position that if the little litanies aren't taken then a full traditional Litugry isn't served, Fr. David can certainly hold the position that if the Anaphora isn't taken aloud then a full traditional Liturgy isn't served.

This thread more than any proves to me discussing this subject is fruitless. Those who don't like the RDL aren't ever going to like it, those who don't see problems with it are never going to see any. I, for one, am done discussing it. I ask Fr. David 's forgiveness for, what I believe, is poor treatment on this forum.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr Deacon,

First of all the only treatment is that which is given in frustration by myself and many of the readers to this section. I hold neither a for or against as far as the RDL is concerned. What I resent is the the word games that are played by the likes of Fr David and other posters of the pro-side that side step constantly the questions posed or round the issue with non-answers. That includes yourself at times.

Many on this section are frustrated by this TACTIC which only makes one think that something evil may be trying to be imposed on the faithful. We are not ignorant and all have at least not only a rudimentary knowledge of the faith but some may be well-read or even theologically educated. It is time to stop this "talking down" to the faithful. Then maybe the respect that should be due Fr David and some others can be afforded.

I am open to honest and direct response, not nonsense and double talk. I am sure that many others would agree, and maybe then a good deal of what is constantly being asked here would not be necessary.

So in a manner of speaking I have to say your comment above is unwarranted until straight and forthright answers start coming about.

I was quite serious when I said I am done. Unless it is to correct an untruth, I am done with this matter. It is robbing me of my peace.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I agree, not being able to direct and forthright in giving replies can keep one up at night.