www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy A Letter to Rome in the Rough

John,

You continue to conflate saying the prayers aloud with the sole purpose of education rather than with kergyma. I don't think anyone would claim that hearing the Gospel proclaimed (a kergyma) is for the purpose of education yet it is educational or at least can be. The Anaphora aloud is the same. It is a kergyma. That it can be educational does not nullify its kergymatic character.

Nor can it be claimed with any credibilty, even if done by the Holy Father, that the Anaphora aloud has not borne fruit in the Latin Church. Based on what? Are we going to lump all the post-VII liturgical practices, both valid and abuse, into one pot and toss them all?

If we are to talk of bearing fruit, what fruit can be claimed to have been had from the silent Anaphora? The biggest Apostasy the Church has ever known in the form of Revolutionaries taking over France, Communists taking over Russia, or Nazis taking over Germany? A handful of partisans didn't do it themselves. The Eastern Churches in America, Orthodox and Catholic, suffering drastic declines as they can't hold onto their third and fourth generations? Now I will not claim that this is all or even partially the fault of a silent Anaphora, it cannot be proven. Neither can the problems of the current Latin Church be blamed on an Anaphora aloud.

I also reject your idea that the Holy Spirit is the inspiration for every tradition that currently exists. Sometimes men reject the Holy Spirit's guidance and do as they wish, because of expedinecy, convenience, corruption, etc. That is how a man like Rodrigo Borgia gets elected Pope. That is how we have a Nikonian Recension. That is how something that was intended to be proclaimed, like the Anaphora, gets turned into a silent prayer in the name of pseudo-mysticism.

We have bigger things to worry about than liturgical unity with the larger Byzantine Church. If the Orthodox don't worry about it among themselves, we don't need to, despite Rome's wishes for it.

I agree with you that priests should be able to take the full Liturgy if they choose, but I also think the bishops are within their rights to mandate the minimum prayers they wish taken aloud.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I have always agreed that changes in the Divine Liturgy should occur organically over time--not by sudden mandate.

Why have the prayers been mandated to be taken aloud? Is it because of the opinion of Fr Taft?

If one looks strictly at the sensus fidelium, not even the mandates of Justinian could change the predominance of the silent or recited (non-"proclaimed") Anaphora amongst either clergy or people.

Nikonian, pre-Nikonian, Greek, Balkan, or Slavic, nearly all extant sluzhebnyky with celebratory notes or rubrics have indications for "exclamations" clearly indicating not all of the presbyteral prayer is to be taken aloud.

Who is to be so presumptious as to say how the Holy Spirit was or is guiding us? Why cannot the presbyter decide, as has been the operative and workable practice for 1500 years? Or is developed praxis and received tradition only an anachronism, open to dismissal by the enforced mandates of a small committee?

Thank you, Father Deacon Lance, for your post.

I agree that there is an educational value to everything that is spoken at all Divine Services, and have spoken to this. The problem here is that a Liturgy which has been �fine tuned� by the Holy Spirit during the past two millennia is now being revised via mandate to emphasize the educational aspect, with the reasoning given that the more of these prayers the people hear the more they will be educated and lifted up. That relationship between how many words one hears and how lifted up one is not a linear one. I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) was absolutely correct when he spoke: �In many circles of liturgists, this has led, in a truly excessive way, to making the instructive element in the liturgy, the effort to make it understandable even for outsiders, the primary criterion of the liturgical form. The idea that the choice of liturgical forms must be made from the "pastoral" point of view suggests the presence of this same anthropocentric error. Thus the liturgy is celebrated entirely for men and women, it serves to transmit information--in so far as this is possible in view of the weariness which has entered the liturgy due to the rationalisms and banalities involved in this approach.� (see fuller quote in my previous post). I believe that the Ruthenian liturgical reform is based upon this same �anthropocentric error� that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaks to. The reform was certainly offered with the best of intentions, but the reform is based upon an erroneous foundation.

Can you offer evidence of that the custom has borne fruit in the Latin Church? In an earlier discussion even Father David argued that the reason the experiment must continue (in the West and now in the Ruthenian Church) is so that it may someday bear fruit. We have Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) himself stating that �the German liturgists have explicitly stated that, of all things, the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis.� I in no way have lumped all the post-VII liturgical practices into one pot. I have quoted Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaking directly to the new custom of praying the Anaphora aloud. It seems to me that my position of liberty is the logical one here, and that a mandate for the priest to pray these prayers aloud is wrong, given both the fact that the Latin liturgical theologians indicate that the custom has created a �crisis� and that the mandate destroys our liturgical unity with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox).

I have never made such a claim.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) states: �It is no accident that in Jerusalem, for 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. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy. It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer out loud and without interruption is a prerequisite for the participation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.�

No pseudo-mysticism here. Given that the novella of Justinian in 565 didn�t work and we now see Latin liturgical theologians of such esteem stating that the custom is not working in the Latin Church�s Novus Ordo it is legitimate to say that claiming that the quietly prayed Anaphora is all a mistake is �just too easy�. No, liberty on this issue is the way forward and it is liberty that will allow the Spirit to lead organic development.

That there are other things to be worried about is not a valid reason to forget about liturgical unity.

The Orthodox do have an amazing amount of liturgical unity. If you place the liturgical books from the various recensions using the Byzantine Liturgy side-by-side you find that the corpus is very close. I find this amazing given the governance style found within Orthodoxy, and the fact that for long periods in history various local Churches have been cut off from one another.

Here again is a good sense of how liturgy properly develops:

Trust the living tradition! Wonderful! Definitely a message worth listening to. Sensus Fidelum anyone? The idea of creating a liturgical commission to revise the Divine Liturgy is itself evidence of a Latin mindset regarding Liturgy. Liturgical commissions should be limited to producing exactingly faithful translations of the normative texts (as literal as is possible balanced only with elegance).

I continue to pray the Lord God that the ongoing appeals to Rome will prove successful and that the Pope Benedict XVI will issue guarantees that the local bishops may not prohibit the full Liturgy of their own Church.

John

Slava Isusu Christu! (Glory be to Jesus Christ!)
Slava Na Viki! (Clory Forever!)

Gabriel--the letter is quite, quite well thought out and put together. The advice is good---letting go of some emotional content and changing wording will get you taken more seriously. It's easy to dismiss someone who is obviously taking a stand based on emotion and not logic. Your first draft could have been taken that way. So follow the advice and lose some of the wording.

Translating into Italian (Curial Italian, at that!) is another wonderful bit of advice. Maybe send it in both English and Italian? That way there is no excuse for it to be ignored.

Now the big question-when are you going to send it? I don't know the date of your first posting, but based on the amount of replies and the debate on saying things outloud and quoting Cardinal Ratzinger and Father Taft, it was a bit ago. Did you have a deadline?

I understand the one comment about why are we appealing to Rome when we are suposed to be autonomous. I thought the same thing myself many times. However the answer is--we don't have much of a choice. Complaints to those in charge just seem to be ignored. Maybe they aren't being ignored, but there has been no real reply from anyone. And that kind of says something by itself. If they are listening and want to make changes to help answer some points raised by members of their flock, it could have been done in a very clear way. But that hasn't happened either. If it has, I certainly missed it. Which is possible since I know so little about how things operate. But if those in charge don't listen, what choice does the flock have? Some have jumped throughthe broken fence and escaped. Literally. Others are eyeing the broken fence and thinking very hard about jumping. That alone should bring the shephards in charge to pay attention and do something about the fence. One way or another. But do it verbally and with finality. And quickly.

What's the deadline?

Tim

And still others have jumped through the fence and found a wonderful pasture.

As the old saying goes, "I'm not sure I have a dog in this fight." Nonethless, I'll offer a thought or two:

I am grateful to have been accepted as a 'de facto' if not 'de jure' member of various BCC parishes over the years (at which times I have observed the ebb and flow, with more or less success, of various liturgical reform efforts). Until recently, I had been impressed with the realism of some BCC parish priests and layfolk (and even some hierarchs) in accepting that it might be necessary to "let a thousand liturgical flowers bloom" as this "Particular Church" rediscovered its past and charted its future in America. I found that attitude a healthy alternative to the rubric-ridden nit-picking that I had encountered elsewhere. I was also impressed by what seemed to be a genuine desire within the BCC to exercise at least some of the ancient rights that had been recognized when our forefathers in the Faith re-entered communion with the Church of Rome.

On the other hand, I have been unhappy to see the BCC and other Eastern Churches of the Byzantine tradition apparently accept the balkanization that seems to be a byproduct of the Oriental Code and also fail to take advantage of the liturgical scholarship and pastoral experience of sister churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

Whatever the technical or aesthetic merits of suppressed Litanies, 'proclaimed' priestly prayers, the use of ancient liturgical languages, or "official" musical settings, it would seem that the best place to resolve any differences would be at the parish level, with advice from experts and gentle guidance from local hierarchs. I find it hard to see what can be gained by inviting a Roman dicastery to involve itself in this local matter.

It is sad that we just can't self manage. Therefore, we need someone to hold the measure stick up for us. That currently is Rome. There is a huge disconnect between the clergy on what our church is supposed to be. Some remain horribly Latinized, while others' Liturgical practices were robbed by the RDL, not enhanced. Still others remain defiant and celebrate some other previously progulmated Liturgy.

The answer lies in a strong Bishop who's willing to discipline those priests whose practices fall so far out in left field they are not recognized as being Byzantine. Pray for more vocations, as the extra priests will be fill-in for the time when a Bishop sends a disobedient priest to the monastery to contemplate obedience.

And, keep writing, Rome can't ignore us for long!

Some further observations -

One of the difficulties we are dealing with here is that the early Christians were not asking the same questions about Liturgy that we are asking. The culture and conditions of life were quite different. One fact is certain - that the original custom was for the priests to say the prayers aloud. No other option was contemplated. John seemingly would have us accept that the people did not actually hear the prayers. However, this is not certain one way or the other, but only after the Liturgy moved out of houses into church structures. Taft suggests that the people may not have heard the prayers because the priest prayed bowing. He uses the word �perhaps,� so this is not certain. As a scholar, Taft establishes his conclusions only on what we can definitively determine. Whether the people actually heard the prayers may depend on circumstances and may have varied from place to place. Certainly, as time passed, and the vernacular language changed from the liturgical Greek, the people understood the prayers less and less and perhaps actually hearing them became less of a priority. The only evidence that we have that there was a �mystical value� to the prayers in the early centuries was from Syria. The Greek and Latin cultures and philosophies were more logical/practical. History itself is messy - trends go back and forth and practices vary from place to place. We cannot make such absolute claims as: by the sixth century the prayers were silent, Justinian�s novella was a failure, Syrian theology prevailed everywhere, etc.

The second thing that is certain is that we have to act on our needs today. I firmly believe we need to get in better touch with the meaning of the Paschal Mystery, which is unfolded in the presbyteral prayers. The seeming attitude that we must not �learn� anything from the Liturgy is obscurantism. The anaphora is the promulgation of the gospel in prayer. Whatever meaning it had for the ancients, and certainly in the house liturgies of the first centuries the prayers were clearly said, the meaning must be restored for us today. The practice of the audible anaphora has been on the table for over a century in the Orthodox Church. The audible recitation of the anaphora has been done in our churches since the 70's. After many years, the bishops, moderators of the Liturgy, have decided that this is a value that should be restored, and have re-promulgated the original �rubrics,� as is their right. Perhaps this is the work of the Holy Spirit! At any rate, the decisions of the bishops as the ordained ministers of the liturgy has intrinsically more weight than the individual opinions of any of us as to where the Holy Spirit is working. The decision of the bishops is not contrary to the policy of the universal Church as expressed through the Roman See, nor to numerous interventions by Orthodox conferences, recommendations and theological opinions.

There is an opinion afloat, apparently, that the development of the Liturgy is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that, hence, however the Liturgy has concretely developed cannot be changed, since it is the work of the Spirit. I agree with Deacon Lance that this is not necessarily so. I believe certainly that the Holy Spirit is working in the Church and that, in general, the development of the Liturgy has come about through obedience to the Spirit. However, it is not necessarily true that all liturgical developments have been �evolution,� some have been �devolution,� because, as human beings, wee do not always follow accurately the guidance of the Spirit. One might read Thomas Pott�s �La r�forme liturgique byzantine,� particularly the first part. It should appear soon in English translation. I might observe that John gives the introduction of the gospel of Mark at the beginning of Paschal Matins as an example of �organic development.� I think it is a devolution, since it replaces the Paschal Vigil with a single gospel - not even the one found in the vigil Matthew 28:1-20) which, therefore, may no longer be read in the liturgical cycle, if priests, as frequently happens ignore the Vigil Liturgy.

Deacon Randall makes the argument - plausible at first sight - that the rubric �vozhlashenije� at the end of a prayer indicates that the rest of it was said silently. This is certainly how it has developed, but his argument is not as strong as it appears. The introduction of the rubric may follow the liturgical development. �Vozhlashenije,� or, in Greek, �ekphonesis,� might be translated �exclamation.� It is almost always a doxology which concludes a prayer. Now, one may well read a narrative aloud and �exclaim� at the end, for example, �what a wonderful story this was.� At any rate, the doxologies sometimes are integral to the prayer, and sometimes are simply attached to the end of a prayer from a repertoire of stock doxologies, and serve as a �presbyteral cue� for the people to respond �Amen.� Hence, his argument is not as strong as it first seems.

Let me try to understand what you are saying here.

At best, it is uncertain whether the prayers were said aloud. A Syrian Tradition may in fact point to a mystical value. Nevertheless, the Liturgy developed organically with the inaudible prayers. So now--in the 21st century--the BCC committee has determined that the prayers should be prayed aloud and has mandated this on the Church. Do I have that right?

I was not awatre that so many were out of touch with the Paschal Mystery.

And yet it has not been forced down the throats of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Are you saying that the bishops have cornered the market on the Holy Spirit!

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!
The Pope of Rome seems to differ. And I did not know that the Eastern Catholic bishops were so influenced by Orthodox theological opinions.
I am sorry, and perhaps I misunderstand--but it seems to be the height of arrogance that you insinuate that the Fathers of the Church did not properly heed the call of the Holy Spirit, thus allowing the Liturgy to devolve.

Stephanie...I normally agree with you but not so on this statement...it's not the Bishop who needs to be strong and rule with an iron fist...the faith is kept by the people...the Bishop needs to be strong in listening to his flock...Trust the Holy Spirit to guide...don't look for "top down mandates"...in my humble opinion, that has been the reason for the fall of the BCC...

Chris

The admission that my point is factual with regard to actual liturgical development if anything strengthens and confirms my point, especially with regard to the reality of what the liturgical history and development have been. My argument is plausible because it is supported by the historical development of the Liturgy in this regard.

Since indeed this practice of the exclamation has developed into universal use, and the vast (nearly unanimous) majority have understood it in this way, perhaps I am on to something.

Certainly those most familiar with the historical context of the Slavonic rubrics, the Old Ritualists, understand it in this way of "exclamation" in its organic development (yes, organic development - this is simply the way it has developed for centuries and has come to be the common usage). I don't see abandoning what has come to be the organic development and general understanding of liturgical practices as preferable to what may possibly be a falsely anachronistic approach to the revision of liturgy. Certainly in the Latin Church this is being reassessed.



First of all Liturgy is not a story. It is revelation of the Most Holy Trinity in action, it is the doorway to the deifying Mysteries. I don't see that this comparison is either compelling or appropriate.

Secondly, any "cue" would involve a means for the priest to elevate the "cue", to place specific emphasis on this whether the preceding was read aloud or not. This also implies what precedes it has been performed at a "lower level" to necessitate the "cue".

Thirdly, I would also observe that "Doxology" by its nature not only implies a specific prayer of praise, but also implies a more exuberant way of expressing that praise relative to other kinds of prayers.

I have great difficulty with dismissing the movement of the Spirit in what has come to be the historically demonstrated organic development of liturgical usage in this case.
FDRLB

It always mystifies me when a committee decides that hundreds of years of organic development is incorrect--and they will "restore" the proper praxis.

X. B!
C. I. X!

"It always mystifies me when a committee decides that hundreds of years of organic development is incorrect--and they will "restore" the proper praxis. " quote Recluse

Is this not the basis of our celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy?