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

'Diak' writes: "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."

I tread further into this dispute with some trepidation, but I would suggest that it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that wherever we happen to be liturgically (or happen to have been at some time in the past) is (a) the unalloyed product of the guidance of the Spirit, (b) the point where the Spirit wants us to be at the moment, (c) the point beyond which we dare not move without some indisputable evidence of the Spirit's urgings.

A humble assessment of how we got to where we are now (and how our Churches got to where they were at various points in the not-too-distant past, especially in North America) may suggest that not everyone involved in the development of our Liturgy (cleric or lay, Catholic or Orthodox) has at all times and places necessarily responded intelligently to the promptings of the Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ, to be sure, but it is not His glorified Body. It is made up of imperfect people, however educated, all of them influenced by their past experience and their present environment.

Perhaps we need to be more accepting of our imperfections and limitations and work with the situation as it is, rather than trying to call down a Roman thunderbolt on the RDL. I remain optimistic that a Church that could survive the 'Elko fiasco' can find its own authentic liturgical voice in North America. I trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us to realize our mistakes when we make them (even if not as quickly as some would hope). I pray that the hierarchs, clergy and laity of the BCC will find a way of communicating openly and honestly about liturgical matters and develop the patience and trust to listen to each other, and to the Spirit.

I think rather the stretch is that 1500 years of development should be regarded as being either misguided or without guidance by the Spirit.

'Diak' writes: "I think rather the stretch is that 1500 years of development should be regarded as being either misguided or without guidance by the Spirit."

Of course, none of the posts on this topic has said that.

It does not impugn the action of the Spirit in the development of Liturgy to suggest either: (a) that human responses to the promptings of the Spirit may not always be the best, or the only possible, way in which the People of God might have responded; or (b) that every development in Byzantine liturgical expression over 1500 years must always and forever be maintained.

I do not think it irreverent to compare our liturgical treasures to a collection of family hierloom garments. All can be loved and cherished. Some might be admired and then stored away again, however, because found unsuitable for today's social or climatic conditions. Others will be taken out and used for a while. Some of those will require tailoring, however, to fit the needs of today's wearers. And many will be a perfect fit.

Byzantine liturgical practice over the past 1500 years has not been a seamless progression. It has proceeded by fits and starts, discarded some things and then rediscovered them, and been subject to any number of cultural and social influences.

To offer one example: I still recall my shocked reaction one morning, as I knelt in the Cathedral in Uzhhorod over a decade ago. The 'main' altar, with its soaring iconostas, was dark. Meanwhile, a half dozen or more priests were celebrating "read" Liturgies at Latin-style side altars along the side aisles of the church, individually and without so much as a server to assist any of them. A purist might have criticized them (as I was tempted to do), but then I realized that these were men who had kept the flame of Faith alive during the Soviet period. They had lived to see the restoration of the Byzantine Church and the Eparchy of Uzhhorod, and were worshipping in a temple only recently restored to Byzantine Catholic use. I said a prayer of thanks for their courage and perseverance.

I doubt that the Bishop of Uzhhorod dealt with these liturgical "old-timers" by issuing sternly worded letters, imposing penalties, or making threats. I doubt, too, that he enlisted the assistance of a Roman dicastery in guiding these men toward a fuller expression of their liturgical heritage.

This view of liturgy, while not explicitly irreverent is potentially dangerous by comparing the lived revelation of the Mystery of Mysteries throughout the centuries in liturgical development to a collection of items, "heirlooms", whatever materialistic simile one wants to derive. Everything becomes subject to line-item removal or revision, possibly denying or reversing an organic historical development based on what is purported to be a necessary "societal" impetus to change.

When the Kyivan Church accepted Christianity, the Liturgy did not change with reductions, modern language or a tampering of the extant texts as received in the name of "comforming" to "societal needs". It did adapt culturally by providing the Liturgy in a language understandable to the people, but it retained in its form, text, and rubrics, a truly Constantinopolitan liturgy that most likely was celebrated with a silent Anaphora if we are to believe the rubrics in most of the extant Slavonic texts.

Did it develop further? Certainly, but in extra length, texts, unique musical developments, specific rubrical additions, etc. - hardly the same as we see now in the revisionist push to abbreviate texts, standardize music that was never previously standardized and mandate modernized language.

If this materialistic premise of liturgy being a collection of "heirlooms" is accepted, then every aspect of Liturgy is subject to a relativistic valuation/devaluation and redefinition largely based on, as we have seen with inclusive language, societal revisions rather than the received tradition or the sensus fidelium.

I am all for pastoral prudence; such as with the Ektenia of the Catechumens being optional outside of Lent or other times when there are no Catechumens. I do not oppose outrightly the aloud Anaphora; I do not prefer it and oppose mandates which have been facile since the time of Justinian to control a practice that has become standard usage over 1500 years.

I am not for a revisionist approach to liturgy that idealizes certain modernist sociological phenomena ("inclusive language") or ignores the historical development of the liturgy over what one or a few persons interpret as the "proper" liturgical development and the "real" guidance of the Spirit. And again, I definitely do not presume the Spirit to be inoperative, misguiding or deceptive throughout 1500 years of liturgical development.


Nor do I - he indeed offers pastoral prudence and patience in this regard, which is admirable indeed when dealing with liturgical usage. The promulgation letters for the RDL seem to many as onerous and sternly worded and do not offer any options in the matter. I don't recall many hierarchs since the Nikonian reforms attempting to promulgate a "sole text" in this way. I am quite pleased that in the UGCC the priest can decide based on pastoral situations in the case of extra Ektenias, silent Anaphora, etc. rather than blanket mandate which may not at all respect his particular parish spiritual needs or conditions.

I thank Father David for his post.

Nothing I have posted has suggested that the people have never heard the prayers. It seems quite logical that those standing nearest the priest would hear the prayers (if he was praying loud enough) while those standing at the farthest point of the assembly might not hear them. Father Taft notes, �The people were incapable � the person in Church by himself or herself said their prayers aloud. We know that from ancient culture.� It is logical to conclude, at least as a working hypothesis, that the priest was offering the prayers to God on behalf of the people and for no other reason. Given that many (if not most) individuals would be praying their own prayers aloud it is difficult to accept Father David�s implication that these prayers were prayed out loud for the specific intention of transmission of information (education) because that education was necessary for the individual believer to be raised up.

The specific point I am making is that there is a qualitative difference between a prayer that is prayed prayerfully and a prayer that is prayed for the education of man. During the praying of the Anaphora a priest should focus his whole being upon the prayers. When you give him (and the Anaphora) the additional task of proclamation for the education of man (i.e., the transmission of information) the focus of his prayer is no longer solely about God.

Note the argument presented by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) on the purpose of the Divine Liturgy, and especially the Anaphora: �What impressed onlookers about the liturgy was precisely its utter lack of an ulterior purpose, the fact that it was celebrated for God and not for spectators, that its sole intent was to be before God and for God �euarestos euprosdektos� (Romans 12:1; 15:16): pleasing and acceptable to God, as the sacrifice of Abel had been pleasing to God. Precisely this �disinterest� of standing before God and of looking toward Him was what caused a divine light to descend on what was happening and caused that divine light to be perceptible even to onlookers.� [Full quote and reference in my previous post.]

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is absolutely correct when he states that with such an emphasis on man in the Liturgy �perhaps God is still spoken of, but God in reality has no role; it is a matter only of meeting people and their needs halfway and of making them contented. But precisely this approach ensures that no faith is fostered, for the faith has to do with God, and only where His nearness is made present, only where human aims are set aside in favor of the reverential respect due to Him, only there is born that credibility which prepares the way for faith.� In this instance the prayers are no longer �for us men and our salvation� but �for us men and our education�. This change in emphasis is what makes it more difficult for faith to be fostered. I acknowledge that this was not the intent but it is most certainly the effect.

There are numerous problems with Father David�s claim that the mandate to pray the Anaphora aloud for the education of man renews the equivalent custom of the early Church. We see from Father Taft that while the prayers were prayed out loud by the priest there was no special effort made to proclaim them for the purposes of education. We see from Father David�s post here that the custom varied from place to place, that there was some evidence of a �mystical value� in these prayers being prayed quietly in the early centuries from Syria. And we see from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) that: �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, none of what has been presented by Father David or others supports any idea that in the early Church the Anaphora prayers were prayed for education purposes, that it was necessary for the Church (individual believers or the gathered Church) to hear the prayers so that they might have their souls raised up. The most we can conclude is that they were prayers prayed prayerfully, and just happened to be taken aloud in some places and at some times. There is certainly nothing in any of the evidence that justifies Father David�s demand for a mandate that these Anaphora prayers be prayed aloud. The most logical position on this topic is the one that I have offered. Allow the individual priest liberty in praying these prayers either in a low voice or aloud. In that way he can focus solely on praying the prayers and not be distracted by the additional task of having to proclaim them to educate the faithful.

Look at what Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is speaking about when he speaks about the �possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. � Anyone who has experienced a church united in silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry. Here everyone is untied, laid hold of by Christ, and led by the Holy Spirit into that common prayer to the Father which is the true sacrifice � the love that reconciles and unites God and the world.� [�Spirit of the Liturgy", pp. 214-216] Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is saying that when the focus of these prayers is solely upon God (and not upon the education of the faithful by purposeful hearing) that the people �set aside all earthly cares� (including the need to be educated by hearing words) and join with the angels who sing �let all mortal flesh keep silent, and with fear and trembling stand.� In silence, they better express the mystery, better and more faithfully worship the Godhead. Silence and awe better expresses the mystery hidden from all ages, and which is veiled to the senses, (sight, taste, touch and HEARING), but which is revealed only in silent faith. Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) is on to something important here. And, when we see that the Latins themselves are considering retreating from this custom of praying the Anaphora aloud because it has caused a �crisis� in their Church, Ruthenians ought not to imitate it with mandates but let liberty allow the Spirit to lead. It seems to me that when you give the priest the additional task of praying the Anaphora out loud for the specific purpose of education (with the idea that hearing is necessary to being raised up) you wind up imposing the Word (in a wordy and intellectual sense) upon the breath of the Spirit in a way that does violence not only to the true faith, but also to the image of the Trinity in the Church. There is a lot here that needs exploration and anything other than liberty for the priest to focus solely on being before God does great violence.

The difficulty with John's post is that it assumes the only reason you would say a prayer aloud is for education. There are numerous reasons why a prayer addressed to God might be said aloud. The simplest one is so that the people would know to what they are saying "Amen." Education, however, would hardly be a bad side effect of the prayers. His assertion that it is "my claim" to "mandate to pray the Anaphora aloud for the education of man" is setting up a "straw man." I never made such a claim. I do acknowledge the bishop's right to mandate a liturgical practice, but I have never said that it was "only for education." John's main source for his views seem to be Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI), but Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking out of the Western tradition. I do not deny the value of his words, but do not agree with them entirely and hold that they are not completely applicable to our situation. He seems to be arguing that the Tridentine practice had its value, but "silence" in the Tridentine Mass was not the same thing as "silence" in the modern "Ruthenian Rite Divine Liturgy." In fact, we seem to abhor silence as such, and cantors will often stay in the choir lofts to sing hymns rather than receive Communion with the faithful.

I thank Father David for his post.

I will agree with Father David that he does not use the specific term �education� to describe why he believes a mandate is necessary for the Anaphora to be prayed aloud. He speaks in terms of transmitting information - the need for people to hear and understand what they are saying �Amen� to. That is education. In his �Response to Father Keleher� he stated that: �What the priest says is what the people should come to know� (which could be accomplished in educational classes). Elsewhere he has stated that the people need to hear and understand what the prayers are for their �Amen� to have meaning. This again leads back to a conclusion that Father David is putting much value in idea that the transmission of information (education) is part of the reason for the Anaphora.

Father David notes that I said he desires a mandate for the Anaphora prayers to be prayed aloud �only for education�. I do not believe I used that phrase (and a search did not reveal it in this thread). My repeated point is: �When you give him (and the Anaphora) the additional task of proclamation for the education of man (i.e., the transmission of information) the focus of his prayer is no longer solely about God.� (Emphasis to �additional task� added.) A very logical conclusion to Father David�s argument is that if the people near to hear the prayers in order to say �Amen� this hearing must also educate them enough to be able to know what they are saying �Amen� to.

Father David is absolutely correct when he notes that my main source here is Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). But that is the discussion it in a nutshell! Beyond a few references throughout Orthodox history over the past millennium that consider the possibility of thinking about maybe experimenting with praying these prayers aloud there has been no serious discussion on the matter, let alone widespread experimentation. And I am still unaware of a single mandate anywhere in Orthodoxy directing the priest to pray the Anaphora aloud. So why is the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America mandating a practice that has not yet had serious discussion or experimentation within Orthodoxy?

Another reason for using Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as a main source is that the Ruthenian mandate imitates the current custom in the Latin Church. The Latins have experimented with this custom for about four decades. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaks to problems the Latin Church now has because of the praying of the Anaphora out loud. Since there is no serious, wide-spread discussion in Orthodoxy regarding the praying of the Anaphora aloud and it is now the custom in the Latin Church it is very logical to believe that this mandate for the Ruthenian Church did not come from the East but from the West. Even if it did not come from West (which is difficult to accept) it makes perfect sense to take in to consideration the problems encountered by the Latins. And, in the end, it makes no sense to mandate a custom the current Holy Father is calling on the Latin Church to reconsider. It repeatedly boils down to the need for liberty and not mandates.

On the point of the �silence� in the Tridentine Mass being different than that in the traditional Ruthenian Divine Liturgy I will note that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) qualified the silence by stating that it was �overlaid in part with meditative singing�.

On the point of cantors staying in the loft to sing hymns rather then receive Communion I agree entirely with Father David. First, it is inappropriate for the cantor forgo Communion (if he had not already received that day and was free from serious sin). Second, the idea that every moment must be filled so that there is no silence is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with silence during Communion (after the prescribed hymn). [But endless Communion Hymns bothers me less than hearing cantors repeat the last part of the Cherubic hymn to avoid silence while the priest finishes his prayers and makes his way to the side altar.]

It seems to me that Father David has not really offered anything substantial to support his recommendation for a mandate to take the prayers aloud. If anything, everything offered supports my position of allowing liberty. In the end his argument always seems to devolve to �the bishop said so�. He can certainly appeal to authority and I in no way recommend anyone be disobedient. Yet appeals to authority do not win people to one�s cause.

But there are more questions that Father David has been asked and has not answered. He states that �we have to act on our needs today� but neither specifies these needs nor explains exactly how the mandated praying of the Anaphora out loud fills these needs (and, in the larger discussion, how the Revised Divine Liturgy fills these needs in a way that our very own 1942 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy does not and cannot). In addition, he needs to explain why the needs of the Ruthenian Catholic people are so different than those of the Ukrainian Catholic people who belong to the church down the street, the Carpato-Russian Orthodox people who belong to the parish two blocks away and the needs of those who worship at the Greek, Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox parishes a few neighborhoods over. [I will note again that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church recently re-affirmed that the official Ruthenian recension is its norm and the standard for that Church.] There are many more questions, but that is enough for today.

I will again ask our readers to remember all of the bishops and clergy of the Ruthenian Church in their prayers.

What I am having difficulty grasping is why, whenever liturgical reform is being proposed, or mandated, whether in early 20th century Russia, or in 21'st century Munhall, those who favor renovation always fix on the audible anaphora. Why this particular vestige of the early Church? Why not the married episcopacy? Why not physically locking the doors of the Church at the exclamation "Dveri, dveri"? Why not the expulsion of the unbaptized at the litany of the catechumens? What is it about the audible anaphora that has so captivated those that they risk all to change it.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Alexandr

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

Very interesting question Slavipodvizhnik. And I like the way you phrased it, with the back up examples of things that are not being pursued. Thanks. The Audible Anaphora certianly does seem to be taking up a lot of space on a thread that started out as a critique of a letter to Rome. Maybe a separate thread?

By the way, please take pity on a poor coal miner's son from Western Pennsylvania--what does it mean when Mykhal wrote:

X. B!
C. I. X!

I'm guessing it means pretty much the same thing I wrote at the beginning of my post, only it's a shortcut. Please, someone, educate me on this. I still think we need a reference page where we have the normal greetings and when to use them in the various languages of the Byzantine Rite, as well as any shortcuts such as those above. And a reference page with specific words that are used on a regular basis in these posts, for new people and those who might not understand some things or who have simply forgotten them. Any one else think these are good ideas? I can put together a Byzantine- Rus (Ruthenian) one if someone else would be willing to add the Ukrainian equivalaents, Greek equivalents and any other languages that are used regularly on this Forum.

Tim

It's been asked for years. I have never yet heard a satisfactory answer either, pan Doktor, credibly based on the historical reality of our Churches.

Tim mentioned a worthwhile point, that indeed this thread was started as a response to Gabriel's requests for comments on his letter - please remember those comments need to be on the objective merits (or lack of) the points of which you have dissention from the mandated texts of the RDL, and not use overly subjective and personal descriptives as "stupid hobby-horse", etc.

The folks in Rome may listen to reasoned statements and arguments, but they will likely not be impressed at all with invective. Be careful, objective, and patient.

The moderator(s) may indeed want to make a breakout thread of the other questions raised tangential to Gabriel's letter.