www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Audible Anaphora

Please consider that there is a very good reason for not putting the texts of specific prayers into the books. Very often people become so intent at following the words in the book before them that they fail to listen to the words. At the Gospel we pray "Wisdom! Let us stand aright and listen to the Holy Gospel". It's about listening and hearing, not about following in a book. Next time you are at a Roman Mass in a parish that has the booklets with the text of the readings watch the people during the readings. Many will never look up but will have their eyes glued to the book. I seem to remember some studies that showed that people remember less when they concentrate on following what is being read instead of just paying attention to what is being read.

I know that Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia is a firm supporter of the anaphora being offered aloud as it is the natural progression from the dialogue between the priest and the people:

P: Peace be with you all.

R: and with your spirit.

P: Let us lift up our hearts.

R: We lift them up unto the Lord.

P: Let us give thanks (literally let us offer the eucharist) unto the Lord.

R: It is fitting and right (so to do).

Kallistos also argues that the anaphora is the prayer of the people, offered on behalf of the people by the priest, and so the people have the right to hear it.

Fr. Taft also presents some very strong evidence that the anaphora was offered aloud in the early Church both as prayer and as instruction.

Personally I don't see why offering the anaphora aloud cannot be both prayer and instruction; as we pray so we believe.

Hello to all! I'm new here!

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

So the people just stare at the books pretending that the prayers are there. Saw that all the time at my former GC parish, even with the old books. Well at least now they're listening to the Anaphora and praying along with priest, right?

While I understand this argument, and I agree that it is not necessary to have all the prayers and readings in the books, as a visual learner I particularly appreciate the opportunity to read the epistle and gospel myself. I have very poor retention when I just hear them spoken or chanted. I don't see that it is necessarily a bad thing that some people have their eyes glued to a book. After all, the epistles and Gospels were given to us in written form. The epistles were letters written to people. While I'm sure they were disseminated to masses in oral form, that probably has more to do with the fact that not everyone could read than any considerations about whether they should listen vs. read.

Well, no. As the Roman Catholics point out, most people tune out the words of the priest during the out loud anaphora. I guess you reject Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger)'s point about there being a crisis in the anaphora because it is taken aloud. Once again you ignore an important argument by an important person. He points out and we all need to learn what a Divine Silence is.

My position stays firm. Liberty is the way for the Spirit to work. If an individual priest desires to take part or all of the anaphora aloud, let him. But don't mandate it. Currently in the Ruthenian Church of Pittsburgh he must take one part of the anaphora aloud but is forbidden to take the latter part aloud. That is a rather silly directive.

Those who insist on mandates for such things either claim the work of the Spirit only for themselves or they believe that the Spirit will not bring about their desired result on His own so they must do it for Him.

What then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) wrote was simply, as you say, his point or opinion. It did not have any force of law, binding on the Roman or Eastern Churches. He saw it as a crisis and wrote that opinion in his book, and yes, I do disagree with that opinion. I don't see it as a crisis. There are many opportunities for silence in the Roman Mass already. Reverting to silence at the Eucharistic prayer in the Liturgy, is in my opinion, not a good way to move.

As far as the Pittsburgh Metropolia, mandating that the Anaphora be taken aloud is not outside the council of bishops' power as custodians of the Liturgy, do you agree? Can you point me to the directive where it says that only part of the Anaphora is to be taken aloud while the rest is forbidden to be said aloud? That's the first that I've heard of this. Is this a Passaic directive only or throughout the whole Church? I haven't heard anyone (on the Liturgical committee? the council of bishops?) claiming the work of the Spirit for themselves, who made such claims? Perhaps if you brought this to Rome's attention, with the proper documentation ie. names, dates, place of such pronouncements, Rome would in fact, restore the old Liturgy. These are serious charges you are making and should be treated as such.

I agree. His opinion does not have the force of law. Yet it seems unwise to mandate the Latin custom when very intelligent Latins say there is problem with the custom. Do you not believe that liberty on this question would best give the Holy Spirit the ability to lead?

No I don't agree. There is plenty of precedent that a bishop may allow variance from the normative order but not mandate variance. The Ordo Celebrationis Vesperarum, Matutini et Divinae Liturgiae Iuxta Recensionem Ruthenorum” (Rome, 1944), §134 states clearly: "The priest quietly states the prayer: 'With these blessed powers, O Master, Lover of Mankind...'" (underline added). There are numerous other similar directives in the Liturgicon and Ordo (in the Ordo see also §133-136 for similar directives regarding the rest of the Anaphora). As I have stated, I would allow these prayers out loud as a variance from the Vatican directives and our longstanding custom but would not mandate such a variance.

See the new altar liturgicon for the Ruthenian Church. Chrysostom page 72 directs that the prayer "It is proper and just" be prayed out loud. Page 73 directs that the prayer "We also cry out" be prayed aloud. Page 75 "Remembering....", Page 75 "Moreover we offer" and what follows until the intonation for "It is truly proper" are all directed to be prayed aloud. Page 78, however, directs that the last part of the Anaphora be prayed "quietly", beginning with the remembrance of John the Baptist. I won't quote it here unless you really need it, but the Basil Liturgicon has similar directives.

Father David Petras has done so on the pages of this very Forum. Check his posts (but you may have to read a bit as the search engine provided with the software is not as robust as one might hope).

A formal appeal on the whole Liturgy is in process. I am also investigating the canonical version of a lawsuit to force the bishops to allow the Byzantine Liturgy in its normative form, and in a translation that is in conformity with the Vatican directives (as the RDL violates those directives).

Look at it this way. Pope Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum - On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970” guaranteed the right of any Latin Rite priest to celebrate the Mass according the Missal of Pope John XXIII (which most people call the "Tridintine Mass") and made clear that local bishops do not have the authority to prohibit them from celebrating what he calls the "Extraordinary Form" of the Latin-Rite Mass. What I am arguing for is that the Vatican uphold the right of Byzantine-Ruthenian priests to celebrate not an extraordinary form of the Divine Liturgy (Chrysostom and Basil) but the ordinary form, the normative form as promulgated and directed by Rome.

I think that Card. Ratzinger was referring specifically to the Roman Eucharistic prayer however, not any Church's Anaphora. The prayer in St. John Chrysostom's liturgy will never embody the silence he was speaking of, as it is punctuated with acclamations by the priest, responded to by the choir/people. The old Mass had an entirely silent Canon, punctuated only by bells at the elevations. There is a difference. Using his argument doesn't entirely work in the case of SJC liturgy. Maybe the Holy Spirit has lead by allowing this revision to come to pass.



Thanks--I don't have access to the priest's book, but I'll take your word for it.


Well, if as you say, he claimed his (and the committee's) work was that of the Holy Spirit, that is indeed, in my eyes, quite serious. I hope that is part of your case.


Using the phrase "to force the bishops" makes me a bit uncomfortable. Kinda sounds like mandate. I'll leave that alone.


The 1969 Roman Missal is now the ordinary form of the Roman Mass and 1962 Roman Missal is called the extraordinary form. Maybe the analogy is that the new Liturgicon is the ordinary form of the Liturgy for the Pittsburgh Metropolia and the 1944 is the extraordinary form. That seems to follow suit. Though I don't see the vast chasm between the two Liturgicons that is very self evident between the two Missals.

I only see good things in allowing and even mandating the Anaphora to be prayed aloud and to be heard by everyone. Don't you?

I think most liturgical scholars would argue the Anaphora concludes with the Epiclesis and the Dyptychs constitute a seperate prayer.

What Roman Catholics point out "most people" tune out the priest during the Eucharistic Prayer? How could they possibly know? At the Massess I've been to everyone looks as attentive as people I see at Divine Liturgy, Anaphora aloud or silent. I would also point out in the Roman Canon the Preface, the Prayer that corresponds to "It is proper and just..." was always aloud. The Words of Institution which are chanted aloud in our tradition are secret in the Extraordinary Form. Both forms of the Roman Rite have several moments of silence. There is no silence in the Byzantine Rite as when the priest does say things secretly the people are singing something. It is simply impossile to apply Pope Benedict's writings on the Roman Rite and its reform to the Byzantine Rite because it is comparing apples and oranges.

Do the rubrics not count for anything anymore? The rubrics for the past 1600 years have called for the priestly prayers to be spoken quietly. Why this sudden need for change? This whole business disquiets me to no end. What's next, big screen TVs instead of an iconostas so that the laity can watch as well as hear?

Count me out. I'll stick to that which has been handed down to me.

Alexandr

The Ruthenian Liturgicon has no rubric that Anaphora be silent, so at the very least as John states it should be left to the priest whether the Anaphora is prayed secretly or aloud.

Father Deacon,

As I noted, the rubrics for the prayers to be prayed quietly are in the Ordo. Please check the sections that I listed. The Ordo is not full of suggestions, but directives that are expected to be followed, or at least allowed.

I am glad that you agree that these directives from Rome should be allowed.

John

OK, help me out here. I have looked at the Nikonion Sluzhebnik and the Greek Liturgikon. The Sluzhebnik clearly uses the word "Taino" - "mystically", whilst the Greek uses "Mystikos". I don't have an Old Rite Sluzhebnik, but this clip of an Old Rite Liturgy again, confirms the silent Anaphora.



Now looking at the Ruthenian Recension, I notice the adjective "Taino" to be conspicuously absent.

http://www.patronagechurch.com/Sluzebnik/htm/251.htm

So where did this innovation originate? And why?

Alexandr

I know what the Ordo says. The Ordo also has instructions for the Liturgy in Simple form. The Ruthenian Liturgicon is the product of exacting scholarship to present a Liturgicon free of later interpolations like invented rubrics that say the Anaphora should be silent. The Ordo often inserts rubrics that simply don't exist in the Liturgicon. Where the Liturgicon is silent the Ordo should remain so as well. The Ordo should be instructive not prescriptive, that is the job of the Liturgicon.