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

Read Cardinal Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy". He does not get into detail but speaks of what the German liturgists "explicitly" call a "crisis" because of the out loud anaphora. If Roman Catholics at the level of the man who is now the pope speak of a crisis and say that maybe the quiet anaphora was better does it makes sense to imitate their custom via mandate? It seems to me that liberty is a better way for the Spirit to lead.

I quote Cardinal Ratzinger below.

Some conclude that it ends with the Lord's Prayer.

Here is the quote from “Spirit of the Liturgy”. In it he specifically addresses Liturgy both East and West:
There really is no reason for a mandate since the Latins have problems with the custom. Why imitate with a mandate what the Latins are having problems with?

So you support a mandate for the bishops to prohibit the official Liturgy in favor of their own personal preferences (to pray the Anaphora out loud) but not one directing the bishops to allow the Byzantine Liturgy in its normative form, and the form used by most Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox? Very odd.

The Ruthenian Church of Pittsburgh does not have the authority to leave the Ruthenian liturgical recension and to design its own Liturgy. The 1942 Liturgicon with the 1944 Ordo remain normative for the Pittsburgh Metropolia. It is merely that the bishops have forbidden their own Liturgy in the form promulgated by Rome and which they share with other members of the Ruthenian recension (Johnstown Orthodox, the Ukrainians (Catholic and Orthodox) and the Slovaks and Hungarians and, in totality except for a few prayers and rubrics with all of Byzantium, both Catholic and Orthodox) in favor of a rework based upon the personal preferences of those involved.

No, I don’t. I respect Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) enough to accept that he has identified a real problem, and that Byzantines should let the Latins work out the problems before mandating their customs. But, of course, after reading my posts about liberty you are baiting (especially after your original position was (quoting from one of your earlier posts in this thread): "There are times when even I think that it is ok to say it silently, like on days such as Pascha when the Liturgy is very long". I see mostly that the mandate thwarts the Spirit to lead where He will, violates the Liturgical Instruction, and that it creates further difference between them other Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox) and between Ruthenians and all other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox). No other Orthodox Church has such a mandate and, indeed, some have prohibitions on the praying of the anaphora out loud.

The adjective "Taino" does not appear to be an intentional omission. It is contained in the 1944 Ordo that followed, and the way the Ordo is constructed makes clear that it was giving directives for what had been missed or unclear in the Chrysostom Liturgicon.

The Basil Liturgicon (done after the Chrysostom Liturgicon) does have "taino" at the beginning of the Anaphora (at the prayer beginning with "O Ever-Existing One, Master, Lord, Father Almighty, Adorable", and at the prayer after the "Holy, Holy, Holy" beginning with "With these blessed Powers, O Master, Lover of Mankind").

John--quite honestly, the only one that I have ever read or heard from that there is a crisis in the Roman Eucharistic prayer being taken aloud is from Card. Ratzinger. If it was such an issue, there were would be many more calls and outcry for it to be silent in the ordinary form of the Mass. That outcry is just not there. If people, as you think, long for a silent Eucharistic prayer, they now have the option to find an old (Extraordinary) low Mass and experience it. There are enough of them around. I'm not convinced it's the issue that the pope or you make it out to be.


I don't think that it was their own personal preferences. I think that they did what they thought was pastorally appropriate. And Rome approved it, regardless of who might have just "rubber stamped" it or got wined and dined by certain bishops as has be intimated on here. The bishops are the chief liturgists and custodians of the liturgy in their dioceses. Is that not true?

Have you watched any of the broadcast Liturgies from the Johnstown cathedral? They are certainly not taking the "normative form" as you call it and that is an Orthodox cathedral. Are all Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, except the Pittsburgh Ruthenians, are following the 1942 Liturgicon and 1944 Ordo in it's exactitude? I doubt it.


The Pittsburgh Church didn't leave the Ruthenian recension and adopt a different one.
And again, I think that the bishops did what they deemed pastorally appropriate, whether one agrees with it or not. It is not a radical departure. In my former parish, after the promulgation there was actually more of the liturgy taken than had previously been.
And again, Rome approved it.
And again, I'd like to see how well all these other churches are following the "normative" liturgy. I know that the Ukrainians Catholic parishes around me here in CT aren't.


Sorry John, I don't think that it's the real problem that you and the pope think it is in the Roman Church. There are too many loud voices that would be crying out, and that cry is just not there. As much as there have been latinizations by the Eastern Churches in the past, I don't think that mandating the praying aloud of the Anaphora is one of them. I see it more as opening the treasure of that prayer to all those worshipping.
I am not contradicting my "original position." I stated that saying the prayer silently on certain days, especially when the liturgy is extremely long can be a good option, but my "original position" is and has been, that taking the Anaphora aloud is a good thing.

You can honestly say that you see no good in having the Anaphora prayed aloud?

I've never once suggested that. My position all along in these discussions over the past several years has been consistent. Allow the Spirit the liberty to work on this issue. Near the end of your post you seem to agree with that. Unlike those who pushed the Revision upon the Ruthenian Church, I have never demanded that the Church adapt the Liturgy to my personal taste. I have argued that the normative form of the Liturgy be allowed, and (on this issue) that priests be given liberty. [Yes, it is true that in Johnstown they abbreviate the Liturgy. But Met. Nicholas does not mandate an abbreviated Liturgy - parishes that wish to celebrate a full Liturgy are free to do so. (Why is that so offensive to you?) In the Ruthenian Catholic Church they are prohibited from doing so, and parts of the Liturgy were removed from the liturgical books. I am surprised that you cannot see the difference between the two.]

Also, that you have not heard of the issue and think that Pope Benedict XVI and I are the only ones who are considering it suggests that you have done little or no research on the issue. You have a tendency in your posts to state that because you personally have not heard of an issue then such an issue does not exist. You also have a tendency to simply ignore many of the points made.

The Tradition in the Byzantine Churches has always been to establish liturgical minima that must be observed and then allow individual communities to determine whether they wish to do more. The Byzantine liturgy, because of its history, is essentially monastic in nature, and only monastic communities as a rule actually celebrate all the services in their fullness (and even most of them abbreviate in places). Cathedral usage represents an abbreviation of the monastic usage (though the pontifical Divine Liturgy includes many ancient practices that later fell out of common use), while parochial usage represents a further abridgment.

However, none of those abridgments is mandated. A priest who wishes to do a parochial service according to the full monastic rite is welcome to try. Practicality and the spiritual situation in each parish, as a rule, determines how much is done and how often.

Leaving aside the defects of the translation and music, if the RDL had been promulgated as the minimum that could be done in a Ruthenian parish, it would have been in keeping with the Tradition. To say "this much, and no more", is not in keeping with the Tradition.

My observation is parishes that strive to be more faithful to the typicon and do more than the minimum are more dynamic and prosperous than those that do the minimum. Those who want a 45 minute Liturgy can always go to a Latin church for Mass. Those who want real liturgical meat are left starving by the RDL, and will go where they can find what they need.

As regards the anaphora, the same principle should apply. Insofar as the audible anaphora fell out of use, its restoration should be allowed to proceed organically rather than be mandated from the top down. Of course, that would require the bishops to engage in better clerical education and catechesis for the laity, so that they can, on their own, decide whether this is something they want to restore. But it is sooooo much easier to rule by episcopal fiat, no matter what the consequences.

One thing on which I would insist, assuming that priests wish to continue reciting the prayers "quietly" (the rubrics do not say "silently")--that they should actually read the prayers, and not pretend that they have. I know the prayers of the anaphora, and far too often it is painfully apparent that the celebrant is just rushing from ecphonesis to ecphonesis without actually reading anything.

Were they thinking seriously about Liturgy in 19th century Russia! No, they were not!

Sometimes Alexandr's attitude toward change would lead us to think he rejects the Nikonian reforms and believes the Old Ritualists were correct (which, in many ways, they were).

First of all, the rubrics for the past 1600 years did not call for the prayers of the anaphora to be read quietly. That novella from the 560s shows that silent prayers were an innovation, which was, apparently, contrary to the rubrics. That it became the rule over time does not mean it was correct, only that it was common. The earliest sets of rubrics in use today are no older than the 14th or 15th centuries.

It is the rule in the Latin Church not to give communion to children below "the age of reason", and it has been so since the 13th century. But there was never a good theological rationale for this, and in fact it has never been Latin doctrine to say that infant communion is not efficacious. An examination of the history behind the usage shows a need to reform.

Similarly, a review of the history behind the custom of reciting the prayers of the anaphora quietly also shows need for reform.

There is much in Orthodox liturgical usage that requires reform, as a review of the work of Fr. Alexander Schmemann (and to a lesser extent, Fr. John Meyendorff) demonstrated. Some progress is being made in areas such as, e.g., frequent communion and congregational chanting. Yet one still runs into Orthodox who insist that such restorations are in fact "latinizations" caused by blind imitation of the post-Vatican II Latin Church. Of course, the exact opposite is true. Composed polyphonic chant was introduced in the Russian Church only from the mid-17th century, and the operatic-style liturgical compositions of Rimsky, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, sung by trained choirs while the people stand mutely listening is in fact both an innovation and an abuse.

As for infrequent communion, the Fathers were railing against it in the fourth and fifth centuries, but could do nothing to arrest it. The stringent pre-communion discipline of many Orthodox jurisdictions is in turn predicated on the assumption that people will only receive once or twice per year, and therefore need extraordinary preparation. In turn, the stringency of the rules discourages frequent communion, which breeds a vicious cycle. Those jurisdictions which have mitigated some of the customary disciplines (e.g., confession before receiving every time) have been able to encourage the people to receive more frequently, which is, in fact, the authentic Tradition.

For Alexandr's edification, the Ruthenian recension is pre-Nikonian. To discover whether the word "taino" ought to be in the rubrics, he would have to look not at the Nikonian liturgicon (or the Greek liturgicons on which it was based), but to something like the 1629 Liturgicon of Piotr Moghila or some of the Old Ritualist books.

Never once suggested it? Then what was this?
Originally Posted By: John K
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?


Originally Posted By: Administrator
No, I don’t. I respect Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) enough to accept that he has identified a real problem, and that Byzantines should let the Latins work out the problems before mandating their customs. But, of course, after reading my posts about liberty you are baiting (especially after your original position was (quoting from one of your earlier posts in this thread): "There are times when even I think that it is ok to say it silently, like on days such as Pascha when the Liturgy is very long". I see mostly that the mandate thwarts the Spirit to lead where He will, violates the Liturgical Instruction, and that it creates further difference between them other Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox) and between Ruthenians and all other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox). No other Orthodox Church has such a mandate and, indeed, some have prohibitions on the praying of the anaphora out loud.

Do you or don't you agree that praying the Anaphora aloud is a good thing and profitable for the priest and for the people to pray along with? "Allowing the Spirit liberty," doesn't answer that question.

You seem to be ignoring the point that I made that perhaps the Spirit could be working through this and that the bishops were not pushing their own personal tastes, but adapting the liturgy as they saw pastorally fit in this time and place. You seem not to even consider that these could be valid points.

It's not offensive to me that a parish priest may celebrate a fuller liturgy. That is great, and perhaps if the majority were doing so, Met. Judson never would have seen the need to start the process to promulgate one. How many did much less, and the new liturgicon is a step up to a fuller liturgy? I know that it raised the bar in my former parish.

I read much more about Western liturgy, both former and current, than you can surmise from my postings here. Please don't intimate that I "have done little or no research." I am not the only one who has a "tendency to ignore."

Read what I wrote throughout. I have argued for the liberty for the priest to pray the anaphora either quietly or aloud, as the Spirit leads him. That I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) that the custom currently used by the Latins has been problematic is not evidence of a call to prohibit a priest from praying the anaphora out loud. I have never done so, and no can claim that I have done that. You should know better.

Do I or don't I agree that praying the Anaphora out loud is a good thing and profitable? I have no personal opinion on the issue. I have great respect for the received tradition and do not believe it should be prohibited, as the Ruthenians have done. My point on this issue remains that a mandate to copy the Latin custom is wrong especially when the Latins themselves state that the custom has caused a "crisis" in the Canon of their Mass. My point remains that the normative customs promulgated by Rome and shared by other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) should not be prohibited.

I did not ignore the point you tried to make about the Spirit working through the bishops' mandate. I rejected it. Do you really believe that the Spirit works by creating division among the Churches? I made clear that while there are other Byzantine Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) who either discourage or prohibit the praying of the Anaphora out loud it is inappropriate for the bishops to mandate a variant custom. Section 21 of the Liturgical Instruction speaks of the "ecumenical value of the common liturgical heritage" and clearly directs: "In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage." Is the Spirit the author of division in the Church? Or would not liberty better serve until some future date when the Church (Catholic and Orthodox) act together? Are the Vatican instructions so unworthy in your opinion that they need to be ignored? In these discussions you have rejected both the "Liturgical Instruction" and "Liturgiam Authenticam".

I'm glad the fuller Liturgy is not offensive to you!

There are numerous parishes that had to eliminate many parts of the Liturgy with the mandate of the RDL. In many places it was the equivalent of replacing the full Byzantine Liturgy with a "Low Mass" version of the Liturgy, with inaccurate translations and political correctness thrown in.

Metropolitan Judson spoke of publishing a new edition of the liturgicon, one with corrections. Publicly, he just wanted to better enable the parishes to sing. It appears that the reform took on a life of its own, and that Bishop Pataki wanted as many changes as possible to differentiate us from other Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox). I recommend you contact him and ask him - he will certainly give you his opinions.

My posts almost always quote supporting evidence. Yours almost never do. Further, my posts are always in support of allowing the normative and official Liturgy. The burden of proof always falls upon those seeking mandated change. So far what you have provided here is of the "I think people would benefit from it" while rejecting the valued and learned opinion of the Holy Father. My recommendation of liberty allows respect for both sides, and room for the Spirit to work. I do not understand why that is offensive.

As a final question. I am curious, and you don't have to answer since it is a bit personal. You were once Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic. Then - if I remember correctly - you were attending a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parish. Now you identify yourself as "Anglo-Catholic/Episcopal" in your profile and list your home page as "Christ Church" in New Haven. If the Revised Divine Liturgy and the mandates behind it are so wonderful to you why do you no longer attend a Ruthenian Church?

I have no problem answering. First, yes you do remember correctly, I did belong to Holy Trinity GC Church in New Britain and moved directly from there to Christ Church. I did not ever attend a Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox parish. Feel free to PM me and I'll be glad to share why we left.

It should also be noted that the Oriental Tradition, which is generally considered more ancient than the Byzantine, is an audible Anaphora with much dialog between Priest and choir/people.