www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Articles on prayers being taken silently or aloud

Mr. Administrator,

First, it was a hypothetical question, not an accusation or attempt to "stifle" serious discussion. If your bishop promulgated liturgical instructions (as he did in our eparchy years ago) and/or was instrumental in changing the liturgicon of our church, would YOU work against him? You stated above that a bishop has the right to implement liturgical instructions, but not change liturgicons.

My question is fair, not silly as you would like to make of it. My question lies at the heart of the position you take.

So, I ask you again: Would you work against your bishop, His Grace Andrew Pitaki, if he promulgated liturgical instructions and/or changes to the liturgicon? or would you support him?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Joe

Dear Administrator,

I'm surprised that anything about me surprises you at all anymore!

But isn't referencing "Latin mentality" a form of name-calling?

(O.K., so you are NOT writing a sequel to "how to make friends and influence people . . ." )

And unless we are 100 per cent sure that that is the perspective that someone is coming from - are we justified in going ahead and using such a term?

I mean, what we call "Latin mentality" could be a reflection of an attitude derived from another system of thought, for example.

If someone sees usefulness in saying the Anaphora out loud, a pastoral usefulness - does this automatically mean one has a "Latin mentality?"

It could, but I fail to see how Father Deacon Lance demonstrated a Latin mentality in so short a post.

Is the "Latin mentality" becoming the "Byzantine bogeyman?" Something to be feared when one is so smeared?

One could say that your refusal to reflect on your own thinking here is "Latin" as well!

And how would you defend yourself against such a charge, if it was formally made?

Would you like me to formally make it, so we could find out?

And I thought Cantor Joseph made a valid point - if it is not true from your perspective, you only need say so.

I didn't compare you to Cantor Joseph, since you are incomparable!

Alex

Mr. Administrator,

It was a hypothetical question. Don't make of it something it was not.

Joe

Alex,

Thank you for not reading into my hypothetical question. Mr. Administrator only needs to say so. Nobody is implying anything.

I believe my question, not implication, is where we can see the tires hit the road ...

Joe


God bless,
Joe

Admin,

No offense taken, however, perhaps Latin mentality is the wrong word as the Latin Church recited the Canon silently until Vatican II. The Tridentines still do and are are aghast at the recitation of the Canon aloud. Western/American mentality perhaps? As I am surely a product of my culture, for better or worse.

I am confused by your a statements. You are aginst revision of the liturgicon, which I can understand, but you state a bishop has the right to declare how the services will be celebrated.

So to clarify: in your opinion, if the Council of Hierarchs issues a directive that certain prayers be taken aloud this is acceptable as long as they don't put it in the Liturgikon?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Cantor Joseph,

I took your question as it was phrased and I'm surprised that the Administrator was surprised etc.

I don't understand what all the hullaballoo about it is.

If the priest wishes to say the Anaphora out loud, what is wrong?

That we aren't doing things exactly like the majority of the Orthodox?

They don't commemorate the Pope in their diptychs - are we supposed to feel bad about that too?

(Am I good or what today? )

Alex

Such a hypothetical question needs hypothetical definitions. Hypothetically, how do you define �work against your bishop�? Are you suggesting that laymen who hold and express an opinion are hypothetically working against their bishop? Please at least be clear in your hypothetical questions.

Father Deacon Lance,

Thank you for your post. You do make a good point regarding the Tridentines and I will have to consider it. You may be correct that there is a better term to use in these discussions that �latinization� since it is too broad.

Your summation of my position is accurate. I thought I have been making these points rather clearly and consistently in these discussions. It has become obvious that I have been unclear and I apologize for my lack of clarity. Please let me restate more concisely:

1. Only the entire Byzantine Church has the right to alter the Byzantine liturgical tradition.

2. Each liturgical recension with in the Byzantine Church has the right to alter those elements that are specific to that particular recension. Local recensions do not have the right to alter the property of the whole.

3. A local Church has the right to issue liturgical instructions on how the liturgy is to be celebrated. A local Church does not have the right to issue a liturgicon that is different from that of the liturgical recension that that local Church belongs to.

Ironically, a good example of this can be found in the Roman Catholic Church. The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome issues a �General Instruction of the Roman Missal� containing the universal liturgical norms for the Latin Church. Local Roman Catholic Churches may modify specific rubrics and include these directives in an appendix. A local Church may not issue a revised Sacramentary. A local Church may not issue its own translation of the liturgy. [Imagine the chaos in the Latin Church if each English-speaking country decided to promulgate their own translations!] This process obviously does not easily transfer to the Byzantine Church (nor am I suggesting an imitation of it) but it does provide an example worth learning from.

Does the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs have the authority to issue a liturgical instruction on how the liturgy is taken? Most certainly.

Is it acceptable to me that they issue a liturgical instruction that is a departure from our liturgical tradition? No. But I have no say in the matter. I am, however, free to argue my position in the marketplace of ideas.

Admin

Alex,

I think you are missing the larger picture. I support the idea that the Spirit will lead change in the Church according to His timing. I reject the idea that the Liturgy is so broken that we need to mandate fixes. If change is ever to be mandated, it must be accomplished at the level of the entire Byzantine Church (at the appropriate level I described above). Historically, Byzantines merely document change a century after it has become accepted throughout the Church.

Regarding this specific situation, I support the freedom given to the individual priest to pray the Anaphora quietly or aloud. I reject the idea that a mandate to take these prayers aloud is necessary because such a limitation is a departure from the Byzantine liturgical tradition.

The issue is not one of a specific custom. The issue is using mandates to effect change. The issue is mandating change that is not mandated within the larger Byzantine Church. I realize that you don�t seem to allow the idea that the entire Byzantine Church should be the caretaker of the Byzantine liturgical tradition but I consider this to be vital.

Admin

Mr. Administrator,

You know exactly what I mean. And I thank you for finally recognizing it as a 'question' and not an 'implication.'

I feel that you just don't want to answer the question.

Another hypothetical question: Do you think the Holy Spirit can work through our hierarchs if they change the liturgicon? Your previous statements seem to indicate - and I'm not trying to "imply" anything here - that the Holy Spirit is incapable of working through our hierarchs as to regards the Liturgy. Am I reading you right?

This is what you wrote:

"The whole idea of mandating change, rather then allowing the Holy Spirit to lead the Church and then document the developments after a century of acceptance and use, is not Byzantine."

The West was very weary of Constantinople making too many innovative changes to the Liturgy.

My question to you is: Did the Holy Spirit make those changes or did the bishops? or both? And did the bishops have to wait a century or two?

//Are you suggesting that laymen who hold and express an opinion are hypothetically working against their bishop? //

I thought you meant by your first statement that you didn�t understand what I meant by �working against� your bishop. Now, you seem to understand it. Do you only understand something if you wish to respond to a hypothetical question with a hypothetical question of your own? Or do you not understand a hypothetical question when you refuse to answer one?

Since you are quite capable of including �working against� in your own sentence � and thus assuming I would know what you mean by it � then my question, which also includes the SAME phrase, still stands: Will you �work against� your bishop, His Grace Andrew Pitaki, if he would promulgate liturgical instructions and/or be instrumental in changing the Liturgicon?

Joe

Once upon a time, our liturgy did not have those who travel by ... AIR! Yet, we put that word in after that invention became a popular means of transportation.

Some Orthdox communities refused to include "air."

Should we have waited for 'all of Orthodoxy' to accept "air" as a means of transportation before we included it?

With wings they do fly,
Joe

Joe,

I do not have the faintest idea of what you mean. Now that you seem to think I understand I am even more confused! I really cannot respond to hypothetical questions I do not understand.

How about we stick to real discussions about real issues? I am still waiting for someone to present an argument that the proposed changes should be mandated and the liturgicon revised. All anyone has provided so far has been personal opinion (which I do respect). Our liturgical tradition currently provides great freedom regarding many of these issues. Why not let the Spirit lead the entire Byzantine Church in the same direction?

Admin

Okay, time for me to put in my 2 rubles worth...

Liturgical growth has always started in a particular local and spread from there to other locales. With the exception of the liturgical revisions in the Latin Church following Vatican II, universal concurrent change to liturgy has not been the case.

Within just the Byzantine tradition we have seen developments that are not at all in agreement with other Byzantine territories. This was clearly seen in the Russian Church where changes were made and then reversed.

As Deacon Lance has pointed out, there is great value in hearing the words of the anaphora. I don't know that I would want to promulgate a rule that the anaphora be said aloud, but I'm equally certain that I would not like to promulgate against that either.

Do I think the Holy Spirit is at work in this? Yes, I do. One of the great problems we have in the Melkite Church is people who do not know what it is we are praying and why -- just look at how many people don't "bow [their] heads to the Lord."

Does a movement have to be universal and concurrent to be the result of the Holy Spirit's actions? No, but there does have to be a starting point and, if it is of the Spirit, it will spread.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear Administrator,

It's not, I don't think, that I'm MISSING the larger picture - it's just that the larger picture isn't under discussion right now.

You are missing the "smaller picture" or the question that Cantor Joseph put to you - what if your OWN BISHOP mandated this liturgical change of saying the Anaphora out loud.

Would you submit to it? Or would you oppose it, within the constraints of legitimate ecclesial opposition, of course.

"Mandate" does not have to refer to the idea of "universal."

Something can be locally mandated.

And your view concerning liturgical freedom would make of liturgical license a status quo.

If I'm correctly reading you, your view here (and I didn't think I was going to get into this discussion, but there you have it) is that:

a) It would be wrong to mandate the reading of the Anaphora out loud because it is out of sync with what universal Byzantine Orthodoxy and Catholicism practices;

b) Such mandate works against the "freedom" of liturgical action which is also the patrimony of the Byzantine tradition;

c) and if your bishop ever did mandate this for his eparchy . . . you would refuse to deal with it.

A 'mandate' does not need to be part of a greater "Latin mentality."

Do Orthodox Churches not "mandate" traditions and practices? There is greater liturgical harmony among the parishes of the OCA than in my Church where "co popyk, to typyk" and I think you know what that means.

Perhaps you reject the possibility, as undesireable, that your own bishops may mandate any such change - that such could only come on the day that Byzantine Orthodoxy as a whole inaugurates this practice (without calling it a "mandate" of course!).

In that case, if that is so, (and only you really know for sure) - what you are saying is that to be truly "Orthodox (but in communion with Rome - parentheses mine)" is to have to slavishly follow all they do, exactly as they do it.

And yet, perhaps, just perhaps, this view is a truly "Latin" view, even a "Uniate" view.

But I think I've annoyed you enough for one day . . .

Alex

Alex,

Thank you for your post.

Many of the changes that Mr. Thur is arguing for � including the praying of the Anaphora aloud - have been mandated in the Eparchy of Passaic for (about) five years. This is why I am so confused by Mr. Thur�s hypothetical questions regarding my working against something that is already real. My ongoing contributions to our Church � meager and devoid of quality as they are � on a continuing basis (five years after many of the changes being discussed have been promulgated!) should have indicated to him my loyalty to our Church.

Regarding your other questions, I have already addressed them in earlier posts.

Admin