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

Admin,

Just a thought...

perhaps what the Council of Hierarchs of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh have proposed is not a liturgicon that is different from the Ruthenian Recension, but a liturgicon for a proposed "American Recension"?

Fr Deacon Ed commented:
For some time, the practice in the Eparchy of Van Nuys has been to chant presbyteral prayers including the anaphora aloud. This practice certainly pre-dates my joining the Byzantine Church in 1996. So as Fr Deacon Ed stated, practices do start at the local level and spread beyond. We know from history that mandates or decrees from above never occur in a vacuum, there always is a local practice that serves as a precedent. If the Metropolitan with Council of Hierarchs does promulgate a new liturgicon, there would not be (IMHO) a notable change in the Eparchy of Van Nuys.

Dear Administrator,

I suppose you're not the only one who's confused by this thread!

I guess I'm no closer to figuring you Ruthenians out than I was before I came here.

Perhaps you should all take a break and go to the sexuality thread in the Town Forum.

Happy Valentine's Day!

Alex

Mr. Administrator,

You are spinning the issue again as usual. So far you answered half my question. You seem to indicate that you will not work against liturgical instructions. This is progress.

Now, let me ask you the second half of my hypothetical question: Will you "work against" (you did use the phrase yourself so I take it that you do understand what it means) changes to the Liturgicon if your bishop was involved?

Joe

No, Alex. The issue of sex may prove to be troublesome. Even our former President, Bill Clinton, had a difficult time understanding what others meant by "sex."

Joe

Mr. Thur,

I have asked you several times to define what you mean by �work against�. If you continue to fail to define your terms it is impossible for me to answer your question. I will not be put in the position of attempting to guess what you mean only to have you decide that you really meant something else. If you provide specific examples of what you mean by �working against� (i.e., holding a differing opinion, transferring to another Church and encouraging others to follow, organizing riots and boycotts, etc.) then I can attempt to answer.

You have previously asked me why I produce liturgy books that include some rubrics that I disagree with. Each time you have asked me this question I have responded by telling you that I respect the authority of the local bishop and always conform to any specific directives (or, where there are no directives, the direction of the priest(s) asking for my work). If the fact that I have a 20 year history of producing materials that conform to official directives and requests � even those I may disagree with - does not convince you of my respect for authority and my loyalty to our Church, then nothing I write in this forum will.

Admin

//I have asked you several times to define what you mean by �work against�. If you continue to fail to define your terms it is impossible for me to answer your question.//

You have used the phrase several times in your own posts. I think you know what it means by now.

//If you provide specific examples of what you mean by �working against� (i.e., holding a differing opinion, transferring to another Church and encouraging others to follow, organizing riots and boycotts, etc.) then I can attempt to answer.//

My question is hypothetical: If your bishop was instrumental in promulgating changes in our Liturgicon, would you work against him? This is the ONLY question I ask. No need to spin and run. You stated earlier that our church should not be changing the Liturgicon. So, my question is whether you will work against your bishop if he did/does. That is all. Not very difficult to understand, I think.

//If the fact that I have a 20 year history of producing materials that conform to official directives and requests � even those I may disagree with - does not convince you of my respect for authority and my loyalty to our Church, �///

Again, this only confirms the answer to the first part of my hypothetical question � whether you will work against your bishop if he implemented or promulgated liturgical instructions. Your loyalty is demonstration enough. Now, for the second part of my hypothetical question: Will you work against your bishop if he was instrumental in changing the Liturgicon? It was you who differentiated between �liturgical instructions� (Part One) and �changing the Liturgicon� (Part Two). I am just asking you to finish answering the question regarding the Liturgicon (Part Two).

///� then nothing I write in this forum will.//

Most of your writing demonstrates that you do not believe that our bishops have the capacity and/or authority to change the Liturgicon, Ruthenian or otherwise.

* * * * * * *

Some comments on your previous summaries:

// It is wrong from one tiny Church within the larger liturgical tradition to automatically conclude that the Holy Spirit had no part in these particular developments and to prune the liturgy to its own liking.//

The Council Fathers have termed some changes as being �inorganic.� This would seem to indicate that the Church, in council, has already discerned the difference between the work of the Holy Spirit and the work that isn�t. Hence, the reason why we were instructed to rid of those inorganic changes due to particular people and circumstances. Are you suggesting that the Council Fathers didn�t quite get it? That they were mistaken about the Holy Spirit?

//If the Spirit is prompting a change in this regard He will prompt the entire Church and we should wait and act as a whole.//

How do we know when the Spirit is prompting us? What if most of us don�t want to respond if He did? Do we wait until all of us are convinced first, then act? Cooperating with the Holy Spirit is called �synergy.� Not all will be synergetic. There will always be people who will stubbornly refuse. The Gospels point out many who just didn�t get it or wanted to get it. Isaiah 1:3 is basically a commentary on �those who knew Him not.�

//The custom of praying the Anaphora quietly has been the near universal practice for most of the life of the Church. To dismiss the custom as merely an abuse does not give the issue the serious consideration it deserves. Those who support revisions have simply not made a case for these revisions, let alone a compelling one. [This is not to say that I do not respect them or their opinions. But what has been put forward does not rise beyond the level of personal preference.]//

As Fr. David noted, as the vernacular takes hold more, the practice of taking prayers aloud (as originally intended) will naturally occur. You can�t always tag anything you don�t agree with as mere �personal preference.� That is a fallacy. We ALL have personal preferences. But if that was the case, we would never be able to discern the nature of anaphoric prayer, community prayer, the intent and purpose of the Anaphora and how it should be executed to its nature. We, who have come to appreciate the Anaphora for WHAT IT IS and not for reasons that border on a form of gnosticism and false mysticism, will be instrumental in bringing it back to its place at the Liturgy. It�s already happening. Many here on these forums HAVE made many cases for the taking of the Anaphora aloud. You just simply don�t want to accept it. It�s that plain and simple. Your need for a silent Anaphora is very great and we recognize that.

//If the change you advocate is of the Holy Spirit then it will occur naturally across the Church and not just in the Ruthenian Church. If and when it becomes the normative custom then it will be appropriate to include it in the liturgical books.//

Who makes up these rules? Many Latinizations did creep into our liturgical tradition and became the norm.

//If a Church desires to review the liturgical tradition in order to make pastoral provisions it is imperative that that Church first be fully formed in the liturgical tradition. We Ruthenians cannot pretend that our Church has been fully formed by the Byzantine Liturgy when the full parochial liturgical cycle of worship is celebrated in less than a dozen of our parishes.//

Once again, you make things impossible to happen. If that WAS the criterion, then none of us would be celebrating Vespers, Pre-Sanctified Liturgy, Jerusalem Matins, Royal Hours, and/or communicating infants. But there will always be those who will stubbornly refuse to cooperate and stubbornly refuse to admit their identity and stubbornly refuse to accept who they are. Do we hold off on restoring our traditions in those churches already educated and willing to revive itself, or do we wait until EVERYONE is good and ready? Anyway, if there were any pastoral provisions to be made it would be for those that have already arrived, not for those who won�t listen. You can lead a horse to water but you can�t make it drink it. Any new Liturgicon will be rejected and shelved like any old one.

//If one only uses the example of the restoration of the deaconate and how it is positively impacting the liturgical lives of our parishes I cannot see how anyone can advocate any mandated change prior to fully recovery and living this recovery for a few generations. In this regard, we begin � as a Church � to see a glimpse of what we have lost and must recover.//

But the deaconate is not accepted in all our churches. Many DO see the glimpse, but many will never see the light. Now what do you do? Tell the honor students to wait for Muff and Jeff to get their act together? Personally, those who won�t accept any revised Liturgicon tomorrow are most likely not accepting the Liturgicon they already have. The personal spirituality and taste of the pastor will determine what will be done. Everyone wants to be bishop.

//Further, it is also imperative that we first restore monasticism within our Church. Monastics pray the liturgy in a much fuller form than is possible at the parish level. We must allow for this recovery so that we can have a generation or two of monastics who are formed within the fullness of our liturgical tradition so that they can speak to these issues.//

This is a very good point. But, then again, the monastic office is NOT the cathedral office. There is a difference.

BTW, what did you think of the articles that Fr. Deacon Lance provided? Do you think the Orthodox are getting just as goofy as Ruthenians about this Anaphora issue?


Joe

Funny that the restoration of the diaconate is mentioned.

According to Georges Florovsky, the diaconate is a "problem" in the contemporary situation of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. He writes that the liturgical function of the deacon "belongs, as it were, to the plene esse of the liturgical rite, to its ceremonial completeness and perfection, rather than to its very esse . As a matter of fact, there are no (emphasis mine) deacons at all in the majority of Orthodox communities today."

I imagine most Orthodox posters on this forum would no doubt agree that deacons are not the norm in their parishes. I know that is the case among the Orthodox parishes in the metropolitan Phoenix area.

So here we are reviving the diaconate, which the admin admits is having a positive liturgical impact upon the parishes, but certainly we are going against the tide of practice among world Orthodoxy.

The quote from Fr Florovsky is dated. Deacons exist in many Orthodox parishes these days (though almost never in Greek parishes). The little OCA mission parish in this area has had two Deacons since we've been here. So, we are not going against the "tide of practice of world Orthodoxy" on this issue as far as I can see.

I am puzzled by this thread.

I get the impression that some think the Administrator must agree with a particular liturgical viewpoint to be a loyal son of the Church.

I submit that the Administrator has proved by his actions his loyalty and is entitled to disagree on this issue as we all are entitled to do so.

Thanks, Dave!

I can only state again that I do not understand Mr. Thur�s question. He is recasting something that occurred five years ago into a hypothetical situation. He makes it impossible to answer because he refuses to define what he means, even when I have gone the extra mile and provided him with possible definitions of what he means by �working against�. It�s as silly as asking: �Hypothetically speaking, do you think that New England can win the Super Bowl on February 1st? Is Adam Vinatieri purposely working against the Patriots in the Super Bowl because he is arguing in favor of the traditional pre-game meal of steak and pasta when the coaches have ordered Atkins shakes?�

The hypothetical situation Mr. Thur asks about in his �are you still beating your wife� type question actually occurred five years ago. Many of the revised rubrics were implemented in the Passaic Eparchy and a new liturgicon published five years ago. I am still here and I still offer my meager efforts to those who request them. As always, they conform to the official directives of each eparchy. They will continue to conform until those in authority publish official texts and my efforts are no longer needed. If the witness of my actions to a very real situation has not convinced Mr. Thur that I always work for the Church, then my responses to his poorly written hypothetical questions most certainly will not convince him.

Father Deacon John referenced my comment that the restoration of the deaconate is having a positive effect upon our Church. I would like to develop this point a bit. The parish I belong to got its first deacon in 1989. For the first few years the parish saw this as both wonderful and strange. Wonderful because they saw for the first time just how much the service of a deacon adds to the Liturgy. Strange because it was not the norm they were used to. Eventually, having a deacon serve the Liturgy became the norm in the parish and when the deacon did not serve the people noticed something was missing. After 15 years people still comment that they never realized how much the deacon contributes to the Liturgy. What they are seeing is a glimpse of the fullness of the Liturgy. They are beginning to realize that we were missing something. They are beginning to understand the necessity of a deacon in Byzantine liturgical worship. The people are realizing this because they have seen for themselves something that cannot be realized from a reading a liturgicon or a history book.

OK. Keep in your mind this glimpse into our liturgical tradition by both our clergy and people during the very brief time our Church has had deacons again. This beginning of a new mindset is important.

You may ask, what does this example have to do with the current discussion and the point I am trying to make?

Everything. Just as having a deacon celebrate the Liturgy adds to the development of a Byzantine mindset (a glimpse so far) so, too, does everything in our liturgical tradition. Our Church needs to restore and live the fullness of the Byzantine Liturgy for a few generations before this glimpse into our liturgical tradition has matured into an adult understanding of our liturgical tradition.

Father Deacon John�s comments earlier in this thread about how his parish is already used to the revisions are important, but in a much larger sense than his example. The revisions seem logical to him because he is used to them. He has known nothing else. This is my point. We cannot pretend to know and understand the fullness of the Byzantine Liturgy until we have actually lived it for several generations and, as a Church, get used to it. It is only by living the liturgical tradition in its fullness that we can see it with the mature eyes of a Byzantine mindset.

It was you who stated that our bishops can issue liturgical instructions, but not a new Liturgicon. Now you seem to be taking that distinction back. So, what you are saying now is that our bishops CAN issue a new liturgicon. Does this match what you have been saying all along. Is this your final answer?

Joe

But can we do this without waiting for the Orthodox to fully agree? As noted, the ministry of deacons is not universally practiced everywhere. Isn't universality of praxis a criterion for implementation?

Joe

Your questions make no sense. My posts have been very consistent. I believe that individual bishops have the authority to issue liturgical instructions. I believe that individual bishops do not have the authority to revise the liturgy by promulgating a revised liturgicon and that this authority belongs to either the entire Byzantine Church or, for issues within a recension, the Churches that make up a liturgical recension. Are you suggesting that because I hold this view even after revised liturgicons have been promulgated that I am automatically working against the bishops?

Mr. Thur,

Your post is confusing. What specifically are you waiting for the Orthodox to fully agree with? Do you somehow believe that because the deaconate has fallen into disuse in some Churches within Orthodoxy then the deaconate ministry is no longer part of universal practice of the Byzantine Church and cannot be restored in those local Church in which it has fallen into disuse? I submit that there is no disagreement within Orthodoxy about the role of the deacon, even in places where this role has fallen into disuse. I think that no matter how one answers this question the question itself argues for using the traditional liturgy as the standard until it is fully restored and lived and the larger Church has been formed by it. Otherwise the liturgy becomes a free-for-all and do-as-you-please. We cannot forget that the entire Eastern Church has suffered horribly in recent centuries and that it will take many generations to recover. We must be patient and wait.

You asked: �Isn't universality of praxis a criterion for implementation?� What exactly do you mean by this? If your question is taken at face value it suggests that you believe that no change may be made until the change has become universal practice in the Church. Since you have argued that local Churches have the authority to revise the Liturgy to mandate changes that are not universal praxis your statement must have another meaning. Please explain.

Admin