www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Silent Anaphora

In a number of threads, the Administrator points out that the chanted anaphora is sign of clericalization of this prayer, and so the anaphora should be said in an inaudible voice. However, in a Liturgy course for the diaconal program of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, one of required texts counters this notion. The following quotation is from Hugh Wybrew's The Orthodox Liturgy: the Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996, pp 86-7)

"It is clear from a law of Justinian that celebrants in mid-sixth-century Constantinople and its province were beginning to recite certain prayers in both the eucharistic and baptismal liturgies in an inaudible voice. The Emperor protested vigorously and forbade the practice. His Novella 137 of the year 565 sought to regulate various abuses in the life of the Church, and in its last chapter prescribed as follows:

'Moreover we order all bishops and priests to say the prayers used in the divine oblation and holy baptism not inaudibly, but in a voice that can be heard by the faithful people, that the minds of those who listen may be excited to greater compunction.'

"Justinian was concerned to stamp out an innovation which he rightly considered harmful to liturgical devotion. He was unsuccessful, and his failure opened the way to a fundamental change not only to liturgical practice but in popular eucharistic piety. From the latter part of the sixth century the central prayer of the Liturgy passed out of the hearing, and therfore out of the knowledge, of the great majority of Byzantine Christians who had no service books in which they could at least read what they could not hear. Few changes in the Church's worship have been so far-reaching in their implications and consequences. The principal prayer of the service became a prayer for the clergy only, for those close enough to the altar to hear it. The exclusion of the laity from the common thanksgiving and offering of the gifts powerfully reinforced the already marked clericalization of the Liturgy."

I have seen Hugh Wybrew's book and acknowledge the historical accuracy of his statements. I reject, however, the notion that all development of liturgical theology should have ended in the year 565 or the liturgy of that year is a more perfect one than the version we have inherited.

While I do some research to provide a proper response can you explain the criteria for revising the Divine Liturgy? Why is the liturgy of 565 better than the liturgy we have inherited? Following the logic you have put forward we should seek to restore the liturgy as it was celebrated in the first generation after Christ and abandon all that has developed since (from the format of the Eucharistic liturgy to icons themselves). Are we really to abandon 1,500 years of liturgical development in searching something that is not broken? By what justification do we pick and choose changes?

No where in my post do I advocate the restoration of a primitive liturgy, nor am I saying the the Liturgy of 565 should be our ideal. The point of my post was to illustrate that the inaudible anphora was an innovation not for the benefit of the Church, but an innovation to clericalize the Liturgy.

We can pick and choose changes in accordance to what the Instruction states in article 20:
" In modifying ancient liturgical practice, it must be asked if the element which is to be introduced accords with the meaning of the context in which it is placed..." In the case of the anaphora, the prayer is being restored in an audible so that the faithful may properly proclaim their "Amen".

If the act of Creation was wrought by the spoken word of God (Gen 1), should not the act
of our new creation be spoken aloud as well? Our faith is not something hidden for only a select group. It's should be revealing that Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Word of God, by whom God has spoken to us in these last days (Heb. 1:2).

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 11:14,17).

[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]

[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]

Whether the prayer is audible or inaudible to the assembly does not affect the action of the Holy Spirit. Just as I do not need to be behind the icon screen to see for myself what is happening I also do not need to hear every word of what is happening in order to know it is real. I proclaim "Amen" because I know it to be true whether I hear it or not.

Following the logic you suggest, if we have the right to hear do we no even more so have the right to see? If we must mandate that the Anaphora always be taken aloud must not we also mandate that the icon screens be removed and the Holy Table be placed into the midst of the assembly so that people can see? One cannot logically argue for one without also arguing for the other. If, by the silence in our anaphora we are hiding for a select group, then are we not even more guilty of hiding when we celebrate the liturgy behind an icon screen?

The Anaphora is a masterpiece of mystagogical theology (as described in the Instruction). I simply do not agree that it is necessary or prudent to mandate that it be taken aloud. The Instruction directed a possible studying of ways in which it might be prayed aloud in some circumstances. It in no way mandated such an action, suggested such an action was good and necessary, and clearly left the responsibility to the pastors to see that their faithful were formed properly in the theology contained in the Anaphora.

Regarding your references to Genesis, I have yet to hear anyone argue the point that God must have spoken aloud or the world would not have been created; or that because He does not always speak audibly in our lives it is impossible to hear Him. I proclaim "Amen" because I know that the action is true. Hearing the words prayed aloud in no way makes the Eucharist more real.

I apologize for concluding that you were suggesting that the year 565 was ideal. You do state that you are for the "restoration of a primitive liturgy". What is the basis for picking and choosing what elements in the development of our present liturgy have been the work of the Spirit and what have not? We can search the legislation of the Byzantine Empire to support many liturgical revisions. Did not Justinian order the Hymn to the Only-Begotten Son to be sung prior to the liturgy? Should we then move it to the point prior to the beginning of the liturgy (perhaps during the incensation) in order to fulfill his legislation?

The study of liturgical history helps us understand how our liturgy has developed and changed. But we are not living in 6th century Constantinople! We have an inheritance of liturgy that they did not have. The liturgy will develop, change and evolve. It is a slow process and will be directed by the Holy Spirit. If certain priests desire to take the Anaphora aloud they should be allowed to do so. If the Spirit blesses this action then in a generation or two it will have become the norm throughout Orthodoxy and no legislation to take it aloud will be needed.

Reread my post I am not proposing a restoration of a primitive Liturgy. That the action of the Holy Spirit is affected by the prayer taken aloud or silent is not the issue. The issue is our ability to respond with an "Amen". If taken silent to what are we saying "amen"? If taken silent how are we to learn and understand this "masterpiece of mystagogical theology"? If somehow the mystical aspect of the Liturgy is deformed by audible prayer, then why not sit in complete silence and give our mental "amen"?

Let me relate a personal experience. I began attending the Byzantine Church during the Great Fast at time before the anaphora was taken aloud. Because it was Basil's liturgy it was of course longer, which I (mistakenly) thought had to do with some penitential devotion. It was not until a subsequent Great Fast when the anaphora was taken aloud did I appreciate the beauty and festivity of Basil's Liturgy. How could I experience that without hearing?

You equate hearing the anaphora with seeing the action of the priest behind the icon screen. I disagree. Aside from the fact that two different sense are involved, my participation is not dependant upon my seeing the actions of the priest. My participation is dependant upon the words I hear so that I can respond appropriately. Even if the Holy Table was moved to the center of the nave not every could see the action of the priest, but in an audible voice everyone has the opportunity to hear.

Bisantino,

Thank you for this conversation.

I respectfully submit that your logic is faulty. Our Divine Liturgy appeals to all our senses. If you must first hear what is being prayed before you can say "Amen!" than it is equally important to see what is being prayed so that one may learn and understand before saying "Amen!". You have yet to prove that hearing is more important than seeing. Those who seek to revise the liturgy must first prove that it is need of revision and you have not done so. I do not need to hear what is happening in order to know that it is true. I proclaim "Amen" because I know the action to be true whether I hear it or not.

It is not correct to assume that inaudible prayer deforms the mystical aspect of the Liturgy. [If this were the case then one must argue that all of the quiet prayers of the priest be taken aloud, that the Holy Gifts be kept in full sight of the people at all times and that they never be hidden under veils. The logical conclusion of such an argument is to use audio amplifiers and video cameras so that everyone can hear and see.] I submit that our Anaphora is not deformed and that those who seek to revise the liturgy must first prove that it is deformed. They must also work with the entire Church (and not just the local Church) to affect such a change. One does not need to have every word of the Divine Liturgy spoken aloud to learn and understand salvation.

I am glad to hear that you came to the Byzantine Church during the Great Fast (and I am thankful that someone as enthusiastic and talented as yourself is in our Church). I am sorry, however, that you mistook the lengthy anaphora for a penitential devotion. That error, in itself, does not justify the rejection of the last 1,000 years of Spirit-led liturgical development and the mandating of new rubrics. Your priest could have easily provided you with a prayerbook with the complete text and explained what is happening. If it was that important he could have invited you behind the icon screen so that you see the action as well as hear the words.

Can you please explain in greater detail why your hearing the Anaphora is necessary at each and every liturgy but seeing it is not?

Can you not affirm something you have not heard with an "Amen!" without first hearing and understanding?

Is this desire to hear the Anaphora aloud so important that we can no longer respect the right of individual clergy (to whom the Instruction gave the responsibility) to take the Anaphora silently or aloud as they decide?

Must this be legislated, regardless of the consternation it will cause in our communities (not to mention the fact that it only distinguishes us further from the rest of Orthodoxy, which is definitely not the intention of the various directives)?

As a local Church we simply do not have the right to revise the received text or rubrics of the Divine Liturgy. When we do so we act without respect for the "common property" which communion with other local Churches of the same inheritance demands. We have no right to alter the liturgy and thus set ourselves even further apart from the rest or Orthodoxy. The rubrics of the 1964 liturgicon do not prohibit the priest from praying the Anaphora aloud. As I stated earlier, if such an action is blessed by the Spirit then in a generation or two it will have become the norm throughout Orthodoxy and no legislation to take it aloud will be required. Is this such a horrible thing?

Admin

Dear Administrator,

While I am out of my depth in this fascinating conversation, our former parish priest, a great Byzantinist in his own Rite (pun intended) would have concurred with what you have said.

He constantly reiterated that the mysticism of the Eastern Church deliberately veiled and made silent the great Mysteries so that we may bow down and worship what is unknowable, but what is communicated to us through Revelation.

Your point on the integrity of our tradition with that of the rest of the Byzantine Churches, Orthodox and Catholic, also reflects the kind of understanding of what "communion" is all about.

Do you feel our bishops share this understanding of the mystagogy of the Church and is it reflected in the kind of liturgical revisions of texts we have had?

Alex

[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Administrator,

A very interesting conversation.

I would like to ask you, are you *against* taking the anaphora out loud in a general sense (ie in most circumstances)?

Also, what practical benefit does it serve to serve the anaphora quietly? It only cuts the time of liturgy by 4 minutes or so anyway.

Maybe time's not your concern, but you agree with the notion of a more veiled celebration of the mystery. I can see from whence you are coming, but to me hearing the prayers of the anaphora lets my mind rise to the heavenly hights. When the anaphora is cut, it seems artificially cut. We hear the priest say "singing, shouting, crying out, and saying..." but I have to ask, "who's singing? who's shouting?" I wouldn't know if I didn't hear him pray the entire prayer before the holy holy holy out loud. As with the anaphora--you just bust out with "take eat..." and it's like, "wait, I wasn't ready! What context is this in??" To a person less educated than you or me, it might be confusing!

In Christ,

anastasios

[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Admin,

Yes, thank you for this conversation.I have found most enlightening.

As to your question regarding the "Amen", yes, one would have to hear what it is the priest is praying so that one may respond with fear and faith with the vocal "amen". To quote St. Paul, "Faith comes from what is heard" (Rom. 10:17).

As a school of prayer and faith, the Liturgy has a catechetical dimension which is more properly caught from living and experiencing the Liturgy within its proper context with full use of all the senses, as opposed to being taught from some prayerbook. I would opine that the audible anaphora is a much better catechetical tool for expounding the revelation of the Word than reading in silence words from a prayerbook. Since there is also a pedagogical dimension of the Liturgy, how are we to instruct those who cannot yet or no longer able to read.

Though this does not directly relate to the anaphora, the development of the Liturgy allowed for the congregation to see what the priest was doing behind the icon screen with the gifts. Are they not presented for the faithful to see during the Great Entrance? And are the Precious Gifts not presented by the deacon prior to the congregational reception of the Eucharist? So the priest or deacon does come from behind the screen for all to see.

But what mechanism is built into the Liturgy for the faithful to understand and give the "amen" to the silent anaphora? What if Jesus would have prayed silently at the institution of the Last Supper, would the disciples have understood what was happening? Being God he could have chosen to "speak" in the silence of their hearts, but he choose not to do so because this was/is the better method. In the Gospel of St John the Theologian, we read, "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:21-22). Had he been silent would the disciples know what to do or Who they were receiving?

[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]

Admin.,

I do not understand why you insist on linking taking the Anaphora aloud with getting rid of the iconostasis. The Anaphora was taken silently when the iconoscreens were being removed from our churches. The two have nothing to do with one another.

The Anaphora is the axis around which the whole Liturgy turns. If every other prayer is taken silently this one must be taken aloud. If your logic is followed then it doesn't matter if any of the prayers are taken aloud, and we end up with a Tridentine-style low mass. What is the difference? In the Latin low mas the priest prays everything silently, while the faithful pray the rosary or some other devotion. We have everything silent and the people repeat a couple hymns ad nauseum to cover the silence. In either case the people are disconnected from what is really happening, what is really being praised. I would like to take a poll of the average layperson and ask them if the know what the priest is doing while we sing: "We praise You.." I'll bet 90% have not a clue. This a shame and this is what needs corrected.

We pride ourselves on our Liturgy being our catechism and theology, and yet he have till now denied our people the richest theology of our tradition. Taking it silently is the equivalent of reading the Gospel silently. Both are the proclamtion of what Christ has done for us. Both must be proclaimed and heard.

While no date in the history of the Liturgy is the perfect Liturgy, certain principles are true in all times. Because we have forgotten this for periods of time is no excuse. We extol St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil as our greatest theologians and fathers. They gave us the two theological masterpieces of our tradition, their Anaphorae. They certainly said them aloud. But some how we know better. We have labored under the mistaken belief that by taking the Anaphora silent we add to the Mystery of the Liturgy, as if that is possible.

You mention the 1964 Liturgicon. This Liturgicon (and those it was based on) clearly states which prays are taken silently. The Anaphora and Epiclesis are not among them. Taking them silently has always been an abuse.

You also mention the Orthodox being diturbed by our reform, yet they have also done some of the same restorations.

You speak of the Holy Spirit, just perhaps it is the Holy Spirit prompting our bishops to undertake this restoration, I certainly believe it is.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Cantor and Mentor Joe,

Again, I am way out of my depths here and bow, in humble submission, to the magniloquence and encyclopaedic theological expertise of the four commentators here, the Byzantine "IV" League!

And yes, "Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum" became the popular term for magic, "Hocus Pocus!"

The discussion of the sense of magic in our Liturgy can be both a positive and a negative thing.

Positive - when we mean "magic" in the sense of a heightened sense of indescribable mystery that defies rational description.

Negative - when we mean a narrow idea of automatic but unseen supernatural actions being accomplished through specific wording etc.

But surely, Big Guy, what you are talking about is not about whether we hear the Anaphora audibly, but about how people just didn't understand the Latin throughout?

Are you saying the Administrator has no point in what he has said?

Alex

Dear Bisantino,

I'm over here! Here I am!

Just a couple of points, O New Palamas!

Am I missing something, or are you saying that the "Amen" is something that laity should be encouraged to say? Isn't that the role of the Deacon in today's Byzantine Church? And aren't we usurping that role in saying "Amen" - as traditional Orthodox liturgists are claiming?

And I don't know about your parishioners, but our parishioners have absolutely no idea about what the Epiclesis is about, whether it is audible or whether they read it out of the prayerbook, and even with a number of explanatory sermons under their belts.

Alex