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

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

Ouch!!! Perhaps, this is one of the vestiges of clericalism that has to be dealt with.

But to his credit Fr David Petras mentioned in another thread about his article on the Anaphora in the ECJ. BTW, what you have done here with the Forum allows us unetjukated laimon to discuss these issues. Perhaps someone can glean material based upon the forum discussions and send it to the IELC and the Council of Hierarchs??

To you really believe that is the reason. It takes a great deal of work and sacrifice to 1) become an Eastern Catholic and 2) to remain an Eastern Catholic. It is certainly not for the faint-hearted or thin-skinned , and I would not give it up for anything. Taking liberties with a qote from Karl Rahner, SJ: we will be Eastern Catholics only because of our own act of faith attained in a difficult struggle and perpetually acheived anew. Everywhere will be diaspora and the diaspora will be everywhere.

Admin,

You state:"Have there been well thought out discussions by our hierarchs? Where are the theological articles? Where are their teachings on this matter? Have I missed them? Has everyone been fully educated as to the theology behind these revisions but myself?"

You haven't read Schmemann, Taft, Mateos, Arranz, Bradshaw, Baumstark, Petras, or any other Eastern liturgical scholar? The studies have been done, the results are in: silent prayers are the results of clericalism and liturical laziness, against the principles of the Gospel, and I thank God our bishops, unlike many Orthodox ones, have the courage to make the necessary changes.

You also: "But you may be right. These discussions never seem to involve us uneducated laymen. That may be the reason that most Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics in America worship in Roman Catholic parishes."

Or maybe they wanted to go to a parish where the Anaphora is aloud. If a results are any indication, the parishes out West where many of the reforms are already in place are thriving. It is the Northeast parishes with silent prayers that kids are deserting.

In Christ,
Lance

I've been studying our liturgy for over 20 years and have read most of the authors you have listed. These scholars have begun the discussion but there has certainly been no consensus on these issues and no other Orthodox Church has had the arrogance to take upon itself a reform of our entire liturgical inheritance without the others. I pray that our bishops will not act unilaterally, discarding what we have only begun to understand. If we someday act to make changes then we must act together with all of the Byzantine Churches. Even the Instruction directs this, although some here seem to be willingly to dismiss it very casually.


Do you really believe that all of our parishes in the West are all thriving? I've been to about half of them and there is much work to be done to enable them to proclaim the Gospel and actually grow. Our Church faces many issues. They have a good bishop and I trust him. Liturgical reformation is not something that is a pastoral must. Leave each pastor with the freedom to take the prayers silently or aloud as he chooses for the best of each community. The Holy Spirit always leads. He never mandates.

I am rather disappointed that few of my many questions have been addressed. One would think and expect that those in favor of revision would be able to easily provide a thorough discussion of both sides of these issues. We Americans are always ready to rush to action before we have thought of the consequences of our actions.

Admin

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

Dear Friends,

If this is a "handicap" match, then I'd say the Administrator is still way out ahead . . .

You other guys might want to work on your beside manner a bit and be a little more courteous when you engage in a theological debate.

Like not imputing motive about whether a person has or has not read the same books, imposing one's own views of Latinization, and otherwise assuming that our own VIEW is FACT.

I know none of you will answer me because you consider me and people like me theologically "beneath" you - and I know I am.

But then don't complain when your own ecclesiastical superiors pretend to be deaf to what you have to say on liturgical reforms.

Alex

Alex,

I certainly consider no one beneath me, least of all you friend. And please don't let the heat of the discussion or force of the arguements make you think there is any disrespect or uncharity intended. The Admin. and I know one another and I count him as a friend and respect his work, knowledge, and opinions. I just happen to be on the other side of the fence of this issue. My question about the readings was rhetorical because I am pretty sure he has read every scholar listed. What I think is unfair in the Admin.'s arguement is that he has implied that not much study or research has gone into the reform, when in fact much has be done. So one can disagree with the reform as Admin. does, but I don't think one can make the arguement that the reforms are being made without research or deliberation.

In Christ,
Lance

Bisantino, thank you so much for bringing the mind and though of Father Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory into this discussion. I think there is so much in those lines that one can chew on for a long time that have so much relevance for not only this discussion but for the liturgical direction of our churches in general.

I for one will on something as seminal as this issue also look as you to one of the greatest liturgical theologians of the 20th century to get to the point of the matter with words infinitely more eloquent and learned than my own. It is clear from the tradition as Father Schmemann explains that no silent prayer would have a response. That is not dialogue and can not be dialogue. Dialogue is two-way, or in the case of liturgy three-way.

We all participate mystically in every liturgical action and the idea that there are some elements "too holy" or whatever to exclude our conscious participation almost brings an air of crypto-Gnosticism into the picture (I'm exaggerating, of course). This is also a later Latin-influenced, clericalist approach that any part of the Liturgy is reserved for one person only to be recited silently. I'll put my money on Father Schmemann.

And as for our hierarchs, a Studite monk once told me this tongue in cheek, eye-rolling joke: If you can sing and reason, you become a cantor or deacon. If you can reason, but not sing, you become a priest. If you can't do either they make you a bishop. But seriously, folks... :rolleyes:

This thread has been very illuminating, especially on the issue of the thinking behind the proposed changes. Let's suppose for the moment that solid, orthodox scholarship exists to support all of the proposed liturgical changes:

How do you all feel about our church taking a/the leading role in implementing these changes?

If it is correct to say that Orthodoxy is working far more cautiously in implementing this scholarship, is there a clear reason for this (and a message to us)?

Are the proposed changes consistent with the "pastoral sensitivity" recommended in the Instructions?

Some comments have been made on these points already, but more would be welcome.

djs

Dear Brother Lance,

I only meant "beneath" in the sense of Thomas a Kempis in the "Imitation of Christ!"

That's O.K. then!

God bless,

Alex

The tradition in all Eastern liturgies is to take the Anaphora silently (there is not one that mandates the Anaphora be taken aloud).

Careful, careful...

This is NOT the tradition in *all* Eastern Liturgies. The Syrians and the Indians do not do it, and haven't. From what I know, the Copts, Armenians, and (help me, Alex) the Ethiopians do not do it. From everything I've ever read and learned, this silent anaphora stuff is a specifically Latin and Byzantine thing.

Blanket statements like the above seem to betray that nasty little idea that Byzantium IS the East, without due reference to other Eastern traditions, some of which are older. I am sure you did not mean it this way, but this is how it could be construed.

My question is this: how did the silent anaphora develop in the Latin and Byzantine Churches, but not in the other Eastern Churches? Are we looking at a development that is not necessarily liturgical but maybe social and cultural? Or am I just trying to be Alex ( )?

Furthermore, you write "No one has yet established in this discussion that the silent Anaphora has no theological significance."

What is the significance of a silent anaphora?

It is clear from the tradition as Father Schmemann explains that no silent prayer would have a response. That is not dialogue and can not be dialogue. Dialogue is two-way, or in the case of liturgy three-way.

This reminded me of a criticism of the Novus Ordo by a Latin traditionalist. The claim was that, in private Masses (N.O. rite), removing the dialogue between the priest and the "people" was a mistake, even though there was no one physically present to respond, for example, "Et cum spiritu tuo" to the priest's "Dominus vobiscum". It was said that such denied the communion of saints, and that the priest should recite the dialogue anyway, because the saints and angels respond to it. I thought that, although it sounds nice, was kinda loopy.

Dear Catholicos,

Yes, our Byzantine mental maps sometimes don't go East far enough, or else the legend tends to be very homogeneous .

As for trying to be Alex - I can think of worse things you could be

You are right about the Ethiopians!

Could you bring an Oriental Orthodox perspective to bear here on the Anaphora?

Actually, you guys are Anaphora experts since you have so many of them - especially in the Syriac tradition!

So, take it away Philip Thomas!

Alex

An interesting point. The Coptic Orthodox parish near where I live does not take the Anaphora aloud. From everything I have read I had concluded that the Anaphora is taken silently in all of the Eastern Churches. Can you provide a reference so that I may check? I will check mine tonight.


All very good questions. Until we answer them and understand the development of the silent Anaphora we can not monkey with it. Those who support a mandated aloud Anaphora have not yet provided this information.