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

I haven't bothered to research this, but I ponder if the silent anaphora developed as a result of our tendency to cover things that are most holy. It is our way of showing mystery. We cover the diskos, we cover the chalice, we cover the Words of Institution because they are beyond understanding anyway.

John

Dear John,

I think you have it!

Tu es Petrus! Peter has spoken through John!

Alex

Maybe the cathedrals just got too big and so nobody could hear the anaphora anymore when it was spoken (as opposed to chanting it?) Maybe the priest's voice got too tired to bellow out the entire anaphora of St. Basil?

Who knows.

anastasios

I offer you some clips from some authors who have studied the phenomenon of taking the Anaphora silent (words and/or phrases in all caps are my emphasis):


"The Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom consists of readings from the Scriptures and of solemn hymns and prayers. Its spoken words are chanted by the priest and sung by the "people", who are now REPLACED by the cantor or the choir. Besides the spoken words, the main part of the Liturgy is read inaudibly by the priest, a custom that now prevails. MOST OF THE "EXALTATIONS" OF THE PRIEST ARE FROM THE ENDS OF THE PRAYERS INAUDIBLY READ, AND HAVE LACKED A COMPLETE MEANING APART FROM THE PRAYERS." (Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Cross, Belmont, CA, 1998)

"The UNFORTUNATE PRACTICE of a silent anaphora with exclamations of the last few words before the change of "singer," be it priest or people, became common after the 6th century. The exclamations were aloud so the next "singer" would have a cue when to begin his part. THIS INNOVATION CAUSED MUCH OF THE DUET TO BE EXPRESSED INAUDIBLY, WITH THE PEOPLE NOT HEARING A LARGE PORTION OF THE ANAPHORA PRAYER. In time the people's perception of one of these exclamations changed. Indeed the text of the prayer itself was actually changed later (13-14th century) to accommodate this new perception." (Fr. Thomas George, OCA, 2001)

"The first evidence of silent or quiet reading of the Anaphora and the mystical Eucharistic silence is found in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Narsai. It is natural to assume that this practice arose in Syria and as a consequence first spread in Eastern Syria. The practice of the disciplina arcana likewise had an effect upon the secret reading of the Anaphora, in order to protect the sanctity and the majesty of Christian mysteries. This is clear from the response of the Syrian author, Bishop Jacob of Edessa (640-708) to the question: "Why are Mysteries performed behind closed doors and traditionally in silence". It is likely due to the demands of the disciplina arcana and this explains absence of the words of institution in the interpretations of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the rites of the Nestorian liturgies of Addai and Mari and their oral tradition. Certain ideas expressed in the Corpus Areopagiticum, especially in The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy undoubtedly influenced the implementation of the secret reading of the Anaphora. The Corpus apparently appeared in Syria at the end of the 5th century and became very popular there. The mystic Sergius Rissaina (536) translated it into Syrian. From Syria the Corpus finds its way to Constantinople and was at first looked upon with great suspicion." (B. I. Sove)

"The liturgical texts of the fourth-fifth century bear the marks of the conflict between the Orthodox Church and Arianism. At this same period we find the reciting of the Confession of Faith, the Trisag�on or Thrice-holy Hymn (Latin: Sanctus), the hymn "Only begotten Son and Word of God" (introduced by Justinian � in 535/6) and the Cherubic Hymn. By the sixth century the silent reading of the prayer of the anaphora by the celebrant was already an established practice in most of the churches of the East, though in some areas the priests persisted in reading it out loud, according to John Moschos in his Leimonarion." (Yiannis Vitaliotis, 1995-1998)

"It began in the middle of the sixth century as a LITURGICAL INNOVATION. The Emperor Justinian had learned that certain priests throughout Constantinople and its provinces were beginning to recite eucharistic and baptismal prayers silently (in an inaudible voice). He protested vigorously and, as an effort in 565 to confront this and other abuses in the life of the Church, issued his Novella 137. Also, whereas St. John Chrysostom could write that, "There are cases when a priest does not differ from a layman, notably when one approaches the Holy Mysteries," it would now be possible to show how a "vision" of separation grew between the clergy and laity, a vision which would have theological, sacramental, and even architectural dimensions. In reflecting on his experiences of worship in the Russian Orthodox Church, Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote in his Journal that, "During the service, EVERYTHING WHICH COULD REACH THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FAITHFUL IS CAREFULLY HIDDEN FROM THEM; ANY SEMBLANCE OF MEANING." (Fr. John Shimchick, OCA, 2000)

"The so-called 'silent prayers' particularly the anaphora, must again be read aloud and not silently by the celebrant to himself, for THESE ARE THE PRAYERS OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY, or, to put it more accurately, of the Church herself. They are the heart of the liturgy and the core of our communal worship. In his Novella 137 the emperor Justinian decreed by law that bishops and presbyters "say the prayers used in the Divine Oblation in a voice that can be heard by the faithful that the minds of those who listen may be stirred to greater compunction." Those who did not do so were to be fined." (THE ARCHDIOCESAN PRESBYTERS COUNCIL LITURGICAL ISSUES COMMITTEE REPORT, A report presented by Father Steven Tsichlis at the APC meeting held in Dallas, TX, 1995).

"According to the latest recommendations issued by the (Melkite) Synodal Liturgical Commission in 1992, "PRAYERS, IN GENERAL, ARE NOT SECRET (IN SILENCE)" WE INSIST THAT THE ANAPHORA SHOULD BE RECITED ALOUD. We leave to the initiative of the celebrant to decide which other prayers he would recite at a loud voice. If a prayer is said at a low voice, it should be recited in a way that the concelebrating priests hear it."" (Melkite Greek Catholic Bishop John Elya)

"The so-called "silent" prayers -particularly the anaphora, must again be read aloud and not silently by the celebrant "to himself ", for these are the prayers of the entire assembly, or, to put it better, of the Church herself. They are the heart of the liturgy." (Rev. Steven Peter Tsichlis, Chairman, Liturgical Issues Committee Pastor, Church of the Assumption, Seattle, WA)

"Liturgical actions generally beg for an explanation. "Why do we say this or do that...? Lacking sufficient information, the tendency is to invent and supply the action with one or more
arbitrary symbolic interpretations, which may well defy both the structural laws of liturgy and the historical evidence. Such poor interpretations tend to be "survivors" because they are often enveloped in an aura of inauthentic "mysticism" even though they cannot express adequately what they are supposed to signify." (Father Alkiviades Calivas, Professor of Liturgical Theology at Holy Cross, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, 1995)

[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Permit me again to make some observations on an issue I feel strongly:
The whole purpose of having a priest is to pray in the name of the community the "rational (wordy = Gr. Logike) sacrifice," that is, he says the words which the community is to hear. The prayer is not only that of the priest, but it is a long-standing tradition that one person says the prayers while the others listen, just as one person reads the epistle and gospel and the congregation listens. This is for the sake of the words, which otherwise would sound like a gabble. The congregation then appropriates the words by saying "Amen," which the fathers called the seal of the prayer. Therefore, this is not clerical - quite the opposite. For the priest to say the words silently as if they were only for himself is clerical. One must remember that the ancient congregations were largely illiterate. The only place they were able to "read" or "hear" the words was in the community. The alternate for us now who are literate would be for each person to read the words to themselves in the pew (another question - should we have pews?) but this impresses me as too Western and intellectual. If the prayers are the property of the community, they should be read in the community, and there remains a difference between reading a text privately and hearing it proclaimed. Due to the very nature of human speech, the priest will inflect the words - which is why priests must be trained and educated to fulfill their role and not everyone can be a priest.
I do feel that the Liturgy is in need of some reform, in the good sense of a return to its Christian roots. In the centuries since it reached the form found in the printed books, we have seen a philosophical revolution, we have seen a turn toward technology and science, we have seen bloody wars and genocides that have ravaged the human spirit, and displacements of people, we have acquired the potential to destroy our civilization, we have seen vast persecutions of the faith far greater than the early eras, we have seen a revolution in communication and the ways we relate to one another - it would seem that all this might have some effect on the way we pray - and I hope more authentically.
I believe that the praying of the anaphora and other prayers aloud is probably a result of our following the Cyrillo-Methodian principle of praying the Liturgy in the vernacular. For our Church, and indeed even earlier for some Orthodox jurisdiction, this began in the 1950's. As early as the mid-50's of the past century, the Greek theologian Panyiottis Trembelas advocated saying these prayers aloud. If this was advocated, it was probably being done. Indeed, the Kollyvades monks on Mt. Athos advocated the same already at the end of the eighteenth century.
This has gone slow in Greece and Russia because of their continued usage of dead languages. However, here, shortly after the Liturgy was put into English, some priests began to see the possibilities of reading the prayers aloud. My point here is that the process advocated by the administrator has already begun, and is probably in its final stages. The fact is, it has already been done for one or two generations. The Eparchy of Parma began to say these prayers aloud officially in 1987, and Van Nuys and Passaic followed. Thus the statement that it has not been mandated in any Catholic or Orthodox Church is incorrect. It is done frequently in Orthodox Churches, and many Orthodox prelates are favorable to it, though the process of liturgical change is different. It seems that we are in the final stages of this process rather than at the beginning. I do not know what the status is in the Orthodox Church, but certainly the Catholic hierarchy, up to the level of the See of Rome (Liturgical Instruction of 1996, 54), has accepted the idea in principle, probably because it has already been done for one or two generations. Taft agrees, he wrote (see Eastern Churches Journal, Summer 2001, p. 112), "Today most Christians would agree that since the liturgy is for everyone, not just for a professional coterie of clergy, all the baptized have the right to hear and make their own the liturgy's holy words .... Long after all the prayers have been heard and studied, and all the theologians have had their say, the divine mysteries remain mysteries because of their very nature, and not because we seek to make them unintelligible by hiding them under a camouflage of silence!"
In regard to the "reductio ad absurdam" that we should also "see" and therefore icon screens be removed and altars turned around - outside of the fact that many would actually support this (not me!) - I say that the church is concerned with seeing. However, just as not all of the prayers are said aloud, so not all of the actions are seen. The church is concerned with seeing, though, and the church is adorned with icons of the Lord and his Mother and the saints and the diskos and chalice (though some may say it is an action of offering, not displaying) are raised at the words, "Yours of your own ... " and the consecrated body of Christ is elevated at the words "Holy things for the holy," and certainly the chalice is shown to the people for Communion, so that they can "Taste and SEE how good the Lord is."

Again, I sincerely do not want to put down anyone who is deeply concerned about our liturgy and hope only that my intervention is helpful for understanding and I do feel that an honest discussion from the heart is necessary.

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

Dear Alex,

I'm not sure what you want me to answer. If you rephrase the question, however, I'll give it my best shot.

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.

I've never been to the Liturgies of any Church other than my own. I'm told that the Armenians have an "out loud" anaphora, Alex confirms my suspicions about the Ethiopians, your experience with the Copts does not jive with all I've read about them, and the few Liturgies I have of theirs on CD, and I can certainly tell you that no Syrian or Indian church takes the anaphora silently*. It would just sound strange.

And that, I think, is the best way of expressing the problem of a silent anaphora, in my opinion...it sounds strange. I know in listening to Byzantine Liturgies with a silent anaphora, I am often left with the feeling: "Huh? What just happened?"

Those who support a mandated aloud Anaphora have not yet provided this information.

While I'm not sure he addressed a mandated aloud anaphora, Joe's comments in this thread (the one with the bunch of quotes), as well as those of Father David (Barekhmor!), make the case for having the anaphora aloud rather than silently.

*I'm sorry, I don't have any written evidence (books, articles, etc.) in my possession for anything I say: only my experiences, and what I've read here in support of an aloud anaphora.

[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Father David,

Thank you for your very informative post. Would you agree that the practice of taking the epiclesis silently obscures the Eastern theology of the Eucharist, and encourages the misperception that the words of institution are the "exact" moment of consecration?

Anthony

Alex,

Regarding the moment of consecration, the traditional Eastern approach is not to focus on one specific moment as being when the consecration takes place. Eastern theology emphasizes the efficacy of the entire anaphora, without narrowing in on a specific moment in time at which the change takes place. Since the liturgy takes place outside of time, it is contrary to eastern sensibilities to focus on the words of institution ("this is my body, etc.) as being the moment of consecration.

However, in Eastern theology the epiclesis is a vital and necessary part of the anaphora. Many traditional Eastern theologians argued in the past that an anaphora without an epiclesis is ineffective (although this can be debated). At any rate, it is misleading to say that the consecration of the Eucharist has been completed prior to the praying of the epiclesis. Unfortunately, many Byzantine Catholics are led to believe just that. Based on how the liturgy is commonly celebrated in most parishes, with the silent epiclesis, the average Byzantine Catholic thinks that the consecration has been completed with the words of institution. This is a serious catechetical problem, in my opinion.

It is also worth mentioning that many Orthodox parishes have begun reciting the epiclesis audibly, and often surround the epiclesis with fanfare. Some Orthodox are led to think that the epiclesis brings about the change, but this is an overreaction to the Latin emphasis on the words of institution. Again, the authentic eastern tradition is that the entire anaphora brings about the change, and that we should not focus on a single moment.

God Bless,
Anthony

In the proclamation of the Anaphora, I'd say that the anaphora should be said in its integrity, including the epiclesis. The intercessions were added later, are variable, and may be discussed. The rest should definitely be said aloud.
Curiously, on the epiclesis, I've run into two diametrically opposite opinions from those who want it said silently - the first appealing to mystery say this is truly the core of the mystery and should be whispered and others who say that it would give rise to doubts about the efficacy of the words of institution. Both should be rejected.

I thank Fr. David for his posts. He presents a most powerful and persuasive argument for the praying of the Anaphora aloud.

Yet� yet� I disagree that the rubrics should be modified to direct that the Anaphora be taken aloud at each and every liturgy. I need to make the necessary time to better explain my strong convictions on this issue but every bone in my body tells me that a mandate over this is wrong. Just like the icon screen does not hide but, to the believer, reveals, so, too, does the quietness in the praying of the Anaphora reveal. It is the silence that reveals the Mystery. This seems to be a key element of our Byzantine patrimony, one that we are discarding before we have even rediscovered it, let alone restored it.

It is one thing for an individual priest to have the freedom to pray the Anaphora prayers aloud. It is something entirely different to mandate it. Fr. David is correct in that some priests have prayed the Anaphora aloud for many years. The priests who have served in my parish have occasionally done so and on those occasions it has worked. But this has never been the normative custom. The praying of the epiclesis aloud is magnificent when done so on the Feast of Pentecost. But the praying of it aloud at every Divine Liturgy somehow reduces it to ordinary when it is not ordinary. The mandated aloud praying of the Anaphora by the priest adds quite a bit to the spoken role of the priest, focusing the liturgy even more upon his presence. Prayed quietly it heightens the sense of awesomeness of the reality of the Eucharist.

The chalice is offered for all to see at the "Yours of your own .�" It is not kept raised for the rest of the liturgy. A glimpse is enough. In the same way only a glimpse of the Anaphora is enough. It need not be presented in full, verbally, at every Divine Liturgy, in order for me to believe and offer "Amen".

The praying of the Anaphora quietly fits the liturgy almost in a way the praying of it aloud can never fit. We have prayed the psalms and the petitions. We have heard the Scripture lessons. We have dismissed the catechumens. There are no non-believers. It is we, the faithful, who are now gathered. Just as the icons do not hide the meeting of heaven and earth, so, too, the silence does not hide the meeting of heaven and earth.

Even if I am 100% wrong in what I believe and it turns out that it is the will of the Spirit that our priests pray these prayers aloud, I know that a rubric mandating this is not correct. If, as Fr. David correctly points out, there were already priests who were already doing this then the appropriate thing is to give them the freedom to pray the Anaphora aloud or silently as they deem best to serve their community. If the Spirit leads, then it will become the common custom throughout our Church - indeed, throughout all of Byzantine Orthodoxy - and no mandate will be necessary.

When our Church ceases to be a home to many of the people who have been born and raised in it, we are doing something wrong.

I went to Liturgy at the local OCA mission parish today. The priest prayed most of the traditionally silent prayers aloud...actually, he chanted the prayers in a lower but very audible voice. However, when he came to the epiklesis he changed from chanting to speaking and he began that prayer as we sang the "We praise You..." So when we had stopped singing that part he was almost to the epiklesis itself. It is a very small group so if this had been in a regular parish setting I wonder if it would have been heard by people further back in the church. Perhaps the epiklesis was taken in a more quiet manner to emphasize the mystery?

Despite praying most of the traditionally silent prayers aloud the priest still took all the regular litanies (except for the litany of the Catechumens).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

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

Dear Joe,

I don't remember reading that the Administrator is in favour of imposing a "one size fits all" rule in this regard.

The principle he enunciates as far as liturgiology is concerned is sound, even when seen from this layman's eyes.

Ultimately, it is going to be a matter of who likes what.

I like the Administrator's arguments, and not just because I like him.

I like you too!

Alex