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

Joe,

The Creed and the Anaphora are two distinct parts of the Divine Liturgy.

Admin

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

Dear Cantor Joe,

For the benefit of us who have no formal theological training and who have no real wishes to engage in liturgizing in the Sanctuary, what other reforms would you like to see happen?

More to the point, if you were put in charge of a "liturgical reform commission," what would your recommendations be to implement them?

This is all fine in theory. But our "hushki-papushki" people WILL have their say in the end!

Alex

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

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

Dear Cantor Joe,

I do think both of us would have a problem being quiet!

I don't mean to upset you, I just wanted the kind of quality post from you such as you gave above.

Insofar as I've been successful in this venture, I am pleased with myself and thank you!

Alex

To Joe,

I mention retaining the various litanies (at least once in the Liturgy) because to unilaterally remove them entirely from the Liturgy would distance us further from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I can handle a mandate to have the priest say the Anaphora aloud as long as we do not abbreviate the Liturgy to accomplish that.

We Ruthenians are too well known for being minimalistic when it comes to Liturgy (in cutting out litanies and Antiphons and in not following the prosphora traditions).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

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

Dear Dave,

Good rejoinder to the Cantor!

I think we Ukies tend to be minimalistic too and this is because we think that since the Latins have shortened things, we have too as well.

It's an identity crisis, really . . .

Alex

Assuming nothing else is touched, exactly how much time is saved by taking the anaphora silently rather than taking it aloud? Is there really that much of a difference such that silent = time efficient?

Dear David Ignatius,

You say that "I can handle a mandate to have the priest say the Anaphora aloud as long as we do not abbreviate the Liturgy to accomplish that."

I would say, that I suggest that everywhere, everyone be free to take the anaphora aloud. That freedom is certainly a good thing.

I would also agree, that no part of the Liturgy should be abbreviated, or omitted from the text! This is a very important point. The Liturgy must be published whole and entire.

I do not accept that any unjustified mandate is required or wise or prudent.

Surely freedom is better than mandates, grace is better than the law.

The difference between the organic legitimate development of the Liturgy, and "Revisionism", is in the word "mandate". Revisions are mandated, development within the Tradition is free.

The Latin Church legislated their liturgical reformation. For us to do the same in imitation of them, would qualify as a Latinization. The reforms were not completely successful, and there are still challenges in its implementation. (cf. the recent decrees from Rome on the experimentation and implementation of liturgical reform, and in the problem of translation of liturgical texts).

The only eastern equivalent I can think of, to a legislated reform such as has happened in the western Church fell to Nikon in Moscow. This caused wounds still unhealed.

In the east, in our Church, there must be another way forward.

I agree with your post, but why compel, where liberty will serve better?

Elias

It seems to me that those of us who argue for maintaining the received liturgy as the normative form are the ones who are being consistent.

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

There are Ruthenian and Ukrainian priests already taking the Anaphora aloud now, some of them have been doing it for some time.

Well, Joe, given the choice between
(1) recitation of the Rosary;
(2) dead silence;
(3) paraliturgical hymns;
I don't even have to think about which I would pick. If that's because "the Latins have them", meaning, really, the Poles, then by all means, let's sing 'em!

From Casimir Kucharek's The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (Alleluia Press, 1971):

"After almost all the Orient had adopted the silent offering of the Eucharistic Prayer, it was inevitable that the custom would prevail in the West. The various reasons adduced for the change are frankly unconvincing. The concept, for example, that the canon is the Holy of holies into which the priest alone can enter, or that the sacred words must not be profaned lest we call down God's wrath upon ourselves, seem no more than mere invention. No such reasons can hold true for the Eastern Churches where the custom began, for there the sense of the Holy of holies is much more strongly conveyed than in the West by the iconostasis...

"A simple but much more compelling reason seems to be the economy of time. The Divine Liturgy had become immensely long with the many additions and embellishments, the more elaborate chants, dismissals, anaphoric intercessions, and diptychs. To save time, the celebrant would continue reciting his part in a low voice while the people or deacon continued singing theirs" (pp 561-2).

The major issues relating to the anaphora seem to be two (at least for the admin): the rubric instructing that it be taken aloud and that it be done for every liturgy.

To the first issue: IMO, we must start somewhere or else it well never get done. Yet, there will probably be some priests that will never get used to taking it aloud. Does this mean that the liturgical police will "punish" these clerics? Unlikely. Current seminarians are being trained to take the anaphora aloud, so in one or two generation's time this will be a moot point. As to the catechesis involving the anaphora, or rather the whole liturgy, that too will come, as did the catechesis for the restoration of the Mysteries of Initiation (this had been restored by the time I chose to become Byzantine Catholic, and I understand Fr David Petras did the catechesis through his column.) Yet we know that there are some who have not restored this practice, and still have First Holy Communion. So if a priest is uncomfortable with taken the anaphora aloud, he probably won't do it. Is it the end of the world? NO! IMO, the beauty and majesty of the Divine Liturgy is better expressed when the anaphora and other "secret" prayers to which we respond "Amen" are taken aloud.

As to the second point that the recitation of the anaphora somehow makes it "ordinary", to follow this prespective to its "logical" conclusion, the same could be said of the whole Divine Liturgy. Since we know it so well, why take any of it aloud. Let's allow all the liturgical services "speak in secret" to the heart. If all we need is a glimpse, then after the opening benediction "Blessed is the Kingdom..." and our "Amen", the Divine Liturgy could end. This of course is nonsensical.

The anaphora and other "secret" (the very use of the word "secret" denotes clericalism) parts of the Liturgy to which we respond "Amen", only make sense when we respond to the vocal prayer. Since we are discussing the gathered assembly of the faithful, I would submit the word spoken aloud in the midst of the assembly has a far greater impact than the word read in silence. Then in the "secret of our hearts" God speaks to us.

Fr Elias,

you are of course correct, that is why it will take one, two, or more generations for this to be fully realized. Mandates will not force change upon anyone who does not want to change. From history we know that the "Triumph of Orthodoxy" did not occur within the same generation as Nicaea II. The full realization of the triumph over iconoclasm occured
when the Empress and Patriarch processed through the imperial capital and restored the icons and their veneration to the Church of Hagia Sophia almost 60 years after Nicaea II. The reception of the Liturgy will take time as well.