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

I have nothing but the highest amount of respect for Fr. David. His love of our Church and our liturgy is evident and he has certainly worked extremely hard in his task to revise the liturgy. I continue, however, to strongly oppose his belief that the liturgy is in need of reform.

The shape and balance of the liturgy are greatly distorted by these new rubrics. The flow is both new and awkward. It is much more like a Roman Mass than a Byzantine Liturgy. After several years of witnessing most of these mandates here in parishes of the Passaic Eparchy, I find myself walking away from each Divine Liturgy with the feeling that the Byzantine Liturgy (as celebrated in our parishes) is no longer a home to me. Yet when I occasionally attend a liturgy in another Byzantine Church I am at once at home and reminded of what our liturgy should be! I also know that I am not alone and am grieved that our new liturgy has become the subject of scorn by many - priests and people alike.

The individual priest should always have the freedom to celebrate the traditional liturgy in full (Patriarch Gregory spoke quite nicely on this at the Melkite clergy conference). If these proposed rubrics are really what the Lord is calling us to do then they should be offered as options and the rest should be left up to the Spirit. If, in a generation or two, all of the proposed rubrics have been adopted by our clergy and the rest of Orthodoxy that would be the time to issue a new liturgicon containing the revised liturgy. There is no hurry.

There may not be anything magical about the shape and balance of our liturgy but there is something holy about it. And it works! It is my firm belief that the Lord has guided the received liturgy to its current form and shape - and He has created a masterpiece!

It is my firm hope and prayer that the Council of Hierarchs will reject the new rubrics, rescind them where there are already mandated, and take another look at the translation. Since the liturgy belongs to the entire Church I hope that each who is concerned would communicate their concern to our bishops directly. Then we must pray.

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

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Alex, in 1988 when our revised Liturgikon was promulgated by the Synod we had our altercations as well...some of which still haven't been resolved. You know how Ukies like to change (which can be a good thing sometimes, like on the Julian Calendar issue )

It's interesting that many of our problems were from resistance because stuff was added back in and restored, such as the full Second Antiphon, Tepolota, Litany of the Catechumans, all of the small litanies, opening and closing of the Holy Doors during the Divine Liturgy etc., and not because it was taken out or abbreviated. It still has not been fully implemented even 14 years later. It takes time, patience, catechesis and charity.

The Instructions advance three criteria for liturgical renewal: authentic tradition, organic development, and pastoral senstivity. Strong arguments have been made that the proposed liturgical changes are congruent with the first two criteria. But Administrator makes a powerful statement bearing on the third. Have the proponents of the changes given this issue as much thought?

djs

That's the very justification that was made for:
1) refusing to commune infants;
2) abbreviating the Liturgy to under 30 minutes;
3) having "popular devotions" (i.e., Latin ones) instead of our authentic Great Fast liturgies;
etc.

DJS,

Thank you for pointing out some specifics. It also highlights a problem I alluded to in my first post - that is, we actually don't have the final full text, and some of the inconsistencies are errors in the posted text. I won't address the translation issues, if we ask what is the best translation, there are arguments on both sides.

However,
1) "Holy Father" should now be the text everywhere. "Ecumenical" is an honorific used only by the "Ecumenical Patriarch" and Rome has reminded us of that.
2) "Holy thing to the holy," is a unique phrase, if "Ta haghia" is used elsewhere, it means something different, and where it is used before Holy Communion, it clearly refers to the gifts about to be distributed, which the priest is holding up. Arranz has sown that this very ancient phrase, Holy thingfs to the holy, means in plain language, "Communion os for the baptized," Holy people = saints = batpized as in Pauls' Epistles.
3) I'm not sure what is meant here. The doxologies themselves are different for the different prayers, the Byzantines had a full set of doxological endings, and it seems to me that the Commision choose the common form, "for you are hoyl (you are our sanctification, etc.) and we give glory to you, Father, etc.
4) In the translation I have , the words are, "we one mind we profess," and in the Creed, "I profess one baptism for the remission of sins."
5) Again (pun unintended) I'm not sure where these inconsistencies are. Greek litanies sometimes begin with only one "eti" (again), as in the Insistent Litany following the Gospel, sometimes with two (eti kai eti, again and again, in the small litanies, which others have noted are omitted in the restored Liturgy)

A question, at the end of the translation issues, you give the doxology for the Our Father, 'For thine is the kingdom ... " What is the issue here? We retained archaic English for the lord's Prayer for "reasons of pastoral sensitivity" since this is the form that people have learned from childhood.

Again, thanks for the rmearks and the opportunity to clear up at least sone possible glitches.

Fr. David

Since there are several threads regarding the new or "standardized" liturgy, I am not sure which one some of my comments will refer to, but I think that I am in the right place. It's good to have some time to participate again, after a couple of weeks with a rigid schedule. There is nothing more precious and relevant to me and to most of our people, than the way the liturgy is celebrated. It still amazes me that the "babi" in my parish can and will offer their commentaries about specific elements of the liturgy that one would think were not noticeable. One such person will always tell me whether my phelonion is too short, too long or "just right" as well as if the liturgy was celebrated to her approval in other ways. I actually appreciate this keen sense of ownership that our people give to the liturgy and it affirms that the service is still something very important in their lives. With that said, I would like to make some observations on the liturgical discussion here.

Liturgical reform is always necessary, in every age and place, because the liturgy is a "living" vessel transmitting the faith, emotions, and spirituality of people here and now. When done well, reform in the liturgy will bring about a better understanding of what is being celebrated, while maintaining a connection with what has been called the "organic development" of the liturgy. In the case of our Byzantine liturgy, we have the added concern of maintaining a semblance of the service in relation to the many other particular churches which celebrate it. We cannot alienate ourselves from the rest of the church by making changes which effect the commonly known standard. This is far different from reforms in the Latin Rite liturgy, of which one standard version is produced for the various local communities which use it.

I have yet to see either a Greek or Arabic redaction of the Divine Liturgy that excludes the phrase, "to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity on in substance and undivided" in any translation.

It is obvious that the original form of the anaphora included only the phrase "It is proper and just" and ended at that. Many Eucharistic prayers, ancient and contemporary, include a form this acclamation, including the usage of the Roman Rite up to our present day, "It is right to give Him thanks and praise."

In the Byzantine liturgy, the remainder of the acclamation, "to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity on in substance and undivided." was added later, most likely after the other prayers of the anaphora became inaudible.

My point (and that of some other posters here) is that by excluding the secondary phrase of this acclamation, we are deviating from all other present redactions of the "text" of the liturgy, Slavic, Greek, Arabic or otherwise. This creates a rather "awkward" rendering of the liturgy when such a familiar part of the service is altered. I believe that the same goes for phrases like: "In wisdom, let us profess our faith." It just goes "against the grain" so to speak. In these cases, we are not merely compiling a "pastoral" or "standardized" form of the Divine Liturgy, but are tampering with the "received" text itself.

Some of us are making the point that it is crucial to preserve our particular Ruthenian recension of the Divine Liturgy. This is imperative and also necessary to do justice to the distinct heritage that we have as people who use the Ruthenian liturgy (Galician, Subcarpathian and others). It is important to note here, for the sake of clarity on behalf of those who may not easily recognize the distinctions of which we speak, that the Ruthenian style does not refer to the "text" of the liturgy per se, but rather, to a particular style in action, movement, arrangement of the church, chant, the way the celebrant's hands are held, the manner in which entrances are made, and even the inclusion or disclusion of certain ektenias and other portions of the service. These are mostly spelled out in the "Ordo Celebrationes" which offers a thorough and authentic explanation of the Ruthenian liturgy, so as to distinguish it from the recensions of other churches. At no time, does our recension denote the words of the liturgy itself, so that in reality, as far as the text is concerned, there is very little, if any, difference from tradition to tradition in this regard.

There are a few exceptions to this principle of the "received text" of the liturgy, These mostly represent, like other aspects of our usage, pre-Nikonian renderings. Two in particular being the blessing and hymn after communion in the Presanctified Liturgy, "Blessed is our God who has enlightened and sanctified us . . . " and "We give You thanks, O Christ our God . . ." which some other recensions do not have.

I wanted to clarify this point, for those who may be confused that the Ruthenian liturgy could differ from other versions in regard to the "received text."

Concerning the inclusion of the "teplota" or "zeon" our Administrator is correct that the 1964 liturgikon made provision for this ritual, even though it was given in parentheses and was not normally taken by the celebrants. While it is a welcome reform, to encourage our priests to take this liturgical element which had been discarded for centuries and is used among the majority of Orthodox priests, I do not see any real cause for either concern or rejoicing over the restoration of an authentic but rather irrelevant and unnoticeable rubric. In reality, how many worshippers either are able to see this action or understand the reason for it? Does it have a meaningful purpose today, other than to further spiritualize a liturgy that already contains a great amount of symbolism? Does the adding of warm water to the consecrated species do anything to improve upon the integral elements in liturgical worship?

Without taking time to research the teplota and provide detailed information as to its origin and development, it can suffice to say for now, that its addition to the communion rite of the liturgy was once practical, not spiritual. Like other aspects of the service, it received the symbolism of the "fervor of faith" or "the fullness of the Holy Spirit" after the mystagogical interpretation of the Divine Liturgy became popular.

What we should pay attention to, and what I believe that the "standardized" liturgy attempts to do is to offer, is a prayerful, pastoral and practical approach to the Divine Liturgy, so that the centuries of tradition that make up its present redaction can be appreciated and spiritually profited from, trying to create the best scenario for the world that we live in now. There will always be exceptions to take on any redaction of the liturgy, as individual tastes differ just as each local tradition has over time, added its own particular flavor to the celebration.

What concerns me with an "absolute" liturgical standard amidst so much possible variety that exists from place to place and from tradition to tradition, is the freedom of the celebrant to pastorally decide when a certain element may or may not be appropriate. This does not mean that healthy liturgical norms, correct rubrics and good sense should not be applied to the celebration of the liturgy, but that there might be times when an ektenia or two could/should be omitted or included or when the anaphora or other prayers might be better accomplished in silence. It is a very fine line between loose freedom which ignores the integrity of the liturgy and an imposed sense of false uniformity.

What I have observed in places where the standardized liturgy has been in use for some time, is a tendency towards a "stagnant" celebration where the principal of operation is, "no more, no less" leaving no room for the pastoral prudence of the one presiding at the liturgy, the one leading the chant or the particular needs of the community which celebrates. Perhaps here is an area where we can learn something from the Roman liturgy, in which there is a freedom to choose various options for some parts of the service, based on the particular circumstances or theme of the celebration. While we do not have the exact equivalent of these options (in the penitential rite, the asperges or "rite of blessing and sprinkling of holy water", the offertory rite, etc) we can apply the underlying principle, that there are rites appropriate for some occasions that are not absolutely such for others. A blind uniformity to each and every exact rubric is not in keeping with the Eastern ethos but rather reflects a pre-concilliar Roman mentality that has since been discarded.

What does distinguish our translations from many others is the use of living, contemporary English, a very welcome sight after so many other versions rendered in a language not spoken for several centuries. If the liturgy is to be in the vernacular, then it must be just that, not a sentimental preservation of a linguistic style, the meaning and function of which is so often grossly misinterpreted.

By and large, the standardized liturgy is a welcome change from some of the horrible deviations stemming from the latinized period of our past. The liturgical commission has worked hard to employ good principles in celebration, ones that have been emphasized by liturgical scholars for the past half-century. Input from the people is one aspect that could shed light on some areas that may not come up across the official liturgical discussion board. May God continue to guide those responsible for our liturgical texts, most all of which represent the best quality in books of Eastern liturgy available today.

Fr. Joe

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Fr. Joe ]

There are places, I understand, that do not even use an approved text for the Divine Liturgy, they do not celebrate pre-sanctified but rather 'stations', they do not have iconostases, etc. These places are home to their parishioners. They are seen as perhaps aberrations to some. They are in many ways, truly "neither Latin nor Greek but some HYBRID FREAK"!

Apparently what is good and right for you is what you are used to and like and is nostalgic. Can't that rule be applied to these other parishes as well? Would others feel 'at home' there?

If so, then each parish can be 'sui juris' and you can chuck the notion of liturgical correctness altogether.

Bob

[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

And your point?

As to popular devotions the Instructions explicitly say:


djs

My point is that "pastoral senstivity" can be so broadly interpreted as to justify anything--from a priest's "personal spirituality" to the prescriptions of the Liturgical Instruction (which do not hold the force of law). Whether these have anything whatsoever to do with where the lay people are at in their liturgical and sacramental spirituality, in practice, is completely irrelevant.

The "Ruthenian" parish near Pittsburgh where the lay people "bring up the gifts" instead of the Great Entrance has, I'm sure, been brought to that point by means of "pastoral sensitivity". Does that mean I agree with it? No. But that means that giving consideration to that above all else will eliminate the possibility of either 1) reasonable uniformity or 2) moving in the direction that our lawful hierarchs feel that our Church should move.

There comes a point where lawful authority in the Church must be exercised, or it ceases to be any authority at all. Otherwise we can't ever move beyond "as the priest goes, so does the Typik."

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

I guess that is: Каждий пипик, такий типик?

Orthodox Catholic guy, I have an issue regarding the whole "Amen" deal with regard to the anaphora. Here in Las Vegas we have two Greek Catholic churches; Our Lady of Widsom (wanna be) Italo-Albanian-Greek Catholic and St. Gabriel the Archangel Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic church. At both churches the Anaphora is said aloud, but at Our Lady's, the people intone the three "Amen's" and at St. Gabriel's no one says Amen. I say it softly. You are right in pointing out the most folks don't understand the significance of the anaphora in the liturgy of the eucharist or the significance of the amen, still, the Amen has not lost it's importance. The theology of the Amen comes from the eastern understanding of the transubstantiation being affected by the desire and prayer of the priest WITH the faithful. Indeed, the idea of a private or personal liturgy is foreign to us. None the less, the Amen remains significant. Therefore, if we have no deacon, as is often the case, and is in fact he case at both our Las Vegas churches, then who says it? Isn't it better for the faithful to say Amen then for it not to be said at all? The deacon, representing the Archangel standing in attetion at the altar of God is the representative of the people. His Amens etc. are the fiat of the faithful. He speaks for them if you will. However, if the deacon is not there, then the faithful are forced to speak for themselves. So, the Amen said by the faithful is akin to having non-ordained servers. The lack of the presence of the neccessary clerics for the celebration of the Liturgy does not mitigate it's celebration. The laity step in. How is it any different from the Amen at the epiclesis?

Athanasius

In what way does my belief that the Lord has guided the received liturgy to its current form and shape (and that He has created a masterpiece) demonstrate docetism? I have never suggested that there was no human participation, only that the Lord had a guiding hand. I think that Mr. Thur is making accusations where they are untrue. Certainly he is the first person to accuse me of being a fundamentalist. If anything, it is those who argue for mandated revisions who are more deserving of the title �fundamentalists�, as they may be denying the current freedom offered by the received liturgicon. Yet I reject that any of the participants in this debate qualify as either fundamentalists or docetists. Indeed, I have argued that liberty be offered to both those wishing to adhere to the received liturgy (rubrics) as well as to those wishing to follow the revised liturgy with a definite prayer and confidence that the Spirit will lead. Such liberty has not bee offered by most of those arguing the revisionist agenda. Indeed, no one has argued conclusively that a revision of the liturgy is absolutely necessary.

Regarding the priests that Mr. Thur suggests are disobedient to their bishop, I fail to see how a mandated revised liturgy will bring them into more uniformity where the currently mandated received liturgical rubrics has not.

--


One can �get used� to anything. This in itself is not an argument either for or against revision. The 1964 liturgicon is faithful to the received liturgy (rubrics and text). This, together with the �Ordo Celebrationes� is already the standard form of our liturgy. I find it odd that those arguing to maintain the received standard for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy are now accused of creating a �sui juris� Church within each parish.

I put forward the example of Bishop Michael�s style of liturgical celebration. He did not give any great mandates for the liturgical renewal needed in our Church in that day. He merely provided an example by how he celebrated the liturgy. It was and is, for the most part, extremely faithful to the rubrics provided in the 1964 text (there are a few notable exceptions). By the end of his ministry as Bishop of Passaic (just 25 years) there were only a handful of priests who had not adopted the example he set and those who did not were certainly among the older and soon to retire clergy.

--


Quite true. This is why I argue that the officially received rubrics and texts should be the standard our clergy should follow. The vast majority of our parishes have a liturgical usage that conforms to the liturgical style set by our bishops. A new mandated of a revised liturgy will not accomplish anything where the current standards have not.


Pastoral sensitivity does not mean that one should be allowed to introduce customs that are alien to our inherited Byzantine-Ruthenian liturgical tradition. I am unaware of any parish that has the custom of lay people �bringing up the gifts� but this is a situation where the local bishop should educate both priest and people about our authentic tradition regarding the entrance with the gifts and then insist that the rubrics be followed. There are probably very few individuals in the parish who do not realize that this custom is unique to that parish.

Regarding the direction our bishops wish our Church to move to, in my conversations with several of our bishops over the years I have never felt that any of them are overly enthusiastic about the revised liturgy. They have simply put their trust in the people they consider to be experts. As I have stated before, I have the highest regard for the priests who serve on our liturgical commission. My disagreement with them regarding the need for revisions in the liturgy does not mean that I do not respect them or do not give due consideration to their opinions.

--

The specific English text to be utilized by the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church is the secondary issue. The more important issue is the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy. The current liturgical rubrics already offer each celebrant great freedom while at the same time providing a standard form. There is no need for revision. If one parish prefers to maintain the Office of the Three Antiphons in full with either the Paschal Antiphons or the Typical Psalms they should be free to do so just as some parishes may choose to whittle it down to the bare minimum of one verse with no litanies. The individual celebrant may deem that part or all of the prayers of the Anaphora be taken aloud or silently as he deems best serves his congregation at a given liturgy. His freedom to do so should be preserved. He should have the freedom to pray the full litany before the Lord�s Prayer, shorten it, or omit it at a given liturgy. But they should always remain part of our liturgicon.