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

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

Dear friends,

The Admin. and Fr. Elias have raised very legitimate concerns about mandating liturgical changes. However, in my experience liturgical "mandates" are only binding in as much as they are enforced.

Several years ago Metropolitan Judson mandated the restoration of infant communion. Here in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, several of our older priests still refuse communion to infants. I have unfortunately witnessed this with my own eyes. These priests, who were trained in the hyper-latinized days, apparently fear no consequences in disobeying the mandate. After all, what can be done to them? If they are forced to retire or choose to quit out of protest, who would replace them?

Also, Metropolitan Judson mandated that icon screens be erected in all of our parishes. Yet today 25% or more of the parishes in Pittsburgh have no screen, nor are planning to install one anytime soon. Again, this mandate has no teeth.

So when the new translation of the Liturgy is promulgated, "mandating" that the anaphora be prayed audibily, I have no doubt that these same priests will continue to pray it silently. They will probably also keep the filioque in the creed, and continue denying communion to infants. And unless there are consequences, they won't budge.

Thus, my question to you is this: should we really be concerned about a "mandate" that probably 30% or more of our priests will disobey anyway?

Anthony

Re: mandates

What is the scope of the mandate being considered? Does it only require taking the Anaphora out loud?

Or, does it also require that the new text be followed and not permit use of traditional antiphons and litanies (the ones apparently to be edited out in the new text) used by almost all other Byzantine Catholic jurisditions and all Orthodox jurisdictions?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dragani:


Thus, my question to you is this: should we really be concerned about a "mandate" that probably 30% or more of our priests will disobey anyway?

I would say that having Iconostasis and having infant communion AND Chrismation is much more needful in restoring Orthodox ethos to the Church then having the Anaphora taken aloud. The first 2 are much more vital!

It really shocks me to hear of that many Rusyn parishes without iconostasis in 2002!!!

Dear Brian,
I wouldn't call all of these "Rusyn parishes." After all, Warren, Ohio didn't become the largest parish in the Pittsburgh Metropolia by being a traditional Rusyn church. Somehow it managed to become the no-particular-Rite "Catholic church of convenience" that probably rivals any such parishes in the RC Diocese of Youngstown. (Or Pittsburgh, for that matter)

Their unofficial motto seems to be "we'll baptize, marry, bury, and commune anyone -- except Orthodox, of course. Unless you're divorced and Orthodox."

[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: Lemko Rusyn ]

There may be others for whom the mandate will cause a crisis of conscience, if they feel unable to obey...

The problem with the revisionist Liturgy is not the anaphora aloud. It is a whole package of abbreviations, selected priestly prayers (about 8) to be taken aloud (not just the anaphora) which change the shape and the balance of the Liturgy, the curtailed antiphons, the omitted litanies of the deacon, the taking of prayers in a SPOKEN voice adding a new and jarring element to an otherwise sung liturgy, and mis-translations, inclusivity, non-consistent renderings, and 'interpretations' and modernization of words and concepts which distance the text from the slavonic and greek.

This seems to be an issue in our churches right now. The Ruthenian's are saying the anaphora aloud so that the faithful can hear and "participate" more fully as the transubstantiation occures as a result of a fiat of the people through the priest. I was wondering how this conflicts, if it even does, with the doing away of the curtain behind the Royal Doors and the general "openness" of our Iconostasis? It is difficult to establish a balance. On the one hand, secrecy fosters mysticism and openness can foster loss of piety, on the other hand, secrecy can foster ignorance and cultishness and openness can foster education and awareness. I suppose we will always seek balance as long as we are here on earth "fighting the good fight" and awaiting perfection in the heavenly realm.

Anthony: Can you document this mandate?
Also was a mandate ever given by Metropolitan Judson regarding the filioque?

djs

I am a new member and this is my first posting and
I was very interested in this thread about the Anaphora. I am glad so many Byzantines take the
Liturgy so seriously. If the spoken Anaphora or any other change lengthens the Liturgy, all the better. Is Liturgy not the most important time we spend during the week? We shouldn't be so quick to leave our "heaven on earth". Does anyone else ever listen to the words of Liturgy with eyes closed, to absorb better their meaning?

Regarding the silent vs spoken aloud Anaphora,
to quote from a little booklet purchased at the church religious shop [I attend the only Ruthenian Byzantine church in Georgia: Epiphany] entitled:

Holy Things for the Holy (Instruction on the Eucharist), written by Reverend Basil H. Losten, Eparch of Stanford (CT), dated January 30, 1995.:

on page 22 the Bishop addresses the Anaphora:

"I cannot begin to expound everything in the Anaphora, the Eucharistic Prayer, especially in the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great. I shall only mention a few points here. But I ask the priests to read this prayer aloud* at the Divine Liturgy with careful attention to the meaning of the text, and I invite everyone to follow the prayer closely. The bishop or the priest always says this prayer in the plural, because this prayer is offered in the name of all of us.

*Now that we have the Divine Liturgy in vernacular Ukrainian or English, the Eucharistic Prayer is best read audibly." [footnote]

Bishop Basil then continues to explain the anaphora in some detail, all the things we should be "thankful" for.

At the end of the booklet is a section regarding
"Practical Instructions and Guidelines".
Under "Posture at the Divine Liturgy" he says:
"As I have said before, the faithful are allowed a certain preference in this matter. Indications of posture in popular prayer-books are not official, and I do not want any priest in the Eparcy to presume to command the faithful to adopt a particular posture. We are aware that our ancient tradition directs that we do not kneel from Easter until Pentecost, nor on Sundays; that tradition is well established. Those who desire to kneel even on those days may do so."

In our parish, some people have visited relatives in the old country, attending Liturgy while there. They report no kneeling on all Sundays in the old country (Ukraine), so we have a mix of postures in our parish and no one seems to mind.

Does anyone know Bishop Basil? My parish belongs to the Eparchy of Passaic so I am unfamiliar with Bishop Basil.
Thank you
Denise

I know that liturgical change is very painful for many people. Hieromonk Elias calls it the "revisionist" Liturgy, an example of how adjectives can be used to label things or concepts. I have the highest personal respect for Hieromonk Elias and accept everything he says very seriously. I think he is wrong in his appraisal of the Liturgy to which i will give a different adjective, the "restored" Liturgy. I believe "reform" to be necessary - that is, each of us must "reform" daily, and likewise the Church must "reform" daily, that is, act and pray so as to be in conformity with the will of God, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heave," which we pray often daily. Lest one fear, this does not mean we will "change" the Liturgy daily! I know that many fear a reform like the recent Roman reform, but this is certainly not our intention. It is just that since the Liturgy came to be in the vernacular, it does seem spiritually profitable to restore the priest's prayers aloud (the anaphora and five other prayers, not eight, as Hieromonk Elias suggested). I believe him to be completely incorrect when he says that this changes (I presume he means in a bad sense) the shape and balance of the Liturgy, I would say it restores the shape and balance of the Liturgy. There is nothing particularly magical about the shape and the balance of the Liturgy we have received, it is what the printers in Venice decided should be the Orthodox Liturgy in the 16th century. At that time, Greece offered no theological appraisal, because they were at there worst period under the heel of the Turcocratia. The Russians then imposed this shape in the 17th century under the Patriarch Nicon who believed that the Greeks had maintained the ancient Christi Liturgy, with results well known. It should be noted that even in this present Liturgy, as I did when studying Liturgy, and which Trempelas did in his article in the latest ECJ, there is NO RUBRIC which demands the recitation of the priest's prayers SILENTLY, except for the Prayer before the Cheroubicon, which should indeed be silent, and the small insert between the Words of Institution, "Likewise, taking the chalice ... " Also, the whole problem of chanting is not addressed, it is true, some feel that the prayers should be read, but could they also be rather chanted, which would remove the complaint of "a new and jarring element to an otherwise sung Liturgy." I will not address the question of the litanies, which would be a major treatise in itself, except to note that the Archimandrite Robert Taft in his book on the Great Entrance (p. 428), noted that the Litany after the Great Entrance "should be suppressed completely," for reasons given in the book, of course. We have followed this advice, except for the petition introducing the Prayer of Offering.
I believe the translation to be quite ggod and accurate, and was suprised at Hieromonk Elias' accusation of "mis-translations, inclusivity, non-consistent renderings, and 'interpretations' and modernization of words and concepts which distance the text from Slavonic and Greek." I would certainly like to know what he specifically means by this. I simply do not like blanket statements that leave you guessing as to what the problem is.
There is of course another issue that this thread has brought up, and that is clergy resistance and disobedience to episcopal directives. Certainly some priests in Parma, Van Nuys and Passaic have resisted the directive to remove the Filioque (no directive on this has been issued in Pittsburgh), and many resist communion to infants. When I spoke about this to the Archeparchial clergy, one pastor from Youngstown told me boldly, "I won't give communion to infants because it is against my personal spirituality." I would consider this action quite serious - the bishops have "restored" this practice for very serious theological reasons, and individual priests are excommunicating and depriving baptized members of the Church of the body and blood of Christ. Why? Because of their personal spirituality? The question of clergy reception of a restored Liturgy is therefore very serious. I think many will resist, because some still resist the 1965 translation, but I believe that a printed Liturgy will eventually be the norm for our church and that most will follow it. I have confidence in our futrue. The restored Liturgy should theoretically cause little problem in Parma, Van Nuy and Passaic, because they have done most of the work already. Once when there was a gathering of clergy when I was still pastor in Cleveland, and the Parma Liturgy was celebrated, an Orthodox pastor came to me afterward and said, "I was very impressed, your Liturgy brings out the best potentiality in the Orthodox Liturgy."

Father David wrote:


This litany is repeated later after the consecration and could be taken then.

Instead of unilaterally removing litanies from the Divine Liturgy (no Orthodox jurisdiction has done this, have they?) couldn't we do this:

Print the entire text of the Liturgy. Give permission for pastoral reasons to omit repeated litanies as long as they were taken at least once in the Liturgy. The same could be said for antiphons. Shouldn't we print the entire text and then give some pastoral guidelines?

Why should some of these prayers of the litanies be completely removed from our liturgical consciousness when no Orthodox jurisdiction has done this? Why should we be the first?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Father David:

I hope this doesn't seen to be nit-picking, I don't attach profound significance to anything below. But since you asked, I thought I would send a list of some inconsistencies pointed out on this board, and that I found by searching the Lance's text files. Search and ye shall find:

"Ecumenical Pontiff" has been changed to "Holy Father" in all but one place in the liturgy.

"Holy Things" has been changed to "Holy Gifts" in all but one place in the liturgy. (Maybe in that spot more is being included than the gifts?)

The construction [we give/render glory to, we adore, ...] You: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has been kept intact everywhere except in the intro to the Trisagion, where an awkward construction has been introduced.

Before the Creed "confess" (with one mind) has
been restored, but in the Creed still "profess".

"again and again" is retained, and in another place replaced by "again".

Some translation issues:

StuartK's suggestion of "God-beloved Bishop" is beyond measure more euphonious than "Bishop, whom God loves"

So many changes in the wording of the Creed! Mostly at the level of "and", but is this really necessary? Is "await" - so passive in English - better than "look toward".

"Brothers and sisters" for "brethren" has been noted. A comment was also made on the rendering of "i vsich i vsja". Good luck on that one. One Orthodox translation sounds like Dickens' Tiny Tim: "each and every one"

"...and without condemnation dare call You, the God of heaven, Father, and say: " Thank you so much for this.

"For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and forever." Oh well.

djs

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Dear Friends,

Sheeesh! Am I ever happy I'm Ukrainian Catholic!

Alex

On a lighter note;

I just got a booklet from the Roman Catholic Seminary here in Cleveland. It is promoting "The Fest 2002", a concert and festival all rolled into one. My favorite part is down in the left lower corner--"8:30 PM Mass with fireworks!!*" Now doesn't that open up some possibilities for the anaphora!

John
*To be fair, following this claim, in very small font are the words "to follow." Even though they are barely noticeable they are there. I am including this disclaimer as I learned long ago that the proper use of footnotes can keep one out of the confessional.

Just my little worthless opinion:

One of the great things of being deacon is the opportunity to celebrate the liturgy in a variety of parishes and settings. As a result, I have experienced the liturgy in just about every way mentioned in this thread. Here are my observations:

1) the time difference between the "reformed liturgy" and the "full liturgy" without redaction is almost unnoticeable. There is perhaps a 10 minute difference at best and I think this is generous.

2) There is a very different rhythm to the reformed liturgy. This different rhythm gives the liturgy a different context.

3) The liturgy is not merely the sum of its parts, it is the totality of its parts. The reformed liturgy is not deficient because it cannot be dissected. Furthermore, it itself is not a dissection of the full liturgy. For me, it is an icon cleansed of its tarnish. However, also for me, the icon with tarnish is no less perfect in its composition and expression.

4) The measure of Orthodoxy is not determined by the liturgy used but rather, by the humble participation of the faithful. Since times even preceding Chrysostom and Basil, every liturgy has been perfect because the liturgy has been the servant of the faithful. It is the sufficient sacrifice, not because of itself, but because of what it effects.

5) The liturgy must serve the people. Even though people participate in the liturgy, the liturgy is their mutual expression of love and of communion with each other. The love derives from the people and from the Holy Spirit. It does not derive from the liturgy. The liturgy is the expression of that love.

6) A lesson can be learned from the Anaphora of the Novus Ordo when it says: "From age to age you gather your people so that from East to West a perfect offering can be made." For me this has always meant that people of every era and people of every culture have a voice, and a need. Their need is to have liturgical expression that is most relevant to themselves. The liturgy is at once unchanging and maleable.

7) The same words mean different things to different people. There will never be unanimity on Mystical expression (as if we could ever adequately express the essence of God!). At least by tying the words to chant, they achieve a different contextual relationship with our psyche (Jung would state that this, then, is shared within our collective unconscious).

I will stop there as I've noticed I'm beginning to get a little carried away.

John