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

Administrator,


No Chance of that happing! The Bishops have been infected with the disease of Vatican II! God Save Us!

I disagree. I know our bishops to be good and competent men. I have expressed my opinions on these and other topics to each of them and know that each has both welcomed and respected what I have had to say. Since we are currently at a time of liturgical change and some of the proposed text and suggested musical settings have been made public for review this is the perfect time for us ordinary layman to make our opinions known.

Administrator,

I deduce from your previous post, which I quoted, that because you are used to it it should not change. That is what the words you wrote lead to believe. You say that you attend other liturgies in other places and it is not how 'our liturgy' is supposed to be. Yet this appears to be based solely on the issue of what you are accostumed to.

Have I missed something?

Bob

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

Vatican II was NOT a disease. Among it's decrees was that on the Eastern Churches which encouraged the Eastern Catholic Churches to return to their ancient traditions and get rid of Latinizations. That was very positive. Also, it opened up ecumenical relations with the Orthodox Churches and led to the lifting of the Anathemas between East and West. Much good came out of the Council for the Eastern Churches and not all was so great Pre-1962-1965!

Bob,

Thank you for your post. It appears that I have done a very poor job of presenting my argument. This is not just a matter of personal preference in the shape of the liturgy. If it were, one could easily argue that those promoting liturgical revision have merely revised the liturgy based upon their own analysis of our liturgical history, one that is heavily biased with pre-existing personal preferences. If one accepts the argument that the sixth century liturgy was more purer than the received liturgy then one can also argue that we should go back to the first century liturgy since it would be even purer. No, there is definitely a large amount of personal preference in the proposed liturgical revision.

My rejection of the revised rubrics is for many reasons, not the least of which is that the revisions create an entirely new flow of the liturgy as well as destroying the balance of the received liturgy as it has evolved. This is an important element and it has not been addressed. There is a certain amount of drama in the liturgy as well as a certain amount of emotion, not to mention the practicalities of getting a group of people to sing well.

Consider the Office of the Three Antiphons with, as a minimum, three verses for each antiphon and the little litanies. The three verses are just enough to �prime the singing pump�. The chant is simple and lends itself to harmony. The litanies not only call us again and again to prayer but offer the worshipper in the pew with a moment to reflect on the psalm verses just sung, to catch one�s breath and to prepare for the next psalm verses to be sung. The whole effect is to quickly bring the assembly to a spirited celebration on which the rest of the liturgy can build. By the time the Third Antiphon is completed the whole assembly is singing and singing well. Not so when this Office is reduced to the bare minimum of one verse for each of the three antiphons. One hardly begins before one is done. Imagine singing only the first line each of the verses of �Silent Night� and you�ll get an understanding of what I am saying. This same effect is accomplished whether one is singing the paschal verses from Pslams 65, 66 and 94 or the �Typical Pslams� from 102, 145 and the Beatitudes (when sung according to the same melody). While it is certainly true that the these considerations cannot and should not be the main consideration in good liturgy they are certainly important elements and cannot be dismissed lightly as appears to have been done by those seeking to revise the liturgy and mandate a reduction of this office to the bare minimum.

Another example is the Prayer of the Offertory taken after the Great Entrance. It is certainly true that it is a most beautiful prayer but the mandate of reciting it aloud effectively destroys the liturgical action and flow begun with the Great Entrance by bringing it to a dead stop while the priest recites this prayer. It seems to me that the flow and dramatic elements of the liturgy have not yet been considered.

More importantly, however, no one has yet provided an argument that convincingly demonstrates that our liturgy is in desperate need of revision. Certainly no one has demonstrated that liturgical rubric mandates will serve the Church better than example and liberty.

Administrator,

I will preface this carefully. I am not Byzantine Catholic. I was for years however and I was in and attended many BC parishes.

To the 1st point above: In almost all of the BC parishes I attended and visited the antiphons were truncated and the 3rd antiphon was supressed until VERY recently. One notable exception was Columbus, OH, but perhaps Parma is different. I was in many parishes in the Passaic and Pittsburgh eparchies. I cannot recall any parish taking the little litanies between the antiphons aloud. Are you saying that is what happens in your parish and that is what you want? If that is so, I would agree with you.

To the 2nd point: Liberty has given the BCs places like Warren, OH and Carrick-Pittsburgh, PA. If you don't want the names here delete them, it seems that only giving details will prove a point. That is liberty. There are other places that can be mentioned but those are two that are well known I think. They had plenty of 'modeling' but they refused it (or perhaps not maybe they would be today the pride of Elko?). Anyway, that is my point.

Also a point I think that is often overlooked, are priests not somehow employees? If they simply do not do what the superior orders is there no consequence? Perhaps these guys were never in the 'real world'? Do you have a secular job that you can simply 'diss' your superior?

A point was made about a priest's 'personal spirituality.' What if that personal spirituality conflicts with the Church's? What if mine conflict's with the Church's? Which prevails?

Bob

Friends,

As I said above I am not BC. I was. The liturgical life of the BCC is, in my opinion, in shambles. This is one of the motivating factors in my leaving the BCC.

In all but a few places there is merely Divine Liturgy (and lots of 'em!), no other services except perhaps in Lent and oh yeah the funerals - plenty of those and well maybe a wedding from time-to-time. No hours, Matins or Vespers, Akathist or Moleben (except in one parish on the PA/OH state line, to the Sacred Heart), nothing else, again except during Lent.

The Divine Liturgy was ripped apart in many places, those of you who have been around for some time in the NE know this. YOU CANNOT DENY IT. Has it been put back together relatively well?, I would say so. There are still places where I would not know what kind of church I were in though. The rubrics in place in many places reflect a rather latinized and 'low mass' mentality. The liturgical scholars can tell you that. Fr. David Petras as he is now participating in this forum is an invaluable resource.

I have a great love for the Byzantine Tradition, so much so that I had to look for the fullness of it in Orthodoxy, canonical Orthodoxy. To my friends who remain I wish them well. I enjoy participating in this forum although it can be frustrating. I will continue to participate as long as I like (and am allowed) but when I read all of this junk about the liturgy, boy am I glad that is not my church we are talking about!

With love,

Bob

Bob,

The fuller Office of the Three Antiphons was reintroduced in my parish when Msgr. Levkulic published the first edition of his pew book in the late 1970s. It was only when the revised rubrics were mandated here in the Eparchy of Passaic a few years ago that they were again reduced to a single verse. Sadly, most of our parishes (and even many of priests) have never have the opportunity to witness the beauty of this office, celebrated properly. We are revising before we have restored. I should also note that the parish I belong to restored the occasional use of the Typical Pslams and the Beatitudes in 1984. They were a favorite until the new rubrics took effect (they have not been taken since but I have not seen where the new rubrics specifically removes them as an option).

I thank you for not listing specific names of individual priests. Regarding the parishes you have referenced that have severely abbreviated the liturgy, I do not understand how new mandates will somehow bring them into line when those from 1964 and the even older Ordo have not. The liturgy at these parishes certainly needs restoration to the received form but the priests who will replace these priests must be patient and make sure that the people are well educated and understand the restoration. These are real examples of liturgical abuse and do not fall within the tradition of reasonable liberty. Liberty can never be used as an excuse for abuse. Examples of liberty are the taking of the full office of the Three Antiphons, the taking of the Anaphora or other prayers silently or aloud, the omission of certain litanies where there is precedent in our Church, the use of the discos instead of the cloth when distributing the Eucharist and etc.

Priests as employees? Maybe. But anyone who has supervised others knows that mandates are the last resort to get them to do anything. One must always be positive and proceed with both respect and encouragement. Getting people to do what is correct because they believe it is correct is always better than getting them to do it only because they have to. But one must not be afraid to discipline those who are in need of discipline. I have seen where the dismissal of one genuine troublemaker has benefited the remaining workers greatly.

Personal spirituality of a priest? While it certainly influences the way a priest preaches I am not sure that I understand your point. Can you make it clearer? There is certainly freedom of conscience and anyone who finds something untenable (or even undesirable) in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church is always free to seek out another Church. For various reasons most of our people have done so as the majority of people baptized in Byzantine-Ruthenian Churches now worship in Roman Catholic Churches.

Regarding the liturgical life of the Byzantine Church I agree that it is need of restoration. But restoration and revision are two different things. I also point out that the majority of Orthodox parishes in the Johnstown Diocese and even many within the OCA and GOA are devoid of the regular celebration of vespers, matins and the other services (but the OCA has certainly made great inroads in restoring the celebration of Saturday evening Great Vespers to many parishes).

Admin

I thank the Administrator for his words of support on my love for our Church and its Liturgy. I would like to think that this debate is mutually enriching and an opportunity for the members of this Forum to think about our Church and its role today. Likewise, I respect the Administrator for setting up this site, and for his considerable service to our Church.
Part of the problem of the debate, I think, is actually knowing what we stand for. I think we are talking about three different kinds of Liturgy and to facilitate my remarks, I will call them:
1) The Traditional Liturgy. This is the one that was chosen for the printed books in Venice, and entered Slav liturgical life through the Patriarch Nicon in the 17th century. It should be noted that in this Liturgy there is no rubric that the priest's prayers are to be said silently, except for the prayer of the Cherubicon before the Great Entrance. This order is followed in a very small number of Ruthenian parishes, I know of only three.
2) The Restored Liturgy, which is a name I gave arbitrarily to the Liturgy which is based on the Traditional Liturgy, with some pastoral abbreviations, mostly the antiphons and litanies. This is the Liturgy proposed by the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission of the Metropolia, approved by Rome in March 2001. It is quite similar to the Liturgy in use in Parma since 1987, then later by Van Nuys and finally by Passaic, which added further modifications. Those opposed to it call it by less complementary names.
3) The Lviv 1905 Liturgy, mandated by the Synod of Lviv in 1890. It contains a moderate but substantial amount of Latinization, as well as some pre-Niconian practices. This Liturgy has been in use in the Ruthenian Province in the United States since at least the 1930's, and probably earlier. However, here it was further abbreviated by the removal of the Third Antiphon and most of the litanies, which were whispered by the priest as the people sang liturgical hymns. In some places it has been even more truncated into the so-called "Low Mass." It was used in almost all parishes until the 1987 Parma Liturgicon, even after the 1965 English translation. It is still used in the great majority of Pittsburgh parishes, and in a minority of parishes in the other eparchies.

The Administrator denies any need for reform, but this gives rise to some questions. First, the need for reform is not simply my opinion, it is also the teaching of the Church, which said in Vatican II (some may now mutter and complain) that the Church always needs reform, and specifically ordered the Eastern Churches to return to their authentic ancestral traditions (Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, 1965, paragraph 6.) I believe this to be the operation of the Spirit in the life of our Church. The response of our Church leadership was to virtually ignore this mandate, claiming that whatever we do is Eastern, therefore, there is no need for reform. However, in the long run, it had an effect, and the Liturgy was basically restored, Communion was given to infants and children, a more Eastern spirit and esteem for our traditions was fostered, especially by the Religious Education Offices, and it seems, even a return to optional celibate or married priesthood is now imminent. Even in minor matters, such as the removal of the Filioque and the use of zeon (teplota), a more Eastern spirit is growing. There is still some opposition, but, I think, much later than we should have, we are responding to the Spirit. If this had been done years ago, there would be no trouble now.
This leads now to my question: the Administrator, and others, say: Liturgy 2, the Restored Liturgy, must be aborted. My question, and I do not presume to answer for them, is very serious: what is the alternative??? If this project, which I believe to be long overdue, is halted, what will be the default Liturgy? Does the Administrator believe we will default to Liturgy 1? Does he want us to default to Liturgy 3? Will we default to liturgical fundamentalism or liturgical chaos??? I think these are really, really serious questions. To believe we will default to Liturgy 1 is pure pie-in-the-sky, it has never been common in our parishes To default to Liturgy 3 is a giant step backward, we cannot fuss around for another two generations to find our identity. I believe Liturgy 2 to be the best choice we can make now, though it is not the only good choice, but the Administrator and other critics must come up with an alternative, and any alternative will involve mandates to the clergy, otherwise there will be a default to Liturgy 3 or liturgical chaos.
Three observations:
1) Liturgy 2 is certainly NOT a Latin Liturgy. When the Administrator wrote, "It is much more like a Roman Mass than a Byzantine Liturgy," I stared at the words with incredulity. I've attended Roman Masses - this is not it. I too hear many complaints, people NEVER like liturgical change, but many more complain that it is too Orthodox than that it is too Roman. After all, the Orthodox Churches are modifying their Liturgies today along the same lines as Liturgy 2. The Traditional Liturgy 3 is now found mostly in Synodal and Old Calendar Churches. All Greek Orthodox Churches eliminate more litanies than we propose, and shorten the antiphons in a much more illogical way.
2) Liturgy 3 dominated in our Churches from at least the 30's to the 80's and still in some areas. It has not saved the Church. It is a failure. I will really open up a can of worms now - I believe that at least 95 percent of our people have left our Church - certainly not always for ritual reasons. Many left because they moved to a place where there is no Byzantine Church, others because of marriage, others left the faith altogether, others, a very small amount, became Protestant. Many, many joined the Roman Church, because we gave them no identity and said it's all the same, and then tried to live up to that liturgically. Also, let's face it, people, the Roman Church has the characteristic of being more relevant today. Liturgy 2 is a good response, and if there have been complaints, I have also heard many. many compliments.
3) It seems that one of the main disagreements between Liturgy 2 and the Administrator is how many verses of the Antiphon are sung, and whether presbyteral prayers should be said aloud. I'm willing to discuss the first point, but the second, I think, is crucial to any restoration in the vernacular Liturgy of the 21st century.

Dear aRomanCatholic, I for one thank God (and not often enough) for what the contributions of Vatican II have made on the Eastern Catholic Churches. I literally shudder to think what our churches would be like without Orientalium Ecclesiorum, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Lumen Gentium and the other gems of the Council.

I also shudder to think what the Council would have been like without the courageous and heroic interventions of our holy hierarchs such as Maximos IV Saigh, Maxim Hermaniuk (something about St. Maximos going on there), Elias Zoghby, Josyp Slipyj and others. Be careful not to paint with too wide a brush. As an Eastern Catholic, for me Vatican II is starting to implement some damage control from Vatican I.

Father, bless!

Dear Father David, I would also add the Zhokovsky sluzhebnik as being significant in the liturgical development as well as Lev Kyshka's in the 18th century, the Stauropegial of the 19th century of Atanasy Sheptytsky as well as the Rudnytsky Pochaiv version of the 18th century, all of which had different rubrics to various degrees and form a mixture of your explanation of basic types.

I think to really look at the authenitic traditional usage one should examine the pre-Nikonian texts and rubrics, some which are intact and in use by the Old Believers. When one examines the pre-Nikonian typikon one does not find the abbreviated antiphons and omitted litanies as are being proposed.

You do find Holy Doors open for the entire liturgy and some other usages which are still present in the Ruthenian liturgy today. There is no mention generally on how the Anaphora is to be taken, however in one text I have found "taken in a low voice" which is much different than "taken silently".

Father David:

Please click "my profile" to receive a message clarifying some of the "glitches".

Your last post was fascinating. The issue of the declining numbers in our church has been discussed a great deal on this forum. Your suggestion that this process is related to the failure of Liturgy 3 is an entirely novel one that has not been raised before. Do you have the time to elaborate on this putative connection, and to give your perspectives on the manner in which Liturgy 2 responds to this problem?

djs

Father David wrote:


Father, bless!

Perhaps I misunderstood you, Father, but my experience among Orthodox parishes is the opposite. I was Chrismated in a Greek parish in Arizona and used to frequent the Greek Cathedral parish in Phoenix and they certainly did not "eliminate more litanies" than the proposed new Liturgy. I will agree that the Antiphons are abbreviated somewhat in Greek practice but at least they've maintained the Little Litany--which we apparently will mandate never to be taken again in Ruthenian parishes. I do not see a move in Orthodoxy to the sort of abbreviation which the proposed new Liturgy contains. For example, I know of no Orthodox jurisdiction which omits the "grant it, O Lord" petitions. Are there even any other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions which do so?

Bob King wrote:


Bob's testimony speaks volumes. Anyone who has visited my webpage knows how strongly I feel about the necessity of the Petrine ministry. Yet, I fully understand where he is coming from. Some of my closest friends have thrown up their hands in frustration at the slowness and the antipathy to restoring authentic Eastern tradition in our Church and have joined various Orthodox jurisdictions. I did so myself at one point.

I believe in the necessity of liturgical reform...even in our Church and for our liturgy. Without renewal and reform is stagnation. But, shouldn't we restore the fullness of our tradition first? Isn't that what the Liturgical Instruction called us to do?


I suppose I might be challenged to enumerate what deficiencies exist in our liturgical life. I don't want to lead this thread too far off topic so I won't attempt that at this time. I do think a very important topic for our Eparchs to consider (perhaps establishing a board to inquire into this subject) is:

What prompts some of our people to leave our Church for Orthodox jurisdictions? Why do some claim that they feel they can only experience the fullness of Eastern tradition in an Orthodox jurisdiction and cannot find it in the Ruthenian Church?

Before we mandate a revised Liturgy which has little parallel in Orthodoxy I think we should seriously consider these questions.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

From a totally different perspective:
From the BC parish that I am most familiar with that has lost at least 100 families over the past couple decades (Passaic Eparchy), I know of only one ***person*** who went Orthodox. 95% of all those other families, and their children's families, are now Roman Catholic, the rest are now "Bible Christians." The same goes for my siblings and quite large extended family: many have gone RC, Evangelical or to nothing at all.
Percentage-wise over the Metropolia, I seriously doubt there is such a major exodus to Orthodoxy that would warrant making it an issue of high priority on the bishops' agenda.
Teplota or not, "Grant it, O Lord" petitions or not; such things will not stay our youth, or bring anyone back. (Though I do think circling the the church with the Gospel book at the Little Entrance
as many Melkites do does have "community-cementing" merit.)
Some years ago Parma's "Horizons" made the valiant attempt to contact people who left and then asked them to list the reasons why they left. The results of the survey were reported. Did anyone here keep a copy of that issue? I might have, and will search mightily for it today....

[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

I have a few questions for all of you. First of all, I haven't read the entire forum since it's too long (8 pages long!), but I did at least read couple pages.

Now, my questions are:

1) Is the restoring of the Liturgy MEAN that we return to the authenic Byzantine Liturgy (which is the process of de-latinizing the Liturgy)???

Or does it mean revising the Liturgy to be something different?

[My comment: I do know that the Orthodox Churches in America have been latinized in a small way, and they are working hard to restore TRUE Byzantine traditions in the Liturgy. Including removing the kneeling from "Holy-Holy-Holy, and kneel only from the Ekplekisis (sp?) to prayers of "Patriarchs...and especially to all Holy Theotokos..." My Byzantine Catholic priest uses 3 Antiphons in our Liturgy and our Liturgy is VERY Byzantine. He uses sponge, uses FULL preparation prayers of Holy Gifts at the Prothesis, etc. Why would the folks EVER EVER think it's "too Orthodox"??? That is just beyond me! Saying that being "too Orthodox" is like saying we're "too Byzantine" which we ARE Byzantine!!!]

2) If we are revising the Liturgy to be something different, then will that hamper our ecumenical relations with the Orthodox Church? Will the Orthodox Church see that as a "foolish tampering" of our Liturgy???

[Comment: If that's the case, then I'd say "Goodbye to Byzantine Catholic church and will deaf-initely become Orthodox!!! Because they don't mess with Liturgies like the Catholic Churches do, they are even UPSET about the changes of the Liturgies in the Roman Catholic Church!!!]

Thanks for answering my questions.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine