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

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[/QB][/QUOTE]


I would point out that because the Orthodox aren't currently "messing" with the Liturgy, please don't conclude that among them there is no desire for reform.
I don't know of a single esteemed contemporary Orthodox Liturgical scholar who has come out and said, "The Liturgy is currently celebrated perfectly." QUITE the contrary!
The issues here concern whether we Byzantine Catholics could or should reform (in the ways the reform is being suggested) in concert with or apart from the rest of the Byzantine Christian world.

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

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

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

I would point out that because the Orthodox aren't currently "messing" with the Liturgy, please don't conclude that among them there is no desire for reform.
I don't know of a single esteemed contemporary Orthodox Liturgical scholar who has come out and said, "The Liturgy is currently celebrated perfectly." QUITE the contrary!
The issues here concern whether we Byzantine Catholics could or should reform (in the ways the reform is being suggested) in concert with or apart from the rest of the Byzantine Christian world.

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

[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: durak ][/QB][/QUOTE]

I would say, that the issue is that the current 'popular' (for lack of a better term) way that liturgy is celebrated in most BC parishes IS ALREADY DIVERGENT from the Orthodox norms. Some may point to the Johnstown diocese saying it should be closest to the Carpathian usage, but anyone knows that they are struggling with the same issues. They cannot be used as a measuring rule for authentic liturgy! So 'messing with' the liturgy seems, INMO, to be trying to bring it closer to the Orthodox standar which Rome calls the BCs to. Now, it appears there are differences yet like the little litanies, shortened antiphons, well those may be problems but even given that it looks like the 'new liturgy' will be closer to the 'standard' than it is now.

Durak wrote:


The tendency to become Orthodox among cradle Byzantine Catholics is much less, I'd agree. (Although the Deacon in the OCA parish locally is a cradle Byzantine and he cites tradition as one of his reasons for switching.) It's more so the converts who take seriously the mandate to "return to tradition" who get frustrated. Let me give an example. Many of us are familiar with CINEAST. Its first two moderators were converts to the Byzantine Catholic Church. They are both Orthodox now. One specifically left because of the unilateral changes in the Liturgy our Church is taking.


Amen!

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

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

This thread has certainly inspired lively discussion, and for the most part has not drifted off topic. And so, to keep it that way, I would like to provide a brief summary of the discussion thus far.

For all the critrique of praying the anaphora aloud (and by this I mean chanted not recited), no one has provided any scholarship, Orthodox or Catholic, for its continued silence. Some have posted regarding an inherent mysticism for its secret recitation, but no scholarly arguement has been presented to retain the anaphora in secret. On the contrary, no less the Fr David Petras has entered into this discussion to give the findings of his research. As one who is not even the least of the amateur students of the liturgy, I have posted Orthodox commentary in favor of praying the anaphora aloud in the course of these discussions. Perhaps all of us who are truly interested in the liturgy should take Father David's classes on the Liturgy. I say this as a deacon candidate who has truly benefited from those classes (And in case your wondering, I've already taken all of Fr David's classes in the formation program and received my grades, so I do this without seeking any personal gain). At the very least Father David's bibliography on the subject is valuable.

A number of posts have criticized the IELC of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh of "going alone" on this without regard or waiting for the Orthodox. I beg to differ. Orthodox scholarship and commentary favors a restoration of praying the anaphora aloud. So how can one justify that we have not considered the Orthodox position. Granted the praxis is a different issue, but do we have to wait for the rest of Orthodoxy, canonical or otherwise, to listen to the Spirit regarding the Liturgy?

If the Liturgy is "the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed" and "the fount from which all her power flows" (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium , art. 10), then it must be restored to in a way that best expresses this. Again, I would submit that Orthodox scholarship and discussion would favor praying the anaphora and other prayers to which we render our "amen" aloud.

My friend Dave Brown commented that one convert to the Byzantine Catholic Church has 'doxed because of unilateral changes in the Liturgy. Dave to that I would say that person did not take the time to properly research the issue if that person was truly interested. The fact that some Orthodox would not acknowledge our right to exist, probably precludes any desire on our part to dialogue. If the Joint Theological Commissions on the highest levels of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches continued to be canceled, what makes anyone think a Joint Liturgical Commission wouldn't suffer from the same setbacks.

If I may go out on a limb here, I believe Fr Schmemann would probably envy the work of the IELC if he were alive today.

John Montalvo

First, sorry for the delay in responding to this. Regarding the antiphons, etc., you must be aware then that your parish is an anomaly. Most BC parishes are not taking all the verses of the antiphons, many not three, and most not the litanies in between.

Regarding personal spirituality of the priest that is being discusses in another thread already.

As to the liturgical life of the Orthodox parishes all I can say is that my experience shows me that they celebrate more services and less Divine Liturgy. Many BC parishes around here have 3 liturgies for Sunday. 1 Saturday pm and 2 Sunday am. I think only 1 parish in the area has regular Vespers on Saturday evening. I think all of the OCA parishes have vespers, and 3rd and 6th hour before liturgy in the am and 9th before pre-sanctified. None have funny 'stations' or molebni to western apparitions. As usual the churches of Greek usage seem to all have matins before liturgy.

Perhaps in your area of the country the roles are reversed, to be honest - I will be suprised to learn that though.

Bob

Shane, the revised OCA Liturgikon of 1967, (the second edition of 1977 is still available) of which the esteemed Father Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory helped compile, did not occur without some resistance either.

It is thus not only the Eastern Catholics that have problems when a revision to the Liturgikon takes place. Many "liturgy-savy" Orthodox priests have their own ideas on how this or that element should be modified. The ones I know of who are nearest to being "completely satisfied" with their particular liturgical recensions are the ROCOR, Old Calendar Greeks and the Old Believers.

Shane, it also depends on what is being added/ subtracted to the liturgy, how this is being done, in regards to assessing if it will be a real ecumenical concern. Some Orthodox churches have also made changes like shortening the litanies and antiphons as the Ruthenians have done, although generally not quite to that degree of eliminating litanies.

[ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

John Montalvo wrote:


The individual I was referring to was particularly upset about removing litanies unilaterally, not about the issue of whether the Anaphora should be taken silently or aloud. For him it was confirmation of the continued tendency of the Ruthenian Church to abbreviate all things liturgical.

If the proposed new Liturgy was simply about taking more prayers aloud I think we'd have less concerns.

Is the removal of the litanies from the new Liturgy to compensate time-wise for taking more prayers aloud? What are the reasons for completely removing the "grant it, O Lord" petitions?

And, why are we the first to do this?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Again, I have to ask...

How long is the average Sunday liturgy in a Ruthenian parish, and how much time will be saved by the removal of litanies and how much time is spent taking all the currently silent prayers aloud? Is there a significant time difference that would warrant removing litanies and things of that sort?

We had Liturgy today, without a sermon, and it still took an hour and forty-five minutes...if you guys don't take at least that much time, I might have to file a complaint. :p

Maybe your priest takes the homily silently, definitely an acceptable innovation!

Now that is a Liturgical Revision, I could definitely approve of!

Dave,

I certainly do not have the insight for the litanies. The purpose of this thread concerned the anaphora. But if I may make a WAG...

The Divine Liturgy celebrated without a deacon, although widespread, is certainly an anomaly. As a result, priests have, in a manner of speaking, "usurped" the role of the deacon when it comes to praying the litanies. Perhaps the abbreviation or complete omission of litanies is for those Litugies celebrated without a deacon. It certainly would, IMHO, correct the "abuse" of a priest taking the deacon's role. With the restoration of the diaconate as a distinct order in the hierachy of the Church (and not just a transitional role to the presbyterate), these litanies lead by the deacon would certainly make more sense. I think it has nothing to do with some conspiracy to shorten the Liturgy. In a proposed diaconicon for the restored liturgy the little litanies are contemplated (but this diaconicon is certainly not the final word on the restored liturgy). Again this only my uninformed opinion, and at best a WAG.

As to us being the first, I think I'll repeat myself: Orthodox scholarship and commentary has certainly called for a restoration of the Liturgy. So although we may be the first to act upon it, we are certainly not the first to discuss or consider it. If anything the IELC has taken all this into account, as has the Oriental Congregation, otherwise Fr Taft would not have given his approval. (BTW, lest anyone say the principles re liturgical reform as outlined in the Instruction were not followed, the Instruction is primarily the work of Fr Taft.)

As to us being first, I see it analogous to a younger sister, in hearing the father's call to his daughters, is the first to respond. Why should the younger sister have to wait for the others to respond?

John

John,

I realize this thread is about the Silent Anaphora and not about omitted litanies. Fr Petras had made a comment about omitted litanies in this thread which is why I've touched on that point here.

As to whether the "grant it, O Lord" petitions might be used with a Deacon...

St Thomas (Gilbert, AZ) used to use them all the time until the prototype Liturgy came out. And they had a Deacon all along. They used to also have the Little Litany and the Beatitudes at certain times of the year. No longer...


Because it will only distance us further from the rest of the family.

True, there is consideration in Orthodox circles for liturgical renewal and reform. There is nothing concretely planned and nothing may happen for quite awhile. So, what will the result be? Apparently, we Ruthenians will keep evolving our own liturgical life and if and when the Orthodox Churches do theirs there will be even more differences between our Liturgy and theirs.

This is following the Instruction? I don't think so--no disrespect meant to anyone. It's just self-evident that no one wants to wait to see what new Orthodox patterns develop.


Where in the Instruction does it call for us to "blaze new trails"?

Can't we have some patience and work within the framework of the rest of the Byzantine Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox)? I realize that means that things would go a lot slower. Considering the possible negative impact of imposing a Liturgy which is admittedly without precedent...wouldn't it be more prudent to go a little slower?

One more point to ponder. Most Orthodox do not have a high regard for Ruthenian practices (some of these criticisms may be unfair...some are a result of our slowness in restoring authentic tradition). If, in our rush to demonstrate our liturgical scholarship, we actually come up with something new and novel that would be beneficial for the rest of the Byzantine Churches, the very fact it is our idea will prejudice Orthodox against it. "We don't want to do that...the Byzantine Rite Catholics do that!"

Instead of distancing ourselves from Orthodox practice...shouldn't we be "distancing from it as little as possible"?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dave,

I went back and reread Fr David's post re the antiphons and litanies. I quote the apprpriate section below.



As you can see, the litanies have not been "omitted" but abbreviated. I can only conclude that the Liturgy as is now celebrated in Van Nuys will change with regard to the litanies (meaning they will be restored) once the restored Liturgy is promulgated.

As to the your comment on the Beatitudes, they have been used at St Stephen's during St Basil's Liturgy, so I cannot comment as to why St Thomas in Gilbert is not using them. On a similar note, St Thomas does not take the prokeimenon verse either. During Bishop William's consecration, the deacon from Gilbert intoned "Wisdom" before the reader (me) could respond with the verse. When the priest from Gilbert has subbed at St Stephen, the same thing has happened. I just continue with the verse, and the cantor repeats the prokeimenon.

but I digress...

John

You know what is very sad/funny/ironic?

No matter what you Byzantine Catholics do, the Orthodox will complain.

If you're completely Latinized, the Orthodox say "They're not being authentic. See, being under Rome doesn't let them maintain their Eastern ways."

If you copied everything as was done in some Orthodox Church (you'd have to pick one tradition since there is no monolithic and centralized Orthodox praxis - sorry to burst that bubble!) many Orthodox would say "See, they're copying us so faithfully that they're trying to lure our people away into union with Rome!" Sad, huh?

And Orthodox will find flaws with the revised/restored Liturgy. But then again, I hear lots of complaints about how "those weird Greeks and Antiochians" don't serve "right" (i.e. like Russians). So when Orthodox complain about you, just consider yourself part of the family.

If anyone wants the opinion of this lowly Orthodox Christian: do what is best for your church and your people, and don't worry! If it leads to Christ, it will be blessed. I've been to celebrations of the "revised/restored" Liturgy and I find them fully Byzantine and fully Christo-centric.

-Dave