www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Restoring tradition to our parishes

Fr. Elias,

You state: "Why is it acceptable that the people's and deacon's prayers are cut, while the priest's silent prayers are supposed to replace them? "

I didn't take that it was a replacement of the deacon's or people's parts with presbyteral ones but a recapturing of the Eucharistic, Anamnetic, and Eschatological focus of the Liturgy which is lossed to a certain extent by having certain prayers said silently.

For example: Take the Aitisis after the Anaphora and before the Our Father. The Aitisis is imported from Vespers and Orthros and not an original part of the Divine Liturgy. And it is a dismissal litany as well. If one actual dismissed people at this point in the Liturgy as was once done I could see retaining it. What would actually make more sense to me would be to add the Aitisi to the Litany of Thanksgiving after Communion since the dismissal follows. But I digress...

I present that part of the Litrugy as it is heard by the people:

In the restored Liturgy we have:

Deacon: Now that we have remembered all the saints, again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: For the precious gifts offered and consecrated, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: That Our God, in His love for mankind, may receive them on His holy and heavenly and mystical altar, as an aroma of spiritual fragrance, and may send down upon us in return His divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: That we be delivered from all affliction, wrath and need, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: Protect us, save us, have mercy on us and preserve us, O God, by your grace.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: That this whole day may be perfect, holy peaceful and without sin, let us beseech the Lord.

People: Grant it, O Lord.

Deacon: For an angel of peace, a faithful guide, a guardian of our souls and bodies, let us beseech the Lord.

People: Grant it, O Lord.

Deacon: For the pardon and remission of our sins and offenses, let us beseech the Lord.

People: Grant it, O Lord.

Deacon: For what is good and beneficial to our souls, and for the peace of the whole world, let us beseech the Lord.

People: Grant it, O Lord.

Deacon: That we may spend the rest of our life in peace and repentance, let its beseech the Lord.

People: Grant it, O Lord.

Deacon: For a Christian, painless, unashamed, peaceful end of our life, and for a good account before the awesome judgment seat of Christ, let us beseech the Lord.

People: Grant it, O Lord.


Deacon: Asking for unity in the faith, and for communion in the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves and one another, and our whole life to Christ, our God.

People: To You, O Lord.

Priest: And grant, O Lord, that we may with confidence and without condemnation dare call You, the God of heaven, Father, and say:

All: Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Priest: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and forever.

People: Amen

In the current Liturgy as done in many parishes in the Archeparchy:

Priest: And grant, O Lord, that we may with confidence and without condemnation dare call You, the God of heaven, Father, and say:

All: Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Priest: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and forever.

People: Amen

In the revised Liturgy we have:

Deacon: Now that we have remembered all the saints, again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: For the precious gifts offered and consecrated, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: That Our God, in His love for mankind, may receive them on His holy and heavenly and mystical altar, as an aroma of spiritual fragrance, and may send down upon us in return His divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: Asking for unity in the faith, and for communion in the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves and one another, and our whole life to Christ, our God.

People: To You, O Lord.

Priest: In You, O Gracious Master, we place our whole life and hope, and we beseech, pray and implore You: make us worthy to partake with a pure conscience of Your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual altar, for the remission of sins, for the pardon of transgressions, for the communion of the Holy Spirit, for the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, for confidence in You, and not for judgment, nor condemnation.

And grant, O Lord, that we may with confidence and without condemnation dare call You, the God of heaven, Father, and say:

All: Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Priest: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and forever.

People: Amen



Now omitting the additional petitions I do not judge as absolutely necessary although I think removing them directs the attention away from petitions of need to focus on what is at hand: the reception of the Holy Gifts and our Communion with God and one another through the Holy Spirit. The saying aloud of the prayer introducing the Our Father by the priest reinforces the petitions of the deacon and is a more powerful introduction to the Our Father. All together I think the flow of the Liturgy is better and more profound this way. Yes the flow is different but I think it is improved not worse.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Will this "revised" liturgy continue the practice of recitation of the Nicene Creed (and please don't tell me this isn't happening because I've witnessed this in many parishes of the Ruthenian Metropolia)?

Ung-Certez

I just want to be clear. Will the following petitions from the Liturgy be suppressed in the revised Liturgy?

If so, why?

David,

With the minor correction that the last petition is not �Remembering�� but �Asking for unity in the faith�� all of the petitions you have posted are removed from the Divine Liturgy. In the Passaic Eparchy (at least) it is forbidden for the deacon and people (or priest and people) to pray them.

�Why?� is an excellent question. Liturgical revision must be based upon solid theology. To date, I have seen no theological articles or papers that provide a firm theological foundation for this revision of the liturgy. Why it is so necessary to separate ourselves from the rest of Byzantium and create this Third Way? All I have seen are explanations along the lines �we prefer�.

Admin

Jumping out of the specific area of Liturgy, I'd strongly suggest that what needs to go are things which stand in the way of fulfilling the Lord's command to evangelize.

We are the servants at the feast given by the King. A feast isn't much good without guests, no matter how perfect the food and the table - and we fail if we're the only ones there to enjoy it - thinking it belongs entirely to us.


Cheerz,

Sharon

Fr. Elias,

If the Aitisis were left alone and the only change was that the priestly prayers are taken aloud, would this be acceptable?

The Liturgicon contains no rubric that many of the prayers taken silently be done this way. To me this would indicate that taken them silently is a later innovation.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Admin,

Forbidden is a pretty strong word. I have been to one of your parishes this summer where they were taken. In the end promulgated, mandatory, whatever, our priests will continue to do what they have always done: what they want to do. Some will take the whole thing according to the Liturgicon, some will use the abbreviated version, others the revised version.

Fr. Deacon Lance

THE VIOLENT ANAPHORA:

There is something peculiar when the "flow of the liturgy" is considered superior to the "anaphora being taken aloud." This is not a Latinization if the early church took it aloud in both traditions. There is nothing more bizarre than a congregation saying "Amen" to something they didn't hear. It would be like signing a contract without ever reading the document.

What is it about the Anaphora that is so hated and despised? It is a wonderful and beautiful prayer that lies at the core of what Eucharistic liturgies are all about. Taking it silent would be like attending a graduation ceremony and not being able to hear the commencement address because the mike is turned off.

Are we so hept up on the 'secrets and mysteries' that we fail to forget that liturgy is the work of the people? Sure, we can claim that the Anaphora being taken aloud is a Latinization or neo-Latinization. We can call it anything we want in order to demean its purpose and place in liturgy.

It is interesting how some parishes will allow 'private' prayers, like the rosary, to be taken aloud, but not the 'public' prayer of the anaphora. Go figure!

Is popular piety and love for the mysteriological more important than the core prayer of worship? It so reminds me of those clergy who are so into silk vestments, rising incense and the aura of the magical(?). To some, it is the only thing they have to look forward to to enrich their lives. But this is not liturgy. They love things done secretly and silently as if the liturgy was an outlet for their personal spirituality. We have to remember that the liturgy belongs to the people, including those prayers that were originally meant to be taken aloud before the community. Calling it a Latinization is only a means to trigger certain fears that don't belong.

I once remember attending a Latin Liturgy where the people stood (no kneelers), heard the Anaphora out loud, and received Communion. Very Latin, eh? Then I attended a Greek Catholic Church (Ukrainian) where the people knelt during a silent Anaphora (a week or so after the celebration of Pascha!), most didn't receive Communion, and prayed their rosaries since the Liturgy was not only recited, but was dull and boring. I asked why they didn't do those things now being done in the Latin Church (as I listed above). They yelled at me and told me that I was trying to Latinize them and that they liked their Greek Catholic traditions, including taking the Filioque. Then someone offered to sell me reverse raffle tickets for Bingo night.

History shows how also a symbolic interpretation used to be emphasized. The liturgy became to them a Passion Play, a Life of Christ, whereby the rites and words were filled with all sorts of symbolic meaning having absolutely nothing to do with the reality of what was going on. There is always a tendancy to separate from the rite and text and place more emphasis on the aura of its expression. Just as symbolism was valued more than the rite itself, mystery is valued more than the rite. This valuation is dangerous. Taken to the extreme, it can manifest itself in bastardizing forms as found in Christmas traditions having nothing to do with the story of Christmas, and then totally ecclipsing the original story. Now, real Christians want to hear the real story of Christmas. They don't place their holiday festivities over and above the real celebration. I can understand the sentimentality that people may have for what they consider the best form of celebrating Christmas, even if it doesn't include Christ.

Reformed and Evangelical Christians used to tell stories how the Catholic Church prevented the Scriptures from being read. Of course, this was/is a lie. But the greater emphasis placed on the Scriptures has brought about great things. Sermons are better if the homilist sticks to the text.

The silencing of prayers and the practice of abstaining from the Eucharist, for reasons that only Calvinists can appreciate, have also twisted and turned our liturgical celebration into something it wasn't meant to be: a mere secret happening that only includes the ordained or clerical club. The taking of the Anaphora out loud is a wonderful way to enrich the Divine Liturgy. It was the way it was meant to be. The liturgy comes first, not our own forms of popular piety.

What better way can we hear of the very Trinitarian structure of prayer as found in the Anaphora. St. Basil's Anaphora is a thesis on the economia. It is a synopsis of our theological interpretation of that economia. How will we ever learn what we believe and why we worship at liturgy if we want to silence our best means of catechesis?

I still consider the idea that the Anaphora taken aloud "does violence" as a rediculous notion. This must be a male thing. What woman would want to cover or rid of the diamond in her engagement ring? It is the center-piece and the reason why there is a setting around it. Again, I think it is a male thing that disturbs more cantors and clergy than people.

Joe

GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST!

I, for one, would like to see a STANDARDIZED TRANSLATION of the Divine Liturgy and the various Tropars and Kondaks throughout the Archeparchy.

A STANDARDIZED DIVINE LITURGY would nice too.

During the recent Christmas Holidays, I visited parishes in Cleveland and Pittsburgh eparchies and both had "different" Divine Liturgies both from each other and from what my parish here in the Passaic Eparchy.

One "small" prayer that I would love to see restored is "It is proper and just to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in substance and undivided."

We no longer take this entire prayer in Passaic, we only say "It is proper and just" and forget about the rest...

JMHO....

mark

Father Deacon Lance,

Where there are no specific rubrics there should be freedom. As I have consistently argued in these discussions, an individual priest should have the freedom to take the prayers either silently or aloud (as the Spirit leads him).

No one has yet offered theology that justifies these revisions to the liturgy. All I have seen offered (either here or in the official publications of our Church) are preferences. I respect preferences but they are not a foundation upon which to revise our liturgical inheritance.

Admin

Yes, forbidden is a very strong word.

I hope that you are not suggesting that individual priests should to do as they please in violation of a bishop�s directive?

The traditional liturgy, which we hold in common with the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy, should remain the standard.

Admin,

I am suggesting nothing. I am only predicting based on observation and experience.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I thank Joe for his post. I disagree with most of what he states. He uses personal preferences (which he has a right to have) as the foundation for liturgical revision.

The Liturgy is not a contract. It is God�s work. We don�t need to �read the document� in order to respond �Amen� to give our assent.

Further, if Joe is arguing that logic demands that the people hear every prayer of the priest before they can assent to these prayers then this same logic also demands that the people must see every action. Following this logic we should continue our imitation of the Latins and remove the icon screen and have the priest face the people. Joe�s example of a graduation ceremony is a perfect example of this. If Joe is upset because he cannot hear since the microphone is turned off then he must also be upset because he cannot see if the curtain is closed and if the people on stage have their backs to him. If one states that the people need to hear before they can assent then one must also state that they must see what they are assenting to. Joe is arguing for nothing less than more latinization of the Byzantine Liturgy.

Regarding the violence to the �flow of the liturgy� I submit to him that our liturgy is a product of two millennia of evolution. Any change, no matter how small, does violence to the liturgy. As we restore deacons to the celebration of the Liturgy many are seeing the beauty and wonder of the perfection of the Liturgy. We begin to have a glimpse of what we were missing. And yet there are those who rush to revise without recovering and allowing our Church to be catechized by the traditional forms of liturgical prayer.

I believe that the Liturgy is perfect as it is and ought not to be revised. If someday there are to be changes they can only be done with the assent of the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox). I respect my brother Joe but I submit that he is simply arguing for his personal preferences and that these personal preferences are a product of the American culture that demands openness and hates anything resembling a mystery. Again, personal preferences are not a foundation for liturgical revision.

Admin

I disagree. The problem of sola scriptura is very different from ignoring the Scriptures. My example of the symbolic interpretation of the liturgy having more emphasis than the rite to which it may have no link whatsoever goes to show how we CAN disconnect from the original purpose and/or function of the liturgy. We become more focused on man's wishes to be entertained with Passion Play liturgies and forget worship.

To what do we say "Amen" to? There is a lot of dialogue between clergy and people during the liturgy. Unfortunately, we have to consider the interplay of prayer and response during the Anaphora a "No Laity Zone."

The Church, Fr. Elias, has always looked to its origins as inspiration for future development. There is nothing wrong with that, especially if liturgy becomes something totally other than what its text is. Again, Passion Plays and private prayers done by the laity (rosary during Mass) fills the void where others wish to prevent the liturgy from happening under the secrecy of a false sense of mystery. Symbolic interpretation eventually died out. It filled the void for some time.

Joe

Sorry to be travelling and thus to miss this promising discussion. The idiosyncratic views of "tradition" will be interesting, I'm sure. Fr. Taft made a neat observation on this point in an essay, that I may have posted before.

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal

http://www.praiseofglory.com/taftliturgy.htm