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

To further what Fr. Dave has said I offer my own experience. I teach an adult education class. When I read the texts of these prayers to my class, or anyone who has not heard these prayers, the reaction is the same: Awe at the beauty and depth of these prayers. It is the same reaction I had the first time I read them and later heard them. And outside this forum I have never heard a single person object to the Anaphora being taken aloud or complain that it is untraditional. The Anaphora is the single highest act we can partake in as Christians. Its value, which is catechetical, anamnetical, eucharistic, and eschatological all at the same time is beyond value. It is a recapitulation of and participation in the Gospel. One would never suggest that the Gospel be read silently by the priest and the peopel just read along. Therefore I find it amazing that anyone suggest we do the same with the Anaphora. The Gospel is a proclamation and so is the Anaphora. I have no deep feelings about any of the other revisions in the Liturgy. But the Anphora being taken aloud, I feel as Fr. David, I defend it to the end.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Personally, I've enjoyed hearing the prayers taken aloud. My concern is that the new revised Liturgy appears to set a liturgical norm to enshrine an abbreviated Liturgy (as for example omitting the "angel of peace" litany). Could not the Bishop or Metropolitan decree that the prayers of the Anaphora be taken aloud without making an abbreviated Liturgy the norm?

I agree with Father David on this point. Even though I consider our liturgy a wonderful masterpiece as is, I have never suggested that there will not be further organic involvement.

What I have consistently suggested is that the normative form of the Divine Liturgy should remain that of the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. Rome would never allow the Roman Catholic Church in America to revise the Roman Catholic Mass to its liking in the way the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church has done. Likewise, we should not revise the Byzantine Liturgy away from the standard shared by the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy.

I have also consistently argued that the freedom of individual priests to celebrate the traditional liturgy ought to be preserved.

Further, I have consistently argued that the individual priest should be allowed the freedom to pray the anaphora aloud or quietly. I disagree with the idea of mandating any change to liturgical rubrics that are not already the standard within the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. I have absolutely no problem with those proposing the revisions to have the freedom to experiment at a local parish level. If it is the will of the Spirit then such changes will spread and there will be no need for mandates.

Why? I see no need for mandates to take these prayers aloud. The fact that they have been traditionally prayed quietly in no way suggests that they are the private prayer of the priest. I do not need to hear the prayers before I accept that they are accomplishing real things or that the prayer is one for the entire community of believers. I do not need to hear the words before I say �Amen!�

In the thread �The nature of the Anaphora� (in Forum 2) Diak made the excellent point: �I think there is a post-Enlightenment mindset in the West that everything needs to be presented in an understandable, �accessible�, �available�, etc. manner. Sometimes at those most solemn moments, silence is certainly appropriate before the majesty of God.� I think it is an excellent point. Incognitus also noted that he believed that the quiet anaphora is quite possibly part of a �much larger mystagogic catechesis�. I hope these points are developed in future discussions.

The issue of the diaconal litanies being gutted to take away his prayers and the right of the people to pray �Lord, have mercy� to these prayers is a completely separate issue. It appears that the two have occasionally been confused in this thread.

Yes, we have already discussed Paragraph 54 several times. The author clearly spoke to �at least in some circumstances� (which is what I have consistently suggested). The author in no way suggests that these circumstances should be mandated. �[S]ome circumstances� does not mean �mandated everywhere at all times�. I have already noted that I agree with the late Father Alexander Schmemann who stated that he believed that the anaphora should be prayed aloud three or four times a year. But this is my personal preference and I would not want to see a mandate either way.

In Paragraph 18 we read: �The first requirement of every Eastern liturgical renewal, as is also the case for liturgical reform in the West, is that of rediscovering full fidelity to their own liturgical traditions, benefiting from their riches and eliminating that which has altered their authenticity. Such heedfulness is not subordinate to but precedes so-called updating.

Our Byzantine-Ruthenian Church must first restore what we have lost or neglected before even thinking about reforming. Until the majority of our parishes are celebrating Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy in closeness to their traditional forms for at least a generation or two we cannot pretend to be a Church that has recovered our rich liturgical heritage. We have barely begun the process of restoring. It is not time to reform.

Here is a interesting article regarding changes in the Roman Rite, maybe something from it can be learned and avoided by the East.This is humbly submitted as a example only.

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

james

Of course not. The Roman Catholic Church in America, in contrast to the BCC in America, is not sui juris.

What, precisely, is this standard? There are variations in liturgical practice among and even within various auitocepahlous autonomous churches. Such variations seem implicit in communion ecclesiology.

djs,

Thank you for pointing out my incomplete comparison. I meant to speak further and did not properly develop my point.

The variations in liturgical practice seen across Byzantine Christianity are actually rather small when compared to the whole. Any changes need to be examined at both the level of the entire Byzantine Church as well as at the level of the entire Ruthenian Recension. Changes at the level of a liturgical recension should be made at that level. Changes that are not already normative at the larger pan-Byzantine level should be made at that level.

We Byzantine-Ruthenians share the Ruthenian Recension with Ukrainians, Hungarians and others (both Catholic and Orthodox). As such, we have a responsibility to the rest of the Churches using the Ruthenian Recension to work together with them to accomplish any and all changes. Such changes cannot and should not be a departure from that which is normative for Byzantine Christianity as a whole and the Ruthenian Recension in particular. Specifically, the standard for us Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics is that of the Ruthenian Recension.

To recast my earlier example, think of the equivalent of the Roman Church allowing Roman Catholics in Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Canada and the United States to each revise the Roman liturgy to suit their individual tastes.

Admin

Dear Administrator,
From what I heard some of the Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine are starting to Byzantinize.
Lauro

The example is still faulty, I think, as you are comparing our sui juris church with churches that are not sui juris.

As a sui juris church, ISTM, that it prudent, wise, diligent, ... , for any changes "to be examined at both ..." But it is not necessary . This may be too technical a point to weave into this thread, but arguably one worth making: we should not concede sui juris rights, but should exercise them with care. I feel the same way about arguments from the Instructions that restoration must precede (and be completed?) before revision: Rome's advice is welcome input, but cannot be regarded as decisive without effectively discarding our rights and responsibilities as a sui juris church.

And any notions that we choose to adopt regarding adherence to the Orthodox standard can be seen to have some real flexibility by considering the variations within Orthodoxy.

Clearly, Father David feels threatened by the discussion. Why that should be, I simply don't know. His suggestion that intellectuals are not welcome to discuss liturgical matters - especially people who have a serious claim to liturgical expertise - is not well-founded: most if not all of us eagerly devour the slowly-appearing volumes of Father Robert Taft's history of the Divine Liturgy, the works of Father Alexander Schmemann, and so on. However, it also remains true that clergy in the pastoral vineyard and lay people in the parishes (I almost wrote "in the pews", but since I prefer the absence of pews that would be an unfortunate expression!) have a right to express themselves and to expect the experts and intellectuals to take them seriously.
It may be that there is something of a hidden agenda, of which I am not aware, which is leading Father David to react so strongly. I certainly respect his education and his work, and would gladly welcome his enthusiastic participation in a multi-faceted discussion on these matters, which are of concern to all of us. Nothing that I have ever written has been intended to disparage Father David or to cast slurs on anything that he has written. If I have unwittingly and inadvertently landed in the midst of someone else's hidden agenda, I can only apologize and repeat my assurance that such was not and is not my intention. On the specific issue of the enunciation of the Anaphora, I have stated repeatedly that the "answer" does not lie in an either-or clash; that there is legitimate room for both the "silent recitation" (most especially when the Divine Liturgy is not being offered in the vernacular, and both Church-Slavonic and koine Greek can still be found in a great many places) and for the chanting of the Anaphora aloud (in which I would join others in advocating that this be reserved for special occasions of one sort or another). My only firm opposition is to the recitation of the Anaphora in a normal speaking voice. If Father David or anyone else chooses to regard this approach as immobilist, I respectfully take exception. Incognitus

Checking in again. I am grateful to the Administrator, Incognitus and Lance for their thoughtful replies to my post.
Just to explain a little, I am concerned about the future of the Liturgy, and this explains the emotion in my response.
My statement that liturgical scholars are excluded is a reaction to Fr. Elias' statement, "future development of the Liturgy should not be up to me, or scholars of Liturgy, or 'conoscenti' about early liturgy. it is up to the Holy Spirit. He will guide the Church and direct it." It is a simple truth that scholars of the liturgy will not determine the future of the Liturgy, but scholars of the liturgy should not be discounted, and maybe the Spirit is speaking through their knowledge. The Spirit may well be working through committees, it would not be the first or last time, and who are we to tie the Spirit's hands.
Yesterday, I was not reacting to anything incognitus had said previously, and my only "hidden agenda" was defense of my work for the Liturgy.
As much as I am in sympathy with the beautiful principles expressed by the Administrator:
- that Liturgical practice should not be mandated - I agree, it should be done by the free will of the people celebrating the Liturgy, beginning with the ordained celebrant,
- that we should start with a restoration of the Byzantine tradition, and begin organic development from there under the guidance of the Spirit,
- that we should act only in union with the Orthodox.
To these principles, I say "Amen." However, we cannot be simplistic about any of these principles - human nature being what it is.
"Mandate" - what, then, is to be mandated???? The Byzantine tradition in every place, as defined by those who know exactly what the Byzantine tradition is? The renewal of the Byzantine liturgical tradition by the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission is, in fact, faithful to the Byzantine tradition. I am willing to discuss some points of the "renewal," namely, the status of litanies and antiphons. The Commission recommended to the bishops what they sincerely felt would be pastorally beneficial at this time, and, on the whole, the Liturgy as formulated by the Commission, accepted with some modifications by the bishops and approved with some modifications by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches is in conformity with the Byzantine tradition and with general Orthodox practice. The recitation of the prayers aloud is no departure from the Orthodox Liturgy at all, since Trembelas fifty years ago pointed out that there is no rubric in the Divine Liturgy (obviously, he is speaking about the Byzantine Orthodox Liturgy) that mandates that prayers should be said "mysticos" = "silently," except for the few words between the words of institution for the bread and for the wine. If, in general, authorities have not taken care for this practice, then, with the Liturgy now in the vernacular, perhaps it is time.
I do not like to discuss questions of law, but I am mature enough to know that without some supervision by the supervisors (bishops), liturgical chaos will ensure. I rather suspect there is already liturgical chaos in many places, because priests do what they think best. What is to be more strictly enforced and less strictly enforced can be discussed. I consider the question of the presbyteral prayers important, and, unfortunately, this practice will militate against pastoral practice to keep the Liturgy short for the people. I don't want to go there now.
In regard to going back to Byzantine tradition, we have been doing that more and more. The administrator seems to think that this is something new. In many cases development has already started, and I think the only important question for us is how to recognize the guidance of the Spirit.
Conformity with the Orthodox is fine, we are all one Church and should act in concert, but I feel that the Administrator's formulation of this makes us only a colonial Church. We must be faithful to tradition and sensitive to our brothers in faith - but we must also make our own decisions in response to the pastoral needs of our people.

Fr. Dave

How can Byzantine Catholics judiciously reject any part of their tradition, no matter how insignificant they believe it is, when they don�t even understand what their tradition is or how the part they are rejecting (or �reforming�) affects the whole?

Is communion with Orthodoxy a primary goal or not? I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm really not sure that some of you consider that of any real import.

In Pelikan's recent book, Credo, he discusses the massive numbers of creeds from the West that cover vast periods and subjects. When it came to the Eastern churches his primary "creed" was the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. It is our primary source of teaching. It is our catechism.

Fr. David, I apologize if I misunderstand your position and if I sound too harsh.

Reform of the Divine Liturgy means that the theology behind it will be, at best, inadvertently changed. If it is a change that restores the deposit of faith as Rusyns received it from Sts. Cyrill and Methodius who received it from those who received it from the apostles, even before the compilation of the Gospels, then it is a natural and organic change. If the changes are innovations then they should be judged rigorously.

The changes I have seen discussed here are divisive. On this ground alone (by this I mean divisive to all of Christendom, not to some parishioners) I believe the change mentioned here should not be enacted and dismantled where in practice. For any other liturgical innovation, couched in whatever term the authors choose, great care should be taken.

Why would you so disdain your brothers, parents, ancestors, and your people who have struggled through so many hardships and persecutions to alter irrevocably the main source of teaching for which they suffered? If you make changes to the liturgy before fully understanding (and by that I mean fully restoring, as complete understanding requires practice), that may be exactly what you do. I would have thought that the heirs to such a treasure would be more watchful.

Linked to this discussion is the idea that many converts are more apt to lean towards traditionalism. It is often derided as a nauseating defect to be uprooted from the Church. I think the phenomenon is caused by the �great wealth� effect. Those who are born with great wealth have a tendency to take their riches for granted. Those who had to work for it tend to use it with care (of course, there are exceptions and I look forward to hearing more anecdotes than at a State of the Union address).

If I am guilty of being nauseatingly traditional, then I hope you (y�all) will understand the price I and other converts have paid and that you will pardon my desire to keep intact the jewel some wish to re-cut.

I thank Father David for his post.

I am also concerned about the future of the liturgy. I just don�t buy Father David�s arguments that the revisions are pastoral. I believe that, if they are indeed mandated, that they will only further succeed in moving our liturgical practice away from the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. We must always keep in mind that if we desire eventual communion with the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy then we cannot and should not proceed to create a Third Way by revising the Byzantine liturgy unilaterally.

I disagree with Father David that my suggestions (that we not mandate liturgical revisions, that we first restore and then trust in the Spirit to lead us in organic development, and that we do so in conjunction with the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy) are simplistic. I believe them to be both prudent and pastoral.

Father David asks:"Mandate" - what, then, is to be mandated????

My answer is that the traditional liturgy should be the norm and that the next generation of priests should be taught to celebrate it properly according the Ruthenian Recension. I agree with Father David that, human nature being what it is, that there are many of our priests who still celebrate a much abbreviated liturgy (at least I think that this is the point he is making with his reference to �pastorally beneficial�). I do not believe that the solution is to mandate a revised and lower standard. I submit that changing the standard will not accomplish the desired goal of bring more fullness to the celebration the Divine Liturgy in our parishes where it does not currently exist. If we cannot get those priests who insist on abbreviating the liturgy to celebrate at least the normative �Greek Catholic High Liturgy� (similar to the full order in the Levkulic Pew Book) then we will not be able to get them to celebrate a revised liturgy.

Regarding Father David�s comments about Trembelas, I will certainly have to find and read his work. It is clear, however, that his work has not been received and embraced within Greek Orthodoxy. And this makes my point about freedom. Trembelas� position has obviously not been embraced by Greek Orthodoxy. Therefore, it is not appropriate for us to mandate in an area where freedom will be more open to the prompting of the Spirit.

I do agree with Father David that liturgical chaos is not the best thing for the Church. But we must also keep in mind that uniformity has never been a particular strong Byzantine trait. I submit for his consideration that a mandated liturgical revision by the Ruthenian Church apart from other Byzantine Churches will only succeed in creating additional chaos within the Churches of the Byzantine Recension (Catholic and Orthodox) as well as within the entire Byzantine Church. I further believe that the pastoral answer is to retain the traditional liturgy as normative and then to attempt to raise the bare minimum. The liturgicon must contain the traditional and complete liturgy and the minimum could be mandated via hierarchical directives. Those priests who already insist on celebrating an unacceptable minimum will follow neither. Mandates simply don�t work with people who refuse to follow mandates. That�s life.

Regarding restoration, I have not suggested that it is something new. I have suggested that it is something that is barely begun. Restoration is not something that occurs overnight and a restoration cannot be considered to be mature until at least a generation or two are catechized in the traditional forms. Development that occurs before restoration is mature should not be trusted. Development should come together with a liturgical theology that supports it. As yet, there have been no published, critical and exhaustive theological works supporting the proposed revisions. These revisions must be tested across the entire Byzantine Church to see if it is really true development. If it is, then mandates will not be necessary.

I disagree with Father David�s point about what makes us �only a colonial Church�. The liturgy is the work of the entire Byzantine people. A small branch of the Byzantine Church does not and should not have the authority to revise it unilaterally. The Byzantine Liturgy is not so unpastoral that we cannot wait for the Spirit to act within the Byzantine Church as a whole.

Admin

In turn my thanks to Father David and to the Administrator for thoughtful responses.
If I may address the issue of chaos and mandates (oddly enough, they go together): my first impression (before Vatican II) of the Divine Liturgy in what was then the Pittsburgh Exarchate was shock at what I perceived to be utter chaos and complete disregard for anything besides the clock (these were the days when one could easily find celebrations of the Divine Liturgy featuring no audible Epistle, certain parts of the Anaphora which are definitely supposed to be aloud done inaudibly, and visible liturgical actions having nothing to do with what was being sung at the time). I fear that my perception of such chaos has not yet changed completely, (note, please, I said "my perception"), but it has seemed to be modified to a degree by a determination that everyone should march in lock-step and that change (for better or worse) should depend upon the exercise of episcopal power.
The trouble with that idea of the process of change is multifaceted, but it is certainly true that there is a difference between power and authority. Force, or coercion (to use a slightly nicer word) does not work very well in these matters; education, patience and the stimulating of a genuine will to change take far more time but eventually produce better results. I'm not just hypothesizing; I've been watching this process in a variety of settings for a long time.
I should continue, and I hope that I will, but not this minute. Again, my thanks. Incognitus

I think Fr. David speaks best about the issues. I am glad that he, at least, doesn't consider us Byzantine Catholics as Colonial churches. This attitude has so crippled us as an Eastern Christian people.

Joe

I disagree with Mr. Administrator whereby another person's opinion is merely a "personal preference" and should be then discounted. There are a lot of "I"s in his posts too. And isn't any forum a place where people can exchange ideas without the host using pejoratives against them? The Byzantine Catholic Church belongs to ALL members and they too have a right to express their thoughts. Not all members of our church express thoughts in a vacuum and it behooves me to think that there are those who do think that. Except for them, of course. :rolleyes:

Many of us have read and been inspired by the countless articles written by Fr. David over the years. A good number of us have attended his classes. I remember attending/auditing a graduate class on the Liturgy offered by Fr. David at the Pontifical College Josephinum twenty years ago. The Latin theologians were greatly inspired and, in turn, carried forward their love for the Liturgy in their own churches. I, who came from one of the most Latinized parishes in our eparchy, became a "convert" to our Byzantine traditions after that class. I haven't been the same since. I still have the books given to me as gifts by the Latin grad students that I still treasure.

Many of us DO appreciate Fr. David's work and would like him to know that it is NOT a thankless job.

Cantor Joe Thur