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

Greetings all,

I really don�t think this is such a big deal. Have the changes been implemented already throughout the Metropolia? I sure doesn�t seem like anything more than tweaking to me, if I didn�t know these changes were discussed here as policy I would have assumed that they were just minor changes decided by my pastor.

I think the pressure to shorten liturgies is really local, especially in those parishes with more than one liturgy on Sunday.

I happen to like the litanies in the long form, but that alone isn�t going to make me say the changes are wrong, or even questionable. If my bishop and my pastor are comfortable with the changes, I am.

As far as matching the other jurisdictions I believe that it is a non-issue because we aren�t talking about sweeping changes that make the liturgy unrecognizable, and they certainly aren�t irreversible! I like the idea of involving other Catholic and Orthodox jurisdictions in writing the English text (yes, we should have done that!) but since it hasn't happened yet let's just move forward.

We have many more significant issues to chew on: daily liturgies, multiple liturgies on one altar, restoration of Matins and Vespers, vocations, etc.

Much ado about nothing.

In Christ,
Michael, that sinner

Michael,

I agree and disagree. What we have been discussing is the timing of changes to the liturgy and the reasons for those changes.

I am not discussing the degree to which specific changes will affect the liturgy. We haven't discussed any specific changes aside from the taking of the anaphora aloud.

We are discussing the restoration of the liturgy and the timing of "reformation" of the liturgy.

The restoration of services which have been neglected, such as matins, is as important as restoring the liturgy. But restoring (and preserving) the liturgy is no less important.

I should also add that, since this is about restoring traditions to Ruthenian parishes, parishioners need to start restoring their spiritual traditions in their homes.

I know that has been discussed frequently as well, but I think it is of no less importance. Perhaps that is where the church should focus first, along with the restoration of the Divine Liturgy and other liturgies.

Perhaps what I am advocating is a spiritual renewal towards the deposit of faith as received by the Rusyn people. Once that deposit has been recovered, understood and lived, then discussions of growth and whether the growth is healthy or cancerous can occur with the confidence that the difference can be discerned.

I would like to take Mr. Administrator�s invitation to continue this discussion. After thinking over the points what Mr. Administrator has stated regarding a silent Anaphora and preserving our traditions, I do lend him my respect. However, I would like to clarify my position as not simply being a mere �personal preference.� The notion of �according to the mind of the Church� is one I have in mind here. We CAN rise above our personal preferences. If that is impossible, then we should probably deny the work of the Holy Spirit; that Theosis is an impossible myth and that understanding is not a characteristic of rational beings.

I could not help but think of our beginning marriage/crowning rituals in all this discussion about whether the Anaphora should be taken silent or not. Let me explain. In many parishes, Latin and Byzantine, it is common that the bride walks down the aisle with her father (if still alive) or some other man (uncle, brother, etc) and is handed over to the waiting groom somewhere up in front of the altar. Most Catholics have grown accustomed to this common practice, almost to the point that is considered a �given.� However, nowhere in our rite of marriage or the Latin rite of marriage is such instructions given that include a bride walking down the church aisle with her father and being handed over to her groom/husband-to-be. It is a given that the typical Hollywood-Las Vegas style wedding schema (bridal walk � lifting of the veil - handing over to groom) has become THEE way that most, if not all, weddings are done. But where did such staunchly defended and preserved instructions/practices originate if not from the church? The Wedding Liturgy begins at the Church door � as in all liturgies where the mysteries of the church will be given � but nowhere does our texts stipulate what we have grown accustomed to, namely the bridal walk � lifting of the veil � handing over to groom.

With that said, one should ask, �Where is the groom in all this?� Isn�t it his marriage too? Doesn�t it take two to get married, a male and a female? Why the extreme emphasis on the marriage ceremony as being a �bridal� ceremony?

We can see, especially those who have become enlightened with our theology, that such practices are from elsewhere. The same goes for the chord that men used to get on their wedding day to beat their wives into submission, if necessary. My great aunt Mamie didn't weep at her father's funeral (nor did her mother). They both remember the brutal beatings Mama got with one of those chords. Aunt Mamie did, however, spit on his grave. So much for tradition! We can also say the same for the practice of the landlord or nobleman having the right to the first night with the bride. It takes time for such practices to disappear. Usually, they disappear when women are treated as true equals. Yet, the old custom of lifting the veil (to make sure the groom was getting what he was expecting) and the handing over of the bride to him (property exchange, father�s property to husband�s property) is still with us. It is considered an innocent by-product of older rites of marriage and means absolutely nothing. It just looks like a �traditional� wedding as a traditional wedding ought to be done; all with the stamp of approval from Hollywood, Las Vegas, popular piety, and all those wedding planning kits.

Whether you �personally prefer� the typical Hollywood marriage ritual or not, it isn�t Christianity, nor is it Christian liturgy. But some may disagree.

As for the Anaphora being taken silent, this practice too has become common practice in certain traditions. The Latins though have restored the more ancient form of praying the Anaphora out loud. We have grown accustomed to the Anaphora and other prayers being taken silently. We only get to hear the concluding doxology (well, we do get some privilege of singing the Thrice-Holy Hymn and hearing the Institution Narrative [the Kodak moment of "Transubstantiation"], which to an older generation was all-important).

But here is the point I wish to make: Is Christian worship just doxology?

Catholic and Orthodox Christians have given our Sunday worship many names: Liturgy, Divine Liturgy, Mass, Liturgical Service, Sunday Service, Worship, etc. One important term is �Eucharist.� In Greek, eucharist can be derived to mean �thanks,� �thanksgiving,� and �to give thanks.�

Give thanks for what?

It has been our Christian tradition that we give thanks for what God has done for us. This is the �economia� or economy of salvation. God has accomplished many things for us in redemptive history. The �economia� or order of salvation of God spurs on our �eucharist� or thanksgiving. In turn, we give praise and glory (doxology) to God.

Doxology is different than eucharist. Unfortunately, our common practice of silencing the Anaphora except for the doxology reflects a lop-sided emphasis on doxology at the expense of eucharist. We never get to hear the �why� of our thanksgiving.

St. John�s Anaphora states why we give thanks:

�God brought us forth from non-existence into being, and raised us up again when we had fallen, and left nothing undone until You had brought us to heaven and bestowed upon us your future kingdom. - - - �FOR ALL THIS WE GIVE THANKS TO YOU, AND TO YOUR ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON, AND TO YOUR HOLY SPIRIT.�

John�s Anaphora beautifully states why we give thanks (eucharist). A silent Anaphora will only hide the reason. We also hear:

�� holy are You and all-holy and splendorous is your glory, who so loved the world that You gave your only-begotten Son, � who, having come and having fulfilled the whole DIVINE PLAN concerning us, � He surrendered Himself for the life of the world, He took bread � Likewise the chalice ��

Divine plan? What divine plan? If the Anaphora is taken silent, we will never hear proclaimed what the Church thinks the �divine plan� is. Sure, we can read it in a theology book or liturgikon. But what better place to hear it proclaimed than at the Liturgy, the work (ergon) of the people (leiti) or liturgy? How does it profit the priest to pray the eucharistic part of the prayer as some sort of private chit-chat between he and God? The order of salvation also includes the rest of the people.

John continues:

�WE THANK YOU ALSO FOR THIS LITURGY, which You willed to accept from our hands, ��

This Liturgy will be where ordinary bread and wine will be changed by the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ. John�s Anaphora lists some reasons why �we offer � this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice�:

�That to those who partake of them, they may be for the purification of soul, the remission of sins, communion in your Holy Spirit, for the fullness of the heavenly kingdom, for confidence in You, not for judgment or condemnation.�

There is a lot of theosis-theology here. This spiritual sacrifice is also offered for more reasons. St. John�s Anaphora continues:

�� for those departed in the faith,� and �for the whole world, for the � Church, for those live in chastity and venerable conduct; for our civil authorities � for all those in the service of our country.�

All in all, when the Anaphora is taken aloud, we hear the priest speaking on behalf of us why we are giving thanks to God. We are giving thanks to God for what He did for us.

Now, you may say that that is still accomplished with a silent Anaphora. We don�t have to hear the priest chit-chatting with God for why we are there. But take notice, my friend, of the Preface to the Anaphora. It exists in all anaphoras. The priest prays:

�Let US stand aright, let US stand in awe, let US be attentive, to offer the holy oblation in peace.�

OK. I would consider �us� to mean � us.

So, there I am standing aright, standing in awe, very attentive. Then the priest continues later on:

�Let US lift up our hearts!�

OK. I have my heart lifted up. Get set!

�Let US give THANKS to the Lord.�

OK. I am set and ready to go. Let�s do it! In fact, �it is proper and just to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ��

Then something odd happens. The priest goes dead silent. It is no longer �us� who are standing aright, standing in awe, and peaceful, but the priest. What happens is something that goes on between the priest and God. All the reasons for why WE are there are shrouded in silence. Shhhhhhh! We don�t want to disturb the flow of the music and hymns.

Nothing about the economy of salvation is proclaimed, though we are reminded later to �remember� our church leaders, to which the people�s response is to remember them too. I guess we can�t pass over them in silence;-) I�m sure that there will be � to pay.

So, now that we passed over entirely the account of the order of salvation and passed over the reasons for why we are there at Liturgy, the priest now concludes with the doxology:

�AND grant that we, with one voice and one heart, may glorify and praise your most honored and sublime name, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and forever.�

People: �Amen.�

And? And what? �And� is a conjunction. What is it joining? �And� joins the eucharist to doxology. We not only give thanks, but we give glory to God. THAT is the nature of anaphoric prayer. We do both. We are allowed to because of our royal priesthood.

Unfortunately, like our inorganic custom of making the Crowning/Wedding ceremony nothing but a �bridal� march (only a man can think of that term), we have opted to prefer the doxology-only Anaphora. I�m sure there are reasons of fear that played a role in the eventual demise of the public Anaphora, such as fears of Arianism rearing its ugly head if we start to give equal time to the Economia of God. Nobody wants to give subordinationism a chance again, no?

I am not a good historian of the Liturgy, but I find it interesting how the Prayer of Offering in the Liturgy of St. Basil DOES imply a prayer of only the priest(s):

�You yourself have appointed US to this service by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, O Lord, be pleased to make US ministers of your new Covenant ��; �� receive US, who have approached your holy altar, so that WE may be worthy to offer You this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice for OUR sins and the thoughtless transgressions of your people�; �� send down upon US, in return, the grace of the Holy Spirit. Look upon US, O God, and consider this OUR ministry ��; �Having thus been deemed worthy to minister at your holy altar � may we obtain the reward of faithful and wise stewards ��

This prayer seems to indicate a prayer meant only for the priest(s). Only once does the �people� get mentioned, but in reference to their thoughtless transgressions.

Basil�s Anaphora states after the Preface:

�It is truly proper and just � to praise You, to sing to You, to bless You, to worship You, to THANK You, to GLORIFY You, � to offer You this our unbloody sacrifice, for you have granted us THE REVELATION OF YOUR TRUTH.�

After the Thrice-Holy Hymn, the priest prays what that revelation is:

�You are revered in all your DEEDS; for, which truth and just judgment, You have BROUGHT ALL THINGS TO PASS FOR US.�

Sounds like the �economia� of salvation � and for US, not just the clergy.

What follows is a litany of those things brought to pass: (1) creation of man, (2) the divine promise, (3) expelling man from paradise after he fell/disobeyed, and �returned him to the earth �� But that was not all. After returning him back �from which he had been taken,� God, �� DEVISED FOR HIM THE SALVATION OF REGENERATION which is in Christ.�

Sounds like more info on �the Plan.�

God didn�t forget us. In fact, he �� visited man in various ways.� How did he do that? By sending prophets, the law, angels, and finally His Son. All of this elaborates the Economy of Salvation to which we give our thanks.

More reasons for giving thanks are mentioned: (1) the Son �appeared on earth and lived among men� and �became incarnate.� But why? So he can become �subject to the law in order to condemn sin in his flesh, so that those who died in Adam might in Him � be made to live again.�

This is truly beautiful and awe-inspiring!

God�s Christ lived �in this world� giving us �precepts for salvation� and turned us away from the �deceit of idolatry,� and �brought us to the knowledge of � God.�

Basil continues, but if I quoted his Anaphora in full I would be going against the innovation of taking it silently. I should make our readers pick up a textbook or liturgikon and read if for themselves.

I guess what I am trying to get at is that we are at Liturgy to �give thanks� (eucharist) and to give God �glory� (doxology). My analogy of the lop-sided, bridal ceremony is akin to our lop-sided, overemphasis on doxology as being the only part of prayer permitted to be taken aloud. What happens is that we only get to assent to doxologies taken aloud with our �Amen,� but cannot hear the reasons for giving thanks. Our assent becomes only a public assent to theologia, where only the relationships of the Persons of the Trinity are proclaimed, but not to economia, where OUR relationship with the Holy Spirit is proclaimed � for God BROUGHT ALL THINGS TO PASS FOR US and DEVISED FOR HIM [man] THE SALVATION OF REGENERATION which is in Christ. We DO belong in this thanksgiving. I agree with Fr. David that the prayer is not just the priest�s. It is ours.

Of course, we have grown so accustomed to a silent Anaphora; just as accustomed that most Catholics are to customs of marriage not found in our rites of marriage. But do we wait until everyone agrees (Catholic and Orthodox) on a standard and common practice? Should we wait until every Byzantine Catholic is convinced that our traditional and very Christian practice of meeting both bride and groom at the temple door before implementing it? Not! Many parishes have begun the process without the blessing of a pan-Byzantine or pan-Eastern Council on ritual disciplines. Arguments can be made about how taking the Anaphora out loud will only �disrupt the flow� of the liturgy. But I really don�t know what that means or where that idea comes from. Exactly, what IS the Liturgy? I guess it could mean that we�d rather favor a liturgy that suits our personal tastes and made in our image. But most of the practices today that prevent the public taking of the Anaphora are ill-founded. They only satisfy man and his own ideas about �liturgical flows� and �mystery.� I am sorry, but that mystery has not been made silent to us. God�s revelation is just that: a revelation, not a hiding or a private affair.

I believe it was Bishop Leontius, a 4th century bishop, who was so afraid to offend the Arians that he used to take the doxologies in a muffled voice, whereas the rest of the Anaphora was taken aloud. Today, it is backwards.

Cantor Joe Thur

Cantor Joe,

I understand and respect what you are saying. However, I do think this puts the cart before the horse. I believe, as stated above, once our traditions have been recovered, understood and lived, then it is time to make the change, if it is believed necessary, that you are advocating.

I know that what I am saying is outside our lifetimes, but we have to be patient. Impatience may lead us down a road we do not want. For instance, the argument concerning why we can't see what the priest is doing.

Read my post again. What part of it didn't you understand?

Maybe we should wait until all our parishes in the U.S. will be recovered, understood, and lived before implementing the rite of the priest greeting the engaged couple at the door and then walking them down the aisle with lit candles? Until then, Hollywood will still continue to entertain us.

I am not the only one "advocating." Haven't you been listening? Since Vatican II (if you believe it existed) we have received a number of documents and instructions to restore our traditions. If you wish to make this merely my advocacy, then please explain what all the fuss was about from our church leaders regarding restoring our traditions. You must also elaborate on how they are wrong.

Impatience can also be blamed for many of our parishes restoring our traditions now. You can't restore things if you don't have them. If a parish will never celebrate a Vesper service ("we only do Mass") then it will never be restored. Many communities cannot afford to do a full regimine of liturgical services. But individual parishes have taken restoration seriously and begun to implement changes for the better. Quite simply, we can't wait until one geographic area of our communities decide to become Byzantine before moving on.

In addition, I never made an argument for "seeing the priest." This is something that you wish to imply.

Joe

To add a bit of levity:

Joe,

when did you become incognitus' neighbor?

Cantor Joe,

I think I'm missing something because I' not sure what you're advocating.

I believe you are saying that we should go back to the traditional form of the Marriage Liturgy. I absolutely agree. That must also be restored ASAP. It is a part of the tradition that should be recovered, understood and lived before it is changed officially (which I hope it would never change in this way) to be like Hollywood.

I do not think that anytime the Ruthenian hierarchy has restored tradition it was wrong. On the contrary, I think it is wrong to not restore as much of it as possible.

I think this is where we begin to disagree. Or perhaps we agree about this point but disagree on the current position of the hierarchy.

I agree that the entire Byzantine Church should not be held back from discussing liturgical reformation (changing parts of the liturgy to be something it never was, more like Latins, or "back" to something that the Orthodox have not moved back to) because of a few antitraditional or uneducated parishes.

However, I don't think the Byzantine Catholic Church has gotten to a point in its restoration of traditions, a restoration that was rightly called for by Vatican II, where it can now move into a phase of reformation. I don't think that this is because of a few parishes, but because the BCC hasn't restored its traditions enough to justify it.

Concerning the restoration of traditions, I am also impatient. They should be restored ASAP and in every BC church. The marriage example you give is one example of many where the BC church has adopted practices and accepted alterations it should not have.

I agree that the few churches who have more fully recovered the tradition will want to move on in their discussion of liturgical reforms. That is natural and they should begin the discussion. I don't think they should introduce these ideas to other churches that are already confused and need help in recovering the tradition. I would suggest that those parishes that have recovered the tradition focus on bringing the majority of parishes up to them before initiating liturgical reforms.

Fr. Deacon John,

I don't know what you mean.

Joe

BTW, Joe, I still think you're a good guy.

If you were here, I think we would be able to sit down and, after a couple of beers, reach a better understanding of our opinions.

Well, maybe three or four.

Joe,

My friend you are both from the same place: "."

Cizinec,

I thank you for your reply. I don't really know what you mean by "reformation." Though my great-grandpappy did Is taking a prayer out loud a reform? My $1.00 dictionary defines "reformation" as:

"1. To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects. 2. To abolish abuse or malpractice."

Each of these definitions first qualifies a negative type of behavior. "Reform" means to IMPROVE, CORRECT, REMOVE, and ABOLISH." Improve, correct, remove, and abolish what? Errors, defects, abuse, and malpractice.

If that is what you mean by "reformation" then I agree. We should not be practicing errors, emphasizing defects, promoting abuses, and be guilty of malpractice.

You too agree about the restoration of our rightful marriage tradition. Isn't that restoration an improvement, correction, removal, and abolishment of something considered erroneous, defective, abusive, and of wrong praxis given the definition?

If you are considering "reformation" as another term for "innovation" then I would disagree. What is so innovative about taking public prayers publicly? However, we do have the prevelant praxis of taking private prayers publicly. If anything is "innovative" it would be taking our core prayer silently.

If you are considering "reformation" as another term for "neo-Latinization" then how is taking the Anaphora out loud a neo-Latinization or New Latinization? Isn't our overemphasis on doxological prayer a neo-whatever? Isn't hearing the conclusions and final words of a prayer only a neo-whatever? Our Lord's Prayer at the Divine Liturgy is taken aloud followed by a doxology. So far, nobody in their right mind has suggested taking the Lord's Prayer silently but not the concluding doxology. Now THAT would be an innovation!

Our Church DOES take the Anaphora out loud. Of course, this is not practiced everywhere. But it happens and is not considered an "innovation" or an "abuse" or an "error" or "neo-Latinization." Taking the Anaphora out loud, which is only appropriate to its genre, is already happening in many parishes. Many people ARE hearing the prayer as it was meant to be and ARE hearing the 'why' of the doxology. And it, along with the restoration of our marriage rites, is moving along quite well without a pan-Orthodox/pan-Catholic/pan-Eastern liturgical council.

My simple analysis of the Anaphora above should only highlight the deep relationship between economia and theologia, between eucharist and doxology. What usually stands in the way of accepting any restoration or reformation or neo-whatever is popular piety, which may not be concentric with church understanding. Popular piety one time overemphasized the symbolic interpretation of the liturgy. However, nowhere did the church ever give up its understanding of what happens at worship for a Passion Play interpretation or Life of Jesus novel. Though many vestages of such a piety still exist today in our liturgy, it is only a remnant. We still must return to the wellspring of worship.

I remember when our church began to remove the Filioque clause in our Creed. There were some parishioners who refused to cooperate. (They were usually the ones who never attended adult ECF). Everytime we got to the point of the Creed that used to include the Filioque, these folks would yell out "and the Son." I chuckle to think about those people who prefer to hold their ears if our Anaphora was taken out loud, shaking and wagging their head mumbling words in order to drown out the prayer all in the name of "mystery" and "tradition."

God bless,
Joe Thur

I should have known that you would point (no pun intended) that out.

However, I have since moved to ".."

Joe

Theology always gets better after a few cold ones.

Did I ever tell you what opinions are like? Private message me if you wanna know.

You gotta hold on and wait for this post. Flood protection, ya know.

Joe

Joe,

What we agree on is that the Ruthenian traditions must be restored.

What we disagree on is whether saying the anaphora aloud was a part of that tradition.

If we both agree that it wasn't, then we disagree on the timing of when to make that change.

What I don't understand is why the restoration of tradition hasn't been mandated by Pittsburgh. I think it has been mandated, oddly enough, by Rome.

What can individual parshioners do to restore traditions in their individual parishes?